Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 27 August 2014

Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value).

• 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:Hoops_gza reported by User:24.98.52.106 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scottie_Pippen&oldid=621659950

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622495502&oldid=622494959
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622522918&oldid=622517781
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622531175&oldid=622527625

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hoops_gza&oldid=622527477#Scottie_Pippen_.282.29

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hoops_gza&oldid=622527477#Scottie_Pippen_.282.29 See also edit comments where I implore him to talk to me, but he just refused to do so because he is an unreasonable person and a bad editor.

Comments: He has to be stopped! I really don't know what to do. I was looking up some information on Scottie Pippen and noticed that it mentioned in the lead paragraphs that he was in some lists on Bleacher Report. It's been a long time since I've been a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages, but even I know that Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, because it is user-generated content. Being number one on some list on Bleacher Report is no more significant than being number one on someone's Tumblr or Facebook page. So I removed it, mentioning in the summary that I was removing references to Bleacher Report.

Without comment, Hoops-whatever reverted me! Being a responsible user, I looked through his history, and notice that a lot of his edits are reverting vandalism on sports-related articles, and, assuming good faith, like a good Wikipedian, I left a helpful notice on his talk page, informing him of the reason I made my change and requested that he discuss the issue with me if there was something objectionable about my edit. I then reapplied my edit.

But then he reverted me again, without comment: nothing in the summary, nothing on my talk page, and he also reverted my edit to his talk page; the one where I asked him to discuss the change with me if he had a problem with it!

Assuming good faith only goes so far; it is clear that we are dealing with a malicious user, and so I warned him that if he reverted the page again without discussing it with me, he would be reported. But now he's done so. I really am a martyr for putting up with this type of behavior. It's why I left Misplaced Pages all those years ago.

It's not my place to tell you what to do. That said, considering he's been around for a long time, and has been blocked for edit warring twice before (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHoops+gza), there doesn't seem to be any reasonable thing to do other than ban him forever.

Thank you and have a nice day.

24.98.52.106 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP that reported this has continuously removed sourced content from an article despite several warnings to stop their behavior. Their claim for doing so is apparently that one of the (three) sources is an unreliable source. However, there appears to be no reason of why it would be an unreliable source. I'm afraid that this IP is simply wasting admins' time. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone claims the source isn't reliable, you need to prove that it is (or that the RSN has already dealt with it) before re-adding the panda ₯’ 00:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When I reverted the IP's edits, I was under the impression that they had removed significant content that had multiple sources. Now I see that they in fact removed one source which the editor felt was questionable. However, it was difficult to assume good faith based upon their edit summary. How are we supposed to prove that a particular website is reliable? - Hoops gza (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that their behaviour wasn't great, but that's being dealt with separately (see WP:NOTTHEM).

If you are in a disagreement about article content, the first thing you do is, stop editing it.

It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong"; edit-warring does not help the encyclopaedia. Whether they're adding or removing... unless it is something truly awful (such as an attack on a person, or really clear vandalism), then it really doesn't matter if the article is "wrong" for a few days.

Then you can discuss it on the article talk-page. If you can't agree, get more opinions. In this case, you could ask on WP:RSN about the source - but it's best to get several people commenting on the talk page. You could ask more peple on the project pages listed on the talk too - WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Basketball, WikiProject Olympics, etc.

Once there is a pretty clear consensus, then the article could be changed - and after that, if the other person still refuses, then there's a clear place showing what was agreed (on the talk page), so their edits would be disruptive and that can be dealt with. 88.104.23.102 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Or look at it this way: you said they "continuously removed sourced content". They wouldn't have been able to continuously remove it unless you had continuously re-added it :-) 88.104.23.102 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they had removed significant content that had multiple sources. Now I see that they in fact removed one source which the editor felt was questionable. - I find this comment telling. You admit here that you reverted my changes and had me blocked without even looking at my revision. How do you justify such irresponsibility? 24.98.52.106 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was in the wrong for reverting your edits on Scottie Pippen, it was an honest mistake. I am sorry. This is not the place to discuss the reasons for your block. You did several things wrong with your edits, which have been discussed on your talk page. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:24.102.148.42 reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: )

Page

Rafael dos Anjos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
2. 16:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
3. 06:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622566516 by Chosen Um (talk)"
4. 06:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622563919 by Vig2013 (talk)"
5. 05:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622563551 by Vig2013 (talk)"
6. 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622563430 by Vig2013 (talk)"
7. 05:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
8. 05:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622562953 by Vig2013 (talk)"
9. 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622562725 by Vig2013 (talk)"
10. 05:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622562525 by Vig2013 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rafael dos Anjos ‎ . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor has been changing the results of various MMA fighters to match what they think happened. The Misplaced Pages MMA project has reached consensus several times that we are to use the external site Sherdog as the official record for what happened. This IP knows this and has argued against it in the past. Now the editor is taking things into their own hands and inserting their own interpretations of events instead of discussing them. Looking through their recent contributions you can see a very clear pattern of edit warring. They were warned and made the same edits after that warning. SQGibbon (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lifeontech reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Decline)

Page: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lifeontech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Original edit:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

These are just straight up POV pushing, original research edits and a 3RR violation. This is also obviously a sleeper sock, most likely of User:L'Aquotique (when I have a a few minutes I might file an SPI)

Comments:

1. No tree reversions of content were made thus no violation of WP:3RR I reckon.
2. My account is no sleeper: generally I contribute financially not editorially.
3. Previous page versions referred to biased or single POV sources of information or based of unconfirmed data. No alternative sources were represented which led to violation of WP:POV

Lifeontech (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Lifeontech (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Warned for edit warring and with a discretionary sanctions alert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cold Season reported by User:Elfie99 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)

Page: Han chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cold Season (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621926069 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622558910 ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. From https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621443903 to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621926069
2. From https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620341275 to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620343368
3. From https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622554027 reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622558910
4. From https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620347276 to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620420147

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I hope that he or she will be blocked permanently

• Blocked Reporting editor... Obvious sock. Wifione 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TheFallenCrowd reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Inserted referenced material"
2. 07:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "This has to do with the sentence given to two other people, and is irrelevant to the allegation made by the SPLC against Kemp. The sentences handed out to other people belong in their Wiki entries, which already exist."
3. 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "This is allegedly evidence led pertaining to other people in the court case, namely the sentence passed on Derby-Lewis and Walusz, and has nothing to do with Kemp."
4. 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC) "Deleted details irrelevant to subject. Hani court proceedings must be in separate article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arthur Kemp. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long time edit warrior on this article. In the end the only solution may be a topic ban, although so far they have managed not to be blocked. See and at another article a report here.Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments: The latest insertions in this article detail the sentencing of Clive Derby-Lewis and Janusz Walus to life imprisonment for the assassination of Chris Hani. These facts are already covered in the Wiki entries on all three those individuals, and have nothing at all to do with Arthur Kemp as a subject. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what has been repeatedly deleted: "Kemp gave evidence against Clive Derby-Lewis and his wife saying they admitted to involvement during a lunch the three had together two days after Hani's death. Clive Derby-Lewis and the actual assassin, Janusz Walus, were found guilty and sentenced to death (both death sentences were later commuted to life), while Gaye Derby-Lewis was acquitted." Details about Kemp's testimony which are clearly relevant. Not that it matters, 3RR is 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And just deleted again by 86.150.239.54 (talk · contribs)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Two kinds of pork reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Lede

Comments:
Offered the option to self-revert and avoid this report, to no avail. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am not advocating for a block, as the user is making good contributions, but I believe a strong warning is needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to discuss edits with Cwobeel have been repeatedly ignored. Between 3 other editors (myself included) agreement on the text has been apparently found. I grow weary of these games. Note, I did not make the last edit to this section. Someone else did and I thanked them for it as well as discussed their lat change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyrnych (talk · contribs), NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs) and myself have rejected your edit, but you continue reverting to your preferred version. That is called edit warring and it is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to remove this report, if you can make a public statement here that you will allow consensus to emerge without resorting to reverting multiple times to your preferred version. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You want a statement out of me? I'll make such a statement provided you publicly agree to respond to (reasonable) questions directly addressed to you. You can't say "i object to this edit" and then refuse to respond. I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything, but not with myself!!! It's BRD, not bold, revert, ignore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

Look, I am trying to be reasonable here. I and others engaged with you in talk to no avail, but you continued edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You did not engage, you simply refused to respond. Repeatedly. The rest of us did discuss. I find it outrageous that you bring a complaint against me when your behavior is what precipitated the problem. I'm done here. Should this happen again, I will meticulously document blunt refusals to discuss.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course I engaged in talk. See Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Lede, and Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Lead expansion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite selective memory. Case in point. You objected to text as being "original research". And at least 3 (frankly more, but I'm not spending the time to look them up) requests to explain why it was original research, you failed to do so. I even used the notify system, so you were certainly aware that I was asking for an explanation. Ok, let's move on to today. Both myself and @Bob K31416: commented on your response disagreeing with your position. I asked you directly to elaborate. You chose once again to address other matters and not give the courtesy of a reply. I asked Bob on his talk page about what text he would suggest, and he answered. I implemented the text. @Dyrnych: had an objection with part of the text and changed it. He explained his rationale on the talk page, and I agreed with him. Seems to me is that is how discussion is supposed to work. One side talks, the other responds. Try and do better the next time please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your belief that I did not respond fast enough, it is not an excuse for breaching 3RR. I have refactored my comment above about not suggesting a block, as it seems that you don't want to assume any responsibility for your edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fast enough? You ignored before. You were notified. You chose to work on new sections. You still didn't respond. Your stated intent was "this is the best we can do" and frankly showed no interest in moving forward to assist with a consensus. You still haven't responded. Guess what, my "preferred version" was changed. Have I edit warred that? No! Because guess what, someone actually communicated. So you want a public statement? Next time, I won't edit war. I'll do what's required and then when I've documented your behavior of failing to discuss and gamesmanship, I'll bring it to whatever noticeboard is required. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for committing not to edit war in the future. To reviewing admin: You could close this without further action. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To reviewing admin: Please consider admonishing Cowbeel for failing to follow BRD.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: "clean hands" is an interesting precept. Warn them both. 5RR by my count on Cwobeel, alas. Collect (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel posted to me -- only 2 of the five are absolute reverts, three may be, depending on the admin looking at them, as they refer to content from more than one edit or so back. Collect (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I'm a "reviewing admin", not that I've reviewed the article, just the discussion here. I'd like to propose a new way of closing one of these reports. I can put "Confusing" in the result. Or perhaps "Bickering"?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: May be bickering, confusing, or both, but user “Two kinds of pork” is continuing his trend. Three more reverts in the span of a couple of hours, not a good way to start the day: , , - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm implementing the non BLP version suggested at BLPN, as well as removing some POV edits. I don't see you reverting them, nor even asking me to discuss them. I note you are not Inlcuding other "reverts" to the article that I made which include tightening content, matching sources etc. If there is something you object too, please mention it at the appropriate page because I don't watch this one.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And I want to object to the diffs presented. The caption was a BLP violation. The third edit, please? Improving the prose is edit warring? The content/tone remained the same. I'm not allowed to make more than 3 edits per day? Clearly this is not the intent. If reverted, I'll either fix the problem if requested, as Cowbeel did in this case, or talk on the page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors have apparently expanded their edit war to 2014 Ferguson unrest and have both been warned. I don't advocate a block, but they do need an official final warning.- MrX 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked. I blocked Cwobeel for 48 hours (one block for 3RR before) and Two kinds of pork for 24 hours (clean block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:188.29.165.48 reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Edits to original creators request."
2. 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "We have a problem. Google it, and shall attain the correct name is Hadzhi Dimitrovo."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC) to 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Previous edits reported to Wiki. Leave this page alone idiot. Source data is incorrect."
4. 13:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Hadzhidimitrovo edited Hadzhi Dimitrivo, of is the correct name of the village."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "name spelling"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:79.65.56.4 reported by User:AntiCauliflower92 (Result: Blocked)

Page: National British Resistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.65.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622723464

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622756889

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622792068

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:79.65.56.4

Other editor's have warned this user about their actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:79.65.56.4

Comments: The editor is believed to be the "leader" of the group the page is about, and has repeatedly edited the page in contravention of Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy. They have also removed factual content that has citations. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)AntiCauliflower92

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The IP is dynamic, so the lengthy block may be an exercise in futility. There is also the account that created the article. There may be further problems on the article or the AfD. If so, please let me know. One option is semi-protection. If I'm not on-wiki, ask another administrator for protection or go to WP:RFPP. You can always link to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: )

Page

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */"
2. 03:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */"
3. 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This edit and this one hedge and downplay a journalistic source, while reverting my removal of self-published sources.
• This edit cites at length one side in this whole controversy: inline, it implies factual reporting while the actual quote is one by a religious leader. No inline attribution, as the user did do with the Hindustan Times.
• Also, the previously cited edit restores a piece of text that the editor has instated on multiple occasions to various pages, stating that court proceedings "reflect" a certain fact, while (as Rukn950 explains here), it actually reflects only the words of a lawyer for one of both parties.

These edits follow a disruptive pattern of editing to various pages relating to this controversy, showing an indifference to the reliability and neutrality of sources. The edits themselves are relatively minor, but they follow the re-posting to Mufaddal Saifuddin of extensive "evidence" for one of the viewpoints in the Dawoodi Bohra succession crisis, using a clearly partisan source, in fact labeled by Md iet himself as {{unreliable source}}.

The importance of inline attribution of partisan sources has been explained to the user on this talk page; I cited this as a this a resolution initiative, even though it pertains to the more general problem rather this specific incident. Reliable sourcing policy has been explained to the editor multiple times before, including on this occasion by Anupmehra (Ctrl+F "Try again"). An earlier report led to no action. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply:

Dear Admin,

Please have a look at the subject article of 25th Aug ],

‘The rift between the two claimants started to appear even before the death of Burhanuddin, with followers of Qutbuddin forming a separate sect called the Qutbi Bohras’ is a general statement put on Wiki, whereas as source indicate it as a remote statement of a undisclosed person (‘Mohammad Hasan (name changed), .. having..discussions .. over the past six months on joining a .. group ..’) that too reported as rumour(‘Rumours are rife’) . How can it be called a neutral statement.

The wiki further state that ‘a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was still in the state of full stroke’ ,whereas reports referred indicate : ‘he was unable to utter a word’ and ‘admitted to a hospital after a mild stroke’. Is this emply a state of full stroke at the ceremony? Simply NO.

Wiki writes ‘Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor’ and silent on private issue, wheras referred reference quote ‘the Syedna had performed nass on him in private nearly 49 years ago’. Is this neutral reporting in Wiki?

Wiki reports :‘ A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal… would have such a profound, yet transient recovery’. Here what wiki meant for ‘recent’, it is very much misleading? The source refer this report in context of medical conditions prevailing on ‘ 4th June’’ after stroke taken place on ‘1st June’ 2013. Is it a fair reporting?

The para “There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements before 2011 succession. Court proceedings also reflect that Saifuddin's earlier 'pleading' of succession was showing "the source" as "the hospital bed", but after demise of late Syedna, "now the case is different. That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."’” was deleted from this Wiki article . May I ask why? Is there any flaw, anyone can check it. User:Qwertyus argue that ‘ it actually reflects only the words of a lawyer for one of both parties’. My above para which was well edited by earlier editors and now removed by User:Qwertyus also means the same. Lawyers word are court proceedings and this is made pretty clear in above para, hence the above statement is as per source and perfectly acceptable for Wiki.

In my revision # 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */", I have added some factual information ( report and quote of a Dairy details) published in a primary source. This I have well justified at ]. Aithough source ] is a private website but officially representing main Dawoodi Bohra Mufaddal’s Fatemi dawat, hence a primary source. The content referred is a document , a photocopy of Dairy pages, only written proof of the whole case.As justified by me , inclusion of primary sources facts are permitted by wiki under WP:WPNOTRS, and I have tried to put up the facts to avoid OR. User:Qwertyus had objections for this source so to make the things more neutral I my self designated this source as {{unreliable source}}, to not to misguide viewers. Further I have not included this para futher in my revision # 03:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */", to clarify further doubts ,I refered the matter on talk page at ], such that we can have further consensus.

I am really sorry to make explanation so lengthy and cumbersome, but the issue is very sensitive and being a person having knowledge of the issue, I don’t want that editor like User:Summichum (]), who was blocked several times for his unbearable activities are supported unknowingly by genuine editor like User:Qwertyus

It may appear that I have some tilt toward the subject as I am dawoodi Bohra and know the facts in and out, every body have his own POV, but I respect WIKI. Let me assure that I will try to abide and report as neutral as I can and will take serious note of editors like User:Qwertyus to correct any deviations beyond rules. Wiki will be above all. Thanks,--Md iet (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:FireboltLeviosa reported by User:Skr15081997 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kick (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC) to 08:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 08:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622840926 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
   2. 08:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622768706 by MKar (talk)"
   3. 08:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622765958 by Fideliosr (talk) i dont support BOI only....its just that 90% in this page is also from BOI...if u want, u must add new content and reference"
2. 17:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622763506 by Fideliosr (talk)"
3. 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622750674 by Fideliosr (talk) corrected incorrect BO figures...final gross should be from BOI, i converted crores to millions. then removed all content without reference.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor had received an edit warring notice on 8 August for the same article. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:31.52.130.119 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Blocked)

Page

England and Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622897561 by WNYY98 (talk)"
2. 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "No cause stated. Invalid."
3. 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622894547 by WNYY98 (talk)"
4. 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "Your statement appears to favour my understanding. “Having a single legal system does not imply the same country”. England & Wales is a legal jurisdiction which constitutes the UK alongside other members of the union."
5. 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "If they represent seperate entities how can this page exist? I would like to direct any reverters attention to paragraph 4 of history of jurisdiction section."
6. 14:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "The United Kingdom represents a political union, the union members of comprise of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
7. 12:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC) "You have provided no evidence of agreed consensus in relation to this issue. Unless you can substanciate your claim, as I previously have, your opinion has no basis in fact. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPREADING PROPAGANDA."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User warned https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:31.52.130.119&oldid=622886137 Dawn Bard (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Political_union

User:Editor157 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

Page: List of Top Gear episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editor157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All times are in (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 16:19, 25 August 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:48, 25 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622760040 by Drmargi"
2. 07:57, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622786985 by Drmargi"
3. 13:08, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622856214 by Drmargi"
4. 14:50, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Series 22 is correct and HAS been confirmed"
5. 15:11, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622893515 by AussieLegend"
6. 15:55, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622895780 by Davey2010"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:45, 26 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:50, 26 August 2014
Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:

• 08:53, 26 August 2014
• 13:58, 26 August 2014

Comments:

Background

On 7 July 2014 Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson made a confusing tweet in response to a request by one of his followers about the premiere of the 22nd season. It is not clear whether "13" in the tweet refers to the date in January or the number of episodes. 13 January 2015 does not correspond to the day on which Top Gear airs, and no previous season has had 13 episodes. In December 2013 there was a lengthy discussion about a tweet by Clarkson referring to the start date of seson 21 that prompted the BBC to respond that they had no idea what Clarkson was talking about. Ultimately Clarkson's tweet was shown to be wrong, so they'vesubsequent tweets been treated with caution since then. For this reason we ultimately settled on this revision as the best way to handle the tweet.

The edit war

On 25 August Editor157 made this post, incorrectly changing the date of Clarkson's tweet and adding announcement of a Christmas special, sourced to a website that identifies itself as the "Unofficial Top Gear UK fansite". As fansites are not considered to be reliable sources, Drmargi properly reverted the addition, noting "Fan site interpreting Clarkson's tweet is not reliable" in her edit summary. That was subsequently reverted by Editor157. After Editor157's second reversion, I left an edit-warring warning on the editor's talk page. I followed that up with clarification about the reliability of fansites. However, the reversions continued. After the 3rd reversion, Drmargi opened a discussion on the article's talk page and a note on Editor157's talk page. I later changed a word, fixed punctuation in the article and removed a reference that seemed irrelevant. Editor157 then made a 4th revert. I reverted that and so Editor157 reverted for the 5th time. That was subsequently reverted by Davey2010, but he was reverted as well. This was Editor157's 6th revert in 20 hours. Editor157 has not participated in the discussion at the article's talk page. Although unrelated, Editor157 is now edit-warring at Story arcs in Doctor Who as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I had no idea of the tp discussion, I simply reverted as A.) fansites aren't reliable sources and B.) There were alot of "probablys" so per WP:CRYSTAL I reverted, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

He isn't going to stop. He's unaware of and unwilling to read policy on reliability of sources and verifiability of content, has convinced himself that they're filming series 22 and 23, thus the 13 episodes, and doesn't appear willing to discuss, despite multiple warnings and attempts to discuss both on his talk page and on the article page. And as AussieLegend has noted, he is doing the same thing in another article. He refactored one of my posts on his talk page to add all manner of speculation; I have subsequently restored my original comments given they are part of this discussion. He has not responded to multiple attempts to help him understand why the content he is attempting to edit war in is not acceptable, but appears to lack the competence to edit. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Mistery Spectre reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: Declined)

Page: Scarlet Witch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mistery Spectre (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:

We have been trying to discuss with this user to provide reliable sources for his claims, but he has not provided any reliable sources and continues to edit war with NukeofEarl even while discussing the issue. This behavior has also occured at Quicksilver (comics) and Iceman (comics). 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. With the exception of one revert today on Scarlet Witch, the other reverts, on that article, and on the other articles, all occurred several days ago and are obviously stale. Plus, the reported user has not breached 3RR on Scarlet Witch with just one revert. I suggest you continue your discussion of the content dispute while I try to get used to the fact that there is a category called Jewish Superheroes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sfs90 reported by User:Lucy1994 (Result: )

Page: Union, Progress and Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sfs90 (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:
Sfs90 is a person who is vandalizing because he is reverting again and again a decision taken on a requested moved, proposed by himself.

User:J3Mrs reported by User:Pennine rambler (Result: Resolved)

Page: Manor of Rivington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J3Mrs (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:

response to edit warring warning has been (→‎Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: as if I care, it takes two)

• Note. Both J3Mrs and Pennine rambler have breached WP:3RR. If either of you doesn't want me to block you, you'd better come here and comment. I'd also like to know whether you've resolved the dispute because after going back and forth, it looked like you were getting very close to an agreed version.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to compromise on the edit and suggested a number of methods on the talk page, I hope that can be seen, --Pennine rambler (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On the edit despite going to talk page it was not resolved. The reported user simply edited out the change, reverting it back to his own edit, messages were sent via the article talk page but did not resolve the matters, I even suggested we seek a resolution, instead my edits were just reverted, oddly adding the double words 'sold sold' again, the current result is an inconsistent article, so I cannot say it was resolved. --Pennine rambler (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• This content dispute has lasted more than three years. The editor has used the names Rovington, PL.-Snr, Pennine Rambler and various IPs, and all are adamant that for some reason, Lever may not be described as owning the manor. The VCH and Irvine are used in the article, I do not see why they cannot reference the sentence I added and he keeps removing. This editor has pushed for the removal of Lever and Lord of the Manor in the same sentence for years. His idea of compromise is removing reliable references and any mention of the manor. See Hall/manor where he agrees the source is valid and my attempt to explain at Unreliable sources. "sold sold" was a typo made in exasperation. J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see any justification in the comments above for breaching 3RR. Pennine rambler hasn't offered any, and J3Mrs's comments aren't helpful. I am not going to go back three years and look at the content dispute history. As far as I'm concerned, this content dispute has become a misconduct problem, and it is being handled very poorly by both editors. As for the implicit accusations of socking, don't do that here. Rovington was renamed to Pennine rambler by a 'crat. There's nothing wrong with that. The other named account mentioned I can't even find using that spelling. And I'm not going to look at IPs when there are no IPs involved in the recent skirmish. At this point, your only hope is that you promise not to edit the article for a week, no matter what state it is in. Otherwise, I have no faith that this edit war will not resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it from my watchlist. I won't be editing it. J3Mrs (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Pennine rambler (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Thank you. I am closing this discussion with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray reported by User:MrX (Result: )

Page

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "There is subtle POV editorializing this lead. Add conjecture and opinions in the text below, but let's at least start out neutral - please."
2. 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "This lead is an un-encyclopedic POV mess which essentially restates verbatim a section in the body. Frankly this article is an embarrassment to the project. The talk page is mired in minutia. It is time for a bold beginning."
3. 03:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "I'm going to be bold here and try to post what I think might be a consensus from the Talk Page. I invite editing because this likely is not done, but please try to edit rather than revert. I mean this with all good faith."
4. 03:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "Trying to address concerns leading to the reversion -- please add back what you like rather than arbitrarily reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shooting of Michael Brown. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Major changes to the lede */ new section"

Comments:

This editor has ignored several requests on the article talk page and my talk pafe, from several editors, not to disruptively make major changes to the lede. This article, and especially the lede is the result of 289 editors collaborating on a challenging current event topic. - MrX 03:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After Kevin Murray made his fourth revert, he was warned and then given opportunities to self revert here and here.- MrX 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, If the administrator will kindly read through the talk page, you will see that I (1) made a bold change toward neutral point of view(2) sought consensus on a line--by-line basis after I was reverted, (3) posted my interpretation of consensus, (4) discussed and acknowledged more suggestions all the time working toward an article that incorporated all specific suggestions. Yes, I posted over several knee-jerk reversion, but each time specifically making changes suggested by the person who had reverted. If this is not a good faith effort toward building consensus, I'm not sure what is. If in your best judgment I should be blocked, then I understand. My contributions are seldom anymore; I only try to clean up when I see a departure from encyclopedic content and POV pushing. As an Admin, block me, but please take a close look at the POV in this article and look for some form of neutral intervention. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You sought consensus for some items and reinstated other edits that either (1) were entirely undiscussed and had nothing to do with whatever consensus was reached on the single item on which you appeared to gain consensus or (2) explicitly contravened the consensus OPPOSING those edits. You deleted large portions of the lead that had been the subject of a great deal of discussion and compromise over the last couple of weeks. And you did this while repeatedly reinstating your preferred edits on the page and demanding that other editors leave them in place because, in your estimation, they are "better." I think you're operating in good faith but in wild ignorance of Misplaced Pages's policies. Dyrnych (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I too think that you are operating in good faith, and thank you for recognizing my honest attempt. I am a bit rusty in WP protocol. But if you look back at my edits this evening, you will see that these progressively include not my words, but words and ideas from the discussion, trying to work more like a secretary than a writer. The 3R rule is meant to prevent reversion warring, not incremental changes reflecting the thoughts of others. Don't spend much energy here Mr. X. I'm going to bed, so I leave WP to better minds. Best regards, and I definitely learned a lot in the process of working with all of you. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:NeilN (Result: Closed)

Page

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "Restored per talk."
2. 02:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "That's not his name either. See talkpage, please ('Neutrality disputed (July 2014)'), and acquire consensus for this change before re-introducing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Infobox */ new section"

Comments:

The article is on WP:1RR as noted on top of the talk page and Talk:Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi#1RR_restriction. I gave the editor a chance to self-revert but he simply erased my message. NeilN 04:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The user is attempting to introduce a change through transparently exploiting 1RR. The change is currently discussed and opposed on the talkpage (a fact the editor was pointed to), but he doesn't apparently feel the need to or justify his edit in any way - when he can simply ignore WP:BRD and take advantage of the 1RR through edit-warring. The only explanation we got from NeilN is that his edit introduces the person's "NAME", when he is in fact introducing his nickname... -- Director (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject can be called Mighty Lord of the Grasshoppers for all I care. The fact remains, titles don't precede the subject's name in infoboxes as I pointed out on the talk page. And breaking WP:1RR is breaking WP:1RR. --NeilN 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The only reason I'm not blocking is because it happened 6 hours ago. But I've officially notified both users of the general sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring