Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bloodofox (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 1 November 2013 (→User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: no action): Response to defense of Corbett to Nikki. Corrected diff, response to Dr. K.). 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:Anup patra reported by User:Uncletomwood (Result: Stale)

Page

Indian Forest Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anup patra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) to 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) to 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   2. 10:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   3. 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Can you explain to me how you are not also edit warring? Both of you are doing a terrible job explaining your reverts and neither of you are discussing the issue. The reference you are providing only says that some people went to the National Academy of Direct Taxes for a three-day training course, which is not what you are writing in the article text. Open a dialog on the article talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Stale Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Clock 12:13 reported by User:Sam Sailor (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kunchacko Boban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kunchacko Boban filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clock 12:13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of Kunchacko Boban

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:16, 20 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 577976330 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)no need of source for wiki tables)
2. 15:46, 21 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 577985663 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Hee man see this WP:FILMOGRAPHY)
3. 12:49, 22 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578138905 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Vandal)
4. 14:31, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578255903 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk))
5. 16:34, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578555577 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)ok sir)
6. 16:37, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578568173 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)sir....)

09:25, 25 October 2013‎ Sam Sailor (12,106 bytes) (+3,188)‎ . . (Boldly merging Kunchacko Boban filmography. I see no benefit in the undiscussed 19 March split and it is not justified under WP:LENGTH)

1. 11:28, 25 October 2013 (+2,696)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban
2. 11:32, 25 October 2013 (+2,696)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban ‎ (Undid revision 578677920 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Ok wiki master)
3. 13:16, 25 October 2013 (+2,631)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban
4. 03:42, 26 October 2013 (+2,631)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban ‎ (Undid revision 578693196 by Sam Sailor (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13
2. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13
3. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kunchacko_Boban#unsourced_trivia

Comments:
While Clock 12:13 "only" has made 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban filmography and 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban within the last 24 hours, the former article has been merged into the latter within these 24 hours, essentially making it 6 identical reverts without talk page discussion. Attempts by TheRedPenOfDoom and myself to engage Clock 12:13 in further talks have been met with silent deletions on his own talk page. Sam Sailor 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

note that it has become pretty obvious that Clock 12:13 is merely another sock from the Mealwaysrockz007 drawer. A case has been filed: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clock 12:13 returned only to make the 03:42, 26 October 2013 revert in Kunchacko Boban (added to diff list above). That's a clear 4th revert in the article within 24 hours. Sam Sailor 08:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Only if you count the edit on 25 October at 11:28 UTC as a revert. As far as I can tell, that edit was, with minor trivial exceptions, additions to the filmography. I can see that the filmography has bounced around a bit, but it doesn't look like what Clock added had been removed before. If you can point to a diff where it was, then the edit would count as a revert, and they would have breached WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The reverts they make to the filmography table are 100% identical. I assume this is obscured by the fact that all above diffs are not identical in size. Solution: Take the filmography from Revision as of 11:28, 25 October 2013 of Kunchacko Boban and the filmography from Revision as of 16:37, 24 October 2013 of Kunchacko Boban filmography and compare them in a file editor and you will see that they are identical. I can copy-paste to two sandbox files so you can run Dupdet, if that makes life easier. --Sam Sailor 16:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Ah, thanks, I forgot about the interrelationship between the two articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Virgosky reported by User:HelenOnline (Result: Protected)

Page: Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Virgosky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (all dated today 25 October 2013):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
An administrator has protected the page but I believe that sanctions are also necessary to deter further edit warring after the page protection has expired. HelenOnline 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion and the result at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Administrator comments/page protectionVirgosky (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is about a pattern of disruptive editing by Virgosky involving several articles and more than edit warring. This discussion is about a single WP:3RR violation which happened after I opened that discussion. HelenOnline 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. As noted by the participants, there's been a discussion at ANI, and an administrator locked the article. I'm not going to (preemptively) block Virgosky based on Helen's fear that they will continue the war after the lock has expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Virgosky (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Astynax (Result: Locked)

Page: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Uncivil and disruptive behavior in an otherwise stable FA article. • Astynax 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Article locked for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami has, on another article, when asked "Are you going to stop edit-warring in this material until you have consensus?" responded "Of course not." This is a user currently showing an attitude problem with regard to edit warring (he has a close-to-the-line warning later on this page), and I would suggest that more direct action be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bowlhover reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Blocked)

The user is edit-warring over a section in Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities.

I don't want him blocked.

I just want an admin to tell him to STOP IT!

Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) ‎

See Misplaced Pages:RDH#Sweden. This user, Baseball Bugs, has persistently and blatantly violated WP:SOAP to carry on a debate on US politics that no relevance to the OP's question. He continued adding to the debate even after it had been put under a "hat" tag. I therefore deleted the vitriolic debate so that the OP's question can get more attention.

The only two editors that have expressed any objection are Baseball Bugs and User:Medeis, both of whom were participants in the debate and were therefore violating both Misplaced Pages and Reference Desk policy. Medeis, it should be noted, also reverted my hatting of the debate before another editor agreed with me and re-imposed the hat.

I've raised this issue on the talk page, inviting any non-participant in the debate to revert my deletion. Medeis replied with "There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread". In the immediately preceding section of the talk page, this same user said about a user's questions, "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them." Clearly, since Medeis doesn't know what to call the questions, he/she does not know that they fulfill his own criteria for deletion, but proceeded to delete them anyways. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

:Now that the editor has decided to talk instead of just blindly reverting, you all can probably close this section down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

These shenanigans have gone on long enough. It is time for action. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it back. Please block the editor for edit-warring and leveling personal attacks on the talk page; and please block the IP just above for trolling. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note that we now have three reverts by a single-purpose IP https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/94.68.228.99 account re-deleting the section:

20:57, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

20:53, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

20:51, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

• Please also note Bowlhover is quoting non-existent policy about editors not editting or opining on a thread they have participated in. Given it's his behavior that is at question here (and is now continuing through proxy) I am confused as to what the point of random diffless accusations against me from other times and places is, other than to show Bowlhover seems to think he is morally justified in edit warring. I am not sure if anyone here can do an SPI, but it seems warranted given the IP's fortuitous sudden appearance. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You and Buggs request for admin action will bring scrutiny on both of you for your editing behavior as well. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. We're stand-up guys. You, on the other hand, are hiding behind a brand-new IP. Which, by the way, I've reported for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

94.68.228.99 is a troll, not affiliated with me in any way. If the differences in writing style don't make this clear, please do a SPI. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers won't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now we apparently may have a banned IP user who identifies as "wickwack" who edits from Western Australia on variable IP's involved. See the edit by https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/202.124.242.10:

21:41, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities‎ (Undid revision 578897032 by Baseball Bugs (talk)) (current)

and Prior discussion of him and his unsigned response about his IP address at the bottom of this thread where he edits as 203.54.115.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_102#Is_IP_120.145.70.130_Wickwack_again.3F

• I think we may need a block of both IP users. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked Bugs and one of the three reported in the above jumble have been blocked by separate admins. (Bugs has since been unblocked.) The other two didn't violate 3RR and appear to have stopped reverting, so I am inclined not to block them for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs was "blocked" for the comment "I lost you at boulangerie" by an admin who insulted him and said his comment on whether a copy of the Magna Carta was French or Latin at the ref desk was unhelpful. That is, the admin blocked bugs for not responding to his insult. The admin who blocked bugs was reversed, admitted himself the block was personal, was told he could have an ANI case if he wanted, and has been threatened with desysoping for his abuse of privilege. Basically, it's totally irrelevant to this case.

Why is there no action on IP94? The account was created solely for the purpose of reverting the matter at hand. IP94 then vandalized Bowlhover's talk page, pretending to be Bowlhover. Bowlhover himself has called IP94 a troll. The sole purpose of this account is to edit war by proxy. Why has it not been blocked? μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't block that IP because he stopped edit warring (and was never given a 3RR warning) and reverted his inappropriate comment on the talk page. If he resumes disruptive editing after being warned I'll be glad to block though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am sure that will be sufficient, and he is now formally warned. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Omar-toons (Result: no violation )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st diff
2. 1st revert, putting back a version with unsourced content (after I added a 1st RS (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam))
3. 2nd revert to the version with unsourced content
4. 3rd revert to the unsourced version (even if I added a 2nd RS (Annales de Géographie, a French study focusing on linguistics))

Note: the same user was edit-warring a few hours ago (link)

Note(2): the same user is also warring (and removing RS) on the article Ghomara language in what seems to be a WP:OWN case ()

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this doesn't look like a comment by somebody who wants to discuss. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The source was already in the article, and as I explained, linguistic claims require linguistic sources. If Omar wants to change the article, he should justify the change when it's challenged. (I have no idea who's right, but that's why we follow sources.) — kwami (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Omar is using an "encyclopedic dictionary" from 1927, arguing that it trumps a preliminary linguistic classification from 2006, and has tagged the article as OR for citing the latter. A bit ridiculous, but he doesn't seem to get it. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Up against the line, but not over it. Please work this out, or locks and/or blocks will follow. KrakatoaKatie 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DinoGrado reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:Blocked )

Page

Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DinoGrado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Sock where were you then?"
2. 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578931893 by Socktabhaya (talk) per WP:WPC"
3. 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578929058 by Thomas.W (talk)"
4. 08:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Consent of one or two editors is not a valid reason. what is the policy behind your move?"
5. 07:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Where were you hiding when the discussion was going on? - Remove the odd section per WP:WPC"
6. 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Remove the odd section per WP:WPC. No valid reason was given in the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sri Lanka. (TW)"
2. 08:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Lanka. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly trying to remove all mention of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. There has been a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, with DinoGrado failing to get a consensus supporting his removal. Which hasn't stopped him from repeatedly removing it. Thomas.W 09:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, got it. Got your multiple additions to this report. Got your WP:AIV filing on this same topic too. Blocks are last resort - anyone who's working this hard to get another editor blocked should probably logout for a couple of hours and take a walk - obviously either too involved in the topic, or forgetting the overall purpose of this project temporarily. Let the process take its course, and don't try to circumvent it - the article and the evidence will still be here ES&L 10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment on WP:AIV. It's not forumshopping, and I'm not "working hard to get another user blocked". I'm trying to put a stop to a clear violation of the rules, making six reverts against consensus in less than 24h. So thank you for your concern, but I don't need a rest. But maybe you do. Thomas.W 10:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, DinoGrado has now made seven reverts, and shows no sign of stopping. So maybe my attempts to put a quick stop to him weren't such a bad idea after all. Thomas.W 10:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - a block for Dino is definitely in order. However, the reviewing admin will need to take the actions of all the other parties into account as well. This isn't the first time this editor has edit-warred on this article - and oddly, they escaped a block the first time. This time it's a slam dunk - however, there's a tag-team of editors who are enabling them to edit-war right now. In my mind - 3 day block for Dino ... not sure yet for the enablers ES&L 10:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no "enablers" nor is there a tag-team, only four different and totally unrelated users who, in total accordance with the rules (including issuing proper warnings), have reverted a repeated removal of properly sourced content (a removal that does not have the support of other editors, as can be seen on the talk page of the article...). Thomas.W 10:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Psst...when you lack a bit of a clue, and a recommendation from an admin has been made, it's usually a good time to keep quiet and quit while you're ahead ES&L 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• User blocked, but I would caution Thomas.W (talk · contribs) against running around and acting like disputes like this are a life and death situation requiring immediate blocking. No lasting damage has been done to the project and taking a couple of minutes to calm down is often helpful in defusing situations. --GraemeL 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours GraemeL 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Epicforest reported by User:Alfietucker (Result: 24 hours)

Page: City of Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epicforest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User's IP talk page:

Comments:

It seems to me that this involves a relatively new editor, so as you can see I tried to talk to him/her directly on their user page, and also on the IP address which I guessed (correctly - as they themselves confirmed here) was the same editor. I tried to handle this tactfully, carefully explaining the various Misplaced Pages policies (including at their IP address here) and explaining that he/she was edit-warring by reverting without discussion. They have repeatedly ignored my advice on this, and my warnings here, here and here. They are clearly in breach of the WP:3RR policy. Alfietucker (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AnnaPlacebo reported by User:Daffydavid (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is a WP:SPA which has failed to respond to any attempts at communication and has not heeded numerous warnings including from an admin. User is replacing a WP:RS with one that is either invalid (link to comment rather than actual study) or if linked to actual study, it has been refuted by numerous other studies and thus is WP:UNDO --Daffydavid (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.169.46.25 reported by User:immblueversion (Result: blocked)

Page: Fairy Tail the Movie: Phoenix Priestess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.169.46.25

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (22 October 2013)
2. (7 October 2013)
3. (27 September 2013)
4. (20 September 2013)
5. (15 September 2013)
6. (14 September 2013)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As an anime- and manga-related article, all articles relating to Fairy Tail use the character name spellings present in the Kodansha USA manga translation, the primary English release. In this article, the user in question has kept changing names to those used in the anime's English dub, with one such edit ("Prince Cream") based on an unofficial name as opposed to the official one ("Duke Cream"). The user's edits only appear in one specific section, leading to inconsistencies in the article. From the dates, the edits over the past month have erratic, yet persistent. I hope to see the matter resolved soon. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. This anonymous user has a history of disruptive editing. —Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

] reported by ] (Result: malformed)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Beauvy (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC) The above mentioned user FreeKnowledgeCreator has a 2 year history of reverting edits that relate to gender, feminism, and homosexuality. I have tried to summarize in an objective way the book "The Dialectic of Sex" and the user repeatedly reverts the entire summary back to a single two line "criticism" section, which does not appear to me to be in the spirit of an Encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages has a DEEP misogyny problem, as I have seen and reported this in the past, even dealing with very minor edits to pages involving women in philosophy, feminism, media, etc. It should not be tolerated.

The incorrectly formatted drivel above is simply a personal attack on me, made in the context of a content dispute. It should be removed as such. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. This doesn't sound like an edit war situation to me. Consider dispute resolution instead of re-reporting here. —Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.169.232 reported by User:Atethnekos (Result: Protected and blocked)

Page

Dionysus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

75.51.169.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578958449 by Paul August (talk)"
2. 04:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579036285 by Atethnekos (talk)"
3. 04:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579058996 by Atethnekos (talk) rv"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See User_talk:75.51.164.167, User_talk:75.51.174.116, User_talk:75.51.166.139, etc for previous warnings to this user. And see also the notice from administrator Rklawton at Talk:Dionysus#IP_Editor. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the user seems to be at Special:Contributions/75.51.173.206. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And now at . --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (rangeblocked 75.51.160.0/19) and Page protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TruthAboveEverything reported by Alexbrn (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 22:02, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "Any desired additions are welcome, but please do not remove factually correct and well cited information.")
2. 23:08, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579015752 by Alexbrn (talk)")
3. 01:58, 28 October 2013 (edit summary: "")
4. 02:53, 28 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579045079 by Ruby Murray (talk)")

Diff of warning:

It also appears likely some socking is going on; would be great if an Admin could take an all-around look. Alexbrn 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:212.183.128.176 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Trevor Griffiths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

212.183.128.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 23:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 01:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned by User:DVdm, 17:09, 27 October 2013.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also edit-warring in past 24 hours as User:212.183.128.179 and User:212.183.140.28. Has previously made the same tendentious edit as User:212.183.128.160, User:212.183.128.167, User:212.183.128.131 User:212.183.128.98 and User:212.183.128.174. RolandR (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent to this report, User:212.183.128.176 and User:212.183.128.179 have been blocked for violation of the BLP policy, but the others, including the latest IP, are still unblocked. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (Rangeblocked 212.183.128.0/20) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Tourism in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see: previous ANI report from two weeks ago. User ignores all warnings.

Comments:
Stubborn and incessant edit warring with the whole bloody world, not just one or two admins and a slew of editors. User WKS Śląsk Wrocław ignores all recommendations in order to promote his own hometown at the article Tourism in Poland. I don't know how to break through to this user. He does not use talk. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've offered on the article talk page and on the user's talk page to try to mediate the situation. The user had some good suggestions and were incorporated into the article. I did add a second multiple image tag, but the bottom line is there's more to Poland than just Wroclaw and Silesia that the editor is pushing with their edits/reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: No violation)

Page

IPad Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579135324 by Blurred Lines (talk) See the talk page as to why this is no longer needed, and perhaps a good look at WP:WIKILAWYER may help as well."
2. 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579133912 by Blurred Lines (talk) Nine minor edits in 3 days is hardly a major work of expansion"
3. 16:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "pretty much no longer needed. No edits in over a day"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is keeps removing the under construction tag, and it has not been several day since the last edit. The user claims that if minor edits hasn't been made in several days, it should be removed, and it does not say that on the template. The user is doing the same thing on iPad Mini (2nd generation), and it's just getting disruptive. Blurred Lines 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, this strikes me as a fairly WP:LAME dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pofka reported by User:Werieth (Result: Protected)

Page

Lithuania national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "All the files have critical commentary. Reverted."
2. 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Read the article and think again"
3. 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Prove it or leave the article alone"
4. 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "None of files violate NFCC#8. Skull Man is used to identify important logo, which is mentioned in the article; Croatians leaving the game is used for critical commentary as they left it on purpose to show their dissapoitment in judging and so on."
5. 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Vandalism..."
6. 18:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "It is when it do not violate any of the rules. Do not remove any of the images until discussion in administrators page is over."
7. 18:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579140436 by Werieth (talk)"
8. 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "As I said: wait for the administrators decision before taking any actions! They will remove it anyway if they really violate rules."
9. 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Not a violation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated violations of WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and (indisputable WP:NFCC#10c) Werieth (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Matter had just been reported to WP:ANI, where I recommended that Pofka take the matter to the article talk page. If no further edit warring on the main article occurs, no action is necessary. If further edit warring takes place, then action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Both parties now discussing on talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Silvio1973 (Result: Protected)

Page

Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578672964 by Silvio1973"
2. 07:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored rollback version. Do not alter with controversial changes without consensus"
3. 23:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "1st Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"
2. 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC) "2nd Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"

Comments:

This user keeps removing sourced edits without any apparent reason. A discussion has been proposed on the talk edit but it has been diserted. A 3O requested, but so far without involvement of any editor. I cannot even understand what is wrong because reverts are immediate and unexplained. The changes are just qualified of controversial but no discussion follows.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:24.215.200.146 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)

Page

Baruch Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

24.215.200.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Edit was not "rejected" and reverter himself said calling people "murderers" has "far reaching implications."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Editor warned per ARBPIA:

Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Contribs make it quite clear that this IP address is controlled by a single person interested mainly in POV-pushing in the Israel/Palestine area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely spurious accusation from Nomoskedasticity as I have edited many other pages. Once again, the article for Samir Kuntar does not say he is a murderer, despite his conviction for murder, yet the article for Baruch Goldstein not only calls him a murderer, but a MASS murderer. Nomoskedasticity clearly has a bias. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, the 3rd false accusation is not a revert, but an edit. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• An additional revert subsequent to this report being filed: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• And another: . Hertz1888 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 3 months — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 16:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Not applicable)

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: Marcia Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.

• This editor publicly accused me, without even attempting to contact me, of:

1. Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
2. Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
3. Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)

• First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed an dhad no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.

• Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.

• This is the text in question:

  On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death; however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing".

• Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:

1. "Wallace's son claims she was cancer free at the time of her death" deadline.com (October 2013)
2. "Marcia Wallace, Star of 'The Bob Newhart Show' and Voice of Mrs. Krabappel, Dies at 70". Variety. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-26.
3. ^ "R.I.P. Marcia Wallace". Deadline. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2013-10-26.

• "editor has expressed OR on talk " -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??

• This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis, without even attempting to communicate with me directly at my talk page, merits him/her yet another block, and more lengthy than 24 hours, in my humble opinion. Quis separabit? 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: this editor's block log is here Quis separabit? 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

comment by medeis

Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is User:Rms125a@hotmail.com.

He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancerfree, a BLP violation until being cited only on his last edit; arguing his personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.

Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3 with no 3RR violation on my part.

Please admonish or block Rms125a. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing admin

I really don't see why this was brought both here and WP:AN#RE_User:Medeis. The extensive editing occurring right now on this article means that it's not a clear-cut care of edit-warring, and that's really the only thing for which this page is useful. Let's discuss the issue at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kurzon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Lloyd Irvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 07:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 08:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Comments:

See block log -- previous block for violating 3RR, this editor knows the rule well enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• The last three reverts above were made after this report was filed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, another editor has exceeded 3RR as well. If the article is to be protected on that basis, it should exclude the material identified as problematic per BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by GiantSnowman.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jguard18 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No violation)

Page

Samir Kuntar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jguard18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• First revert
• Second revert, violating the 1RR restriction that the article is subject to.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• None required, per the notice on the article talkpage ("Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.").

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violated the 1RR restrictions on the page, with two quick reverts that didn't even have any rationale at all in the edit summary ... even though that was pointed out after the first revert. Epeefleche (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I realize the revert could have been a mistake, however you are more then welcomed to message me first in regards the issue it was reverted twice by myself as it was unwarranted to add it were it was.Also are you referring to the WP:3RR.But again it was reverted when i was patrolling for vandalism and was a false positive and for that i will applogize for that.Jguard18 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• The page is under a restriction, emblazoned upon its talk page, that makes it edit warring to engage in 1RR. Which is precisely what Jguard did. The restriction states that the article is: "under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.... Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

To compound matters, Jguard failed to leave any explanatory edit summary. In either of his reverts. As WP:FIES states: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit."

He did this despite the fact that when he in turn had been reverted, the edit summary that was left for him and directed at him stated "Undid (no reason given, and supported by the refs) revision 579214852 by Jguard18." He simply reverted this communication, and again reverted -- again without an edit summary, and again despite it being pointed out to him that the article has supporting refs.

And what he reverted -- without any explanation -- was certainly not vandalism by the wildest stretch of any imagination, and is directly supported with RS refs in the article, per wp:lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment The pertinent part of the sanction is Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. As I see it, one of the reverts was of an anonymous IP that has been aggressively pushing an edit. User:Jguard18 has not violated the 1RR sanction (since one of his two reverts are exempt) and has not violated the more generally 3RR rule. The IP needs blocking though! Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Again it is a good point to note that this ip is still aggressively pushing the edit as seen with another user as well Again Epeecflech you are more then capable of discussingthis issue.On another not it seems the ip was banned at one point and actually currently is now Jguard18 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. As Betty Logan observes, the ARBPIA 1RR rule does not count reverts of IP edits when determining if a violation has occurred. All parties are advised to use caution on any further reverts and to use edit summaries. Admins are allowed to enforce the 1RR rule without any warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluespeakers reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments:
Edit warring, probably a sock puppet of previous conflict creators of this page,, Won't explain his edits, won't present a source that supports the information he wants to insert. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

These accusations against me are outrageous and wrong. I tried to work with this user, ask questions and reach out to other users. I was under the impression that you have discuss before you delete so I have not. I have not done anything malicious. I personally know the user who was we all attended WSU and that person is still trying to fight their case. This was a large university and we had discussions about religions and that's where this all started. I just picked up the place after that user left me the notes on this group. For what it's worth, I am not sure if it is worth this much debate. If someone who does not have attachment to this can take a look. It would be very helpful. Apologies for taking up time.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Why you are removing the sourced materials and inserting something which is 100% no where written in the given source? That's 100% Vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are five sources backing this statement up.

I asked you for help but instead you attacked me. So I sought out others help.

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and none supports any of your claim . Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not where you discuss this but if you acutally read them. Dayanand criticized the Narayan sect a lot for deviating from the Vedas. You are not reading it. Don't be stuck on stupid. Read it and then add to the paragraphs as needed. Seriously, you have not read anything. I just re-read to make sure that I posted the right links and it is all there. Bluespeakers (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Now this user is trying to block me. First he deletes everything without explanation and then when someone disagrees. He attacks. Is this what wiki has become? Please help. Bluespeakers (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:Mark Arsten. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protected for one week was requested by Bluespeakers. Thank you EdJohnston for taking the time out to deal with this.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:117.194.243.115 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Block, semi)

Page

Arunachal Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

117.194.243.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "RV Vandalism. I am taking this to he admins now."
2. 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "RV Vandalism from land of plagiarizing, thieving, half-evolved monkeys."
3. 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Darkness Shines. I am well aware of your s$%hitty creed/ilk and capable of putting you in your place well and proper. That 'claim' NOBODY recognizes DOES NOT MERIT mention in the beginning and that's that."
4. "We don't need to mention the 'claims' of any half-evolved race of monkeys in the lead para itself. NONE of the nations outside of that of the thieving, plagiarizing, crooked creed of monkeyland think so."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arunachal Pradesh. (TW)"

Result: IP blocked 24 hours by another admin. Due to the use of three different IPs from the 117.194.* range I've semiprotected the article one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:77.173.230.171 reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)

Page: Theomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.173.230.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Theomatics&oldid=565988274

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Theomatics&diff=577658961&oldid=565988274 (18 October)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=577939551 (20 October)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579061285 (28 October)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579315062 (29 October)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579326334&oldid=579114331

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579114331&oldid=579113931

Comments:

Request for page protection was declined "not enough recent activity": — Brianhe (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined I only see three reverts in ten days, and I don't think that's enough to merit a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfietucker reported by StuffandTruth (talk) (Result: Protected)

The following user refuses to engage in the talk page to prove how the paragraph on Guramit Singh is WP:SYNTHESIS, and is needlessly reverting without proper discussion. All sources cited are reliable sources, it should be known.

Page: Tommy Robinson (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 19:04, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "/* Quitting the EDL */ Guramit Singh was a spokesman, not a leader, so irrelevant to Robinson's answer; besides, this breaches WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS.")
2. 19:26, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579329425 by StuffandTruth (talk) - this is still WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS - please discuss on the talk page")
3. 20:11, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by StuffandTruth (talk): Rolled back for WP:SYN identified on talk page. (TW)")

—StuffandTruth (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Response from Alfietucker

I see that StuffandTruth decided to pre-empt me, since I told him/her that (excuse the pronoun) they were edit warring and implicitly would be reported. I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, proven by their reporting me for allegedly breaching WP:3RR without acknowledging they were edit-warring - and in fact have done as many reverts as I have as follows:

1. 19:14, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: ("/*‎Quitting the EDL*/ found source that says he was leader and co-founder)
2. 19:32, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579331458 by Alfietucker (talk) misquoting policies - it is neither WP:SYN, and neither does WP:EDITORIAL apply - see talk for why")
3. 20:17, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579338177 by Alfietucker (talk) violated WP:3RR, refusing to discuss removal of content) ")

To explain the case from my side, I found the following edit by S&T on Tommy Robinson (activist): . I started checking the citations, and quickly found WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYN, as I explained on the talk page here, here (n.b. comments appended with “- Alfietucker” placed within S&T’s post), and here.

I should also add that User:The Four Deuces added to the discussion their observation that S&T had made a synthesis between the two news articles here. Still S&T does not appear to have understood the policy, and has now reported me for alleged "3RR" for reverting on the strength of TFD's comment (as I also guessed there may be a BLP issue involved, but perhaps I was being over-sensitive to this).

As I’ve said, I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy: but this is no excuse for their battleground mentality and apparent inability to assume good faith. If you wish me to provide evidence of this, including one earlier episode today, I can do so: but I assume we ought to deal with this "3RR" case first. Alfietucker (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Neither editor has reached 3RR, so there is no violation. I have not participated in this edit-war, but did point out I agreed with Alfietucker that the edit is synthesis because it points out the criminal conviction of a former member of a group Tommy Robinson once led, although the source does not connect the two men. I think too that synthesis that is prejudicial to a living person is a BLP violation. I suggest that both editors attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page and to post to a relevant noticeboard if necessary. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - since there is a BLP with the edit suggesting that Robinson is endorsing someone convicted of violent robbery, and I don't want to be had up for breaching 3RR, could you please fix this? Alfietucker (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry - I checked WP:BLP and WP:3RR and realized - not having been there before - that removing breaches of WP:BLP are exempt from 3RR. (On my head be it if I've misunderstood the policy.) Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Astynax reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)

Page: List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 18:10, 25 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 578714116 by Tgeairn (talk) responded on Talk")
2. 19:39, 25 October 2013 (edit summary: "reinserting material blanked by Tgeairn: Cargo cult is both movement and type, Astara and The Centers notibility are established by the cites & if added cites are needed, request them rather than blank")
3. 08:56, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "restoring criterion for membership on this list")
4. 17:07, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579272811 by Nwlaw63 (talk)see talk")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No templated warning given, adequate explanation given at article and editor talk pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page section

Comments:

• Comment - This is not a 3RR violation. However, it is edit warring and has been disruptive to the development of the article. There have been several previous incidences on this article of the reported editor acting well outside of BRD, even though active discussion was taking place on the article talk page. Multiple previous requests to stop reverting and instead discuss and reach consensus have been dismissed or disregarded.

—Tgeairn (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kobayashi245 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Blocked)

Page

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kobayashi245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Fine. Added more information to balance it."
2. 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Actually, "Dawkins largely agrees with Lewontin" is WP:OR and not what the actual source states. Boldy edited."
3. 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Edwards' critique */ Properly formulated the structure. Added another quote by Dawkins."
4. 22:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579360262 by Binksternet (talk) What? What is your justification for that meaningless revert?"
5. 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579362999 by Binksternet (talk) Discuss the "questionable change" in the talk page. Otherwise the next revert will be considered edit warring."
6. 23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579366301 by Mann jess (talk) I already did. Next time read the talk page and argue against it before you revert."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring again */ new section"

Comments:

3 reverts today, another 2 just outside of the 24 hour window. User already warned for warring on other pages on the 19th. He's well aware of our policies, given his edit summaries include warnings to other editors: "the next revert will be considered edit warring".   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course I reverted those edits. Binksternet reverted for no valid reason at all, something more akin to vandalism, and you reverted and told me to discuss this in the talk page. I have already done that. Binksternet and you should rather come to the talk page and present your arguments why you disagree with my addition, not simply revert it for no reason and then tell me to "discuss it" when you're not discussing it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding discussion, there is already participation on the talk page, where there is not currently consensus for the change. Furthermore, posting to the talk page does not excuse edit warring.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there is not "no consensus," there is no argument whatsoever that my addition should be reverted, because I am using a reliable source to add balance to a part lacking neutrality. DRNC.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Also edit warring at Race (human classification).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw reported by User:Elockid (Result: 1 week)

Page: Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A. Multiple preferred versions.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reinstating "City of Man" in lead (Editing while logged out)
2. Reinstating the first global city (Editing while logged out, removed by Miguel Raul
3. Editing logged out (Reinstate this edit)
4. Reinstating the first global city (Originally removed by Miguel raul)
5. Reinstating the first global city (Removed by me and Miguel raul, and LogX)
6. Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox (Removed by Howard the Duck, and Miguel raul)
7. Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Me here and here, Dougweller

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk pages of those who have reverted him.

Comments:
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw has been slowly edit warring for a month now with multiple users, (me, Miguel raul, Mezus360, Howard the Duck and LogX. He has persistently both using his account and editing logged out re-adding his edits despite being warned for NPOV violations. Elockid 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

Page

Iran–Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HistorNE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "per talkpage"
2. 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "pov pusher"
3. 09:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "please consult WP:RS"
4. 06:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "describing official number (with full list) as "claims" and inserting charlatan sources is not just pov push but retarted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Was warned here by Drimes.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• I got there from AN, have never edited the article before.

Comments:

• It takes two to tango; the other dance partner is Coltsfan. I can't tell, because I haven't done the math, who's more guilty here. See also Talk:Iran–Iraq_War#Death_toll, where there is some discussion but no third-party mediation/interference yet. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Took a look, since 10:03, 27 October 2013, ‎HistorNE had reverted the same stuff out 6 times, he has been reverted by two separate editors, Tobby72 once and Coltsfan has four reverts since 16:41, 29 October 2013‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DS, a charge of edit warring is always more interesting than a 3RR case. This kind of prose and explanation is of great help to the admins who frequent this board. I'm not going to decide on this since I just got pissed on by Coltsfan after closing the AN thread, so if they indeed have four reverts, as you say, I might be tempted to block them as well and not consider mitigating circumstances--if indeed there are any. BTW, you are free to revert as well, of course, if your hands are moderately clean in this article's history, and if you can honestly say that the current version is indeed the WRONG version. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

After first revert this morning (06:22) I left explanation on talkpage (07:50). From first edit Coltsfan accused me as "pov pusher", then even "vandal", and he didn't leave anything which make sense on talkpage, just messages like "don't make stuff up" or "that is the way it goes". He even sent report to AIAV. Honestly, I didn't take him as serious editor. --HistorNE (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To me (and thank god, to most users) removing RS without any kind of explanation (prior to the EW, and still very weak and pov) is vandalism. And making modifications in the article because you, and only you, considers the sources "charlatan" is forcing your point of view in the article. Good day! Coltsfan (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what is "WP:RS"? --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I'm sure that HistorNE is primarily in the wrong. His M.O. is precisely as Coltsfan describes it. Very recently, he did the same thing at Iran–Israel relations. First, he added unsourced content and altered sourced material, with "removing Israeli POV" as his sole justification. When I demanded sources or an explanation, he edit warred to keep his version intact, without even providing an edit summary. After his third revert, in which he finally provided one source (but still no edit summary); I decided to walk away. Nevertheless, the whole situation could easily have escalated, and a quick look at HistorNE's contributions suggests that he does this kind of thing at virtually every article he touches: Tagging an article as NPOV without discussion on the talk page (even though he clearly knew better), personally attacking other users ("Another propaganda piece by Israeli user Greyshark," Coltsfan is "retarted" ), mass deletions without edit summary, and of course he was just at ANI this September for his disruptive editing. Frankly, he damns himself when he candidly admits that he failed to engage Coltsfan and seek consensus because "I didn't take him as serious editor".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, there's no need for lies. You reverted my edits twice with summary "unsourced additions and changes to sourced material". First part of introduction wasn't sourced as well, and second part was misquoted. After 2 reverts from both sides, I deceided to spent 1.5 hour and improve POV introduction by WP:RS . Since you don't assume good faith after it, seems like that you just don't like it. I'm very familiar that some of lads who use this project as political tool don't like my NPOV-editing in various articles, like Greyshark who immediately send report to "strict" administrator Bbb23 hoping for fast block. Regarding two other articles perhaps I didn't leave summary but I left huge explanations on talkpages ( + ) so your remark is worthless. The same goes for this specific case, I left explanation on talkpage but Coltsfan avoided to engage in civil discussion, just reverting on basis "If I like something it's RS, if I don't it's vandalism". It's childish, and as I said, I didn't take him seriously. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You only went to the talk page of Exodus of Iran's Jews after you had been reverted, when you already knew you should have left a message on talk before adding the tag. Far from being unaware of your belated comment, I cited it above due to your personal attacks on a fellow editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let me note that no one seems to address the fact that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Without getting into the merits of the particular case, Coltsfan has less of an understanding of edit warring and all that than they should, and thinks they see a joke when their own sarcasm is pointed out to them ("the wrong version will stay up? Reliable sources were removed and that's fine?"). TheTimes, your Coltsfan also didn't address their opponent: both parties are just about as wrong in their behavior, and rightness is simply not an applicable concept here, strictly speaking. (And if what Coltsfan calls an RS is called a charlatan source by another editor, then we're simply not dealing with vandalism anymore--that's so elementary that I can't believe I have to explain it. Coltsfan, something is not a reliable source just because you say so.) If anyone has problems with HistorNE (and that's entirely possible), why would you think edit warring with them is a good way forward? Start an RfC/U, get iron-clad consensus on various talk pages to make instant reverts possible, etc. Of course, this is just good advice given to you for free, so feel free to completely ignore it. Now, stop jabbering and let an admin decide on the merits of the edit warring complaint, or I'm going to find someone to hand out some blocks for incomprehension of basic policies and concepts. And someone look at the recent additions of CN tags to see if those are justified. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HistorNE says the source was not reliable. Ok. Why? Something wrong with the authors? With the books? What? He didn't even care to explain. He hasn't explained yet! Again: I saw someone removing RS (if it was not, he has to justify it, not simply call it 'charlatan' for no reason) and I reverted it. Was I wrong too? Probably. I should have reported it immediately and should have stopped editing. I didn't. But at my third edit, I stopped. Should have stopped on the second, but ok. But he didn't. He didn't care. In the talk page, he talked about his point of view and not why the sources were unreliable (what started the whole thing). What you call sarcasm, I call it a legitimate question. So, answer me: Reliable sources were removed and that's fine? hm And yes, they are reliable. Until proven otherwise, they can be call reliable since, from what I saw, they appear legit and in accordance with all the rules about RS. Coltsfan (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't lie I didn't even care to explain, I explained everything on talkpage. Of course, you don't have any argument or source so you simply engaged in edit war and started with accusations around. Actually, from your first edit you mentioned "pov pusher" in summary and it speaks enough about assuming bad faith. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the talk page you explain why the sources are not reliable, you simple say that 'they are not'. And I assumed bad faith in your edit because I considered it unproductive and disruptive, hence vandalism (light vandalism, abusive vandalism, it's all the same). Coltsfan (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just like the WP:BRD cycle applies to editing, when someone removes a source as unreliable, the onus is on the person who wants to re-add it to verify it. This may involve finding out if it's being used elsewhere on the project, determining if it's being used as a ref somewhere else in the world, or indeed using the reliable source noticeboard where needed. Now, this of course only applies in cases the the reliability is somewhat questionable - plain old "obvious to anyone in the world" sources should never be removed quickly ES&L 11:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources HistorNE removed are indeed obviously, self-evidently RS. User:Stumink, thankfully, just restored them. Take a look. Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, International Conflict : A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management 1945-1995, Iran, Iraq and the Legacies of War, ect. HistorNE has explained why he deleted every source except the official Iranian government estimate: "describing official number (with full list) as "claims" and inserting charlatan sources is not just pov push but retarted." Western sources suggest that 262,000 to 600,000 Iranian soldiers were killed, but the Iranian government says it was much less than this. HistorNE's idea of a "compromise" was to delete the high end of the range and cite 262,000 as the "Western estimate". This is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an Iranian editor who is pushing an Iranian POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, HistorNE has further elaborated on his unilateral mass deletions: "There are documentation centres with comprehensive data about every single victim, so hiding another "500,000" estimated by some "expert" from 2-3 million families sounds like sci-fi." Textbook original research!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is just stealing time from administrators ("I don't like your edits, so I'll assume bad faith, avoid engaging in discussion and accuse you on noticeboard"). Nothing more then it. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:HistorNE is warned for violating WP:3RR and cautioned that removal of sources from an article may be seen as disruptive. Any questions about the suitability of a source for verifying factual claims can be directed to WP:RS/N. Michael Clodfelter's book about war casualties, which you removed here, is widely cited and is used elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page

Camp Ashraf raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579471561 by Darkness Shines (talk) - Look at the talk it was already taken there, conclusion was massacre tags removed."
2. 14:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "There was already consesus that those ludicrous tags should be removed. Pro-MKO propagandist re-added them."
3. 11:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undo pro-terrorist propaganda by Plot Spoiler. Talk already concluded your "massacre" and "mass-murder" have no place on this article about military raid against terrorist group"
4. 22:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Removing terrorist propaganda. Massacres can only be against civilians not armed terrorists."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Camp Ashraf raid */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"

Comments:

User:Soffredo reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)

Page

List of current heads of state and government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. "Latest revision as of 22:17, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579525050 by Hebel (talk))"
2. "Revision as of 19:03, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579495529 by Hebel"
3. 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579494162 by Miesianiacal (talk) The amount of reverts doesn't change the discussions made in the past."
4. 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579492405 by Miesianiacal (talk) See the discussion in "List of sovereign states""
5. 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579481860 by Hebel (talk) It has been decided that the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign. There's no need to undo this edit again."
6. 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579380132 by Hebel (talk) See the discussion on "List of sovereign states""
7. 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579375214 by Hebel (talk) The UN recognizes them (see http://www.un.org/depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf ) and see discussion on "List of sovereign states""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning

Revision as of 21:58, 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning

alternate link 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Cook_Islands_and_Niue

Comments:

Incessant edit-warring. Way over 3RR. Δρ.Κ.  18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mm. Thank you for logging this; came here to do so myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The user is continuing to edit war even after this report was launched. The user is well aware that this report is open, but has failed to respond either here or on the talk page. TDL (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Really, "WTF?" is the only thing that comes to mind. I'm sure it's not what Bbb23 would have said, but hey, there you go. Is 48 hours enough? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Xan81 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Talk:Atheism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Xan81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579538748 by Mann jess (talk)"
3. 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579540070 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
4. 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Consensus has not been reached on this article. */ new section"
5. 01:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "General note: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"
2. 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has passed 3rr by inserting commentary on a talk page repeatedly. I don't know if a block for edit warring is necessarily the right step forward, to be honest. It might help. I think the issue might be broader; WP:NOTHERE comes to mind, which would require a discussion at ANI, but it seems too early for that. An outside opinion and intervention would be helpful, I think. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, see the discussion on his talk page. I've tried to explain the issue to him repeatedly, but he won't settle for anything less than discussing whether we really have proof of the Big Bang. Rhododendrites has tried explaining NOTFORUM as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily blocking. John Reaves 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:198.182.56.5 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hrs)

Page

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

198.182.56.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579631013 by Darkness Shines (talk). This is a reliable source because the references in this source are reliable. Be open minded and do not undo based on your opinions"
2. 16:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
3. 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */"
4. 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* United States Commission on International Religious Freedom */ new section"
2. 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Blog ref */ new section"

Comments:

24 hour block Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Warned)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578603918&oldid=578582412
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578918583&oldid=578855810
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579545760&oldid=579538212
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579642942&oldid=579641210

Note that this user has been previously blocked TWICE for 3RR violations on this page, once in 2009, a second time earlier this month.

Also note that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of a living person, in this case a distinguished professor Richard Wiseman, that make Wiseman look like he is endorsing pseudoscience (or WP:FRINGE as is the euphemism we use around here). Not only is this extremely disingenuous but it is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

How ere you getting four reverts, that user has only two edits to the article today? The last edit was four days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see relevant discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Illegitimate_reversals. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what that section is going to show other than you obviously have NOTHING close to consensus for the content that you have been reinserting over a number of days. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the two previous two blocks for warring at Rupert Sheldrake included "incivility", which reminds me of this comment in the thread mentioned above. (I haven't diffed out the rest of the thread.) vzaak (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see two instances of Alfonzo Green editing the article in the past 24 hours but they don't appear to be reverts. Others have, in fact, reverted whatever he writes. If he/she is responsible for violating some BLP concern, maybe that issue should be posted on that noticeboard. I don't see him/her edit warring here. In fact, it seems like editing on that article is overwhelmingly dominated by Editors posting in this complaint. Liz 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is "dominated" by editors who can't or won't understand policy and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Liz (talk · contribs) pretends to take an impartial view on this but consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. The edit in question is an "attempt" to subvert POV by falsely attributing views to a person who doesn't hold those views. The edit warring is slow granted, but my understanding is that WP:3RR doesn't have to be in the same 24hrs, and IMHO slow edit warring is reasonable cause for a longer ban, and the problem of incivility remains. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Given Alfonzo Green's history, he should consider himself warned that if he continues to edit the article without a clear consensus for his edits, he risks being blocked, even if he reverts only once. That said, I have some advice for other editors who have commented here. Alfonzo did not breach WP:3RR. Barney's understanding that it doesn't have to be in the same 24 hours is wrong. I think he is confusing edit warring with a violation of 3RR. Next time you file a report, pay attention to the diffs and disclose that this is not a 3RR violation you are reporting. As for incivility, all I see is sometimes heated discussion. I wouldn't label it incivility. All editors should avoid commenting on other editors and focus only on content; very few do, alas.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahmadac reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmadac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The article is under 1 revert rule sanctions. He has already been warned by administrators on his talk page Sopher99 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. The two edits are consecutive and count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Help:Reverting

An editor must not perform more than three reverts (in this case more than one) on a single page—whether involving the same or different material

Tell me again how he does does not fit the criteria? Because it was consecutive? So I can undo the edits of everyone in the entire page's history, so long as I do it consecutively and without interruptions? literally unbelievable. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." (WP:3RR) It even makes good sense. In this particular instance, the two consecutive edits were clear reverts, but what if you made seven consecutive edits that just change material in different parts of the article? Would you want that to count as seven reverts? In any event, now that you (should) understand the policy, please don't report here unless there's a violation. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RoslynSKP reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: )

Page: ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This edit reinstated citations to the Official British history to the first two versions of the division's name and the link to the contents page of the official history on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a revert - its an expansion of the article --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit reinstated the citations to the Official British history regarding the first two versions of the division's name. --Rskp (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

and

Here Jim Sweeney cut the information which expanded the article (referred to above). --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit reinstated the link to the Official Australian history contents page on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No template warning but commented at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Citations for all the names of the division

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Citations for all the names of the division

• Note. I'm going off-wiki and don't have time to review this properly, but glancing at it, my sense is that the two of you are having your own private edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue was also discussed on my talk page here --Rskp (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney mistook a citation which linked to the AWM web site, with a cite to a particular page, and it has taken me a number of reverts to finally clarify the issue here . --Rskp (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: some of these issues are being discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Illegal use of rollback. Anotherclown (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: no action)

Page: Malkin Tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It was in the edit summary.

Comments:
"Slut" is not an objective term. User seems vehement about keeping it on the article without qualification.

This was a content dispute taking place while the article was on the main page, and is now stale. However, your actions in this case were the poorer: 3RR is not an entitlement, and you reached it without going to the talk page to discuss your proposed change. Going forward, please take the dispute to talk when your bold edits are reverted, rather than reverting the reversion immediately. "It was in the edit summary" is not an attempt to resolve a dispute, and disagreements about wording are not cause for action without consensus, at least absent BLP issues or the like. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Noting also that you've been told this and given some additional advice on your talk page already, and decided to bring this here regardless; furthermore, the AN3 notification doesn't count as a warning, as warnings are meant to precede raising the issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, this user violates 3 RR and no penalty is issued? Is he a friend of yours? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you prefer I can either block you or protect the article, but you did not even attempt to discuss your changes - this is an expectation, as the report makes clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer if he was a friend of yours.

I was aware that 3RR is a policy. Discussion before reversion, where is that listed as a policy rather than a suggestion? And was Eric not doing exactly what I was doing, except that he didn't bother to put in edit summaries and didn't observe 3RR? And now you're talking about blocking me? Could the attempt at protecting this particular user be anymore obvious? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, diff #3 is not Eric's revert: Revision as of 15:44, 31 October 2013 Bloodofox (Revert. Obviously. However, that notation signifies a semantic value. That's standard. We don't use unqualified terms such as "slut" without notation anyway, obviously It is the revert of the OP. So Eric's actual number of reverts is three, not 4. Δρ.Κ.  15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it was just mislinked, see . Link fixed. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Beauvy reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: blocked )

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Beauvy: Beauvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This appears to be clear edit warring of POV and what may be original research. Clearly the editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed a civil warning to discuss the issue on their own talk page with no discussion there or on the article talk page. I have an opinion as to what is going on here, but suffice it to say, the editor refuses to collaborate and continues to simply edit war. Editor has been editing since 2012 and has about 75 edits that are mostly to articles of human sexuality with a number of edit war warnings. Editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Issued a short block for now - if issues re-occur after block expires, let me know and I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. When the editor returns I will attempt to work with them in hopes that they can better understand our policies and how to edit in a more collaborative manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Indicologist reported by User:Omnipaedista (Result: Blocked)

Page

Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Indicologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. "23:26, 31 October 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579395005 by Chaipau (talk) Reference was given from a credible "National". Reconsider missionary activism.)"
2. "03:22, 1 November 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579689557 by Omnipaedista (talk) - State Reason For Change)"
3. "05:40, 1 November 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579689557 by Omnipaedista (talk) Personal inferences of theoretical support wont cut, especially when "References" are deleted!.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This appears to be NPoV-violating edit warring. Editor has been adding unsourced and/or unreliably sourced material to various Indian history-related articles (edits promoting the marginalized Out of India theory) for the past few months ; his/her latest edits are also in violation of WP:INTEGRITY. He/she has so far refused to communicate on talk pages. Editor's comments feature borderline personal attacks and misplaced criticism (calling other editors "Western missionaries"; pointing to bias in Misplaced Pages toward "missionary activism") . --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm... Unless I'm reading this wrong, this appears to be a new editor attempting to insert assertions from mythology into the history section of an article. Generally mythological texts aren't reliable sources. 3RR has clearly been violated here. Short term block probably in order. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked the editor as much for edit warring on this particular article as for their other disruptive edits on Misplaced Pages. @NickCT: The user did not breach WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - Really? I see ,, reverts within 24hrs of each other. Isn't that 3RR? NickCT (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@NickCT: No, it takes four ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - You know, I'd never paid attention to the "more than" before. Funny. It would seem 3RR is sorta a misnomer. It should really be 4RR, b/c the 4th is the violation. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Til_Eulenspiegel reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: )

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

Version before edit warring

Previous version reverted to: preferred version, including some edits to the section on China and East Asia.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

Comments:

Re: the talk page, there was only one editor, so I tried to resolve the conflict in the edit lines and at his specific talk page instead. I was also writing a recap of my points and the relevant policies on the talk page but kept getting distracted by reverts and (now) abuse of process and warnings, so I came here to fill this out first.

In short, dude is falling back on page ownership and feels; lowering the defcon; and refusing to interact or address my points and good faith or any of the relevant policies, which have been noted repeatedly. Ban is probably a bit much, but if a third party could talk him down, it'd be nice. (I've never done this before, so sorry if there is someplace else I should've gone for that. Lemme know.) — LlywelynII 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You gotta love it when an editor keeps edit warring in his bold edit based on systemic bias, edit wars it in three or four times, wouldn't discuss on the talkpage, then tries to get the other editor reverting to the status quo 3 times blocked! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is also deceptive, there has been no further reverting since the warning. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Jingiby (Result: )

Page: Kingdom of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on dispute resolution noticeboard:

Comments:
This issue appears to be clear edit warring and POV-pushing. It may be called ahistorical revisionism or original research that is aimed to projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the past. There is no doubt, this editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed even my warning to discuss the issue on his own talk page. There is missing real discussion on the article's talk page. The user didn't provide a single source in support of his agenda. I think the editor refuses to collaborate and continues simply to edit war. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note. @Jingiby: So you get into an extended edit war with DIREKTOR over ethnic-related content and you come here to report the other party? Shouldn't both of you be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Brilliant move, isn't it? I guess he thought nobody was going to check, or that if he reports first he somehow gets away with it. In my defense, I was rolling back to a stable status quo before Jingiby introduced his Bulgarian-nationalist slant. The man refuses to accept that we don't use contemporary terminology, but modern-day terms blah blah... In short, this is one of those obscure Balkans conflicts that can't really be solved in any way other than through edit-war: nobody along the entire DR process gives a damn, and I'm stuck rolling back various ethnic POV-pushers that regularly pop-up with their ideas on how everybody is Bulgarian/Serbian/Albanian/Bosnian/Croatian, etc etc..

If you've gotta, fire away (*lights cigarette and ties blindfold*). -- Director (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

On a contrary, the issue is not so complicated. You was not rolling back to the stable version Direktor, but to the unsourced POV added without any comment by James Lindberg (talk) . Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring