Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 3 January 2013

• 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:Thargor Orlando reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert (update): diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert (update): diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments:
This is an issue that was solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring against that consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty hard to say something is resolved when numerous attempts to discuss were outright ignored, but such is the way of these things. There's no issue here if CartoonDiablo actually decides to engage on the talk page or discussions, which he has chosen not to do for nearly two months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're the only editor engaged precisely because you're the only one that finds fault with it. The issue isn't a dispute, it's you editing warring against the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And that consensus is where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion for single-payer between me, you and Scjessey. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus is that? Do I get to include North8000 in my camp? Does the inaccurate viewpoint of one of the polls being a "push poll" assist either side in our viewpoints? Why didn't you bother making this argument at any point in time between the NPOV noticeboard and the talk pages in the last two months? Who's doing the "edit warring" without discussion, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000 was not in the single-payer discussion and virtually no one participated in the NPOV noticeboard because it seemed self-evident the only person that had a problem with it was you. The point is, this board is about user behavior not content disputes (of which we went through ad nausem). You've had your say and now we're discussing your edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion is across multiple articles, I'd argue he is. That you chose - willingly - not to involve yourself in the discussions should tell us something. Do we want to talk about conduct? How about your blanket reverts without discussion? The entire issue is the content dispute that you refuse to resolve, so... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that I was (marginally) involved and about as involved as everyone else? Are we then to assume everyone was in a conspiracy to "willingly" sabotage the discussion? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. @CartoonDiablo, you mentioned in your edit summary a discussion at ANI; can you please provide a link?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops my bad I meant AN3 which is the discussion here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thargor and CartoonDiablo have also appeared on opposite sides of discussions at DRN and NPOVN recently:

• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 51#Single-payer/healthcare polls (ended October 18)
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Health care articles (ended December 1)

Perhaps CartoonDiablo can explain his comment above: "solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring.." The most obvious interpretation is that both the DRN and the NPOVN were inconclusive. The second discussion certainly indicates that consensus was not reached in the first one. Where is the venue where consensus with Scjessey was said to have been reached? Is it too much to expect an actual WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? -EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue with typical dispute resolution processes w/CD because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand how they work. There was a separate dispute with him (also still unresolved, but I had to detach for a time and I haven't had an opportunity to revisit with this new, more important issue) where he assumed that a DRN suggestion was binding. Disputes for CD appear to be a means to an end - a war of attrition rushed to dispute resolution in an attempt to get sanctions on those who disagree with him, making consensus building incredibly difficult. This should have been resolved six months ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was over whether the polls are measuring for single-payer. Me and Scjessey came to the consensus that it did and Thargor tried to take it to NPOV noticeboard where almost no one participated because it was obvious he was the only person that had a problem with it. Earlier in the discussion he accused me of "willingly" not participating which I suppose applies to everyone else as well (except for Thargor)?

At this point we have:

• Reverting consensus
• Accusing everyone else of "willingly" trying to sabotage attempts at resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Ed. I see no consensus. I also see no breach of 3RR, and to the extent there is edit-warring, it is equally distributed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Both in the page discussion and the NPOV dispute Scjessey said that the polls were measuring single-payer, that was the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And both myself, North8000, and now two people here say there clearly is not. Does this mean you'll cease trying to force your edits? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, North was not in the single-payer discussion he was in the failed NPOV discussion and the two people here are talking about whether or not the consensus exists, not the content of what it's about.

The fact of the matter is Thargor's explicit reason for reverting it was no one responded and no one responded because the consensus for it was solved. We've gone through this before and if nothing is done Thargor will keep reverting it and we will keep coming back to this noticeboard over and over again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you can continue/finish the discussion at the talk page as opposed to explicitly avoiding it. Since there's no consensus, maybe that's your best move. Otherwise, the assumption will be that there are no further protests to changing it back. As the NPOV discussion was about these articles, North is absolutely "part" of any discussion about consensus, which at least four people now note doesn't exist as opposed to your novel claim that it does. So I suggest coming back to the talk page and supporting your claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I chose to withdraw from activity on articles frequented by Thargor because of the editor's behavior. Several attempts at dispute resolution have been made (it was my attempt to mediate one of these that drew me into editing at the article in question), but Thargor has ignored them, waited for interest to wane and then returned to revert any edits that were made under whatever consensus had been reached. CartoonDiablo should be commended for "defending Misplaced Pages's honor in the face of ideological editing" or something, but I'm afraid I can no longer work with Thargor constructively. A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't ignored them at all. In fact, I seem to be the only person interested in fixing the problems in this case. We've reached no consensus - this is why we have this problem. Meanwhile, since your contributions have been to malign good sources and engage in unfounded attacks, maybe it should be up to others to decide who the problem players are here, hm? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Look I can bring up diffs and Scjessey can affirmatively answer it here but we did reach a consensus, and that was the polls measured single-payer (and this is with Scjessey acting as a mediator). So unless edit waring against consensus isn't a problem I don't see why we shouldn't have a 3RR (not even considering the other suggestion for a topic ban). CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love to see the diffs that show an actual consensus. No one else but you seems to be seeing it. I see you ignoring discussion and avoiding questions plenty, but no consensus. And seeing as I didn't revert anywhere more than twice, it just goes to show you don't understand how this works, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Right here:

• "The polls in that link all talk about full health coverage paid for by the government in one form or another. That is single-payer." - diff of Scjessey.
• "This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system" - diff of Scjessey

As you can see, me and Scjessey established a consensus that these are single-payer polls and Thargor is reverting against it. Whether or not it's 3RR it's still edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Neither of these actually demonstrate consensus, simply the opinions of one editor. Two people cannot say "we have consensus" against two other editors, sorry - especially when we're talking about factually inaccurate descriptions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Thargor is now inserting content dispute tags even though there is no content dispute but a dispute about edit-warring and consensus diff, diff.

• Yes, I did. And they've been reverted without discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the bot moved this to the archive, but it has not been resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• At the NPOV noticeboard input was received from two uninvolved folks. Two uninvolved folks (Blueboar and myself) said that the use of polls was problematic. I had some more detailed comments on that as well as the wp:or added via table headings etc.. Looks like none of the opinions/advice was used/heeded.
• IMO the reason you didn't get more participation is because that it's a large complex issue (a lot of problematic stuff bundled into the vague question of table vs. text. You might try that distillation to get a few more eyes on the article.
• The argument above seems to be that there are just 3 heavily involved people and the two that want it one way are saying that the one person not doing what the two people want is editing against a "consensus" determined by two people. This is not right on several levels. Not only is this not a "consensus", but 2 folks can't just say that because there are two of them that can override policy in the problematic areas noted. At first glance, the biggest one is that they way it is now it is contruction-by-editors from primary sources, including drawing conclusions from primary sources which is certainly a policy issue.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the list....there's not even any 3RR there. At each article the addition of a tag was listed as being a "revert"North8000 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slo-mo edit warring to further an ideological point of view, at the very least. When someone uses edit warring as a tactic in a content dispute, it demonstrates a need for some sort of topic ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Except I'm not pushing to further an ideological point of view, but a factual one. If I wanted an ideological point of view, I'd push to remove any instance of single payer whatsoever. That wouldn't be appropriate. Meanwhile, you think using MMfA in articles is okay, but the Heritage Foundation is not - who's approaching this ideologically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

False equivalence. Media Matters for America reports on what right-wing media is saying, whereas Heritage just makes shit up to support their ideological point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You've kind of made my point here. Meanwhile, a discussion is ongoing at the single payer article if you'd like to join us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So, when Thargor does it is slow motion edit warring and when Scjessey & CartoonDiablo do it it is righteous persistence. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes. We all know you are part of the same ideological group as Thargor and incapable of offering impartial advice on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Armbrust reported by User:Spc_21 (Result: )

Page: Template:World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking the 3RR. User has reverted the page in question seven times in less than 24 hours. User seems to make reverts to ensure they have the last edits on articles.

User:194.146.213.16 reported by User:Debresser (Result: Both warned)

Page: Elazar Shach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.146.213.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elazar_Shach#Adin_Steinsaltz

Comments:
User first came with a hateful post . Then I forced him to the talkpage, but after each time he posts there he thinks he now has the right to revert again. He does not understand the core Misplaced Pages principle of consensus. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not correct. I removed information which clearly is not allowed by policy of BLP and VERIFY and also there was not ever any consensus that I can see to leave it there. As I explain on the article talk section, the BLP says very clearly that this type of information must be with a strong source or else should be removed which is what I have done.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both the IP and Debresser are warned not to revert again until a consensus is found about the sources. The dispute is about whether *other rabbis* besides Elazar Schach placed a ban on Steinsaltz's works in 1989. The IP does not deny that Schach condemned the translation but thinks it is a BLP violation to name the other rabbis as sharing his view. I have the article from the "Printing the Talmud" work, page 137, that clearly makes this statement about a whole group of rabbis including Schach and says that the information comes from the English edition of Yated Ne'eman, August 18, 1989, which is a Haredi newspaper. As a temporary matter, the Steinsaltz-ban information could be restored about Schach and you could leave out the other rabbis until an opinion about the sourcing is found at some place like WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N. Perhaps someone can get hold of the 1989 article in Yated Ne'eman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for reviewing this complaint. I will post your conclusion on the talkpage. May I say I am a bit surprised to see that you decided to address the content issue rather than the behavioral one. I was under the impression that this noticeboard functions for the latter, that is the implementation of the 3RR and other edit war rules. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor was claiming a BLP justification, based on the article 'defaming' the rabbis other than Schach for saying that they banned Steinsaltz's work. The Yated Ne'eman issue is said to contain actual letters from the other rabbis, so my guess is that the IP's argument will collapse after the complete sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mor2 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Protected)

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: The account has been used to break 1RR, and was blocked for the offenses, twice already on this very article. This is the third time.

So you come off a block and figure payback? Those diffs are two days old, preventative not punative. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of four days. These edits are a bit old. Nevertheless, since this posting, there has been a flurry of reverts, and so I've protected the article for four days. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear you are not a neutral administrator, another editor I never wish to speak with. Sepsis II (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Protected)

Page: Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Link to Talk section)

Comments:
The article history shows that both parties are guilty, and sure enough... the other party has also been warned:

I plead no contest to breaking the rules, too, and will accept a temp ban if admins believe it is warranted. I brought up the edit issue at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), and appeared to have consensus for the change. It was also brought up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane .2F R. Andrew_Kiel prior to the edit warring notice. Thanks! Location (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There has indeed been some back & forth in the article (multiple reverts by Location, Xenophrenic and Guy Macon) over the past 3 days since Location's first edit. While there have been no actual breaches of 3RR by anyone involved, there's certainly been a tendency (by all parties) to prematurely implement changes in the article before all issues have been resolved and consensus reached. For my part, I'm stepping away from the article until Jan. 2 when I can obtain one of the obscure sources we're squabbling over from a local library, and hopefully we'll have received uninvolved input from WP:RSN by then, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• If everyone "gets it" and will willingly step back a little, I don't see any point in taking any action. Being willing to leave an article in a non-preferred state until you can put your hands on a source, and admitting culpability shows a professional attitude. Just use the talk page more and be patient, it will all work out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Protected three days. Since an IP reverted again after Xenophrenic's last, it looks like not all parties have agreed to step back. There seems to be a battle royal over whether the Warren Commission can be described as 'ignoring' some witnesses. Making that assertion in Misplaced Pages's voice looks like an invitation for trouble. Xenophrenic is a long-time editor so I'm surprised by his persistence at User talk:Xenophrenic#Talk pages and personal attacks. There are safer ways of presenting the facts and critical opinions about the Warren commission which I'm sure could be found through negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I plead .. um .. spiked eggnog. A one word revert to bring the article text in line with the cited source, and suddenly it's "quick, buttress the defenses against incomming fringe attack!" I'm just making sure they dot their I's and cross their T's as far as editing and sources policy goes. Despite disagreements between you and I, Ed, you've always given me a fair shake (even while sternly shaking me up). Thanks for that. Here's wishing you a very fine New Year. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP's edit merely reflected talk page consensus. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is still edit warring, this time in an attempt to edit other people's talk page comments:

• 1st revert:

• 1st revert:

• 2nd revert:

• 3nd revert:

• 4th revert:

• 5th revert:

I consider this to be vandalism of my comments and have treated it accordingly.

More warnings:

I believe that editing my own comments after someone has modified them is exempt from 3RR (I was careful to always reinsert his comments after rolling back the vandalism. except when he vandalized my comments again while I was cutting and pasting.) If I am wrong about this good-faith belief that 3RR does not apply to my own comments, please let me know and it won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are exempt from 3RR only on your own user talk, not on article talk pages. I suggest that both of you stop reverting at Talk:Mark Lane (author) because both of you could technically be blocked for edit warring. WP:TPO is only a guideline, but WP:3RR is a policy. If an admin became sufficiently concerned, they could block either of you for disruptive editing. At present, neither of you appears to be setting a good example. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I will take that as a fair warning and will take it to heart -- it won't happen again. I apologize for misinterpreting Misplaced Pages policy on this, and thank you for the clarification. I am also unwatching this page, the article in question, and all associated user talk pages. Again, sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Stumink reported by User:Mallexikon (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Contras#Estimate on contras' victims

Comments: No 3RR till now, but close to. Stumink not taking part in discussion. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Stumink is correct. Being an American is not a conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Only if you're an American political scientist and take a pro-American stance in a conflict where America is one of the adversaries. But that's not the point here. The point is that Stumink is edit warring instead of taking part in the discussion. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You reverted me one more time than i did so you have edit warred more than I have and you have failed to use the talk since are edit war started. I have explained clearly in the edit summaries why you're version was POV. You cant just say the figure is controversial because he is pro American. This is OR. You do not know whether or not he is pro-contra. Anyway this is still in the wrong section and I can't be bothered continuing this. It will do as it is now. Stumink (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MeasureIT reported by User:Martinvl (Result: )

Page: Lists of British inventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MeasureIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Two 3RR warnings here)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Below) Diff of attemtp to resolve dispute on at User talk:MeasureIT: . (Note - this diuscussion invovled more than one article).

The reverter used the article Talk:Lists of British inventions#Invention of the metric system to put his case. My responses were sufficiently short that the edit summaries (see History Page) when used in conjunction with the reverter's Talk Page were sufficient. Each of my changes were attempts to comply with the reverter's requests.

Comments:

User:MeasureIT is on an anti-John Wilkins crusade. His changes appear on a number of other pages including Metric System where there has been a discussion at Talk:Metric system#Role of John Wilkins, History of the metric system (for which I have also issued a 3RR warning), the article England (diff here) and elsewhere.

Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to the article in question. The edit referenced as "1st revert" above was not performed by me, that was a reversion by User:Martinvl. The edit referenced as "3rd revert" above was the addition of an "irrelevant citation" tag and not a reversion at all. Before my last edit to that article I counted 3 reverts by Martinvl (indeed I warned him about it here) and 2 by me. I think this a false accusation against me. MeasureIT (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this posting, User:MeasureIT posted a request on Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard without notifying me, even though that noticeboard demands "If you mention specific editors, please notify them". He did not mention me by name, but as "another editor", which in my view does not excuse his failure to notify me. Martinvl (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User:HPotato (with IP edits) reported by User:Mathsci (Result: 31h)

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

Addition of contested content:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (the second warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user started out editing anonymously from Leicester, England with two different IPs from the same ISP. He then registered the account HPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With all these accounts, he has attempted to add speculative content to the article on the French city Marseille. His non-neutral point of view is that "Marseille is predicted to become the first Muslim majority city in France". So far no sources support that unqualified categorical statement now added to the article. Two editors pointed out that an online programme guide for the BBC does not constitute a WP:RS and that a throw-away phrase in a National Geographic article is no more dependable. HPotato has ignored these responses, has reinstated his content and apparently, judging from the timing, has theatened me on my user talk page using an anonymising tor node (now blocked). He is a new editor with a clear POV who has been reverted by two established contributors. He is repeatedly adding very poorly sourced and contentious predictions. He is not listening to the justified reservations about the sources. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the first charge: I have always in the past edited WP anonymously. After Mathsci reverted my edit to the Marseille article I registered the account HPotato to make it easier to discuss things on the talk page, and have subsequently used this for all edits (the charge seems to be that I am engaged in some form of sockpuppetry).

As to the second: a demographic forecast does not constitute speculation as I pointed out on the talk page.

Thirdly, the BBC and National Geopgraphic are reliable sources. If demographers had not forecast that Marseille will become a majority Muslim city the BBC would not have reported it. And my edit does not state that Marseille will become a majority Muslim city, only that this has been predicted.

Fourthly, the section of the article on immigration is itself far from neutral: there's no mention of the recent unrest in Marseille, for instance.

Finally, I have at no time made any threatening remarks whatsoever to Mathsci, either with this account or anonymously. If he can't provide reasonable evidence that I've done so he should withdraw the accusation. HPotato (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HPotato has edit-warred to add contentious content to a neutral article that violates WP:CRYSTAL. The sources do not support the statement he inserted prominently five times. He is using a programme schedule on a BBC website as his main source (the National Geographic article makes a speculative statement about predominantly Muslim cities in Wetsern Europe). There are no "demographic forecasts" included amongst the sources he added, just two isolated single sentences on the BBC website and in the National Geographic opinion piece. He was asked to find sources which satisfy WP:RS by both Dr.K. and me, but has so far not done so. There is no sign that he will not continue revert-warring against consensus (see edit summary in 3rd revert). Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for 3RR violation. Mathsci's identification of the two Leicester IPs sounds correct. Though HPotato replied here, he did not apologize and made no agreement to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I think that under the circumstances your block was correct. It is unfortunate it had to come to that. I support Mathsci's analysis above as accurately reflecting the situation. Happy New Year by the way. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by User:Jeannedeba (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: Multiple blanket reverts on Humanism

• 1st revert - disruptive blanket revert of version agreed upon by the two uninvolved editors (who are not here to promote their organization)
• 2dn revert - another disruptive blanket revert
• 3rd revert - and another disruptive blanket revert, reinstating spelling mistakes and obvious errors
• 4th revert - and another disruptive blanket revert, including removal of sourced content.

This user appears to be a highly disruptive POV warrior who routinely reverts edits by any other user than himself on humanism and related articles. His edits are promotional and grossly POV, as pointed out by multiple users. He seems to insist that he WP:OWNs the article and that he and only he has the right to add content (without any consensus) or remove content (without any consensus), and enforces this by disruptive editwarring and outright vandalism (including removal of POV tag from article whose neutrality is disputed by multiple users). He has been disruptively edit-warring on this article for days now. His edits have been explicitly rejected on the talk page by multiple users.

Note his disruptive wikilawyering and double standard in his edit summaries, insisting that others have to obtain his approval before making any edits at all (even rather uncontroversial ones), while he at the same time enforces his own edits (including numerous controversial ones) by editwarring and without any consensus and while in fact multiple editors agree his version is POV. He also appears to be tag-teaming with another user, to promote their organization, as two users noted on the talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Jeannedeba is fresh off a block for edit warring on Humanism and related articles. Her first edit off the block was to call the blocking admin "a disruptive troll", her second to file this report against the user who had reported her, and her third to continue to edit war. Jeannedeba's accusations above are obviously baseless, but feel free to check the bottom 2 sections of Talk:Humanism if there's any doubt.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, and you are the only one edit-warring on humanism. I see 4(!) blanket reverts of the article from your part, no other user has made 4 blanket reverts of all work by other users, and your disruption to this article needs to stop. You are not allowed to remove a POV tag, when there are two users (including you) promoting one version and two users agreeing it is POV. You continue making false allegations and being disingenuous as well, I have not reverted anything. Adding a POV tag is unrelated from the edits before (the article is still POV) and excempt from 3RR. Removal of the tag on the other hand counts as vandalism, as it explicitly says that you cannot remove it without consensus. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. WP:BOOMERANG applies. User:Jeannedeba is mounting a determined but singlehanded campaign to modify articles and templates on humanism to reflect her own viewpoint. Claims that User:Mann jess has an ownership agenda are unfounded; I and other editors (see article talk pages) support Jess' actions as within policy, and reject the claims made by Jeannedeba. There may be scope for further consensus-building on article talk pages, to ensure that articles better reflect both historical religious uses of the word humanism and modern secular uses - which I anticipate Jess would support - but on the evidence so far Jeannedeba appears to refuse to compromise on their own viewpoint. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. This is blatant tit-for-tat grasping at straws. A block at this point would be punitive, rather than preventative, and I don't believe, based on the talk pages and the evidence presented in the previous AN3 report, that Mann jess is the disruptive party here. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User:184.183.190.2 reported by User:InShaneee (Result: )

Page: Michael Slive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.183.190.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Has been removing the "Controversy" section on the listed page. I've asked him to take it to the Talk page for discussion, but to no avail. You'll see the first edit is actually him replacing the section with an editorial. Honestly, the controversy section looks like it could use a bit of NPOV tidying, but I don't think that purging outright is the answer, especially since the citations on the removed info appears to be legit. InShaneee (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has again since this was posted, with a somewhat rudely dismissive edit summary, and at the moment is still refusing calls to discuss with other users. I should also clarify, I know nothing about this page; I just came across it on RC patrol. Therefore, I'm not going to be a ton of help correcting the content, nor do I really have any stake in the outcome. InShaneee (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Siavash777 reported by User:Kabriat

Page: Amir-Abbas Fakhravar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Siavash777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: The account has been used to break 1RR, and was blocked for the offenses, twice already on this very article. This is the third time.
Kabirat (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Relations Society of America (Result: )

Cantaloupe2 and I have been in edit-wars in the past and I have requested an IBAN three times from this user for hounding, battlegrounding, etc. unsuccessfully. We have both been edit-warring on and off for a few days over this edit which places the Controversy section near the top and I believe introduces a substantial UNDUE and NPOV problem.

It introduces a substantial amount of content regarding O'Dwyer's defense against eavesdropping accusations by the PRSA, but without including counterpoints such as phone records suggesting otherwise. I also believe it ignores prior discussions regarding UNDUE, which led to the Controversy section being shrunk and summarized, instead of including 40 years of back and forth between the two. It also disrupts the equal platform given to each side of the dispute. Cantaloupe continues to say I have not provided rationale, which is provided on the Talk page.

Based on my past experiences with this user, I believe these are bad-faith edits and so my behavior is not exemplary either, because I respond like most human beings would to someone who is stalking them. My bad-faith rationale is discussed in our prior edit-warring dispute, where he added negative content from a personal blog.

I do not mean to "report" him per se, but ask how we resolve an edit-warring dispute of this nature before we both get blocked at 3RR. Not sure if this is the right place?

Page: Public Relations Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Reporting both Cantaloupe2 and myself

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk page here. An RFC and NPOV noticeboard strings were also started, but have no responses. Perhaps we just need some immediate intervention while the RfC runs its course.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Seeing that we were not agreeing on this, I started a NPOV noticeboard discussion. CorporateM had been actively editing, but did not contribute to NPOV, so it appears that he is declining to participate. The user had expressed intentions to continually edit war on edits he disagree and made an ad hominem attack against me that my intentions are bad and I am defacing the article in violation of WP:AGF

To quote the CorporateM's talk page comment: " Yes, and now I've explained why. If you continue to make edits that are not representative of the discussion, I will continue to revert them. Your misplaced accusations of COI and excessive tagging to de-face articles is disruptive and I do not believe they represent a good-faith effort to improve the 'pedia. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)"

The matter has since been sent for third party opinion, which happened prior to CorporateM's creation of this dispute. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I defend my ABF. We do not continue to AGF in the face of overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. From our last edit-warring dispute: "I think this bad faith is enough to justfy an iban from any uninvolved admin" -User:DGG CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, you can explain what's happening here. WP:CANVAS? Rather than let uninvolved party come here, you chose to solicit input from four users of your choice, all messaged in a short time frame.

EdJohnston

Nouniquenames

DGG

Gigs

I understands that you frequently chit chat with users including and not limited to some named above. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I invited CorporateM to participate in this dispute. User was given a notice on their talk page as required per WP policy. User responded by removing it from their talk page in acknowledgement of notification. It is my interpretation that user is unwilling to cooperate by refusing to not participate in addressing the issue before the NPOV board.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Not yet to 3rr, but definitely devolving into an edit war. Issue seems to be covered in talk at Controversy section, Jack O'Dwyer, and O'Dwyer and PRSA "consensus" (edited only by these two editors). Also of interest is the RfC by Cantaloupe2 (quickly closed for obvious reasons). --Nouniquenames 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• My comment about bad faith was made in connection with use of a particular source in another article, not related to the present question, and should not be used more generally as a comment on the general editing of anybody here. I really wish CM had not used the quote here.

As for the issue, I made my comment on the article talk p. I suggest the discussion continue there. As I know some of the parties involved, I'm not going to actually edit the PRSA article myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I think that his allegation was a meritless ad hominem attack. It isn't about contents, but it is about me which I think falls under WP:NPA

Non, which is why I sent it off to 3rd opinion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Valio subaru reported by User:Carpathians (Result: )

Page: First Bulgarian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Second Bulgarian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring and illegal page moves without consensus

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Göktürk-2

User:158.39.0.122 reported by User:CeeGee (Result: )

Page: Göktürk-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 158.39.0.122 (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: User is anon.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Explained on the article's talk page not to remove sourced text and refs and not to add unsourced text.

Comments:

User:CartoonDiablo reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: )

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CartoonDiablo (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: (done before fourth revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Single-payer_health_care#Fixing_the_issues_still_in_play

Comments:

A long-term edit war in play. See also three reverts hereThargor Orlando (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring