Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:33, 26 June 2014

• 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:89.110.19.176 and 91.122.6.3 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: )

Page: Alan Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.6.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.110.19.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First edit by 89.110.19.176, which is traced to the Russian Federation
2. Revert by Nightscream
3. Revert by 91.122.6.3, which is also traced to the Russian Federation
4. Vanamonde93 reverts 91.122.6.3's revert and leaves a message on that IP's talk page
5. 91.122.6.3 again reverts Vanamonde93
6. Nightscream reverts the article again, and try to caution 91.122.6.3 in his edit summary and on 91.122.6.3's talk page about edit warring.
7. 91.122.6.3 reverts my revert, and makes no acknowledgement of my message or the policies and guidelines I linked him to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Record of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (actually the reported user's talk page): diff

Comments:

User:AbelM7 reported by User:Aquintero82 (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Foreign relations of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AbelM7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612026050&oldid=607590814
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612048240&oldid=612026050
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612054488&oldid=612048240
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612061267&oldid=612054488
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612163296&oldid=612061267
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612674791&oldid=612346994
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612736558&oldid=612674791
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=612791949&oldid=612778064
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AForeign_relations_of_Mexico&diff=614084307&oldid=613994281

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AbelM7

Comments:

User:AbelM7 is new to editing Template:Foreign relations of Mexico and other similar articles. Before his arrival, most of the articles were the same in structure, however, he has decided upon himself to change the articles and arrange the continents to his understanding of how the world is without first consulting users who have worked on the articles nor seeking consensus, even though it had been suggested to him. I left a message on his talk page asking him to justify his point of view. He responds with "No mean for disrespect. I'm not the one who formed the continents but each one are separated by something. Each continent gets its own group. The Americas (North America + South America) is a supercontinent just like how Eurasia (Europe + Asia) and Afro-Eurasia (Africa + Europe + Asia) are also supercontinents." Even Misplaced Pages's article on continents recognizes that there are differences of point of view and that it is not set that there are indeed seven continents. I've even tried to compromise by separating the American continent by keeping the same 'America' section but separating them by North and South. However, this too was reverted back to his point of view. User:AbelM7 would do well to seek consensus on the matter rather than impose his point of view. User:Aquintero82, (talk), 23 June 2014, 15:03 (UTC)

User:Aquintero82 You never did responded to my talk page so we couldn't have seek a consensus. Each group on the foreign relations templates are divided into continents such as Asia, Africa, North America and not the combined continents such as the Americas, Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia. In my edits, I separated the combined landmass of the Americas into the continents of North America and South America in the group sections since none of the other sections uses combined landmasses such as Eurasia or Afro-Eurasia. You're saying it is "my" point of view like if it is mine exclusively but it is not. A continent is a large landmass and there are seven of them (technically it's six but Europe and Asia are divided at the Ural Mountains). I know people sometimes combined continents to form the Americas, Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia but the foreign relations templates used continents in their groups, not the combined ones. Not all of the articles are the same in structure such as Template:Foreign relations of Kiribati which doesn't have the different continent groups. Who's to say you're not imposing your point of view of using combined continents instead of the singular ones? AbelM7 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I used the examples set by Template:Foreign relations of the United States, Template:Foreign relations of Russia, and Template:Foreign relations of China since I know those would have more edits done and more foreign relations articles as oppose to Template:Foreign relations of Samoa. AbelM7 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both editors. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Tenebrae blocked 60 hours, see below for tit-for tat )

Page

Josh Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also on Kelly Clarkson and Ginnifer Goodwin

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613958489 by Winkelvi (talk) See talk-page discussion, rather than continuing edit-war with TWO other editors."
2. 20:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "No, we leave the extant, status quo version until there is consensus to change. BLP does not REQUIRE removal, and there is no consensus to hide a name already available to millions via magazines, newspaper and entertainment-news TV shows."
3. 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "According to Misplaced Pages policy, the status quo is supposed to remain. The status quo before you started this included the name."
4. 20:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "You are the one edit-warring, even though the status quo is supposed to remain, and you are now at 3 reverts here. Revert again,and you're over WP:3RR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ginnifer Goodwin. (TW)"
2. 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Josh Dallas. (TW)"
3. 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kelly Clarkson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin "/* Response to edit summary here */ yes"

Comments:

Tenebrae has chosen to edit war rather than continue discussion and go with consensus. He has not violated 3RR but is engaging in edit warring and win at all costs behavior. The articles in question where he is edit warring (Ginnifer Goodwin, Josh Dallas, and Kelly Clarkson) are all BLPs; they are obviously treated differently than non-BLP articles when it comes to content on living persons. Another, uninvolved editor, has also weighed in on the dispute at all three articles. Consensus is in favor of removing the contested content until a resolution is reached. I removed that content earlier today, Tenebrae chose to revert it all back in spite of the discussion on each article's talk page. Policy is clear on including names and identifying information on non-notable minor children of article subjects:

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.

Further, I asked Tenebrae to stay off my talk page twice yesterday. He returned to post there twice more and today has posted there again . He was already been warned by an administrator at AN/I about instigating incivility with me along with lack of respect here: He was told to stop. The edit warring behavior and coming back to my talk page today is, in my estimation, a continuation of the behavior he was told to stop. My patience has been tested to the limit by his uncivil, battleground and WP:POKE behavior. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilevi is dissembling. I returned to his talk page only to post a 3RR warning and that I had begin this 3RR action, both of which were required of me to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation; there is no requirement to threaten editors. After being told twice already to stay off my talk page, he should not have returned with anything other than a template or a notification. After I placed warning templates on his talk page, he chose to come to my talk page and threaten to report me. There was no notification at this point that he was planning to or had already done so: "You are the one promulgating an edit-war. If you revert again, you will be at three reverts. If you go over that, I guess we'll need to take this to WP:3RR. Or I could go there now, based on your posts on my talk page saying 3RR can be broken in spirit without going over 3 reverts." His own words give the true story. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. Here are the 3 messages I was required to put on his talk page. Any admin is welcome to see for himself if I was "threatening." I urge one to see for oneself at: , ,

And you can, as well, see his threats to me on my talk page

The "4" reverts he lists includes one that occurred before this 24-hour period. In that case, I'll go and add his own "4th" from yesterday to my report below. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And since he's bringing the discussion of BLP policy here, I suppose I need to defend myself here. We're not talking about private minor children of notable but no-famous people. We are talking about the names of celebrities' minor children whose parents have announced their names to the media ... in some cases on magazine covers ... and which in our footnotes themselves are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through WP:RS newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows. The suggestion that Misplaced Pages is able to or should keep "secret" Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple is absurd. This a valid part of such subjects' biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note for this and below: This dispute started at ANI , but I'm happy to walk away and let AN3 deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours See below for Filer the panda ₯’ 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds about right in both cases, as the AN3 case could have easily been avoided. I left a note on the ANI page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Tenebrae explained here that there was no tit for tat reporting. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 24 hrs)

Josh Dallas: John Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also on Kelly Clarkson and Ginnifer Goodwin
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since User:Winkelvi has come to my talk page repeatedly to threaten me over editing-warring when he has been doing so since June 15 — and also because he has threatened on my talk page — with two exclamation-point signs and one stop sign — that "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Based on his own reasoning and behavior (which has included him telling me repeatedly to "go fuck myself" and similar phrasing), I bring this case here.

Previous version reverted to: Here is the status quo as of June 5: , which he changed on June 15 .

Despite an editor other than myself immediately restoring the status quo , he began edit-warring immediately after that and this edit-warring has continued across Josh Dallas and the other two articles above. All I have tried to do is retain the status quo until consensus says otherwise. There is no consensus yet.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Since Winkelvi is listing things previous to this 24-hour period in his report above, it's only equitable I do the same

1. 16:59, 15 June 2014
2. 04:11, 22 June 2014
3. 15:03, 22 June 2014
4. 17:42, 23 June 2014
5. 20:16, 23 June 2014
6. 20:19, 23 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I provided warning, and he erased it with a highly uncivil edit summary

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

Comments:
During discussions, the article's status quo is supposed to remain and consensus arrived at for any change, especially a contentious one. He insists his interpretation of BLP is the only valid interpretation, and believes that means he's entitled to keep reverting to his preferred version. The issue is contentious since he's removing names of celebrities minor children even though those names have been released to the media by the parents themselves, in some cases on magazines covers, and are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through RS newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows.

I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here through "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Likely a CYA and revenge report (he states, "I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here"). For details on my side of the issue, please see the following diff of my report (listed above this report) here: . -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Defending myself is not "revenge." You were the one returning obsessively to my talk page threatening me with a claim of which you yourself are guilty. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is the most brutally childish tit-for-tat filing ever. See WP:LAME the panda ₯’ 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It's rare that I provide disproportionate blocks ... however, Tenebrae's wording in their edit-summaries were clearly attempting to push the other party into a block, which is unacceptable - obviously also showing that they know exactly what edit-warring is (which of course can happen after a SINGLE edit). Do not communicate in this manner in edit-summaries - ever. WP:BLP did not truly apply in these edits - when it doubt, the editor should a) not edit-war, and b) go to WP:BLPN for assistance the panda ₯’ 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Florian_Blaschke reported by User:Ragdeenorc (Result: 24 hours)

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: Kurgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Florian_Blaschke (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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdeenorc (talk • contribs)

Florian Blaschke has really only reverted three times across multiple edits. I'm seeing no attempt at discussion by you nor warn the editor before you reported him, and it's already been explained to you that the POV you're pushing is undue. Accusing someone of vandalism when it isn't can amount to a personal attack. You seem to be here for only one reason that doesn't particularly seem in line with WP:NPOV, and you also have a precocious edit history.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You are completely running out from the actual thread. I am neither pushing POV nor can my edits be classified as "undue", which I'll try to explain below. Just because Florian says so it doesn't mean his claims are correct. And its not me who is obliged to use the disscusion page, since I am not the one who removed >> sourced << material. Anyway... in fact there are three different cases:

Florian removed RELEVANT etymological elaborations of the scholar Mario Alinei. Since the etymological section can't be a case of "undue", because of the simple reason no alternative etymology EXISTS, it is a clear case of hardcore POV by Florian.

Next, he removed a substantial component of NPOV-relevant material in the section /*/ Kurgan hypothesis /*/, which has always EXISTED at the article. Again, a clear POV case by Florian.

This time he completely removed the entire Etymology section INCLUDING the Sergei Starostin reference. This can't be an "undue" case but only a clear POV case by Florian.

A similar POV case has also happened here, but fortunately prevented by User:Yagmurlukorfez. There are various users who were confronted by Florians stubbornness and his frequent, seemingly harmless fitted, insults such as "Pan-Turkist" or "Paleolithic Continuity Theory™" (1, 2). --Ragdeenorc (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear-cut editing dispute with no attempt to discuss the matter from either party. The content is not exempt from the three-revert rule and no warning was issued by the reporter. — MusikAnimal 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lulaq reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)

Page: State Bar of Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lulaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:30 22 Jun
2. 02:37 24 Jun
3. 03:08 24 Jun
4. 03:47 24 Jun
5. 13:18 24 Jun
6. 14:00 24 Jun

And also reverts at Charles Rangel where the documentation for Template:Infobox officeholder now reads: Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

1. 03:02 24 Jun
2. 13:30 24 Jun
3. 13:49 24 Jun after Lulaq was directed to the template documentation

Notice given at

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:State_Bar_of_Texas concerns such material, as well as a BLP violation which has been removed, the template discussion was widely aired at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting, and had been noted in edit summaries on the Rangel page (Been linked to a change in concensus concerning listing predecessors - await further chats on whether other changes made are ok, etc. as well as asking this editor to read the template documentation per Template:Infobox officeholder -- using "redistricted" instead of random other names, read the template discussion PLEASE before making an edit war here -- the change was fully discussed indeed to which the answer was I don't see ANY discussion on talk. In fact, I don't see ANY discussion on Talk in over 2 years although the template was specifically cited)

Comments:

I rather think managing to simultaneously carry on two edit wars at the same time may show a problem. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response was No, I'm not, but it does seem you're cyberstalking me to revert my edits. Lulaq (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC) and previously What the hell are you talking about? You are the one you is dangerously close to 3RR. I kept your edit, but asked you a question. Quit putting false and harassing warnings only wall per WP:HARASS. Thank you. Lulaq (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)]] Which would take some doing onmy part indeed as Lulaq appears to have actually followed me (The SBOT article was to fix a gross BLP violation mentioned at WP:BLP/N, and Rangel was not edited by Lulaq ever before this!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

−

Some of the edits cited are not reverts, but rather refinements. I have accepted correction on a lot of my edits and actually stripped out most of my original contributions. Other third editors are editing, while Collect is reverting and doing major section blanking. Self reverting my edits are not an option at this point, otherwise I would, because other third party editors seem to have accepted these refinements. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue has been corrected, but that is not stopping Collect from harassing me. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits 29, 30, and 31 are not reverts but rather my attempt at refinement, which seem to have been accepted. I don't know why Collect is hell bent on multiple section blanks. Again, I can't revert my refinements at this time even as an olive branch without harming the article. While I initially made an UNINTENTIONAL BLP error, I corrected this as soon as I was pointed to policy a couple of days ago. This hasn't stopped Collect from holding a grudge. Lulaq (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the "error" which you repeated? Meanwhile I have a total of 6 edits at SBOT (3 in a row, 2 in a row, and a single edit), while you appear to have 25 edits; I have a total of 4 edits on Rangel, while you have 6 in under a half a day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NPAplease. As you were the one who followed me you charge of "harassment" is a teensy bit weak. And I trust you now note the "infobox officeholder" documentation is directly applicable to the Rangel BLP. BTW, "refinements" can absolutely still be "reverts" in case you failed to read the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're following good faith Collect. I refined a great MAJORITY of what I wrote, which is totally contrary to what you are attempting to imply here. I told you to discuss the specifics of the Charlie Rangel article on his talk page. This article is relevant to me since I live very close to his district. Lulaq (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're upset that your section blanking edits were not accepted. I've felt the same way too, but I can't do anything about this now without harming the project. All controversial edits I made a couple days ago inadvertently were removed well before today, though initially I was visibly upset over it. Lulaq (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the fully unsourced section? As in -- you feel that the silly Misplaced Pages rule about using sources does not apply? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, please quit personally attacking me here. It seems you are still holding a grudge over an edit 2 days ago that has since been corrected and I'm not still disputing. You clearly have a vendetta against me and sound very personally pissed off at me quite frankly. Lulaq (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please refer to Collect's talk page on his Charlie Rangel edits. Lulaq (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep -- where I was thanked for showing another editor the wording at the infobox officeholder page -- seems pretty clear from here. Pray tell though how my "vendetta" managed to force you to suddenly edit on the Rangel page which you had previously not edited? Collect (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ashumech527 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Ashumech527 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
2. 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
3. 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
4. 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Bhuimar. (TW)"
2. 09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ ce"
3. 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bhumihar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not technically 3RR in 24 hours, but has been reverted by 3 editors before I just reverted and several warnings, all ignored. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Particularly disruptive to revert again after the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

User:82.132.234.244 reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614253216 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
2. 17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614252402 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
3. 17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251794 by NeilN (talk)"
4. 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251161 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614250817 by NeilN (talk)"
6. 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614204460 by Mdann52 (talk) cant delete previous discussions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned on previous account/IPs about EW. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. If they jump IPs, semi-protection will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Favonian: FYI, they are a know sock on a dynamic IP. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) "(Makedonovlah moved page Aromanians to ALIENS 1: WE DONT FIND OURSELVES GUILTY. KLAPIDAS THE WIKI ROMANIAN STARTED. WE ARENT A PEOPLE. ONLY A SHADOW.)"
2. 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "at[REDACTED] doesn't matter the ethnicity but every contributor have the right to play with every strange article? Without consult those of whom the article belongs? If in a big news paper someone says The Romanian Language doesnt exist, we can add this?"
3. 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Mister Plakidas, if you are greek as you pretend, must have respect for our name and values but you dont and you are not greek. Take care our wiki page. It's yours, whoever you are!! Congrats!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Edit warring on Mina Minovici
• Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gheorghe Hagi
• Warning: Edit warring on Cristian Gațu

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Makedonovlah has been edit-warring across many Aromanian-related articles. His latest foray is in the Aromanians article where he is edit-warring since at least 31 May converting their origins and changing their onomatology without supplying sources. He has already been blocked twice, the first time for disruption, the second for edit-warring. I have tried to explain to him through warnings and other messages that what he is doing is disruptive but to no avail. This report is technically not a violation of 3RR in 24 hours but it should be taken together with this user's large-scale disruption and long-term edit-warring. Δρ.Κ.  22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Now he has resorted to vandalism again: Moved Aromanian language to ALIENS. (On 31 May he moved the article on Greeks to Greeks (Ancient Dacians)). Δρ.Κ.  02:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Two weeks. His recent article moves appear to be vandalism. He seems to be very disappointed that Misplaced Pages isn't sympathetic to his POV about the Aromanians. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to think that his background should be taken into consideration when editing this type of articles and he has proven very difficult to persuade otherwise. It is a difficult situation. Δρ.Κ.  04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:I.Bhardwaj reported by User:Faizan and User:Smsarmad (Result: Both articles locked)

Page

Economy of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

I.Bhardwaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 614280140 by I.Bhardwaj (talk): Reverting vandalism by IP. (TW)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) to 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "please see the link"
   2. 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Added {{original research}} tag to article (TW)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) to 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "link says "40 per cent of population is below poverty line", this is latest 2013 figure, List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty has outdated figures"
   2. 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "revenue figure is Rs 1939bn in 2013"
   3. 20:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "labor force is 59.74 million according to Labor Force Survey by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics."
   4. 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "occupations by sectors according labor force survey of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics"
   5. 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Added {{original research}} tag to article (TW)"
   6. 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "citation needed tags"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   5. 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "latest figure for labor force"
   6. 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "occupations by sector"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring with multiple editors at the article, he is a suspected sock of User:Sudhir7777. Filing an SPA too. Edit-warring and source misrepresentation. Faizan 06:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note Part of the edit warring is with an IP that another administrator has blocked for disruptive editing. Indeed, you reverted an edit that the administrator had just reverted before you, meaning you reverted the admin. As far as I can tell, the editing on the article is a nightmare. Please also see my comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Page: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I.Bhardwaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22 October 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18 May 2014
2. 10 June 2014
3. 11 June 2014
4. 19 June 2014
5. 23 June 2014
6. 24 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning

Comments:
Repeatedly trying to add the same content. Earlier the user edit warred to add a slightly different version of it (1, 2, 3). -- SMS 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• and why you only reported me? There was Mar4d who reverted me calling the source editorial which is actually a comprehensive report from a reliable source, diffs , . I was also reverted by his sock IPs, see the history. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Both articles have been Page protected (full) for one week. During that week, I suggest the parties resolve the content dispute. If someone thinks this is a behavioral issue, then, depending on the relief sought, WP:ANI or WP:AN would be a more appropriate venue than here. As for the sock puppet issue, the report filed against I.Bhardwaj has been closed with a finding that they are not a sock puppet of Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sky0000 reported by User:Chema (Result: Blocked; warned)

Page: El Rostro de la Venganza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Corazón Valiente (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: En Otra Piel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Rosa Diamante (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I need an administrator to do something about this user; he spends a constant edit wars. I already have explained in a thousand ways and this user does not seem interested in anything. Items En Otra Piel and La Impostora were protected because of this user, all it does is add primary and information sources without references, apart from irrelevant information.--Chema (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2

Comments:

He hasn't explained me anything, he just undoes all my edits without no reason, I have told him a lot of times, that Misplaced Pages's not for him it's for everyone. He just wants , that people would not get more information about cast. My edits are necessary, because of person, who doesn't understand, why he/she died in telenovela and can't watch telenovela from internet, he wants to know and then he can use Misplaced Pages. Please, that person doesn't fight only with me, he had also war in article Lo Que La Vida Me Robo. He harms Misplaced Pages. I hope you understand me. Sky0000 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just enough to see discussion, Where I have left several messages. I explained that their issues are irrelevant; if someone wants to know how the characters die you see the soap opera that was created for that. This user and was previously blocked by the same.--Chema (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at behavior of Chema. He has been also blocked for editing this information. I talk about , when he didn't see an episode, where was death, and he can't watch it from internet. Then he sees Misplaced Pages. Chema is perhaps scared of deaths and because of it, he says it's irrelevant information. I hope you understand, that he harms Misplaced Pages. Sky0000 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked Sky0000 for one month for sock puppetry and his puppet, User:Bbbbb000, indefinitely. That said, Chema, you have been blocked recently for edit warring. The way you are going about this is inappropriate. I'm not sure if you suspected sock puppetry, but you don't appear to claim it as an exemption from edit warring. You are warned that if you persist in battling in articles rather than engaging in content dispute resolution or to an appropriate venue for behavioral issues, you risk being blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Football squad player/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SMcCandlish made several changes to this template documentation earlier today, some of which was controversial (it relates to a long-standing dispute at WT:MOSICON that has no clear consensus). I reverted some of the changes because I felt that they were not NPOV and others because they were wrong (i.e. claiming that the standard template usage was deprecated, which has not been agreed anywhere). SMcCandlish then reinstated his preferred version. I again removed the controversial elements, and asked him to respect WP:BRD. He reverted again, as did I, and again requested that he respect BRD.

SMcCandlish has since added his preferred text for a fourth time, and basically stuck two fingers up to me by saying You've hit WP:3RR in his edit summary. The edit summary also states "BRD is not policy." I really don't feel that this is acceptable behaviour, and would appreciate some neutral oversight of what has gone on. Thanks, Number 57 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Warned both editors. Need to discuss this on the template's talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: Thing is, we're not both simply editwarring. I'm making policy-based edits, someone else is reverting them and doing nothing constructive, nothing conductive to compromise, just taking a WP:OWN position, and I'm restoring my material and (this is the important part), then majorly re-editing it to try to address the other party's concerns (to the limited extent they make sense). I've fully justified what I'm doing, in detail here, Number 57 is putting up objections I've already shown to be demonstrably false on their face. That's the D in BRD. Running to ANEW to WP:FILIBUSTER any further progress is an abuse of process. Nothing useful is going to come out of re-forking the discussion to the template talk page, when the only issue in question is actually the application of MOS:ICONS to football articles more broadly, whether via this template or not. The proper venue for that discussion is the one already being used, WT:MOSICONS.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I think both of you have something to add to this conversation (noting that, at least for myself, this is something merits-wise not something I'm familiar with). I've taken note of your diffs above, SMcCandlish. I think it'd be prudent for both of you to take a breather from this page for now. I think we can all agree that in the broad spectrum of disputes on WP, this is pretty lame. At the moment, I don't have the time to go through the entire history of this issue to work it out, but I'd be more than happy to work with you two on--at the very least--trying to get a common understanding of what's going on. At the core of most disputes, as it seems with this one, is a failure to agree on past consensus (if there was one) or process. I'm a member of the Mediation Committee so I have some experience with that if you think that'd be worthwhile. Cause, whatever the case, seeing these fast-paced reverts isn't going to be productive at the current rate. Fair? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure; some neutral mediation would be helpful. To get up to speed on this without reading 50,000 words, it's very instructive to read the two short archive pages and the MOS:ICONS debates they relate to. What this shows is a crystal-clear pattern of some fractional minority of WP:FOOTY participants not being happy with MOS:ICONS (ever), and filibustering all attempts to get this template to comply with it. It also handily summarizes at least 3 years of repeated (cf. WP:FORUMSHOP) attempts by them, at great lengths, to get MOS:ICONS changed to reflect what they want, none of which have been successful. The archives also link to various debates from WT:FOOTY and its archives that demonstrate the same pattern - years of attempts to comply with MOS:ICONS, and handful of tendentious editors blockading this process again and again. No other sport wikiproject's participants evince anything like this level of recalcitrance.

MOS:ICONS has not changed in the least on bad ideas like misusing icons to indicate misc., unclear things, like what country someone was born in, what country their last team was in, what country they reside in, what country they're a citizen of, etc., or using them them even when they're redundant (e.g. putting an Argentina flag in front of every player name in every use of this template in an article about a sub-national team from Argentina, when we already know everyone on every team in the article is on an Argentine team). The archives show that various WP:FOOTY participants (among others - this is not, or should not be, about "what a wikiproject wants" – it is not a hive mind) have been working for several years in good faith to comply with MOS:ICONS and have simply been blocked at every turn by the holdouts, so much that they have to create multiple content-forked alternative templates to work around the filibusterers (Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 2#Flags mentions at least two such forks, which are still in use). Part of my goal here is to massage these templates toward merging (not just the association football ones). It's notable that not a single code change I've made has been reverted or even questioned. Number 57 and his lone (now back-peddaling) supporte at the WT:MOSICONS sub-thread about this simply don't want me to talk about MOS:ICONS in the documentation. Last I looked, WP doesn't operate on any sort of hush-hush policy.

The ultimate source of the disagreement coming from a handful of association football editors (note: pretty much no one else, and not all editors of that topic) is that they note that some off-WP sources use flag icons completely indiscriminately, so their idea is that WP "must" do so too. Their side of the very long debate at the top of WT:MOSICONS consists of little but variants of this theme, repeated like a broken record. It's a terrible misapprehension of the "follow the sources" idea, mistaking off-WP stylistic shenanigans for something akin to reliable sourcing of facts about a topic; it's the WP:Specialist style fallacy. WP does what WP needs to do for itself stylistically, via WP:MOS and subpages thereof, based on broad (not inconsistent, subject-by-subject) consensus about what works best here for our readers. Our collective decision-making in this regard are not tied to what topical sources like soccer fansites and football magazines are doing with flag icons.

Here's a key quote, from a football/soccer editor, at Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG (23 July 2010):

iscussion on the rights and wrongs of whether we should have flags, and if so, whether they should be expanded, has been going on for years at WT:FOOTY. The consensus has always been that we must represent nationality somehow. Apart from those whose attitude is "to hell with flag policy", there was also broad acknowledgement that ideally we needed to try to address the problem of non-MoS compliance. Therefore, that is exactly what we have tried to do here. There was no need to consult WP:FOOTY again; the correct process was to find a solution, see if it worked, and then discuss the way forward if for some reason it didn't.

This is important for three reasons: 1) It's shows that progress with guideline compliance has been blocked at this template alone for almost four years, and more broadly at this project for several more years before that. Resolution of this is very long overdue, perhaps even WP:RFARB-overdue. 2) Some members of the wikiproject consider that project itself to be forging its own consensus to always use flag icons, no matter what, despite the fact that we have a site-wide guideline to definitely not do that, obeyed by everyone else; this is an undeniable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem. A participant in that project is clearly observing that others at it have a "to hell with flag " attitude. 3) Even back in 2010, opponents of MOS compliance were using precisely the same "you haven't discussed this with WP:FOOTY and gotten our consensus to proceed" tactic. That 2010 quote from a WP:FOOTY editor trying to do the right thing is correct: "There no need to consult WP:FOOTY again." We have a well-accepted, stable guideline (which its straggling detractors have failed to rend apart), we have obvious ways to improve the code and its documentation, and we have everyone's buy-in but (today) two editors (presumably a few more might pop up from previous versions of this debate if they were prodded to do so).

Disclaimer: I'm one of the principal authors of WP:Manual of Style/Icons, and I've previously tangled with WP:FOOTY participants over MOS compliance, but not at this template, and not in any depth over flag icons. Much of the non-article editing I do is finding where wikiprojects are violating LOCALCONSENSUS policy to push anti-MOS positions and behaviors, and then I work to unravel those knots of discord. This prolonged period of insular, organized "wiki-insurrection" needs to draw to a close. These disputes are only WP:LAME in their particular, minute details. Taken as a whole, they represent an ongoing tide of erosion against Misplaced Pages's unique form of consensus-building, a pressure applied largely unconsciously by topically-based special interests in the form of wikiprojects, frequently more concerned with mimicking offline publications in every possible way on WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT bases, than writing the encyclopedia in the ways we collectively determine best serve our ultra-broad readership.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

76.99.126.199 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semi)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.99.126.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (and other IPs)

Previous version reverted to: 23 June 04:17 (first rv.); (subsequent rvs)

Reverts:

1. 24 June 14:20
2. 24 June 19:13
3. 25 June 11:38
4. 25 June 13:09
5. 25 June 14:53

Warning:

Attempt at discussion:

Comments:

The three IPs, 76.99.126.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 157.130.51.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 208.80.105.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are evidently the same user; all resolve to the same geolocation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Indefinite semiprotection. The problem is long term socking plus warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. Editing of this article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Behold the vastness of the existing protection log. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:82.8.252.13 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Various.
User being reported: MarnetteD (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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Preston_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614381851
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ben_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=614381935
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Delta_Burke&diff=prev&oldid=614382133
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rod_Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=614382180
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosemary_Harris&diff=prev&oldid=614382370
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Kiley&diff=prev&oldid=614382512
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andrew_Stevens&diff=prev&oldid=614382441
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rex_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=614382576
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brian_Kerwin&diff=prev&oldid=614382631
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Payne_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614382672
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charles_Frank&diff=prev&oldid=614382714
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Billy_Drago&diff=prev&oldid=614382784
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darleen_Carr&diff=prev&oldid=614383485
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Philip_Carey&diff=prev&oldid=614383399
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Charles_Napier_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614383342
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=William_Smith_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614383307
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Reid_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=614383137
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tony_Becker&diff=prev&oldid=614383018
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stacey_Nelkin&diff=prev&oldid=614382965
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brett_Cullen&diff=prev&oldid=614382918
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bruce_Boxleitner&diff=prev&oldid=614382878
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anthony_Zerbe&diff=prev&oldid=614382824
• et al.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=613180701, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=614351222 and Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Question_regarding_categories

Comments:
MarnetteD has chosen to ignore the discussion, enforcing their own point of views with over four reverts in some instances. Tried to gain consensus to remove the category, failed, but has proceeded to enforce their own POV regardless. Editor has a history of 3RR, but in this case has crossed the line by inventing consensus, abusing a block time, and now claiming "BRD". In short, tendentious/battlefield editor who needs a smack on the wrist and told to avoid WP:OWN as well as a disregard for IP-editors, WP:BITE, not conforming to WP:CONSENSUS and inventive revert claims. Editor failed to address the comments raised at the CFD page or my IP talk page, despite admin involvement. Has a bullyish attitude, low-tolerance for IPs and fantastical interpretation of guidelines as "strict policy" in an anti-WP:BURO style manner. As a result of his inability to holster this attitude his reverts and proving disruptive, made with an authoritativeness unwelcome in a collaborative environment, lacks civil graces, and despite WP:IAR being raised to make efforts, this editor clearly wants to "champion" the articles he watches and prevent anyone doing anything against his personal ideals. Further to the point, editor has never made any attempts to confirm that there are no sources, as he claims, and has made reverts blindly, disrespecting the efforts made, ignoring all common sense. Looking back through theie edit history we can see a massive amount of reverts made by this editor, often with weak reasoning. This editor lacks collaborative sense and is highly motivated by ownership, which affects anyone trying to better a wide selection of articles which bear his scrutiny. No editor has the right to mass-revert another editor's contributions and "warn" them with uncivil gestures, and ignore them, it is the height of pig-ignorance, and prevents anyone getting anything done respectably. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarnetteD

Quoting from Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Articles

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

The IP has, from the beginning refused to acknowledge this. The conversation continued for awhile and got heated. The IP then launched into a series of unfounded "Personal attacks" and accusations so I disengaged from their talk page and opened a discussion that wound up here Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Question regarding categories. The discussion there was sidetracked into what to do with the cat and my main point was not addressed. Neither was the cat given full approval to be added "ad hominum" to the article for any actor who had appeared in a TV western, thus, there was no "consensus." It should be noted that a) I did not take the category to CFD and b) I did not remove it from actors that had sourced info that the western TV genre was a defining part of their career. The fact that this report contains yet another personal attack is not surprising. Nor is the lack of proof of any "ownership" on any of the articles involved. Yes, reverting vandalism means that any editors editing history will contain reverts. I also have a large number of edits designed to improve articles, but that is a matter for an RFC/U and not for answering the accusations posted here.

One last thing. Ignoring this concepts regarding categories was the chief problem that got User:CensoredScribe blocked. Note: I am not saying that the IP is CS. He/she is not that editor. Nor am I asking that this IP be blocked, in spite of the personal attacks, I am mentioning the CS situation as my experience of the guidelines and policies used there lead me to understand that they apply here. MarnetteD|Talk 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Since when does anyone "need approval" to do anything which contributes to the project? - unnecessary WP:BURO claim.

You removed Eric Fleming from the cat. Clearly you don't know what you're doing if his career is "not defined by Western TV acting" - laughed my ass off at how bad that revert was.

You've also removed John Payne (actor). - Funny that, the lead makes reference to his career in Western TV. Your link to WP:DEFINING states that something in the lead is worth of being a category. Like Fleming, you simply removed because you prefer throwing blind punches than knowing where you're hitting. Evidence that you're being tendentious, not logical.

You failed to gain consensus to remove actors names from the cat, CFD acting as a fom of BRD. Yet you went ahead and removed them anyway, and are using "personal attacks" as a diversionary tactic here to sidetrack that point, that you invented consensus in bad faith, manipulated a block period, misquote guidelines as "policy" and have reverted close to breaching WP:3RR. It's all about your POV and not about anything being discussed.

"Chief concepts" are simply those, concepts, not strict policy, not WP:5P, guidelines. You've removed cats that have tertiary sources leaving no sourcing. It's not a NPOV.

You appear to have cherry-picked who to remove from the cat. Again, POV reverts done without due care. Mistakes have been made in that you have failed to address. I am reluctant to "BRD" with you because it's all "me, me, me" and no give and take.

82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, with this post, that the IP has expressed an intention to "sock" edits in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, no it didn't, it expressed nothing of the sort, it simply stated that "I could sock if I wanted to" it doesn't prove that I do, have or will. Shouldn't put words into people's mouths, it has a habit of coming back and biting you on the ass. Misinterpretation is also your problem when it comes to policy, so don't start with complex people until you grasp the basics of wiki. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not seeing where the violation of 3RR allegedly took place? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Because this page does not state that it is only for 3RR reports. It says: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." MarnetteD is an edit warrior who falsifies consensus in order to perform his reverts, which is why there is a problem here. 3RR is easy to evidence, but an editor who manipulates consensus and policy to achieve their own ends needs investigating because they are a threat to the collaborative process. He keeps moving the goal posts to suit his own POV, changing his tune several times whereas I've maintained one line of reasoning all along. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether that's the case or not, a violation of 3RR requires more than 3 reverts. Do you have links to more than three reverts on the same page? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just explained it to you in plain English, what else do you want? I'm not reporting a case of 3RR violation, the top infobox doesn't say this ANI is "only for 3RR violations", I'm reporting it as "edit warring" which is also in its remit. If you're going to respond to this case please at least look at the purpose this page has and don't subject it to something it is not exclusively designed for. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for personal attacks or harassment by Diannaa.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:108.64.172.207 reported by User:ProgGuy (Result: Protected)

Page: Mr. Bungle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.64.172.207 (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:

An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding "death metal" to the article Mr. Bungle despite it being unsourced. Repeated warnings have gone ignored and no attempt has been made to justify these edits. ProgGuy (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this edit war for several days now and want to say that I believe ProgGuy is equally, if not more at fault than 108.64.172.207. For four years, "death metal" has been listed as a genre in this band's infobox based on one of the many styles the band does perform. Recently, ProgGuy decided that he did not want that there and not only removed it but added genres that he decided on himself, without any talk page discussion. None of the existing or added genres were sourced within the infobox itself. However, death metal has been sourced as one of the styles the band played in the "Styles and Influences" section of the page. Ska punk, frequently added by ProgGuy, however, has not. When ProgGuy decided to place a warning on 108.64.172.207's talk page, I made mention of these facts and suggested talking about genres on the band's talk page instead of making the decision himself. For that, I was accused by ProgGuy as being the coward behind the death metal changes. I can assure you that I am not. If an admin wants to do an IP check on me, by all means please do. In fact, he is also accusing other articles, such as the Mudvayne talk page, of being the anonymous account "vandalizing" the Mr. Bungle article. I just find ProgGuy to be very hypocritical in this situation and it needs to be addressed. In my opinion, BOTH users need to handle this better and discuss it with the many other users who edit the page. Accusations of vandalism against a user who is just maintaining information that has been accepted and sourced for at least 4 years is unjust. Additionally, the uncivil approach via unfounded accusations is not appreciated either. Thanks, NJZombie (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi'd for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring