Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 30 July 2013

• 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:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fast Five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shookallen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565824264 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Not the only article with linking problems."
2. 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565750593 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)what's wrong with this?"
3. 11:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565717177 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Nothing wrong with that is only a single liking there's no double"
4. 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fast Five. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was reported previously at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive217#User:Shookallen88_reported_by_User:Darkwarriorblake_.28Result:_Warned.29 and temporarily blocked. Despite this user has continued behaviour at Fast & Furious 6 and now has begun doing the same thing at Fast Five, refusing to discuss, ignoring anything brought up and repeatedly editing to get his way, has no intention of stopping or acknowledging why he was initially blocked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles with linking issues. You can show me a linking right or wrong reality it's not something you have to use, there can be double linking or linking a name second instants instead of first. User:Shookallen88 July 26. —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Just a clarification. Shookallen88 was not blocked based on the previous report. He was warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jdremix540 reported by User:Suzuku (Result: )

Page: The Wolverine (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdremix540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: and continuously made this same revision more than 5 times despite being to ld to take his concerns to the talk page and wait for a consensus.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• • As you can see user repeatedly made the same revision over and over despite being told by two users (myself and another) to go to the talk page to voice his concerns and wait for a consensus. Instead of engaging in conversation, he chose this route and simply makes the same statement over and over no matter how many times myself or another presents logic against his claims. Keep in mind we had already had a debate about which poster to use in the article weeks before and came to the general consensus that the artistic poster should be used for several reasons.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

*Unfortunately that is as far as the conversation with him went for me because he didn't bother to respond after that, until I told him I was reporting him.

• Stale. Looks like they stoppped editing. If it recurs, you can add to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  He's at it again. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 reported by User:Fareed30 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Prithviraj Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saladin1987 (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:

• Saladin1987: thats it first answer my questions .i wil kepp reverting it ...
• Saladin1987: this time i will change it to peshawari hindko if u revert it to pashtun . u r so ignorant , pathan is the word that is known all over the world not pashtun . he is indian in india people dont know what pashtun is

Nearly all of this extreme POV pusher's edits are vandalism-related, removing important and well-sourced content from famous Bollywood actors. He is particularly erasing Pashtun/Afghan references from their pages so that not even a trace of that is left in them. I warned her/him and advised her that this is forgery and that he/she should stop but I don't think he will listen. What's strange is that she's always active on Misplaced Pages but not editing like us normal editors.--Fareed30 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your own sources are flawed because you are writing those things from your sources which are not even there meaning you are just writing the info that you want to publish. I would request the admin to prove from his sources that he is right and prove from my sources that i am wrong. i have given authentic sources but he has given the sources in which there is alot of false information. in most cases he is using britannica encyclopedia as a source. i have asked him questions on talk page but he hasnt replied to them. Whats the point of talk if he doesnt wana talk.Saladin1987 04:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

• You're disruptive; you're willfully and deliberatly falsifying people's ethnicity, with intention to mislead readers; you're removing well-sourced relevant information from pages which is against Misplaced Pages's rules; you're avoiding discussion in the talk pages of the articles; you're pushing your personal strange point of view which goes against all the reliable sources; you're attacking other editors based on their race or nationality; you're edit-warring for fun and violating other rules. I think that if you get blocked then you'll stop doing these things.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• All the reliable sources, including his own children , revealed that Prithviraj Kapoor was a Pathan/Pashtun and spoke Pashto. See Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor. User:Saladin1987, however, disagrees and keeps replacing Pathan with Punjabi and in the process he deletes all sources that support Pathan. He does not believe that Prithviraj was Pathan, he rather wants to force readers to believe that Prithviraj was Punjabi by ethnicity and cites the following 3 web links to support his theory. 1 2 3. The number 1 is a mirror site (www.iloveindia.com) and it is basically an older version of Prithviraj Kapoor's Misplaced Pages article. That is clearly not a reliable source. Number 2 and 3 are short gossip stories about Kareena Kapoor Khan and her sister Karizma Kapoor in which each of them mentioned "I am a Punjabi". What do these girls have to do with Prithviraj's ethnicity? Plus, "I'm a Punjabi" is not a fact but just an expression, like "I'm king of the world".--Fareed30 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've blocked Saladin for a combination of edit warring and POV-pushing. A note to User:Fareed30. The third diff listed above is not a revert because it is part of a consecutive series of edits. Saladin did not breach WP:3RR as they made only three reverts. Also, "your version" of the article has quite a few problems, mainly a lack of sources. Ironically, the best-sourced part of the article is the part that was in dispute. If you have time, you might want to add references to the article, e.g, much of the Personal life section and all of the Death and legacy section. The Legacy section is already tagged as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  First, your reason for blocking him is justified. Second, he did breach 3RR. And third, this is not the case in which X says he's Pathan and Y says he's Punjabi. It is A-Z say he's Pathan but only Saladin1987 says he's Punjabi and he used mirror/forks to support his theory. The only sources for Pathan/Pashtun that I found are listed at Talk:Prithviraj_Kapoor, which includes his own son (Shammi Kapoor) explaining to Wafaa' Al-Nathema that his father was Pathan. It makes no sense in erasing "Pathan" from the article.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CJK reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 13:23, 21 July 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:08, 24 July 2013 (re-adds POV tag)
2. 18:45, 25 July 2013 (Adds "dubious" tags)
3. 13:01, 26 July 2013 (Re-adds POV & "dubious" tags)
4. 23:14, 26 July 2013 (Adds "failed verification" tags)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 00:53, 21 July 2013

05:58, 26 July 2013

Comments:

CJK was blocked 18:05 21 July and 19:06, 23 July 2013 for edit-warring on this article. His tagging has been reversed by myself, Truthwillneverdie, and Thucydides411, and no editors have shown support for keeping them. TFD (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a dispute currently under discussion in the article talk page in question, so tagging is appropriate. The last "revert" was actually explicitly recommended by TFD despite his cynical use of it (see here ).

CJK (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In your reply to me you do not explain why you think these sentences "fail verification", but instead continue your discussion of why you think the article is biased. You do not explain how what is written in the article differs from what is in the source. So whether you add back your original edits, or put in "POV", "dubious" or "failed verification" tags, you are just continuing the same thing. No other editors accept the changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It was explained here and you never responded. I don't see how you missed it.

CJK (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your link is to a discussion thread set up by another editor, Hohum, who removed your cleanup tag and moved your comments to the talk page 18:12 July 26 2013. After that you replaced tags on the article page three more times. TFD (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So what? I followed what he indicated and did not restore the clean-up tag. You removed the dubious tags and said I should use different tags, which I did. Now you are complaining because I followed your and his advice.

CJK (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Request: As one of the several editors who CJK is opposing on the article, instead of another short block, could we please have a requirement to participate in dispute resolution aimed towards building compromise versions which add alternative POVs instead of replacing one with another? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:MrOllie and User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: MesaBoy blocked)

Page: Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts by User: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=564347042
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=543848792
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=542114853

Reverts by User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=566028303
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=565968206
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=471411498

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Comments:
The page Page: Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) contains information related to various forms of multifactor authentication (MFA). There are numerous forms of MFA, including hardware tokens, software tokens, virtual tokens, and so on. For some reason, MrOllie and Vipersnake151 have both repeatedly objected to the inclusion of information related to one form of MFA called "virtual tokens". They claim that the term "virtual token" refers to some specific vendor or product, that the section on virtual token is not properly sourced, or that the sources are not relevant. I have reviewed the section in question. It does not refer to any specific product nor vendor, it is properly sourced, and the sources are relevant.

Virtual token does not refer to any specific vendor, any more than "software token" or "hardware token" refers to any specific vendor. These are "TYPES" of MFA, not products or vendors. There are numerous companies offering "virtual token" forms of MFA, just as there are numerous companies offering "software token" and "hardware token" forms of MFA. The fact that certain vendors may refer to their products as "software tokens", "hardware tokens", or "virtual tokens", or even trademark similar phrases should not be a reason to arbitrarily erase an entire class of authentication technology from discussion on this page. I have searched and discovered numerous companies now referring to their products as "virtual" tokens, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have attempted to query both editors regarding their repeated censorship of this information on their personal talk pages, but they refuse to respond. They have simply erased the section, offering as their excuse their ill-informed and inaccurate belief that the section promotes some specific vendor's product, or is not properly sourced. This issue has been discussed for several years by other editors who have reached a consensus that information related to "virtual tokens" belong on this page, just as information related to "software tokens" and "hardware tokens" belong on this page. The section in question does not name nor promote any specific company nor any specific product and is properly sourced.

The page Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is currently "semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it." Please remove this semi-protection and restore the pertinent section. If MrOllie or Vipersnake151 object to any content on this page, they should discuss the matter with other editors on their talk pages, rather than repeatedly erasing entire sections. Thank you. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The article concerned is in fact Multifactor authentication (note capitalisation). See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Situation on Multi-factor authentication for clarification on this dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, I just noticed that and have corrected the page name accordingly. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional note Andy: I reverted the content that had been removed by the above ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editor so the content-in-question can be more easily viewed in the context of the page. Note: I previously queried the ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editor on their Talk page to explain their objections to this content, but they simply erased by query from their Talk page. See: See: # http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566108814&oldid=566037281

MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary to revert the content - it is readily accessible in the article history. I would strongly advise you to self-revert and remove it again, as otherwise you may yourself be accused of edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right Andy. I self-reverted, pending a resolution on this topic. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why you are using the term "censorship" to refer to this is completely bonkers. Additionally, you claimed I erased your query; I only erased a query from an IP editor. If this is the case, I am now going to presume you are connected to the IP editor who has also been involved in this dispute. I work under the assumption that there is a COI going on primarily because of this (and this related edit by an unrelated user on Security token, who described it as a "vendor's trademarked minor variation") that actually did read like advertising. I need reliable sources that indicate your assertion that "virtual token" is now a generic term and not just a Sestus productViperSnake151  Talk  06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship: Definition = "to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor". As an editor, you have the ability to remove content from a page, which is the dictionary definition of "censoring". Don't take offense to the word "censor". As editors, we are all censors.

Regarding your accusation and apparent objection: I am the original editor that REMOVED all vendor references from the section on "virtual" forms of MFA. A simple review of history will show that. So why do you keep alleging I am affiliated with some specific company, and why do you keep erasing an entire class of MFA from this page when numerous companies now refer to various forms of "virtual" MFA? Is it that you want additional citations added? I tried to include only citations of an academic nature rather than those offered by the various commercial vendors, but I can certainly add those if you prefer. In short, what is your objection? A simple review of the term on Google.com shows a number of companies using the term "virtual" in reference to MFA, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on. MesaBoy77 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked MesaBoy77 for one week for edit warring and for socking. For a fuller explanation, see the report at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:TomPointTwo (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Discussion of stupidity starts here: Talk:Steve_King#Tag-team_edit_warring_by_Arzel_and_Thargor_Orlando

Comments:
Single editor is intent on adding content contrary to RS and BLP. Unwilling to bend to consensus and in violation of 3RR. Issue was erroneously taken to a page protection request instead of here.TomPointTwo (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note

• MilesMoney, who is a newbie, once warned by me on the talkpage of Steve King has stopped edit-warring. The reporter also reached 3RR. Δρ.Κ.  08:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The first part is unsubstantiated. The second is demonstrably untrue. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Here are your 3RR: , , . Δρ.Κ.  08:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Uh oh, super awkward. I think you need to read 3RR again. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Perhaps an admin can advise you better. I know I've got nothing to read in that regard. Δρ.Κ.  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • My warning given at :26 past the hour: , Miles's last revert was :21 past the hour: . TomPointTwo also baited the other editor in his edit summaries: . Δρ.Κ.  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, reread 3RR, I'm not in violation of it. As for baiting, it was much more a general mocking of his presumptuousness. Rude but not leading. WP:DICK has long been consigned to the nether regions of wiki-land, a move I'm rather torn over. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Please reread my comments to you and don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you went over 3RR. I said you are at 3RR. But as you know you can still be blocked even if you don't violate 3RR. That's all. Δρ.Κ.  09:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, so you were saying on the 3RR noticeboard that I'm at 3RR not over 3RR. Well, you're a clever little wordsmith, here I was thinking you were actually complaining about something. Or at least something other than my not taking you seriously which, last I checked, is not a BFD. That or you actually bothered to read 3RR just now and are feeling dumb. Dumb because you're tossing policies around you're not familiar with. Don't sweat it, I'll assume the former. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
            • If despite all my explanations you resort to comments like that and personal attacks on an admin noticeboard after you made a report while you yourself came within a hair's breadth of breaking 3RR, then I can't help you further. Good luck to you. Δρ.Κ.  09:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
              • That's awful big of you. Thanks buddy. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:TomPointTwo, per WP:EW, "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. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I would still consider your behavior WP:EW and you are not following WP:Civil with a new user. This could be easily fixed in a less hostile manner. Casprings (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Boomright reported by User:SqueakBox (result: Blocked 24 hours)

User has reverted his own edit on numerous occasions against at least 3 other editors in very quick succession, my informal warning did not stop the user at all.

Either him or someone else had done the same edit the other day and the consensus on the talk page is thta this is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP but editor hasnt contributed to any discussion. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Has now been blocked for 24 hours, no further action needed. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kubigula (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Whiteswanlake reported by User:Bonkers The Clown (Result: )

Page

TWG Tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "This page is not simply advertising for a court case, either. Cut it out."
2. 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566253743 by Bonkers The Clown (talk)"
3. 06:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "Provided full company background with sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "←Created page with '==TWG Tea== Anyone is welcome to edit this article, but please remain neutral and please do not remove legitimate and encyclopaedic content, i.e. the lawsuits. I...'"
2. 09:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "/* TWG Tea */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1st revert in face of blatant advertising
2. 2nd revert in face of blatant advertising

Comments:

First and only edits (with exception to one) were to this article. He or she is clearly out to advertise the subject in a non-neutral way and has removed all the DYK-worthy content that I added. By doing so he is affecting my work. He has ignored my warning(s) and continued to revert. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, I only informally warned him, not wanting to slap a boilerplate warning on his face. Perhaps that's what he should get, though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Jonathan.bluestein (Result: No violation)

Page

]

User being reported

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

Hi folks. Sorry for not using the acceptable 'codes of report' - it looks kinda complex and I wasn't sure how to do this right. I did put the "Edit Warring Notice" tag on the reported user's page.

I wish to report user Chesdovi for his continuous pursuit of altering the page ] in favour of his view of the subject matter. He has been deleting contents off that page, by myself and others, every day, for at least several days now. He dismisses any claims on the talk page and would not reach compromise. Whenever an additional reference is added, he dismisses it as well, with claims such as: "advertisement", "state-funded conspircay against Haredi Jews", "illegal under Israeli copyright law", etc. His common method of action is deleting the parts he wishes to delete slowly, bit by bit. He'd wait a few hours to a day after discussion on the talk page, and would then start deleting again. Sometimes he'd appear to have agreed to keep some material, but would delete them two days later. I myself have refrained from deleting any of his materials (!), and have only edited small parts of them - slightly changing phrasing or providing additional content - also mentioning the reasons and discussing matters on the talk page... Which he had refrained from doing. Whenever I have myself undone any of his deletions, I kept his added materials and made sure to mention it. His presence on the page is somewhat vandalistic. I have no means with dealing with his excessive deletions, which are heavily based on his own self-proclaimed agenda ("to act against those harassing and spreading hatred towards Haredim"). Even when he discusses, he later ignores. =\ The talk page and edit notes on the page's history would easily reveal the nature of the problem. I thereby wish to request some form of intervention on the matter. Thank you.

• 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. There appears to be a content dispute on the page though. Consider dispute resolution (WP:DR).Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shovon76 (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:

• Comment: This user has been trolling me because of my opposing !votes against his proposed move requests in multiple articles. If you see, I had re-inserted all the references added by the user. I have only reverted the edits of the User:Nborkakoty, who had either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions. Lastly, those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article. Instead of trying to correct those, the concerned editor Darkness Shines went in to a behavior of ownership and ordering, which may be seen from the edit summaries themselves. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done for resorting to personal attacks, and your restoration of the references only means those references were then being misrepresented, as I had added them to support the content you had reverted in the first place. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What about your edit summaries? And, by the way, as I said, all edits by Nbarkakoty were either redundant or personal opinions. So, the references are good to support the existing content, if you care to see. And, regarding personal attacks, have you not indulged in the same type of behavior against other editors who were opposed to your POV in articles related to Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Godhra train burning? I will leave it up to the admins to decide. Shovon (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The references to not support the existing content at all, this one you readded was to support the fact that the tea was being planted in eastern not upper assam. this reference was to support the content that there are four oil refinarys in Assam, you have used it to support "Assam has few industries of significance." which is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the wiki link that I provided about upper Assam? Regarding the 4 oil refineries, the same can still be found in the current version of the article. As I said, you are picking up personal fights against editors who oppose your POV in some other articles. Shovon (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, please see User:Darkness Shines' reversals in the article & his edit summaries too -

1

2

3 Shovon (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I look at a wiki link? I reverted you because you removed sourced content and then misrepresented the sources, what exactly is wrong with the edit summaries? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would not be saying anything more here and would leave it to the closing admin to decide on the whole issue! Shovon (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I am a new user, I am quite surprised to find that this user Shovon has reverted all my edits to the page Assam. I do stand by whatever edits I made to this page. It is clear that this user Shovon is less informed about the latest developments in the industrial front in Assam. Moreover, using 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' to mean regions/administrative divisions inside Assam sometimes generate undesirable sentiments. So, knowledgeable circles, of late, preferred using 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam' to mean the same, which is more logical and hence scientific and more clearly understood even by a foreigner. As 'Gauhati' was changed to 'Guwahati', 'Madras' was changed to 'Chennai', there is no reason, why 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' cannot be changed to 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam'. According to 2012 data, Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport at Guwahati is the 12th busiest airport of India. Dibrugarh is presently not the 2nd highest revenue yielding district of India. I had updated these and other important and relevant information on the page. Anybody can point out if a single piece of information I had updated on the page was wrong! Unfortunately users/readers of wikipedia will now be deprived of all these updated information on the page. Thanks to Shovon. This user reverted all my edits by making generalized statements '...either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions' and '...those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article.' Such statements are not specific to any information/sentence and hence superficial and do amount to personal attack on me. This may be due to the information I had updated/supplemented in the article goes against Shovon's prejudice. At last I again do stand by whatever edits I made to the page and hope that the administrators would do justice to me by over-ruling the reverts to my edits done by the user Shovon. --Nborkakoty (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that I would not comment here again till it is resolved, but the accusations prompted me to write something. Ghits for upper Assam gives 133,000 results while that for eastern Assam throws up 61,500 results. Btw, all edits by the above user were without any references. Anyone may check the article history to understand the same. At the same time, I do agree that I should have waited for a third party's opinion post User:Darkness Shines' reverts, but probably I was carried away by his acerbic edit summaries. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 has made four reverts in 24.5 hours. Per the standards used here, this is enough to justify a block. He could avoid admin action if he will agree to stay off the article for seven days and limit his edits to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:207.38.225.26 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.38.225.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
IP-user fighting to keep a CV-style (self)promotional article that has been nominated for deletion () for being about a non-notable individual, also removing maintenance templates indicating that the article is suspected of being an autobiography. Thomas.W 09:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tranquil Pepere reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Mathematics in medieval Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tranquil Pepere (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:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

Mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Terminology */ avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough"
2. 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) to 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566359180 by Dr.K. (talk) stop edit warring"
   2. 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "resolved via the talk page"
4. 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566358743 by Dr.K. (talk) reverting your disruption. there´s nothing wrong with this edit"
5. 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "sock investigation went well"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TW★TW)"
2. 00:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"
3. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ comment"
2. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ replied"

Comments:

A few days after his edit-warring block this editor is back at it edit-warring at Mythology and showing no signs of abiding by consensus. Notice his edit summary sock investigation went well. He seems to enjoy all this disruption and shows no signs of stopping: I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. . I thought we had an agreement and withdrew my report yesterday. But he started again today trying to eliminate all occurrences of the word "humankind" from the mythology article. Δρ.Κ.  21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see also recent edit-warring report which resulted in a 24 hour block. Δρ.Κ.  21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• He is also resorting to personal attacks: . Δρ.Κ.  21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ.  22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ.  22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So have you reached an agreement? Is any administrative action needed at this stage? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but Paul August, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ.  23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:64.237.226.40 reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: 31h)

Page

Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "I don't need to prove to you anything. What YOU need to do is play the game, and pay the fuck attention!"
2. 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "You want proof? Play the fucking game, you moron. The whole game revolves around Bowser's action and situation."
3. 21:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Unsoursed? Nintendo and video game critics constantly kept saying he is, you fucking retards!"
4. 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566484021 by ThomasO1989 (talk)"
5. 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Here's a better idea: Fuck you, moron."
7. 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss."
8. 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "YES, it is. And clearly, you're an even bigger waste of air than the pollution, if you can't even tell who's role is who."
9. 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "It is, because they're supporting him. They're just the title characters here."
10. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) to 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "As THE main character, not A main character."
    2. 17:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (HG)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resolution was attempted on article's talk page; Repeated edit warring after warning and personal attacks towards another editor via edit summary. Revision 566482943 perhaps should be suppressed via oversight for language. — MusikAnimal 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Revision 566488111 should also be suppressed for the same reason. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring