Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 6 July 2011. 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:Wtshymanski reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 31h)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Heathkit H11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated stripping of Category:Home computers from Heathkit H11

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

This is a common pattern of editing for this editor, which I would categorise (civilly and not, I would say, unfairly) as, "the world is wrong and only I am right" (for clarity, I have a long history with this editor, all much the same). They have some knowledge of the subject, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Despite stable categorisation as "Home computer" long being in place, and despite reversion by two independent editors, their assertion is that this is not a home computer. To quote an edit summary, "Didn't hook up to a TV and cassette deck, didn't have ROM BASIC, not much like the other machines in the category."

The sources though differ. This was an unusual home computer - it cost considerably more than the rest, much more than I could afford. Yet from the contemporary ads archived online , "the world's most powerful microcomputer comes home" and "the H11 is the best home computer

This is raised at the talk Talk:Heathkit_H11#Not_a_home_computer, but this editor's obstinacy is legendary. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski

August 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive69#User:Wtshymanski_and_Jump_start_.28vehicle.29

August 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Floydian_.28Result:_Stale.29

February 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:24.177.120.74_.28Result:_page_protected.29

March, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request_for_admin_attention_re:_proposed_deletion_of_multiple_electronics_components_articles

April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive103#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs

April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively

July, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29

"The real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusual); it's quite another that he's apparently doing it with total impunity. -- RichardOSmith --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: 31 hours for 3RR violation at Heathkit H11. He removed the Category:Home computers from the article four times in 24 hours. Though I offered him the chance to respond here, Wtshymanski did not take the opportunity. He has continued to edit elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing.

In the article List of home computers we define it as "... in this list a "home computer" is a factory-assembled mass-marketed consumer product, usually at significantly lower cost than contemporary business computers. It would have an alphabetic keyboard and a multi-line alphanumeric display, the ability to run both games software as well as application software and user-written programs, and some removable mass storage device (such as cassette or floppy disk )." The H11 was not mass-marketed, it was sold in tiny volumes to electronics hobbyists. It was not factory assembled, it required some skill to assemble all the pieces. It didn't have an alphabetic keyboard or multi-line display - you had to buy a separate terminal for that. And it didn't come with any kind of mass storage, you had to buy separate disk drives (or a paper tape reader) for that. It certainly wasn't priced like a 1980's home computer either - by the time you put together all the pieces to make it other than a fancy light-blinker, you'd have spent as much as on a small car. But let's call it a "home computer" to suprise and delight our readers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is something that should be on the relevant article's talk page, not the 3RR noticeboard. - SudoGhost™ 22:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Straight back from your block and once again you're back to "The world is wrong and only I am right".

That's not the point. This isn't the factual accuracy board, it's the edit-warring board. The problem here isn't the question of the categorization, it's your approach in pushing one viewpoint over everything else: other editors and the references to the contrary. Despite a block, you still don't seem to realise that.

As to the home computer aspects, then none of your points here have any credibility. This was an early home computer, at a time when they were expensive toys for hobbyists. Home-assembly was common, disk mass storage wasn't, some of your points - the need for the terminal or drives to be supplied in a separate box are simply grasping at straws. As SudoGhost says though, that belongs on the article talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the whole world, and a tiny fraction of a fraction of the editors is not the whole world. I think that we had a fairly clear-cut description of machines sold as "home computers" and that the H11 doesn't meaningfully fit into that category, as described above. I will be more careful about counting reverts.

The references are to Heath ad copy; in the very next line under the fateful "the world's most powerful microcomputer comes home", we also see Heath appealing to "Computer hobbyists". So, which LINE of the advertisement supports which position? And the reason that the discussion is here is becuase I've been given ultimatims to discuss the subject here; it would make more sense to discuss article changes at article talk pages (and I'll paraphrase my point and append it to the H11 talk page), but I follow my correspondents to the forum they choose. I'm willing to hope for peace in our time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing the content issue on Talk:Heathkit H11 where the discussion belongs, but one aspect concerning Wtshymanski's behavior during his edit war is worth pointing out, especially since he exhibited the behavior here and not on the H11 talk page. The definition that Wtshymanski lists above as justification for his edit warring was written by none other than Wtshymanski! ( Diff ). If a newbie made the error of using one of his own edits as a reliable source, I would chalk it up to ignorance, but Wtshymanski has shown extensive knowledge of WP:RS where doing so suits his purposes.

Add to this the rather snarky comment "Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing." Is this accurate? Admin EdJohnston asked Wtshymanski to join the discussion at the 3RR noticeboard and agree to accept consensus as to whether this is a home computer on at 18:44, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ) Wtshymansk talked about the 3RR on his talk page at 20:37, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ) and found time to edit Talk:Composition of the human body on 20:45, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), Hysteresis on 20:51, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), BNC connector on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), Flow measurement on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), and Hybrid integrated circuit on 21:39, 3 July 2011 ( Diff ), at which point he was blocked. Clearly, if he had time to edit seven other pages after EdJohnston asked him to discuss his edit warring here, he had time to respond. Apparently when "real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing." the concerns are rather selective about which edits get "trumped."

These recent behaviors show, once again, an ongoing pattern of insisting that he is always right, dismissing any evidence or arguments by any other editor, ignoring consensus, and gaming the system wherever possible so as to get his way without having any admin take action. I am getting really tired of dealing with the drama. I just want to improve the engineering-related articles without having to spend all my time dealing with Wtshymanski's disruption. Do I have to go to arbcom and waste many more hours that could be used to improve Misplaced Pages, or will some admin step up to the plate and apply a series of measured short blocks in an attempt to get him to behave? Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PM800 reported by User:74.138.214.5 (Result: 1 week)

Page: List of military blunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PM800 (talk · contribs)

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:

This user has gone up to "their third revert" but they've been blocked in the past for 3RR and I really am tired of edit warring, I have no interest in doing another revert to see if they revert me again with still no discussion. I'd rather a third party step in at this point than keep this nonsense up. I am trying to remove challenged content from the article (under WP:V), as I explain in my edit summaries... PM800 is just using the default "undo" message to revert me, with no explanation ever given.

I should point out this user did a similar thing to me on several occasions last year, not giving an explanation and really not making a lot of sense with what edits of mine they reverted, for example: , . As far as I can recall they've never explained any of these reverts. I have tried to talk to them on their talk page and in edit summaries both then and now, before bringing this issue here. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to get PM800 blocked. I just want them to stop reverting me for no stated reason... I am not vandalizing the article and I shouldn't be treated like I am. If PM800 wants that line in the article they need to defend it. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Piculo reported by User:Valenciano (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:For the last month, Piculo has become a single purpose account, intent on adding their own POV into the ETA article without references or by adding references which in no way support the POV being added. Firstly they continually added terrorist to the article, against a consensus in the article stretching back to 2004 at least, now they are adding other commentary, despite being advised on talk and on their user page that they do not have consensus for that and that they should follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. Piculo also broke WP:3RR on the 28th June. On that occasion, I gave them a pass in the hope that they would discuss changes and seek consensus.

Comments by Piculo:

I did respect the NPOV, there is not any opinion about the human rights. I did extend the page with verifiable information adding two references.

• Last modification

--Piculo (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by User:Aircorn (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The fifth revert is a week after the fourth (which were all in the same day). AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours -FASTILY 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kazvorpal reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned under ARBPIA)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Palestine, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert restriction. For more information, see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Shabazz is simply lawyering, here: Someone deleted the line, giving actual, valid reasons: Lack of references, and a word he felt PoV. I added two references, and replaced the word, with a more NPoV one. Then Shabazz comes along and reverts it with a completely unrelated objection, that it was supposedly fringe. I restored it, pointing out that nobody disputes the fact in question. Because the other reversion was a completely unrelated objection, and was fixed, this is a single reversion. If not, then anyone could censor any idea he did not like, simply by reverting with a different objection the second time, valid or no. --Kaz (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should brush up on the meaning of "revert": "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I only undid your work, whether in whole or part, one time. It would be ridiculous for this to apply to completely unrelated objections by completely unrelated users. Surely you're not claiming to be Frederico1234...--Kaz (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It occurs to me, just passing by this out of chance, that the first time the information was removed, it should perhaps have been flagged with the relevant notices, such as {{cn}}, and was seemingly only outright removed due to the sensitive nature of these pages. As such, good-faith remedying of a noted problem doesn't strike me as being as harsh as simply reverting a change, and User:Kazvorpal's first "revert" has fallen prey to misfortune—had the previous editor merely tagged the content with a template for its issues, there'd be no confusion over the definition of a revert here. Perhaps that should be considered in the outcome. GRAPPLE X 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Edits like this i.e. the first time the information was removed, are consistent with the sanctions. Editors who want to edit in a topic area covered by the sanctions shouldn't be surprised to see material deleted when they don't cite a reliable source for "for contentious or disputed assertions". Sean.hoyland - talk 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not denying that, it's abundantly clear that that is why the removal was so sudden. My point is simply that there's an odd situation created wherein the page is governed in such a way as to create more opportunities for edits which would be considered reverts whilst simultaneously allowing for less. The very nature of why the page is given to the 1RR standard also encourages swift removal instead of slower vetting of content, so I (personally) would be very very slightly more lenient concerning edits like the first diff wherein content removed for a stated reason is reinstated with said reason resolved—had it simply just be reinstated as it stood before, obviously it would be a clear violation. GRAPPLE X 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the first diff isn't really edit warring but I guess what he probably should have done per WP:BRD was start a discussion to hammer the content out on the talk page. I probably violate the 1RR rule all over the place without even noticing so I probably shouldn't be commenting... Sean.hoyland - talk 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, had Frederic objected again, or Shabazz objected about the same thing Frederic had, discussion would have been the obvious next step, especially considering the extreme nature of the edit restrictions for "all things concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (of which I was unaware, but I probably would have moved to discussion if the same issue had remained unresolved, anyway), but Shabazz' objection was obviously a completely unrelated one. If someone adds a paragraph, and ten people revert it for ten different reasons -- truly different, each dealing with a different sentence and a completely different concept -- surely the original editor shouldn't have to treat them as all part of the same issue. If one guy wants references, another guy wants different grammar, another doesn't like a specific word, et cetera, it's not the original editor's fault if they keep reverting the whole thing. --Kaz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The repeated additions of similar material constitute a violation of WP:1RR. I am warning Kazvorpal of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA and logging a notice in the case. The editor has made no effort to get support on the article talk page for the material that he wants to add. The Edwin Black material is not widely known but it is probably not WP:FRINGE. It is still up to the consensus of editors whether the thesis of Edwin Black's book is important enough to include in the the Palestine article. Any further reverts before consensus is found may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Francisco luz reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to: Cannot provide diff, has been revdel'd due to copyvio issues

• 1st revert: Revdel'd (Editing as IP 189.73.252.190)
• 2nd revert: Edit at 5:24
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boleto has a discussion about this, as well as the user's talk page and at Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit_War.

Comments:
User has been inserting text that is a copyright violation of , (example "The individual or corporate entity that issues the boleto and whose account will be credited." appears in both the article and the source), and continues to insert the material despite being warned in several different places. Regardless of the copyright issues, User:Francisco luz is in violation of WP:3RR. As for my edits, removal of copyright violations is exempt from WP:3RR.

• Result: 1 month. Continued to restore copyrighted material after a final warning. He was blocked a week for the same thing on the same article in mid-June. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Lexein reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: No Violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is a strikingly lame dispute, and rather than trying to force a 3RR violation I'll bring it here directly. User: Lexein is quite determined to include some remarkably silly content about Helena Christensen being a "cheese addict" in her bio, a few months back edit warred against guideline if not policy to emphasize the claim in the article lede, and now insists that the material must remain in the article even though no one bu he defends it and at least two editors support its removal. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while discussion about subject's taste in cheese might be appropriate in an article about a chef or a food critic, it's not generally encyclopedic with regard to celebrities (or even noncelebrities). Lexein has pretty much announced his intention to edit war on this and his various groundless accusations of canvassing and other sorts of bad faith against both editors who recently removed this silliness are completely inappropriate, even given the WP:LAMEness of the substantive dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 5 July 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. Can't block without a 3RR violation of some sort. Sorry, FASTILY 03:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Not to put too fine a point on it, but: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. Isn't the fact that the editor rejects the majority sentiment and declares "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion" enough to get some scrutiny after he repeatedly adds back such disputed content without any valid backing from policy or guideline? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Reality check: for all concerned, my statement, "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion of sourced content" simply meant that I will be WP:BOLD, and won't simply let deletions of reliably sourced content go by without on-policy response by me. As an editor in good standing, my edit history shows that I'm consistently on-policy to the best of my ability and knowledge (see even old discussion conclusion). There was, and is, no declared intention of any kind to edit war.
• Intentions: I look forward to the opinions of several additional editors about the cheese paragraph. Of course, as the number of editors in discussion increases, it gets easier for me to both participate in and agree with ultimate consensus. I will abide by the larger consensus of an RfC. If an accommodation can be reached before the RfC, so much the better.

--Lexein (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:WalkerHerbertBush reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 24h)

Page: Tourism in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WalkerHerbertBush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

There is a 1/rr in the topic area. There is a warning at the top of the page when editing so the editor has no excuse. I ignored the 1/rr violation and gave him a heads up but he decided to revert again.

I am requesting notification of ARBPIA and an admin giving him suggestions that are friendlier than I am willing to give. I will be reverting with a talk page discussion being opened but it is really not necessary since the edit looks to only be to make a point and he has already been willing to remove sourced info from another article. Just to be clear: I am not assuming good faith with this new editor.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FASTILY 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts reported by Jac16888 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Glücksgas Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 05:44, 29 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 436750737 by Jac16888 (talk)")
2. 09:39, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ update")
3. 09:50, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "File:Womens' World Cup Dresden 2011 USA vs North Korea Stadium 3.jpg")
4. 23:16, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "update")
5. 23:18, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437957335 by Jac16888 (talk)")
6. 23:19, 5 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ ;")
7. 00:06, 6 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 437960507 by Jac16888 (talk)")

• Diffs of warning: here and here

User is repeatedly adding unhelpful and unwanted information to Glücksgas Stadium, has been asked several times to stop and never responded in any way, and has been blocked once already for this just a couple of days ago —Jac16888 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: 72 hours)

Page: UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Continuation of old edit war:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was recently blocked for 24h for edit warring , doing the exact same revert 5 times in 24h (and several times before that). He has now done the same revert twice today already, continues to claim that his position is correct because the votes are 4-3 in his favor, even though being told about WP:POLL, and even though the discussion ended up with nobody but him defending his position. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture and two other editors are in the minority on this issue. There was a long discussion about making the change they requested and they failed to get a consensus. I have asked for their explanation for violating consensus policies and they continue to claim they have a consensus. In fact, four editors have taken the contrary position to theirs, so they are violating policy on proceeding according to consensus. I have requested protection for the page and I hope that will prevent any further vandalism from this group. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema was blocked by SarekOfVulcan for 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor on Tin Pei Ling, reported by La goutte de pluie (Result:Page Protected)

Page: Tin Pei Ling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 202.156.13.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 202.156.13.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 218.186.16.250 (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:

I am unable to warn the user explicitly because of the use of IP-hopping, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the user to merge in his or her desired changes; however the user insists on reverting everything, including constructive bot fixes. I have invited the user to use different forms of consensus-building, and I have offered to voluntarily revert myself on certain sections if the editor would identify the disputed sections. However, the editor rejects everything even though I have tried different ways of phrasing, and different sources, and tried making concessions and compromises.

I am an involved administrator seeking advice from another administrator on an appropriate course of action. In the past, previous people have advised to rangeblock the editor, but the editor merely skips to a different IP. I have decided to further refrain from using the tools and thus need help. I am frustrated from the lack of attention on this matter.

The user is an IP-jumper and has a past history on various noticeboards. The most recent is talk:Tin Pei Ling, also see discussion on a 3rd party User talk:Strange Passerby. In the past, this user has strong evidence of being an astroturfing editor; but the evidence is more complex.

Comments:

Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:14, 6 July 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) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the situation is kind of complex, I can't use the traditional format. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected For future reference, this kind of report belongs at WP:ANI. -FASTILY 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

] reported by User:Aaron Brenneman (Result: )

Page: Template:List of Jiggy McCue books
User being reported: Template:Δ

Previous version reverted to:

• (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011
• (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011
• (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011
• (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011
• (remove non-free content overuse)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diffs, linking to restrictions instead: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions

Misplaced Pages:Fair use overuse, linked from the edit sumaries, is an essay. Misplaced Pages:3RR#3RR_exemptions is quite clear in that "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)," . Per Misplaced Pages:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," .

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring