Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:36, 17 June 2011

• 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: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)

User:67.155.175.34 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: )

Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (rv. + vandalizing
• 5th revert: rv. to vandalized version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Francisco luz reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: 24h)

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:

• 1st revert: unable to be linked due to removal of copyrighted info. Edit was on 22:30, 16 June 2011 here:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boleto

Comments:

This user continues to add copyrighted information, after being told multiple times not to do so. He claims he is the author of the article on the website; however, the website clearly states "You cannot copy any text, either in English or translated to another language." Inks.LWC (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)User blocked by User:killiondude for 24 hours. - SudoGhost™ 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by Killiondude for copyright violation and edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by ΔT (Result: 72h)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 03:07, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Suggestion */ rm trolling")
2. 03:28, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434699663 by Ched Davis (talk) I may remove obvious attacks directed at me wherever I find them. Let it go, or we can air this at ANI and have a massive drama fest")
3. 03:30, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700460 by Δ (talk) per previous")
4. 03:31, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700743 by Δ (talk) per previous")
5. 03:32, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434700867 by Δ (talk) per previous")
6. 04:05, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434703923 by Dayewalker (talk) please don't restore posts that compare editors to members of highly offensive organisations")
7. 04:18, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705541 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")
8. 04:22, 17 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 434705981 by Jrtayloriv (talk) per previous")

—ΔT 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours In all honesty I wanted to make this indefinite given the ridiculous block log and history of past edit warring, but I didn't want to have to deal with the pending arbcom case or whatnot. I'll gladly increase the block duration if he keeps at it, though. --slakr 04:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Chester Markel (Result: Declined)

Page: User talk:Rd232 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: block log as Δ block log as Betacommand

Comments:
*I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning. He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, wrong forum Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • First, Delta's reverts in this are to revert the remove of a message on a user's talk page by neither that user nor the user that left the message. That's a violation of talk page usage (you don't refactor others comments). So the reversion is correct. In your image case, Delta is also correct and that logo as he put in the edit summary does not have a non-free rationale for that page, which is required and explained on the page linked. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What image? I redacted the above comment, and there is now fair-use rationale. My point was mostly about the way he goes about his edits, not whether he was right Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • The talk page comment that MickMacNee was removing could be construed as an egregious personal attack. Or not. There was a genuine dispute over which the edit warring occurred, as a result of which MickMacNee was correctly blocked for 8 reversions. But Δ also breached the 3RR. The reverts don't seem like removal of vandalism or any other exceptions to the 3RR. Chester Markel (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the disputed section myself, as I was the person who posted it. I was not attempting to make any personal attack on anyone, least of all MickMacNee. I was attempting to compare discourse, not people. I grant it is a subtlety that could be lost in the text, and that a personal attack could be construed. It was not intended in any respect as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the situation with MickMacNee, I do believe that arbcom will ban him, as a most unfortunate and regrettable necessity, so the situation should be resolved in a month or two. Chester Markel (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm the one that made the first revert that restored your (Hammersoft) comment. I also didn't see it as an attack on MMN, just comparing how conversation with someone who ... ahhh ... was unwilling to compromise with that of beating ones head off a brick wall. To be honest, I was hoping that Mick would take my edit summary to heart, and I was shocked to see what transpired over the next hour. Considering his current situation of being before Arbcom, I think it was a HUGE mistake to edit war over such a thing. I guess he was deeply offended, though I fail to fully understand why, and he felt it worth fighting for. Hammer, I applaud you for removing the post, as well as for attempting to offer sound advice to Rd232. <sigh>, I doubt this is the end of it all, either for Delta or for Mick, there's just too much history for this to slip quietly into the night I fear. — Ched :  ?  06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm trying to have delta added as a party to the MickMacNee arbitration. Hopefully, we can resolve the situations with both users at the same time. Chester Markel (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW .. I personally would be opposed any block for Delta on the Rd232 issue, I think he had solid footing in policy for reverting this time. — Ched :  ?  06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) The reversions that Δ was performing in this case were also done by several other editors. I.e., several other editors identified MickMacNee's edits as improper. Removing someone else's comments from a talk page that is not yours can be considered a form of vandalism. In that sense, Δ's edits were undoing vandalism that had also been undone by several others. That said, there's extenuating circumstances here. MickMacNee is most likely under a lot of stress from the ArbCom case. Further, I know full well his extreme distaste for me. Given these, it's very understandable that the comparison I was trying to make in my comments could easily have been lost, with it instead being construed as, as Chester notes, an egregious personal attack. It's a misunderstanding, pure and simple. I don't think MickMacNee's block should be in place in part because of that and in part because of the ongoing ArbCom case. I think we should slap some wet fish around, remove the block, and close this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that no action should result from this report. It confuses too many issues already being discussed on other noticeboards, in an ArbCom case and in the report immediately above. Chester Markel trying to add Delta as party to the ArbCom case suggests that Chester Markel's editing of wikipedia is getting out of control. Two other users previously added as parties have had to request their removal (Beyond My Ken and Sandstein), with the approval of ArbCom. Please stop this Chester Markel: it is very unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some mistakes in formulating the initial list of parties, as this is the first time I've filed an arbitration case. However, it's obvious that the dispute between MickMacNee and delta is longstanding, heated, and current. I have only requested that delta be added as a party, rather than adding him myself. Chester Markel (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of an ArbCom case by adding a second user, associated with a different set of problems and only tangentially involved, can create a giant mess. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RPA#Removal_of_text While not fully supported by policy it suggests that blatant personal attacks can be removed, even other other people's pages. If he felt it was a blatant personal attack, I could see why he felt he had policy on his side for removal. Being compared to a highly controversial and negatively viewed organization seems like it could easily be interpreted as a blatant personal attack. As pointed out, there are no exemptions on 3RR for this restoration--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Per consensus above, and because Betacommand was reverting inappropriate edits by MickMacNee. -FASTILY 07:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring