Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boothello (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 13 December 2011 (→User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Kiftaan reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: Warned)

Page: Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiftaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert: (edit summary: "(rvv -- not sourced addition but deliberate falsification")
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He has been reverted by 2 seperate people, and his reasoning has been rejected by a third editor on the talk page. Also, notice his false and uncivil edit aummary in the 2nd revert. Pass a Method talk 11:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Kiftaan warned. He has been consistently reverting since December 5 to force in his preferred figure for the percent of Muslims who are Sunni. He has made about five reverts altogether. If he does so again before consensus is reached on the talk page he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Please read my several explanations at Talk:Islam, nobody else is opposing me except this person who reported me here. He is falsifying the percentage of Sunni Muslims in the Islam article and I'm trying to correct that. He puts Sunnis at 75% minimum and adds CIA factbook which states that Shias are 20% so how can the remaining Sunnis be 75%? This percentage is rejected by all the experts (Pew Research Center, Encyclopædia Britannica, Vali Nasr, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Library of Congress Country Studies), and they all tell us that Sunnis are 85-90%. Btw, I did not make 3 reverts or even 2 reverts, I kindly asked this edit-warrior (User:PassaMethod) to please don't change the percentage and let a third party decide the appropriate wording but instead he/she came and reported me here and then went and reverted it to the false 75% again.--Kiftaan (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Verman1 (Result: Arbitration enforcement)

Page: Askeran clash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Comments:

An editor by the name MarshallBagramyan has engaged in edit war in his last edits (, , ) While the source insists that event has happened before the Askeran clashes (it is quite possible that this was main reason behind those clashes), the user apparently wants to erase this fact from articles without even discussing it. I would like to to negotiate with him before reporting this, but he has made other disruptive edits in articles Yerevan and Kars, and during discussions about his edits, he has shown very little interest to get a consensus. In one particular case, in the article Kars, he repeatedly inserted only Armenian spelling to the city and his main reason was that there was some "consensus" in talk page (which is very controversial statement). Instead of letting other editors to put their versions and assuming good faith, he made Misplaced Pages a battleground with his one-sided edits (, , , , , , , , , , the list is too long, it goes back to several years, but I showed edits only for this year). For your attention, user MarshallBagramyan has been repeatedly topic banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles (his blocking list can be seen in WP:ARBAA2) It is fair to note that, MarshallBagramyan has never engaged in any edit warring and disruptive edits outside of Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey topics, but when we come to these topics he unfortunately exhibits bad behavior for the Misplaced Pages.

For the User:Vacio case, I noticed this warning in his talk page. But during the last days, he clearly violated terms displayed in this warning. Particularly, in his last edits, he engaged in edit warring and deleted well-sourced material from articles (, , , , ) Unfortunately, before doing these reverts, he has made no discussion talk pages of relevant articles. I am afraid if someone restores previous forms, he again will not demonstrate any interest to the discussion and will make reverts again. --Verman1 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like retaliation for my original report against Verman1 a few days ago. I am not going to waste my time defending myself against these trumped-up allegations and administrators and neutral observers are more than welcome to study the comments made by other editors regarding Verman1's troubling editing behavior in my initial complaint. I have tried to engage all users to use the talk page and articulate their viewpoints numerous times, all to no avail. And yet I am being reported for playing by the rules? lol --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrative note: I'm moving this here from ANI. For more context, see here. A note to both of you: ANI is not a content dispute noticeboard. Please do not use it as such. m.o.p 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the acrimonious and apparently intractable nature of this dispute, and the fact that it is in the topic areas covered by the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration, I will examine the conduct of the editors involved and appropriate enforcement remedies. Seraphimblade 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment, it might be useful to point out that one of the examples Verman1 has trotted out to support the contention that I have been edit-warring dates back to September of this year. It might also be useful to note that while he has accused me of edit-warring, he has over the past few days continued to revert and undo edits on a series of articles without so much as making a single contribution on their respective talk pages, as a perusal of his contributions page will indicate. It's rather astonishing - he adds or removes controversial material and then tells others to discuss why his edits should remain the same. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Nabil rais2008 reported by User:Longwayround (Result: Closed per another report)

Page: List of tallest residential buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nabil rais2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Also:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apologies if I have failed to provide appropriate diffs. There is some dispute as to use of grammar, rankings and whether the Princess Tower has been topped out. Discussion on the talk page seems to be going nowhere. I've sought a WP:THIRD opinion and stopped reverting as soon as I realised I had reverted three times. Discussion on the talk page seems to be going nowhere. Longwayround (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Dispute already dealt with at WP:AN3#User:Longwayround reported by User:Nabil rais2008 (Result: Both warned). EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:ScrallyRal reported by User:184.100.184.253 (Result: Warning, semiprotection)

Page: List of Heisman Trophy winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ScrallyRal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I requested protection over at RPP. This should stop this edit war.--1966batfan (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: User:ScrallyRal warned to wait for consensus. The article has already been semiprotected by another admin per RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:75.37.30.175 and User:75.36.186.82 reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Semi)

Page: Tom Bombadil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.37.30.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2nd User being reported: 75.36.186.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Two IPs in the same range, both with the same agenda. If you compare with these two IPs have made very similar edits / comments. Ignoring discussion despite 3 separate users intervening.

• Please note that I have opened a talk page discussion and also have requested that the article be semi-protected, due to the IP address of the editor changing. - SudoGhost 08:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Already semiprotected per RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Longwayround reported by User:Nabil rais2008 (Result: Both warned)

Page: List of tallest residential buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Longwayround (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is some ongoing dispute over the reliable sources of this article, verification of the sources, rankings, and whether the princess tower is topped out or not. Over these issues this user claims the failure of the sources of the whole article, eventhough i have provided him with enough sources to support the content. At first i had asked him to discuss on talk page before making any changes so i stopped reverting his edits, but then he reverted my edits one by one.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. Any further revert by either party may lead to a block. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:JCAla (Result: Protected)

Page: Pakistan studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The established version of the article:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User:TopGun is again starting an edit war as he did multiple times on the Taliban article. See

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

or

• 1st revert: (where he stated there was a consensus which wasn't there, see an consensus being reached only yesterday)
• 2nd revert:

It is very common for TopGun to remove large parts of articles which are sourced very reliably. And although he does not breach 3RR, his behaviour constitutes edit-warring. When involved on talk pages he sticks to his point and pseudo-wiki-lawyers around until other editors are either tired of continuing debate or reach an uneasy compromise which does not further the accuracy of wikipedia. Note, that I am not reporting him out of revenge or because he reported me once in the past (where we both ended being blocked for two reverts each). I am reporting because I find his editing behaviour very problematic and it is very difficult for serious and experienced editors to deal with such an editing pattern. Note also, that he has been warned only some days ago (and blocked) for edit warring, but already continues his behaviour. He took his block (which he now archives under "punitive block") to ANI where he continued the wikilawyering-around behaviour he has shown in all his other discussions.

I am not sure if this will get him blocked or not, that is not the reason I reported. I just want to make people aware of this very problematic behaviour which, as I said, is making it difficult for other editors to maintain accuracy in articles when they do not have the time to engage in endless discussions in which the content of reliable sources is most of the times simply being ignored. JCAla (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• This report is completely based on a personal grudge by the user since the consensus went against him at Talk:Taliban. To start with, the user gave me a warning without mentioning the page I was allegedly warring at and has filed this report without me editing the page listed here after his 'warning'. Even this report is incorrect and I have not editwarred. Please see the timestamps from the article history. I removed the duplicate content on 05:32, November 18, 2011‎. A user re added the content after a month on 11:31, December 8, 2011‎ which was reverted by me and then I was WP:NINJA by another user. I did 2 reverts in total and stopped to discuss on talk page. I don't see how that is editwar (since the only thing I did was break 1RR which is not being applied here). The users are still not discussing the content and rather making personal attacks on the talk page where I'm insisting repeatedly to be presented with content related arguments. The reporting user is not even involved in this article's dispute and is reporting on his malintentions from another article where he failed to build consensus and was reverted by other users. This completely amounts to WP:BOOMERANG and wiki hounding. The report about Taliban article is where both of us were blocked for 48 hours and this user is seeking to penalize me over the already settled dispute and prevented edit war again for getting a work around to by pass the consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not hold any personal grudge against TopGun. I think his editing pattern is very problematic and makes it difficult for various editors to keep the accuracy when they do not have the time to engage in endless discussions in which the content of reliable sources is most of the times simply being ignored. He starts edit wars with purpose by reverting up to two-three times, then stops and starts endless discussions in which he simplies ignores the existence and content of very reliable sources. Also, TopGun is repeating his behaviour by again mispresenting "consensus". If you think that is my personal pov, read what User:JamesBWatson wrote: "In fact had I made the block I would have given the reason as something like "disruptive editing, including edit warring". There were other problems before the block too, such as abuse of claims of "consensus" which might well have been included in the block reason." JCAla (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• My contributions list is open for review by an admin; I have only made edits under the wiki's guideline. However, the reporting user's intentions should be reviewed. He was warned by many users for this exact reason of not hearing where he took the dispute to extreme length. The comments can be reviewed at WP:NPOVN in the end of the discussion and in the consensus summary. Anyway that is a resolved dispute and the user is bringing it here to get even for that. The fact that my editing in this specific case reported does not constitute an edit war since I stopped as soon as I saw this was to become one (that is after making 2 edits). JCAla's POVs don't settle with me and he will take even this discussion to an extreme length to make his point. I don't know seriously what is his problem. The only thing he is showing here is getting into an uninvolved disputed to hound me for the previous case where he failed to build consensus and things went the other way as per the suggestions of uninvolved users. He now repeatedly raises the stale issue where we have both been already blocked in attempts to get me blocked. JCAla did not even notify me of filing this report with intention to get me blocked without getting to reply on this page. This can be verified. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• As far as the article listed for alleged edit war is concerned please see that I've not edited that article since one day and both his warning and this report have been filed today for the purposes I've mentioned. I've called for discussion the 2 editors who reverted me both on their talk page and the article talk page and am discussing the issue on the talk page although they have not yet given any content related argument there. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected one week. Use this time to attempt to reach agreement. If any party continues with the 10,000-byte reverts after protection expires, blocks may be issued. Top Gun has recently been blocked for edit warring (December 1) which suggests he should be more careful. I have some concern he is going to ignore this advice, in which case we may see him here again soon. He has removed over 10K bytes of material three times since November 18, with no evidence of consensus that I can see. People on the other side have been reverting as well. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It was the accepted revision since 18 Nov till the editor removed it, that would be my explanation of consensus. I will not revert this now even after the protection expires till resolved. I would however request some admin to keep an eye on the article because the editors are reluctant to discuss content. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Soosim reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h, ARBPIA notice)

Page: New Israel Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soosim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: "re-added removed rs"
• 2nd revert: "Undid revision 465344771 by Malik Shabazz"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New Israel Fund, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to a 1RR restriction. See WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies for more information. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

hi malik, thanks for bringing this here. i suppose i can open up a case against you as well because of this diff: which clearly shows (if i copied the diff right, or just look at the history page of the article to see the time difference of less than 24 hours) that you did the revert first, with in the 24 hour no-no rule. i see above here that you listed something on the talk page - you did not make me aware of it until you wrote that note on my own talk page a few moments ago. and instead of waiting for the response, you jumped right to here. no problem. defend your violation, please. not sure why you would revert when it was still in question, only by you? also, i see you bring a lot of people here, rather than working it out directly with them. why is that? let me know (and i guess, let ANE know too) thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, I don't owe you an explanation, because I didn't break 1RR. Why don't you explain why you think you are entitled to make as many reversions as you'd like without penalty? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 07:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz has only edited this article twice in the month of December. The second edit adds a 'verification needed' tag and does not remove any content. Hence I don't believe it is a revert. This leaves Soosim as the only apparent violator of 1RR. If Soosim will agree not to revert any more until a talk consensus is reached or a verdict is given at RSN I suggest this might be closed with no other action. The article talk page shows Malik requesting verification regarding 'foreign corporation' but does not show a response by Soosim. There could be an issue of primary sourcing which it is reasonable to expect Soosim to address, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to resolve this without a block, but may I ask you to review User talk:Soosim. Soosim has repeatedly violated 1RR on this article (abbreviated as NIF), but I chose not to report those instances in the hope she/he would learn from her/his mistakes. Obviously I was wrong. Please consider that this is not a first offense. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Restraint should characterize the way administrators conduct themselves at Misplaced Pages and we don't see that here in this edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Bus stop: I shouldn't have lost my cool. I should have reported the serial copyright violator to WP:CCI instead. But what exactly does that have to do with this 1RR violation? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—you say, "I shouldn't have lost my cool." But having lost your cool, and having been reported at "Wikiquette assistance" by Soosim, shouldn't you have just admitted your mistake and offered some conciliatory language? I don't think Soosim liked the way you spoke to him in this edit summary, and I find that understandable. Here we find the thread at "Wikiquette assistance". Another editor, in that thread, called Soosim a "dick". I assume you saw that comment. You didn't say anything. Do you not think that a reprimand was in order? Do you think you set a good example for others? Shouldn't part of the role of an Administrator involve setting a good example for others? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for WP:1RR violation and notified of WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:69.86.195.242 reported by Old Moonraker (talk) (Result: 24h)

Page: Marlovian theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.86.195.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 12:13, 11 December 2011 (edit summary: "clarify")
2. 13:23, 11 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465283698 by Peter cohen (talk)")
3. 03:30, 12 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465396831 by Peter cohen (talk)")
4. 04:25, 12 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465402321 by Johnuniq (talk)")
5. 07:39, 12 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465423833 by Old Moonraker (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Test.quality3 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Blocked 48h for copyvios )

Page: Lovely Professional University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Test.quality3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lovely Professional University is an Indian university. The article has been here some time, but is almost entirely unreferenced by anything other than its own WP:SPS sources. One interesting section, Lovely_Professional_University#Rankings, lists most of the external league table references one might expect in an Indian college article, with the note that the college was not ranked in any of these — an article thus with many references, but still no sourcing!

The editor Test.quality3 (talk · contribs) has a long history with this university, and with little else.

I recently added a section, appropriately sourced, on a highly negative aspect of Lovely Professional University: a student being beaten to death over the summer. This section is just about the only section in the article that has any reasonable sourcing. The wording is also carefully neutral, per WP:NPOV - most of the sources, let alone the 'net comment, are far more critical of the university's management over this matter. However it's worded though, this is never going to be a positive chapter in the university's history and it would be no surprise if the university sought to delete it.

The new section has been deleted four times in recent days, three times by Test.quality3 and once by an unknown IP from a large Indian ISP. Latest reversion. The comments on reverting the addition were:

• no edit summary
• "It is a case of vandalism. The event has been highlighted in particular by some opposition. This is one side of the event. The parents of the Mizo student who died were satisfied with university's actions."
• "The delebrate highlighting of this information sounds to be a case of vandalism. As Misplaced Pages allows a netral point for any information, the constant highlighting of the information shows some personal interest of the person to exxagerate the issue."

This is not yet edit warring, and I have no interest in escalating it to such. However I do consider it a clear case of repeated POV removals by a COI editor, probably connected with the subject of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't see this report earlier, but I've blocked the user for 48hours for repeated copyright violations. I'll leave a warning note related to this report too, but don't see the need for any specific action now given the other block. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you're happy to warn the user for deleting a referenced section (i.e. if you see it as a bad deletion), it would have been useful if you'd also restored it. As it is, I'm now at risk of a block for edit warring if I restore it myself. So POV editing is yet again accepted and supported by the implicit results of admin actions. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:A1Z2 reported by User:Danjel (Result: 31 hour block )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Yeshivah College, Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A1Z2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff

The user is also active in censoring Yeshivah Centre, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - User is a SPA attempting to censor the article.

Comments:

The user is attempting to censor the article by removing mention of a sex abuse scandal at the school. ˜danjel 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added Yeshivah Centre to the above report. I imagine that this user will get past 3RR there too. ˜danjel 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:46.174.24.10 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24h)

Page: Lvov Ghetto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.174.24.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Nonconstructive response: which just a reposting of the original warning with a strange quixotic statement, and , which makes even less sense.

Previous warnings about similar behavior:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Nonconstructive response: which is just re-posting of the image that the user is removing from the article without explanation and with a strange caption.

Comments:

I'm not sure what the actual, if any, agenda is at work here. The edits/reverts themselves, regardless of their number, are border line vandalisms - the user is removing an image from the article without any explanation and adding "citation needed" tags to ... the titles of the articles (as in the first few words of the first sentence of the lede).

The user is also engaged in similar edit wars - or in attempts to provoke these - on other articles: Koliyivshchyna, District of Galicia, Treblinka extermination camp, Stutthof concentration camp. All of these are of the same border-line vandalism sort.

The edit summaries accompying these edits are also strange - s/he is basically repeating the edit summary of what the person that s/he is reverting said.

I hesitated before bringing it here (hence it's 7RR not just 3RR) because the user might be new (though doesn't appear so). There might be some Misplaced Pages:COMPETENCY issues here but obviously that's not all that's going on - s/he is not responding to attempts at discussion or responding in strange ways.

Blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing by User:Jayjg. If this IP editor has any good intentions he is keeping them well hidden. He is also active on the German and Polish wikipedias. He has got into some trouble on the German wiki (The German word Vandalismus is easy to translate). If he really won't communicate and explain what he is up to a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:2.219.36.10 reported by Shadowjams (Result: 31h)

Page: Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2.219.36.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 20:25, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */ Proved to be incorrect/ Fox news and Barbera walters are not Neutral references.")
2. 20:30, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */")
3. 20:31, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Michael Jackson */ updated. Fox news, barbera walters are not neutral references.")
4. 20:32, 12 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Zaire/Congo */")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comment: User's been undone by 3 separate users, Cluebot also undid the IP once too. Removing reference continually. Probably could count as vandalism but seems to be some good faith, but clear violation of 3RR. Shadowjams (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:85.15.44.152 reported by MelbourneStar (Result: 48h)

Page: Rogue (vagrant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.15.44.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: - 13th of December
• 2nd revert: - "It doesn't if you know English" - 13th of December
• 3rd revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
• 4th revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
• 5th revert: - "Undid revision 465561103 by Wikih101 (talk)" - 13th of December
• 6th revert: - "Revert sockpuppet vandalism." - 13th of December
• 7th revert: - "Revert sockpuppet vandalism." - 13th of December
• 8th revert: - "Undid revision 465565363 by MelbourneStar (talk)" - 13th of December
• 9th revert: - "Revert vandal abusing multiple accounts" - 13th of December
• 10th revert: - "Undid revision 465566654 by Slightsmile (talk)" - 13th of December
• 11th revert: - "Undid revision 465567774 by 61.106.148.158 (talk)" - 13th of December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP has gone to great lengths to remove the word "the" from a sentence - that actually requires the word. Has accused multiple editors of sockpuppeting - called them vandals (including myself) - and not only do I find that insulting - it's a personal attack. In an edit summary I kindly asked the editor to discuss on the talk page, instead their next revert was a Personal attack on myself. The Ip continues to revert after multiple editors have joined in. -- MST☆R 02:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RMc reported by User:Doc9871 (Result: blocked for 96h)

Page: Don't Stop Believin' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: Not wanting to violate 3RR myself for removing the uncited original research, I had removed the bad reference and tagged it with a citation needed template - which was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user (under this account and various IPs) has been inserting the same bad, unreferenced original research to the article for over five years. It keeps getting appropriately removed by different editors, most recently here before the most current problems. Recently, they added it with a blog source that does not support the material. After reverting it and explaining what original research and reliable sources are, the user has decided to become nasty after edit-warring to keep it in. If I do the right thing and remove this, I am confident he will reinsert it. Doc talk 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Edit waring and pure nastiness, both things he's had more than sufficent warning for before. Courcelles 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you - after 5+ years I don't know if he will stop inserting it, but this sends a clear message that he should. Doc talk 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: )

Page: Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Victor Chmara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 17:46, 13 December 2011‎
• 2nd revert: 18:20, 13 December 2011‎ reverts in part
• 3rd revert: 18:39, 13 December 2011
• 4th revert: 19:30, 13 December 2011 removes "scientists," reverting in part

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Use_of_xxxers_as_reliable_sources

Comments: There's no reason for him to be reverting, insisting that other people need to run their changes to the article on the talk page, and not running his on the talk page. Ownership of this article has apparently been problematic for years. Solve it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This episode started when Hipocrite deleted large sections of Race and intelligence, claiming that the sections were not based on reliable sources. The given reason for these deletions was a transparent lie; the sources in question are reliable, as per Misplaced Pages's content guidelines -- they include, among others, peer-reviewed works by leading researchers. Because Hipocrite deleted much of the article's content, and gave clearly mendacious reasons for it, I regarded his edits as vandalism and reverted them. Among the edits I reverted was also this one , which Hipocrite later admitted was a misrepresentation of the source and which he himself then replaced with a different formulation.

4th revert above refers to changes I made based on the discussion here . They're not reverts, and Hipocrite has accepted as correct most of my edits to that section.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Victor has no authority to speak for me - at no point have I admitted to misrepresentating anything, at no point have I accepted as correct most of his edits. Any accommodations I have made are just that - accommodations. If such accommodations mean that he can violate 3rr while I have to piece through each of his blind reverts to try to figure out what he really wants and then try to give him something, then I'll be certain never to make such again, and just revert to my preferred wording over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment As a neutral, I can only see one direct revert. Doesn't look like a 3RR violation from where I am. Might I suggest doing an RFC? GimliDotNet (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:REVERT - a revert is "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." Two of the listed difs have edit summaries that state they are reverts, so I don't quite understand how you can't see them, and that leads me to question the diligence you put in. The other two revert in part previous edits - the first reverts American Psychological Association and removes the reference (added in the referenced diff), the second reverts "Scientists" to "Richard Nisbett," a particularly problematic violation of Specific (now called "In text") attribution, which was changed in the referenced diff. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're being far too strict in your definition of 'revert', under those circumstances any edit made to an article is a reversion (as it changes a previous version). GimliDotNet (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you're involving yourself here, but I don't feel that I am being overly strict - the edits that I point out specifically revert changes made to the article very slightly beforehand - and while they do other things, they are specifically targeted to revert those changes. If in one edit a user adds "X is agreed to by A and B" and in the next edit it is changed to "X is agreed to by A," that's a revert of "and B," especially if it's not the first time that "and B' has been removed. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are Victor Chmara's recent edits: By my count, this is four reverts altogether on 13 December. That is: 1&2 (together) are a revert; 3 is a revert, 4&5 are a revert; 6&7 are a revert. The edit summaries tend to give it away:

1. 17:46, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465658981 by Hipocrite (talk) discuss on talk page before deleting sourced material")
2. 17:48, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting hipocrite's pov pushing")
3. 18:20, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ misrepresentation of apa report")
4. 18:39, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 465678546 by Hipocrite (talk) hereditarian is used by all parties; PLEASE discuss on talk page before rewriting the whole article")
5. 18:46, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ another misrepresentation of apa report: apa is agnostic, whereas nisbett says no genetic contributions")
6. 19:30, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ correcting apa's view; it's pov to refer to nisbett (and flynn) as "scientists", when the other side is referred by names; flynn removed until his views can be ascertained")
7. 19:33, 13 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Genetic arguments */ it's all about the b-w gap")

— EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should look at the number of reverts Hipocrite has made, because he was edit warring against both me and Victor Chmara (I reverted twice). It might be better to just protect the page.Boothello (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Boothello, you're confused. I'm trying to correct the problems in an article that was tagged for cleanup since August 2011 that lay fallow for almost a month. Tags related to the overuse of minority theorists. I edited the article - just to move up a see also - and you reverted - twice. Then I tried to remove undue weight placed on questionably reliable sources (those authored by an individual whose views the Village Voice called "on the extreme fringe," and who is listed as a White Nationalist, who frequently posts to the fringe anti-immigrant site Vdare. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed Johnson, by your standards two users cannot edit the same section of an article within the same day without reverting each other. #1 & #2 is a revert of vandalism, and #4 is a revert. The rest are edits based on discussion on my talk page and article talk page.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, are you calling my edits vandalism? Please be clear. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when you deleted many sections from the article. See above for details.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If Hipocrite removed sections from the article on the grounds that the sources were not reliable, his edits can't be described as vandalism. Going over the 3RR limit yourself is not justified. There may still be time for Victor to avoid sanctions if he will apologize for breaking 3RR and agree to take a break from the article. If you continue to act on a misunderstanding of policy there could be worse trouble in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it worrisome when I see editors in contentious areas describing non-vandalism edits as vandalism, particularly when they are using to excuse their own edit warring; it's really a serious red flag.

I remind Victor Chmara that the race and intelligence article (and subject area) are subject to discretionary sanctions, and that one of the least restrictive limits that might be imposed is a 1-revert-per-day limit (1RR restriction) if his editing should continue in this vein. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I count four reverts from Hipocrite also.

1: 22:27 yesterday - undoing this edit from me.

2: 13:25 today - partial revert of this edit, re-adding the APA cite after Victor removed it.

3: 13:51 today - This one is labeled as a revert in the edit summary.

4: 16:50 today - Partial revert of this edit. Victor replaced the word "scientists" with an attribution to Nisbett, and Hipocrite changed it back.

I think you should protect the page. It isn't fair to block only Victor when he and Hipocrite both had four reverts in 24 hours.Boothello (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:204.185.181.250 reported by User:Mark Arsten (Result: )

Page: Renaissance art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.185.181.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article (user talk in this case) talk page:

Comments:

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: )

Page: Talk:Taliban (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Left as edited by the user so as not to edit war after reverting twice (Needs to be reverted by admin).

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is moving my comments (and another user's comments) without permission repeatedly to another section while the comments given were partly in context to the section rightly added to (the comments are actually an 'oppose' to his suggestion). This being politely clarified to the user, was ineffective, and the user has now lawyered to remove the section from the comments subsequently having the same result. I'm under some scrutiny about editwar so I've not reverted him more than two times and am instead reporting here for his 3 consecutive moves of others' comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring