Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 8 August 2010 (→User:Hope&Act3! reported by User:Nableezy (Result: ): + result: protected). 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:Teeninvestor reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Declined)

Page: Military history of China (pre-1911) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit-warring despite ongoing ANI and RFC/U:

• Edits by Arnoutf: (20:51, 2 August 2010)

• 1st revert by Teeninvestor:

• 1st revert by Athenean:

• 2nd revert by Teeninvestor:

• 1st revert by Arnoutf:

• 3rd revert by Teeninvestor:

• 2nd revert by Arnoutf:

• 4th revert by Teeninvestor: (20:13, 3 August 2010)

• Edit by Gun Powder Ma:

• 5th revert by Teeninvestor: (21:41, 3 August 2010)

Comment on how to read diffs:
Teeninvestor's 1st to 4th revert refer to the paragraphs containing these quotes:

• By the time of the Ming, gunpowder weapons were so ubitiqious that a battalion in the fifteenth century Chinese army had... (only slightly reworded in 4th revert)
• The Song Dynasty's official military texts described the crossbow thus...
• The use of the crossbow is also described...

His 5th revert refers to my edit, the paragraph beginning with

• However, in the conquest of China, the Mongols also adopted gunpowder weapons and thousands of Chinese infantry and naval forces into the Mongol army..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see ongoing ANI (started 00:38, 3 August 2010) below

Comments: Teeninvestor has breached the 3rr, although he is fully aware that his edit pattern on the article is currently subject of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor. Teeninvestor's edit behaviour is also currently subject of a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor, and was recently of another ANI complaint about his removal of tags. A more complete account of the dimension of the problem with the editor's behaviour is given by Outside view by User:Athenean. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM's portrayal of the above edits are completely fallacious. This user has been ignoring the discussion page of the article, in which I was constructively discussing issues with fellow editors 1 and 2. He also counts an addition of info as a revert 1, 2. He has misrepresented greatly the series of edits that went on here. The first three diffs were removals of POV and copyright violations which another editor (User:Arnoutf) mistakenly reinserted and reverting removal of quotes which he thought was not attributed. When I pointed this out, he acknowledged this and stopped reverting, as shown here. The fourth "revert" consists of me reintroducing material that Arnoutf objected to it in quote form, but had no objections in paragraph form; hardly a revert. The fifth "revert" is an even bigger representation, as I merely modified the quote because said editor was misrepresenting his source. This user has been disruptively forum shopping after getting negative replies by trying to discredit Robert Temple, a known sinologist, as shown here and here, after his disruptive POV edits were rejected by other editors besides myself. 1 and 2 34. This disruptive forum shopping and misrepresentation of other editors need to be stopped.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this report. The edit history of Military history of China (pre-1911) says it all. Teeninvestor seems to display strong WP:OWN behavior. He has embarked on unilaterally re-writing the article, while at the same time taking it upon himself to police every single edit by other users. This has brought him in conflict with multiple editors, and resulted in him reaching and breaching 3RR so many times in the last few days that I have lost count. His claims that he constructively discusses things in the talkpage is disingenuous, with this as a particularly egregious counterexample. He feigns consensus, then re-adds the disputed material when he thinks no one is watching, edit wars over it, and then taunts me , and in textbook example of psychological projection, accuses me of POV-pushing . For the record, I have little interest in this article, I am mostly goaded by Teeninvestor's intrasigent, WP:OWN behavior. Athenean (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined There may be larger issues here, but edit-warring does not appear to be the primary and sole concern. Further, GPM shot himself in the foot with his remarks below that demonstrate he doesn't understand the concept of edit-warring. I'm not acting upon this; please resolve the dispute here via other avenues. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed. It took you three full minutes between lecturing me on the guidelines below and reviewing the full case above and writing the decline. So it took you 180s/14 provided links = ca 12s for looking into each link, provided that you wrote your decline text in 0 s. Did you actually bother to look into the case at all or is this just about making a point? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GPM, I responded to both the request above and the request below around the same time more than twelve hours ago. So, I obviously noticed this one was here. I read some of it, but it was a more through and less timely case, what with links left and right.

So, once again, declined. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us an interesting insight into how you do things here. And I am sympathetic to your quite fitting analogy of an FBI investigation required. However, I have to say that there is no such investigation necessary, I merely tried to give more background information which was probably a mistake in hindsight.

You say "Edit-warring is a basic thing that can easily be checked in the history". Well, we are dealing here with such a clear case: 1, 2, 3, 4, reverted within 24 h (22:29, 2 August 2010 to 20:13, 3 August 2010). Clear breach of 3rr. So why no action? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So when did reverting another editor's mistaken introduction of copyright violations and POV material (which he later acknowledged and apologized for), another editor's mistaken reverts based on a misunderstanding, and reintroducing information originally contained in a quote but objected to by other editors in that format as a paragraph count as edit warring? GPM, you lack even a basic understanding of wikipedia's policies, and a basic decency, or else you wouldn't be blatantly misrepresenting diffs and lying here. The other editor has already rejected your forum shopping, stop wasting time and please go discuss the actual issues on the talk page and stop trying to abuse this edit warring board, and actually get things done.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed at much you are telling lies in the face of the admin. Athenean and me have already gone on record above, and the third user you disingeniously 'interpret your way', Arnoutf, has also long told you the same: "Temple has none of those, so there is no reason to quote Temple". And you still wonder why you have been involved in an arbcomm case, in a RFC/U and why you are a regular guest at ANI... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are from standard histories and Needham, GPM. If you even bothered to read the talk page. Yes, I have been in an ArbCom Case, so what? It was to do[REDACTED] a great service by restricting one of its most problematic users. I'm a regular guest at ANI? Your posts at ANI exceed mine several times (even including your forum shopping reports) and you've been blocked 4 times. Again, the pot calling the lamb black.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Teeninvestor. Wait a second here. You are confusing issues. Yes you took out copyvio's introduced by one of the editors, but in the same series of edits you introduced (over several edits) a whole lot of quotes. My apologies were about blanket reverting your stuff. I did not consciously reintroduce any text, I should have been more careful, but since this was the first time you deleted instead of added problematic stuff to the article, I just did not consider the possibility. That does not say I agree with the quotes, and I have argued on the talk pages repeatedly that they were/are problematic with regards to WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Arnoutf (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion

It's interesting to note that Tariqabjotu's just stopped to contribute when I pointed out to him that he missed a clear violation of 3rr (01:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC). From Arnoutf's post above it has also become clear that Teenivestor has misconstrued both his acts and intentions and that of other users. Therefore, I would like to hear the second opinion of another admin who is willing to spend more than a few seconds for the whole case. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't just to contribute then. I stopped to contribute after 01:15 (UTC), and then edited a few times several hours later. What is the mysterious reason for this several-hour break in editing? It's called sleep, GPM. You may not know this, but when it's 01:45 (UTC) in August, it's 2:45am in London. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:Daven200520 (Result: Stale)

Page: Charles County, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedickey (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:

• My Warning:
• Another editors warning(NOT 3RR):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No need for a diff:

• The articles talk page
• The mediation page
• Reliable sources board
• WQA

Comments:

For the record, User has seen and subsequently deleted the 3rr notificationPhoon (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Stale It's been about two days since the edit war was going on. Will try to keep an eye on it, though. I have removed Daven's rollback rights, though, due to his use of them in an edit war. -- tariqabjotu 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but what is the rationale for admin inactivity in this case? I am not sure whether it has occurred to the admin that stale verdict in general actually favours the user who is more willing to revert, since it is his version which prevails, and that the other, more cautious user who deliberately restrained himself from taking things too far is actually punished for exactly his restraint. I believe the unwanted lesson from stale is that one needs to continue to revert even beyond 3rr so that the admin does not forget to take action. Pretty counter-productive this stale in that it fuels edit-warring. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to challenge this verdict because at the time of reporting the edit war was still in progress but the report simply sat on the page and the war cooled down however this verdict doesn't solve anything it just creates a larger tension about the subject.Phoon (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Stale is like waiting inactively until the house has burnt down and then pointing out that there is no need for firemen anymore. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dave reported this, as the timestamp shows, at 8:55 this morning. It was stale when he reported it, and stale an hour and a half later when I fulfilled the request. And, no, it's not like waiting until a house a burned down. We are a bunch of volunteers; no one's life is on the line, and we don't let requests sit here just for our amusement. -- tariqabjotu 22:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the time gap. I was under the impression that "stale" means that there was no edit-warring after the report was filed: because this rarely indicates that problems were solved meanwhile, but rather that one side sits back and awaits an admin reaction. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your excused.I did not report this at 8:55 this morning (I was simply adding more evidence) I reported it a 23:08 UTC and it was answered 11 hours and 18 minutes later. I wholeheartedly agree with Gun Powder Ma and his brilliant analogy of how this case has been neglected and in a final act of disrespect labeled as stale. Its an injustice and no one should have to be treated in such a harsh and cruel manner. Phoon (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the edit war is no longer going on, a block won't prevent anything. Blocks aren't given to punish past behavior, only to prevent ongoing behavior. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No one in this report has mentioned blocks up until now. Blocks are not the only solution that can come out of this report. Besides, one needs to wait over 11 hours to actually get an admin to notice so its basically impossible at times to achieve a "Preventive" block on this noticeboard. Phoon (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Then it took 11 hours until this was addressed. But it took you 30+ hours to bring this to the noticeboard (at which point, by the way, it was -- again -- already stale). That's what happens on a volunteer project. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning. Remember that in a one on one edit war, even the more moderate side will have reached at least 3 reverts at the point the other has broken 3rr. So if the admins are still unwilling to take action at this point, they put the more reasonable user at a dilemma: if he keeps by the rules and stops reverting, the edit warrior will have saved his version, and thus he and his revert-style has 'won'. But if he continues to revert to prevent that, he will commit a 3rr himself. So, admin inactivity is clearly inducing a situation in which either no action is taken at all (3/4), or against both users simultaneously (4/4 and more). This is hardly ideal and actually creates favourable conditions for the more reckless reverters. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Posts like these never cease to amaze me. Your definition of "moderate side" and "reasonable user" is the one who reverts second. The one who starts the edit war is an edit warrior. The one who is so generous and honorable to defend the article, Misplaced Pages, and the world by continuously reverting the person who started the edit war is also an edit warrior. It doesn't matter that our gracious defender might only have three reverts, while our aggressive and stupid offender has made four. They both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally. The point of the 3RR and our edit-warring policies is to convey that disputes should not be resolved by continuous reverting. You, however, seem to think disputes are resolved (or, "won", as you put it) by reverting over and over. So, no, there's no logical fallacy; you just don't understand the meaning of edit warring. Please re-read WP:EW as ignorance of the rules, having been pointed to them, is no defense. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot refer to my post because you didn't seem to have understood a bit. If "both are equally culpable, and they both should be treated equally", as you erroneously believe, then why should people still bother to report here, if either both will get indiscriminately a block or none? This isn't rocket science... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand exactly what you said, and it's obvious your set of conceivable edit-warring situations is very narrow. The only valid cases are when one person is edit warring against multiple other users. X reverts, A reverts, X reverts, B reverts, X reverts, C reverts, X reverts, B reverts... X probably gets blocked; A, B, and C probably do not. X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts, X reverts, Y reverts... X and Y both probably get blocked. Y doesn't get off easy just because he happened to be second. As you see, both X and Y are engaging in the same disruptive actions -- reverting. Still, there are many editors -- you included, apparently -- who think they are absolved because they have one fewer revert than their adversary. They come here to complain about said adversary and end up getting blocked along with their opponent. As you said, it's not rocket science, and they should be capable of foreseeing that outcome. Certainly, had this request been made earlier, as I have already suggested, both Daven and Tedickey would have been blocked for the same edit warring. -- tariqabjotu 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What a truly inefficient system, especially when I was (in this case) the editor who played by all the rules(and policies) and attempted to satisfy all of Tedickeys requests for better sources. I posted on the reliable sources board and even made an RFC on the article all of which he ignored. wow no good deed goes unpunished. Whats the point of having this noticeboard if nothing gets done? If the administrators fail to properly handle cases in a timely fashion? It may be a volunteer project but you (as an administrator) took the pledge to devote a portion of your life to the cause. So the more I tried to satisfy his needs the further he upped the ante, at which point I had to resort to reverting his edits, and he responded, I don't understand how this case is "stale" when truly the tension remains and is evident in over 100 paragraphs of dispute located on the articles talk page, the WQA and now here. So if blocking is a preventive measure then indeed maybe to prevent a further escalation of the dispute a few blocks will needed to be handed down. Phoon (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of a stale report is given in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions#Stale reports. Though he was not blocked this time around, User:Tedickey may be sanctioned for edit warring if he continues to revert the article regarding 'largest arson claim.' Since his point has been extensively discussed with other editors, and nobody else supports his view, we expect him to follow the consensus from here on. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is really stale about this case is the way tariqabjotu immediately declined my case (less than 3min later) above after I dared to disagree with him here. Most admins do admirable work here but those who like to play Lord of the Buttons in such a high-handed manner, don't serve the project and thus don't deserve respect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. Also stale(?) Can't it be worked out? Go easy... cripes... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:79.151.189.17 reported by Ost (talk) (Result:Page Protected)

Page: List of Mario series characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.151.189.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 07:00, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 10:51, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 12:35, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 12:53, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 14:07, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 14:39, 5 August 2010/14:39, 5 August 2010 (edit summaries: "/* External links */")

• Diff of warning: here
  • User has not explained edits in summaries and has not responded to invitation to discuss.

—Ost (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Dodo19 (Result:No Violation)

Page: Viktor Suvorov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miacek (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:Miacek has recently - like myself - been blocked for edit warring (). As I do not have the intention to start another edit war, but User:Miacek makes clear that he is not willing to discuss his actions with me I decided to report the incident here, even though he has only reverted twice. --Dodo19 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: There is still no discussion on the article talk page regarding the removal. --Dodo19 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Purely disruptive request, an attempt to 'get even' as I reported him for 3 RR violation and stalking my edits a few days ago (he was blocked, but so was I, though I did not exceed 3 Rv's, but OK, this is past). I once removed an unfounded WP:BLP violation from that article and I had to do this for the 2nd time, after that subject had reverted me. Baselessly calling an author negationist is not sth we should take easily here.
And don't show up to say I'm edit warring, when I just removed baseless claims from the article 2 times in the course of a few days. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. As for not being willing to argue, you are incorrect. I posted a comment at the article, everyone can offer 3rd opinions there. And note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I can challenge and remove the apparently libellous category at any time, without being an 'edit warrior'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a 1RR active here? If not, I can't see that we're at the point of needing action, at least not yet. Any chance at all we could try some sort of DR? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that you have to revert three times in order to be engaged in an edit war. This report was merely pre-emptive.--Dodo19 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, everyone who understands Misplaced Pages's policies and accepts those should tend to agree with me on Viktor Suvorov. Is 1RR really needed there? Just WP:BLP, WP:RS and a few other guidelines.
As for Peter Sichrovsky, what is there to be disputed? That a user 'expressed concern' that 'Jew' (!) is ethnic slur?
Last but not least, as one can conclude based on my contributions, both today's (after the block expired) and the list in general, I am not here to engage in controversies. I have started around 60 articles and plan to proceed with at least two ones in the coming days. Dodo19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s contributions, however, are by and large confined to bot-type additions of tags such as Wikiproject. If he wishes to continue constructively, he should just go on and start with constructive activities like writing new articles, instead of stalking me and reverting me ad nauseam. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed this then. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you do not know the difference between historical revisionism and negationism, please acquaint yourself with the topic. PS. Persistently mischaracterizing my edits, be it in the article space or talk pages, as vandalism, may lead to withdrawing you the twinkle tool. So that, now you are aware of. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Final note by Miacek - as a sysop can easily ascertain based on the page history and the corresponding talk page, I'm not the only one who had problems with Dodo19's peristent additions. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma (Result: warned)

Page: Kappa Sigma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: All (All editors have been informed of this discussion at Talk:Kappa Sigma#Reported.)

Forgive me for not using the full report template, but the environment at the Kappa Sigma fraternity's article has become so hostile that I am reporting everyone involved (myself included). Despite having been protected twice (a two-month protection most recently), there is no sign of resolution between Greek fraternity members and non-members on the article. Since the article's last protection expired, one Kappa Sigma member has now announced that he will revert any edit I make (including the restoration of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest or WP:NPOV tags that were added by outside editors from the WP:COIN noticeboard) "unimpeded." Can this article be placed on some sort of probation? Will someone enforce the "non-controversial edits" requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest policy? There needs to be some sort of intervention or mediation between the editors on that article, because it has simply devolved into edit warring and bad-faith accusations of "vandalism" since the last protection. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I just read the solution for the edit war (reported at the top of this noticeboard) at The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Could the Kappa Sigma article get an administrative restriction like this imposed? I'll take anything to cool down the tone and ensure that no voice is drowned out. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This his humorous. The page is constantly disrupted by Adelphoi, not by any of the other active editors. Here are some sample diffs:

• 2010-05-19 02:50 -- AEKDB Adds some material material
• 2010-05-19 06:04 -- Enos reverted noting see talk
• 2010-05-19 08:08 -- AEKDB does not discuss issue on talk, simply reverts and accuses Enos of COI
• 2010-05-20 20:06 -- I reverted asking to seek conensus and citing WP:RS
• 2010-05-20 20:33 -- AEKDB does not discuss attempt to seek consensus (again), simply reverts
• 2010-05-20 20:43 -- I again revert asking editor to seek consensus
• 2010-05-20 20:54 -- AEKDB again ignores consensus, reverts and now accuses me of COI
• 2010-05-20 21:08 -- Naraht reverts citing WP:SOURCEACCESS
• 2010-05-20 21:11 -- AEKDB again ignores policy, reverts and claims to own a "physical copy" himself
• 2010-05-20 21:28 -- I revert, citing WP:RS
• 2010-05-20 21:36 -- AEKDB reverts, ignoring all policy concerns introduced thus far from multiple editors
• 2010-05-20 21:40 -- I revert
• 2010-05-20 21:43 -- AEKDB reverts, insisting sources are reliable
• 2010-05-20 21:49 -- I revert
• 2010-05-20 21:52 -- AEKDB reverts

As you can see, no less than three individual editors, all of whom have a broader and more experienced history with improving Misplaced Pages pages removed his edits, yet Adelphoi refused to accept consensus. On top of edit warring, the disruptive WP:SPA simply blanks content because he doesn't like it:

• Removes a paragraph about philanthropy calling it promotion
• Removes multiple images
• Removes more images
• Removes more sections on philanthropy calling them promotion

During the two months this page was on page protection, his account was completely inactive, refusing to participate in the discussion on how to improve the page that was on going. Yet when the page protection expires, he comes back and makes more contentious edits without seeking consensus. The user simply doesn't understand the concept of consensus and actively denies its presence or validity when he doesn't like it. jheiv 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is getting beyond ridiculous. The page has been under protection on and off for several months, and a certain level of discussion did take place during that period, but only by a few editors. Since the protection ended, there have been several non-controversial edits made to limit or eliminate claims made by the fraternity, citations added, and to improve the readability of the article. Now that protection has ended, the hostility of the page has increased, but because of one editor who threatens other editors with violations of Misplaced Pages policies and suggests that any edits made by members who happen to be members of the organization are designed to either promote the fraternity or efforts to sanitize the article, without critically recognizing their own biases or perspectives in relationship with the topic. We all must assume good faith about the contributions of other editors. I would like every page I edit or work on to eventually become a featured article or at least more helpful to someone who encounters the page. I oppose additional protections, the NPOV tag, and I encourage every editor on this page to remain mindful that good faith, being polite, and avoiding personal attacks are the only ways to ensure collective reasoning and editing.--Enos733 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Small correction, that one editor's complaints are not limited to edits made by members of simply Kappa Sigma Fraternity but *all* fraternities (according to him, my membership in a co-ed service fraternity gives me an equal COI on the article). Other than that, completely agree with Enos733 and jheiv.Naraht (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have given Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou a warning for edit waring. If the disruption continues, they may be blocked. -FASTILY 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:PepitoPerez2007 reported by User:Jorfer (Result:72h)

Page: Euthanasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:PepitoPerez2007 (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: (warning by other user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:PepitoPerez2007 has been going operating without and against consensus on this sensitive topic as seen on the talk page in pushing an anti-euthanasia POV on the Euthanasia article. It is important to note that I was warned for 3RR, but I was reverting different versions of the page, so I did not realize I was going over 3RR. His edits were only partial reverts, but they were consistently pushing an anti-euthanasia POV.--Jorfer (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages regulation, reverting does not need to be to a wholesale reversion. It can also be partial, which is why you got warned. Look at the top of the page: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." You reverted the inclusion of "Not all homicide is unlawful." three times.--Jorfer (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete but change the order of the paragraphs and made some changes to the wording that is not a revertion!!!. What is the POV edition Jorfer is acusing me to introduce when the paragraph is the result of more users than me, for example Bilby who made the wording of my editions? I organized the paragraph and I kept all the Jorfer editions, how could be that a revertion? I think Jorfer is assuming bad faith and is not dispossed to discuss the changes on the discuss page but to imposse his changes and wording via administrators noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PepitoPerez2007 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything!!! I told jorfer that I organized that paragraph in the discussion page: I organized the very long paragraph by breaking it into two paragrahps and kept both of them in the lead!!! I changed some things in the first paragraph based on britancia enciclopedia but as Jorfer doesn't like it then I will not touch that paragraph. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 added this and reverted himself. It is probably, because it was not visible due to a mistaken placement:

I am finding User:PepitoPerez2007 to be an editor who is impossible to communicate with. Part of this seems to be due to a background in a language other than English, but that is not the major issue. Because of his presence at the Euthanasia article I have largely withdrawn from the fray, as I'm sure other editors also have. Any comment I make seems to elicit a similar obsessional response, very rarely addressing the actual points I make. A look at his contributions will show an almost single minded interest in only this one group of topics, and it involves a view on the matter which is right at one extreme end of the spectrum. A massive amount of discussion has occurred, with no movement by User:PepitoPerez2007 towards the consensus position, and with repeated edits by User:PepitoPerez2007 pushing the article back towards his own POV. All very unhealthy.

My editions were discussed and accepted months ago by other users and moreover: the wording was corrected for example by user:Bilby. I didn't add a position on euthanasia as claims Jorfer, but a legal definition taken from scholars lietarature and legal encycloapedias. If there arised more than one point of view I always have kept both sides, where is the POV? Hilo never answer that question as Hilo just wanted my edition to be absolutely deleted otherwise I have kept all Jorfer's edition. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A POV can be conveyed by omission; as the other editors conveyed on the talk page, there is no very good reason to omit an explanation of the word homicide's meaning. Even when consensus was against removal Pepito still removed it on the pretense that it did not use legal terminology despite demonstrating that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Clarity discourages the unnecessary use of legal terminology. Edits like disregard the accepted meaning of the term as almost all sources define "euthanasia" by the actual painfulness rather than the intent (e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia). That one is an innocent enough mistake, but Pepito did not discuss it on the talk page. The assertion that homicide regardless of circumstances is criminal is an assertion that I have not seen proved through any sourcing. Pepito put " Each homicide is a criminal offence while not always liable to punishment." and put these three sources, but the second at least did not support the claim as far as I could tell (in this edit ):

• Manoj Kumar Mohanty (August 2004). "Variants of homicide: a review". Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 11 (4): 214–8. doi:10.1016/j.jcfm.2004.04.006. PMID 15363757.
• http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide
• Carmen Tomás Y Valiente, La regulación de la eutanasia en Holanda, Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales - Núm. L, Enero 1997

--Jorfer (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I deleted user:Gabbe's edition because it was missusing legal terms. I changed the wording not deleted the Jorfer's editions. But let that pass because: user:Jorfer, have you realized that I reverted my edition and I let the first paragraph untouched? I changed that first paragraph based on Britanica Encyclopeadia, but as you were concerned then I reverted my edition!!! The first paragraph is now in the way you like it, and all your edition with the explanation of homicide was also kept and the statement that homicide is always a criminal offence was already removed; so, what is the problem then? what is the war? do you need the noticeboard to discuss the changes of an article? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I could live with the current version, but it is important not to go against consensus on an important page like Euthanasia. No one person owns the article (see WP:OWN). It was encouraged on the talk page for you to fix Gabbe's edits but not to revert them wholesale. After this block, I hope that you are more cooperative. Propose changes on the talk page; that is part of the reason they are there. You can also create a sandbox (see Misplaced Pages:UP#SUB) and ask for comment on it.--Jorfer (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Miguel Escopeta (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 14:49, 4 August 2010
• 2nd revert: 18:51, 4 August 2010
• 3rd revert: 19:25, 5 August 2010
• 4th revert: 20:03, 5 August 2010
• 5th revert: 20:26, 5 August 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Very long term edit warrior, he already knows the rules, from his previous blocks on just this one article.

Comments:
Long running edit warrior on this one page, who is being continuously disruptive to the editing process for improving this article. An article topic ban/block for an extended period of time for just this one article would probably best fix the problem. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree to continue to work to consensus on the talk page regarding all the issues including especially the {{POV}} warning tag. This two contemporaneous posts are evidence of my good faith. I am tireless trying to resolve this on the talk page, but it is a very difficult editing environment. These two edits reported above and were good faith edits part and parcel of the work occurring on the talk page. The other three "reverts" are over the POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr 22:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours The edits SaltyBoatr mentions above in his defense precede the latest revert. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:90.207.105.117 (and prev IP's) reported by User:tmorton166 (Result:72h)

Page: Hugh Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Graham Spiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bobo Baldé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fernando Ricksen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Best (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.207.105.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other IP's previously used: 90.197.224.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Example Reverts (I can provide more if needed, there are a LOT, so here is a brief overview)

Fernando Ricksen:

The Best (song):

Bob Balde:

Hugh Dallas:

Graham Spiers:

(note: this relates to a multi-page edit war. The IP has not violated 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned by another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See all related talk pages. Can provide specific links if required.

Comments:
User is edit warring to get marginal/POV/attack content into Scottish football BLP articles and other articles relating to Rangers football club. This covers multiple articles with many similar content additions; editor only marginally engages in discussions - mostly (now, though in the past has taken part in more extensive discussions) to cite policy and demand reasons for removal of content.

I've tried patient dispute resolution and pointed the IP editor at policy. I've got in other editors to review the material and none have supported it's inclusion.

• User:90.207.105.117 Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Meand (Result: )

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

I'm not following the strict format here, since the 3RR hasn't strictly been broken, although I believe edit warring is fairly clear.

• Original version of article before warring:
• Freakshownerd's first edits:
• Second: (this diff includes a partial reversion by User:John)
• Third: (less controversial, but still against consensus)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• From myself to Freakshownerd: (I used a template, which was probably a bad idea. Mea culpa.)
• From Freakshownerd to myself:

I attempted to bring Freakshownerd onto the Talk page by leaving a comment on his userpage. There's now some limited discussion on the talk page, but the edits are ongoing.

Comments:

I've been involved in the past in conflicts over this article, and I believe Freakshownerd has also from looking at his user talk page, although (to my memory) we have never previously disagreed directly. From the time of this report, I intend to avoid making anything but WP:FAIRY updates to the article until the dispute is resolved, and stability once again reigns supreme, although unless specifically requested otherwise, I may use Template:Request edit to request more controversial changes. --me_and (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other editors have also commented on FSN's activities on that page (though not edits to the lead), see the second half of this section of the talk page (starting from LiteratureGeek's original comment "I followed this conversation from..."). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:George McFinnigan ie reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result:No Violation)

Page: Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George McFinnigan ie (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:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g , , , also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption , replacing Ourense with Orense , there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Consider making a report at WP:ANI if the dispute continues. -FASTILY 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have reported at WP:ANI as the editor has acted in a similar manner on other pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.128.15.231 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: warned)

Page: University of Oxford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.128.15.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 06:06, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "that's better")
2. 06:18, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "more facts")
3. 06:21, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:41, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:57, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Oxford is the 1st English speaking institute in the world, Cambridge is the 2nd English speaking, here's the verification.")
6. 07:18, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision by (talk) facts have been provided for verification, Oxford is an institutional and 1st speaking educational speaking university")
7. 08:02, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377442618 not a grammer issue, the facts say it is the 1st English speaking institution, + acedemic sources!")
8. 08:17, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "removed oldest")
9. 18:33, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Oxford is an educational institution - acedemic sources provided, Also is the 1st English speaking institution -acedemic sources provided. The facts say this what it is, use talk to dispute")
10. 18:34, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")
11. 18:40, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, this IP's edits are increasingly disruptive and ignoring the clear consensus on the article's talk page against his/her changes. Bencherlite 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Not a technical violation counting consecutive edits as single edits, and the discussions do not seem to have reached WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet. 75.128.15.231 seems to be willing to discuss the matter, and has participated on the talkpage since the last reversion of their preferred content. I have protected the article for three days; please come back here if the issues continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ, it was a violation

1. 06:06, 6 August 2010 - 1st revert
2. 07:18, 6 August 2010 - 2nd revert
3. 08:02, 6 August 2010 - 3rd revert
4. 18:33, 6 August 2010 - 4th revert

Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I was counting the first one as a normal edit rather than a revert. Checking the geolocate on the recent history, though, I think that the similarity in edits and locations is conclusive enough to downgrade this to semi-protection. Thank you for checking this. I still think that they have shown enough interest in discussion that a block would be more punitive than preventative, but I will go request that they wait for consensus before adding any similar content. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well a block Codf1977 sounds a little cynical when you have really ignored providing consensus on acedemic sources then Codf1977 undoing edits. I have provided 4 acedemic sources and 2 media sources for terms on "first" "institution" and "Oxford University" and "English speaking" to verify the edit upgrade. I have asked already 4 times to Codf1977several questions on the matter of sources to provide for the article should stay as "oldest" university to "first English speaking institution" yet Codf1977 is not a student of Oxford University or former student and has admitted never been to Oxford either in anyway to enlighten his experience to the discussion with providing some objection sources I may ask for in return. It seems more of an argument that Codf1977 likes the article more than the facts to change the words "first" "speaking" and "institution" overriding "oldest". I am yet to wait for his responses to the questions I have asked Codf1977 and he has gone silent on the matter. Shall I just wait ever 24 hours to revert rule to edit back and let Codf1977 make another complaint of me reverting edits yet he refuses to census the facts on what he specifically is rejecting with providing no acedemic sources? I am clued to Codf1977 is stirring trouble more than discussing the issue of correcting the history on Oxford University I have provided than saying nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Codf1977 reported by User:75.128.15.231 (talk) (Result:see previous)

I am reporting this matter on the merit of the facts from acedemic sources but user Codf1977 is undoing edits creating misleading information on the Oxford University article page. First I have made the case that the words "oldest university" to "first speaking institution" providing the fact down below. Yet according to Codf1977 Codf1977 claiming the facts which are acedemic used for education purposes is denying the facts presented, saying it is not an institution and it is not the first but the oldest.

What defines "first" to "oldest"? The facts say Oxford University is an education institution and the word university is already in the "Oxford University" or "Oxford of University" adding the sense what the facts say that is an an "institution: and the "first institution in the world to speak English". I mean what institution was before Oxford Univesity as an english speaking institution? None. I am taking the facts and using those fact to support the claim is still a "university" and it is still an "institution" and instead of "oldest" it is the "first" of its kind as an "English speaking institute". Please view acedemic sources below.

The facts about Oxford University, Oxford, England:

1. First English speaking institution - StudyEnglishToday News by M. Boyanova 2007 "Oxford University is the 1st English speaking institution":

2. Oldest:

3. 1st English-speaking institution:

4. Oxford University is an education institution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<bangs head against wall> "Institution" is not synonymous with "university", "first" does not mean the same thing as "oldest", and you continue to misquote the first source. It's quite simple, really. Please read your talk page and the article talk page rather than claiming that anyone reverting your ill-informed changes is edit-warring and should be blocked, a threat you have now made to four editors including two admins. Bencherlite 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bencherlite Codf1977

Well what hand of experience do you have on Oxford University then? What is your knowledge about the institution? Do have anything other than arguing the issue to speak of your experience of attending Oxford University to bring to the table?

I am rather confused? You are promoting "oldest" university instead of "first english university" or even the word "first" and your promoting "university" over "institution". What says your right?

What level of knowledge do you have to state that your are 110% right? I would like you state to me what you state is correct, then I will ask Oxford University the same question as I have several professors will reply back. Please provide acedemic sources so I am not reading a blog or something.

Have you have any facts that state Oxford University is not an institution? Do you have any facts that state Oxford University is not the first university or institution?

Do you have any facts that state "first English speaking"? Before disagreeing instantly, send the sources not the same on the Oxford University page but sources to your denial. I suggest you take a trip to Oxford University on one of the tour guides, you ask the guide for the tour guide books to refresh the what is Oxford University? First, Institution, University and founded when.

When you refer oldest to first, please think about that again. First is also the same defination category as oldest. Your mis-phrasing the argument on the terms of first with Oxford. I had tour guide books that are printed in 1930, 1980, 1997 that all state Oxford University is an institution and the first of its kind to speak English, not England but in the world. Shall I take imageshot to state the fact to reference the facts more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected see previous. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadija reported by User:lontech (Result: 4 days)

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

has violated 1RR per week on kosovo by adding split temp

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&action=history

• (cur | prev) 21:46, 6 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) rv
• (cur | prev) 20:59, 6 August 2010 Lontech (talk | contribs) (113,802 bytes) rv
• (cur | prev) 13:19, 2 August 2010 Tadija (talk | contribs) (113,865 bytes) (split)
• (cur | prev) 16:34, 26 July 2010 Bobrayner (talk | contribs) (113,276 bytes) (Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&diff=376753737&oldid=376465354
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kosovo&diff=377549219&oldid=377542096

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kosovo

• Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
• All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see

1RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tadija

• 14:33, 16 July 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) unblocked "Tadija (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Procedural unblock: User was not given adequate warning. Sanction lifted as well. Consider this a strong final warning.)

-- LONTECH  Talk  22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is false report. First edit pas proposition of the split that is still undergoing, as you may see on article talk page. User Longtech removed tag without completed consensus, that will last until 15 august. When i explained that to him, he was rude to me, and now he filled this false report. --Tadija 23:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that he added split temp after Bobrayner removed-- LONTECH  Talk  23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• it appears we are once again headed for a split, then. - {{split|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Dbachmann
• Split template removed, in line with talk page consensus.) - {{split|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Bobrayner
• split - {{split|Kosovo|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Tadija Different proposal, still ongoing!!
• disruptive edit / rv.per consensus ? Disruptive? How tag of still going vote can be disruptive? - {{split|Kosovo|Republic of Kosovo|Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija}}, by User:Lontech

As user:Lontech had previous "notifications" against this kind of personal attack without reason, and he apparently just want me blocked, then i am asking for some admin help regarding this subject of dispute. --Tadija 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a dispute this is violation of rules-- LONTECH  Talk  23:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

just look how he is manipulating the report, by removing and adding text http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=377565326&oldid=377564414 STOP EDITING MY REPORT-- LONTECH  Talk  00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of four days This should have been submitted to WP:AE, however. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Susanne2009NYC (Result: Malformed)

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

I'm trying to make progress on the above article while user:Off2riorob is engaging in endless reverts, etc. Is he perhaps attempting to provoke an edit war and a violation of the 3RR? He's contributed nothing I'm aware of to the article but simply engages in reverting contributions, making progess difficult. This is tiresome, disruptive, and unproductive. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne2009NYC (talk • contribs) 2010-08-07T3:43:18 (UTC)

Yeah, no. When an editor "reworks" an article, as you are: you should definitely expect some "feedback" from other editors. Talk out the planned revisions on the article's talk page to get consensus for your edits, as Off2riorob has suggested. Cheers, and Happy Editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Links for report (I am passingly familiar with some of the editors and will not be acting here. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)):
Page: Chelsea Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. -- tariqabjotu 07:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AndeanThunder reported by Pfainuk talk (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 10:08, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377338139 by Pfainuk Uncited deletions")
2. 13:24, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377459143 by Justin A Kuntz Do a little reaserch before deleting")
3. 13:47, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverting unsourced, unfounded deletions.")
4. 23:54, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* 20th century */ To use the very words of the New York Times article")

• Diff of warning: here

Note in particular the repeated addition of the phrase "thus cutting off contacts between the islands and the outside world" - a claim that is false and not backed up the sources provided.

—Pfainuk talk 07:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:71.234.119.12 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: )

Page: Talk:William Lane Craig (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.234.119.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 04:38, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377056475 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
2. 00:09, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377084460 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk)")
3. 12:09, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
4. 12:10, 5 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Richard Dawkins Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig */")
5. 04:49, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377291843 by Johnuniq (talk)")
6. 06:51, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377500380 by Theowarner (talk)")
7. 14:51, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377623910 by Johnuniq (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here
• Subsequent warning here.

Comments: Note, the 3rd and subsequent reversions were a {{hat}} on the section, explicitly linking the two relevant policies against his behavior. Clearly he's seen those as well.

_talk
edits

21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hope&Act3! reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Protected)

Page: Church of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hope&Act3! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 12:35, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377099819 by 82.17.238.199 (talk)wp is not RS")
2. 13:26, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377181026 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)was occupied then annexed by Jordan")
3. 14:34, 6 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377477255 by 209.118.181.16 (talk)not o.p.t never was Palestinian, illegally annexed by Jordan today in Israel")
4. 06:39, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "accurate location")
5. 21:37, 7 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 377680669 by Jmlk17 (talk)until it's beamed away")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#israel

Comments:
The first edit was a few days ago, only included to show this has been going on for a bit. On the talk page there are 4 users and 2 IPs agreeing that the article should not say the Church is located in Israel with Hope&Act3! and one other user arguing (without sources) that it should. Hope&Act3! is edit warring to retain language that is both unsourced and against the views of most editors on the talk page. nableezy - 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: There's something fishy at work here with the edits against this user being made by anon. IP with less than 30 edits many of them reverts. 209.118.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is clearly hiding his true identity and could very well be a banned/blocked editor (possibly related to the topic banned editor making this complaint). I see them making 5 reverts against established editors on the article in question while the other 2 editors are not hiding behind an IP. Hope&Act3! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an almost clean block log for his 4 months here (I can't make out the 12 hour block but it seems unrelated to edit-warring). I'd suggest a block to the IP and a notice on Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA notifying Hope with a warning that next time he crosses the 3RR line -- even if its a sock puppet IP -- he'd be sure to be handed some time out to think about things with a nice little smudge on his block log as a sign for future edit-war violations. Just my 2 cents. Jaakobou 23:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected The IP does look very much like a blocked/banned user. However, unless Hope&Act3! can present concrete evidence clearly marking it as a sock, reverting so vigorously is not acceptable (and, to be clear, if there's concrete proof of sockpuppetry, one should use one of the noticeboards to bring the matter to an admin's attention). So, this should have resulted in a block. However, I think there are a number of users from a couple angles reverting on this article, so I think protection is the best route right now.

If evidence can be presented, a request should be made at WP:SPI. -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring