This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akshatra (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 31 August 2014 (→User:Akshatra reported by User:NeilN (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Protot reported by User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (Result: Protected)

• Page: Alain Guionnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Protot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the diff at: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alain_Guionnet&diff=623003265&oldid=623000003

I have warned Protot.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 10:19, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Firstly your report is grossly malformatted. Secondly, it appears that both you and the other editor are edit warring, and that neither of you have made any effort to discuss the matter on the article's talk page at Talk:Alain Guionnet. If you are the same editor as Special:Contributions/31.33.52.190, you were warned at User talk:31.33.52.190 about edit warring. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the header of the report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protot (talk) Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau has been condemned in France for defamation against "Association contre la Mutilation des Enfants". He tries to take his revenge in Misplaced Pages. What is the meaning of: "Valla might also have been sentenced"? Purely defamation. Is he a prosecutor?

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Fist, notice I publish under my real name. Second, I wrote a message in Protot's talk page asking him to stop the war that HE began, systematically destroying my precious additions to the existing article. Third, Protot lies; he is libelling me and I prove it: I have been discharged by the Tribunal correctionnel (criminal court) de Nanterre and by the Court of appeal of Versailles (http://pdfcast.org/pdf/arr-t-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-versailles-du-2-04-2013) from Xavier Valla's (and not the AME) complaint in defamation; it was totally abusive since, in France, freedom of expression entitles anybody to tell what she or he thinks of someone else's political ideas (belonging to the far-right in the matter). Fourth, I have given a link to the copy (from the Bibliothèque nationale) of Valla's revisionist article in Revision n° 4. At last, after Mr Valla's plaintiff, I published quite a few articles denouncing his and the AME's antiJewism (https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau/The-French-far-right-and-its-masked-antiJewism) but neither he nor the AME ever lodged a complaint in defamation, indeed, they would very obviously loose it from the very start because I would bring all the proofs of my sayings (in Revision, Guionnet boasts about his revisionism and about having been sent to jail several times).

• Comment: At first sight, the subject of our article, Alain Guionnet, appears to be an antisemite and holocaust-denier. An article about him was deleted from the French Misplaced Pages in 2007 at fr:Discussion:Alain Guionnet/Suppression. These matters have some legal significance in France. It is unclear if there is enough notability to keep the article here. The guy has some publications and is said to have been jailed a number of times. Somebody would have to look for sources in mainstream French newspapers. For the present dispute full protection might suffice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protot (talk) Is it an article about Alain Guionnet or Xavier Valla? For information, Valla has never been condemned in France. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau did: defamation.

• Result: Article protected one month. After looking for Alain Guionnet in google.fr it seems to me that an AfD nomination is in order. There is little doubt that Guionnet is a holocaust denier but his name seldom appears in any publications about that movement in France. It's claimed he is the publisher of the denialist magazine Révision but except for a couple of holdings in Worldcat it's hard to tell if that magazine has been recognized anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) It is true that Valla has not been condemned yet but, since his defamation complaint has been rejected (my discharge by both courts), he is guilty of defamatory denounciation, which is repressed by the Code Pénal.

Revisionism in France does not have "some" but great criminal significance; it is the reason why Guionnet has been jailed, which he is so proud about. "Revision" having disappeared, the great interest of the article is denouncing Guionnet's and his friends' Association contre la mutilation des enfants. Guionnet just being a raving madman, no French newspaper ever spoke about him. As for Revision, according to my findings in the Bibliothèque nationale, it lasted four years only from 1999. And Guionnet's own site (http://guionnet.wordpress.com/) is the only place where he goes on taunting his revionism, go fast reading it (mind not being intoxicated) if an afd is in view. The only recognition of Revision was made in the Revue d'ethnopsychiatrie by the psychiatrist Michel Erlich, saying that it is "une bande de néo-nazis délirants" (Erlich M. Circoncision, excision et racisme. Nouvelle revue d'ethnopsychiatrie, 1991 (18), p.130.). Please read at least my article: "The Association contre la mutilation des enfants, a masked anti-Semitism" that you'll find at https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau/The-French-far-right-and-its-masked-antiJewism; it may be a self-publication, it is the main one existing about the AME founded by Guionnet and his "Nouvelle droite" friends and the French version got 70 views without any complaint. Attacked from everywhere, I had a small VCA yesterday and may not live very long from now on; please prevent that nasty fascist liar to kill me more with his continous libelling, and suppress his ID (s?) from posting.

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Both warned)

Page: Baelor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Fire and Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: A Golden Crown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: The Wolf and the Lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Baelor
Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things
Fire and Blood
A Golden Crown
The Wolf and the Lion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Baelor, first revert
2. Baelor, 2nd revert
3. CB&BT, first revert
4. CB&BT, second revert
5. Fire and Blood, first revert
6. Fire and Blood, second revert
7. Golden Crown, first revert
8. Golden Crown, second revert
9. Wolf and the Lion, first revert
10. Wolf and the Lion, second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

All of the aforementioned articles are episodes of the tv series, Game of Thrones. Much of this arises out of an editing disagreement in the Oathkeeper article (yet another episode) which has seen Darkfrog24 blocked twice in less than 4 months. The second, week-long block was lifted early upon the condition that the user was:

"...subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction)."

The user has initiated numerous DRNs, RfCs, various RSN and WP:V discussion sections in a four-month long attempt to sidestep a fairly consistent consensus against an edit she would prefer to have in the article. The behavior she displayed in "Oathkeeper" would appear to be spreading to other articles now.

She seems to think that the removal of a fansite from articles will prevent RSN from forming an opinion (presumably, one in favor of her). Additionally, I think she has reverted my edits solely because they are edits by me to remove fansite and sources that don't say what the referred references state; Darkfrog24 and I are not bosom buddies, to be sure.

As I said, this sort of tendentious editing by Darkfrog24 has gone on for over four months, and I am not the only editor who has grown sick and tired of editing with her failure to accept a consensus view (yes, consensus can change, but not right after it has been determined). She insists one hasn't formed, which is news to the 6+ editors who disagree with her. She has created a toxic collaboration environment. I don't like who I am when I edit in article I like when she is there. Please help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jack has reverted his deletions. If anyone still wants to talk about these other issues, let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack is reporting me here because I reported him on AN/I last night for his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and his attempts to bias conflict resolution, which include his inappropriate deletions. This is childish.

No I am not currently under any editing restrictions. No I have not ever been under editing restrictions for the articles to which Jack is currently referring.

This is what the articles looked like before Jack and I got involved. They were approved for GA status with this content included, and they have been stable for years:

• Baelor
• The Kingsroad
• Winter Is Coming
• A Golden Crown
• Fire and Blood
• The Wolf and the Lion
• You Win or You Die

It may be relevant that I'm not the only one reverting Jack's edits:

The source in question, Westeros.org, is currently filed at the reliable sources noticeboard. The fact that all GA-rated Game of Thrones articles include their episodes' versions of the disputed text, usually citing Westeros.org as a source, has been brought up there. Precedent isn't the be-all-end-all of content dispute resolution, but it is in our toolbox. Jack should stop trying to hide this precedent from new participants.

Claims that I file too many RfCs: I filed one. There have been two RfCs at talk:Oathkeeper. Jack filed the other. As for RSNs, I posted two, far fewer than Jack has. (I don't see bringing up sources for review at RSN to be inherently objectionable so long as the filing is written in a neutral manner.)

Claims of "failure to accept consensus": The consensus was "more sources are needed." See RfC closer FormerIP's clarification (second paragraph) So I've been bringing in more sources. And just to be sure, I also repeatedly asked other longterm participants, "Do you have any reasons other than sourcing for opposing this material?" I keep getting "No, just sourcing," and "I also just don't like it but mostly sourcing." Jack's most recent answer is right here: "the reason I have a larger problem with the inclusion of this information is referencing to a reliable secondary source. That's it." It is not against consensus to find sources for material that others believe to be improperly sourced.

Claims of tendentious editing: Jack has repeatedly demanded, and very rudely, that I find secondary sources. I did. A lot of them. That's not tendentious editing. That's source-finding.

As for the deletion at "You Win or You Die," which Jack claims is because the source "doesn't support" the content, I don't think it's appropriate because of the precedent issue, but I haven't touched it. We can deal with the source, Suvudu, later, but it'll probably be faster to re-insert it with Westeros.org as a source. If I want Jack to wait for the RSN discussion to be complete before deleting, then it's certainly fair to wait before adding. It really should be reverted until the discussion of Westeros.org's suitability as a source is complete, but I'll defer to admin's take on that.

Yes, this content dispute has been going on for a long time. Jack, one other involved editor and I all agreed to seek outside input at the RS noticeboard. If Jack is as tired of conflict as he claims, then he should refrain from sabotaging that discussion with his attempts to discourage participation and his attempts to hide and delete longstanding precedent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE (also above): Jack has reverted his deletions. If anyone still wants to talk about these other issues let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the infamous Wall of Text. Clarity notes:

• I am not sure why Darkfrog24 feels her editing restrictions have expired; I see no expiration date in the conversation with the blocking admin. And even if it had, I am even more unsure why she feels its okay to restart the same sort of contentious behavior that has seen her blocked twice before.
• My complaint is solely about the edit-warring. I could add a wall of text about Darkfrog24's tendentious behavior, which has served to frustrate not just me but several others, some of whom have left the article in disgust. However, I am going to avoid her brand of drama and stick to the apparent facts: she is under an editing restriction for behavior that she continues to display, and would appear - from her response of blaming everyone but herself for her actions - that no rehabilitation has taken place. Barring outright lies, I am going to not post anything else. I am so very tired of dealing with this user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• If your complaint were solely about what you see as edit warring, then you wouldn't have accused me of so many other things. Don't say, "This person did that!" unless you're prepared for a response.
• The restrictions expired one week after the block

While we're at it, if anyone but us cares about this, while the statement "Darkfrog24 was blocked" is true, the statement "Darkfrog24 and Jack Sebastian were blocked" is more accurate.

Attempting to prevent you from biasing conflict resolution is not contentious behavior. Biasing conflict resolution is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dang it, I was hoping to not have to correct information again. The unblock discussion took place here, and there is no comment about the editing restrictions expiring after one week. Additionally, I was indeed blocked once before for engaging in an edit war with DF24. The difference is, after my block, I stopped edit-warring. She didn't. She actually just carried the same behavior that got her blocked again less than a month later to other articles.

Again, I am sorry; I had no intention of posting further, but needed to make sure that Darkfrog cannot blame anyone else for her own behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack has a history of not reading things closely enough to take in information that he doesn't want to be there. When the information is his business, I tell him exactly where to find it. This time, Jack, you have to do your own work. I don't have to prove to you that I kept to the terms of an agreement that I made with someone else. The restrictions expired after one week.

There was another edit war, and I was the only one who got blocked for it, but I wasn't the only one who participated in it. Jack did too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. That is just plain false. You reverted everyone, Darkfrog. That's why you were blocked the second time. If I or anyone else had been edit-warring, we would have been blocked, too. If youa re going to lie, please make the lie at least logical, madam.

And you are still edit-warring (11, 12). After asking me to self-revert in several articles (like here and here), you go and do precisely what you ask me not to, and continue edit-warring about it. My reserve of AGF for you is officially depleted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you dare call me a liar, Jack, not after the whoppers you tell. You, Doniago and I were in an edit war and I was the only one who got blocked for it. Do you think I got blocked for reverting my own edits? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jack is not reverting his misleading edit on The Kingsroad. Please do so, Jack. The RSN discussion could end a four-month content dispute. Whether this is deliberate or not, you are sabotaging that.

Wait a second, I think we might have an actual misunderstanding here. I did not revert your removal of the chapter information (though that is also inappropriate and you should self-revert); I reverted your removal of the Westeros.org tag. I didn't add a new Westeros.org tag; I just put back the one you took out. Is it in the wrong place or something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: My opinion is that User:Darkfrog24 should be reblocked for a campaign of edit warring which is still going on. She is still subject to the conditions under which she was last unblocked, though they impose a 1RR/week only to her edits of the Oathkeeper article. The intent of those restrictions was to force her to get consensus for her use of westeros.org in articles related to Game of Thrones. While I see no violation of the 1RR at Oathkeeper itself, she has continued her campaign on other articles about the same topic, as shown at the head of this report. The last block was for one week and was lifted early per agreement to conditions. At this time I think a longer block is appropriate. If you read over the discussion at User talk:Darkfrog24 and Talk:Oathkeeper you will probably become discouraged about her approach to Misplaced Pages editing. This is a person on a mission and she is strongly resistant to advice. User:Nyttend, User:Callanecc and User:NuclearWarfare are three admins who have previously looked into this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, @EdJohnston:. No I am not still subject to conditions:

Darkfrog24: Thanks. It is my understanding that these restrictions are in force until one week from the time of blocking, Saturday. If you mean one week from the time of unblocking, just let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc From the original expiry date is all I can enforce, though I'd suggest that a voluntary/unofficial 1RR/week or proposing potentially controversial things on the talk page first would be good practice for you given others were calling for a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please also note that the restriction applies solely to the article Oathkeeper, which is not what Jack is talking about here. As it happens, I have been voluntarily limiting edits to Oathkeeper and making proposals on the talk page, but, as Callanecc points out, that's an extra. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2014 (UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Darkfrog24)

EDIT: I just realized that this is probably the most relevant point: In all cases, after Jack's second un-revert, I switched to talk page discussions of the disputed material. They're here and here. Considering that Jack self-reverted after the first one, I thought they were working. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Ed Johnston, you are also mistaken on one point: The previous block had nothing to do with the use of Westeros.org as a source. I did not find out about Westeros.org until much later, after looking at sources used in GA-rated articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the allegation that I've been campaigning, several editors involved in this dispute, including Jack, suggested that the way GA articles handle this material should be considered. It was brought up at RSN. I feel that Jack's removal of these precedents from the GA articles at this time could mislead the participants there. He self-reverted most of these edits and conceded to wait for a resolution.

As for the allegation that I am "strongly resistant to advice," please note the following. In addition to Calanecc's suggestion: 1) TAnthony suggests that we consult GA articles for precedent. I do the legwork and report back. 2) Doniago suggests that we go to an RSN. I support the proposal and suggest that we all agree on a filing text ahead of time and then stay hands off. 3) While Doniago and I are working one out, Jack jumps the line and posts a filing that he knows is biased to the point where I initially thought he was kidding .

I am trying very hard to get this resolved in a way that everyone involved can accept as valid. I was specifically asked to bring in more sources, so I did. I also repeatedly asked if anyone had any non-source-related objections. I kept getting "No, just sourcing" for an answer (including from Jack). Now that I've found a source that meets WP:SPS's expert source requirements with almost textbook precision, Jack is, deliberately or otherwise, undermining efforts made toward conflict resolution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess this must be all our fault then, Darkfrog24. When I and others asked you to provide more sources to back up what you wanted to include, we should have stipulated that the sources be reliable, explicit and allowable secondary sources. I feel this apology is needed because you clearly were under the impression that sources from fansites, blogs and falsified sources were entirely acceptable. You felt so strongly about it that you spent months arguing that a music student from Brazil who posted a blog review was a reliable source.

No one is undermining you, Darkfrog, because you have not 'mined' anything of substance by way of reliable, usable secondary sources. The very, very few you have introduced have been used int he article. That should clearly indicate that we are willing to work with you, but this constant badgering the consensus with unusable sources is unacceptable. when you cannot build a new consensus almost immediately after the majority spoke, you went forum-shopping everywhere - anywhere - else. We are tired of dealing with this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources that I have been providing are reliable and explicit. You and I interpret policy differently. That does not mean that I'm messing with you or fighting consensus. As you pointed out in your last paragraph, some of the sources I found did meet with your criteria. So why would it be inappropriate for me to continue looking for more? From my perspective, there's no telling what you will or won't like before someone shows it to you.

Actually, Ana Carol has studied music and design and has produced content professionally. You don't feel that makes her an expert per WP:SPS, but it's not as if asking the question is inappropriate. I'll fully admit that Westeros.org is a much clearer case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood me, Jack, so I'll be clearer: I feel that you undermined the dispute resolution process in this way. The plan I'd proposed was that we 1) work out a consensus text; 2) post that on the RSN; 3) sit back and wait for other people to do the rest of the work. I feel that plan could have ended this conflict and that you undermined it by posting content that you know I thought was biased. I feel that you should have changed the header when I asked you to even if you didn't think it was biased, remembering that I did almost the exact same thing for you once . I didn't agree with your concerns, but I acted on them anyway because if the resolution is going to work, everyone has to think it is fair. When you cover up precedents, insist on using biased headers and post rants in the thread to scare off new participants, then you're pushing things in your favor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

the short short version

As you can tell, Jack and I can both get pretty long-winded, so here's the short, short version. Jack, if you want to add your own entry, I've left you the top space: Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Darkfrog was edit-warring - yes, indeed, two reverts per page, but spread out over at least six articles, equalling a dozen everts. While 3RR is the standard, Darkfrog24 is clearly gaming the system, having been blocked twice in two months for the same article. After the second blocking, Caallanec thought she might be rehabilitated by being placed on 1RR. This clearly did not have the desired effect; Darkfrog24 was exceptionally careful to get a specific date from Callanec when that editing restriction ended.

This editing restriction was imposed after noting that Darkfrog had (and has) been continually fighting consensus for almost four months. In the same article. Over the same sentence that she seems terribly desperate to have added to that article. She doesn't accept consensus, which has chased away editors. This complaint highlights that problem.

This gaming of the system is unacceptable. Granted, I (and several others) have a history with the user, and it isn't a happy, 'holding-hands-in-the-rain' sort of history. Please take note that Darkfrog24 is happy to blame everyone/anyone for her having violated 3RR - that's a warning sign of a deeper issue than being unable to count reverts.

Blocks have been enacted to both protect the articles and to curb tendentious behavior. It has not worked. A topic ban on all GoT articles is in order. If we cannot help her to be a better editor, we can help to allow the articles to grow through collaborative editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• 1) In all cases, I took the matter to the talk page after two reverts. Some of these talk page discussions produced results. 2) No I was not under any editing restrictions whatsoever at the time nor in violation of any previous arrangement, details above. 3) Jack's edits to these articles were inappropriate for reasons detailed above. He self-reverted some of them but not all of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both User:Darkfrog24 and User:Jack Sebastian are warned for edit warring. The next time either party adds or removes material sourced to westeros.org from any of the Game of Thrones articles (or A Song of Ice and Fire articles) they are risking a block, unless a talk page consensus has previously been obtained on that specific article. A logical next step for resolving the dispute is to ask for an uninvolved admin to close one or more of the open RfCs, for example the one at Talk:Oathkeeper. You can use WP:AN/RFC to make such a request. Make sure that the discussion has wound down before asking for closure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable to me, though I'd like if if you left Jack explicit permission to revert his deletions. To be fair to both Jack and myself, the de facto results of the RfC about the Ana Carol source have already been accepted by all parties. Technically people can still contribute if they want, but the conversation has moved on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Glamorousselenaofficial reported by User:Damián80 (Result: Blocked)

Page: La viuda negra (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glamorousselenaofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Edition of Glamorousselenaofficial

Comments:
The soap opera ended on June 8, 2014, and for some reason the user insists on eliminating the parameter end date. I have asked to add references and does nothing. The second season of the telenovela has not yet been confirmed, in the final chapter just says, "is history will continue." And that the only thing used as arguments to remove a parameter from the template.--Damián / talk 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor has been having difficulty with understanding how Misplaced Pages works for a while now. I have had to put two warning notices on their talk page this month. There does to seem to be a bit of a language barrier in play, and while I know that's not really an excuse, it could be a reason for the lack of understanding. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I recommend you to block Damián80, because he only undoes others reverts. He has deleted a lot of information of telenovela pages and he has already been punished 4 times for edit-wars. Last time he begged unblock til he got unblocked before deadline. And actually he is the one, who starts edit warring.He thinks that Misplaced Pages is for him but it is for everyone, because of that he doesn't let others edit. I don't even edit telenovela pages because, I know that Damian undoes it. I hope you'll make right decision. Dasi34 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Just filed an SPI for Dasi34 as a sock of Glamorousselenaofficial. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not his sockpuppet. Tests will confirm it. Dasi34 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked her to check if Dasi34 is a puppet account Sky0000. Just wait until it is confirmed.--Damián / talk 12:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Glamorousselenaofficial has been Indef blocked as a sock per SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Marcalsig reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (most recent first):

2. (restore of material that was removed)

(There are more but I stopped.)

Diff of edit 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various places, including the article talk page, my talk page, and Drmies's talk page

Comments: This user is a promotional SPA who probably is affiliated with the company despite his protests to the contrary. There have also been IP edits who geolocate to San Francisco, the company's headquarters. The user has been warned more about his promotional edits than his edit warring, but he won't stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Lots of revert warring, including removal of maintenance templates. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2a02:214b:8015:c000:47f:e42e:295c:5c9e reported by User:Local hero (Result: Semi)

Pages: Aridaia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Aetos, Florina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:214b:8015:c000:47f:e42e:295c:5c9e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.196.3.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.196.3.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Aridaia

1. not an improvement, you should have learned by now...
2. PROMOTION OF FRINGE NATIONALIST POV...
3. it is pov to include a single church and priest for his self-promotion; not encyclopedic; and I can find 8-9 other churches in the same village with greek priests; why mention just this particular???????
4. even if it frowned upon, why does this belong in this article? it belongs in an article about minorities or human rights, not to advertise a single person in a biased way, please read[REDACTED] rules

Aetos

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

On Aridaia, the user began removing the name of the town in Macedonian and removed a referenced statement about a church in the town. A total of four reverts were made by the user. Then, I started a talkpage discussion which the user never joined. Next, the user added a claim about the church's priest (the reference for it doesn't seem to work). I found this, if properly referenced, to be more appropriate for the priest's article than the town's article.

On Aetos, the user removed the Bulgarian and Macedonian names for the town, though the user stopped reverting after three.

Typically, these anonymous users go away after one or two edits but this one has stuck around for a while. I think page protection will be necessary. --Local hero 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Two articles have been semiprotected. The IPs seem to be warring to remove Slavic names and references from the articles on these towns in northern Greece. Use the talk page to work for consensus about these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

Page

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "Zelda Rae Williams can be inserted in the infobox since she is notable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Williams' children */ comment"

Comments:

Editor has been warned several times at the article talk page about not changing the content per discussion and consensus. There is an edit warning/direction imbedded at the info box which the editor has ignored at least twice. His behavior at the article talk page and at editor talk pages has been disruptive. He was also given a NPA warning a week ago for personal attacks at the same article talk page. I will be surprised if the most recent revert from him will be the last for this particular bit of content at the Robin Williams article. Asking for a preventative block based on obvious edit warring behavior with intent to continue regardless of discussion and warnings. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. We don't preventatively block editors, and there's no basis for filing an edit-warring report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. This policy says differently. If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Two edits is not, in this situation, an indication of ongoing disruption, which would be a preventative block to prevent this ongoing disruption. If your interpretation were correct, you would need to be blocked as much (if not) than the editor you're in a dispute with, not least of all because you misused rollback in an entirely inappropriate way in a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If I did use regular rollback, it was inadvertently. I usually always use Twinkle for reverting. I don't misuse rollback and am very careful with it. If it ever might appear I have misused rollback, it was in error - a mistake only. And, sorry, but I completely disagree that I am being disruptive in this situation. Look at the user's history at the Robin Williams page. Look at his interactions with other editors at the same article's talk page. I truly doubt anyone involved in this disagreement with KahnJohn would say it is me being disruptive and not KahnJohn. User:Masem being one of the other editors who has "Experienced" KahnJohn's edits and behavior at the same article. But as far as the edit diff you included, no, it was not a misuse or inappropriate, but very appropriate considering the circumstances and the consensus already reached on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still responsible for your mistakes just as everyone else is. You are being just as disruptive as the other editor (which isn't saying much because there's nothing terribly disruptive going on), but it's disingenuous for you to call for the block of an editor when your actions match theirs, even more so when you add the misuse of a user right to it. To my understanding, using twinkle in such a way would add (TW) to the end, but it's still terribly inapproriate; no edit summary and marking the edit as minor when it is anything but that is inappropriate. If you feel that your use of rollback was appropriate there that's a pretty clear sign that you need to have rollback rights removed until you learn when you can and cannot use rollback. Using rollback to edit-war is never appropriate, even if you think consensus has been reached (which I don't see in that discussion at all). - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're not understanding what I've said. I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Misplaced Pages can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I'm going to comment and then I don't want anyone to post anything more. First, Winkelvi, you're confused about preventative blocks. The way you're using the word, what you really mean is preemptive, meaning you think there's going to be disruption so you want a block before it happens. We don't do that. A normal preventative block is when there's already been sanctionable disruption, and you block to prevent further disruption. Here, there was no sanctionable disruption. One revert in 24 hours (you listed two but they were more than 24 hours apart) is hardly edit warring. Second, in one of your reverts of the other user, you did it with an explanation. To me, that's not a rollback. In the later one, you reverted without an explanation. That is a rollback as far as I'm concerned. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:108.225.190.118 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pontiac's War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.225.190.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The IP is attempting to whitewash the incident where British soldiers gave smallpox-laden blankets to Native Americans, on the grounds that the soldiers saying "let's do this" and the Native Americans experiencing a smallpox epidemic a few months later is no proof that actually went through with the plan. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:UA Victory reported by User:Antonioptg (Result: Antonioptg blocked)

Page: Russo-Georgian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UA Victory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:The user UA Victory deletes contents without a valid reason other than to defend their own view of the facts.--Antonioptg (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This dispute has a long history. Start reading here. The user that reported me is a possible sock puppet of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV a week ago. I reverted this registered editor's first two edits because they contained copyvios. He later changed text that violated copyright, but refused to address my concerns on talk page. --UA Victory (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

When I restored the last stable version, he reverted my edit and that was the first time I tagged this user's talk page for disruptive editing and WP:COPYVIO. However, he again continued edit warring without giving valid reasons on the article talk page. When he reverted my edit for the last time, I didn't continue to revert him, but he tagged my talk page for edit warring after 50 minutes. --UA Victory (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the Russo-Georgian War: Revision history. User:Antonioptg does not use edit summaries in his/her edits to the article. This makes it hard to assess what he/she was doing. I assume that User:Antonioptg does not have roll-back (roll-back has this unfortunate feature). Talk:Russo-Georgian War: Revision history shows that whilst both editors use the talk page, neither has been in the habit of leaving edit summaries there either. Since 3RR has not been broken, and UA Victory clearly is willing to discuss edits, recommend no action at this time.

If UA Victory thinks that User:Antonioptg is a sock he/she should do a WP:SPI.

Please could both of them start doing edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually use edit summaries when I edit articles. It's true that I don't use edit summaries for talk pages, because I've always assumed that when users edit talk pages, it's clear that they leave replies. I also believe that this Italian user is "he" since in Italy Antonio is a male name. Although I would like to discuss the changes, he avoids to address my objections. However I don't agree that there were no rules broken, because his very first edit contained text that infringed copyright; you can fact-check his added text against the cited sources. --UA Victory (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Antonioptg for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron reported by User:Yworo (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Yworo (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Yworo, who identifies himself as a Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin, has falsely accused me of edit warring. This is apparently based on two edits I made to Gavin McInnes on August 30, 2014. In the first, I asked via my edit summary that User:greenrd justify his preceding edit by copying an external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlinking it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. He did not do so. Instead, he undid my intervening revision and commented testily in his edit summary, "for the last time, it's still there. the URL is the same. It's hidden by a Javascript banner so there is no other URL." In my next good-faith edit, I politely repeated my edit summary request that User:greenrd copy the external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlink it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. I also requested that User:greenrd explain to Misplaced Pages readers how to access a secret "hidden" link not visible to the naked eye. I again concluded my edit summary by saying thank you. And as before, User:greenrd did not comply with my simple, straightforward request to make his edit explicable to ordinary users of Misplaced Pages. Yet Rouge Admin Yworo nevertheless felt compelled to accuse me of edit warring! Finally, and with great difficulty, I managed to locate the Continue link in question. So I concede the article is not exactly "withdrawn." However, it's all but impossible to find. In any case, I emphatically deny Rouge Admin Yworo's allegation of edit warring. All of my edits were in good faith, meant solely to not mislead the Misplaced Pages reader. JohnValeron (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User was warned at 3 reverts, reported at 4 reverts per Misplaced Pages standards. All the required documentation is present. User seems to persist in believing that being "right" (which he isn't) is justification for edit-warring, which he has definitely committed. It isn't. Yworo (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and both users were at 3 reverts and I warned both of them. The other editor has not persisted past 3 reverts. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, my 4th revert listed above was made in the heat of anger and was strictly the result of Rouge Admin Yworo baiting me minutes after falsely accusing me of edit warring. So there's that. JohnValeron (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not a false accusation, the template is intended to be used after a user has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, before they make their 4th revert. And correcting an article in good faith (as I did after verifying that Greenrd was indeed correct) is not "baiting", that's a personal attack. Really, have you bothered to read the page on edit warring? There is both a clear definition of what precisely edit warring means on Misplaced Pages, along with a description of how and when to warn and report people. And you shouldn't edit when angry. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I should not edit when angry. But you did bait me. JohnValeron (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not. I researched the issue, then issued a warning to both edit-warring parties before attempting to correct it. I suggest that you deal with your anger issues rather than projecting "blame" on another editor who has been editing in good-faith for nearly ten years. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring, which naturally angered me. You could have used Talk:Gavin McInnes to patiently explain why I could not see the nearly invisible Continue link that was at the root of the problem. You made no such effort. Instead, you manipulated me to get me blocked, which I suppose is your self-appointed mission as a Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin. JohnValeron (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You were edit-warring, plain and simple. I followed standard process, as I've been doing for at least the last seven years. Most editors read the related material and definitions, realize that they were indeed edit-warring, and stop. Your untoward reactions are not my fault. This conversation is done. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In what you list above as "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" you confirm that you made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring. And yet you insist that you were only following procedure? Rubbish. JohnValeron (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I explained what I was doing in detail in the edit summary. You didn't start a discussion either before you started to edit the article. Stop blaming other editors for your own faults. I am in no way required to discuss in the particular manner that you insist. I wasn't the one edit-warring, you were. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I too explained what I was doing in detail in my edit summaries. The difference between us is that I did not rush to falsely accuse, bait, and report a fellow editor. JohnValeron (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. You were repeatedly baiting User:Greenrd while repeatedly reverting him or her. I followed process, you fucked up. Period. I will not accept your accusations, and you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. You are not psychic, and have no fucking clue what is going on in another editors mind. You are just denying your own responsibility and being a jerk. Bye. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! See what I mean? After that vile little tirade, Rouge Admin Yworo accuses me of making personal attacks! What a hoot. JohnValeron (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment before. I've told you I did not intend to bait you. Insisting that I am lying is rude, and continuing to harass me about it is a blockable offence. You just don't seem to get that warnings are intended to help you avoid trouble. Take your passive-agressive bullshit off Misplaced Pages, please. Yworo (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How utterly predictable. Rouge Admin Yworo now turns detective, dredging up an offense from three years ago to influence the decision in this case. To what low will Rouge Admin Yworo stoop next? Stay tuned. JohnValeron (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm not an admin. The rouge admin page is Misplaced Pages humour, a joke, as is the "Rouge non- admin" userbox on my user page. If I were an admin, you'd already be blocked. The only thing that has any bearing on whether or not you will be blocked for edit-warring is your attitude. I'd currently estimate that you have a 99% chance of being blocked. Only by admitting you were edit-warring will you avoid a block. If you continue to blame me, the admin responding will be sure that you don't "get it" and need a block to have a bit of time to think about it rather than blaming others. Cheers! Yworo (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Blame you? My dear fellow, not a bit of it! You've been the perfect gentleman in all of our encounters. You are by no means a rogue. JohnValeron (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it's rouge (non-)admin, not rogue (non-)admin. That's part of the joke. Yworo (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per this comment JohnValeron has conceded that the pro-transphobia article is not really withdrawn, but can still be found by clicking past a warning screen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:TL565 (Result: Blocked)

Page: War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482315
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482661
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623509072 "There's no point in going to the talk page about it."
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521078
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521842

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User keeps reverting and doesn't want to go to the talk page. He doesn't listen to what others are saying and continues to re-insert his edit. This is not the first time he has been blocked on this same issue. TL565 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and as I said in one of my reverts, I realized you were trying to push me into 3RR with your unexplained reverts. Let me explain here. The DNR, LNR, and Russia all claim to be sovereign states. They should all be represented at an equal level. Novorossiya is a confederation and does not claim to be a sovereign state, so shouldn't be alongside Russia. There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how many reverts you make. More than 3 in 24 hours, you will likely be blocked. Yworo (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well it wouldn't have happened if I wasn't tricked into this with unexplained reverts. I was actually explaining my edits. 03:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And that seems to be a personal attack. What, you're psychic so that you infallibly know what another editor's intent is? Isn't "he made me do it" a little childish? Take some bloody responibility for your own actions and keep track of your own reverts! Who the hell else do you expect to do it for you, your mom? Yworo (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no? I had justified edits. They did unexplained reverts and ended up reporting me. 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not your edits are "justified" has no bearing whatsover on the issue. It's a simple count of reverts. That's it. Yworo (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if your prediction is right, I'll be blocked after suffering from a personal attack !! :: )) 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make you do anything. You didn't want to go to the talk page after multiple people reverted you. By saying that i was luring you into 3rr, you admit you broke it and pretty much asked for it. TL565 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, had you read my reasons and done some research yourself, you'd know my edits were justified. As I said There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya. 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Soffredo, comments about being "tricked" are not very helpful. You've been told repeatedly in the past to take such matters to the talk page, rather than to keep reverting. Instead, despite being blocked multiple times for such nonsense, you continue the same old behaviour: ignoring the talk page and reverting away over the course of days. Please learn that reverting is not the right way to solve a dispute, discussion is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There'd be no revert dispute if the person who reported me didn't cause those last two edits. They were unexplained reverts why I explained why I edited. 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop making excuses! It doesn't matter if you think you're right, you still broke the rule. TL565 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well this 3RR post wouldn't even exist if you hadn't done your unexplained reverts. 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not counting your reverts is never another editor's "fault". Grow up! Yworo (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? You're the one who said it was pointless to talk about it and were going to revert it anyway. TL565 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? Are you joking? I noted your unexplained reverts twice. Look at the last two links you initially posted. 03:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you even get what I said? I said why do you care if they were not explained when you said that it was pointless to discuss the issue? You believe you are right no matter what anyone else says and revert anyway. Stop pointing fingers and just admit it. TL565 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User: Damián80 reported by User:Xaxi32 (Result: Indeffed filer)

Page: El color de la pasión (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between two revisions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hi! I need an administrator to do something with that person. He only undoes my edits and if I asked him to explain he didn't even answer. Also he is making false accusations on me being sockpuppet of User:Sky0000. But soon tests show that I am not his puppet. He has already been punished 3 times as you see in block log. He undoes others reverts too. I just want that in Cast section will be more information. But he does not let me or others do that. Please, don't let him continue. Xaxi32 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) (The edit history from 2014 August 31 06:00 UTC and earlier shows two reversions from each of you. This board is generally only for violations of the three-revert rule, but I believe I need some clarification on this.)

Damian did give a reason in revision 623495387, "Unnecessary", and I would agree with that. I can't speak for another user, but I believe it's trivia that doesn't belong in the cast list.

Please defend yourself against the claims of sockpuppetry at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know but I am sure that he undoes my edit again. Please don't decline the case. Also he has undone that revision from other user too 1 time. That means he has performed same undo 3 times. Xaxi32 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I say, being a new user, it is rare for me to know me, and know how to do is go here complaint. In the past he was told this user that these edits were wrong, and not wanted to understand. Although Xaxi32 denies being a puppet, his acting clearly betrays.--Damián 07:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has already reversed more than 3 times. And still the same. For more messages and explanations to be given still ignoring them. plus it seems to be a puppet of Sky0000. He is now reversing the user Ohnoitsjamie, is possibly using an ip to defend his edition.--Damián 15:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I indeffed Xaxi32 as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sarabveer reported by User:Vigyani (Result: Blocked)

Page

Akhand Kirtani Jatha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 00:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) "This article has No Copyright Errors, I will add more references soon! I found alot of books I read about the AKJ."
4. 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been previously warned for edit warring on a different article. So I believe they know about edit waring. I have also told them repeatedly about BRD cycle and requested them not to edit war. Multiple editors have reverted their version, but still they persist with a version, which violates many other policies such as WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:NPOV. The attempts to resolve can be seen at article talk page, and mine and their talk page. Vigyani_talk 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Plase Tell of any copyright errors in my article, since I don't see any. And My article is neutral. My article had facts that I also have references for. Sarabveer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you paid attention to WP:NPOV, have you thought why multiple editors are reverting you ? --Vigyani_talk 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Only you and some other guy that did it today. Not that many, And I Fixed More Copyright errors. Now Ill read this and fix it. I'm assuming after i fix it, again, There will be no issues. Sarabveer (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:Vigyani Also, since you are the one screaming at me :P, please point out what part of my article is not neutral Sarabveer (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Only if you revert back to the actual version. See WP:BRD. You made changes, I reverted, and then we discuss, that is the rule here on WP. I can explain you all the problems with your version. I had tried it, but you anyhow went ahead to implementing your changes. --Vigyani_talk 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You never tried anything, if you did, please list the problems here with my Current article. Sarabveer (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. -"WP:NPOV" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarabveer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Boleyn (Result: )

Page: George Waters (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I originally posted this at ANI, but was informed that that was not the best venue, as Joe's behaviour was uncivil rather than a personal attack. However, the edit warring issue is clear.

I edited the page George Waters (disambiguation) () with the edit summaries 'tidy per MOS:D' and '+1'. It was a very small tidy, the kind that I make a dozen of a day without issues, and following the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Joefromrnb then made the following edit undoing mine, with an edit summary (): don't red-link personal names (unless, of course, you're a member of the disambiguation cabal, in which case all rules, up to and including BLP, cease to apply); the level of arrogance is simply staggering. The blp he referred to was actually a long-dead MP. He then undid another part of my edit () with the edit summary that's quite a misleading redirect and then another part of it with the edit summary WP:LINKSTYLE (). I then thought that if I linked in my edit summaries directly to the policies I was following, Joe would understand, so made this edit with the edit summary Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY; as this isn't an article, the guidelines are different, this with Please see WP:DABREDIR and then this after I had read the comment about how the level of arrogance is staggering () with edit summary: Instead of leaving rude edit summaries, please read MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. This was Joe's response, undoing all my edits with the edit summary don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't r . I was quite upset and looked at Joe's talk page to see if I should continue a discussion, but User talk:Joefromrandb showed lots of messages about his previous edit warring. I decided to completely leave the page and leave a message at WP: Wikiproject Disambiguation for a third person to look it over. Unfortunately the discussion did not go well: . User:DuncanHill saw the message and restored the deleted entry: with edit summary: legitimate redlink per " there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page". BLP does NOT apply as long dead. Joe deleted it with an edit summary: (forum-shopping to the walled garden of a Wikiproject does not in any way override site-wide consensus; rv meatpuppetry). Joe was determined to remove the MP's link, but DuncanHill created George Waters (MP), edit summaries such as ) aren't helpful.

The edit warring continued onto Mallow (UK Parliament constituency), where George Waters (MP) was listed , going beyond WP:3RR.

It also went onto George Waters, where Joe had seen that I had added a 'sections' and 'morecat' tag. See the page's edit history: . I didn't get involved or respond, but DuncanHill reverted when Joe persistently removed my tags. In Joe's edit summaries, he described my edits as 'trolling' and wrote 'But it doesn't need the same fucking tag twice'.

It doesn't look good for WP when editors behave like this. Personally, I found it really upsetting. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Boleyn has previously reported this issue at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#User:Joefromrandb and at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help. See also WT:WikiProject Disambiguation#George Waters (disambiguation).EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for giving the exact link, but this was stated at the top of the page. I was informed that ANI wasn't a good venue for it. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pitch till you win, eh? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I don't know what to do with this. In my view, this should have remained at ANI. I don't see sufficient discussion there for Boleyn to believe it should have been transferred here. Of course, at this point, the edit warring is stale, another reason for not bringing it here. I nonetheless came close to blocking Joe for his disruptive edits and particularly for the personal attacks - no, not just incivility, which does not include calling other editors trolls and meat puppets (what is your basis for using those labels, Joe?). Then, I got bogged down in how long the block should be. If you look at the history and the last time he was brought to ANI in December 2013, this is a continuation of the same behavior, so by all rights, he should be blocked for longer than a month. Such a long block for such a good editor gave me real pause, so I'm punting this whole thing back at any other administrator who wants to handle it. It's a shame that such a solid and honest editor can't control his mouth (fingers?), but there are other examples of this, and I was reluctant to sanction him for such a long time. Nor did a warning make any sense as god knows he's had enough of them; another one would be really abdicating my responsibility as an administrator, as opposed to just sort of abdicating it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is entirely correct in that Boleyn received bad advice misunderstood a statement on WT:AN as advice to bring it here, and Bbb23 is somewhat correct in that unilateral civility blocks by an admin on a non-troll / vandal are often controversial / more disruptive than the behavior they're addressing. (I'm saying "somewhat" here because being hesitant to block is not "abdication," it's prudence and good judgement. I certainly don't see any harm in yet another warning). I've requested Joe retract their personal attacks and am awaiting reply. Given the prior Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb was non-admin inactivity closed with no obvious conclusion -- the next steps would either be Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb2 or arbcom. (I don't have enough of a read on Arbcom 2014 to know if they'd consider sufficient dispute resolution as having taken place to accept a case.) NE Ent 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC) corrected NE Ent 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Boleyn actually didn't get ANY advice to bring it here. she was advised that they having been around long enough, they know the right places to take things. Their ANI talkpage discussion suggests they postulated 3 separate things: edit-warring, incivility, and bullying. The were reminded that AN/3 takes care of edit-warring (didn't need to say while it's ongoing), long-term incivility is the remit of WP:RFC/U, and that they had not even provided evidence of WP:HARASS or bullying behaviour. Why they brought a stale AN/3 report here is beyond me ... joe's continual attitude towards others is patently obvious (see even his response in this thread) the panda ₯’ 15:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• The ANI was archived quickly without any real discussion actually being had. When I queried why, I was advised that this would have been a better venue for this type of behaviour - apologies if I misunderstood that, but it really shouldn't be so hard to find help/advice. Just because an editor (in this case, myself) has been around a long time, doesn't mean he/she always know the exact venue to get help - I try not to get involved in disputes/edit warring, so it's not exactly my area. This is a real problem with Misplaced Pages - behaviour like Joe's upsets editors and damages the community, and it isn't easy to get help/advice in these cases, so incivil (nasty) editors continue to put people off editing Misplaced Pages. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your original ANI didn't contain anything immediately actionable by admins, so it was archived. We're apparently not permitted to block - or unblock - for minor incivility. As per multiple suggestions, a new WP:RFC/U is always open to you, seeing as many issues are being brought forward the panda ₯’ 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Oldschooldsl reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

Endurance International Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623533065 by Tutelary (talk) --- Does not apply, because this is a historical fact concerning the worldwide web"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) to 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532029 by Tutelary (talk) ------- This is historically accurate. Why the agenda to remove it?"
   2. 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532113 by Tutelary (talk)"
3. 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623531572 by Tutelary (talk)"
4. 03:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613515646 by Tutelary (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "r"
2. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"
4. 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring Follow Up */ r"

Comments:

This editor has previously not edited for over three years (since 2011) but has since taken a vested interest in this exact topic. This is a content dispute; and I will admit that, but they're already at 5RR and I feel that only a block for edit warring will get them to discuss their changes rather than to continuously revert. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment When I saw the last revert this morning, I left the user a message stating that he had violated 3RR and inviting him to self-revert. That message got no response; it's been nine hours since the user's last edit. I've reinstated the tag that was deleted from the article. Personally, I'm inclined to wait until the user's next edit to act. If he engages in discussion, we have no problem. If it's a revert, then he's saying by actions that he intends to continue to edit war, and a block to prevent further disruption is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred

It is true that I have not edited a page since 2011. I don't usually see a need to get involved in WikiPedia. In fact, I'll confess my ignorance in that I don't exactly know how to use it or else I would have reported the user Tutelary from the beginning (something I don't even know how to do). Editing[REDACTED] is somewhat complicated and there is so much "shortcode" that I find myself lost.

However my inexperience or lack of activity or even lack of seniority is irrelevant in the quest for obtaining historical factual information, which is what[REDACTED] is all about. And someone writing and erasing history is not what an Encyclopedia is for. [REDACTED] defines an encyclopaedia as:

An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences) is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries. Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands. https://en.wikipedia.org/Encyclopedia

The argue made by Tutelary is that when X site goes down its not historical enough to warrant an entry and on the face value principle he would be right, except for the fact that we're not talking about a single website or even a small provider. When a large provider essentially becomes part of the backbone of the internet and its network outage takes offline so much of the internet that CNN, ABC, CBS actually do a report on it... That is something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschooldsl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Akshatra reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

Page

Criticism of Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Restored to best version. Revert as usual."
2. 18:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "You need to revise it. Only added the sources."
4. 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "The content was unsourced. This is explained."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Criticism of Hinduism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion on user talk page and User_talk:NeilN#Criticism_of_Hinduism. NeilN 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor first of all. Secondly friend User: NeilN you need to understand that I added the sources to the articles as best as possible. Though there can be something wrong in commentary or it is written like an Essay. Thirdly I removed the unsourced content. This is what I did. I have no intention to harm[REDACTED] at all. And If I unfortunately did then I request for fogiveness. Thanks. Akshatra (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: I realize you are a new editor. That's why I gave you a "soft" warning about WP:3RR and again reiterated the need to use the talk page. However if you agree to use the talk page to discuss instead of just reverting back in your content then I think this report can be closed with "no action". --NeilN 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN I already went to your talk-page for a nice polite discussion before you reprted me. You can come to talkpage of the article. May be we can discuss over there peacefully. with regards, Akshatra (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If User:Akshatra will promise not to revert again until consensus is reached then this report might be closed with no action. His comment above falls short of that goal. If he won't make that agreement, the WP:3RR rule should be enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

okay fine User:EdJohnston I am already discussing on the talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, still reverting --NeilN 19:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN What's your problem? You are removing the sourced content. I will also report you next time if you revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My "problem" is your broken promise, you reverting three different editors, and your use of unreliable sources. --NeilN 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am just reverting the fabricated things on that article. It is you who keep supporting such fabricated things and to push a POV. Bladesmulti is an orthodox hindu. You are making a big mistake buddy by removing edits. Akshatra (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring