Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 14 March 2012

• 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:67.59.28.19 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Nursing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.59.28.19 (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: I freshly added the 3RR warning, but see 4 related previous warnings.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple warnings on user talk page.

Comments:
This IP is pushing an anti-nursing POV at Nursing, Anesthesiologist, and Nurse anesthetist.--Taylornate (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked The warning we're looking for here is the edit warring/3RR warning to make them aware of the policy; you've correctly added that one, but I don't see any reverts after it. If he makes another problematic edit, re-open this request. Kuru (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another round of problematic edits without discussion after the March 6 warning.--Taylornate (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've blocked for 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:69.47.229.136 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Stale)

At least 5 reverts on the Bob Uecker article in the last couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: A day)

Page: Jeremy Lin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:06, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "removed quotes, explanations on the talk page")
2. 02:17, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you; also I've explained why I made the changes but i see you haven't made any comments on them.")
3. 02:46, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Stop removing the edits. If you're going to do it, at least explain WHY you're doing them on the talk page!")
4. 03:12, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Chris, STOP doing this. WP:BURDEN falls on you I've pointed this out many times. It has nothing to do with my ownership of this site")
5. 15:14, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you so please STOP with the reverts. Also, you've yet to explain why you've made the reverts on talk")
6. 15:37, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted vandalism, user Mubogshu made no attempt to discuss the reverts on talk page")
7. 16:20, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Misplaced Pages:Vandalism:Reverted vandalism user made no attempt to explain on talk page his/her changes to the article")
8. 16:39, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted Vandalism no attempt by the user to discuss his/her changes on the talk page")

• Diff of warning: here
• Relevant talk page discussion section: Talk:Jeremy Lin#Quotes

Please note that this behavior dates back into February. —– Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the edits were all made in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and given full explanation on the talk page. I understand that the edits I've made are plentiful, but all of them were made after having given extensive consideration to not only its merits but the merits of the opposing arguments on the Jeremy Lin talkpage. As for the last edit by Mubogshu, here is an edit by the user here attempting to justify his violation of WP:REVEXP by arguing that reverts to edit wars are justified (in violation of the normal procedures of dispute resolution.Festermunk (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators reviewing this case may also wish to take note of the fact that, following the normal procedures of dispute resolution, I've taken this dispute to the dispute resolutio noticeboard.Festermunk (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You violated 3RR. It's that simple. The content removal is secondary at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are what's known as 3RR exemptions, which is why my removal of your posts (vandalism) is relevant. It's that simple indeed.Festermunk (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The exemptions include undoing page blanking without a reason, which is exactly what you were doing. Your edit warring does not satisfy any legitimate exemption. You didn't get the consensus you wanted, so you went against it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what the (heck) you're grasping onto. If you go through the talk page, you'll see exactly the reasons I've given for deleting the quotes. I can't help the fact that you haven't even looked at the talk page for Jeremy Lin, but I'd advise you to have a look there first. Festermunk (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 18:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.84.159.1 reported by User:N-HH (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Bee Thousand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.84.159.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The IP user has repeatedly reinserted a unreferenced, unattributed POV piece of commentary about the release being a "landmark album of the 90s". They're not yet over full 3RR for this 24 hours (their first addition of the sentence was a few days ago now) but they are blindly edit-warring as well as refusing to offer any justification, when that burden clearly lies on them. Only discussion has been through edit summaries and user's talk page so far, including urging IP editor to go to talk. All without response - IP user leaves blank edit summaries; has not responded on their own talk page to welcome & warning; and has not opened any talk page thread. I'm bringing it here rather than carrying on that edit war. N-HH talk/edits 18:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, or rather semi-protected, for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, OK, thanks ... but the morale here seems to be: edit war a rather blatant piece of unsourced POV into a page and you can not only avoid having any action being taken against you but you end up with the page protected with your piece of nonsense included. As a registered editor with an account, it looks as if I can still take their sentence out. But my whole point was to get someone to explain the rules to the IP editor, and improve the content of the article, but for me to avoid edit warring myself over it. N-HH talk/edits 21:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it seems to be only an issue with anonymous editors, and playing whack-a-mole gets very tiring, I'm trying to force some discussion. If you or another editor removed it one more time, I wouldn't block you or take any action against you. If it flares up again, I have no problem blocking people, but I'm trying to avoid that if I can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out again and see where we are in a week. I have now started a formal talk page thread as well (about the lead as a whole, which has other problems besides). I appreciate dealing with this kind of thing can be difficult .. and btw when I refer to "action", I'm thinking less of blocks or whatever than of a third party maybe pointing out to the IP editor rules on a) sourcing content/POV and b) edit warring (they may know them already of course, but let's AGF). That way they can no longer frame it as a one-on-one battle about a specific sentence and see it more from the point of view of policy and principle. If they then persist, it's clear they're not interested in good faith involvement or engagement here. N-HH talk/edits 15:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 1 week)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 05:22, 7 March 2012 (Absolutely no justification for removing the bias tag.)
• 2nd revert: 18:50, 7 March 2012
• 3rd revert: 20:45, 7 March 2012 (It is false to say that ALL on the Right support traditional hierarchy - How many times does this have to be pointed out?)
• 4th revert: 21:50, 7 March 2012 (To be on the "Right" can also mean Classical Liberal)

Comments:
This editor just came off a twenty-four hour block for edit-warring on this article - the discussion appears above on this noticeboard. Some of these new edits were made using a dynamic IP, but it is clearly the same editor. Note that the article is currently protected due to edit-warring. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Normally I'd escalate to 48 or 72 hours, but the use of dynamic IPs to try to evade scrutiny doesn't sit well with me. I considered an indef, but I'll try this first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikiwriter786 reported by User:Secret of success (Result: No violation)

Page: Ek Tha Tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwriter786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I am at 2RR, and I have warned the user in his/her talk page, but at present, if I revert, I'll break the 3RR and if I don't, the wrong version with image spam will stay. X.One 09:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Note - I used the rollback tool for one revert because I believe adding multiple spam images is considered vandalism. If I was wrong, please accept my apologies. Regards. X.One 09:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• No violation — Nobody broke 3RR, but this is a slow-moving war in which neither you or the other party has made any effort at communication. Please use the talk page to get agreement on what images should be in the article. The two images may not be essential but one of them (the one with two men) could have some value in the article, since it pictures the director and it shows the filming venue. You should discus the merits of these images with the others.

• User:Secret of success, please fix your WP:SIGNATURE so that it resembles your user name. If you prefer User:X.One as a user name you can ask to be renamed at WP:CHU/S. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Chealer (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Naturalism (philosophy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Machine Elf 1735 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 04:37, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "partial rv of Chealer It totally seems trivial don't it? I did the exact same thing at MN. From Danto's definition: “naturalism is polemically defined as repudiating the view that there exists or could exist”…")
2. 16:03, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480333880 by Chealer (talk) obviously no legal context intended, this isn't going change based on your say so, I suggest you find several WP:RS and take it to the talk page")
3. 16:05, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480331154 by Chealer (talk) that turns the sentence pink, use a normal cn like everyone else")
4. 02:11, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "It's called MOS and it's a guideline, follow it and once again, use cn tags like everyone else (on statements that need them, that is)")

Subsequent:

1. 22:52, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480540613 by Chealer (talk) References are right here in the article and you provided two on the talk page. The template is for multiple sentences. Dpm")
2. 02:35, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv obvious Why would an WP:RS inject M&M? / irrelevant: Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning; editor is aware of 3RR and has requested to stay away from "his" talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No single dispute - general dislike for change and perhaps some feeling of WP:OWNERSHIP

Comments:
These reversions just culminated with the revert directly above, citing as only justification "obvious". The editor behaved similarly on Materialism and Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing (the latter constituting another official instance of edit warring).

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

1. 02:21, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv retaliation… those are called quotation marks")
2. 20:01, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv Chealer, as you've obviously seen, Antoni Barau dropped one of the outer quotation marks and fiddled with the wording, thrilling as your dramz are, admit your mistake and quit reverting your ridiculous retaliatory banner pointing at *my* edit")
3. 02:51, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480721639 by Chealer (talk) rv #3 absurd accusation of "close paraphrasing" a direct quotation")
4. 19:04, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "the only purpose of these edits is to provide an excuse for the user's tendentious abuse of "close paraphrasing"")
5. 19:27, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480878478 by Chealer (talk) lame excuse about space before ellipsis in order to alter the quotation marks")

Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 02:24, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480353692 by Chealer (talk) quit abusing this template")
2. 03:15, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Avoiding */ rv uninviting § title back to “When is close paraphrase permitted?”")
3. 03:25, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "opps… s/b “How to write acceptable content” even better")
4. 03:34, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Addressing */ restrore “important”")
5. 03:36, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Addressing */ or undo move rather (see prev)")
6. 03:49, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv seems to make casual/specious accusations more plausible")
7. 03:55, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv same / unequivocal close paraphrasing is called copying")
8. 04:14, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Milder problems */ rv again the option implied by bracketing makes casual/specious accusation more plausible, better to just fix a sole example of a “mild problem” (a matter of opinion)")
9. 22:45, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480543328 by Chealer (talk) no, not erroneous, the important advice should go first, not last")
10. 22:49, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "no it's not about communication, it's about making things optional that you would have been well advised not to consider optional")
11. 02:55, 8 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480724570 by Chealer (talk) per talk")

All of this happened in the last days, but from looking at the editor's talk page, this behavior doesn't seem to be new. I have unsuccessfully pointed the editor to Misplaced Pages:Revert_only_when_necessary.

suggests some WP:OWNERSHIP.

Update: Wikipedia_talk:Revert_only_when_necessary#Rejected_attempt_to_alter_this_advice very much suggests the same (yes, this has even spread to Misplaced Pages:Revert_only_when_necessary now). --Chealer (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chealer (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Documenting Chealer's attempts to unjustifiably excuse his abuse of a close paraphrasing banner for a direct quotation at Materialism. As a direct quote should be exact, it's self-evidently absurd to call it a close paraphrasing problem. In no way do Chealer's new “issues” justify tendentiously reverting it.

• WP:ATTRIBUTION was provided by the reference directly following the closing outer quotation mark. I simply used the preexisting reference. WP cites the SEP quite often, and while the standard SEP citation template is seldom found, I've used it to replace Chealer's peculiar and egregiously pedantic “completion” of the url.
• WP:INTEXT: With the edit summary “Fix attribution of SEP quote”, Chealer merely added: “as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states,” which did nothing to fix his prolix attribution, (see previous). In-text attribution is not a requirement for quotation marks, but if it weren't so awkwardly near the start of the article, I'd prefer to mention the author's name, as well as the author whom he was quoting.
• Misplaced Pages:MOS#Block quotations: “Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation…” It's 50 words, but not more than a few hundred characters.

Chealer refuses to acknowledge the absurdity of insisting that a cited direct quote is close paraphrasing. As opposed to fixing a perceived problem, I appear to be the second editor he's used that banner to harass in connection with naturalism/creationism/intelligent design. After all, his cognitive faculties were adequate to realize the close paraphrasing guideline had to be slackened in order to accommodate it's use when there's only one “example”, when multiple editors have contributed, and when it doesn't even seem very much like close paraphrasing. His response to my rejection of those changes was likewise tendentious, reverting and alluding to how my changes were thereby fixed. Furthermore, after altering the quotation marks used, he made a convoluted inquiry at MOS and attempted to alter the advice given on Reverting only when necessary.—Machine Elf  23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the culmination above: I provided the citation for the single sentence that Chealer had been requesting with cn-span, (copied, in full, in my edit summary). Apparently, he considered the Catholic Encyclopedia to be a dubious source regarding philosophy. However, it's inappropriate to use the dubious tag to flag a source for that purpose. It is, in fact, quite obvious that he can't expect any and all WP:RS to discuss some aspect of naturalism by drawing a distinction between metaphysical and methodological: neither the sentence, nor the paragraph, mention either of them! This is indicative of a superficial WP:NPOV concern raised by the user's edit history and stated intentions. The metaphysical naturalism merge suggestion, however, flies in the face of advocating science literacy. It's not clear whether that's due to his admitted lack of familiarity with the literature. Eugenie C. Scott belabors the point that metaphysical and methodological naturalism are distinct, for example: . Therefore, why propose that metaphysical naturalism should be merged to methodological naturalism, (that is, to naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism the misguided merge recipient of that infamous term)? Clearly all 3 could stand on their own, and in terms of science literacy, the proposed merge is strongly contraindicated by Scott.—Machine Elf  00:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not WP:OWN… he's not receptive to basic information, despite only having just introduced himself to the subject, presently. As I mentioned, he tried to redefine the advice at “reverting only when necessary”, just prior giving it hypocritically, his modus operandi.—Machine Elf  02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, those were 3 non-consecutive reverts, including the partial and the first ‘subsequent’, itself consecutive with providing the requested citation, (apparently not what he wanted out of the pink cn-span). Regarding Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing, the one supposedly “constituting another official instance of edit warring” was 3 non-consecutive edits on March sixth, (only 2 separated by Chealer's, FWIW). If an “official” 3RR violation is what he's alluding to, he forgot to redefine it that way.—Machine Elf  04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. I left messages on the talk pages of both editors. If this dispute continues it is not likely to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry but could you clarify what warning was issued? I see a message, but the only thing that could be considered a warning that I see is a possible block ("you've engaged in personal attacks on your own talk page ('stay off my talk page asshole') and depending on which admin closes the report you are risking a block on those grounds"). However, you just closed this report without actually blocking... Thanks --Chealer (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment was: 'If this dispute continues it is not likely to end well'. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. If reverts continue at the various pages before any talk consensus is reached, the next admin may not be sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But his reverts have continued, contrary to talk page consensus. Both of his 3RR accusations were specious, and his underhanded attempt to modify evidence was not the first time I had to tell him to stay off my talk page. Despite going out of his way to repeat that mild profanity here, after the case was closed, the ambivalence is surprising as I didn't get the impression you were sympathetic either way. Now indeed, it ends badly.—Machine Elf  09:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So you "warned" the editor that if he continues the dispute, it is not likely to end well. I find the consequences warned against pretty vague, but well, I guess this can be considered as a warning in a sense. Thanks --Chealer (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, you don't understand "warned" but what part of "both" don't you understand? (rhetorical question)—Machine Elf  18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jmj713 reported by User:RexxS (Result: no blocks)

Page: Template:Washington Capitals seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmj713 (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:

Attempt to resolve dispute on project talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Accessibility

Comments:

The editor even when provided with our accessibility guidelines by multiple other editors is edit-warring to force non-accessible versions of templates, simply on the grounds that he does not like the look of the accessible versions. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You realize that warning was after his last edit right? And that that the attempt to solve the situation is on-going? I think all of you should be admonished for edit warring including Jmj. However, per WP:BRD he should never have been reverted after he objected to the bold change. Nevermind each of you continuing to revert without any attempt to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing bold about it; HLIST is widely used: User:WOSlinker/wrapping and was mentioned in the signpost:

• Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class

Alarbus (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Every edit is a bold edit. -DJSasso (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This, frankly, is a small group of editors with a major battlground mentality trying to force their viewpoints onto people without even showing the slightest pretense respect to the editors they are impacting. There is no edit warring going on here, but but rather an embarrassing case of trying to win a "war" that features a great deal of canvassing already. This is about as bad faith as you can get. Resolute 02:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that; that's a personal attack (and, at best, a totally groundless accusation). What we have is a group of editors attempting to make template lists (like the one at the centre of this dispute) useful to readers with vision problems, and they're being reverted because of a personal preference over aesthetics. And they are the ones with the battelground mentality? I think not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was similarly attacked on my talk page. Alarbus (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read Alarbus's edit summaries of "we will prevail". I mean if that isn't battleground mentality when everyone else is asking them to discuss and come to a mutually agreeable solution then I don't know what is. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me; the edit summary was "Accessibility: will prevail here". That's the goal:

• wmf:Resolution:Openness
• “We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by”
  • “Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that improve usability and accessibility”

Alarbus (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry "will prevail here" the accessibility is just the section title. So still means the same thing and still shows the same battleground mentality. -DJSasso (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the section title; my intent was the whole piece; that “accessibility will prevail here”. What part of AGF don't you get? Alarbus (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read AGF it says you aren't expected to blindly follow it when there is evidence that the user is not acting in good faith, which by this point you have very clearly shown you are not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's appalling bad faith for an administrator to be displaying. Cite some evidence of bad faith or revert your personal attack. Alarbus (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar. I fact, I was even about to use the word "appalling", because that's a shocking thing to say about an established contributor trying to make genuine improvements. Do you have any grounds to believe that his explanation is the lie you so rapidly dismissed it as? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to where I said it was a lie please? -DJSasso (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well a perfect example is your continued use of the edit summary even after it was pointed out by a couple editors that it is inflammatory or at the very least could be viewed as such. That to me shows a clear intent to provoke and thus act in bad faith. -DJSasso (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I explained that edit summary, and stand by it; it's been repeated because my browser remembers it and kindly offers its reuse. That the admins of WikiProject Ice Hockey are out in full force defending the local consensus/poor practises and don't care for my view that accessibility should prevail over them isn't going to change my choice of edit summaries. It's not like I've attacked you, although I do find this all conduct unbecoming an admin. And didn't you revert on top of Jmj713's four? Way to edit war, dude, kinda like a power play in hockey. Alarbus (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because your browser remembers doesn't forgive your use of it when you know it is inflamitory, the first use fine I have no reason to doubt you meant it that way if you say you did. It is the continued use of it that clearly shows bad faith. The best part about your comment is that no one has disagreed that accessibility should be looked at. Every single one of us has agreed it should be. What we have asked is that we discuss the best way to achieve that and to discuss how to do it before blindly jumping in. The constant bringing up my being an admin is a form of attack. My being admin makes me no different than any other editor. You are actually the one who edit warred by making a change you knew was already objected to. I was just reverting back to the original as per WP:BRD which you so clearly ignored. -DJSasso (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm free to use that as an edit summary. Your calling it inflammatory does not make it inappropriate nor does my continued use of it constitute bad faith. You should retract, methinks. Your conduct here erodes what little respect admins get around here. People expect better from admins. Alarbus (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are free to use it. But your using it after it being objected to does make it inappropriate and does show you are editing disruptively and are acting in bad faith. But of course you will just continue your little "war" as you have done all night instead of work collaboratively. -DJSasso (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attacks and assume good faith. Alarbus (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to retract yours. You are well past the point of assuming good faith while you keep attacking me. -DJSasso (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You really have no business being an admin. Alarbus (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I work on a self-imposed 1RR and find that discussion is always preferable to reverting. I have not warned Jmj713 about his behaviour; it's not my place to do so. I have however asked him to self revert as he has reverted four times and that crosses a "bright line". I would not like to see him blocked, as that would not be preventative, but I would like him to acknowledge that four reverts in a short time against two other editors is unacceptable. Djsasso, I believe that you are encouraging Jmj in his actions, while as an admin, you should be bound to advise him against them. I reject the imputation of bad faith on my behalf, and I am disappointed that an attempt is being made to deflect this report from its purpose: that of reducing the edit-warring on that template. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see this as an attempt to reduce the edit-warring on the template which had already long stopped by time you made this report. Instead I see it as an attempt to silence your "opponent" which I think is in very poor taste when a discussion was already ongoing and the user had already stopped. -DJSasso (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I really do despair when I see you describing Jmj as my "opponent". What is going on in your head? because it bears no resemblance to how I see this issue. You yourself reverted the template to a non-accessible state half an hour after I made this report. My involvement on this page is solely for the purpose of reducing the edit-warring, and I really think you'd be better to join me in that goal, rather than exacerbating the problem. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in quotes because it is not me describing him as such, but rather me describing how it looks like you are treating him as such. As for my revert, yes I did. I put it back in the original state as it should have been after the original WP:BRD so that the discussion could finish. -DJSasso (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean "how it looks" to you? I really don't wish to be rude here, but can't you see the problem? You are the one viewing this as a battle, not me. I do understand why you reverted – though I think it was inadvisable – but it does make a bit of a nonsense of your claim that "the edit-warring on the template had already long stopped by time you made this report", doesn't it? --RexxS (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I meant that, it is my comment. As for your other comment, I was referring the the warring by the person you reported. That another user decided to jump in and continue warring well that was unfortunate. -DJSasso (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted more than I did (and, I believe, in only this one case, with dozens of templates affected), if BRD was followed as should be done. Just for the record though, before going over the 3RR I notified the original user at his talk page as per BRD, but was reverted and disregarded, and that's how all this started. Jmj713 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Declined Best discussed on the relevant thread on Wikiproject Hockey. User:RexxS requested above that User:Jmj713 acknowledge that his reversion was superfluous, which he has done above. Warning note to be left on User:Jmj713's page -- Samir 05:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ebrahimi-amir reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: both blocked )

Page: Kurdish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebrahimi-amir (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Ebrahimi-amir has been gaming the system on Kurdish people, making half a dozen reverts in just a couple of days, against the consensus of three other editors on the talk page. What needs be noted in this case, is the fact that User:Ebrahimi-amir was blocked indefinitely for similar type of behavior, and was only unblocked after he "pledged not to engage in further edit wars" as noted on his block-log. So he has clearly broken his promise to the admins to behave, and should therefore be given a lengthy block. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) -->

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It takes two to tango. Tiptoety 02:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Dmohr123 reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User : Dmohr123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Regarding another section of the Page.

• 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&diff=480883939&oldid=480872593
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: [

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 02:41, 23:24, 23:10, 23:03 and several others before that. Was warned tactfully prior. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MartinEden5 reported by User:Fram (Result: 24 hours)

Page: David Lifton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MartinEden5 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have reverted MartinEden once, User:Location reverted him thrice, warned him, and started the discussion at the article talk page. After this, MartinEden5 reverted the article for a fifth time, without any discussion at the article talk page. He also, despite a request at his talk page, continues posting to user pages instead of user talk pages. Fram (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned. Kuru (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MadGeographer reported by User:IIIraute (Result: No action)

Page: Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MadGeographer (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , 18.6: Science

Comments:The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim (before my edit) that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity (in German, in Germany, being a German citizen). In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, while being a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany. (see: www.Nobelprize.org - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html).

The current source used in the article: "Einstein tops list of leading Swiss - swissinfo.ch", should be removed, as it is full of wrong & bias information. (Wrong theory, wrong date for Nobel Prize, wrong curriculum vitae & citizenship, etc.)

--IIIraute (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Illraute, I reverted your edits expaining the reasons on the talk page. Your correction about the general theory was not reverted, so the current article is correct and only says that Einstein wrote the special relativity theory a Swiss, nothing else. I see nothing that justifies an edit war here. mgeo talk 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this part of the article is still misleading. Apart from that is the biased and revisionist source you added simply unacceptable. You reverted my edits several times with the explanation that "this is how we do it here" without engaging in a convincing/or any argument. You deleted well sourced material. Looking at the Switzerland©™ article and talk page®, it seems like you have some kind of Copyright on that topic! Even after I had sent you a WP:3RR and opened WP:RfC, you still did revert the article another time.--IIIraute (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is misleading in the article?

• Stop right there Let me clarify something for both of you: There is no justification for edit warring, ever, unless it is the reversion of blatant vandalism. This is a content dispute so it is subject to the edit warring policy. Everybody got that? Also this page is for reviewing the edit war itself, not for discussing the actual article content. If you guys might care to take this back there and work it out we can avoid blocking all involved parties and/or protecting the page from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. The parties can still be sanctioned for long-term warring if this continues in the future with no proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Whatthedog reported by User:Chikazuku (Result: no action)

Page: K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whatthedog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

1. 14:24, 29 February 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
2. 10:00, 3 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
3. 09:10, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")
4. 18:03, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* 2000s: Popularity in Asia & Globalization */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have reason to believe that they may be an anti-fan of Girls' Generation? They have been removing anything related to them from the article. --Chikazuku (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Declined No warning specific to edit warring; no attempts to communicate with the other editor. Kuru (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:JayJay (Result: Both blocked)

Page: List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 21:58, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481057853 by Scorpion0422 (talk)don't be foolish. Backing Bands go in their own section, as this is an area for official inductees.")
2. 00:13, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481087948 by Scorpion0422 (talk)table stays. Backing bands AREN'T part of the offical induction including those 6.")
3. 00:22, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Performers */ could say the same thing for Early Influences. Backing Bands remain seperate. Everyone in that sham of a place is a performer, don't be a hypocrite")
4. 00:30, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481090592 by Scorpion0422stop. They aren't part of the formal group of traditional 6. Take to talk page (which you appear to snidly remind me of). We are wasting time")
5. 00:36, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "ab bub bub! talk page!")
6. 00:41, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481091901 by Scorpion0422 (talk)there is a discussion on the talk page. I suggest you discuss on it before pursuing revert")

• Diff of warning: here

—JayJay 00:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hypocracy surrounds me. Why isn't Scorpion on trial? RAP (talk) 0:51 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well your the one who started the ordeal, that's why I believe you should be reported. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone? JayJay 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

People are so full of shit here these days. RAP (talk) 0:55 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Scorpion's history here makes me think he should be blocked too. JayJay 01:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked It takes a minimum of two users to edit war, both parties behaved badly regardless of who "started it." RAP blocked 24 hours, Scorpion blocked 48 as he has been blocked in the past for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Mar4d is also under a one revert restriction when reverting against me as can be seen here He violated this restriction with these reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Comments:

• False report, this user is on a 1 rr restriction. He re-inserted content into the article which was objected to, as can be seen here, without getting any consensus (see comments at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War#Supposed misrepresentation), therefore it's actually him who's in the fault here. Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that was my first revert to that article since 13:09, 8 March 2012 That's like two days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 02:48, 01:58, 16:06, 13:20. Editor is aware of 3RR, as he has two previous edit warring blocks. I don't see the necessary 2nd revert by DS to break a 1RR; if there is some other random restriction in place, let me know. Kuru (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Moviehub reported by Nyttend (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: N. T. Rama Rao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moviehub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link, diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Can't find anything, except some discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld

Comments:
Note that I've never edited this article (nor Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao, where warring has started); I became aware of it after Dr. Blofeld asked me for help. Because he asked me to come in, and because it's not blatant vandalism, I'm feeling rather involved right now. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very busy today and haven't got the time t keep reverting an editor who persists on removing any mention of Rama Rao's political career from his main article and messing up the sourcing with bare urls when I spent a lot of time cleaning it and ensuring it was referenced properly. My efforts to suggest a discussion of content on the talk page ended up with this user blanking my message on his talk page. The political sub article Chief Ministership of N. T. Rama Rao is a fork causing major problems and should be deleted. Rama Rao is a POV magnet and attracts all sorts of insistent POV pushers. I don't think Moviehub is a POV pusher, but he has the same persistent traits many have over his article. I would have reported it here myself but experience over the Gobichettipalayam article a week or two ago when I reported it at ANI and not one admin would step in I thought I was wasting my time even reporting it. I had hoped to see some swift action in reporting it to Nyttend but like Moonriddengirl said he felt unable to take action for being "involved". When things like this happen it sometimes feel like eons before anybody actually does anything and is a very real problem on here, because the persistent editors are not essentially vandals. Unless its blatant vandalism I think admins find it difficult dealing fairly with situations like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Moviehub (talk · contribs) is most certainly a sock of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs). Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. — Abhishek  14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One of many I'm sure, the arrogance of his actions suggests a lot of experience on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He has since stated that I use "kindergarten english level and unprofessional language", "I make[REDACTED] a hell of a experience with non sense and POV".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And so the edit warring continues. Somebody keep an eye on this which I've reverted. His edit summaries like this implying "peacock" over simple grammar edits He is likely to restore his "finest actor" to an article which already says he was one of the most prominent actors. It is not necessary to mention twice he is the finest actor and then the most prominent actor or to start a new paragraph discussing his film work continuation. I've really had enough of this now but I ask that somebody really does look into the quality of his edits and trusts my judgement on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of him. I can't work in an environment like this. I will return to[REDACTED] once somebody deals properly with him and examines his editing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I suspect the SPI will result in a much longer block, though... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Some IP accused me of being a liar and a vandal here. Ironically it was actually me who cleaned it up in the first place to make it half decent and was why the article was stable, he didn't know that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the SPI confims that Moviehub is a Padmalakshmisx sock; block has been upgraded to indef. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Tony May reported by User:Edinburgh Wanderer (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Gerard Dewhurst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tony May (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:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
User keeps saying he is reverting vandalism it has been explained that it isn't vandalism and that even if he thinks he is correct then this is edit warring at 7 reverts but appears to be continuing. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Blocked by TeaDrinker. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Green-Halcyon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Green-Halcyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:40, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by NetNus (talk) to last version by Tbhotch")
2. 17:41, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 481160354 by Green-Halcyon: Restored to version before unconstructive removal of content. Personal life is relative to the articel, the Sun is well known newspaper, claim of sex change is likely true. (TW)")
3. 18:11, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Phil Bridger (talk) to last version by Green-Halcyon")
4. 21:14, 10 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Youreallycan. (TW)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts; was warned. I've removed rollback as well; it was clearly misused here in a dispute with good-faith editors. Kuru (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Baibhavr reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Gautama Buddha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baibhavr (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page is filled with discussions of this topic, and of denied edit requests by unconfirmed users requesting this very edit.

Comments:
User is continuously reinserting a POV into the article's lede, refusing to discuss it on the talk page despite being informed of a consensus concerning what they are rewording, and requests on their talk page to discuss the change. - SudoGhost 04:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 04:30, 04:15, 04:04, 02:27. Was warned. Kuru (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:NerosRevenge reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:48hrs )

Page: Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NerosRevenge (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of hours48 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:B.vikram.b reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ekal Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B.vikram.b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reverts at 11:50, 01:09, 00:46, 20:32. Warned prior to last reverts and a few days before as well. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:184.90.184.25 reported by User:TheFBH (Result: 1 week)

Page: Montel Vontavious Porter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.90.184.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 18:41, 10 March 2012
• 2nd revert: 19:08, 10 March 2012
• 3rd revert: 02:33, 11 March 2012
• 4th revert: 05:44, 11 March 2012
• 5th revert: 14:26, 11 March 2012
• 6th revert: 16:56, 11 March 2012‎
• 7th revert: 17:21, 11 March 2012
• 8th revert: 18:27, 11 March 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user keeps removing sourced information, doesn't add any source of his own, just claims to have "first-hand information". Has been warned and blocked for 48 hours, returned and kept making the same edits that got him blocked. When I try to point to him that the info he is removing has a source and that his "first-hand information" isn't a reliable source, I get called a "mark".TheFBH (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Obviously this is a problematic editor, but it would be helpful if you could report here before such a massive edit war develops. Kuru (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ahmad2099 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmad2099 (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:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This has been going on for almost two weeks now, and it's this single editor against a whole slew of other editors active on the page. I've reverted him maybe two or three times over the time period; other editors have reverted him other times. I'm not sure the editor has violated WP:3RR, but the page is under WP:1RR. Anyway, this pattern of behavior is extremely disruptive, the editor has been admonished repeatedly to discuss the issue on the Talk page instead of edit-warring, nobody else seems to agree with the edit he is trying to make, and it's not remotely constructive. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been reported yet by one of the more active editors on the page, though he has been warned.

—Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 15:39, 13:39, 18:27, 16:35. Has been warned previously. Kuru (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HasperHunter on FC Barcelona reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24h)

Page: FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HasperHunter (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: made after the 3RR warning and after the notice of this dispute was made on editor's talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: More to the point, the editor was warned within the past day of edit warring on a different article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• none

Comments:
This editor appears to have an WP:AXE to grind on this one point and has attempted to indicate that the reference is unreliable despite verification to the contrary: it is from the club's official website and has been vetted as a WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed. User Walter Gorlitz is violating WP:NPOV and assuming a fan blog to be the official website of a big club. The user is self violating three revert rule.HasperHunter (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The User is cleanly lying of the facts stated above. I have contributed to the discussions before editing any article. The user has not contributed before reverting or misusing the templates on my talk page.HasperHunter (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but when you're reported to AN3 for 5 reverts in roughly 24.5 hours, that's not a good response. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also, to be clear, Walter is not in violation of the three revert rule. Swarm 02:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The editor seems to believe that the placing of any warning template is a misuse of the template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:TopGun reported by User:AshLin (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: This version

Links to diffs about Reported User's reverts: Only two diffs provided since user is under a 1RR Restriction.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Comments by User:AshLin

User:Top Gun has been edit-warring with me. He is under 1RR Restriction. He is currently under consideration for a topic ban.

The issue

During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, an Indian Gnat aircraft landed at an abandoned airfield and was captured. Primary Pak sources claim that it was due to being forced down by PAF Starfighters. The History of the IAF, a reliable secondary source mirrored online, claims that the pilot ran short of fuel and mistook the airfield for an Indian airfield.

My stance

That this situation be represented by a neutral version, which includes mention of both the fuel explanation and the starfighter explanation. This is on the basis of The History of the IAF,, a secondary source mirrored online.

I have also deleted the reference from pakdef.info, a tainted source, so declared by WP:RSN here.

My NPOV version is:

During the initial phase of the 1965 war, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur, ostensibly out of fuel, and was captured by the PAF. Pakistani sources claim that the Gnat was forced down by Lockheed F-104 Starfighters. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi.

I use the word "ostensibly" to show that it is the Indian POV, though there is far greater credibility to the Indian view, the so-called surrendering pilot's behaviour was examined by a court-of-enquiry and he later went to become a very high ranking officer in the IAF, which would not be the case if he had landed being frightened by Starfighters.

TG's stance

TG's POV version is:

During the initial phase of the 1965 war, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the PAF. Two Lockheed F-104 Starfighters forced the Gnat down. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi.

Other material opposing his viewpoint was deleted by TG

Material (previously added by other editors) supporting my stance was deleted by TG:

• {{#tag:ref|Later, a retired PAF historian, Air Cmde Kaiser Tufail, determined that the Gnat actually landed before the F-104s arrived on the scene, giving credibility to the Indian version.|group=N}}

By reading the relevant reference, the note can be seen as being justified and TG in his edit summary was lying - (India: added pakistan's view of aircraft tested, removed incorrect note after review.)

POV material added by TG - "not a Sabre-slayer"

The POV text given below was added by TG.

Sqn Ldr Saad Hatmi who flew the captured aircraft to Sargodha, and later tested and evaluated its flight performance, was of view that Gnat was no "Sabre Slayer" when it came to dog fighting."

It was commented out by User:Bzuk in article text with scathing comment on TG on talk. It was also rebutted by User:MilborneOne and User:Nigel Ish.

TG's Edit-warring

TG responded to my edits of 9 March by reverting me. This was his first revert (03:24 hrs UTc of 9 March 2012). He claimed in his edit summary that only the tainted source should be removed and that his previous edits were as per sources, not giving reason for why my edits were reverted. He did NOt talk on the talk page. He was already under 1RR Restriction which I knew about.

My response to this was to revert his reversal with reasons on talk page (my first and only revert, 04:17 hrs, 9 March 2012). He responded by reverting once again (his second revert, 1540 hrs UTC, 10 March 2012), and by accusing me of not following BRD and adding dubious material and also accused me of gaming/baiting of the 1RR ban of his.

It is obvious that he violated the 1RR ban for a specific topic and gamed the system by waiting more than 24 hours between the reverts. He claims for his second revert that he was only following the BRD cycle. Can he do this based on his 1RR ban?

Solution?

It is very difficult for me to resolve this issue without getting sucked into a destructive combative edit-war. Especially as TG accuses me of baiting/war gaming his 1RR restriction which has nothing to do with me. This is one of the reasons I support his topic banning from India related articles. Either I allow him to get away with POV additions and slip-shod defective (imho) edits or I get drawn into this vitiated combative situation - in both ways, Misplaced Pages loses and/or my time gets wasted.

User:Top Gun is undergoing consideration of a topic ban. It would be best if that comes through. Otherwise admins may take action as felt appropriate.

Connected References

1. ^ "1965 War, Chapter 3." bharat-rakshak.com. Retrieved: 4 November 2010.
2. ^ "A Gnat Surrenders." Pakdef.info. Retrieved: 4 November 2010. Tainted source
3. ^ Tufail, Air Commodore M. Kaiser. "Run… It’s a 104." Defence Day]
4. Tufail, Air Commodore M. Kaiser."Run … It’s a 104." jang.com. Retrieved: 25 November 2011.

Diff of 1RR warning: 1RR Restriction

Diff of notice of ANI: Diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussion after TopGun's first revert.
• my reply 2.
• my reply 3.
• Before I could reply to his allegation that there was no source for lack of fuel excuse, he reverted the second time.

Comments:

• Comment. I'm not going to action this report, but I'd like to comment on it all the same. I believe that TopGun has at least gamed his revert restriction, because he appears to have waited just long enough not to technically violate 1-rr when he reverted. However, this happened on the 10th, which, in my opinion, makes this violation stale. As I was saying, I'm not going to take action, but I think that, in this case, a warning is probably the best response... Salvio 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• My watchlist has over 5000 WikiProject India articles and for some reason, I did not detect this second revert on the 11th. My time on 11th was completely spent on WikiProject work and the previous Saturday night (much against my wishes) in toning down Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir. I discovered this only because I wanted to continue my argument with him, it was my turn to reply and found he had done a second revert. I fail to see how the report becomes "stale"? Is there a time bar for reporting infringements? Does my noticing it 24 hours later than I could have reduce the gravity of his continued defiance of the community? I leave it for each editor to decide for himself. AshLin (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

I've not read this TLDR report, but I know what 1RR restriction is. I specifically informed this user of not baiting me over my 1RR (which he has done at another place too.. or probably makes a second revert over me while he's the one making the first change ever since I have 1RR). The second revert was not even 'just out side' the 24hr period or 'one revert each day' to game the restriction.... it was in the middle of the next day. When AshLin's edit was not justified, I reverted him to the last stable version. I find it quite telling that he's supporting a topic ban on me to get past content disputes from other articles. Simple bad faith report in my opinion. I find no point in dumping the whole content dispute here either. In addition I remember informing Salvio of this user trying to bait my restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And oh, wouldn't I be surprised by the admin-shopping: . --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale - In this particular instance, the two reverts are not close enough together to constitute an explicit 1RR violation, and even if they were, the incident is stale. I will just generally remind TopGun, however, that appearances of gaming the system are actionable, even if there isn't an explicit revert rule violation. Swarm 17:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Qingxin reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: 31h)

Page: Jian'ou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:21, 12 February 2012(edit summary: "")
2. 06:31, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:34, 9 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 05:23, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:19, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

• Summary of reverts: After I added the map "Nanping county-level divisions", Qingxin removed it without explanation, and, also without explanation, has consistently delinked "County-level city" in favour of "City", which is far less informative, again constituting removal of content. Only in his most recent revert did Qingxin explain (without sources) that the PRC is supposedly doing away with prefecture-level divisions. —GotR 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. User has been repeatedly warned for removing content without explanation. Swarm 16:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Three users reported by User:Izidorscats (Result: Two blocks)

Page: Siege of Homs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brucerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Just watch the page history, it is an endless edit war between 3 users http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Siege_of_Homs&action=history action needed

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

• I filled in the names of the three users that Izidorscats must be referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Objection

User:Brucerman is a sock account of User:ChronicalUsual. ChronicalUsual publicly announced his intention to create more sock accounts to edit[REDACTED] in a POV manner. Brucerman was created specificly to alter the Siege of Homs page without getting caught. It was created shortly after Chronical's banned. ChronicalUsual has been proven to have created 7 sock accounts within the last month. It is my understanding that users have a right to revert the actions of sock accounts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

• Result: Two editors have been blocked for personal attacks, and an SPI has been filed on Brucerman. Sopher99 seems OK. If he was reverting a sock he gets some slack. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I fully understand that edit warring on any scale is not tolerated and that discussing on talk pages or requesting a third opinion is the way to go, but I truly believe Brucerman is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of ChronicalUsual, who other users and I have spent a great amount of time working to scale back his POV pushing. Sopher99 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:AV3000 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Comments:
Although one of 3RR's exemptions regards "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard."
User:Arzel's 4th revert comment indicates that he instead chose to continue edit warring ("This is being discussed on BLP, please do not revert."); I've asked Arzel to consider self-reverting. AV3000 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This contentious addition of information is currently on the BLP messageboard. I don't believe 3RR applies when editors are adding possible BLP violations. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Update - Those are TWO different articles~ AV3000 should revert this submission. Arzel (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - struck with apologies. AV3000 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User: Caitlyn4272000 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

Page: The Hunger Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Caitlyn4272000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:58, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I have only edited what is not needed in explaining the plot.")
2. 18:20, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:28, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:39, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

3. 18:41, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   18:42, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

4. 18:54, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")
5. 22:59, 12 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")
6. 00:11, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

   00:12, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

7. 23:57, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "I edited things that were not needed in explaining the plot.")

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:78.1.187.85 reported by User:Eleassar (Result: )

Page: 2Cellos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.1.187.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.139.32.25 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2Cellos#Croatian and Slovenian

Comments:

User Eleassar is abusing his admin rights. I have put this on the talk page of the 2cellos article,he cannot dispute these facts,yet he still changes the article to have make Luka Sulic look like a Slovenian,when in fact he is Croatian. This is what i have put on the talk page,until it can be disputed i would request a block to user Eleassar for vandalism the 2cellos article.

If Luka was Slovenian they could have put hometown Croatia and Slovenia,but since they did not it clearly states they are both Croatian. Furthermore on every show they are on,both are announced as a cello duo from Croatia,not a single show announced them as a pair from Croatia and Slovenia,again if Luka was Slovenian he wouldn't put up with his country being neglected(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related). In the end the information they provided to Sir Elton John clearly states they are both Croatian (http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498). Unless you can dispute these facts refrain yourself from altering the article or i will be forced to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.187.85 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

With what administrative action am I abusing my privileges? Please provide a diff. Also please further discuss the article at Talk:2Cellos instead of here and avoid original deductions. For the accusation of vandalism, it's silly. --Eleassar 08:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are the only one which is not up to discussing the article on the talk page,the last entry is mine,if you cannot dispute that entry (and you certainly cannot) you shouldn't be making changes to the article,yet you have done so multiple times without an explanation or a another source that would prove your points and discredit all the others. Since you have made unjust changes to the article without a reason or a new source,and without disputing what has been said on the talk page,then it is very obvious that your actions are vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your objections at the talk page as soon as you posted them, which you have done after a lot of edit warring and only when I prompted you to do so. Since then, I have also refrained from further editing the article, as evident from its history. Your accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry (), and edit warring are a good reason for a lengthier blockage. --Eleassar 09:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope,you have replied to me couple of minutes ago,the last entry in the talk page before your reply was mine and it stood there for 2 days,and you changed the article without giving your reasons on the talk page few times after mine entry. And you are sinking more and more by the minute my friend. In your unjust quest to make Luka Slovenian you are using arguments that are on the level of 5 year old child,i would not want children to make changes to common world knowledge base. Place of birth does not determine your nationality,in fact all your arguments make no sense,since on 2cellos OFFICIAL page it states they are from Croatia,on EVERY show they are on both are introduced as a cello duo from Croatia,not ONCE were they introduced as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia,if Luka was Slovenian i am sure he would say something to at least one of the shows they were on,but since he did no such thing it must mean they are both Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the sock puppetry,i have made this account this morning,so that you know who you are talking to. These are just some of the shows they were on,they are always introduced as being from Croatia,in some of them they asked if they are form Croatia and they say yes. If you can dispute these facts,by finding a video where they are introduced as a duo from Croatia and Slovenia,then all is good,you can change the article,but until then it must state they are both Croatian. Shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related . In the end 2cellos provided the information Sir Elton John has put on his website,since they are on tour with him, and it is the most recent article it is yet another proof that they are both Croatian. The second link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8) above holds a show where they performed with Elton John and he as well introduces them as Croatians. These are clear cut FACTS,without being able to dispute them you should not be able to change the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please concentrate on your edit warring? This is what is discussed here. I don't think I have been edit warring - you have. As for the sock puppetry, you may post your comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/93.138.76.254. My opinion is that you created it so that your strong vandalism warning at my talk page would seem more serious. Regarding the origin of Šulić, I've replied to you at the talk page of the article, because this is the place to hold such discussions. I may just mention that Šulić himself stated in an interview he was born in Maribor, Slovenia. Regarding your snub of me and my comments, it speaks for itself. --Eleassar 10:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the ULTIMATE proof that Eleassar actions are pure vandalism,i have put links to these videos in the talk page,but he simply does not want to cope with reality. In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 1:00 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:45 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss about that lovely place). Unless you can find a video (since a video is the ultimate source,you see the people talking in person) in which Luka says he is Slovenian thatn your actions are vandalism,not mine.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring