Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Shih (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 24 August 2017 (→User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:AlexEng (Result: ): blocked for 24 hours). 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:VenomousConcept reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

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

Emily Beecham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
2. 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
3. 23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
4. 17:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
5. 22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
6. 18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
7. 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
2. 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
3. 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
4. 02:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been edit warring and keeps inserting an image on the Emily Beecham article, I had the article protected in an attempt to force them to go to the talkpage - It worked however now the protection's up they've ignored the talkpage and have again inserted the image again, Thanks –Davey2010 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Although the edit warring hasn't been constant they've still ignored the talkpage nonetheless (except when I got the article protected), I don't believe I was edit warring as I did go to the talkpage nearly a month ago, I did state this morning an editor or myself could start an RFC which unfortunately seems to have gone ignored, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a look through OTRS now trying to see if the relevant permission for the new image has been supplied. Although I personally think the earlier image is better, if it keeps Ms Beecham happy and complies with our image licensing policies, then I'd rather go with that just to keep the peace. Ritchie333 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I'm not trying to argue or cause any crap but shouldn't we keep an image we/editors are happy with not Ms Beecham herself ?, FWIW I'm sick of this as the next person but for me I'm trying (atleast in my eyes) to do what's best for the project, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of doing whatever is the least disruption. I found an OTRS ticket about the new image, but it's been rejected and the ticket closed, so it should probably be deleted. Ritchie333 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay well thanks for kindly dealing with it, Would it be best if this gets indef-protected or atleast Pending Changes applied as me thinks this is not gonna stop anytime soon, Thanks again for dealing with this, –Davey2010 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the other image under F3 (it was previously deleted under F7 but I think a rejected claim of fair use is closer to this one), so it's up to VenomousConcept to come up with a genuinely free image that clears OTRS. Ritchie333 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it. Here we go again... I don't think that I'm guilty of edit warring any more than Davey2010. I discussed it on the talkpage, but received no response. I understand that Davey2010 is just trying to abide by Misplaced Pages guidelines, and I respect that. My respect lessens somewhat when he comes up with imaginary rules like 'Misplaced Pages pages need to feature pictures of someone at an event'. Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Images states that 'A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.' that's all. I fully appreciate that Misplaced Pages does not exist to please the subjects of articles, however I don't think replacing one free image with another should be a problem. Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Article subjects encourages people to do just that. Above Davey2010 states that we should use 'an image we/editors are happy with' and seems to just be referring to himself and ignoring the wishes of myself and the multiple other editors who have tried to change it. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about consensus, then I don't think it's fair that one editor should be allowed to block the attempts of multiple other editors to improve a page. I see that my image has been deleted, I don't know why as I thought it had the right licence and was assured by other Wikipedians that it did. If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. Finally, as according to Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style/Images - 'Lead images are not required', I would suggest that the best way to resolve the dispute would be to remove the image until an image that everyone is happy with can be found.VenomousConcept (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it" - Well with all respect you could've readded it, Many newbies here upload what I would consider promotional shots (exactly like the one you were proposing) - Images here should be natural that's the best way I can describe it,

Nope - A few editors on the talkpage and Ritchie above has expressed disapproval with the image so no I'm not going against anyones wishes - if the majority of people (inc Ritchie) said "Yes the other image is fine" then I would've left it at that however the only people so far that actually support this are more or less newbies who have come here, Added the image, and then buggered off,

You cannot upload images and claim they're yours - Doesn't work like that,

No need to change the image - Everyone is happy with the one that's there (except Emily) - We don't remove images just because the subject doesn't like them - If an image is free and is suitable for an encyclopedic article then we use it, If it's not then we don't.

As for me edit warring - I disagree I've told various editors to go to the talkpage and each time I've hit a brick wall with every single one,

Anyway back on topic the image should stay until she can be photographed in a natural way and one that is suitable for this project. –Davey2010 23:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For your information, the image was taken by a friend of Emily's. I don't see how it can be considered 'promotional' in any way. It wasn't taken by a professional photographer or a PR company. I don't consider myself a "newbie". I have been on this website for some time. You seem to be implying that your opinions carry more weight than "newbies", which I find quite pretentious. I haven't found any evidence in Misplaced Pages guidelines to back up your assertion that images have to be 'natural' or 'at an event'. If you could provide some I'll read it. As far as I can see the image I tried to use was just as valid as yours. Emily sent the licence. I don't see what's wrong with uploading something on someone else's behalf if it has the right licence. I've already stated that I understand that Misplaced Pages isn't about pleasing the subjects of articles. I think having a better picture would improve the page regardless. I thought the image I used had the right licence and met Misplaced Pages guidelines. I will try to find another image that meets Misplaced Pages guidelines and the approval of the community (which in this case seems to just be you). However I don't think it's right that one editor should be allowed to dictate what happens on a page any more than the subject does. That is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Pages should be allowed to evolve and improve.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to fully reply as this has dragged on long enough so I'll just say this - If you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then I would strongly recommend you start an WP:RFC on the talkpage, If you add any image to that article even once I'll come straight back here and it would be very likely you would be blocked,

I understand you may not agree with me and that's fine but instead of everyone adding images and edit warring we need to all come to some sort of agreement or atleast compromise on the talkpage - As we realistically haven't come to any agreement getting outside opinions and making editors choose which image would be better IMHO so as I said if you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then start an RFC, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At this rate, I might as well ask Ms Beecham to pop down to the studio and I'll take a photo of her (and since a part of my RL job involves somebody running acting classes for beginners, it's not as far-fetched crazy as you might imagine). Ritchie333 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As Davey2010 didn't provide any evidence of his 'Pages have to feature images of someone at an event rule', I thought I'd provide some that directly contradict that. Here's one that presumably Davey2010 would find 'promotional', yet it is allowed - Mark Harmon. Here are several of people not at events - Michael Weatherly, Sean Murray, Lauren Holly, Brian Dietzen. This one is no different to the one I tried to use - Muse Watson. VenomousConcept (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. SInce the image in question has been deleted this particular edit war seems to be over. If User:VenomousConcept makes any further image changes that don't have consensus they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sahilchemist.abbas reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)

Page

Irshad Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sahilchemist.abbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796584749 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Saqib there is already a small amount of data about Pakistani personalities, I humbly request dont delet. the data is quite original and it should be there on wiki. Undid 796580263 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"
2. 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie user apparently in the mood of edit warring.. the user suspected of socking is keep adding the unsourced and promotional material to a page currently nominated for deletion.. Saqib (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I wouldn't take action on this report, for two reasons:

1. The reported has not breached 3RR as such.
2. The two editors should really discuss the information that they differ on.

To be quite honest, there is no real signs of disruption with the article, and the reportee should have handled this matter better. If there is a sock puppet investigation going on, the reportee could highlight this, but there is no real issues here for a block, unless the reported causes more problems. If anything, the page should not be touched until after the deletion discussion on it is completed. GUtt01 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GUtt01, there is no need to wait till the AfD finishes. This chemist is obviously notable and the AfD is likely to confirm that. The article was created by User:Sahilchemist.abbas who has been reported here. The idea of creating this article is fine, but his mistake is to keep reverting against the experienced people who are trying to bring the article up to standards. For example, Sahilchemist.abbas made this change to call someone 'Professor' which succeeded only in breaking the intended link to our existing article on Atta-ur-Rahman. He also violated copyright in the original article creation and another admin has fixed this up. Here, he removed a routine notice that is added to advertise AfDs to various projects. To avoid a block, I recommend that Sahilchemist.abbas agree not to edit the article any more for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for improving the content and quality of the article. I tried my best to mention only reliable and authentic data, and definitely supported my arguments with citations including the National websites of Pakistan. And I added "Professor" it was right, but what happened wikipedia automatically fetched some wrong info, some other persone, i was mentioning (Atta-ur-Rahman (chemist). And this version was quite fine and well cited version (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Irshad_Hussain&oldid=796622065 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilchemist.abbas (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sahilchemist.abbas is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Irshad Hussain. Sabotaging the improvement of your own newly-created article is not a smart move. If any of our procedures are unfamiliar to you, you can ask an experienced person. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Adam4math (Result: Declined)

Page: Doklam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2017 China–India border standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gipmochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796318312&oldid=796307961

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795903679&oldid=795901534

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796573789&oldid=796573668

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796429011&oldid=796425725
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796425725&oldid=796405783
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795815437&oldid=795814112
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795790828&oldid=795753596
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795735751&oldid=795735269
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=795724364&oldid=795724095
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796375690&oldid=796318312
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795906080&oldid=795904731
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795896729&oldid=795892307
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795729151&oldid=795720810
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795963719&oldid=795889123

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Yes, I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the following talk pages for topics on Doklam, Gypmochi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Comments:

Dear wiki Administrators:

Kautilya3 has been engaging in edit war on the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Doklam

https://en.wikipedia.org/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/Gipmochi

Kautilya3 has constantly removed and/or changed my edits to distort the truth contained in these three articles.

Some other times I could not figure out exactly what he did to my edits. But after he skillfully modified my work, links to some references magically disappeared or changed so that the reader is either not able to find the link, or get mis-directed, or taking many clicks to find the correct link.

For instance, in the article on Doklam, for the Revision as of 16:20, 20 August 2017 for the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

reference linking to the important text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg

However, after Kautilya3 made some magic changes, the link does not work any more at

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011

Also, he changed the short and crystal clear statement here into an vague one to lead the reader into confusion about the dispute at Doklam: from "China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its Tibet Archives" to "it is also claimed by China".

I am a US citizen interested in truth, but I only told Kautilya3 that I am a third party other than India and China and can see the picture better than him who is a party in the disput with China on Doklam. I have tried to talk with him and educate him on how to be truthful on these topics. But he constantly harrass me with weird statements, and misuses wikipedia policies to bully me. I noticed that Kautilya3 behaves the same way in other wiki articles, such as those on Kashmir. Kautilya3 needs to be blocked permanently for his behaviors.

Other editors in India also destroyed my effort to tell the truth. Form the histories on these articles, it is very easy to tell that these articles are overwhelmed by editors on in India. As a result, they have hijacked these articles and do not allow complete story be told.

I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the his talk page and mine on Doklam, Gypmochi below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Knowing that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to the talk pages on these articles, and pretending to be following Misplaced Pages's policy, Kautilya3 constantly urged (pestered) me to take my issue to the article talk page. But it will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time, having already sacrificed several full days working on the related articles. The current Misplaced Pages policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page.

I took more than two days to figure out how to report edit warring to wiki Administrators, and several days for me to do my edits on these articles, because as I'm not good at computer skills and my vision is poor. Kautilya3 destroyed my hard work, and Misplaced Pages readers all over the world are being mislead in his one sided stories on the dispute.

With more than three times more population than the rest of the English speaking population, India's hijacking these wiki articles in order to portrays its narratives as truth and not allowing complete story be told must be stopped.

People all over the world have used Misplaced Pages as a trusted source. I understand that ARBIPA sanctions policy is in place. However Misplaced Pages should be able to better this. In order to preserve its integrity and continue to develop it as a trusted source, in order to avoid constant unnecessary edit wars and disruptions related to these three articles on the current standoff between China and India, I suggest Misplaced Pages adapt a Court Like Policy similar to the following.

(1) Block all editors with computer ip addresses in both India and China, though I do not see obvious disruptions on these articles from China since Misplaced Pages is blocked therein according to https://en.wikipedia.org/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China

(2) Create a page that allow the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents, clearly labelled and organized.

(3) Editors from the rest of the world will serve as a Court Judges and work together to produce these articles, not limiting their resources from those submitted by China and India in (2) above.

When two parties have a dispute in a court, it is obvious that the parties themselves cannot be judges on their case. Misplaced Pages's current policy in dealing with disputed issues are exactly letting disputed parties to be judges, and in the case of articles on Doklam, letting India alone to be the judge since it has hijacked these articles.

Misplaced Pages may consider to adapt similar policies for other disputed topics, but the current standoff at Doklam should take priority to at the least have an ad hoc policy similar to the above, as the conflict could very likely lead to a devastatting second round of India's China War, as Neville Maxwell predicted.

I hope Misplaced Pages will change its policy so that all wiki editors will have enjoyable experience in editing its articles in a friendly collaborative environment, rather than an adversarial or even chaotic one.

I look forward to receiving your decision on permanently blocking Kautilya3 and your respond on my proposal to adapt a Court Like Policy on the articles related to current standoff between China and India.

Adam4math (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I look at what is said above about changing policies, but this all sounds like politics to me, and I don't think such a change would yield anything useful. It's far better to get disputes sorted out between Wikipedians who are involved in them, rather than a vast 3rd party, since it feels unlikely that would solve the issue. GUtt01 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Response: Indeed, I believe it is a content dispute rather than a conduct issue. The editor reportee was recently blocked for edit-warring, and when he retuned he started giving me WP:POINTy edit-warring notices , for every edit. Few of them are "reverts". Whatever reverts I might have done are policy-based and carefully considered and never crossed 3RR. RegentsPark is continuing to give guidance to the editor reportee. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? If you are referring to the reportee, surely that should be in your response? GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment:Kautilya3 shouldn't be coming close to edit warring already. K3 came close to breaking 3RR already. This is clearly a disruptive user. Evenif not breaking the letter, it is breaking the spirit of wikipedia collaboration. # # # He has been warned previously: 223.225.141.7 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Who's sock are you? —MBlaze Lightning 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I will not be taking sides, but I do think that there is evidence here that the reportee is not acting in a civil manner at all, and seems to be directing a personal attack against the reported because of disagreements over certain information that the pair are in dispute upon. To actually ask for them to be indef blocked and request policy changes to block people of another nationality from making edits or being able to sort out disputes in a civilized manner is totally unacceptable. This encyclopedia is worked on by many users; yes, we have problems by some who are disruptive purely and not constructive, but those who get into disputes who realise their behaviour is wrong and are willing to settle manners calmly and rationally, with a good discussion, should not be stopped from doing so because of their nationality, their race, and their beliefs (political, religious, etc.). Only for being disruptive, uncivilised, and having no interest whatsoever to constructing articles, amending them and so forth, like other respectable editors.

As for the other user, the reported, I think a simple warning should suffice, as they clearly do not intend to really edit war; they've been struggling with a user who is just being disruptive against them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined: User:Adam4math, See the instructions at top of this board for how to submit an edit-warring report. If you have a disagreement with Misplaced Pages policy, your statement belongs elsewhere. Neither Kautilya3 nor any administrator are in a position to grant what you are requesting:

Taking this to the article talk page will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time. The current wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change as I told you before.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:14.187.117.137 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Warned)

Page: Malaysia national under-23 football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.187.117.137 (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:
IP editor inappropriately re-adding File:Football Association of Malaysia crest.svg to Malaysia national under-23 football team without providing the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. The same IP has also been adding/re-adding other similar images to various national team articles without providing the necessary rnon-free use rationales, including at least one case where the re-added image was previously removed as the result of a FFD discussion. The IP may also be editing as IP 14.187.210.94.

Edit sums such as this were left explaining why the file was removed and user talk page warnings about non-free image use and 3RR were also left. The editor, however, has continued on as before without making any attempt to explain how the particular use of the file satisfies WP:NFCCP. I realize non-free content can be tricky and that the IP has only been editing for a day, but simply re-adding such files after they have been removed for policy reasons is starting to get a bit disruptive and being new is not really a reason to edit war. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The IP hasn't re-added the aforementioned file since it was last removed. In addition, admin EdJohnston has added a warning to the IP's user talk. At this point, even a short block would probably be more punitive than preventive, so perhaps no further action is needed at this time. If the image re-adding starts up again, then maybe then a block will be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: The IP is warned. All editors are expected to follow our image-use policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Keepfaithintruths reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked indefinitely )

Page

Dhananjoy Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "FYI: The movie Dhanajoy is a work of fiction, not based on the book you mentioned. Go and watch the movie first. Do not put inaccurate information, whoever you are. Disclose your information and then we can take the appropriate steps."
2. 09:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Correction of inaccurate editing by "Godric on Leave". Godric on Leave you better spend some time to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This has been generated in consultation with Software Engineer of Wikimedia Foundation."
3. 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Correction of misleading and erroneous editing by "Winged Blades of Godric"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dhananjoy Chatterjee. (TW)"
2. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"
3. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "/* August 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also likely has made an edit under the username Stopstupidactivity. I don't believe an attempt at discussion would be successful given their edit summaries. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And another edit under yet another username: 331dot (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely on all three accounts. Alex Shih 12:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:NewYorkActuary reported by User:Chem-is-try7 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chios Mastiha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NewYorkActuary (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 to Admin Suggestion: From what I can see in the article's history log, it looks like the reported wished for the reportee to go to the article's talk page to discuss the dramatic changes they made. It can be seen here that the reported wanted to discuss about the changes being made, as seen in the history, but the reportee does not seen interested in doing so at all, and there is a concern over their conduct and behavior in regards to a move discussion of the article within it's talk page. I think the reportee may need to be advised about their behavior in general, as I don't think the reported has shown any signs whatsoever of conducting an edit war. GUtt01 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to my above comment, I just checked the reportee's talk page, and it seems they got warned for Edit Warring themselves, and also for attacking other editors on the article's talk page. I don't believe their report holds any merit, upon examining this. In fact, I more inclined to believe that they are being disruptive after seeing their talk page, not the reported. GUtt01 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Reporter is now sort-of discussing the changes on the article talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast:Erm... He's not done so in a while. To be quite honest, I think the IP who wrote the response you stated was Uncivil, sounded like him, from the way it was written out. Were you aware that the reportee failed to notify NewYorkActuary that they had been reported here? GUtt01 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware that User:NewYorkActuary hadn't been notified. Yes, I'm quite sure that the rude non-signing IP-User is the same User:Chem-is-try7, since the "discussion" is pretty much one continuous stream of drama. PepperBeast (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast: Well I had to let NewYorkActuary know of this. And I honestly think that this report shouldn't have been made, to be honest. Chem-is-try7, to me, just didn't seem interested in discussing matters at all. In all honesty, after looking over the article's history, and the article's talk page, I think this individual is being disruptive and doing POV edits that clearly don't adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy. The sooner this report can be dealt with, and an admin sees this, the better for all that it be closed. I mean, he's really showing bad behaviour by not settling the matter with a discussion with NewYorkActuary. GUtt01 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01, Pepperbeast, and NewYorkActuary: Actually, NewYorkActuary threaded to report me if I don't change back the content https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chem-is-try7 so I had enough and report him first... My temper against unrelated to the subject, non-degree individuals that have opinion on the subject is very (very) sort... When someone saying "The EU legislation -which is actually worldwide- doesn't matter here in wikipedia or doen't matter how Greeks call it this is EN wiki" or "lets leave the page without editing because you remove 5000 words and added only 400 back" it's really frustrating not to answer... and let's face it... if someone says "the world is flat" its really hard not to answer... The administrator has to judge the quality of edit I've did (ALL MENTIONED before in every at the "Edit Summary" if diffs and NewYorkActuary keep reverting them, not partially, not a paragraph but THE WHOLE THING... thats seems edit war to me) not NOT how the users must behave eachother is a thing called "SUBJECTIVITY". Chem-is-try7 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chem-is-try7: And here in, lies the rub - I have seen issues that seem more concerning about your behavior than NewYorkActuary. He wasn't threatening, he was warning you about your behavior, and was also trying to get you to discuss the rather substantial removal of information. There is already no consensus over the move you put in, and quite frankly, you need to discuss with editors about any information that is in dispute, rather than go ahead with removing it before someone can suggest other ways to deal with the information. I also don't approve of what you responded with on your user talk page, in particular, you saying this:

"If someone reverts by stupidity a nicely edited content then by default is stupid and I should treat him as such... (or anyone that is support by)"

To me, that is aggressive, and not the behavior an editor should make out. If someone does make the stupid mistake of reverting something that was nicely edited to something that is incorrect, I would politely tell them this is wrong, and advise them to be careful. I would not even attack others that supported someone for doing this. Honestly... This kind of behavior degrades how Misplaced Pages is for other editors. GUtt01 (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Please conduct a simple evaluation of my work. Go to the two edits and see which one has the logical structure and MORE importantly RELEVANT TITLE (my title constantly was changed by NewYorkActuary!!). If you want to judge me for my manner and not my knowledge on the subject then do your worst sir... Chem-is-try7 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chem-is-try7: Please do not drag me into your dispute with the reported. As far as I am concerned, you clearly are conducting POV edits, with the manner of the response you gave. You can't change an article in this manner, even its title, without getting consensus first on the matter. I have said all I will say now. And if someone does do something in regards to your manner, it will be an admin, not me. GUtt01 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected– 5 days. Try to get agreement about the issues on the article talk page. Attempting to enforce the EU's product naming conventions in Misplaced Pages articles seems unlikely to succeed. See WP:Article titles for the rules that we do follow. User:Chem-is-try7, calling another editor stupid on a user talk page may have consequences, so please watch your language. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:AlexEng (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Good grief! The subject is not even mentioned under this heading now"
2. 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Tenebrae (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
3. 21:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Tenebrae (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
4. 16:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
5. 16:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
6. 12:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"
7. 11:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 2.97.206.204 (talk) to last version by Hillbillyholiday"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

2. Talk:Michael Michael#Edit-warring Hillbillyholiday

Comments:

User was warned about exceeding 3RR. User has not used WP:3RRNO as a justification in any edit summaries as required by policy. User has not responded to a request for discussion on the article talk page despite this being brought to his attention in a revert. AlexEng 22:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: A previous report was filed just four days ago and there is an active ANI thread about the user. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The previous report was closed with the reasoning that the user has gone on a wiki-break and therefore the report is moot. Clearly, the user is continuing to edit war, as the above diffs are as fresh as a few minutes old. AlexEng 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I fully support this report. The user has continued his behavior despite the community making reservations about it (and multiple warnings). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment My reverts to this article are clearly exempt. Anyone (with any sense) that actually bothers to look properly at the changes made will see that. Tenebrae's actions are blockable on BLP grounds alone. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Untrue. The two book citations and the History Channel citations are clearly RS. Please do not make false statements. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Clear violation and no indication intent to stop.--Moxy (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: It's becoming clear now, that this user is being truly disruptive. Although an Admin gave them the benefit of the doubt before, in regards to them taking a break on another article they had edit-warred on, I don't think their behavior this time around can be excused. GUtt01 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's about as clear a case of BLP violation as you can get. The second wave of warring by Tenebrae added a section entitled Murder of Charlie Wilson which neither mentions the subject of the BLP, nor the murder of Charlie Wilson. Twice. In 1990, the former treasurer of the Great Train Robbery Charles Frederick "Charlie" Wilson had moved to Marbella, Spain, where he was suspected to be involved in drug smuggling. Engaged to launder some of the proceeds from the Brink's-Mat robbery, he lost the investors £3million.

How on earth is a section about a murder with NO referenece to either the events or the subject possibly allowable in a BLP? Your trust in the reliability of the History Channel is touching though. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hence "expand section", which other editors would do if you allowed them to. Not allowing anyone else to edit an article is WP:OWN, through and through. And your very strange personal POV about the History Channel notwithstanding, it is unquestionably a reliable source. An entire channel devoted to, among other things, history, with a full staff of researchers, writers, editors, producers, historical archives and more. I don't understand why you felt the need to be snide about the History Channel, but judging from some of the truly outrageous comments you've made to and about other editors, it shouldn't surprise me that you seem not to be able to speak collegially and civilly.

In any case, it's not an issue about non-RS sourcing. You're not allowed to edit-war because you personally don't like the History Channel.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment transcluded from inadvertent second filing, voluntarily deleted

There already is an ANI, started by an editor other than myself, regarding Hillbillyholiday's edit-warring and disruptive editing across numerous articles: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletions and edit warring across celebrity articles by Hillbillyholiday. In the case of this article, he is correct in that 3RR has an exception for BLP issues. However — and especially in his last couple reverts — he is edit-warring to remove completely RS-cited passages, with cites from two books and the History Channel. I'm sure he has his reasons — but since it doesn't involve BLP sourcing, those reasons don't matter since he is WP:OWN-ing and showing a pattern of combative behavior.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this editor unwilling to join the talk page?--Moxy (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have my guesses, but he's the only one who could say. Whatever his reasons, he's refusing to act in a collaborative or collegial manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Alex Shih 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:87.166.129.25 reported by User:IVORK (Result: Protected)

Page

Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC) "A registered user has already clarified it months ago."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */I can't accept this. This is not right."
   2. 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Promotional singles */"
   3. 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
2. 00:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Still making edits against concensus without discussing after 4th warning on same article, all within the last 2 days. — IVORK _Discuss 23:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: A registered user has already clarified it months ago. My first problem with this series of edits is: which user? The second problem is that they didn't see the discussion on the Talk page either. Several users have already stated their agreement against this anon's wishes. The third problem is they continue to make the series of edits while ignoring the messages already given to them. While they haven't violated 3RR, it does get concerning if they keep repeating the same series of edits against consensus. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Just want to note that this editor appears to be the same editor that was reverting the same edit over several days over the past week or so, using a very similar IP address (87.166.184.156). See , , , and (colorful edit summaries can be see at the editor's user contributions page). 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I would support a rangeblock. It would put a stop to the "change IPs every few days and make the same series of edits hoping I don't get caught" technique/pattern. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This same series of edits was made by Fan4Life before their fortnight block. It's probably them evading the block. See , , , . jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: My final comment on the matter for now, but another series by IP 87.166.163.43 on this range. Rangeblock case appears strong. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be edit warring from three different IPs:

• 87.166.129.25 (talk · contribs)
• 87.166.184.156 (talk · contribs) and
• 87.166.163.43 (talk · contribs)

This might be handled with a month of semiprotection. (Less risk of collateral damage than a range block, if this is the only article being targeted). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I had an alternative option that included the month-long semiprotect, as this is the only targeted article. I just never bothered to bring it up. Thanks EdJohnston. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected For a month two months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:115.248.26.61 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "There is no evidence of your claim too. So, until the matter is cleared the information cannot be put up"
2. 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "There is ample evidence available for my claim, so until the issue is resolved, misinformation should not be published."
3. 06:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "The information is incorrect. The Assamese used in Ahom court and Buranjis was the Gargaya variety which was spoken in Upper Assam before the arrival of Ahoms. This variety was developed in Sadiya during Sutiya rule by assimilating Kamrupi Prakrit and..."
4. 05:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Buranji. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He has repeatedly removed a reference from the article without modifying any content stating that he's provided "ample evidence". He has been asked to provide his evidence on the talk page; this has not happened and does not look like it's going to happen. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Brythones (Result: )

Page

1. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. South Ayrshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. User talk:Sport and politics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sport and politics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:47, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "this is non notable information and should not be on this encyclopedia. Wikipeida is not a repository of council workers to be contacted. Being able to identify officers of the council is not a purpose of wikipedia."
2. 15:59, 23 August 2017, South Ayrshire "Undid revision 796845378 by Goodreg3 (talk) no reason for inclusion justify the inclusion of list and cruft dumping"
3. 11:20, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me reverting back to the original consensus) "this is a horribly worded article"
4. 14:03, 24 August 2017, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (UK Parliament constituency) (after me reverting back to the original concensus) "Undid revision 797024276 by User:Brythones (talk) wrong place and wrong article"
5. 14:04, 24 August 2017, South Ayrshire (after me providing a warning to Sport and politics on the South Ayrshire talk page one hour prior and reverting back to the original concensus once again) "Undid revision 797022264 by Brythones (talk) this is notice of the discussions going on do not remove until resolved"
6. 14:11, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: do not engage in hypocrasy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire (warning) "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"
2. 14:10, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (warning) "Edit warring on South Ayrshire: new section"
3. 15:03, 24 August 2017, User talk:Sport and politics (notice of this report)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:07, 24 August 2017, talk: South Ayrshire "User:Sports and Politics complaints and potential edit-warring: new section"

Comments:

It may be worth keeping in mind that this is the third time that this user has been involved in an edit warring report. (See here and here). Brythones (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted, that it wouldn't do to include the reported's Talk Page, in the Page list, because a User has the right to remove messages, notices and warnings. They lose that right to edit their own Talk Page, only if an Admin believes so. GUtt01 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I did not realise that was allowed! I'll strike that one off the list then. Brythones (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring