Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 24 January 2014

• 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:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warnings, protection)

Page

Napoleon Chagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "The issue is not Sahlins. the issue is that the reference is just a rehash of the same work covered elsewhere."
2. 08:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "And this is nothing less than a book a review of "Darkness at El Dorado", already covered in detail below. Failed reference checks. Material removed."
3. 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting. Referrnce check failed. See talk."
4. 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC) "Not a reliable source. See talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
2. 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
3. 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"

Comments:

Since I only reverted each those references once at the time of reporting, this should be fairly easily resolved. The fact that one editor keeps posting the exact same material in a BLP with different, but still unreliable, references, does not violate 3RR, nor constitute edit warring. Each removal of a different reference is a different edit, not in any sense a revert. Each edit had achieved consensus on the talk page, at least to the extent that the editor didn't challenge that the reference check had failed. Instead the editor added the same sentence with a different, still unreliable, reference.

At no stage was the edit reverted for any reason other than it failed a reference check, and hence had to be removed immediately as per WP:BLP. So clearly no edit warring on my part. It will be interesting if the mods find otherwise since the first 3 edits to reject the references had achieved consensus, and leaving the material in the article unreferenced would itself violate WP.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The material as supported by a reference to something by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post is by no means a BLP violation; not sure what it means to say it "failed a reference check". And no-one was proposing to leave the material without a reference. I think it's obvious there's a problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The material with the reference to Sahlins has only been reverted twice by me, and twice by you. I will point out that even you don't dispute that one of your references was not RS, and was just a Blog repeating a reference that had already been judged not RS. Some of us are now engaging in good-faith discussions about your second reference on the talk page. Meanwhile you are here making accusations of edit warring after just two reversions. There clearly is a problem here.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope others can see through the inaccuracies here. This edit adds information to the reference a different editor provided and so is not a revert; that means I've reverted once . Moreover they're not "my" references (though I'm happy to stand behind the Sahlins one). The edit-warring by Mark Marathon here is obvious; it's just a case of seeing through the red herrings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hope this one doesn't get left as "stale" & archived. At a minimum, Mark-Marathon's posts here show a misunderstanding of the 3RR policy that needs correction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing? Not a violation of 3RR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Still? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Three editors are warned and the article is protected two weeks. It looks to me that User:Nomoskedasticity (4 reverts since January 1), User:Mark Marathon (5 reverts) and User:Jimjilin (6 reverts) are engaged in an edit war. They are reverting some criticisms of Napoleon Chagnon (a living person) in and out of his article with no indication that consensus was obtained. I recommend that all the parties stop reverting these items until agreement is reached. Open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:RSN or follow other recommended steps of dispute resolution. It's possible that some reverts are excused by BLP but there is no reason for this to go on so long without proper closure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ParkinsonProject reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ParkinsonProject (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log)

Time reported: 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This is an edit warring report, the editor keeps reverting unsourced and poorly-sourced challenged content back in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get the editor to engage, without any indication of stopping.

• Initial addition of unsourced and poorly-sourced history section:

1. 01:48, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Notable historical examples */") -- revert back in Charles I of England, unsourced
2. 01:53, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590601531 by Flyer22 (talk)")
   • -- adds a bunch more unsourced and poorly-sourced
3. 11:44, 14 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590633517 by Frze (talk)")
4. adds more poorly-sourced to wiktionary.org and urbandictionary
5. 19:39, 15 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 590860243 by Zad68 (talk)") - reverts wiktionary.org and urbandictionary back in
6. 21:05, 19 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* In law and forensic psychology */ Putting back the history section.") - reverts unsourced and poorly-sourced "history" section back in
7. 20:13, 20 January 2014 (edit summary: "Stop removing the history section. Expand it instead.") - and again

• Diff of warning: here. Both Flyer22 and I tried to detail the problems with ParkinsonProject's edits on their User Talk here. ParkinsonProject not join Talk page discussion regarding history section here despite being ping-notified, and despite being aware that the Talk page exists as ParkinsonProject commented in another section.

—Zad68 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I might be a rubbish wikipedian, but nevertheless I sincerely think the Pedophilia article needs a history section. You cannot just brand this predilection a "mental disorder" from a modern perspective, you need to have a historic perspective. User:ParkinsonProject (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's already been explained to you what is wrong with trying (because "trying" is all it would be) to include a "historic perspective." Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:204.116.3.106 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: 24 hours)

Page: South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.116.3.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP user was warned twice to stop making unsourced edits to this article without seeking consensus on Talk page. User refuses to start a discussion for these edits after being prompted to do so, and instead continues to revert without edit summary. Today, user makes a bright-line violation of 3RR policy. Clearly, this anonymous user is not getting the message of how Misplaced Pages works, and appears to be uninterested in learning. Please help get that message across. Thank you.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The pages for UNC and NCST football both list USC as a rival. This isn't some absolute matter, as the nature of rivalries is mercurial and ineffable. I have the consensus of other Misplaced Pages contributors on my side. User GarnetAndBlack rules that page with an iron fist, and he will not let his blatant misconception of reality stand in his way. He's also a poor dresser, and rumor has it that he doesn't brush his teeth very often. It is my recommendation that he be banned from Misplaced Pages, and publicly condemned for his behavior. I am willing to offer my services should it be necessary to create a Wiki page about his actions here. I am also willing to purchase for him a subscription to GQ for his own personal use. Thank you, and God bless Hogwarts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the above pretty much speaks for itself. I rest my case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You see what I've been dealing with here? I would like to formally recommend that user GarnetAndBlack have his name forthwith changed to "StickAndMud". As his current handle is far less appropriate. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24hours. No comment on your hygiene. Kuru (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And as it is patently obvious that User:Steve Taneyhill is the same user as the IP, could we get a block there as well? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Puhlaa reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. (This edit after edit warring warning issued on user page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has clearly broken 4RR. Last minute attempt to invoke WP:BRD does not alter this clear fact.

I appear to have made a mess of the reporting process. Not sure what to do to sort it. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from accused editor

A brief history; In April of 2013, John Snow II (talk · contribs) removed the fact that chiropractic is a profession from the lede of the chiropractic article with this edit. Discussion ensued at the chiropractic talk page here, and resulted in a clear consensus to include the verifiable fact that chiropractic is a profession and an ‘approach’. This has been the stable version of the lede since the consensus in April.

On January 17 (3 days ago) John Snow II (talk · contribs) returned to the chiropractic article and once again removed the reference to chiropractic as a profession here with a somewhat misleading edit summary "clarifying lede a little". The first link provided by Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) here shows me reverting John Snow on Jan 17; my edit summary says why I reverted and lists the talk page archive where consensus was reached last time John Snow tried this.

Today (~60 hours later) John Snow once again removed the mention of chiropractic as a profession from the lede here. I reverted John Snow (Roxy's second diff), and restored the consensus version again. This time my edit summary directed John Snow to the talk page, where I started a thread to outline my issue with his change to the lede. Interestingly, Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) then appeared and initially reverted John Snow here stating that John Snow’s edit was "not an improvement". For unknown reasons, Roxy then changed his mind and restored John Snows controversial edit? Now Roxy and John Snow have been alternating at restoring their preferred version instead of the consensus version. At the talk page I have only received accusations of COI editing and some negative comments about chiropractic itself, but John and Roxy have chosen not to address any of the real issues I have raised; such as the fact that they are going against consensus and removing verifiable text from the lede without any discussion. Now Roxy puts a warning on my talk page, stating that I am violating WP:BRD, when I am the only one who has added any rational discussion to the talk page and my preferred version is the version that had overwhelming consensus a few months ago here. I believe that policy suggests we keep the last stable, consensus version until new consensus is reached at the talk page. There was not consensus for John Snow's controversial edit back in April and I do not see anything new here now, except that Roxy has jumped in and tried to turn the tide without any discussion first. I reverted John Snow 3 days ago and now have reverted either Roxy, or John Snow, for a combined 3 more times today. I am open to administrators recommendations/decisions here.Puhlaa (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not made negative comments about chiropractic, or you personally, Puhlaa - neither would I seek to. But it is, unfortunately, all too evident that you have a clear conflict of interest, and that puts you in the wrong here really. The right thing to do would probably be to take a break from this article for a while.John Snow II (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussions from last year that ended up with the "health care profession and an approach to healing" compromise consensus upset by recent edits, see the discussion in Talk archive #36 Puhlaa points to. It looked like John Snow II was involved last year in removing "profession" but didn't participate in the consensus-building discussion that followed. Although Puhlaa broke 3RR here, I think John Snow's initial edit removing "profession" without discussion and the edit summary "clarifying lede a little" is unfortunately a bit disingenuous, and I think Puhlaa is being gang-tackled a bit. I hope some administrator discretion is shown here. If I weren't involved in the content I'd lean towards closing this with full-protecting the article for a few days and directing the editors to the Talk page. Zad68 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I would have a hard time supporting Puhlaa now that he/she has canvassed for support at the article. He contacted two editors with these two edits ] and ]. He did not notify anyone who disagreed with him during the old discussion just those that agreed with him. Clear definition of canvassing. VViking_TalkEdits 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was previously involved in the chiropractic article years ago and edit around medicine today; I can assure you that neither BullRangifer nor Zad68 are editors predisposed to being 'pro'-chiropractic. They're both pro good-evidence and reasoned discussion. I imagine Puhlaa contacted them because they are both excellent editors with expertise in this area and these kinds of debates. I would have done the same. Ocaasi 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ocaasi, was my thought exactly. Viewmont Viking, BullRangifer will be the first to tell you that he is quite critical of chiropractic and Zad has always seemed impartial at medical articles. In the previous discussion of this same topic at chiropractic, while we had disagreements along the way, there was no dissenting opinion remaining by the end (at least no one that spoke up), we all agreed with the final text. As such, there was no one to notify that disagreed with the previous outcome and I did not think it would matter who I notified about the current discussion.Puhlaa (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was notified of this controversy, and I'm glad I was. I'm a notorious chiroskeptic, having once been named, on the front cover of a chiropractic magazine, as "Chiropractic Enemy #1", an honor I share with Dr. John W. Kinsinger, as well as having my life and the lives of my children threatened for my skeptical writings about chiropractic. Puhlaa knows that, but also knows that I'm fair and know the rules here. He, even though a chiropractor, happens to also be a reasonable editor who faithfully maintains the NPOV status of the article. His COI has not been a factor here. He has often allowed negative content into the article because it was properly sourced. That shows that he is not allowing his COI to get in the way of being a good wikipedian.

John Snow II's edit summaries are clearly disengenuous, and his intention to edit war his nonconsensus version is rather obvious. BRD shouldn't have to be invoked with him, as he is not a newbie. He knows how it works. Already after his BOLD edit was Reverted, and he repeated his BOLD edit, that's the exact point when he began to edit war and 3RR need not be invoked against him. It's not BRBRD. In such cases, a block is already deserved for edit warring. He should simply know better than to edit war. Yes, Puhlaa got carried away and didn't notice he was close to violating 3rr. That's too bad, but he certainly was supporting the longstanding consensus version. Since that version is now restored, I think the Solomonic solution here is to drop this matter, as this report is brought in bad faith by someone who supported the edit war to begin with, and dragged Puhlaa into it. Just drop this and let's get on with our lives. The article is now back in balance, and John Snow II had better not start such disruption again. The talk page should have been used instead of edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree - we really shouldn't edit war, so I've heeded my own advice and taken a break from this one too. The edit was not disingenuous, or even particularly bold, but when tempers flare it's not a good use of anyone's time slugging it out. John Snow II (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The claimed 3RR (4RR sic) requires four reverts within a 24 hour period. Clearly, there's a heated discussion and it would be a good idea to conclude the discussion on the talk page before making any other reverts here. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru. I understand what you have said and there will be no more reverts from me before discussion is concluded at the chiropractic talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I should learn to count and read dates properly for the next time. I apologise for wasting editors time (and the time of any health professionals involved)--Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:68.32.136.75 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

Page

Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Please note

Ayn Rand is under 1RR/week restriction under discretionary sanctions. IP has been informed of that prior to their last reversion. Δρ.Κ.  00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "please provide an explanation instead of propagandizing wikipedia readers by perpetuating false myths around Rand's legacy. there is no justification to keep the word statism and it contradicts wiki's own article"
2. 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "wiki's own statism article says minarchism is a type of statism. you can't say she opposes statism and supports minarchism. the term 'anarchism' includes collectivist strains, and collectivism better termed as state socialism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Ayn Rand */ new section"
2. 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Ayn Rand */ Adding detail per RL0919. Thank you."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"
2. 23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ It looks like a sock"
3. 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"

Comments:

IP is also a probable sock. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Δρ.Κ.  00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• IP is threatening to continue the edit-warring. Δρ.Κ.  01:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. The block on the original account is expired, so I've just put an AE block in place for violating the restriction. Set for 1 month since this is not his first block for this. Kuru (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:71.214.117.177 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Blocked)

Page

Allan Sandage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "citation"
2. 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC) "cite book"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Allan Sandage. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Won't stop with refspam... no attempt at discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Chuz Life reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Beginning of human personhood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chuz Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Number zero: 20:07, January 18. User Chuz Life adds text and sources in a series of four edits, including the word "recognizes". Not a revert.

1. 21:34, January 20. Restores the word "recognizes".
2. 06:06, January 21. Restores text added earlier.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning from User:MastCell about 1RR on all abortion topics. 19:22, January 19.
• Notice of sanctions placed by Binksternet at Talk:Beginning of human personhood. 04:41, January 21.
• Warning from Binksternet about 1RR at Beginning of human personhood. 06:09, January 21.

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

Comments:
The text added initially by Chuz Life included leading language that biased the reader toward a conclusion that life starts at conception and that abortion is murder. One example was the sentence starting "The law recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim..." I found the word "recognizes" to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it assumes the truth of the statement. I changed the sentence to start "The law defines a fetus as a legal victim..." Chuz Life reverted to the preferred word "recognizes". Following this, Chuz Life performed one more reversion, violating the 1RR established at abortion articles, the restriction having been explained to the editor by MastCell, and a warning placed at the article talk page by myself. The 1RR status was thus known to Chuz Life at the time of the second reversion.

In responding to my 1RR notice and request to self-revert to avoid consequences, Chuz Life said that if it takes getting a ban then "so be it." Rather than self-reverting, Chuz Life next performed this further edit to the article. This indicates the user is not willing to abide by 1RR.

Chuz Life is involved solely in the topic of abortion. The editor established the username L.L. Brown in 2010 then soon changed to Chuz Life. A week ago, Chuz Life reappeared after a break of three years. The editor went to the talk page of Beginning of human personhood and proposed a novel interpretation of U.S. law. This proposal got no answer at all, so Chuz Life went ahead and implemented it. No attempt has been made on the article's talk page to engage this editor. Quite a bit of discussion about this material has, however, been carried out at Talk:Abortion debate#Constitutional Arguments section(s) needed and at Talk:Abortion debate#4.2.2 Fetal Personhood debate edit request. Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To all who are concerned and involved in this matter; it is 3:00 am at my location and I would like to have a fair chance to respond to these allegations as soon as possible and time permitting - tomorrow. The user: Binksternet has several things in error about my posts and indeed about the chronology of my account, name etc. For the user's information, I originally created my account under the name "Chuz Life" three years ago and in anticipation of a reaction such as yours, Binksternet, I changed it to my actual initials and last name. This is but one of the several errors in your allegation.

Again, I hope to resume this discussion, my defense and my participation on Misplaced Pages as soon as possible - tomorrow. Your patience and understanding is appreciated. In the interim, if senior editors reading this would be so kind as to visit the talk pages where I attempted to reach a consensus on my edits, you will likely agree that I was the participant putting forth the most effort to abide by the rules, work towards a consensus, productive dialogue, etc. And I still would like to be able to work together with some of the more experienced editors on these additions because I believe them to be informative and relevant. I digress. I'm tired. Thank you for your time.L.L. Brown (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see any defense to the violation. However, Chuz Life can make any defense on their talk page if they wish. Although not relevant to the block, as I understand what happened, Chuz Life did create User:L.L. Brown initially and then changed it to Chuz Life. He customizes his signature to read L.L. Brown.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 reported by User:Synthwave.94 (Result: Warned)

Page: Radio Ga Ga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Genre warring and violation of WP:SYNTH by the same way.

• Warned Could you please discuss this in talk rather than edit-warring? John (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Franek K. reported by User:Sobiepan (Result: Warned)

• Franek K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated the 3RR Rule Lechitic languages and West Slavic languages and probably on few others.--Sobiepan (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been problems with him in the past ] (two linguists involved)--Sobiepan (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On Lechitic languages

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.

On West Slavic languages

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.

--Sobiepan (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sobiepan make new controversial changes, enter non-neutral changes (POV), and also changes without consensus. I reverted his editions with description of the changes. Also, both got a warning here. I stopped the edit-war. Franek K. (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a brightline rule, meaning that even if you disagree with another editor's changes, you don't get to make more than three reverts in 24 hours, ever, unless you are reverting something that is obviously vandalism or a significant BLP problem. If you have problems with edits that Sobiepan makes, take it to the talk page - don't edit war. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sobiepan reported by User:Franek K. (Result: Warned)

• Sobiepan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edit-warring in Lechitic languages and West Slavic languages and remove data / pushing controversial and not neutral changes without consensus. Franek K. (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On Lechitic languages

• 0. stable/previous version
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.

On West Slavic languages

• 0 stable/previous version
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.

Franek K. (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• The three revert rule says you can make three reverts. From the diffs you provided, it looks like Sobiepan stopped at three reverts, whereas you went higher than that. Sobie's behavior isn't perfect, but Sobie did stop before the brightline rule was crossed. Since this involves silliness from both of you, as long as you agree to not revert war and to try to work out a consensus on the talk page, I'm not going to block you for a 3rr violation. I would prefer if you self-reverted your violation of the three revert rule, though. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

if it is not 3RR (although no doubt, this is edit-warring), I authorize the removal of my notice. Franek K. (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that neither of you have behaved perfectly, which is why I didn't block either of you. I would advise both of you to take disputes to talk, and refrain from making any further reverts. (If editwarring continues, I will be likely to block.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:174.112.42.106 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Cold-fX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.112.42.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:H2ppyme reported by User:Djsasso (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Jaanus Sorokin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H2ppyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:26, 21 January 2014‎
2. 07:33, 21 January 2014‎
3. 08:44, 21 January 2014‎
4. 08:56, 22 January 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Callanecc warned that any editor that changed the birth location when the protection expired without a new absolute consensus would be blocked.

Comments: The protection expired the day before yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. H2ppyme has since done 4 reverts in slightly over 24 hours when he was warned not to do any by another admin. Previous consensus had been reached in this discussion and others that for hockey bios we use the compromise version of "City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" instead of either extreme of just Soviet Union or just Estonia. If other editors want to change that a discussion is needed and more than welcome but until then there should be no edit warring. I am involved so I have brought the request to block here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is long-term edit warring behaviour, as this editor has attempted to enforce their personal preference against consensus (or, at the very least, non-consensus to change) on several occasions. Reverting runs are evident in their edit history from December 18 and December 4 related to hockey players, and they have been warring on the Estonia vs. Estonia SSR debate since at least 2011, if not earlier. Resolute 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Arildnordby reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:24 hours )

Page

Death by burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591936531 by Darkness Shines (talk) YOu are vandalizing, removing content with no argument. Discuss at talk page"
2. 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591934819 by Darkness Shines (talk) Vandalism REMOVED"
3. 19:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591911524 by Lihaas (talk) Malevolent vandalism REMOVED"
4. 13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 591816020 by Bladesmulti (talk) Vandalism removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Death by burning. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Got there from ANI, I reverted due to the inappropriate allegations of vandalism Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the one vandalizing here, removing amounts of fully referenced content totally without argument. You should take up such changes at the requisite Talk Page, rather than engaging in your private pet projects of bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ANd all the others were vandalizing in the same manner.Arildnordby (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the article should be full-protected, so that the other parties will be encouraged to join Arildnordby on the article talk page to seek consensus? At present, they are notable by their absence there, and he by his presence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has recently made a mendacious claim I misrepresent sources. I have provided source after source, showing my originally included figure has been cited as relevant by SEVERAL professional historians. Furthermore, all that has come up against this is that certain historians regard the figures as under-estimates (but Yang, for example, calls it "usable" data, but as with most data, "fraught with problems"), rather than British fanasies about overestimation. At nop point have I removed material underlining the due caution one should have to those numbers. Nor do they in any way represent a warping of the prior content of Sati (practice) , but instead, provides valuable primary source material on some of those numbers the British Administration itself used (however much they may have underestimated it). At NO point have those removing my edits been able to come up with a single, cogent argument for why they should delete 6700++ of fully referenced material at Death by burning, for example.Arildnordby (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead, Darkness Shines engage in bullying, by threatening to throw me out.Arildnordby (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Whatever other issues exist here, Aril violated the 3rr rule after receiving a warning about it. Aril: the edits you labelled as vandalism were not vandalism. I would encourage you to read WP:VANDALISM upon your return, and to productively engage on the talk page once you return. I'll take a bit of a look at the rest of the article involved as well. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, and Kevin Gorman, for hours, the issue was discussed on his talk page instead, you can read it here, and the issue can be viewed it ANI. The user is basically spinning the same wheel, while stopping anyone else to edit the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the further reading. I'm tempted to up the block from 24 hours given some of Aril's other behavior, but am going to leave it in place for now. I'll keep an eye on the article and will step in if, after the 24 hour block, the issues return. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Amatulic reported by Yobol (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Health effects of wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:52, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Undid and copyedited revision 590405774 by Yobol (talk) - this is a secondary source according to WP:MEDRS")
2. 22:57, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Restored removal by Jytdog, including proper citation. This article has had rather wide coverage in independent reliable sources. Per talk.")
3. 23:06, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "No consensus or justification for this - per talk page")
4. 23:15, 22 January 2014 (edit summary: "Final revert. Appropriate sourcing has been found. Notable coverage by science organizations isn't enough? Please read tlk page comments, and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.")

—Yobol (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I do count four reversions in well less than 24 hours from User:Amatulic, which would be a violation of the 3rr. However, I'm curious to hear from Amatulic before taking action here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry Kevin. Missed that. Happy to hear their response. This one was fairly cut and dry however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did assume it would end with a 24 hour block, I was just curious why a long standing admin and editor like Amatulic with an otherwise clean blocklog would have made a little booboo, and was hoping that there was a reasonable explanation I was missing. No worries. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. It is a short block. Hopefully it will not happen again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry reported by User:Ceekay215 (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Charles Denham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 00:57, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591410396 by Bluerasberry (talk): Go to talk page... (TW)")
2. 02:25, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591955026 by Bluerasberry (talk): See me on talk page or get other opinions, as you like... (TW)")

Comments: I have attempted to engage the user several times in discussion about NPOV, and he simply ignores me and reverts my edits. He also appears to have invited another editor to make an additional reversion User:Josh3580 to avoid an explicit violation of 3RR himself and leave me unable to make additional corrections to his unwillingness to discuss the article.

—Ceekay215 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Your allegation of collusion is quite wrong, my friend. I have never even communicated with Bluerasberry (talk). I am a recent changes patroller, and came across your edit in WP:HG. I very clearly invited you here to discuss your contribution on the talk page, but you responded by giving me a WP:3RR warning (diff), after a single revert on my part. Yes, I gave you the warning first, because you were refusing to discuss the issue, and resorted to re-reverting. Understand that I have only reverted ONCE. Your inappropriate use of the user warning as well as this noticeboard may come back to bite you. I invite the investigating Administrator to thoroughly investigate my edit history, if they are not already familiar with my contributions. I am prepared for the WP:BOOMERANG. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My only allegation is that you reverted a proper edit not on the merits, and for reasons I do not speculate upon. As you fail to mention, I have attempted to engage BlueRasberry in constructive dialogue, and he issues five word proclamations and simply reverts all changes without discussion. Why would you ignore all of the content on the article's talk page? You participated in an edit war, witting or not, by blindly reverting an edit without understanding what you were reverting or why. I would invite you into a conversation on the article's content, on the merits. Until then, you did indeed deserve the warning. Note that I did not follow it up here, since you only did it once. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You did allege collusion actually, very clearly just a couple of paragraphs up from here. That is not the issue. The user that you reported here reverted you TWICE, which is not a violation of the 3-revert-rule. It takes 4 reverts to reach that point. There are now three different editors who have reverted your edits, now that Flat Out let's discuss it has joined the discussion. You obviously do not have WP:CONSENSUS for your change, and throwing around warnings and reports is not the way to gain it. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment- editors have engaged with Ceekay215 despite claims to the contrary. The only edit-warring has been by the reporter who might like to read WP:BOOMERANG. I have provided links to appropriate forums for Ceekay215 to raise any concerns regarding the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review the article talk page again. I'll patiently wait for Bluerasberry, who is the subject of this notice, to do more than issue proclamations. The only edit war here is his failure to engage with my polite requests to discuss the issue on the merits, and simply revert this article back to the way he insists it remain. It's unclear to me why you continue to avoid the merits in order to fan the flames of the dispute instead of making a case for the proper content and order for the article. If you would do so, there would be no other issue of contention. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ceekay215 has reverted the article four times in four hours on 23 January. The simplest way to stop the war would be to issue a block of Ceekay215. He might be able to avoid a block if he will promise to avoid the article and its talk page for seven days. If he does so this might be taken into account by the closing admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have moved controversial content from the lead and into the article body which should appease Ceekay215's concerns. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the fair look at this by Flat Out and Josh3580 Ceekay215 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remove this request based on successful resolution. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ceekay215 is warned for breaking 3RR. Since a discussion is taking place it seems unnecessary to issue a block at this time. 3RR complaints are not generally removed from the board once they are submitted. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Mishae (Result:No action)

Page: Andrej Hoteev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toccata quarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, according to WP:Musicians the above article is meant to have an infobox while user @Toccata quarta: is deleting infobox saying that its against WikiProject Classical Music. My argument though is that our readers do need to know the basics sometimes and they wont care to read the whole article. Furthermore, when user @Walter Görlitz: put it back in, he came back and removed it. I think that user Toccata quarta is vandalizing and is disruptive toward this and other articles such as Vadim Repin, and I need someone to take care of this, before it will go over and I will get blocked! Like honestly, why do we have an infobox on say Charles Dutoit but we can't have infoboxes on the rest.--Mishae (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Outside observation. Mishae, Toccata quarta has only reverted twice. You then went and added the infobox a third time, and as far as I can see, you have made no effort to discuss this on the article's talk page. I've now converted that box to {{Infobox person}}. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox:

"{{Infobox musical artist}} is the standard template to be used on a non-classical musician's or musical ensemble's page." (my bolding)

Infobox musical artist is designed for pop musicians and is not suitable for classical musicians, both in terms of terminology and fields. If an infobox is to be used, {{Infobox person}} is much more suitable and flexible. Please also read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes:

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, for your pertinent and concise comment, to which I fully subscribe. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's not enough disruptive activity here for action, at least not yet. Maybe we could keep it that way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If its not prohibited, then user @Toccata quarta: should have just changer it to person and our dispute would have been over, instead he removes the infoboxes not substituting them. Keep in mind, that removing and substituting is two different ways of handling an infobox issue. In for one, believe that any article which is above a stub needs an infobox solely because some information that people need is that way on the very bottom. Why do I need to the bottom for associated acts and labels, if I can read it all from the infobox? Come to think of it, I got an idea (see if you will agree with me), instead of using background in the infobox, why not remove it from classical musicians, that way, all of the acts and labels will be in place?--Mishae (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

Users involved:

• 139.164.160.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.203.97.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

The matter was previous brought up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken.

Comments:

User:82.114.94.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mariusz Pudzianowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) to 09:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 08:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Accept my edit, cuz the current edit is incorrect why are you not accepting ?"
   2. 09:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Mariusz can`t deadlift 430 kg or squat 390 kg sir, accept my changes cuz the current changes are fake."
2. 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "The current info is incorrect"
3. 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Look i really dont know to use wikipedia but if you see this,pls acept my edit cuz i`m a near friend of mariusz and i`m 100% sure the current info is fake ask mariusz on his official fb page if you want,Thnx"
4. 10:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Sir look here Mariusz official web http://www.pudzian.pl/mariusz.php ,this web is even on mariusz personal FB, i don`t know what is so hard to understan ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Mariusz Pudzianowski */ new section"
2. 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mariusz Pudzianowski. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Attempted on user's talk page.

• Blocked – for a period of three months. The duration is because the IP is using a network sharing device. I am also concerned abotu 178.132.219.1 (talk · contribs), who is using the same network and made precisely the same edit on the article. However, I have not blocked 178 or semi-protected the article. Please let me know if either or both becomes necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It's like you have a crystal ball: 1. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Would that I didn't. I blocked the other IP for three months as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Raamin (Result: )

Page

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "not notable enough for own article"
2. 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)‎ "Undid revision 592089789 by Raamin (talk)"
3. 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "not done in good faith"
4. 23:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)‎ "rd , not in good faith, information was swiped from Marvel Anime & was restored there; article was already deleted in 12/2012"

Comments:
The User has removed the entire content 4 times; and has accused me to edit without good faith. I was trying to find more reliable sources, added {{New page}} to the article (link), suggested to discuss this matter, or if the user wants, another nomination for deletion , with no response. Raamin (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Article was previously deleted. Content was restored where I origin placed it at Marvel Anime#Iron Man: Rise of Technovore as indicated. He can expand it there. He doesn't address notability and attempts to use "new page" tag as a shield. Notability is currently being address at Talk:Marvel_Anime#Proposed split of Iron Man: Rise of Technovore, which Raamin has not (yet) chosen to join as I have. Onus is on those want to restart a delete article not those opposed as I understand it. Just saying that you are acting in good faith when some points out that the article is notable isn't a defense. Spshu (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring