Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 14 April 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Religious Burp reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

Page

The Prayer Chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Religious Burp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Re-formatting the page so the band's entire history isn't included in the initial synopsis"
2. 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655522417 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Lots of wikipedia articles use short sections for easy reference, and these will be expanded."
3. 10:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting to previous edit. Control freak had changed it without merit. Having sections helps easy use of article."
4. 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655713245 by 208.81.212.222 (talk)"
5. 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655775792 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Prayer Chain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Religious Burp's recent edits */ new section"
2. 04:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Religious Burp "/* Prayer Chain edits and general knowledge */"

Comments:

Editor doesn't edit much. Fewer than 200 edits ago, December 2010, editor was blocked for edit warring. No discussion here. Not sure what to do about this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of formatting an article on The Prayer Chain so it is more user-friendly and contains more information for people researching the band. I'm styling this on the U2 article which has a very easy to follow format and is rather interesting. Walter Gorlitz doesn't like this. He wants all the various information about different eras of the band to be in one bulky lot. He keeps reverting these changes. The entire history was originally formatted in the initial synopsis under his preferred format. This is sloppy. Religious Burp (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, The Prayer Chain are not U2.

I have tried to explain how we don't need multiple short sections, you didn't take kindly to that. Your other formatting and heavy reliance on direct quotes are a problem. As an editor of the u2 article, I can tell you that there are not many quotes, and none that are as long as those you provided. There is duplication of material in your edits and a lot of WP:OR. Instead of thinking that your prose are straight from the hand of god, assume that other editors know how to edit too and are trying to create an encyclopedia just like you. You're wholesale reverts are counter-productive. The total number is troubling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) The

The first "revert" Walter has listed isn't actually a revert. It was the initial change that wasn't to his liking. He reverted all those other changes before I reverted them back, meaning he should be blocked before I am. His reverts haven't been proof-read which is obvious from sentences that don't make sense and contained wrong spellings, one sentence alone contained 4 errors. I have noted these issues on The Prayer Chain talk page, and have only been met with bullying by his alternate username Amaury on my talk page, and flawed egotistical arguments from Walter. Walter himself has acknowledged he doesn't know anything about the band that is the subject of the article, so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the page. Both Amaury and Walter should be blocked and refrain from further edits on The Prayer Chain page. Religious Burp (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to strike the section claiming that Walter and Amaury are socks as without evidence its a personal attack and wont help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Amaury had used huggle. It was not even a manual edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So is the suggestion that Amaury & Walter are different people but both making identical sloppy edits? No one has addressed the example issue of the sentence containing 4 errors, 3 of which are basic English that any decent proof-reading editor could fix, which has been reverted back to it's incorrect state 4 times by Walter and his "alleged" alter-egos! Where in Misplaced Pages policy is that OK? And it appears all the people commenting here have more of a history with edit-warring than I do. Religious Burp (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I will go on record and state that I am not Amaury. This is the only registered account I have ever used to edit with. Feel free to take your concern to WP:SPI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Religious Burp is warned. If this continues, a block will be issued. Your suggestion that your opponents are socks is without merit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I being blocked for reverting edits, which is what Walter Görlitz did more than I did? And the reason he reverted my edits? Because I used subsections, which is exactly how he has just edited the Jars of Clay page. Not to mention that he has completely butchered The Prayer Chain article and doesn't proof-read his edits. Well done on an obviously intelligent verdict. No warning for Walter Görlitz then, very even-handed. It's hilarious how absurd this is. Matthew 7:4-5. Religious Burp (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:122.171.95.11 reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: Semi)

Page

Satyendra Nath Bose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "He should be introduced by his nationality, not language"
2. 17:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Even if it was his ethnicity, a person should be first introduced by nationality. U can mention ethnicity anywhere else. See his Britannica page-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74633/Satyendra-Nath-Bose"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) to 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655865168 by Ctg4Rahat (talk) See this.http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:OPENPARA No doubt on nationality of SN Bose. Don't make it an ego issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jagadish Chandra Bose.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: I am giving references. It is User:Ctg4Rahat, who is not giving references. I gave this reference- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose Here, he is introduced as Indian, not Bengali. Then this- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:OPENPARA. But, he is constantly making changes, without any proof User:122.171.95.11 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Edit-warring or WP:3RR are different issues, but I want to highlight this is a disputed topic with no clear consensus. An attempt was made here, but I don't feel it went anywhere. What the IP is saying, makes sense to me. Whether he is right or wrong, I am talking on that, but makes some.
  Can you guys go to article talk page and discuss it there if you have not done it already. You may ask opinion of Aditya, nafSadh etc. who are very active these days. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Editing Net reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Indef)

Page: Capture of HMS Penguin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editing Net (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:

As Editing Net is a sockpuppet of User:UnbiasedVictory, globally blocked for long-term abuse, warnings and discussion are superfluous. Editing Net admitted the sockpuppetry and abuse in . I have launched a SPI but in my opinion it was mishandled by the admins, who incorrectly moved it to a related SPI into another user; this has obfuscated the issue and unduly delayed matters. Editing Net's edits have continued UnbiasedVictory's campaign of relentlessly stuffing cruft and original research into articles' info. boxes. The community is already heartily sick of Editing Net, whose recent edits are clear edit-warring. HLGallon (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:173.180.72.36 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)

Page

Brendan Gallagher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 01:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Incorrect height"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
2. 01:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan Gallagher. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP address has been falsely changing the hockey player's height, even though majority of articles say 5'9" or 5'8". Callmemirela (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: User took an hour or two of a break then resumed. Callmemirela (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. An IP from 173.180.* has been trying to change this player's height to 5' 6" since December. His NHL player profile says 5' 9". EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:66.190.249.59 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "removed link to freedom from religion foundation as it is unrelated to AU"
2. 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted entry under no heading"
3. 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "external links to personal opinion articles do not belong in an organization info page. If Dougweller wishes to debate "right wing religion" he needs to start an article"
4. 18:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted portion that has nothing to do with AU per Dougweller's suggestions in ongoing editwar"
5. 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted POV without citation for over two years"

NONE OF THESE WERE REVERTS AS ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED BY DOUGWELLER. These were simply edits.

However Dougweller did participate in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edits and reverted in excess of 3 in 24 hours while hounding me over an approximate 3 day period. He followed ALL my edits with some type of a revert.66.190.249.59 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See where I explained that consecutive edits count as one. A lot of the IP's edits needed to be reverted for various reasons, and I'm just one of several reverted. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, looking at other edits is accepted and expected practice when an editor makes dubious edits to one article. --NeilN 06:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Voices United */ new section"

Comments:

The IP needs to use talk pages to discuss and wait until a consensus is formed. Same behavior at Answers in Genesis. --NeilN 06:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.246.210 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: IP blocked)

Page

Gender equality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Revision may not have been minor edit - Please can you discuss any changes in talk page - Undid revision 655988862 by Gobonobo (talk)"
3. 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Please check that you are not breaking WP:BADPOV policy - Undid revision 655914818 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
4. 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Not relying on one source. Including the dictionary definition , along with UN definition. There are various other definitions including EU and UNICEF, that will also need to be included."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

link

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Gender_equality#Men.27s_rights_and_Womens_rights.

Comments:

Attempted discussion at Talk:Gender_equality#Men.27s_rights_and_Womens_rights.

Been edit wasting slowly since April 6. Total of the editors have reverted this user. They continue to edit war regardless. Ignores BRD.

See user contribs for full history (on mobile and twinkle won't load them all).

User was warned about edit warring on user talk page. Will link momentarily. link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected, IP blocked. Nakon 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mattscards reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Shooting of Walter Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mattscards (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 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) to 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
   2. 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
4. 06:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shooting of Walter Scott. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussions:

• Talk:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#Ethnicity_terms.2C_again
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Changing_the_precedent_on_race_specifications_in_shooting_articles

Mattscards' comments in the latter discussion have been particularly unhelpful. --NeilN 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor wants to remove races of subjects. NeilN 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Where did User:Nøkkenbuer spring from?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, no idea but as their posts have been thoughtful and focused on content I'm hoping this is a new editor who happens to be particularly clueful. --NeilN 14:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I have no affiliation with this Mattscards fellow, though I find it interesting that he claims to hail from the same hometown as I. In any case, I have no relation with him, and I consider his posts to be very problematic, even though they appear to support my cause. I appreciate the support, but his statements are very hostile. I've even cautioned him to not be so hostile in the original discussion:

    From my observations, I can say that Mandruss does appear to be rather objective and impartial in his claims. With all due respect, Mattscards, I believe you're being a bit presumptive of Mandruss. It's obvious that this is an important issue to you, and I appreciate what appears to be your support for my position, but there's no need to accuse Mandruss of anything. He disagrees with you, just as he disagrees with me, but we can reach some common understanding if only we work together in a civil manner. Also, as a friendly bit of advice, I recommend using colons before your posts to structure them as a response, so that it's easier to track and see that a conversation is occurring. You can edit the source of this section and see how I used three colons here in this response to indent it three times, as a response to Cwobeel. It's your choice, of course, but it would probably help us all better follow this discussion, yourself included. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

    I really didn't mean for all this hostility to occur from my posts. I wanted to raise some concerns, but certainly not cause any trouble. I'm really sorry about all this. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Vamsisv reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Use dispute resolution)

Page

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Vin09 (talk) to last revision by Vamsisv. (TW)"
2. 18:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Don't edit war. "official you might want to look at WP:CALC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Indian Premier League records and statistics */"
2. 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"
3. 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"
4. 18:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user added section Man of the match Awards without proper references. The ref provided is an article that is outdated. I've already taken initiative to resolve it by writing on his talk page at 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC).Vin09 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note. @Vin09: Vamsisv has reverted three times. You have reverted twice. Based on a comment on Vamsisv's Talk page you apparently want an administrator to resolve the content dispute ("I've asked for admins intervention rather than having our own interests. Let the admins decide. Whatever they decide let's keep it."). This noticeboard is for reporting sanctionable misconduct, not for dispute resolution. All I can suggest is that the two of you stop edit-warring or both of you risk blocks. Instead, use whatever dispute resolution tools are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghatus reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Ghatus blocked; Xtremedood warned)

Page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverted to

1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"(Undid revision 656237692 by Xtremedood (talk) I am to wiki before you came and know the rules. It is you who has violated the rule. I have open discussion on the Talk Page. Go there.)"
2. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."
3. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656223115 by Xtremedood (talk) Illegitimate source. Nothing to back it up in the article or source. Does not even disclose the source of the data."
4. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
5. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"*Source is legitimate academic source"
6. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656141936 by Ghatus (talk) Sourceless is legitimate academic source."
7. 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)"rv 4 edits. Baseless source and the page can not be accessed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."

Comments:

Editor Ghatus has been warned for not reverting, however he has refused to adhere to the three revert rule. He has also been edit warring on a variety of Mughal-Maratha war articles and has been warned in the past. His latest comment on the 1971 history page shows his lack of respect for Misplaced Pages's rules. Xtremedood (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus also deleted my recent warning on his page. Xtremedood (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus's Reply "Xtremedood" is told to discuss on the Talk Page of the relevant Page. He did not do it. A discussion is open there already to solve it out. He has a past history of doing such things in other pages. I have also called on three other editors to look into the matter. I just reverted his undiscussed and dubious sounding edits. Three other editors are @Lakun.patra:, @Myopia123:,@Chris the speller:. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I was about to warn both Xtremedood and Ghatus because they were both at three reverts when Ghatus reverted a fourth time. Therefore, I have Blocked Ghatus for 36 hours and Xtremedood is Warned that if you continue to revert, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Bbb23, however I have reviewed the edits and I believe that I was only at 2 reverts (please correct me if I am wrong). I made my initial changes on April 11, at around 11:15-11:30. However the first revert was done by Ghatus, on 06:45, 13 April 2015‎. I reverted for the first time on 04:30, 13 April 2015‎ ‎ and the second time on 07:09, 13 April 2015‎, which makes for a total of two reverts. Ghatus on the other hand reverted 3 times. Xtremedood (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I counted that first edit as a revert as it undid another editor's actions, even if those actions did not immediately precede your edit. That's a strict interpretation of policy, and some administrators disagree with it (meaning they won't count it). That said, I don't count any change as a revert. I take it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the change you made to the article was significant and formed the basis of the war. Therefore, I count it. As an aside, adding brand new material to an article is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ctg4Rahat reported by User:182.65.212.159 (Result: Warned)

Page: Satyendra Nath Bose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ctg4Rahat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:49, 12 April 2015‎
2. 18:48, 11 April 2015‎
3. 03:56, 11 April 2015‎
4. 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
5. 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
6. 10:59, 10 April 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose States he is Indian not Bengali
• Replaced Indian with Bengali this is a content dispute not resolved and no use of Talk page 2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Satyendra Nath Bose Watch WP:3RR please. Might help if you opened a talk page discussion. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) 182.65.212.159 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Those IPs are socks of Kumarila/Vivekmandan (Proofs: diff, diff, diff, diff ). Kumarila was previously blocked. First for 3RR, second time for sock-puppetry and again for 3RR (diff). His/Her only job in Misplaced Pages is edit warring. - Rahat (Message) 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This sock is warring against consensus. His/Her edits were reverted not only by me but also many other users. diff, diff, diff, diff. - Rahat (Message) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ctg4Rahat is warned for violation of WP:3RR. The only reason not to block is due to the high chance of sockpuppetry by people on the other side. All parties should be waiting for a clear agreement on the talk page about Bose's nationality. If you all think this is important you should be prepared for a very long discussion. For an example, see Talk:John Tyndall#Tyndall's nationality. This was an attempt to determine if the physicist Tyndall was British or Irish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lumia930uploader reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Warned)

Page

Template:Microsoft Windows family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lumia930uploader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656257530 by FleetCommand (talk) Reverts without a reason given are not permitted, also try to watch your language as you are the one reverting my edits without giving any re"
2. 07:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656173882 by Codename Lisa (talk) You said that RT is a client version because it's on mobile devices, W10M isn't Windows Phone so it should be treated the same as RT."
3. 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656024555 by Codename Lisa (talk) If Windows RT is a client and mobile devices are clients, why isn't W10 mobile? Microsoft doesn't treat RT differently from W10M"
4. 08:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "RT is also not a client OS"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Warning"
2. 11:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ *"
3. 11:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Added reply. "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

A discussion on Template talk:Microsoft Windows family already exists. Codename Lisa asked the user to "study it". See User talk:Lumia930uploader § Template:Microsoft Windows family.

Comments:

WP:3RR violation. Combative editor edit ninja evading consensus-building process in a highly visible template. He is using revert+edit summary for communication instead of taking the discussion to the talk page. Or at least visiting it. There is a discussion there already. Codename Lisa explicitly invited him to come with a message in his user page.

His last edit summary is a clear act of denial, having forgotten every communication he has received thus far. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not edit warring or 3RR violation. Hi. This is Codename Lisa. Thanks God I saw this. If one disregard the edit summary that reads "Undid revision ", one can see that Lumia930uploader is evidently attempting to improve based on objections that I register. He is not repeatedly restoring a certain revision. At least, I think the first questionable revert was the counter-revert against Fleet Command; I am afraid Fleet Command's own edit summary was questionable. He used to ambush me in the same way when I was new here, when I was practicing bold, revert, improve.

I think the solutions is not to block someone, but to calm down. Lumia930uploader must start replying in talk pages instead of within edit summaries and Fleet Command must stand down from Template:Microsoft Windows family. At this stage, I don't think even a page protection is necessary, per WP:ROPE. This template is not that high-profile anyway.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lumia930uploader is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus on the talk page. I only see three clear reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dmcq reported by User:HughD (Result: )

Page: The Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmcq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: illustrates reported user's preferred, WP:CRITS nonconformant section layout "Incidents"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 3 April 2015 re-instates WP:CRITS issue
2. 11 April 2015 re-instates WP:CRITS issue
3. 13 April 2015 re-instates WP:CRITS issue
4. 13 April 2015 ownership of section and subsection headings
5. 13 April 2015
6. 13 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
2. plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
5. request feedback

also at WP:NPOVN:

3. reference highly relevant project-specific section layout guideline
5. request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
6. ping request principle behind "Incidents" section fork

Comments:

Pattern of edits frustrating WP:CRITS issue resolution and in defense of personal idiosyncratic subsection ordering scheme seems to exhibit ownership tendencies. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported user persisted in preserving a personal, nonconformant, non-neutral section layout scheme despite multiple clear talk page references to highly relevant guidelines and best practices including WP:CRITS: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and a project-specific section layout style guideline WP:WikiProject_Conservatism/Style_guide#Article_structure "Organizations". Hugh (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Three people disagreed with you about your section ordering and nobody agreed. Four including me. I gave plenty of time for you to respond to the comments but you didn't. I even said if you could just find one person to agree with you I wouldn't do anything about it. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:David Tornheim (Result: No violation)

Page: Bayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Version that Kingofaces43 reverted: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here

Admission of guilt: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by David Tornheim here

also warning provided by @Chic happens: here

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

Comments:
Note: I have never filed any action against anyone before. Sorry it has come to this and sorry if I made an error.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

An IP edit may be a different user. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

trout for bringing a dif not from the user. Plus, the spat of edit warring ended with the last dif above (which removed the whole pesticide section) at 04:01, 12 April 2015‎. This case was filed almost two days later when the issue is stale and the article has gone off on a different vector Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation – Kingofaces only made three reverts. The submitter included this item which is a revert by an IP, not Kingofaces. Kingofaces receives the special irony award for making a revert with an edit summary that tells others to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring