Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fastily (talk | contribs) at 21:39, 16 June 2011 (→User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation): r). 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:Kanetama reported by User:Rjanag (Result: No Violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (reverted )
• 2nd revert: (reverted )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (after 1st revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments: User repeatedly restoring own edits without any comment or edit summary, never responded to edit warring warning left at talk page. I know it doesn't surpass 3RR, but user's unwillingness to engage in discussion and intentional restoration of edits that he knows are under dispute clearly constitute edit warring, which per WP:3RR is just as inappropriate as 3RR violations. User has a prior edit warring warning, although no block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Have you attempted to resolve the issue directly with the editor before issuing a warning and reporting them? + Crashdoom 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. FASTILY 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Juustine reported by User:Drmies (Result: Stale)

Page: Mahasti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juustine (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: Thanks to the bot for notifying the defendant. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Off note, but yes, it's here to help ^-^ + Crashdoom 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: User has stopped a few hours ago, and I've left them a friendly, non-templated message explaining exactly what to do and why to do it. imo this case doesn't need a block, just someone willing to help this new user get used to things here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded: The user does appear to be editing in good faith and is just uneducated as per the policies on Misplaced Pages. It wouldn't be beneficial for a block, as stated above, just someone to give them a helping hand and give them comprehension of the editing policies. + Crashdoom 09:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale However, this report would have been actionable at the time. Thanks to Ajraddatz for the polite note. Salvio 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

kwami: reported by Ibibiogrl:Ibibiogrl (Result: Malformed, No Vio)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Efik_language&dir=prev&action=history

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Comment. No violation: Kwamikagami doesn't violate the WP:3RR, see: / . Talk:Efik language actually highlights several personal attacks directed against Kwamikagami. Meph 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation and Malformed – There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom 09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:71.188.67.25 reported by User:Daniel_Gosser (Result: Warned)

Nixle:
User being reported: 71.188.67.25 (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: 18:44, 4 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig is no longer the CEO, he is now the Co-Founder only.), 18:07, 9 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (Craig Mitnick founded Nixle with Firas Emachah. Any change that doesn't reflect this should be considered vandalism.), 20:53, 17 November 2010 (diff | hist) Nixle ‎ (These edits are vandalism. Craig Mitnick co-founded Nixle. This is an encyclopedia not a billboard.), 12:55, 14 January 2011 Henrik (talk | contribs) m (20,963 bytes) (Protected Nixle: Excessive vandalism ( (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)]

Comments:

<As you can see this has been an ongoing problem. The page is continuously vandalized to take Craig Mitnick off the page as co-founder. It is abundantly clear, by the references posted, that Craig co-founded Nixle. This user should be warned by an administrator. If activity continues, maybe the user should be banned for a time.Danny Gosser (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) -->

• Warned Report User:71.188.67.25 to WP:AIV if they vandalize the page again. -FASTILY 01:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Mephistophelian reported by User:Ibibiogrl (Result: No Violation)

Page: Efik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mephistophelian

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. No violation: I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Efik language as a speedy keep (WP:CSK #1, #2.1, #2.2, and #2.4) and subsequently came under fire. Meph 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, WP:3RR or the syntax for actually adding a report. + Crashdoom 09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Warned user regarding invalid WP:AN3 reports. + Crashdoom 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Garycompugeek reported by User:Jakew (Result: Page Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:00, June 10, 2011

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

1. 19:13, 7 June 2011 (edit summary: "replaced long standing well balanced intro")
2. 16:15, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433107461 by Jayjg (talk)revert to much discussed and well balanced intro")
3. 20:45, 10 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433607950 by Jmh649 (talk)please do not removed properly sourced well balanced long standing intro")
4. 15:10, 11 June 2011 (edit summary: "Restoring long standing well balanced properly sourced intro that was debated and written by many on both sides of the issue")
5. 20:51, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "no consensus for your proposed changes to intro doc")
6. 16:56, 13 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433943266 by Jmh649 (talk)no consensus for rewriting intro restored established well balanced intro")
7. 20:06, 14 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434288859 by Jmh649 (talk)no consensus for this new unbalanced intro")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Gary has been warned on several occasions in the past (eg., ), and can reasonably be expected to be aware of applicable policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All five sections currently at Talk:Circumcision involve this matter.

Comments:

I haven't reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period and I have been talking on the discussion page AND Doc's changes do not have consensus. Should he not gain consensus before rewriting entire intro and deleting much properly sourced well balanced data? Jake and I have had many disputes in the past so please evaluate the talk page yourself. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This report is for edit-warring, which in my view has reached an unacceptable level, and (in the last 2-3 days) now appears to be taking place instead of discussion. Jakew (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am in violation so is Doc James. I am trying to discuss on the talk page and have no wish to edit war. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good grief, folks. Why must we have this constant edit warring over this topic? With the level of edit warring on both sides, I'm not really wanting to issue blocks, and I also don't want to protect the article when there appears to be actual editing going on in addition to the revert warring. Can't we just stop the revert warring? I see there is talk page discussion going on, at the very least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We where having some problems on this page with sock puppets. A few have been blocked. Consensus if of course that Misplaced Pages be based on current evidence (within 5 years). Not stuff that is 20 years sorry 19 years old. Also we use review per consensus and that is what I have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected -FASTILY 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Illegal Operation reported by User:A Quest For Knowledge (Result: Stale)

Page: Windows Phone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Illegal Operation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illegal Operation has been edit-warring to remove Windows Phone 7's market share from the article.

• 17:51, June 14, 2011
• 16:36, June 13, 2011
• 19:04, June 11, 2011
• 12:54, June 11, 2011
• 17:05, June 10, 2011

I have warned the editor to stop edit-warring.

But Illegal Operation continues to edit-war after my warning:

• 22:28, June 14, 2011

Also note that Illegal Operation was warned against edit-warring on this very same content by an admin on December 13, 2010 so this edit-warring is a long-term problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the source http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html did not talk about Windows Phone market share and was removed. Specifically, the statement on Misplaced Pages said that Windows Phone has 2.5% market share, yet this is not said anywhere at the source. Apparently, I am using the talk page for discussion, but Enemenemu decided to keep re-adding the source and did not use the talk page until today. I have no idea why A Quest For Knowledge is supporting him. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last time I was contacted by an Admin was 6+ months ago and is irrelevant to this discussion. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that out of the 4 editors discussing this on the talk page, Illegal Operation is the only one against inclusion. So not only is he edit-warring, he's edit-warring against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• He's also stopped completely at this point, so I'd recommend that no block be issued (blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I've left the user a note on his talk page regarding edit warring. It should also be noted that A Quest For Knowledge's actions have not helped at all here. Instead of trying to talk with the editor and find out his side of the story, AQFN has continually left short, commanding messages which only promote hard feelings, not a solution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted this on Ajraddatz's talk page, but I suppose I should post it here, too. If my messages to Illegal Operation have been curt, it's out of frustration over the fact that he's been edit-warring on this article for 6 months making it very difficult for anyone to work on the article. His latest edit war is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metabradley reported by   — User:Mann_jess (2nd report) (Result: 2 weeks)

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

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

Time reported: 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 07:06, June 15, 2011 (edit summary: "see talk page --you scared cynic dogs")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block (see section above), and immediate return to same edit war.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 reported by User:Thigle (Result: both warned)

Page: Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thisthat2011 (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:

I can't figure out how to report this right. LOLThigle (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try the 3rr helper tool, linked at the top of the page. You need to insert diffs of each revert in the above template. The helper tool will help you do that, but you'll still need to review its results.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, see WP:Boomerang. You're both edit warring disruptively. You need to stop, and use the talk page, too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reported person (Thisthat2011) only reverted once, and the reporter (Thigle) tried to revert to a previous version (by SudoGhost and then followed by his/her version) four times within a period of less than 26 hours , , , . The reporter was blocked twice back in May, and seems to be edit-warring again, despite the fact that she/he is participating in the discussion page. Minima© (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Try looking through that again - both users have violated the 3rr. I've left messages on both of their talk pages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spotted it now, and have displayed the diffs above, showing how many times the reported person wanted to "Move contents to the History again". This was harder for me to spot because the number of bytes kept changing, but the edit summaries showed what Thisthat2011 wanted to do. Minima© (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Ajraddatz's messages seem to have had the desired effect. Please open a new report if discussion at Talk:Hinduism breaks down. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FOUNTAINVIEWKID is breaking 3RR!!!

See the article on Samuel Koranteng-Pipim. He has made multple reversions as you can see here. I've been trying to remove an unsourced claim that some people were "progressive" and he keeps readding it without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.159.224 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both of you are violating 3rr. Please stop reverting and talk it over with the other editor on the article's talk page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I have described my concerns at the BLP Noticeboard. I think that the Pipim article, at least the Resignation section, needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text.

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:50.72.159.224 (Result: Protected)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:
• 13th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've been trying to stop him from readding false information that certain scholars are progresssive under WP:BLP. User:50.72.159.224

Comments:

I have a feeling, based on editing styles, that user User:50.72.159.224 is the same as user:75.128.235.12 is the same as user:BelloWello. Not that there's anything wrong with editing as an IP, but, you have to play by the rules. --Kenatipo 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this was BelloWello or his helpers is hard to say; the IPs evidently are familiar with BelloWello's off-wiki postings. The article has now been locked until 18 June. The IP was restoring information that directly violated WP:BLP. In comparison the issue of the internal labels progressive/conservative amongst Seventh Day Adventism editors is becoming so disruptive that the subject of topic bans in this area might have to be discussed again. Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was a bot they could run to do a comparison of styles, etc., and make a determination, but when Lionel reported IP 75.128 as a possible sockpuppet of BelloWello, the lame response was "we're not very good at matching IPs and named users." Go figure! --Kenatipo 01:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw in something to the ring on the two IPs and say that it's  Unlikely that the two IPs are related directly to the same user, (Just from a geolocation lookup). However, if a CheckUser can't confirm/state that such is likely to BelloWello, it may just be someone that has the same opinion as them. It is possible to match IPs and named users via Geolocation in certain cases assuming at least a high amount of data matches, in most cases, it could only be likely or unlikely. + Crashdoom 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crashdoom. I didn't check the times of the edits. You can't be in Wisconsin and British Columbia at the same time, can you? --Kenatipo 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct on that. There is a chance that one of the results could be a false-positive due to the potential risk of a proxy being used, either that or, as previously stated, there is more than one person with the same view on the matter. As such, I believe that's the reasoning behind the CheckUsers being not very good matching users and IPs without direct links. + Crashdoom 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a 16 hour break between Wisconsin and Vancouver, so there's no overlap. Both IPs are SPAs. Should I take this to the right (SPI) forum? --Kenatipo 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful since there's a chance due to the match in editing as stated. However, you may get told the same with only an opinion of it being possible/unlikely, due to the IPs not having a directly verifiable link. The time differennce does pose the question that it may be possible via a proxy or such. + Crashdoom 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can be in Ontario Canada and Delaware at the same time. If I were to edit from my IP on this computer it would say I am in Delaware. If I edit from my cell phone it says I am in Ontario Canada. GB fan (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all these ambiguities, how do you ever prove an account is a sockpuppet? --Kenatipo 02:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, with great difficulty. This does return to the point, that CheckUsers can't say anything is certain unless everything is explicitly linked. Also, the fact that the IP can be edited is unlikely to be used in most cases with average users on Misplaced Pages. + Crashdoom 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Protection applied by SoWhy. Minima© (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwami reported by User:Ibibiogrl (Result:No action taken)

Page: Efik Language

Previous version

reverted to: 

• 1st revert: [(cur | prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs)

• Efik Language is not the Same language as Ibibio language and the 2 languages are spoken in different states of Nigeria.
• There is no language that is called Ibibio-Efik as there is no language that is mixed with the two. Just like there is no language called Spanish-French.
• There is also another similar language known as Annang, which is similar to Efik and Ibibio just like Italian language is similar to French and Spanish.
• There are also others like Oron, Eket etc. Which although spoken in the same area are not similar to Efik, Ibibio and Annang, but Kwami is linking all these languages to a Single page.
• Kwami is not from Nigeria and does not know anyting about these languages. But I am a native Ibibio, I have also lived in the States and areas where Efik and Annang languages are spoken, that is how I learned to speak Efik, so I understand the differences.
• If you allow this editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Misplaced Pages as an Encyclopedia of Lies!

If You Allow This editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Misplaced Pages as an Encyclopedia of Lies! Ibibiogrl (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that you haven't been discussing properly with the editor in question over the issue, also I note: "(cur | prev) 23:09, 31 May 2011 Ibibiogrl (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo) ", so it does appear that you have been causing problems for the article, whether it was on purpose or not, I don't know + Crashdoom 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this case is suffering from some personal attacks. Closing and leaving note on reporting editor's page. m.o.p 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CartoonDiablo reported by User:CWenger (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert (though not within 24 hours, just to show that edit warring continues):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (disclaimer: this was done just now)

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

Comments:
Thomas Sowell is a BLP and we should have a high threshold for what we include. Biased sources like Media Matters for America are not appropriate. There is very clear consensus on the article talk page against including this, with 6 editors (4 usernames, 2 IPs) for removing it and only 1 (User:CartoonDiablo) for keeping it. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not valid based on the fact that I was not given a 3RR warning prior to being reported, I attempted to resolve the issue multiple times (diffs: and ) and feel the consensus is based on a violation of NPOV. I will attempt to reach a resolution of whether or not removing the section violates NPOV in the respective noticeboard. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Despite awareness of a discussion on the article's talk page in which several users agreed the source was not reliable, you, CartoonDiablo, edit-warred to keep it in. If that's not grounds for a 3RR block, then it is grounds for block under Disruptive Editing -FASTILY 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation)

Page: Insite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Minphie (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:
• 9th revert:

Discussion of why this source should not be used Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On further investigation this user may be a sock puppet and thus will also report there on time of here. He/she has been edit warring across a number of pages.

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is not exclusively 3 reverts within 24 hours per Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I do not feel this user deserves a block; they edit Insite sparingly, and appear to be acting in good faith. -FASTILY 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Brookster22 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: 24h)

Page: George Demos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brookster22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

There are many more identical section blankings in the past few days, but these are the four most recent:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Note: There is also a related sock investigation pending at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410

Comments:

• Brookster22 claims that the reason for their reverts is WP:BLP concerns, and has discussed this extensively on the article talk page with other editors. User:Thecheesykid also appears to have broken WP:3RR on this article (in reverting Brookster22's edits). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring