Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:48, 11 November 2010

• 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:Nordy23 reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result: 24h)

Page: Urmston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nordy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (haven't warned the user about 3rr, but have warned him about using Wiki for advertising -

Comments:

This user is almost certainly the site's owner, considering this post on a community forum. Its a dead site though, it has been for about 2 years. The only site for Urmston that is regularly used and read is www.urmston.net, and has been for the last ten years or so. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

For the IP

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

For Farsight001

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute, but these two editors are doing a pathetic job reverting with vague and sometimes personally abusive explanations in their edit summaries. I recommend a block without warning, as they've already past 3RR before I even had a chance to warn them. Minimac (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just reported the IP myself before I saw this. It's two reports below this one. There are many more diffs on the IP's and my parts (and one or two diffs from others) that are not listed here. And if this is a 3RR rule issue instead of a disruptive editor issue as I assumed it was, could someone please explain the difference, as I seem to be having some serious trouble figuring it out. I've been reported for violating 3rr a couple of times now(no block though) when I thought I was just reverting disruptive editing, to which the 3rr does not apply. Thanks. ^_^ Farsight001 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected two weeks. I notice that the IP has already been blocked 24 hours, but am semiprotecting because the history suggests the same person may be reverting with more than one IP. I recommend that Farsight001 not be blocked, since it sounds like he is willing to follow the policy from now on. Farsight001 is urged to read WP:Edit warring carefully. All parties should cease the personal attacks, either on the talk page or in in edit summaries, or more blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The IP turns out to have been an editor who also had an account, User:Mark Osgatharp (which had been blocked for three days for this type of behavior earlier this year). That person used the account to circumvent the IP block and the article protection, and admitted to as much (along with making personal attacks) with this series of edits to Talk:Baptists. I have noted this on the talk page of the admin who blocked the IP. Perhaps the user should also be blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not intentionally circumvent a block. My anonymous IP was blocked for 24 hours one morning and did not edit again till the next morning under my registered name (which, by the way, is my real name, not some phony handle designed to hide my real identity). I didn't check the time and it may not have been exactly 24 hours, but I didn't intend to circumvent the block.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

After checking the block history of Mark Osgatharp, I've blocked for one month, per this rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:M656 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Warned)

Page: Yitzchak Ginsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: M656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:08, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ deleting entire quotation due to its extreme libelous character")
2. 21:49, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ Re-deleted libelous (understatement) content")
3. 22:25, 8 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ in accordance with wiki rules libelous material can deleted any number of times")
4. 09:36, 9 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */ the deleted quotation is challenged as libelous and is now being considered on Noticeboard. Don't reinsert prematurely.")

• Earlier deletion, showing that the first is indeed a revert: here

• Diff of warning: here and here

• See also discussion at BLPN

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

Comments:
This editor has made it clear on the article talk-page that he intends to carry on reverting. The BLP exemption here does not apply -- a couple of editors here have explained to him that the material is not libellous, instead the material is a quotation from a perfectly reliable source (an academic book published by SUNY Press). He has, at least, now stricken his legal threat (first introduced here). The belligerent attitude continues, though. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to point out the WP:BLP problem of the quotation in question. Debresser stated on Sept. 27, 2009 "Frankly, I also felt from the beginning there is some wp:blp problem here." So there are currently 2 editors who think there is a problem and 2 that disagree. I am following the instructions of Misplaced Pages saying that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." It is Nomoskedasticity who is doing belligerent edit warring by repeatedly reinserting the material. The rule further says "If such material is repeatedly inserted..." (which is what Nomoskedasticity did) "or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard." (which is exactly what I did). So the subject is now under consideration on the Noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Misplaced Pages restrictions. I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites. m656 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But the material is not "unsourced or poorly sourced" -- and so the BLP exemption does not apply. The idea that the problem here is anti-Semitism (defamation of the entire Jewish people) is risible. You don't like what Inbari has to say, but that doesn't make it libellous and indeed no-one else on BLPN appears to be taking that view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into the BLP matter, just far enough to see that the reverts don't meet the exception in the WP:3RR policy that keeps them from counting toward the three-revert limit. Text published by a university press qualifies for consideration as part of this article, and should not be considered defamatory. Ginsburgh holds unusual views and it should not be a violation to simply report what he believes. Further discussion on the Talk page is needed to decide what material deserves to remain in the article. Since User:M656 has broken 3RR, I've asked him to agree to stop reverting, to avoid a block. I suggest that admins wait for his response before closing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't happen in Misplaced Pages that a person is said to have religious views other than what he himself actually professes. For such an extraordinary claim having a quotation from an academic simply is not sufficient. There are more than 60 books referenced on Ginsburgh's site, and not in any of them will you find such a view.

I was only deleting this extreme quotation (which I still consider quite unacceptable) until a decision was made (either by editors or an administrator). Now that you have made this decision, I have no intention whatsoever to re-delete the quotation by myself. But rather intend to redirect this issue to the Wiki Media Foundation.m656 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Result - M656 warned. Any continued reverts before consensus is reached may lead to a block. Ginsburgh can't be defamed by a statement of his own views, if they are being correctly reported. If there is a more nuanced way of presenting Ginsburgh's views, you should consider proposing new sourced material for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Farsight001 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Baptists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.151.58.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also posted originally from IPs 67.143.34.62 and 96.19.185.78

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=prev&oldid=394440697

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&action=historysubmit&diff=394530399&oldid=394440697
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=394546335
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395412109
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395487161
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395536697
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395549699
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395665112
• 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395666111
• 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395723294
• 10th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395727238
• 11th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395728750
• 12th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395733396
• new addition, little better than rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395734922
• 13th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Baptists&diff=next&oldid=395735648

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:75.151.58.242&diff=prev&oldid=395724640

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Baptists

Comments:

The IP appears to have edited from multiple ips, but has settled on the current one. His edits are really not that horrible, but he makes no attempt to discuss and instead insults and mocks. (see some of the edit summaries in the diffs above and the talk page) I also think one of his edit summaries is rather edifying and seems to imply his ultimate goal here - "I can do this too, till with both get banned for violating the 3RR". In that vein, I feel as though it has been disruptive editing from the start because of IP's refusal to follow BRD, but if that is not the view of whoever reviews this, I will accept a block as well. I don't quite know how to handle disruptive editors well (obviously since he got to 12 reverts before anything was reported), so I might have been a little off in how I handled it, like being late in trying a talk page discussion. If anyone has suggestions for handling stuff like this better in the future, I would love it - probably on my talk page though. Don't want to clutter up this place. Cross my fingers and hope I didn't demolish the formatting of this report somehow.Farsight001 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And fyi, it appears that User:Minimac has reported both the IP and I above. (two listings up) Farsight001 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And that I've screwed up the coding a bit somehow. Never can get these quite right. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected. See rationale above, in WP:AN3#User:Farsight001 & User:75.151.58.242 reported by User:Minimac (Result: Semiprotected). EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Wrapped in Grey reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24h)

Page: John Lennon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrapped in Grey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 14:52
• 2nd revert: 15:04
• 3rd revert: 15:46
• 4th revert: 20:59

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:59 and 18:18

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:42

Comments:
The article is being considered for TFA on 8 December, the 30th anniversary of Lennon's death, and will need watching until then for 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I did check the history, but I can't see what the first diff was a revert of. That said, he has clearly been edit warring and editing in quite an aggressive manner all afternoon, which is unacceptable at the best of times, but more so on an FA, especially one being considered for TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It will need watching all month ... and it took Incompetent Me 13 minutes to file that report! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll add it to my watchlist. It took me a lot longer than that the first time I filed a report here, so don;t worry too much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dangerpatel reported by User:Elockid (Result: 24h)

Page: List of most populous cities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dangerpatel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 1 (first to revert BostonPunekar (talk · contribs))
• 2nd revert: 2 (second revert to revert me)
• 3rd revert: 3 (third revert to revert SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs))
• 4th revert: 4 (Same as third)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: . Just look at their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . See also their talk page.

Comments:
Dangerpatel has been unwilling discuss on several articles. This is not just the one. Though he hasn't broken 3RR, he's basically edit warring against 3 editors and not trying to gain any sort of consensus or discussion on the page reported. Elockid 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:164.107.203.227 reported by User:Malinaccier (Result: 24h)

Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry: Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
164.107.203.227: 164.107.203.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Original edit:
• 1st revert back:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Also, pointed toward talkpage here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Michigan_–_Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Title_of_article_and_Info_Box

Comments:
Name order dispute. Consensus formed at the page says stay alphabetical, but anon will not have this. I would block for the 3rr vio myself, but as I am somewhat involved I thought to bring this here. Obviously only block the anon if there are further reverts from now (no point in a punitive block if they have stopped). Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:RomanHistorian reported by User:Noloop (Result: Protected)

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RomanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Note:I've never really understood what this is asking.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous block for edit warring on Christian article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He has barely discussed any of edits on the Talk page.

Comments:
Previous warning and discussion about edit warring on ANI:

Those were only two reversions, and both were reverting the reversions of other editors (Noloop was one). The two reversions are here and here. The other edits he is listing were normal edits modifying the page, NOT reversions of recently added material.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have discussed these edits on the talk page at length. This page has been having a lot of edit warring over the last few weeks. Just look at how contentious the talk page is. Other editors need to get involved in this page, as it has gotten badly out of hand.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at how contentious the talk page has been over just the last week (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Apologetics.2C_primary_sources), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#POV_Pushing), (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Christian_presses_are_not_reliable_sources), and Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). Look at all of the space in those threads devoted to claims of personal attacks and insults, counter claims, claims of bias, of POV pushing, ect. Look at how massively the article, especially the intro, has changed over the last few weeks. I have not seen many articles that are this contentious.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take an few moments to look at the talk page on that (Historicity of Jesus). Noloop has been a party of the pretty blatant fighting going on there, and has taken a pretty hostile position to me. Take a look at all of those edits he posted, and at the history in the page. You will see that only those two edits are reversions, the rest are just the additions of material. Is Misplaced Pages now going to have a policy against normal edits?RomanHistorian (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, take a look at all of the sources and prior edits Noloop has deleted off of this page recently.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whichever admin looks at this, take a look at the comment by Griswaldo (Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Bigotry_and_prejudice_have_no_place_on_Wikipedia). After all of the claims of ad hominim attacks and counter claims by a number of users, including my accuser here Noloop, Griswaldo notes that Noloop reverted what Noloop himself said was 8 hours of edits by different editors. Note these edits here, here and here which came after my edits although I didn't touch them because they were productive. They, and others, were included in Noloop's massive revert-sweep. If anything, reverting such a large amount of material so adjectively is edit warring itself.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And then go look at the page right now, where RomanHistorian is busy edit-warring. It would be nice if the accuser were somewhat less guilty than the accused. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, contrary to this accusation, Noloop has indeed discussed the article on its talk page. See for yourself. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Comment - Given what Tariq saw, without being a regular at the entry I can't blame him for protecting the page. This wasn't a 3RR violation but it did indicate the early stages of an edit war. What Tariq might not know, however, is that Noloop has a history of trying to get this particular entry protected, and it is starting to get disruptive. He uses protection as a way to win POV battles. RomanHistorian's edits should have been reverted, and were. If he continued and actually broke 3RR then he could have been blocked, but the page would not have needed protecting. When there is one editor against many page protection is not the solution. Letting that person breach 3RR and sending them to the chopping block is. Admins need to be weary of Noloops page protection scheme. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected -- tariqabjotu 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:122.45.181.37 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: declined)

Page: Four Asian Tigers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.45.181.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated insertion of uncited numbers changing statistics, apparently to older set.

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Declined I see no attempt at dispute resolution - no use of any talk page save a warning. Please attempt to engage in dispute resolution first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:68.173.122.113 and User:Photocredit reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Photocredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• See article history for today 10 November 2010. I think both editors have made around 10 reverts of eachother's material today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and discussion on my talk page

Comments:
I am uninvolved in the dispute. Both editors seem set on edit warring.

• To Photocredit's..er..credit, they did say here that they would try to resolve the dispute but reverted after that comment. They haven't reverted since. They may also have a legitimate point that some of the material should be reverted per WP:BLP.
• To 68.173.122.113's credit, as you can see from their contributions, they have tried to discuss the material and they tried pretty much every noticeboard in existence.

They are clearly edit warring and I'm not convinced that they will resolve it on the talk page. Eitjher way, it strikes me as 3RR report worthy. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved in a AFD/content dispute on another article with the IP user, so I've stayed away from this article, but please note that 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same person. Looking at the edits, there are issues with tone and how informations from sources are paraphrased into the text, so input from a knowledgeable (not me) but a neutral editor (probably not me) would probably be welcomed here. Mosmof (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected two weeks. Both the IP and Photocredit have broken 3RR, but Photocredit was drawing attention to BLP problems, and the IP seemed to be resisting the BLP cleanup that was being attempted by others. Since admins User:Diannaa and User:Orangemike are both working on this article, I think that editors can address them directly in case of any further BLP problems. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:N2smd reported by User:Mdukas (Result: warned)

Page: Storm King Art Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: N2smd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 05:36, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "Recent controversy regarding possible conspiracy theory")
2. 06:25, 6 November 2010 (edit summary: "grammar correction")
3. 16:51, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 17:00, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act Revision")
5. 17:03, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Freedom of Information Act")
6. 17:05, 10 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 395963461 by Mike Rosoft (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I am just an interested bystander, I reverted the first version of the changes and now he has put them back in again, and now gotten into an edit war with another editor. I am not too familiar with how to stop it, but I did put a warning on the culprit's talk page, but it does not seem to have made a difference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdukas (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronaldc0224 reported by User:AzureFury (Result: both editors blocked)

Page: Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronaldc0224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I've tried multiple rewrites to attempt to accurately communicate the sources, but all have been reverted, including my changing of the word "conclude" which is not used in the sources, to "allege" which is closer to the "suggests" used in the source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury has engaged in multiple reverts himself. He first tried to blank out the referenced material I added entirely. I had to revert these to get the material back. And he has since been trying to manipulate the wording away from what the source says to what he'd prefer it had said instead, replacing quoted material with stuff the source doesn't say. His change of "conclude" to "allege" is a POV-pushing edit. The quote in question is not an "allegation" (which implies an accusation lacking proof by a disputing party - Azure's POV preference, and a loaded wording), it is simply the stated conclusion of the paper being referenced. This is just one example of the POV edits and blanking i've had to revert, and which Azure keeps reverting himself. I've tried contacting Azure on his talk page to discuss this, but he's going for wiki-lawyering instead in hopes of getting me blocked for what he is doing worse.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note Ronaldc0224 seems to be the recently created account of IP 76.15.195.93 who was recently blocked for edit warring over a related topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_War_documents_leak&action=history AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked AzureFury had at least 3 reverts, one was borderline but close enough for me, given his history, to merit a block (gaming the system doesn't work here, sorry). 48 hours for reportee and 72 hours for reporter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Magotteers reported by User:Tuscumbia (Result: )

Pages:
Western Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vankli, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kars, Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Western Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert: , violation of 3RR (1)
• 7th revert: , violation of 3RR (2)
• 8th revert: , violation of 3RR (3)
• 9th revert: , violation of 3RR (4)

Note that Magoteers started edit-warring after MarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as per Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff )

Vankli, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Same story here: Magoteers started edit-warring after MarshallBagramyan (a user previously blocked on many sanctions as per Misplaced Pages:ARBAA2 started removing text from the article (see diff )

Kars, Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Same story in these articles , , ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:;

User notified:

Comments:
This case is mostly about the edit-warring per se than about a specific case of 3RR although violation of 3RR is a part of it, as indicated above.

Magotteers appeared on Misplaced Pages pages out of the blue, directly engaging in the concurrent heated discussion here claiming he was "searching on google and was directed there". Sure... Same thing happened when another user Ionidasz magically appeared in a heated discussion most likely claiming later that he was there searching for something and ooops, found a heated discussion and decided to contribute. (see link of his first contribution here And, it's interesting how well informed about Misplaced Pages rules and editing these "two" new editors are.

Please also note that once Magoteers appears on pages and starts edit-warring, Marshall Bagramyan is virtually out of sight, making only a few edits on talk pages of these articles here and there, most likely to avoid being sanctioned again. All the actual reverting work is done by Magotteers.

These two users (Ionidasz and Magotteers) used the same pattern of editing:

• appearance in Misplaced Pages and going straight to the heated discussions;
• heavy multiple reverting and edit-warring in "battleground" articles;
• using obscene and sarcastic language against other editors (eg. , , , );
• finally, used his favorite word upteenth time used by Magotteers account in summary comment and Ionidasz account in summary comment.

If you look through their contributions, you will understand that these accounts are used to supplement edit-warring by established users. Both users have been asked to discuss their reverts on talk pages of the articles which they did, but while commenting on the articles, they also did revert to either their version or that of the established users (their puppetiers), while the established users mostly limited themselves with contributions on the talk pages. It is also interesting that Magotteers account appeared after unsuccessful attempts of blocked user Andranikpasha to re-establish himself as a sock like Alaguerre and some other IPs (see the archive here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Andranikpasha/Archive.

Here Magotteers claims he doesn't know who Andranikpasha is. Yeah, right. Really? As Ionidacz he does know who Andranikpasha is .

To sum up, these are either sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts which were opened to do nothing but help established users avoid sanctions, edit war on frequently edited pages and do multiple reverts (no new articles were created by these users) while abusing multiple accounts and quack like a WP:DUCK. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are insinuating something, please have the courtesy to say it plainly and outright or even inform me. I have been heavily involved in these articles, yes, but the level of stonewalling that I have encountered by numerous editors has, to say the least, discouraged me from making too main-space edits for fear of being drawn into an edit war. All one has to do is read my comments on the talk page and see my exasperation as I am given odd demands to prove things which no amount of sources will suffice. User:Anastasia.Bukh continued to revert my edits even after I provided bountiful sources and he even removed (and so have you now) such uncontentious information as census data. I do not want to be sanction so that is why I have done little editing and have contributed mainly to the talk page, trying to find a common tongue.

As for Magoteers, I have absolutely no knowledge of who he is and we should assume good faith rather than simply report him immediately for sockpuppet violations, as you have done, and inform him of the rules. I never told nor encouraged him to make reverts on my behalf and I find the insinuation and my connection to my quite superficial. If we are reporting edit warriors, however, we should also include Anastasia.Bukh as well, since he has made absolutely no attempt to restrain himself in his reverts either, displaying a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and incivility on the Vank (Vankli) article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Explaination: Four different users have been revert warring by removing my changes, which they have not dealt with in the talkpage. See this revert of mine like several others in the same article, which is included in this report, includes the clarification of this map, the uploader removed the legend of the article, which will bring any person to believe that in blue, that represents the borders of Armenia according to Sevres. Only when I have been reported, one of them has finally removed the map. So basically the removal assume that they did not even read my comments when they were blindly reverting my clarifications on what really represent the map.

Note also, that Western Azerbaijan article is a duplicate of another article, Azeri and other Turkic peoples in Armenia, compare both versions, besides its intro.

Regarding Vank article, note its history, I believe Parishan is an Azeri user, who made a compromise. From its history, we see Anastasia.Bukh has renamed the article without discussion. This is unacceptable, as he should have requested concensus.

Regarding my revert on Kars article, read my explainations please.

Summary : It's true I have been revert warring, but check the history of the articles, I was not the only one. Note that Anastasia has made an unilateral move of an article and revert warred, failing to reach concensus, she has also been very uncivil with me.

Regarding this users insulation regarding me, that's what I have typed and it is true that I have found the article from that, as I mentioned, at which point I was pushed in this edit war. Also, was it forbidden to check other users contributions? Obviously I have checked the contributions of the users with whom I was in conflict with, and have seen from there... I am also active on Russian and Turkish wikipedia.

Also note that I was already checked here. Magotteers (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:North wiki reported by Go porch books (Result: )

Page: Hyundai Sonata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 00:11, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "/* Safety */ NHTSA crash test rating; remove duplicate side barrier rating (front)")
2. 00:16, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394044681 by 68.108.199.45 (talk)")
3. 00:43, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "revert edits not supported by source material")
4. 16:41, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
5. 18:06, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv removal of sourced material")
6. 18:22, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "you need consensus of editors before you substantially removed materials that just don't fit your POV")
7. 19:01, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "I think you need consensus of editors")
8. 19:11, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "I suggest you raise the issue of significance in the discussion page and seek consensus")

• Diff of warning: here

—Go porch books (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring