Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abminor (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 21 October 2010 (→User:Chesdovi reported by User:Nableezy (Result: ): Blocked 1m AFAIK). 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:Tintor2 reported by User:68.55.153.254 (Result: stale)

Page: Cloud Strife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tifa Lockhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Barret Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vincent Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Aerith Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Basically, he continually adds the same 1Up.com article back that the consensus agreed to remove.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:
• 13th revert:
• 14th revert:
• 15th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cloud Strife

Comments: The majority of the issue can be found in the talk page listed above. Basically, I had found a fantasy casting article being included in several Final Fantasy 7 character articles about who should play them in a live-action movie. I believed them to non-essential to the pages, and in violation of various policies, which were brought up in the talk above. They were put back and I was asked to achieve a consensus before removing them again. Well, the discussion went on for about a week, with all other users who commented agreeing with my side of the discussion, so that makes it a consensus, and I removed them again, but the user has continually put them back up, sometimes trying to reword them to dodge the problem, but the problem is the article itself, not the wording. I've even tried the dispute resolution of asking for a comment from those outside of the issue. I've put them back several times on some of the pages, and when was warned of getting too close to violating 3RR myself, I consulted the user who warned me and he suggested using this page to help resolve the matter. As of reporting this, several of the edits are still up, but I know at least the ones for Cloud, Vincent, and Tifa have been reverted.68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion contined, the anon brought various issues such as crystal ball (the article says it is not happening so it is not), and being a selfpublished source (1UP is owned by UGO Entertainment and is listed as a reliable source by the video games wikiproject, so it's not). Other users brought reasonable issues such as being undue or trivia, and that's why I modified the article's sources to focus in the reception and keeping them in context with all the paragraphs. However, the anon keeps saying that a fan casting is useless and considers that there has been already a consensus although the current form from the sources do not violate any guideline. Moreover, apparently a sock kept removing the sources, while in later hours, the anon removed one from Vincent Valentine alongside another valuable source, that's why I reverted such edits.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by Sven Manguard

I was the person that added the 3RR tags to both users in this issue, and it spilled onto my talk page. User:Tintor2 is clearly at fault in this situation. I attempted to explain to him that he was acting against consensus in the matter discussed in the Cloud talk page, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong. Whereas my interactions with 68.55.153.254 have shown me that he was acting in good faith and was simply unaware of the finer points of 3RR, my interactions with Tintor2 show me the opposite. Tintor2's refusal to be reasonable in the Cloud talk page, refusal to be reasonable in my talk page, and refusal to stop posting on my talk page when I stated that I did not want the arguments in the matter to be aired in my userspace (I believe the proper place for such arguments is here at EW or the cloud talkpage where the rest of the arguments are.) demonstrate that the user does not understand how to cooperate with others or act in a rational manner in content disputes. He was blocked in June for violating 3RR as well, which leaves him no excuse as to his actions.

• I recommend that 68.55.153.254 not be punished (he has modified his behavior and acted in proper form since the warning, demonstrates remorse, and has no block history)

• I recommend that Tintor2 be blocked for at least two weeks (he has not modified his behavior, demonstrates combativeness, and has a 3RR block history)

Also of note, 68.55.153.254 mentioned on my talk page that Tintor2 has been making the same edits recently. I did not check on this, other than to see that he has been editing FFVII pages, but I explicitly warned Tintor2 that he needed to stop edit warring, both by way of the template, and in my talk page where I said it in plain words to his face. If he is indeed continuing to edit war, this concerns me. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I already accepted my mistake when first adding the sources, but when I told Sven Manguard, he just ignored me and undid my comment from his talk page, not wanting to be involved. I have already stated in the talk page of Cloud Strife about such revision, but the anon keeps calling it "useless". I already explained the reasons for the revert in Cloud and Vincent above.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not at all true. I undid one of your comments after asking for you to stop making the arguments on my page three times. The third time I explicitly stated that further postings on my page in regards to the issue would be removed. And that is exactly what I did. Your behavior in the issue wore out my patience, and I felt that the only way to get you to stop posting the arguments in my user-space was to remove them. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment If you seriously expect anybody to be sanctioned for edit warring here , you need to provide actual evidence of edit warring in the form of diffs. It is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to wade through all that extended back-and-forth across multiple pages. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but it's literally the most recent changes in every one of the listed articles, just click on history. Do I really need to do 20 diffs for you? You don't have to dig at all. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explanation helps. Even so, I looked at the histories and couldn't make out what is going on -- but I'll convert my decline into a comment so that somebody else may take a look at this. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

TLDR version: The IP is removing fantasy castings by 1UP, per clear consensus at talk:Cloud Strife that there are several issues with having them in the articles. Every time the 1UP castings are removed, Tintor2 puts them back in. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As I say again, I agreed consensus was right in the first time. As a result, I revised such sources to leave more in context than most of all the other sentences in reception and avoiding violation of undue and trivia, but the anon keeps saying they still violate such guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the page history. This is especially true when you give us half a dozen pages. 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cloud

#1 #2 #3 #4

• Tifa

#1 #2 #3 #4

• There are also 5 on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), 3 on Barret Wallace, 5 on Vincent Valentine, and 3 on Aerith Gainsborough. Please do not make me do all of these links.

Sven Manguard _Talk 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The last I undo was in Vincent Valentine due to the fact the anon also removed another source. In Cloud's, as you see in his history there were some socks editing the article, removing the exact same source. Moreover, the anon kept saying there was consensus and cited guidelines even though the revised sentences didn't break such guidelines. Additionally, the anon first removed these sentences without even discussing. Even the last ones the users posted were the revised ones which the anon kept reverting saying they still violating guidelines although they were more in context that most of the ones used in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added various diffs of examples of this happening, and I see they can probably be put in conjunction with Sven's examples as I think he may have done a few I missed. Also, I've noticed the accusations being put out by Tintor of me using sock puppetry or some such dealing, which I've never done during this whole time, nor has anyone else who was involved in the discussion on the talk page during this incident to my knowledge. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said for your accusations of edit war when there was no consensus regarding revising the sentences, and you removed them. All of those are included in the last diffs you added.Tintor2 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was said or explained to you various times in the talk page that the problem is the article in and of itself, no matter how you word it on the various pages. I'm not going to start arguing with you about this again over here as well. I've given the evidence to the admins that was asked for, and I'm going to let them handle it now. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my f**king god. Both of you have worn out my patience. Tintor2: Stop with the baiting, you're wrong on consensus, and if the 3RR doesn't get you blocked, the baiting will. IP: Stop taking the damned bait. You're going to be seen as being just as guilty if you keep falling into these petty arguments. I swear that if this continues, I will go to ANI and ask for both of you to be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sure that had this been any number of other users, that step would have already been taken. Stop. Now. I mean it. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stale Reported user does not appear to have edited any of the articles reported since October 16. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. I don't intend on following this anymore anyways. In fact, I really don't enjoy the prospect of them ever showing up anywhere in my user space again. Their ignoring of the whole "keep the battles outside of my user talk" thing left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Now in a week I won't be able to tell the difference between this IP and any other IP address, my memory isn't that great, but I don't ever want to see Tintor2 in my user space again. He was... unpleasant to deal with. I am so very glad this is now over. And as far as I am concerned, this is now over. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if it's over then don't comment and learn some wp:civility. Tintor2 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony in the above statement is appalling. Goodbye Tintor2. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Monkeyassault reported by User:HansSolo54 (Result: reporter indeffed, reported warned, page semi'd)

Page: 1Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monkeyassault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After witnessing the continued edit warring in the past few weeks, I have decided to take action against the individuals who are blatantly responsible. User:Monkeyassault and an individual with various IPs ( eg. User:120.152.102.81, etc ) have been going at it for a couple of weeks.

Here is the evidenceUser:Monkeyassault:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Here is the evidence(various IPS):

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

User:Monkeyassault has a history of being against any individual who has raised anything remotely negative against the Malaysian government and his actions has been typically seen in deleting new postings to that effect. User:Monkeyassault has also been rude to new posters and previously been warned to be civil to new posters. Please see the following discussions:

Talk:1Malaysia#Removal_of_.22Response.22_section Talk:1Malaysia#Removal_off_anything_remotely_negative_about_1Malaysia User_talk:Monkeyassault#Unnecessary_Harassment_and_Incivility_against_120.158.230.149

I feel the administrators should take action and protect the 1Malaysia page from further edits and suspend the editors from making any further edits from the time being. HansSolo54 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Monkeyassault needs a block and the page semi-protected while techincally there's no 3rr, the edit warring is extreme in this situation. Secret 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably "involved" so I'm not going to decide this. I don't think Monkeyassault should be blocked. There is no 3RR violation, he hasn't been warned to slow down the reverts generally, and it's clear that he is trying to stop rampant anti-government POV pushing by anonymous editors (which of course isn't a justification for edit-warring, but is relevant to whether he is blocked without warning for a non-3RR violation). And you'll see that he has engaged on the talk page; the IPs have not. I would suggest that Monkeyassault ask for a third opinion or seek some other form of dispute resolution. Also, the reporter looks to me to be a sock of User:Roman888. This is classic Roman888 behaviour. A comprehensive 3RR report on the 4th edit, with a good knowledge of the history of the reported editor? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yea but comments like "reverting vandalism" even though it's not, is a clear indication of edit warring, I thought Monkeyassault was reverting sourced criticism when in fact it was WP:COATRACK junk, sorry about that. I thought HansSolo54 was one of the IPs originally, yea he needs a checkuser. Secret 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I've left him a note about labelling edits as vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Obviously sock of someone.
2. Reported user Warned by Mkativerata (talk · contribs). I don't think any blocks need to be handed out at this moment.
3. Page semi-protected for a period of 1 week by Killiondude (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours )

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Croatian language is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Hammer of Habsburg has now violated 1RR again after he was blocked here yesterday for the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours by Daniel Case. Secret 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:snowded (Result:one month )

Page: Kingdom of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version

• Original edit
• 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:

This edit has a long history of edit waring and disruptive behaviour (and had a similar pattern with a previous user name). S/he goes quiet for a period then engages with an article edit warring, inserting multiple disruptive comments on the talk page etc. etc. --Snowded 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A long block should be recommended. Blantant disregard to 3rr policies and was blocked for a month twice before. Secret 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by SarekOfVulcan Secret 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was about to say that before you editconflicted me. :-)

User:99.92.130.150 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: Blocked, 24h)

Page: Let Me In (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.92.130.150 (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: - IP points other users to talk page but does not take part himself.

• Another revert after 3RR warning: . decltype (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• And another. Geoff B (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation)

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

Gaza war is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBPIA

• 1st revert:

• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User: Prunesqualer has now violated 1RR by inserting material that had been previously deleted and reinserting that material for a second time. He was also issued a warning and given a chance to self-revert but chose to ignore it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert, it was an edit. In fact, it was this user's first edit to this page in over 3 months. nableezy - 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect "Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools, were also attacked" was a line previously in. I am looking for the dif from here it was removed. It is so similar that I believe "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously" applies. The user also should have used the talk page before the inclusion (there is a note right there) since it is so controversial. He then also should have used the talk page after he was reverted per BRD. He instead chose to threaten arbitration and made the edit without using the talk page. In his defense, though, he is now using the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof by assertion does not an argument make. nableezy - 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You stated the same thing here and on the talk page. I have done the same. Your comment is irrelevant.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not the one making a claim not backed by any evidence. How was the first edit listed here a revert? That requires evidence. What I wrote is backed by a cursory look at the user's contributions. The first edit listed here was the first this user made to the article since 22:53, 11 July 2010. You have made an accusation without presenting any evidence at all. There is a difference between our comments, but "relevance" is not it. nableezy - 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read my comment above. As I said, I am searching for the dif right now. There are obviously many to go through.Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You should really find the evidence before making the accusation. nableezy - 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, JJG brought this here, not me. Second, you can click on a version in Sept 2009 and see the line. So here is evidence and you know it. I will be providing a diff though just to make it easier.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And here it is "Mosques, private homes and schools, which Israel maintains were utilized by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit." removed. Not only did he reintroduce the information, he failed to add the balance. I assume that there is another diff that does not have that second part of the line. Let me know if it is needed and I will keep on looking.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I dont think you can call an edit made a year ago by another user that isnt even the same as this one evidence that this first edit was a revert. nableezy - 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• No violation The first diff does not represent a revert. The version alleged to have been reverted to, absent in the initial report but added by Cptnono above, is insufficiently similar and too long ago. CIreland (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Would the addition of "which Israel maintains were used by Hamas as platforms to attack Israel and as weapons storage depots, were also hit" also not be in violation? Cptnono (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see in which of Prunesqualer's edits the text you quote, or anything with sufficiently similar meaning, was added or removed. CIreland (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to add it. By my reasoning provided above it would be a violation of 1/rr but according to your reasoning I looks like it would be OK. I just want to make sure I am not in violation if I tinker with the line and reinsert material previously removed.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your meaning now. If you think such an addition is likely to be contested (I presume you do think that, or you would not raise it here) then you it would be best to seek opinions at the talk page first. Whether or not it would be judged a revert would depend on whether it would be plausible that you were unaware of the previous removal and were re-adding the text independently. Factors which would considered in judging the plausibility of such would include length of time since the text was removed, similarity to the previous revision, and whether or not you had indicated prior knowledge of the earlier removal. Additionally, I think it would be good advice to suggest avoiding creating the impression of an attempt to game the system - the spirit of a revert restriction is more important than the letter. CIreland (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So I would be subject to sanctions while an editor who failed to use the talk page first and didn't address the previous conversations on a very similar line () is completely in the clear? The talk page has been used meticulously over the last couple months with nothing going in or out (including mundane section header changes) without ample time and notice provided on the talk page. Two editors came in today and disregarded the talk page completely. Maybe this is more of an ANI or AE thing over the edit warring board but it is obvious that a style of editing has returned today that everyone should have been happy to see the end of.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to this report indirectly - because I have Gaza War watchlisted, saw a new editor making contested edits and so dropped a ARBPIA notification at his/her talk page - which is when I saw the AN3 notice. Thus, I am not unaware of the editing history here. However, if you would like another admin to review this decision then you are welcome to ask for one at WP:AN. CIreland (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to question your decision when it comes to edit warring so another review from an admin won't really help the situation. Think I am just pissey that editors just made the same mistakes that have gotten other blocked and the page locked. I'm almost thinking WGFinley's massive restrictions on other articles are needed throughout the topic area since it is BS that this even happened. We can close this out though. I'll make a request for stricter standards at AN if it starts coming up too much. Also, the user that recieved his notification of sanctions was already aware of them so if anyone does decide to pull the trigger on an AE (premature in my opinion) then he has no excuse.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Prunesqualer due to making a similar edit without reaching consensus again.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:J.kunikowski reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Already blocked and unblocked )

Page: Massacre of Lviv professors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J.kunikowski (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:

Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked and then unblocked for promising not to edit-war again. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:173.31.34.252 reported by 209.175.212.136 (talk) (Result: )

Page: Robinson, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 173.31.34.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 21:27, 18 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388959388 by 108.11.113.51 (talk)")
2. 03:04, 19 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391548332 by 108.11.113.51 (talk)")

—209.175.212.136 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No violation The reporting editor is warned not to add disputed material to articles without reliable sources to support it. Both editors are admonished to discuss disputes on the talk page rather than edit-warring in the article. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All content regarding notable resident Calli Cox is well sourced and discussed on the talk page. Concensus seem to dictate its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.212.136 (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Blocked 1m)

Page: Rachel's Tomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. rv of this
2. rv of this
3. rv of this
4. rv of this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user is well-aware of the restrictions on edit-warring and was a party to the initial WP:ARBPIA case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rachel's_Tomb#Location

Comments:
Chesdovi has repeatedly inserted statements that the sources presented do not back and is removing what sources do say regarding the location of this site. No compromise, such as this is apparently acceptable to this user who insists on only including an extreme minority viewpoint and removing what reliable sources say. nableezy - 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He received a warning for something similar a week ago. .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean: here where your report on me was mistaken and unjustified. But I refuse to engage with you. I have never recived an apology from "Bali" for his incivil commnets and swearing. . He is stalking me. Help.) Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same can be said of Nab. I first added the infobox which was changed unilaterily by SD. Nab reverts just the same (where I provided a source) and does not wait for the discussipn to come to a conclusion. Again reverted here after I added WB . I provide sources and they are ignored by Nab. (I also was not "party" the the ARB case. I was put on there by someone else and notified, (thanks to user? for remoinding me), but I had no imput and was not invovled. I have not read anything of that until yesterday. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your sources do not say what you claim, and I have not made anywhere near the number of reverts you have. Try that comparison when it is valid. nableezy - 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I count 4 by you. But you were working in tandem with SD. Both yours outweigh mine. You think my sources are ambiguous. I belive they are "solid". Discuss. Don't report. One of your sources was outdated, from 2002, tey we are in 2010. (My source 2003.) Chesdovi (talk)

The only way you can count 4 is if you cant count. I made 2 reverts in the last 24 hours. You have made 4. nableezy - 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, and one for luck with SD: 4. "I have not made anywhere near the number of reverts you have." Chesdovi (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The first is a revert, the second one is not, the third one is, and the fourth one is made by a different user. Again, if you can count you can see I have made 2 reverts. Half of what you have done. nableezy - 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then my 2nd one is not a revert either. Neither is the last, as the map was changed too. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar with the Israel-Palestine dispute as played out on Misplaced Pages, there's an ongoing dispute regarding the coverage of the West Bank. Editors on both sides have watchlisted the articles, and in the context of Chesdovi being making pointy edits, the accusations of stalking shouldn't be taking seriously. There's a thread on WP:ANI concerning the pointy edits. If admin regulars here want to issue blocks, then in order to avoid duplication, I won't take any action, otherwise I'm inclined to restrict the parties to 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil, with all due respect, these "equal" restrictions are unjustified. I have avoided edit-warring on this article, making edits that were a compromise between the two positions and that were not reverts. Chesdovi has blindly reverted without regard for either my sources which, he ignores, or his sources, which he misrepresents. I have not made 4 or even 3 reverts, so I do not see how the "parties" here can be treated equally. If this is always going to be the result, regardless of who is making more reverts, let me know so that I can make sure I make just as many reverts as the other party so that the punishment would actually be justified. nableezy - 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits were of the same nature as Nab's. Nab does not wait for the talk page to come to a dicsion before reverting. That is wrong. After the Israel map was moved by SD, i left it, only changing the location to Jerusalem nad Israeli flag. But when ithe map was changed back to Israel Nab changes it back . Then SD chages the location too: . I then add source to lead which says it is within Jerusalem and then chage location while leaving WB map. Nab does take up the lead addition, but chnanges location to WB . I then add J and WB with WB map . This is not as clear cut as Nab thinks. Chesdovi (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Nableezy can be restricted to 1RR for the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict until the end of the year, and Chesdovi until the end of January. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. But I have made substantail edits to Rachels' tomb turinging it into a near GA standard. I will be very disheartened if after adding an info box which some zelous editors did not take a likning to, I get blocked. That is not fair. It was reverted woithout a conclusion at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're restricted to 1RR, you can still improve articles. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the 1RR restrictions, obviously blocks can still be applied if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean just 1 revert per 24hrs? Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so instead of 3 reverts per day, you're now restricted to 1 revert per day. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS and denialism

user:hamiltonstone reported by user:KBlott(Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: HIV#AIDS denialism

Since the FDA approval of AZT, there has been a lively debate within the HIV community about when to initiate antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. The scientific questions surrounding this debate were settled long ago. However, the debate has continued within the HIV community. Anthony Fauci is a medical doctor who is a champion of the denialist side of this debate. Fauci is not a virologist. I have initiated a discussion of this debate on the HIV page and have revised the text many times in response to criticism from hamiltonstone. This issue was discussed exhaustively on the HIV talk page. No version of the text has satisfied this individual.

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

I am content to continue revising the text in response to legitimate concerns. However, it is apparent from hamiltonstone's behavior that no discussion of this debate is acceptable to him. I am uncertain as to the correct procedure for resolving this intractable dispute.

Please advise me how to proceed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:HIV#Treatment denialism

Comments:

KBlott (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring