Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neo. (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 19 May 2013 (→User:Neo. reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: ): re). 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:50.72.139.25 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.72.139.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 10 May 2013‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:51, 13 May 2013‎
2. 04:49, 14 May 2013‎
3. 05:05, 14 May 2013‎
4. 20:20, 14 May 2013‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User 50.72.139.25 / 50.72.177.136 gets into a tremendous snit, and launches into extended ranting tirades and pointless personal attacks, if everyone doesn't agree with him 100% about everything. His actions have already resulted in semi-protection for the article and a temporary ban for himself. The natural place to ask for help about his current assault on the article talk page would be "Requests for page protection", but they've adopted some kind of policy of deliberate intentional ineffectuality in this type of case (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for page protection), so I'm coming here... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am enjoying the edit war because I know for a FACT that Kurgan Theory is a fringe theory for NON-linguists who actually fail to understand that language works as a series of waves, not like in genetics where there is a clear ancestry and a clear direction of inheritance. If I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS DETAILED AS BRITANNICA and this asshole is telling me that a single book from a single author 'has more weight' (POV!) , yeah I tell you to fuck yourself because WP becomes a video game. So let's play! Rock on!

The majority think Misplaced Pages is stale and shoots itself in the foot. I want to help the necrosis along by arguing in favour of most widely accepted academic views while telling assholes to fuck off and die. LOL! This obviously means that I am "bad" to the simplistic talentless unacademic WP admin trolls because they want to live in a digital ivory tower where their mediocrity is left unchallenged. Aw poor babies. Have a hot dog. Lol. Ah this is fun. (By the way, if you want to silence me, just block all of 50.72.*.* and stop *all* Canadians from editing. Stop everyone too! YAY! Good job.) 50.72.139.25 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I blocked .25 for a week. .136 hasn't edited since May 7, so I left them alone. The article is already semi-protected. If necessary, I will semi-protect the talk page as well. I've put it on my watchlist, but just in case I miss it, please alert me if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (removing the word Circasians from the infobox)
2. (again)
3. (again)
4. (removing pov tag)
5. (again)
6. (again)

DragonTiger23 displays typically wp:own activity during the recent 24h in the specific article. The reverts started when D.23 wanted to remove the word "Circassians" from the infobox and the lead, claiming that the relevant (wp:rs) citation that supports this, is for an unexplained reason wrong. Although I wasn't the only user that advised him that this isn't enough to reject the specific claim so easily, he responded by making aggressive comments in his edit summaries , removing even the pov tag, without waiting for the discussion to reach an end. I've tried to resolve the issue in every way possible: on the article talk page, as well as advised him kindly that he should calm down. I even told him gently that a pov tag needs to be removed after the issue is settled ] but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_Greek_users_trying_to_cover_up_a_Greek_massacre_of_Turks_during_Greco-Turkish_war_1919-1922 User Alexikoua is extremely pov pushing and source abusing, he is trying to justify, cover up, deny and shift the blame to others in a massacre of Turks by the Greek army. This massacre is documented by an inter allied Neutral Western report. Still he is trying to cover up the massacre, he states that he is of Greek ancestry this may explain his non neutral denying behavior.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have talked pages on the talk page see here but they are not neutral so it has no effect. Talk:Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacresDragonTiger23 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added an additional dif of the latest (6th) rv, since DragonTiger23 still reverts the pov tag placed by various users.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathaniel Glover jr reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Stale)

Page: The Kidd Creole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nathaniel Glover jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
This is a bit tricky; after removing Category:Black American Emcee's from The Kidd Creole, I received an eMail from User:Nathaniel Glover jr saying 'please don't edit my article', and that he had reinstated the category. I just reverted on the grounds that it was a ridiculous request and currently, I'm at three reverts and he's at four. The following is the eMail conversation:

• I'm sure your trying but PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (The Kidd Creole) any more I DO NOT need you to contribute to it no one knows more about subject than me so I repeat PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (plus you keep taking out Black American Emcee's stop this it's annoying....it's like you have something against this category?....you shouldn't because most of the rappers are Black American) your not adding anything so I wish you would stop....thank you
  • I've only edited it once and that was to remove the category. Create the category, and then we'll talk about it.
    • Let's be adult about this there's nothing to discuss please do not edit the page any more please....thank you
      • No. The page, or indeed any article, shouldn't contain nonexistent categories. If there is enough pages to fit the category, it will be created. Also, if you are Kidd Creole, you shouldn't be writing about yourself - although you've seen the messages on your talk pages. I won't flog a dead horse.
        • If we we're face to face would you have the same attitude? And I'm sure you (and I) have better things to do. Can you just stop please okay what what difference does it make to you whether not the categories nonexistent how do you know if I'm going to create a category. Okay stop being a child alright be an adult and stop editing the page okay just stop....thank you
          • Absolutely. As I've said, create the category first. Now please read http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:3RR before proceeding further.
            • What are you some kind of Internet nerd hiding behind a computer? I wish you would just leave me alone okay you need to just find some other category to edit....there are thousands of them you need to leave me alone okay because you're annoying me Leave me alone and leave the Page alone

Multiple policies have been violated, so a longer than usual block would be appreciated. Thank you.--Launchballer 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AShennib reported by User:Rizhad Krol (Result: Stale)

Page: House of Shennib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AShennib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomticker5 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gustave Whitehead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomticker5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:42 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
2. 18:30 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
3. 20:09 May 14 – reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
4. 00:52 May 15 – partial revert to restore "eyewitness accounts"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:36 May 14 –

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tomticker5 changed the page today to put a more convincing summary in place, one that makes Gustave Whitehead look more like he was a successful flyer. He was reverted four times, two times each by two other editors, and he reverted/restored four times the phrase "eyewitness accounts". Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that a reference to the Wright brothers must be in the first few introductory sentences of Gustave Whiteheads article to establish notability. The "controversy" is over whether he flew or not in 1901 lies mostly with the Smithsonian. There have been several recent statements by leading aviation authorities that he did in fact fly in 1901. In my opinion, you must cite the root cause of the controversy at the Smithsonian. The flight was witnessed by an editor of a newspaper and several other people who later swore out affidavits that Whitehead flew in 1901. You must also, for the sake of the reader of this article who is not familiar with the Wright brothers, and insert the date of their flights that occurred two years later in 1903. Then, the reader will understand that the credibility of the eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead fly in 1901 are being put in doubt by some not all aviation historians and the flights made by the Wright brothers, two years later, are considered first by some, but not all leading aviation historians.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tomticker5. Actually, Binksternet is trying to control the Gustave Whitehead page as he/she has been guarding it and continuing to insert misleading information. This was occurring with my edits several weeks ago. Gustave Whitehead has been recognized by the only non-conflicted world authority there is, Jane's All the World Aircraft, "the aviation bible", as first in flight. There are fanatics regarding the Wright Brothers who see it nearly (or virtually) as a religion that are very incensed by this appropriate, well-considered recognition. They continually try to disparage any recognition. Smithsonian cannot weigh in on this as they are bound by legal contract to only recognize the Wrights as first in flight. This page on Gustave Whitehead needs to accurately and neutrally reflect the credit Whitehead has been given and what the controversy was, but mostly focus on the accomplishments of Whitehead. The "Wrighteous" need to stop bashing Whitehead, they are the ones doing the edit warring. Binksternet is definitely in need of monitoring and reporting. This page should not be vandalized by the attacks of those Wright-favoring fanatics who cannot accept that Whitehead has been determined to fly first. In fact, B. may be a Smithsonian plant or employee, in my opinion. I support Tomticker5 wholeheartedly. We cannot have history defaced. AviationHist1 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Tomticker5 has not addressed the root issue of reverting-type behavior. He emphasizes the content dispute but this noticeboard is for behavior. AviationHist1 continues in the same vein, describing the content dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:K7L reported by User:174.118.142.187 (Result: No violation)

Page: AC/DC (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Warning on user talk page]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another article talk page where consensus was against these actions:

:Discussions had taken place regarding broadening the article AC/DC (electricity) where this editor could not receive any consensus, from three other editors, to include more types of equipment into this article. He was told that the lede clearly stated the topic inclusion since inception in 2008 with it's first edit. With a failure to inject off-topic AC/DC motors edits into the article he moved to the disambiguation page to edit the link to include his topic change to include AC/DC equipment not covered by the article. User:I B Wright has also reverted his edits to the article topic. Although, technically this editor has not reached four similar edits on this exact page AC/DC disambiguation s/he was aware that the edits were not desirable and an incorrect description, of the article linked to, from previous negative result consensus discussions. Edits on the disambiguation page were WP:POINTY and against these previous article talk page discussions.

174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP "reporting" this is revert-warring me, namely leaving messages on my talk page threatening 3RR complaints and then reverting AC/DC (disambiguation) once again to their preferred version. There was no consensus from other editors as the question of whether the scope of the article includes off-line SMPS is still under discussion at talk:AC/DC (electricity). Furthermore, the only discussion on the disambig page is about bisexuality. This would appear to be one IP who has decided that AC/DC (electricity) excludes the "AC/DC motor" (not just the off-line switched-mode power supply) and has taken WP:OWNership of the article unilaterally. Removing valid information from articles just to reduce their scope to one particular radio design which has been obsolete since the 1970s (or earlier) is neither constructive nor helpful. "AC/DC motor" does belong in AC/DC (disambiguation), regardless of one IP's love for a completely obsolete vacuum tube radio which used the term on its nameplate. If this user wants to turn AC/DC (electricity) into a discussion of one device instead of any device operable from DC, perhaps that article should be on another title to indicate that it's about just the AC/DC broadcast receiver (we already have All American Five radio which overlaps such a proposed article by at least 50%, were it created). This is agenda-pushing and I'm disappointed to see it as "AC/DC motor" is AC/DC and is electrical. K7L (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the first of my edits listed is not a revert and should not have been mislabelled as such. K7L (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You boldly edited and were reverted by User:I B Wright. Without talk page discussion you then injected the same edit again and I corrected your edit. You again injected the same WP:POINTY edit and I reverted it again, after the warning on your talk page. Your rash of confusion misinformation spewed above is not supported by edit histories. No talk page discussion was initiated by yourself (the onus was on you) on the disambiguation page but previous discussion on the AC/DC (electricity) talk page, you were involved in, clearly indicates three editors do not want your AC/DC motor subject matter inserted in the article and each of your attempts was reverted by other editors. Then you shopped for another injection article AC/DC (disambiguation) with attempts to broaden the article content again. That is editwarring. Currently you have begun to fling personal attacks on myself with IPsockpuppet insults], as well as suggesting I don't understand English.] As suggested previously to you in discussions WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:The TV Boy reported by User:Johnmperry (Result: Locked)

Page: TV7 (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The TV Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&oldid=554676299

This was on the List of missing references, which is where I came in. I did small edits to clear error.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. The TV Boy reverted my corrections and the previous contribution
   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=554850969
2. I reverted that reversion
   The TV Boy again reverted
   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555016025
3. I reverted that reversion, and issued {{uw-3r}}
   The TV Boy deleted the warning from his talk page. Then he reverted again
   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555193894

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

We have talked via comment on edit plus user page talk

Comments:

I have no interest in Bulgarian TV per se. I am only interested in people following rules. I have already brought WP:OWNER to attention of The TV Boy

John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Wed 12:14, wikitime= 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reporting me? I've tried to explain to the dynamic IP editors that this information is not approprite for the article on the English Wiki, where there is only general info about the channel. This information is about a case that even I didn't know it existed and even though it had referencies it has no encyclopedic value. The dynamic IP's come from Bulgaria, so I've asked them to put the information on the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. They just keep reverting my edits and say that they are harmed by TV7 and whant everybody in the world to see this. This is a very small thing just trying to give an international bad image to the channel. It violates Misplaced Pages core values of neutrality.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully protected the article for a week. The material removed by The TV Boy has no business being in the article as it was presented and sourced, but not necessarily for the reasons articulated by The TV Boy. Putting aside how badly worded it was, the sources are completely unreliable and cannot be used in almost any context, let alone in an attack on the station.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Whitechristian2013 reported by User:RolandR (Result:Blocked for username violation)

Page: Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whitechristian2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party

Comments:

• Overtaken by other events: Daniel Case blocked this user for username violation. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:70.19.122.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Blocked)

Page: Horus Heresy (novels) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.122.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. (This is different material being reverted, but still edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Horus Heresy (novels)#Concerning the excessive hidden text in the article

Comments:
A previous report was archived without any third-party comment of any kind. IP editor is continuing extreme WP:OWN behavior on the article by reverting any edits by any other editor outside of small spelling corrections and other minor edits, and insisting on excessive hidden text that is contrary to Help:Hidden text and WP:OWN. IP editor has violated 3RR. - SudoGhost 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Both editors were edit warring. However, I blocked only the IP because of the nature of the IP's edits, which were disruptive. @SudoGhost, I understand why you reverted so many times, but your only policy-based exemption is vandalism. The IP's edits were unconstructive, but I wouldn't recommend handling it the way you did in the future as you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree I'm certainly not blameless in the whole edit warring thing, but I didn't realize exactly how many times I reverted until after the fact (not that that excuses it). I'll be more mindful of that in the future and use WP:DRN or WP:3O or something. - SudoGhost 01:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

i believe that the reasoning given by Bbb23 does not justify this block. the edits he thinks "unconstructive" and "disruptive" were factually, nothing of the sort. i request that a corrective entry to that effect be entered in this ip's block log. past experience shows that sloppy administrators may concentrate their "investigation" to perusal of the block log instead of the case's merits. thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Your block was affirmed by two other admins as justified (I'm excluding King of Hearts's decline, since it was procedural). The fact that you've already gone right back to reverting the same article shows it was wholly justified. If you keep it up, you're just going to get blocked again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to continued reverting of the article after expiry of his initial AN3 block the IP editor has been blocked for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Refusecollectionreported by User:Farrajak (Result: Blocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Hurly-Burly (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Refusecollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (with my category preference) or (with sourcing problems noted). Article already has a "notability" tag on it. And it went through a AFD recently.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , , ,
Plus I tried to discuss my reasoning on Refusecollention's talk page.

Comments:
I was trying to help the article by reducing the overcategorization and removing a huge template that overwhelmed the article. When that was reverted, I tried to suggest other ways the article needed better sourcing, because there aren't solid sources to support the article's notability. The sources are either comments, or only mention the topic of the article peripherally. But the editor refused to consider any of my problems with the article and reverted every edit I made within minutes. Maybe I'm not doing the right thing here, as it's his article. Farrajak (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• In response to Farrajak's comment. I appreciate that, inspired by the notability tag, said user applied him/herself to altering the article, and quite possibly with the best of intentions. I reverted the various edits, as I have explained on the Talk Page, because the said user was requesting: a) that the "Psychoanalysis" template should be removed (when other Psychoanalytic journals carry this template, for ex: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, or at least it did until today when said user removed it after I quoted it as an example on the Talk Page); b) that the selected list of contributors be referenced, when clearly this is in no way a contentious issue; c) that the brief description of the journal content be referenced, when clearly this too is in no way contentious. Furthermore, said user alleged that: d) the existing references do not include the content they purport to include (which I refuted on the Talk Page). I respect the good faith of said user in seeking to alter the page in such a way as to improve notability, but none of these items will influence the notability of the journal, nor justify its notability in the article. In his/her attempted defence of his/her edits, Farrajak has shown a strong degree of incoherence and inconsistency. I repeatedly asked said user to be more specific in stating his/her qualms, and to refrain from altering the page directly until agreement could be reached on the Talk Page. I think the discussion on the Talk Page will speak for itself, but I remain available for further comment.

Refusecollection (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Perhaps both of you can explain what the policy justification is for your edit warring. Hint: the correct answer is there is none. I'd like to see an acknowledgment from both of you that your conduct has been disruptive and that you won't do it again. If I had more time (I'm about to go off-wiki), I'd extract a promise from you that neither of you can edit the article at all for seven days to avoid being blocked. Instead, I'll let another admin handle this as they see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:*I will acknowledge that there wasn't a reason to edit war. I've never done so before. I won't do so again and I apoligize for the disruption. Farrajak (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your comment. For my part, I would prefer to see the page stay as it is, and so for me there would be no problem whatsoever with not touching it for 7 days. I haven't added anything at all to the article, of which I am the original author, for some months now. My only activity today has been to undo what I saw to be unwarranted edits from Farrajak. The quicker this can be put behind us the better. Refusecollection (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The edit war notice above refers to both Farrajak and yourself, Refusecollection. And just now, somebody else than Farrajak made an edit and you reverted despite the above warnings. That's your fourth or fifth revert in the last 15 hours, meaning that you are way beyond what 3RR allows. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would accept this version by User:Epicgenius which was just now reverted by Refusecollection. Farrajak (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Dear all, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using/respecting poorly WP protocol. I am a very occasional WP user with a poor grasp of the codes and mores. I welcome any enlightenment on this issue, and will try to abide by the rules, which generally seem to have been put in place to make WP a wholesome working environment. My question, however, is quite simple: what do I do when an article I care about is altered, in my view unnecessarily, and the editor does not engage in a coherent way on the Talk Page? I'm being told that I'm breaking the rules, but no one is willing to talk about the nature of these non-sensical alterations. I've clearly stated my reservations on the Talk Page, no one has responded coherently. Refusecollection (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Farrajak explained what they thought is wrong with the article on the talk page. Your response basically was "you're wrong" and "this is absurd" and subsequently reverted every change to the article by them and others. The main contention seems to be two templates, one "not in citation" (I have no opinion on that one, as it is not a resource that is online and I don't have a printed copy available). The other template asks for a source for the remark in the article that the journal "includes texts by major psychoanalysts and prominent figures from contemporary philosophy and cultural theory". This seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. Note that you cannot source such a remark to the journal itself. Nor can you say: "persons A and B published in it and they are prominent so this is true", you need an independent reference for things like this. As for the overcategorization, this also seems to be a reasonable remark from Farrajak. For example, it is categorized as "psychoanalytic studies". A journal is not a study, even though it may publish the results of such studies. Journals are not usually included in "studies" categories. So this issue should at least be discussed on the talk page before starting an edit war over it. In fact, starting or participating in an edit war is only justified when the edits you are reverting are clear vandalism, which is not the case here. Please familiarize youself with the appropriate guidelines and policies, such as WP:3RR. If you have a disagreement with an editor, the appropriate strategy is not to say "you are wrong" and subsequently revert any edit to "your" article, but to discuss the issues on the talk page and if that doesn't lead to a mutually agreeable solution, there are our processes for conflict resolution. Continuing like you have been doing will only result in a block (as you have, in fact, already merited by your many reverts of edits to the article today). --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• With all respect Randykitty, you are mistaken on all points: 1. I reverted changes by Farrajak and no other editor (the edit from this morning by Epicgenius merely attempted to reinstate Farrajak's edit without discussion on the Talk Page); 2. Farrajak tagged a cn at the end of the sentence you have just cited ("includes texts by..." etc) when the very next sentence lists a selection of authors published, with hyperlinks to their WP profiles. My assertion on the Talk Page was that it would be absurd to include a footnote to support such a non-contentious claim. Farrajak did not dispute this on the Talk Page. 3. The template edits by Farrajak were separate from the cn edits, but in his/her response to my queries it is nigh-on impossible to distinguish what his/her qualms over the templates are. I offered an example of a similar template used for a similar journal featured in a WP article. Farrajak simply removed the template from the article with no further remark on the Talk Page. Lastly, whilst I am grateful for the links you have provided which will surely fill in some of my oversights in respecting WP protocol, may I kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, or describing my actions in a dismissive way. I have never shouted down another editor. I have never said "you are wrong" or "this (edit/user) is absurd". I expressed my frustration at Farrajak's unwillingness to pursue the dialogue on the Talk Page whilst he/she continued to make further edits that were equally bizarre. Refusecollection (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • With due respect, I was merely trying to revert to the version before the edit war. There should be no discussion about that. Epicgenius 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• If 3RR is really a rule, then Refusecollection continues to break it. Whatever the reason, Refusecollection should stop the continued reverting. Everyone has a reason, but Refusecollection has exceded the 3RR and continues to revert. Farrajak (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• If I have broken a rule, then perhaps there will indeed be some kind of consequence for me, which I am perfectly willing to accept. What I find unfortunate is that I am trying to pursue a conversation. A conversation that I would have preferred to have been confined to the Talk Page. You brought it here. So be it. Why are you more interested in seeing me punished/rebuked than in arguing out a point. I am genuinely curious as to how you think the page might be improved and what your rationale is for the edits you've proposed. Refusecollection (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Refusecollection, I respected the request of Bbb23, but I see that's a one way street and you have disregarded it. Why do you think 3RR doesn't apply to you? You are continuing to edit war. Hurly-Burly (journal) is not "your" article. As pointed out above by User:Randykitty, the article, my requests were reasonable. But even if they weren't, that doesn't entitle you to edit war. Farrajak (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Look, let's be clear about the qualitative nature of what happened here, rather than counting edits and reverts. Yesterday we agreed not to alter the page further. A third-party, seemingly unaware of this discussion, reinstated one of your edits, shortly after our agreement, and I undid it, with a note referring him to this discussion. The said third-party (Epicgenius) has since admitted that he/she was not seeking to enter the discussion. The page as it currently stands is exactly as it was when we agreed not to pursue the "edit war" any further. What's the problem? Furthermore, I think you are failing to see the difference between "my article" and "an article I care about". I am not in the least bit precious about the information in the article being from my hand. I just don't want it to contain anything sloppy or non-sensical.Refusecollection (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• A third party is perfectly free to edit that page at any time. It's only you and me that were edit warring and it's only you and me that the sanction applies to. But you are continuing to edit war.
  Everyone has "an article I care about". That's the reason for the 3RR rule. Because editors who "care about" an article are likely to try to enforce their point of view over other editors. That's what you're doing. "Caring about" an article makes editors more likely to edit war. It pollutes your neutrality. It's not an excuse to edit war. Farrajak (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We should just lock up the page till the kids work this all out!Moxy (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So this edit warring rule, the 3RR, is just a joke? Doesn't apply to editors you think are "kids" or joke editors? And I've apologized for no reason while Refusecollection is allowed to enforce his version? I don't get the point then. What's the point of this whole reporting thing if the result is it's just "kids". So the rule isn't real or it isn't applied equally to editors you don't take serious? Farrajak (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Apparently going off wiki, getting some sleep, and going to my real job is not permitted. I'll cut to the chase. Farrajak has it right, and Refusecollection has it wrong. Atlhough I did not require a promise of no editing, I'm surprised that Refusecollection would revert another editor so quickly, for whatever reason. So, Refusecollection, what you need to do is self-revert. If you do that and if you leave the article alone for 7 days (same goes for Farrajak), you will avoid being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So does that mean you'll block him if he doesn't? Or is it just me who will be blocked if I touch the article? And what's the time frame? Refusecollection clearly doesn't get it. This has been going on for quite a while with no remedy while Refusecollection continues to flout the rule. What's the deal, when I seen other requests speedily decided? Farrajak (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Most probably, the page is going to be fully protected until the issue is worked out. Epicgenius 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your reply. As I was starting to suspect, I have infringed WP rules and this puts me in the "wrong" as you phrase it. I've done everything in my power to pursue the dialogue and explore the rationale behind Farrajak's edits. I've failed. I'm afraid I simply can't bring myself to do make the revert you request. Reinstating sloppy, incoherent and poorly-argued editing is simply against my principles. If being blocked is the price I must pay, so be it.Refusecollection (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I've blocked Refusecollection for 24 hours. I've also made it clear on their talk page that after the block expires, if they resume edit warring on the article, they risk a longer block. @Farrajak, you should not edit the article for 7 days. You are welcome to discuss changes to the article on the talk page. I do not intend to revert Refusecollection's last edit as I am not taking a content position. The same would be true if I locked the article. If it seems to you, Farrajak, that Refusecollection has "won", don't look at it that way. You've avoided a block by behaving responsibly, and you can still argue for your changes on the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your views. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent, and very little is urgent. Deliberation is constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just as I suspected! So now we'll see if this whole exercise is for real or just a joke. What happens now, Bbb21? Or is it just that Refusecollection's version will be locked into place for seven days and then the whole thing begins again? This really seems like favoring a serial reverter at the expense of me, an editor too stupid to think the rules were real. Farrajak (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Our edits overlapped, Farrajak. Please tone it down a notch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, while I'm not allowed to touch the page for seven days! I've discussed the page with Refusecollection until I'm blue in the face. Also, so has Randykitty. This is a joke, and I have retract my apology. Sorry I stupidly made it. And he even has a meatpuppet or whatever. I can't take this seriously anymore. I ask you to retract the 24 hour block as it's meaningless and an idiotic gesture. It just reinforces how stupid I am. What's the point? Farrajak (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Farrajak, the thing is that if your version is best, other editors will agree with you. Go to the talkpage and ask for a third opinion or even start a request for comment to get other people involved. Getting others involved is key, and there is no massive urgency to have a final decision about which is best. It might take a week or two. But that's fine in the general scheme of things. Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? No one cares about that article. And I'm not stupid enough to put energy into any more wiki "processes". You see what happened here. I don't believe any of that now. I see what happens to request for comment. Nothing but a waste of energy. He'll get his way. I was stupid to think that anything fair would happen. Farrajak (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you really need help sorting this out, you can ask at the main noticeboard and an admin will help you. Epicgenius 00:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dismas reported by User:112.209.67.216 (Result: Page protected.)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542750027&oldid=542749657
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=543143898&oldid=543140461
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542964776&oldid=542964265
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542961287&oldid=542955149

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected The edits linked in the report took place over two months ago. In addition, the editor making the report was edit-warring, so if any action had been taken against any individuals it would certainly have included blocking that editor. However, since it is a very long-running dispute among numerous editors, page protection is more appropriate than blocking individual editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, this anon is just evading the many blocks set up again Jskylinegtr. I'll go reset and expand the range blocks. With the possible exception of Rusted Auto Parts, none of the other participants edit-warred, and even his borderline behaviour has stopped. I think this protection is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tjic (Result:Page protected )

Page: IRS Tea Party investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned by massive deletions by NorthBySouthBaranof and have asked him multiple times in the Talk page to discuss the deletions, so that material can be improved.

He insists on deleting and re-deleting the material instead of engaging on the talk page.

We've slipped into an edit war, which I'm not proud of, and would like moderation so that we can reach a resolution that generates a high quality article while addressing all concerns.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIRS_Tea_Party_investigation&diff=555381177&oldid=555375013

Comments:

It takes two to edit-war, and the reporting user here has arguably violated WP:3RR by blindly reverting attempts at rewrites, but I don't intend to request a block. As it stands now, the article repeats itself about three times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Looks like there is some discussion started on the talkpage. I've protected the page for 3 days to allow that to mature. I or any other admin can unprotect if you sort things out before then. Slp1 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tejanorules reported by User:TreyGeek (Result: Not blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning not explicitly made. Possible vandalism warning made here: . User responded to reverts of their edits here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None.

Comments:
User has been reverted by multiple (two) users. They have received notifications on their talk page in regards to images and fair use rationale and they have continued to revert changes. I can do nothing more than escalate the matter as the user appears to have no intention of reading talk page messages or understanding Misplaced Pages's policy. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: While constructing this notice, the user has reverted for the fourth time here. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked - Tejanorules has never been given any warning that suggests their behavior could lead to a block. I just gave them a 3RR warning. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  To clarify, the first time I see you inform him of 3RR is on your own talkpage at 03:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC), but that comes after his last revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:IranitGreenberg (Result: Topic ban of IranitGreenberg)

Page: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

Pluto2012 is an hypocrite. He warned me against 1RR violation but he broke the rule first.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am an hypocrite ? Once more you are insulting me against WP:CIVIL. And it is not the first time that I complain to you about this.

Both these reverts refer to different material. This is not 1RR. You should stop inserting such pov-pushings. You should also have understood that these in any case would not stay long in article and you make everybody lose time and nothing else.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Different material? It's irrelevant. You can't revert twice in the same article in less than 24 hours. You should know that.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

Perhaps Pluto has misread the rule this time. I don't know. I've never understood its niceties myself. But, if so (?), in mitigation I'd just note that this last comment by IRanit Greenberg shows one of the defects of our system. One cannot make more than 1R or 3R reverts, depending on the article, but, an advocacy-driven POV-pusher like IranitG, as experienced editors have often noted, can enter twice or three times over 24 hours, in the same article, dubiuous material or sources over that same period which fail scrutiny, and place serious editors in a dilemma. And he not only consistently abuses editors who have a strong reputation as scrupulous in their article contributions, but tries to get them roasted on the only rule he apparently cares for, if others break it.

This is the second time IG has called Pluto a hypocrite as witness this earlier example 3 days ago, in response to his request you do not use talk pages to discuss politics. He has not retaliated by reporting this strong violation of WP:AGF to the appropriate WP:EQ page. As other editors have noted, (here, here and here, for example) Iranit Greenberg engages in WP:ADVOCACY, consistently ignores all rules, and obligations to edit neutrally, as the two passages Pluto revert show.

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. In the first edit Pluto said the material IG introduced had nothing to do with the article. That the UN national assembly voted for Resolution 3279 when Kurt Waldheim, who, 11 years later was revealed to have formerly been a Nazi, presided, is both irrelevant and not germane to the page, unless a RS source makes that connection. Sources introducing matter like this must relate it to the topic of the page. Neither source is related to the issue. (a) The Daily Telegraph nowhere mentions that resolution. (b) The Jewish Political Studies Review mentions an insane telegram sent to Waldheim by Idi Amin in 1972, before the passage of that resolution, and nowhere mentions Resolution 3279. Thus Pluto's revert cancels an egregious WP:SYNTH piece of POV-pushing.

The second revert removed

Beginning in the late 1960s, the Arab states together with the Soviet Union initiated a campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum, and supported by what became known as an "automatic majority" of Third World member states.

The introduction of this language violates several principles. (a) The edit copied and pasted the material, without editorial indications that this was a quote, directly from the source.(b) UN Watch is an agenda-driven NGO, and dubious as an RS for this kind of statement (WP:RS) (c) the view cited is that of the UN Watch source, but is pasted into the page in a neutral voice (WP:NPOV). Every editor knows that, and Iranit has been told this often, you cannot edit in a subjective POV as though it were a fact, or try to pass off a controversial generalization as in fact a neutral state of affairs. (d) The source nowhere mentions the topic of the article so the selective use of an irrelevant snippet constitutes WP:SYNTH and violates WP:POINT.

Iranit was warned on several occasions (User:Dlv999, User:Zero0000, User:Sean.hoyland laid the policies out for him some weeks ago) not to make the kind of edits he made today. He won’t learn from advice, but plugs away, and if vigorously challenged, resorts, as here, to an attempt to use the rules to get a good editor sanctioned. How serious and experienced editors are to handle high active POV pushers as they range over pages, creating on each page a controversy by a patently bad series of edits, is not something we have efficient mechanisms for coping with. Those edits were indisputably in violation of many basic[REDACTED] principles. No rule stops him from such rule-insouciant POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment No violation, the reporting user should read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Faizan 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I have an extremely high regard for Pluto's contributions, and have the impression that, from time to time, editors do try to get at him, and the animus or ideological posturing of poor editors can make him impatient. But, one should never allow personal sympathies to distort one's analysis. The rule is:' A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.' The question is, is that page covered by ARBPIA and does the rule allow one to revert patently poor, indeed abusive editing that violates core policies, even if it is not technically vandalistic'.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. For example, warning another editor against 1RR violation, but breaking the rule at the same time in the same article. I'll abstain myself from using this word in the future, though.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no deception here or hypocrisy. The irony is, Pluto is, as anyone reading my earlier archives can see, on the other side of the border to an editor like myself. Privately we disagree on how the I/P conflict is to be interpreted. But, whether Zionist or not, I've never seen him allow his personal views to get in the way of a commitment to meticulous and neutral sourcing. If he erred from impatience, or misreading, he will have to submit to the sanction. But your editing here is execrable, whatever the outcome, and one unfortunate consequence is that we will probably lose for a time an excellent encyclopedic contributor. Perhaps that is one of the functions of those who keep putting in absurdly poor material: to test people's patience and make them overstep the mark. POV pushers, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen, and like clones, or some hydra-headed figure, keep repeating the same bad patterns of indifferent editing and uncomprehending use of poor sources to defend a cause. Perhaps even they are not hypocritical. They are convinced they have the truth, and must bear witness to it before a 'hostile' world.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

IranitGreenberg is one of the worst editors in the Middle East department. S/he hardly ever does anything except push a particular POV into articles, without the least regard to NPOV, RS, and common sense. This article is quite typical. Look at this " Waldheim was a former Nazi and suspected war criminal" in Misplaced Pages's voice, supported by two references neither of which even mention the topic of this article. Then inserts an opinion of a right-wing advocacy group in Misplaced Pages's voice. Her/his political motivation for being here is clearly indicated by this attempt to canvass support from another editor assumed to have similar views.

Technically Pluto violated 1RR, apparently though misunderstanding the rule. If there is a sanction (which I urge against in favor of a warning) it should be lenient. IranitGreenberg, on the other hand, should be topic-banned. Zero 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

This may be better handled at AE. While Pluto appears to have violated 1RR, none of this would have happened without IranitGreenberg violating two core policies, WP:SYNTH at 2013-05-17T02:31:20 and WP:NPOV at 2013-05-17T04:18:07 as others have noted. It was of course reverted, but they restored it at 2013-05-17T04:23:09 only to self-revert when they realized it was a 1RR violation. Their POV pushing is blatant and becoming increasingly disruptive. Their behavior at United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 is just one of many places where they are lighting fires. Their editing is consistent with what I would expect to see from a radicalized nationalist teenager, so if they aren't one of those they are certainly sending the wrong message, at least to me. They are a catalyst for disruption and edit warring in ARBPIA, the kind that has happened countless times before when nationalist editors bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to Misplaced Pages. At some point someone will need to waste their time compiling evidence for an AE report but in the meantime, please do not allow this editor to continue starting fires across multiple articles and filing reports against people who try to put them out. They violated 1RR yesterday themselves so their personal attacks against Pluto are particularly weak and unethical (see User_talk:IranitGreenberg#1RR_at_Boycotts_of_Israel). Sean.hoyland - talk 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Pluto2012

I violated it. I was really not aware. It would have been the same if I had done both modifications at once and it would only be 1 revert. I self-revert then. Sorry for misunderstanding this rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

Given Pluto2012's apology I don't see a need for action against him. But the recent editing of User:IranitGreenberg is very troubling. They've been blocked twice in the month of May for editing on I/P articles, and they've received the WP:ARBPIA warning. They seem to be engaged in simple-minded nationalist POV-pushing, as when they added mention of Kurt Waldheim in a context that did not call for it. A three-month topic ban of IranitGreenberg from the I/P area ought to be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both Pluto2012 and IranitGreenberg have done at least one self-revert to cure their respective 1RR violations. I would still consider a 3-month topic ban of IG to be an appropriate response to their recent POV editing. This might be avoided by a convincing offer to edit more neutrally in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Bbb23

I am in agreement with Ed, both on the issue of Pluto and of IranitGreenberg, although I probably would favor a 6-month topic ban. As an aside, I'm mildly curious why the most recent block was not logged at WP:ARBPIA. It was for a violation of 1RR on an I/P article, but the block notice did not indicate it was an ArbCom block. King of Hearts is a meticulous admin, so perhaps they had a reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been logged there. I am not very active in ArbCom enforcement, so I did not know about that requirement. Fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by IranitGreenberg

Considering there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict, I think it would be unfair to block me. However, I won't re-add controversial material in the article and I will try to make more neutral contributions. Sorry if I bothered anyone.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg, you miss the point.

The problems with you is that 1. you are convinced that "there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict" and that 2. you don't know the topics in which you want to collaborate.

The first problem prevents you to comply with the 4th pillar of wikipedia. It's up to you to change your mind about this. The second problems prevents you to comply with the 1st pillar of[REDACTED] and is a big issue. When it concerns 2013 attack here or there, it doesn't matter much because googling can solve the issue but when it refers to topics linked to the "1948 war", to "Zionism" or to a "1977 UNGA resolution" there is not a single chance that you can bring anything interesting before you can forget all that you believe or was thought on this and that you study deeply what scholars wrote on these topics.

Do you undestand this and do you agree with this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But the sources I provided in the Zionism article are reliable. And this (or this, this, this, this and this to name a few), is clearly POV-pushing (much more than mine).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dlv999

I would take the statements by IR that he intends to "try to make more neutral contributions" with a huge dose of salt given that even while this discussion is ongoing he is continuing to introduce the same POV material into the same article that he has already received a block for. Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly what the source says. It's not POV material and I wasn't blocked for that. Not more POV than this, this or this, for example. There is a clear double standard here.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not "exactly what the source says". The description of the image is " Palestine 1020BC; Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land by George Adam Smith in 1915". Looking at the image itself, you can see the title is "Palestine in the time of Saul 1020BC". Kingdoms depicted on the map include Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia, Israel. You stating in the caption "Depiction of the Israelite kingdom (colored)", may be true, but it is not a neutral title for the the map as it depicts far more besides the kingdom of Israel. It is consistent with your general edit pattern on the page to push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint, which isn't appropriate for a page about the Palestinian people.

I think you will find that the edits you cite of mine are consist with the cited sources. For instant I restored the map title "Syria and Palestine" because that is the title used in the file description. "Syria and the Holy land" is unsupported and seems to be part of a general trend on the page by several editors to remove any reference to Palestine. If you can't tolerate the use of the word "Palestine" where supported by cited sources, you probably should not be editing on the Palestinian people article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't try to "push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint" (like you try to push the anti-Israel point of view all the time). If you read the image's caption/reference at the right bottom, it says "Kingdom of Israel coloured", it doesn't mention Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia...--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia are identified by being labelled on the Map, KoI is identified via a key in the bottom right hand of the picture. You are picking one detail from the map (not from its title) and highlighting it. Your consistent approach on the page of highlighting Israel and downplaying and removing references to Palestine is not appropriate for an article about the Palestinian people. Your assertions that everyone else here is at fault and you are not, does not offer much hope that you are willing to acknowledge the issues that have been raised here and amend your editing pattern accordingly. Dlv999 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my fault the picture highlights the Kingdom of Israel (the only reference at the right bottom, look again). And I never said I'm totally right and "everyone else here is at fault"... but you are fault for systematic bias, POV pushing and you don't have the honesty to recognize it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You choose to highlight one detail from the map instead of using the actual title of the map per the source. In all honesty your opinion of my editing carries very little weight given there is a consensus among experienced editors and admins in agreement that your involvement with the project thus far has been problematic. Dlv999 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic for who? Pro-Palestinian editors like you?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:IranitGreenberg is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on all pages of Misplaced Pages, with the option to appeal the ban at WP:AE in six months. This action is under the authority of the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBPIA. See the appeal section of WP:AC/DS for your other options. EdJohnston (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOriginalSoni reported by User:99.147.28.115 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Comments:

This page has systematically been stripped of historical information appropriate to Misplaced Pages by a number of users acting in concert. They have replaced wiki-appropriate content with current events, POV, and heresay. 99.147.28.115 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. To the extent you have a legitimate beef - and I have no idea if you have - this is not the forum for it. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner reported by User:84.74.30.129 (Result: IP blocked as sock)

• Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am concerned about the events to have taken place on the above named site. This report comes in fresh light of this investigation outcome on 4 April 2013 on a similar note.

Fresh information was inserted onto the article here:

• Fresh information inserted.

Then came the following reverts:

• .

Concerning the fourth, there has been no investigation or issue raised into whether I (the account in question) am an alleged sockuppet - therefore the summary is an arbitrary declaration and can only be ruled an act of edit warring, in breach of 3RR - particularly if it is found I am not a sockpuppet of any user. 84.74.30.129 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by bobrayner

The "fresh information" was fiction; I removed it. 84.74.30.129 is another sockpuppet of Evlekis (talk · contribs); see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive. Just like the last time that Evlekis used socks to revert factual errors into articles and then took me to ANEW for removing them, there has been no actual breach of 3RR, and the sooner Evlekis stops reverting and socking, the sooner our articles will reflect what sources say. Just like last time, Evlekis is canvassing an ally too. Baiting another editor into reverting is hardly new for Evlekis; the difference is that Evlekis is now completely blocked and topic-banned, rather than merely limited to 1RR as before, so now the IP has to be used for all tendentious edits & canvassing, rather than just the second, third, and fourth reverts. Srsly; I haven't broken 3RR, I removed factual errors from an article, and a blocked editor uses a sock to put factual errors back into the article, canvass supporters, & report me to this noticeboard. Some days, editing is quite frustrating... but removing factual errors from articles makes me an easy mark for somebody who has no such qualms and who wants to set traps. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. Without an exemption, you have in fact breached 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be exemption 3 of WP:3RRNO: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but you appear to be saying that even if the IP is not a sock, you have not breached 3RR. Part of what you accuse the IP of doing is bring a false report here. That's how I understand your comments here and at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Without comment on the merits, I suggest pausing until the SPI is complete. I have commented there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea to me. bobrayner (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Dennis blocked the IP as a sock based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo. reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

Page: Shashi Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user talk page); (MCQ discussion)

Comments:

Editor has repeatedly substituted a nonfree image for a free image in a BLP infobox, reverting two other editors (including me), despite a complete lack of support for his position in the MCQ discussion he opened (linked above). His edit summary for his most recent revert (first linked diff) admits an intentional 3RR violation. Editor apparently believes that the existence of an open noticeboard discussion prevents any other editor from removing an obvious NFCC violation and allows him to violate 3RR. Similar edit warring at Meenakshi Seshadri . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Image ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg is already tagged as disputed. As the tag explains, exception can be made after consensus. Deadline for discussion is 19 May. No user had commented on talk page of image. Only 1 user had expressed his opinion here. Above user superseded all[REDACTED] users, admins, closing admin and took 'decision' long before deadline and discussion that above image is voilation of copyrights. I repeatedly stated it edit summary. Sole intention of above user was to override admins/discussion and flame me. neo (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring