Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 19 October 2013

• 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:Chesdovi reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: protected)

Page

Haredi Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Views on modesty */" deleting a passage
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC) to 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577280571 by Nomoskedasticity removing nonsense and rewording"
   2. 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "re-adding factual assertion"
   3. 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Views on modesty */ redundant, or"
3. 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577305391 by Nomoskedasticity edits are self-explanitory"
4. 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "re-adding: "perception which is often held in wider Jewish and non-Jewish society""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Haredi Judaism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Chesdovi to discuss edits to "modesty" material here */ new section"

Comments:

In addition to current edit warring, the most recent edit is a continuation of attempts Chesdovi has made to add a passage that has failed to gain consensus from editors in the past. An example of a past attempt is here; another is here. This sort of repeated attempt -- especially when it comes as a violation of 3RR as in the edit at 10:09am today -- is particularly tendentious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There has not been a 3RR violation. Nomoskedasticity has a habit of removing citied material to show that inclusion is "rejected" but then does not engage fully to reach a conclusion. Hence there is no reply from him at "Most authentic" since July 26 and no reply at Haredim as the "real Jews" since Sept 10. It seems Nomoskedasticity is intent on keeping the material out of the article without discussion. He then has the gall of calling my re-addition of this text "edit warring." He calls for BRD but refuses to discuss? What makes his removal of sourced material more valid than my inclusion of it? If Nomoskedasticity cannot substantiate his removal of citied material, it is very disingenuous of him to stage an edit war in order to keep the material out. It is doubly disingenuous of him to provide a link supposedly indicating my repetitive attempt to insert specific material, when one of them is in fact the original placement of the text! At that time, his removal led immediately to discussion at talk which ended after 2 days after no response from him, presumably indication that this material was to be left in the article. He has since removed it each time I re-added (at approx. monthly intervals) it with flimsy excuses. I had expected to see a reply to my latest post at talk about my latest edits, but it seems Nomoskedasticity has other priorities here. As at the time of this post, there is still no reply? I feel this is wasting my time and yours. Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is quite clearly a 3RR violation (I've adjusted the report to make it clearer). The bulk of Chesdovi's post says, I'm right therefore it's okay for me to edit-war beyond 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There has not been a 3RR violation.

10:12 I rm 862

13:40 Nomo re-adds 862 (1st 862 rv for Nomo)

13:59 I rm 862 (1st 862 rv for Chesdovi)

14:01-09 I add 901 and rm 2756

16:52 Nomo rm 901 and re-adds 2717 (2nd 862 rv; 1st 901 and 2756 rv for Nomo)

17:25 I rv 2717 (2nd 862 rv; 1st 901 and 2756 rv for Chesdovi)

21:27 Nomo re-adds 2717 (3rd 862 rv; 2nd 901 and 2756 rv for Nomo)

10:09 I re-add 901 (2nd 901 rv for Chesdovi)

It turns out Nomoskedasticity has reverted material thrice, while I have done so only twice. The bulk of my post actually wishes to highlight that Nomoskedasticity does not engage in discussion and reverts to posting invalid edit war reports hoping to prevent material being in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why? Did you not find a 3RR violation by Chesdovi? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. By my count, you both have made three reverts. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In the list of 4 above, which is not a revert? I'm clear that all of them are -- so I'd like to know which one I can clarify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't count the first edit as a revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's surprising, given the extent of material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And the extent of unnecessary material added by Mr Bluestein did not surprise you? His additions ruined this page. (I could not find similar in any of the other Judaism pages?) I have worked long and hard trying to improve this page. I do not view your edits as at all helpful. If you re-add material and do not reply at talk, what do you expect? Chesdovi (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Nomoskedasticity, but the bit I added about "real Jews" (901) is treated separately as it has nothing to do with Modesty section which you kept on re-adding. Chesdovi (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that any edit that removes text from an article is technically a revert, but I usually don't approach 3RR reports that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to square that with the rule: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Not "could count", but "counts". My report adhered scrupulously to the rule -- a good thing, otherwise I'd be wasting people's time... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant amount of time between the 2 edits. The timestamp for the addition of the content is 2013-07-24T00:56:01. The timestamp for Chesdovi's edit the content is 2013-10-15T10:12:39. Gaps of that duration are often not treated as reverts presumably because this is an edit warring noticeboard. Chesdovi wasn't actually edit warring with anyone by making that edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it the clarification of the rule, it states: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. {clarify|date=April 2013|reason=it should be made clear if an initial edit modifying a page (edited by the other person/persons) counts}". So the rule is indeed currently ambiguous. This would not have started had Nomo decided to take his concerns to talk in the first place, rather than insisting on replacing superfluous material back into the article again and again. I also note that my last edit was a mere 3 mins out of the 24 limit. How jubilant Nomo must have felt!

Nomo is very concerned about the appearance of single adjectives (e.g. "scantily") which may paint Haredim as slightly normal, but cared little for the presentation and addition of reams of text added against policy guidelines. Why? He continues to disallow text which claims that there is a general perception of the Haredim as being the "real Jews" but will not attempt further discussion. On which board can I report this unsound behaviour?! Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:84.14.169.30 reported by User:Lesion (Result: protected)

Page

History of HIV/AIDS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577418670 by IseCreemV (talk)"
2. 12:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577417511 by Lesion (talk)"
3. 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577413309 by Lesion (talk) Does need its own sectrion, see French wiki for example of good balance. Theory is well documented, removing section constitutes bias. Stop vandalising."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "/* 3 reverts */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:91.184.201.142 reported by User:HistorianofRecenttimes (Result: No violation)

Page: Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.184.201.142 (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:

The page is being attacked from Cyprus and essential details from the article are being deleted. The attacks delete my simple explanation of why US regulators have charged the company, which in their indictment describes it as a sort of boiler room scam, masquerading as trading house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs)

• 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:91.143.60.173 reported by User:TheGoofyGolfer (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of United States Senators from New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.143.60.173 (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 IP user is putting in false information, yes there is a special election in New Jersey for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator Frank Lautenberg tonight October 16, 2013 but the result are not official yet. The user keeps putting Newark Mayor Cory Booker as the sitting U.S. Senator from New Jersey which he is not, Jeffrey Chiesa a Republican remains until the election results are official and the winner is officially sworn-in by Senate President/Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden. I did place two warnings on this user's page but obviously they are ignorning it. I request assistance in this matter. Thank you in advance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:Elockid as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Islam90 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:Babism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Islam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 23:37, October 15, 2013 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, October 16, 2013 UTC
2. 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
3. 22:52, October 16, 2013‎ UTC
4. 23:48, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Original warning related to general Misplaced Pages principles of edit warring on another page 22:19, October 15, 2013 UTC. More statements regarding Misplaced Pages general practice about disagreements 01:59, October 16, 2013 UTC. Specific warning about 3rr on the article of issue 23:19, October 16, 2013 UTC

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On the talk page, and multiple times asking him to come to the talk page ,

Comments: Multiple editors have asked the editor to bring up his concerns on the talk page, but he has refused. I don't know why, but he just ignores requests to bring any discussion, but just reverts -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 1 week)

Page: Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Plot summary does not contain the disputed phrase "decide to")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - Revision as of 06:42, 16 October 2013
2. - Revision as of 00:46, 17 October 2013
3. - Revision as of 02:28, 17 October 2013]
4. - Latest revision as of 04:48, 17 October 2013 ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . I would also note that after this 3RR report was filed, two completely independent, unsolicited editors joined the discussion and agreed that the disputed phrase "decide to" is inappropriate.

Comments:
He makes a self-serving claim that his fourth edit, already a sign of edit-warring, was "returning to the status quo before the bold edit that is under discussion." As the "Previous version" diff above shows, that is factually and concretely untrue: The Plot summary in "Previous version" does not include his contentious edit, the phrase "decide to".

The ironic thing is that he's edit-warring over a one-word a piece of objectively poor writing that any writing teacher would instantly recognize.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae is the offender here, assuming without reason that he can ignore the correct procedure of BRD. After his bold edit was reverted, he restored it, contrary to policy. Discussion is ongoing but, per the policy, the reversion stays in place. I am simply restoring the status quo while the discussion is ongoing, and that is correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as the "Previous version" diff shows, I restored RIng Cinema's edit to that status quo, and rather than discuss, he reverted to his own version. Anyone can look up the diffs and see which of us is telling the truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae has his facts wrong.. I am simply trying to maintain the status quo while the discussion continues. He is trying to do something else and it's not about following the policy. Is he actually asking us to believe that I somehow reverted to a different edit than the one I want to retain? If he's trying to say that we are in agreement that the status quo should be maintained during discussion, then we agree that my last revert was correct.. No further action is necessary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a first: I've never heard of a person being reported for 3RR being able to say, "No, I'm unilaterally dismissing the case, even though I'm not an admin and even though I'm the one being accused of 3RR." Amazing.

The fact is, the status quo was the version last edited by User:Flyer22, as the diff show. That status quo version did not have the disputed phrase "decide to" in the plot summary. So Ring Cinema is blatantly, badly lying. Anyone can see the diff for him- or herself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The first diff above is not a revert, so apparently this complaint is incorrect. It would be good if Tenebrae would follow the BRD policy but at the moment it's a moot point. (As a side note, Tenebrae's version of events is not plausible. He made a bold edit and I wanted to return to the status quo during the discussion. He is now apparently denying that he made a change at the same time trying to claim that I reverted his change. To be clear, I never reverted Flyer22, even if Tenebrae has tried to produce a diff that makes it appear that I did.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm going to have to list this out.

1. BRD is not a policy, it is an essay suggesting one way to make improvements to an article. BRD does not give you the right to keep removing or re-inserting material because someone isn't discussing on the talk page, nor does it say anything about which version of the article is preferred or gets to hang around during the discussion or lack thereof.
2. "Restoring the status quo" is not an excuse for edit warring regardless of who is "right". The only exceptions to 3RR are listed at WP:3RRNO.
3. That first diff () is indeed a revert, as Tenebrae (t c) removed "decide to" in this edit. The first diff shows that text being re-added, ergo, it is a revert.
4. There is a fifth revert: . Ring Cinema (t c), that edit is a revert of Flyer22 (t c), who moved the "After braving several obstacles" clause to its location at the start of the second paragraph you rewrote with this edit, and your rewrite removed it.

Given all of this, plus your extensive history of edit warring noted via your block log, Ring Cinema (t c) is Blocked – for a period of 1 week for edit warring in violation of 3RR. —Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:121.218.61.142 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577415863 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Earlier revised due to pro-Chinese racism. Not adequate enough explanation."
3. 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577503909 by Dbrodbeck (talk) I have please read it. Stop reverting to the irrelevant Chinese edit."
4. 08:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577530994 by Dougweller (talk) "misrepresented"No. Sources clearly say they are not related to asians at all."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Indigenous people of the Americas. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP started a discussion on the talk page but carried on editing and has made clear they will evade any block (the IP says ban but clearly means block). Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote the IP:"Please refrain from trying to ban me without discussing it with me. I'll just get around it." And when I said we don't ban IPs, "You are now dodging the argument and arguing semantics block, ban. I will get around it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Jingiby (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Avraam Benaroya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AngBent (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:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Avraam_Benaroya#Disruptive_editing

Comments:

For more than one year AngBent has vandalized this article repeatedly and deniyng even the fact that Benaroya was born in Bulgaria. He has warring despite in support of that fact, there were provided more than ten reiable sources. Now he keeps deleting information and facts about the life of Benaroya, that links him to Bulgarian socialist movement and even he played the key role by in the foundation of the Greek Communist Party. Deleted by him information is supported with nearly ten reliable sources. Moreover, he refuses any reasonable dialogue on the talk-page or some kind of compromise. Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. Blocked – for a period of 72 hours —Darkwind (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Datu Dong reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: Topic Ban)

Page

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

User being reported

Datu Dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "how often to state this until everyone gets it, daaaammmmnnnnnn"
2. 10:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)
3. 12:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (Redacted)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Abortion. (TW)"
2. 13:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "/* ANI notice October 2013 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

First reported here and was recommended to this noticeboard. User:Datu Dong has violated 3RR on an article which has the 1RR (Misplaced Pages:GS#Abortion) with blatantly obvious POV edits. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Topic banned Already on ANI thread.--v/r - TP 14:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Uscbubblegirl reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: revision history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (cur | prev) 09:00, October 17, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (56,470 bytes) (+53,118)‎ . . (→‎Career) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
2. (cur | prev) 18:15, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,352 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to ucsbubblegirl citations were removed) (undo | thank)
3. (cur | prev) 18:05, October 16, 2013‎ 99.191.56.185 (talk | block)‎ . . (4,708 bytes) (+1,356)‎ . . (Undid revision 577494344 by RFD (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 17:50, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,352 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Education) (undo | thank)
5. (cur | prev) 17:49, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-1,356)‎ . . (revert to rfd citations removed-please take this to talk page blp concerns) (undo | thanked)
6. (cur | prev) 17:47, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,673 bytes) (+191)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
7. (cur | prev) 17:39, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (4,482 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
8. (cur | prev) 17:36, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,984 bytes) (+667)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)
9. (cur | prev) 17:28, October 16, 2013‎ RFD (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,317 bytes) (-496)‎ . . (revert to paulmcdonald citations were removed/blp concerns) (undo | thank)
10. (cur | prev) 17:24, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,813 bytes) (+1,117)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
11. (cur | prev) 17:20, October 16, 2013‎ Uscbubblegirl (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (2,696 bytes) (-621)‎ . . (→‎Career) (undo | thank)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Uscbubblegirl#User talk:Uscbubblegirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See notes in article history

Comments:
Another user (RFD) has attempted to move forward on a conversation on the issue and has not met with success. I believe that the editor may be new and may be unfamilair with Misplaced Pages policies so I ask that a neutral third party look this over. I was involved in an AFD and some editing previously on the article so I don't really consider myself "neutral" at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Uscbubblegirl had removed some cited material about Aaron Jack who had served in the Kansas Legislature and replaced it with uncited material. I was concerned about BLP and COI issues. Apparently Aaron Jack is controversial in Kansas. I did make the attempt to have Uscbubblegirl communicate any concerns and got no where. I had posted a Welcome template on Uscbubblegirl's talk page. For my part it was not an edit war there was BLP/COI concerns. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

She also added huge honking swaths of copyrighted material which were so enormous as to constitute a WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV problem, as well as violating WP:NOT#WEBHOST, since we are not here to host a reprint of a lengthy ideological rant by the subject in the article about him. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Uscbubblegirl now states that she is Aaron Jack's attorney and "My client will sue you if you block our truthful edits to Aaron Jack's wiki page." I hope that a different admin will judge whether this calls for a block under WP:No legal threats. My involvement so far is merely to suggest to Uscbubblegirl that she might avoid a block by agreeing to step back. The material that might be controversial is from this May 2013 article in the Topeka Capital-Journal, which says "Agency overhaul runs afoul; critics say Jack abused his authority." Uscbubblegirl has stated "You are choosing to highlight a defamatory political "hit piece" article and citing it as if it is an objective news article." At first sight, the Topeka Capital-Journal seems to be a reliable source and their story (by Tim Carpenter) is based on interviews of Aaron Jack himself and other named political figures. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for making legal threats. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Both 24h)

Page

Boro Primorac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Calling upon WP:OPENPARA despite the fact the mentioned country did not exist and the common practice is to label notable personalities born on territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina by their ethnic affiliation (example Blaž Slišković, Miodrag Medan, etc.)
3. Completely ignoring/interpretating WP:OPENPARA as it suits him
4. Once more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Timbouctou#Boro_Primorac and also in edit notes on Boro Primorac.

Comments:

Whoever is going to handle this report be advised that this user is currently in a argument conflict with me on Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It all started with the said user reverting me and calling upon WP:COMMONNAME despite the name of the article (Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina) refuting his argumentation. He then proceeded to request renaming of that same article so it can suit his agenda, you can see him saying that it should be renamed after I pointed out the current situation is refuting him and then the next day him petition for request . Now why I am elaborating so much...well considering all this and how stubborn this user is and considering he is willing to steep so low to request a name change of one article so it can serve him as an argument on another I am not so convinced that he followed me to Boro Primorac just to provoke another argument on a very similar issue. Not to mention obviously that he broke 3RR on that same article as I have shown you here, claiming he is reverting my vandalism. In any case I hope me elaborating gives a much more wider picture of what is happening here. Personally I believe this user has broken much more than just 3RR. Shokatz (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This first started a few days ago at Talk:Croats#Bosnian Croats from Herzegovina where User:Shokatz opposed and reverted edits by a third user , . This was regarding the usage of the term Bosnian Croats. I reverted his revert after which he started the topic at Talk:Croats, sarcastically thanking and mocking me and User:DIREKTOR for our edits . He also left a similar message at my talk page . The discussion at Talk:Croats which ensued was over the use of the said term (with me taking position that "Bosnian Croat" is really commonly used per WP:COMMONNAME and Shokatz arguing the opposite).

A few days after that, believing my position was right, I started a move discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina to gauge consensus about moving the article to the more commonly used term for the article topic. Shokatz did not like that so the discussion soon turned into a stream of his insults directed at me and my apparent "POV-pushing agenda" (just read the discussion.) In parallel the discussion at Talk:Croats continued. He called my move request "an escapade" and that I was "getting so low to request a move of one article so I can satisfy my POV-pushing agenda on another article . Upon warning him that what he was saying constituted personal attacks his response to me was to "stop whining about something I brought upon yourself." . After yet another warning he replied that because of "requesting a name change so it can suit my POV-pushing agenda" I was "shameless." and that I was "insisting on ridiculous WP:COMMONNAME argumentation" .

Meanwhile the other move request discussion at Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina took a similar turn, with him accusing me of " dishonest and POV-pushing moves" and went on to say that he had a problem with my alleged "duplicitous, POV-pushing bullying" . I explained my position in both discussion multiple times, but all I got from Shokatz was a stream of insults and paranoid rants about my alleged "POV-pushing", even though I have no clue what POV he is talking about.

And in the middle of all this, an edit-war started at Boro Primorac, a Bosnian football manager. The dispute was over the opening paragraph - Shokatz believes that it is okay to keep unreferenced information about living people's ethnicity (as opposed to nationality) in the opening sentence, even in cases when their ethnicity is not relevant for their notability. Now this is obviously against WP:OPENPARA and is also against long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that Yugoslav footballers are supposed to be designated per their country of birth in opening statements (not their ethnicity). Shokatz claims this is not true but it is in fact quite the opposite, as a look at many of Bosnian footballers' articles will show. So we both reverted each other 3 times and then he raised this at my talk page and started threatening with reporting me . After my reply, he said he would proceed with the report as I was "unwilling to budge" I listed everything that was wrong with what he was insisting on including in Primorac article, warned him that he too had violated 3:RR and asked him not to contact me again .

And here we are. Perhaps I should have brought this matter here myself as soon as he started with personal attacks over at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I did not. In any case, I do not plan to apologize for keeping entirely unreferenced and irrelevant information out of the opening paragraph in a biography of a living person. His behaviour at both talk pages mentioned above was disruptive and abusive, and his edits at Boro Primorac were vandalism by definition. Plus, he edit-warred to keep the vandalism in. Timbouctou (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Imo it'd be silly if someone actually got sanctioned over this... -- Director (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think his name-calling and insults at Talk:Croats and Talk:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to his trolling at my talk page and 3:RR violation are all reasons for some sanction. Since when do we condone personal attacks in talk page discussions and since when is it OK to describe other editor's position as "low", "shameless", "whining", etc.? The guy offered zero policy-based arguments in both discussions. Since when is this kind of behaviour seen as lovely jubbly? Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not jubbly, but the guy's still kind of new to our glorious project, and he hasn't been warned either. Imo a "Cut It Out!" template on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but please do not patronize me. I am "big boy" and I am well capable of taking responsibility for my actions. If I did anything wrong I will gladly suffer the consequences. But this is not about me. It's not me who broke the 3RR rule, it's not me who requested a name change of another article to reach a consensus on another as the the user in question here stated....who does that anyway?!? And I am sorry but commenting on someone's behavior (as I did on Timbouctou's) is not name-calling. I believe Misplaced Pages itself has a short but informative article on this (Name calling). Now let's get back to the issue at hand - blatant 3RR violation by Timbouctou. Shokatz (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intent to appear patronizing, I apologize. -- Director (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This was clearly an edit war, regardless of who made how many reverts each. Timbouctou (t c), you have previously been sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, so you should know better. Shokatz (t c), I don't see that you have been officially warned of the discretionary sanctions on Balkans-related articles, so I will post that to your talk page. For both of you, this should serve as a reminder that further disruption on Balkans-related articles, by either of you, may result in sanctions. —Darkwind (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah unfortunate, but a predictable outcome for a report like this :( -- Director (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hzh (Result: Mixed result - Page Protected)

Page: Titus Andronicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (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 engaging in edit warring, reverting citing copyright violation when it has been already shown by another user that there is no clear violation per WP:3RRNO #5 as discussed here User talk:Werieth#Titus Andronicus. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have already told them to file a WP:NFCR, these files are replaceable, not easily but replaceable. I have told them to file a review so that others can re-explain it, but of course WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ILIKEIT seems to override policy (I cited WP:NFCC#1,3,8 for removal) which this is a clear case of being replaceable and not meeting the second clause of #8 Werieth (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think there is a copyright violation, the guidelines on 3RR states that it needs to be unquestionable a copyright violation before you can justifiably violate the 3RR rule, something you chose to ignore. I should state that this is not my dispute, just a passing observer alarmed by the number of images you have removed over the protest of other users. Hzh (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed 5 files and left about 20 others, Please note I did not invoke copyright violation, I invoked a violation of WP:NFCC Specifically replaceability, minimal usage, and to a lesser degree contextual significance (#1,3,8). You have done nothing other than provide ample evidence you are clueless in regards to our non-free content policy. #1 alone is grounds for removal and exemption from 3RR (we dont have non-free images of living people for example). I also cited Romeo and Juliet which is a similar work and is a FA. Guess what? it has zero non-free files out of a total of almost 40 on the page. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

PS why havent you filed a review at WP:NFCR? Oh wait I know why, because you know you will just be told the same thing I am telling you. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated, not my dispute. Please read WP:3RRNO #5 again before claiming exemption from the 3RR rule. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, files that are clearly replaceable, fail #1, and shouldnt be in the article. Werieth (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. Looks like a WP:3RRNO violation to me. Werieth, if you think the discussion should have been raised in a different forum, the onus was on you to take it to that forum before resorting to 3RR. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Mixed result The result is really that those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright of someone else are at fault in an edit war where a reasonable argument is made that a copyright violation exists. Werieth made such an argument. I've reviewed the article and I am inclined to agree to some respects that NFCC #1 was violated. I've protected the page and intend to layout why everyone managed to escape a block.--v/r - TP 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You might also mark the discussion where Werieth made his reasonable argument on the article talk page. I cannot find it. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking what's worse, restoring copyrighted material is clearly worse than edit warring. So, you're better off if I just close this case as I have.--v/r - TP 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

re " those who restore content that possibly violates the copyright" - Can you cite policy please. As far as I see it the standard is that material must be "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)" per WP:3RRNO. Can you point to the policy where the language states that material that "possibly violates the copyright" should be removed? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created."--v/r - TP 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not show that it supersedes the 3RR rule. WP:3RRNO clearly states that unless there is unquestionably a copyright violation, and it should be established as a violation first before an exemption to the 3RR rule can be claimed. That does imply that the 3RR rule is more important when there are differing opinions, otherwise why would the word "unquestionably" be there? Hzh (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed it and I think the copyright complaint is valid and meets the WP:3RR exemption. That's why uninvolved administrators make the determination and not editors in the dispute. I've outlined why I feel it was more prudent to protect the page and why I feel Werieth's complaint is valid on the article talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this 3RR case is over. Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?--v/r - TP 19:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over WP:NFCC, then there are always differing opinions. By User:Hzh's arguing, this would mean that WP:3RRNO §5 never applies. That is obviously not what the person who wrote that line meant. No opinion on whether the material unquestionably violates WP:NFCC as I haven't read the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case there are more than 2 editors involved (4 in fact, 3 of whom are opposed to Werieth's action), when there are multiple objections, I would take it as a clear case of no "unquestionable" violation. The wording of WP:3RRNO appears to me to be a caution against indiscriminate removal of content suspected to be of copyright violation when there are strong objections. Hzh (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@T - Re "Note that it is the duty of users ...... cannot be created." - Ok. Fair enough. You know, I've just reread some of the talkpage stuff, and I don't see that the editors trying to add the content ever attempted to offer a valid rationale. If they had, their WP:3RRNO argument might be more reasonable. I'd still tend to agree with Hzh in his assertion that WP:3RRNO's requirement that violations be "clear" and "unquestionable" probably supersedes the WP:NFCC argument, especially since so many have now questioned whether it was a clear violation. re "Unless you're volunteering yourself, Teddy, and Bertaut for a block for restoring copyrighted materials?" - That seems a tad threatening, no? Hzh's dissent is reasonable, whether or not it's right. You shouldn't be threatening with a block for that. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably is a bit threatening, sorry. I get a tad annoyed when folks try to see sanctions on others when their own hands are just as dirty. I believe that 3 editors teaming up to edit war is still edit warring.--v/r - TP 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree that not all of the images that Werieth was removing were necessary clear copyright problems to evoke the 3RR exemption. I don't believe any of them are appropriate, but there's some borderline and possibly improvement (the fact that the stage productions actually tried to similar blood, for example). This needed to go to discussion, and I don't think, even as a strong supporter of NFCC, that this case is a clear exemption. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SoapFan12 and User:CloudKade11 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: Steffy Forrester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SoapFan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Both SoapFan12 and CloudKade11 were involved in an edit-war over the character page of Steffy Forrester, which has gone on now for about 48 hours. Neither chose to take it to each other's talk pages, or the actual page's talk page to discuss. Instead, they involved themselves in an editing-war. Both users, as experienced editors of significant lengths of time, should know how to handle such situations to avoid things such as edit-warring. I was not sure if both users could be put into one category, so I included both of their edits back-to-back to avoid having to post the same post twice. However, if that is what's needed, I will do so. CloudKade also seems to have a bad history of edit-warring, given the discussions on their talk page. livelikemusic 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Both editors blocked.--v/r - TP 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Amshermar reported by User:NeilN (Result: No violation)

Page

Pubic hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
2. 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
3. 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"
4. 20:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Added image to page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pubic hair. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New editor, only edit-warring to add his dick to article (told it was redundant). NeilN 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, NeilN, you made me burst out laughing with the "only edit-warring to add his dick to article" text. Second, because of your diff-links above, I just minutes ago noticed that he was changing the image with each edit (so maybe most of his additions are not technically reverts); apparently, he thought that all he had to do was change the image and it would be accepted. Third, editors who never respond to messages left on their talk pages (as though they didn't even know they got the messages or as though they didn't comprehend them), like the editor in question, irk me. Perhaps he didn't see the notifications at the top of his screen? After all, our WP:Notifications system doesn't use that big, yellow (what some describe as orange) bar anymore for registered editors. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Since the fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first, it's not a 3RR issue, and given that this is a brand-new editor, I'm willing to say it's confusion rather than edit warring. I've posed a more thorough welcome to his talk page, let's see if that works. I'll keep an eye on it. —Darkwind (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. I think that was an accurate, if somewhat exasperated, comment. Glad I could make you laugh though. I think they count as reverts as the same type of content is being added. It's like if an editor kept adding the same paragraph but changed some of the prepositions each time. Darkwind - no problem, thanks for keeping an on the article. --NeilN 23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Exasperated? I didn't mean for it to bother you in that way, or for it to be a pain at all. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant my initial comment, the one that had you laughing, was written with a touch of exasperation at the editor. --NeilN 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:162.129.251.72 reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Jack Andraka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.129.251.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,043)‎ . . (Undid revision 577743863 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Clearly POV edit, see talk page) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 18:15, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,732 bytes) (+4,043)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 18:13, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,042)‎ . . (Undid revision 577742851 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) contains POV, synthesis and various other errors) (undo | thank)
4. (cur | prev) 18:09, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,731 bytes) (+4,042)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 18:06, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577741415 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) see: WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
6. (cur | prev) 17:59, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 17:55, 18 October 2013‎ Jarkeld (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,000)‎ . . (Undid revision 577740063 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) rv: possible POV, Synthesis. Please discuss before readding) (undo | thank)
8. (cur | prev) 17:49, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,689 bytes) (+4,000)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 17:38, 18 October 2013‎ CaffeinAddict (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,689 bytes) (-4,245)‎ . . (Undid revision 577736419 by 162.129.251.72 (talk) Possible POV edit, with suspicious sourcing.) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 17:17, 18 October 2013‎ 162.129.251.72 (talk)‎ . . (18,934 bytes) (+4,245)‎ . . (→‎Cancer detection method) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
POV editing, keeps being reverted, there have been 5 reverts today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring