Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:56, 28 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:Lnhbm reported by User:Lajbi (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Footer World Champions Table Tennis Team Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lnhbm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

It is worthy to note that the case hasn't reached the 3RR yet I'm at three reverts (4 overall in two months) he's at two (4 overall in two months), but I'm the one who provided explanation for the edit and no matter how many times I asked for a reasoning in return, said user just reverted without giving a valuable edit summary. Also I'm quite sure he's the one under the IP 220.246.196.51 who has done two more reverts to avoid 3RR and also his account is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user Chamberlain 234. I need some kind of help/intervention before it gets worse. Lajbi 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (For the record I've just did it the same time as this report)

I haven't opened a discussion on the talk page but rather asked the said user to do so, because he was the one who hasn't communicaated in any form while doing his edits. I used the edit summary for that.

I will expand this report with the edit reverts as soon as the user crosses the line OR the IP given above (since I'm still pretty sure they are the same people. Is there any way to check this?)

Lajbi 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He reverted again. I can't figure out what he meant in the edit summary. Everyone reached his limit. Lajbi 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems he is trying to force the use of piped links in the Template:Footer World Champions Table Tennis Team Men. This makes no sense because the accented forms of these names already have perfectly good redirects that take the reader to the unaccented article titles. This makes us wonder why someone would insist on creating redundant links unless he is trying to make a point against the use of diacritics. Or perhaps it is a simple misunderstanding, one that is so firmly held that it causes him to edit war. As to socking, I see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Chamberlain 234 but there is no SPI and Chamberlain 234 is not blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the next step? Should I revert it again? Lajbi 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lnhbm is warned. If they continue to make reverts of templates involving accented names, without working to obtain consensus on the talk page, they may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User: Walter Görlitz reported by User: 99.129.112.89 (Result: Declined)

I typed up a longer "defense" explaining how my edits were wrongfully reverted (with over 29 points) and how I was improperly blocked after being provoked and attacked by "Walter" if anyone is interested (even though I didn't provide it while blocked because I wasn't on the site for a few days nor concerned with requesting to be unblocked since I don't NEED to use this IP and Wiki isn't my master nor do I have anything to prove). I want no contact from User: Walter Görlitz nor will I read any responses of his. I am not coming back here via this IP address, I only wanted to set the record straight via this IP. I don't require use of this IP to be on Wiki, as I would rather avoid "Walter" due to past problems only with him (and once with "Bugs Baseball" who behaves the same way). I can show historical proof of Walter's improper actions towards myself and others (after researching for days and years overall) and how my statements are valid and properly sourced, as well as already included in related articles that are not challenged because he does not "watch" those pages. Because I was right, it was Walter's mission to block the IP even though he was the one attacking my edit abilities (see his edit history and "Contemporary Christian music talk page). No one really researched/investigated, they just quickly reverted my edits then blocked me since I'm "anonymous" (in my opinion although I'm sure it will be denied). I have evidence that "Walter" just reverts without actually reading/reviewing the content/context thus creating unproductive edit wars. My first attempt to "undo" his revert was done because I felt he did it in error or as vandalism since he had done NO research/verification (evidenced by the fact the same content is included in other articles and not reverted since he's not involved with them) and didn't read the open discussion active on the talk page yet. I was also NOT warned because I was the one suggesting to "talk it out" first (he was just posting unwarranted "rules" and saying he's taking it personal on his edit notes). Reading "edit summaries" doesn't count. Nonetheless, I am not too concerned nor does it matter that much to me to get my way like it does "Walter". I also know no one will take action or do anything about this or his poor behavior because they will just take his side automatically (which is wrong and shouldn't be policy). Hence the reason I don't want to associate with Misplaced Pages in general. Nevertheless, it seems he has made it his mission to remove what he does not want on the article (and keep what he wants) to the point of having users blocked for insufficient reasons. I have saved a history of this for my records where he contradicts himself (not removing statements that haven't been cited or are poorly sourced/written content and instead removing legitimate content different editors include which is already included in other articles that were approved, all while creating edit wars to the point users who are usually anonymous are provoked/upset, plus misconstruing edit summary notes as personal attacks even though he belittled my abilities including suggesting he "educate" me without even knowing my experience while I post better sourced/written material then him only "undoing" good faith work). Regardless, I am making a "report" about it (and saving my full investigation on the matter as well as past experiences with myself and others I've tracked). I am only updating my reaction to additional contradictions by "Walter" here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kim_Jones_at_About.com_on_Christian_music 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a follow-up of this previous report by Walter Görlitz. I have now informed him about the new discussion. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Declining to investigate because this is not in the usual form for an edit-warring report. As you know, you were warned per a previous complaint here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205#User:99.129.112.89 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned). The warning was to get consensus for your position on Christian music before adding your own judgment to a bunch of articles. Subsequent to that, you were blocked three days for personal attacks per an ANI discussion. One of your comments (in the edit summary) was "fallacy, manipulation, inept, sabotage and narcissism... and a "stalker"!" If you want to continue working in this topic area, please be careful and don't insult people. It is likely that your views will get more deference if you register an account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops! This can be removed from here and I will move it to the proper article for reporting Walter since I don't want contact from him or you because you both have not properly complied to Misplaced Pages procedures and there is now a conflict of interest between us. "Warnings" were done in error and not according to Wiki (as much as that may be a hard pill to swallow). And they do not mean you are right nor were they justified. The content I provided is accurate with legitimate sources and therefore he created the unnecessary edit war and the block was done with ignorance as well (lack of research). Edit summaries are also not direct insults towards anyone. You and Walter need to also remember not to attack people. He insulted me first which I called him out on more than once. Where is that justice? Exactly. Besides, these so-called insults via the edit summaries are only true if he's guilty of it (and proves he was "following" me to cause trouble). At any rate, disregard... I'm moving on from you all. P.S. I have another account already. And you just confirmed that IP's are treated differently/poorly/improperly. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to communicate with the IP above on his talk page - first suggesting he gets an account so all dont see were hes from and then with the intend of some mentoring. After the reply and edit summaries that were given I dont see how this editor will ever be able to conduct themselves in a productive adult manner here. Never in my time here have I seen a response of this nature to someone willing to help someone.Moxy (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. I asked to be left alone and do not need those reminders. It seems you are just upset I didn't reply and removed it. Your involvement seems a bit shady/creepy. I did not ask for the info from you and feel you are part of the group not helping, but rather making things worse. Why is everyone focused on my reply and not removing the info from the CCM page that is wrong? Walter is aware that About.com is not accepted, yet he left it. He also has unsourced info he admitted to on the talk page. Let's deal with that and not putting rules and reminders on my page I don't need. I don't like playing head games. Why can everyone say what they want and make things worse, but when I defend myself, I'm wrong? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Will be very blunt here - Your attitude towards our editors is much more of a concern then the article(s) content at this point. If you except people to listen to your position you will have to show some respect and maturity and not assume we are all out to get you. I offered some help but you just insulted me with your edit summary and did not even have the courtesy to reply normally. So what would you like us to do - editors uninvolved with your dispute are try to engage you by talking - but to no avail what so ever. Pls explain what you hope to accomplish if your un-willing to talk to our editors?Moxy (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You claimed I was a new editor and needed help with my way around. If you did some checking, you'd see I'm not new. This is what I'm trying to say. Editors like "Walter" have jobs to do. But sometimes you do them automatically with assumptions and not actually considering every situation is different. So that was a "red flag" that you just pop up telling me to create an account. I'm aware of the motive/reason admin wants editors to create an account. You telling me where I am as if I'm not aware of how IPs work also freaks me out a bit. Why would you even post that on my talk page? Makes no sense. Who does that? Hence my reaction. That is why I asked to be left alone and yet you replied again. You want to help? You want to "mentor me"? Again, my mesage was just to have this fixed (not ignore it and drag it out until I'm frustrated then blame me for not behaving properly): Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kim_Jones_at_About.com_on_Christian_music See the talk page on Contemporary Christian music about the two items not sourced and/or not correctly sourced (using about.com which is not valid). How about just removing it finally since "Walter" won't? Because if I do, there will be another "warning" or "block" all because people are overlooking facts and judging me because of the IP address. This isn't difficult. If my properly sourced info is reverted (ie. NY Times), why isn't this info? The section of the article about Kim (author) needs to be removed. Thanks for the "help"! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My "attitude" comes from being jaded by editors who are only out do to one thing. My "attitude" is in response to "attitude" given to me first. How about looking at how nice I messaged "Walter" in the beginning until I was provoked (especially when it turns out I'm right and no one can admit that so they would just rather warn and block as a defense or smoke screen). Check into how I was attacked about my editing skills from the start when I was the one asking to talk about disputes first instead of him just being "revert happy" (as he did again on Jon Gibson's article). How about everyone who is bothering me actually do some checking around, not pushing their big red power button cus they can. I mean, really? Talk about maturity and respect... Ugh. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: The necessary changes have finally been made or are being made to the article by Walter which is greatly appreciated. I have yet to replace my contributions/statements to the articles, but I have composed a summary of the content on the talk page of the CCM article and will add it back in the near future (hopefully without resistance/confrontation). Fyi only... Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Nika1234 reported by User:Rvir0522 (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Lea Michele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nika1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Nika1234 is repeatedly re-adding the same content after it was reverted by other editors including myself and I've already warned him at least twice. --Rvir0522 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Everest505 reported by User:Parishan (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Brilliant Dadashova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Everest505 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

The page has recently been placed on pending protection due to high-level IP vandalism, possibly initiated by the same user (given the timing and the nature of reverts). Parishan (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected for 5 days)

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

Previous version reverted to: (complicated; see below)

• 1st revert: 23:40, January 25, 2013 Added "fiscal subsidiarity" to the lead; it had previously been at X's version of 20:43, January 23, 2013
• 2nd revert: 00:53, January 26, 2013 restored the same wording to the lead
• 3rd revert: 01:20, January 26, 2013 again, and edit summary is "Undid"
• 4th revert: 02:59, January 26, 2013 edit summary is "undid", and did revert this edit
• 5th revert: 03:22, January 26, 2013 same revert
• 6th revert: 05:49, January 26, 2013 edit summary = "undid", and really did undo that edit
• 7th revert: 06:34, January 26, 2013 restored the same material as the previous revert, and some more deleted material

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:53, January 26, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The other combatant attempted to resolve the dispute here and here, although I'm not sure it was a very good attempt.

Comments:
I shouldn't refer to the other blocks, as they weren't exactly for edit warring, but for WP:NPA violations. He had been edit-warring on this and other articles, before, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected for 5 days)

Page: Tax choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (complicated; see below)

• 1st revert: 01:07, January 26, 2013 Removed "fiscal subsidiarity" from the lead
• 2nd revert: 01:35, January 26, 2013 Again, and edit summary = "undid"
• 3rd revert: 02:43, January 26, 2013 removed material recently added by the other combatant
• 4th revert: 03:15, January 26, 2013 removed material recently added by the other combatant (some of the same material)
• 5th revert: 03:21, January 26, 2013 same revert and comment = "undid"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:55, January 26, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See previous report.

Comments:
He stopped edit warring before my 3RR warning, but he may have been warned before. Two of the reverts were reverts of X's edits while an {{inuse}} tag was in place, but that's not an excuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• No previous 3RR warnings to me ever given.
• To be clear, I had posted the inuse tag. And I reverted but once while the banner was up. (AR incorrectly says I reverted twice.)
• Some of X's reversions were to material he wants to keep (e.g., the Pope material) and which I was editing to remove remove redundant and poorly formated citations.
• AR missed some of the edit sparring details: my edit summaries had more than just "undid".
• In this case, it just amazed me that the reverts were done when the inuse tag was up – I commented "Please have the courtesy to respect the insue banner!" in my edit summary. When X still reverted with the inuse tag up I stopped trying to fix problems (Pope citation, redundant references, et al.).
  • The changes I had hoped to accomplish during the "Inuse" editing have not been accomplished.
• Re: AR's comment "but that's not an excuse." – does he mean not an excuse for for X to revert while the tag is up, or for me not to re-revert while it is up, or both?

In any event, I am aware of 3RR policy and seek to comply. I had hoped the inuse tag would allow for proper editing to be accomplished.

And I thank Arthur Rubin for handling this in an even-handed manner. --S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you Solomon.--S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, by "that's not an excuse", I meant that X's edits, although they violate guidelines in regard {{inuse}} tags, in addtion to 3RR, are not an excuse for you to violate 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:74.192.23.108 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Neo-Confederate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.192.23.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: The following four diffs all relate to the removal of material. The first three remove this paragraph:

The Civil Rights Movement — Historian Nancy MacLean states that Neo-Confederates used the history of the Confederacy to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Historian David Blight writes that current neo-Confederates are “ driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement.

The fourth revert, after the warning, reverted this paragraph:

• White supremacy and opposition to Civil Rights — After the Supreme Court decision on segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, Neo-Confederate organizations emphasized the “white supremacy meaning of their Confederate heritage.” They saw the struggle against civil rights as “a repeat of the postwar struggle of ex-Confederates against racial equality.”
• Black Confederates — Toward the end of the Twentieth Century, in order to support the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery, Neo-Confederates began to claim that “thousands of African Americans had served in the Confederate army.” A Neo-Confederate publication, Confederate Veteran, said in 1992 that “the overwhelming majority of blacks during the War Between the States supported and defended, with armed resistance, the Cause of Southern Independence.”

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

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The issue is sourcing. The editor is deleting properly sourced material with arguments that amount to nothing more than he doesn’t agree with what the sources say. I have prodded him to produce specific objections, but he has not responded. His responses are criticisms of me and our past interactions; although he appears to be a newby, in fact this is at least the 4th time this user, using different IPs, has made these identical types of attacks. His most recent language includes “your two new slurs”, “your childish and self-serving editing”, and “they are just a figment of your imagination".

In addition to the specific deletions included in the diffs, the editor has added material which has its own sourcing problems which are addressed on the discussion page. I stopped reverting by, in one instance simply tagging the material he added, and with the deletions adding entirely new material with different sources. This new material was the 4th deletion (this is submitted as edit warring rather than 3RR). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Besides the edit-warring, there were other things that tipped in favor of a block of the IP: (1) the removal of sourced material, (2) the comments on the talk page, and (3) the history. At the same time, I caution North Shoreman to be more careful of his own editing as he, too, was edit-warring. I suspect the article will need semi-protection. If the need arises in the future, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or, if I'm not around, to ask another admin and point to this comment, although obviously any admin is free to exercise their independent judgment as to whether it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Raintwoto reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A (first edit removes significant content)

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

Various warning are on his talk page. I informed the user about the climate change discretionary sanctions here and explicitly about WP:3RR here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various users have challenged Raintwoto and restored the content he removed. Most of them have tried to enage him on his talk page.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 20:17, 20:27, 20:37, 23:05, 23:33, 00:32; was warned previously. Kuru (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jamenta reported by User:Mihaiam (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Made clear in talk page he is going to revert indefinitely, made personal remarks to other editors.Mihaiam (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is a slow edit-war for which I wouldn't normally block as the reporter has also been involved. However, Mihaiam is absolutely correct that Jamenta has personally attacked other editors and evinced a battleground mentality. As a curmudgeonly aside, you'd think that anyone who feels qualified to edit an article on physics would be able to file an edit-warring report with proper diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Py0alb reported by User:In2itive (Result: Py0alb warned)

Page: Indoor cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Py0alb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535199762&oldid=535184893

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535199762&oldid=535184893
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535255607&oldid=535251069
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535256835&oldid=535255976
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Indoor_cricket&diff=535259187&oldid=535258653

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Indoor_cricket&diff=535259187&oldid=535258653

Comments:
Py0alb has attempted to introduce a different form of indoor cricket into an article covering an internationally recognised version. Whilst 'his version' (for lack of a better term) may be notable, I have repeatedly attempted to assert that the indoor cricket article itself refers to a specific sport, not to all forms of cricket played indoors. This has been the case since 2005. Like futsal, indoor football etc (all forms of indoor soccer) they can be placed in separate articles. My attempts at inclusive compromise were reverted. in2itive (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have left a note/warning on Py0alb's talk page. While waiting for a response, In2itive, I suggest you leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies Bbb23, immediately after logging this report and prior to your comment, I separated his information into a separate article as per precedent in a further attempt at compromise. All his edits are retained, just in a separate article that is heavily referenced throughout the indoor cricket article. As this is my first 'edit war' I am a little unfamiliar with the process. in2itive (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. As I said on Py0alb's talk page, I should have informed you directly rather than relying on your seeing my comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Look through in2itives edit history: it is clear his own reason for being on wikipedia is to promote the version of this sport that he himself either plays or administers. I would suggest he is probably not the correct person to be able to have an unbiased view of this page's content, perhaps take it to the cricket working group to get a second opinion as to what should be the contents of this article.

All his links go to one particular self promotion website aimed to make this extremely small sport look like an international sport. I don't think these actually provide evidence of either reliability or natobility. It is simply not the case in reality that this sport is as popular and widespread as he makes out. The ECB National Club Championship is the highest club competition in England, and it uses the traditional version of the game. There are 100 times more clubs that play the traditional version.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia not a shopfront for promotion of one particular company's product. "Indoor Cricket" describes the sport of cricket being played indoors. Many if not most people, when seaching for this article, would be looking for the traditional UK version that is still hugely popular around the UK. It is unfortunate that the new version of indoor cricket did not think of a more original name, in the same way that "Last Man Stands" did, then it could have its own page; but it can't claim the rights to the wikipedia article simply because he managed to write it up with no-one noticing for a few years.

I have used a fair compromise: an article that mentions both versions of the game with equal billing. Instead of this, In2itive wishes to reduce the content about the original and still far and away the most popular form in the UK of indoor cricket to a subheading right at the bottom of the page. That is not compromising, that is vandalism.

I have no interest in promoting either version of indoor cricket. I just don't like seeing wikipedia hosting deeply misleading articles as a promotional tool for one particular organisation.

Py0alb (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, all the references I use in the page are to different websites, from Cricket Australia, Cricinfo (somewhat authoritative on the sport of cricket in all of its forms) as well as the national governing bodies of the sport from around the world.

Nothing about the edits I have made to the article promotes any organisation in any way shape or form. The article wasn't created by me, and has always been about this particular version of indoor cricket. The like the indoor soccer example I provide, the article does not attempt to define or discuss all forms of indoor cricket. It discusses the version of indoor cricket that is played internationally.

Whether the form of indoor cricket you discuss is supreme in the UK is not relevant. Misplaced Pages is not shaped by what is popular in the United Kingdom. You will find no domestic competition anywhere that takes top billing over and international competition.

The fact that the majority of my edits have been to this page (and related pages) is not relevant. Do not confuse ownership with stewardship.

I very much dispute your assertion that completely altering the scope of an article (and leaving the reader totally confused as to which form of indoor cricket you are discussing at any point in time) is a 'fair compromise'. in2itive (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen the new compromise with the new page In2itive has created. Its not ideal but I am happy to settle with this. However it should be noted that In2itive only put up the new page AFTER aggressively edit warring and then coming to ANI completely unnecessarily. Why couldn't you just have done that first? Wouldn't that have been the more mature approach?

Py0alb (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I concede my first response was to undo your changes, any impartial viewing of the talk page and the edit history will demonstrate that my second action, prior to your three reverts, was to compromise. The only difference? I did not create the Indoor cricket (UK variant) article - I had expected that you would place your content in there yourself. The only thing I did differently after reporting you was create the page for you, by simply cutting and pasting your modifications to the existing indoor cricket article.

Coming to ANI unnecessarily? After a long attempt at compromise on the talk page, your three reverts in a row left me with no choice as per Misplaced Pages policy. Were my report unnecessary, no doubt Bbb23 would have informed me as such, and you would not have found a warning on your talk page. in2itive (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, as you clearly haven't read anything I've written or any of the references I've cited, indoor cricket as defined by the article is NOT new. It is not some recent sport attempting to supplant the game you describe. Your failure to acknowledge that speaks volumes about your own lack of impartiality. I at the very least have conceded that the version you describe does have sufficient a following to warrant notability. in2itive (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

so your attempt at "compromise" was to completely delete huge chunks of the article and expect someone else to rewrite them somewhere else? Are you ever being serious? That's not compromise, that's outright vandalism. Py0alb (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am one of hundreds of contributors to this article. It has an 8-year established consensus on the present scope. Your edits defy that consensus. It is clear to me that you are failing to acknowledge the size and scope of the sport of indoor cricket (as defined by the article). "All his links go to one particular self promotion website aimed to make this extremely small sport look like an international sport." Wrong. You have not read any of my references. If you had, you would see that they refer to established and authoritative sites. It is an outrageous accusation to suggest that this is an attempt at self promotion. I am not promoting anything. I am defining a sport, and am supporting that position with numerous reputable and distinct citations, whereas you make claims like "There are 100 times more clubs that play the traditional version." That is nothing short of unverifiable hyperbole.

You also claim that the fact that a majority of my edits have had to do with indoor cricket suggests that I am somehow biased or in a position where I have a conflict of interest. Absurd. Check your edit history. All of your edits have been to do with cricket - does that mean you are not the right person to make edits to a cricket-related article? in2itive (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already agreed that the current situation is fine as it is, so why continue with the personal attacks? Which version of indoor cricket are you talking about now. Please be specific. Py0alb (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of clareity, In2itive has actually not just broken the 3 revert rule on this article, but smashed it, ignored it despite repeated warnings. FIVE reversions!

Revert 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=529954185 Revert 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=534984634 Revert 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535251069&oldid=535199762 Revert 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535255976&oldid=535255607 Revert 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indoor_cricket&diff=535268006&oldid=535256835

Py0alb (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am responding to personal attacks, not making them (please see Bbb23's post on your talk page - specifically "Worse, your conduct has been personally attacking on the article talk page and certainly not conducive to achieving a consensus"). I don't propose to engage any further with you. You don't read or disregard the majority of my responses to your hyperbole, nor do you read any of the references I cite.

Additionally, the three reversion rule applies to a 24 hour period. I didn't simply revert on the first three of the diffs you list - I actually incorporated elements of the UK variant and set it up for you to create the new page.

This discussion is going nowhere. If you are happy with the status quo, excellent. Simply bear in mind it is what I suggested immediately prior to your three reversions of the article. in2itive (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You vandalised the page, removing about half the text for no good reason. I objected, and after much dispute you have finally done what I told you to do in the first place.

If I hadn't objected, you would undoubtedly have just left large sections of the article blank. So its a damn good job I objected to your vandalism, isn't it? Its a shame it had to come via ANI simply to force you to edit responsibly. In the future, please try to add to wikipedia rather that edit disruptively.

Py0alb (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's go through this point-by-point:

Vandalised the page - removing unverified edits to 8 years of established consensus is not vandalism.

Done what you told me to do - please illustrate for me exactly where you suggest that we create a separate article for the UK variant of indoor cricket and refer to it from within the main indoor cricket article.

Large sections of the article blank - this is not what returning to 8 years of consensus constitutes.

Shame it had to come via ANI simply to force you to edit responsibly - perhaps you are confusing who in fact reported whom and who received a warning over this edit war. Any impartial viewer can clearly see my efforts to establish consensus and develop a compromise - the very definition of responsible editing. An admin has already made it clear to you that your actions have been the opposite. No action forced me to do anything. I made the edits I made prior to admin intervention.

Please try to add to Misplaced Pages rather than edit disruptively - this one comment alone is as funny as it is inaccurate.

in2itive (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, lets look at the facts here.

I created a large, informative, well referenced section detailing the 6 aside format of the game. On FIVE separate occasions over the course of a month you simply deleted that section in its entirety without ever once offering a satisfactory justification or an indication to compromise. You did not edit it, you did not move it, you simply DELETED it. With hindsight I should probably have requested to have the page protected.

Having reached consensus last week, and I thought this dispute was over, I find that this weekend you simply repeated your vandalism, blanking an entire section for the third time. I objected as to you simply deleting an entire section with no justification, we have had an ongoing dispute, I gave up attempting to reason with you and went to bed, you took it to ANI... and THEN - presumably because you recognised that you were in the wrong and had better quickly attempt to disguise the nature of your disruptive editoring - did you put the contents back up in a separate article.

Those are the facts. If anyone would like to look through in2itive's contribution history they will see this to be the case.

In the meantime, your section on 8aside cricket was about to be deleted because of its poor referencing if it wasn't for me producing evidence to save it. Have you thanked me for that yet? No?

Py0alb (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1 - A reference to the rulebook and to a generic play-cricket page are not examples of being well-referenced. My first two edits were to remove your content - the first on the basis of the article being about a different sport, and was effectively a reversion to consensus. Under WP:BRD the onus was on you to demonstrate the legitimacy of your edits through discussion - prior to making them. The second edit was another attempt at this. Everything after that has been an attempt to compromise.

2 - We did not reach consensus last week - if we had, we would not be there. Again, my reversion to a consensus that has been in place for 8 years is not vandalism. My creation of the second article was what I suggested you do (and I even LINKED to the not-yet-created article first) and this was well prior to bringing this to ANEW.

3 - Your version of reality is lacking.

4 - Firstly, it was not 'my version' - it is the result of the consensus of 175 distinct authors over 8 years. As I've said multiple times (and you've failed to read or acknowledge, much like 90% of what I've said in response to your baseless accusations) the references have been lost along the way. They're back now - and in any event, the article was nowhere close to being removed for a lack of citations. Show me the proposal for deletion? Show me the talk page requiring the removal of unverified material?

You would do well to heed Bbb23's advice, and to familiarise yourself with WP:BRD in2itive (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1, 2: Deleting large sections of text that has previously been approved by an admin as being both notable and verifiable is vandalism. The reasoning "I was here first" is not recognised on WP I am afraid. You need to look at WP:CONSENSUS. Just because an article hasn't been edited in a few years does not mean that any further edits are in contradition to consensus.

3: You also need to take note of WP:CIVIL. Civil conversation on wikipedia is not optional. Telling someone their "version of reality is lacking" is a personal attack and will not be tolerated in our community.

4: Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/2012_October_18

I'm sorry in2itive, but your editing of this article has been extremely disruptive, and you're now adding incivility and personally offensive attacks to your list of offences. You repeatedly deleted large chunks of an article because it didn't agree with your personal view. Attempting to make excuses after the fact is simply unacceptable.

Can we have a resolution to this now please admins? Both sides have presented their evidence. Is repeatedly deleting large, well written and well referenced sections of an article with no justification acceptable or unacceptable editorial behaviour? Can we also have a comment on the acceptability of telling a fellow editor that their "version of reality is lacking" please.

Thanks

Py0alb (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There clearly is no point in discussing this issue with you. in2itive (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether its relevant, but there is a good summary of the differences between the two versions of Indoor Cricket here for anyone who may wish to understand what we are arguing about: http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/get-into-cricket/indoor-cricket/

Py0alb (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I left a warning on Py0alb's talk page. Their conduct is attacking and ill-informed (all that is laid out on their talk page). The only reason I am not blocking them at this point is because (1) they lucked out by In2itive's creation of a new article and (2) a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will me met with sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

add in the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 reverts does not equal 4, and this turns out to have been a completely baseless accusation.

Could you claraify for me bbb23, or indeed another admin a) your opinion of the acceptability of the phrase "Your version of reality is lacking" please? b) Whether or not the definition of vandalism contains: "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."

Thanks Py0alb (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to spend much more time on this because you're attitude is problematic at best. First, I didn't see a diff for the phrase "your version of reality is lacking",so I don't know the context. Second, the part in WP:VANDAL on illegitimate blanking haas to be well-documented to be labeled vandalism. Perhaps you can provide some examples? As for the 1+1+1, you are correct. You did not violate 3RR. Unlike your comment, where you incorrectly accused In2itive of violating 3RR (the 5 reverts), In2itive did not accuse you of breaching 3RR. Some editors make it clear here that they are reporting an edit-war, which is also sanctionable, as opposed to a violation of 3RR, but I believe that In2itive has made it fairly clear that they are not that familiar with the policy. The reason I focused on your conduct rather than In2itive was the combination of edit-warring and your personal conduct, not purely for edit-warring. And with that I'm done. If you wish to continue this discussion, you can do so on your own talk page (it would be far more productive than deleting my warning, as you did), but this report has now been thrashed to death.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't seen the phrase "your version of reality is lacking" or the deletion of large sections of the article Indoor_Cricket? Are you suggesting that you have administrated this dispute without actually doing the minimum due diligence of a) investigating the editorial changes that caused the debate and b) reading the discussion here? Have you considered that it wasn't actually an edit war, but rather myself attempting to prevent vandalism - by which I mean the wikipedia definition of repeated unjustified blanking of large sections of a particular article.

Py0alb (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: Bbb23, I see you actually admit to not having bothered looking back through the dispute here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=535353358&oldid=535348575 Given that you ackowledge you haven't actually investigated the dispute, I'm not sure on what grounds exactly you see fit to attempt to warn me Py0alb (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Sexual intercourse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tdadamemd (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:

User:Tdadamemd seems to think WP:NOTCENSORED trumps WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am actually perfectly fine with having a rational discussion about the edit instability over on the Talk page for this article. AndyTheGrump, I suggested to you that we have this discussion in that forum (as opposed to having it on my UserTalk page) but instead you chose to take it here. I expect that you and I and the other editors involved are rational reasonable mature adults who can come to a satisfactory resolution on our own without any involvement from administrators. YMMV. If you really feel that "parental intervention" is necessary, then fine.--Tdadamemd (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You had every opportunity to discuss this on the article talk page prior to violating WP:3RR. You chose not to. Hence, the matter has been raised here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet another WP:3RR violation. AndyTheGrump (talk)

About discussing, as can be seen above, Andy suggested in his first revert of Tdadamemd that the addition should be discussed on the article's talk page first. We know that Tdadamemd didn't take the matter to the article's talk page, even when Yobol suggested that it be taken there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Clarification12 reported by User:Macedonian (Result: )

Page: Irredentism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clarification12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Comment I see only three reverts by Clarification12 in the article history, and the first revert is really an edit as he was, well editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Everest505 reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result: )

Page: Brilliant Dadashova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Everest505 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has already been blocked for edit-warring on this same issue on this same page and started the edit-warring anew minutes after the block expired.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am confidant singer and have her passport stating that she was born in 1965. http://savepic.org/2665488.jpg According to her official website http://dadashova.com/, she was born in 1965 Everest505 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of putting either/or, another option would be to put both dates, with clear sources for each. As it stands, however, third-party sources are much preferred over primary sources. Airplaneman ✈ 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1. MacLean (2010) p. 309
2. Blight, David. http://www.davidwblight.com/levine.htm accessed 6-27-2012
3. Loewen, James W. and Sebesta, Edward H., The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader, pp.17-18
4. Loewen, James W. and Sebesta, Edward H. p.19

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring