Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:25, 17 November 2014

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: )

Page: Care Net (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (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: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

  Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. ). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell  22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.

Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc. She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates. I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits. She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet. She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week. As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past. I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors. Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.

She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her? If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds. With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Stale and warning multiple editors)

Page: Al-Karaji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanwal111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor notified:

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:
Seanwal has been reverted by 3 different editors. His response to being reverted is, "Undid revision. You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines."

On November 5, I posted the following on Favonian's talk page:

"I need some advice as to how to proceed. On the Al-Karaji article, user:Seanwal111111 has been removing Persian from the lead. He has been reverted by user:HistoryofIran and myself. I initiated the discussion on the talk page, in which Seanwal's reasoning is his interpretation of MOS guideline, "Ethnicity... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.".

My response was that if sources state the subject's ethnicity then we are required to mention it. Seanwal responded by stating, "I note that you haven't any concrete historical fact to offer bearing on his ethnicity; rather, you just assert a label.".

I responded by posting numerous sources on Oct 15th. After waiting until Oct 26th and receiving no response from Seanwal, I restored the reference and referenced information.

Nine days later(Nov 5th) and without even making an effort on the talk page, Seanwal came back to remove the reference and referenced information, making the same blanket statement, "I invite Kansas Bear to try to explain why his edit should get an exception from the MOS:BIO guidelines. It appears Seanwal does not have to participate on the talk page(he has not used it since Oct 14th) and continues to use his interpretation of MOS guidelines to edit war."

As of today, November 12th, Seanwal has not posted on the talk page since October 14th, yet has reverted the article 4 times. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply by Seanwal111111. The insertion I am repeatedly deleting is in clear violation of the guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography given at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies. I explained this at Talk:Al-Karaji a month ago. Since then two Persian flagwavers have repeatedly re-inserted Persian ethnicity in the opening paragraph at Al-Karaji. They have been doing this without justifying it on the talk page with respect to the Manual of Style guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography, and, in fact, without even attempting to justify it. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply by Kansas Bear. I would strongly suggest that Seanwal not issue personal attacks such as, "two Persian flagwavers. I am neither a Persian or a flagwaver.

If his opinion of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies is correct then I am sure there are proper venues to support it, however his opinion of a Misplaced Pages policy does not give him license to edit war as he has done. I am curious as to why this policy has not been applied to Frédéric Chopin, Ludwig van Beethoven, Galileo Galilei, Johann Sebastian Bach, just to name a few.

Also there are three editors that he has reverted(Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran, 46.143.214.22). Unless Seanwal is implying sockpuppetry.

Lastly, there has been an explanation on the talk page,

"Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

"Notability is dependent on source(s). Therefore, if a reliable source mentions al-Karaji's ethnicity we are required to mention it." Since Seanwal did not like this response, he quit the talk page(Oct 14th) then returned to edit war(Nov 5th). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Seanwal111111 is plainly correct about Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies. The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear, but it discourages ethnicity unless the ethnicity is notable. The Al-Karaji page does indicate his nationality. I don't know whether Al-Karaji's ethnicity is relevant to his notability (haven't a clue who he is), but if it is relevant the page at the moment does not explain why. I'm not saying anything about whether the edit war was proper, but he's definitely right about the WP. Djcheburashka (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear.."

Not to take this further off topic but;

"Chopin was born in what was then the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Warsaw...", therefore Polish is being used as an ethnicity not nationality.

"Ludwig von Beethoven, Born in Bonn, then the capital of the Electorate of Cologne and part of the Holy Roman Empire.....", therefore German is being used as an ethnicity not a nationality.

"Galileo Galilei, Galileo was born in Pisa (then part of the Duchy of Florence)....", Italian is being used as an ethnicity.

"Johann Sebastian Bach, Bach was born in Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach, into a great musical family." same as Beethoven.

I believe this had made my point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, and this isn't really off-topic- -- you've thoroughly confirmed that you don't understand the policy:

Chopin has an entire section discussing the notability of his Polish nationality.

Bach was born in present-day Germany, and the article extensively discusses his role in the development of the "German style" of music.

As for Galileo and Beethoven, we don't generally distinguish nationalities between different states of the Holy Roman Empire. Instead we generally treat people born in the parts that became Italy as Italian, and the parts that became Germany as German. If they were using ethnicity, the Beethoven lede would list him as a "Belgian" composer.

What's becoming increasingly clear here, is that this was an incident in which three editors who insisted on a completely mistaken understanding of a rather simple rule, ganged-up on a fourth who actually understood it. Looking at the talk, he expressed his view in clear and concise terms. He was met with attacks, anger, nastiness, threats, accusations of bias, and an obvious abject refusal to engage in reasonable discussion.

The simple solution here would have been to take "Persian" out of the lede, and have a separate section of the article discuss the sources and notability (if any) of his Persian heritage. In fact, the poster proposed that, but the three opponents refused to entertain it. Why?

I'm not defending the 3RR -- but the context is one of an outside editor trying to do the correct thing (improperly), first raising the matter in talk in a reasonable way and seeking compromise and discussion, when three other editors abusively and unreasonably refused to include him/her in the discussion and instead insisted on a mistaken position that coincidentally coincides with the known POVs of at least two of them. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stale. There haven't been any edits to the article for a few days. Otherwise, I would have locked the page for the edit war among all the parties, not just the reported user. At the moment, Seanwal's preference is in place, but that's purely happenstance. The MOS guideline is (1) subject to interpretation and (2) is not a policy and is therefore overridable by consensus. I'm not taking sides as to whether Persian should or shouldn't remain in the lead. Nor am I saying there is a consensus at the moment. That said, I'm putting the article on my watchlist, and any editor already involved in the battle on the article, which includes Seanwal111111, 46.143.214.22, HistoryofIran, and Kansas Bear, may be blocked without notice if they revert without a very clear consensus on the dispute. An RfC might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: Sock blocked, opponent warned.)

Page

List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) to 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asianet Film Awards */ unsourced"
   2. 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Asiavison Tv Awards (Dubai) */ unsourced"
   3. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* AsiaVision Amma Malayalam Movie Awards (Dubai) */ unsoruced"
   4. 19:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* CNN-IBN */ unsoruced"
   5. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala State Film Awards */ unsourced"
   6. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian Medical Association */ unsourced"
   7. 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* National Film Awards */ unsourced"
   8. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* South Indian International Movie Awards */ unsourced"
   9. 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Mathrubhumi Film Awards */ unsourced"
   10. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Critics Awards */ unsourced"
   11. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Jaihind TV Film Awards */ unsourced"
   12. 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala Film Audience Council Awards */ unsourced"
   13. 19:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Filmfare Awards South */ unsourced"
   14. 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Amrita TV Film Awards */ rem unsourced"
   15. 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ unsourced / non reliably sourced"
   16. 19:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Other awards and recognitions */ format"
   17. 19:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Vanitha Film Awards */ unsourced"
   18. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Star Screen Awards */ unsourced"
   19. 19:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Titles and Honours */ unsoruced"
   20. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "/* International Indian Film Academy Awards */ unsoruced"
   21. 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "unneeded hatnote"
   22. 19:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "poorly sourced and written"
   23. 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "gramm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Heavy vandalism, damaging wikipedia articles. UniGuard (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note this is not edit warning, bring it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead, these look like legitimate edits Avono (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing this: UniGuard already blocked as a sock. But...eh...may I? TheRedPenOfDoom, you are playing with fire and you need to be much more careful. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Kenfree (Result: No action)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (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:

Also, this issue is under discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, where Marek's disruptive behavior has also been discussed

Comments: Volunteer Marek has shown himself an incorrigible edit warrior, who will not tolerate edits to the lede that fail to maintain the negative tone he desires. Dozens of examples could be adduced, but this is my first formal report. Marek has clearly reverted Sidelight 12's good faith edit three times in less than 24 hours, without reasonable cause. Please review the editorial history of this page and earlier examples of intolerance of editorial revision by those not sharing this user's POV will be evident. --> Kenfree (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here are all edits by Kenfree in article space. During the entire year of 2014, he did only one thing: reverts in the article he now complains about. This is clearly a case of WP:Not here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This report by user:My very best wishes is false on both accounts (see my editing history) and irrelevant on all accounts, as is the fact that user:My very best wishes has not contributed anything constructive in the whole of my experience in this conflict.Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by VM

There is no 3RR violation here. Yes, I reverted Kenfree. That is because this is an issue which has been discussed TO DEATH. On the article talk page , , , , on WP:NPOVN and several other venues which I can't be bothered to look for right now. User:Kenfree, along with a tag-team buddy User:Spotter 1, who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on this very article has been engaged in a long running edit war against multiple users for close to two months. By "multiple users" I mean about half a dozen, including one administrator, User:Ymblanter. And of course, these two are just the latest in a long list of single purpose accounts, most of which have shown up on this article to push POV, get banned, and then come back with new usernames. Needless to say, this is edit warring by Kenfree against consensus, involving repeated attempts to remove well sourced information from the article. This consensus has been strongly established in the above mentioned discussions. Kenfree is simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and reverting away.

In addition to today, Kenfree tried to impose his views on the article via edit warring on November 1st (note that this is him edit warring with OTHER editors, not me), October 27th (again not me), October 25th , , October 21st , , (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported, AFAIK), October 17 , , October 13 , October 9 , , , , (another unreported 3RR violation).

I should also add that constructive discussion with this user is impossible. They have repeatedly claimed that the five sources provided for the text under dispute don't support the text. In response, detailed explanations and direct quotes showing that they DO in fact support the text have been repeatedly provided. This was done on the talk page and at the noticeboard discussion linked above. In response Kenfree ignored these explanations, only to repeat their false claim again in some other venue. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The typical conversation goes something like this:

Kenfree: "The five sources provided don't support the text"

Other user: "Yes they do, please read them, here are the links"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "Yes they do, here's a quote from all five sources which shows that they directly support the text"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "What do you mean they don't? I just gave you exact quotes. Here's some more..."

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "? Can you explain how?"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "I just explained that they do, how, and provided quotes"

Kenfree: "No you didn't"

Etc.

That's basically the level of discussion here. Volunteer Marek  17:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The above referenced discourse is also both falsely reported (note that it is not referenced) and irrelevant to user:Volunteer Marek's violation, which was not, as he reports, initially a revert of me, but of Sidelight 12, whose constructive edit, reflecting the current discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, Marek personally opposes, but is manifestly incapable of rationally critiquing there or elsewhere. So he edit wars. Anyone with questions about my capacity for constructive discussion, as compared to Marek's, is referred to the NPOV noticeboard discussion on this topic, rather than his highly fabricated wall of text. Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"(note that it is not referenced)" - come on, I give twenty two diffs as evidence. You do realize that people can read and see those for themselves, right? They're right above. See what I mean?  Volunteer Marek  18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Marek, it is because I know that people can read for themselves that I am confident that if they go to the Misplaced Pages record, rather than relying on your tendentious paraphrase of that record, they will soon enough discover that it is you, and not me, who continues to defend a list of largely irrelevant citations to a very serious allegation against the RT network, and that at each turn your claims about their relevance have been refuted by me and other editors. They will also discover that it is you, and not I, who have been reverting without explanation. My constructive and well developed contributions to the talk page and the current NPOV noticeboard discussion will certainly speak for themselves, and the glaring ABSENCE of yours will as well. Kenfree (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ymblanter There is a clear consensus at the talk page that the current version is appropriate. Kenfree refuses to accept this consensus and is therefore forum-shopping and edit-warring. I suggest that they get blocked for disruptive editing instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that anyone with administrator status should be required to show at least a semblance of neutrality, but this is never the case with Ymblanter, whose service as a sidekick for Volunteer Marek is unceasing, suggesting that there is either ideological consanguinity or some other kind of reward for his services involved. In any case, his statement above should be compared to the raging dispute among the editors on the NPOV noticeboard, to which Sidelight 12's edit represented a constructive attempt at compromise, making Marek's reversion all the more damaging. But Ymblanter persists in supporting this ideological bully, and not those who are striving for neutrality and balance. His administrative privileges urgently stand in need of review! Kenfree (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Ymblanter, just so we're clear on this, you're not getting any "kind of reward for the services involved"!  Volunteer Marek  20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is the opening statement by Kenfree on Neutral point of view noticeboard. He tells: "The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing: 37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent." There are 7(!) editors who disagree with him. And what Kenfree does? Brings this to various noticeaboards, reverts and endlessly argue. This is WP:DE classic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how whenever these tendentious editors are caught in a contradiction, as was user:Ymblanter here, they just blithely change the subject (to yet more ad hominems, lol). Even if there were any truth to user:My very best wishes' claims in the preceding paragraph (and there is little) what does any of this have to do with whether or not

I was not caught in any contradiction, please stop lying. I seriously suggest that WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Kenfree created enough disruption and they truly deserve some rest.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The continual abuse of the term "disruption" for opinions not shared by this administrator, coupled with his recent threat to block users "guilty" of it, should be enough to bring into question his fitness for the status. The contradiction is very clear above between the evident fact of editorial dispute, documented on both the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, and his ridiculous claim that there is editorial "consensus." He strips the term of its clear meaning, to reserve it for only those on one side of an open question. Kenfree (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There has been no 3RR violation by either User:Volunteer Marek or User:Kenfree. It's possible that there is long-term edit warring but to show that it we need a well-organized complaint, which this is not. People are reverting about the term 'disinformation' but I don't see any RfC or well-organized talk discussion about that word. It implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof. It may be possible to gather together some examples so that the reader will figure it out on their own, if that's really the case. If you want people to be blocked for long-term revert-warring against consensus you should be able to point to conclusive discussions somewhere. I see a talk page thread to remove the NPOV tag; that one seems conclusive. While we wait for this report to be closed, I am alerting User:Kenfree and User:Spotter 1 to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. The vehemence of some of the statements on the talk page is starting to fall under the criteria for WP:ARBEE enforcement, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned in the report, this issue was discussed in the talk pages here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#NPOV_dispute:_Slanting_of_lead_is_out_of_control, and I would now add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Recent_edit. More importantly, as the disruptive editors were not forthcoming in explaining their position in Wikipedian terms, the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, also referenced in the original report,which has a more public character, is vital for understanding the positions (and editorial practices) in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_.28TV_Network.29...neutral_feedback_desperately_needed.21 After reviewing these, it would seem impossible to say that there has not been "well-organized discussion about that word." The principle stated above, " It implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof." should be self-evident, but as this fair amount of proof is nowhere to be found, and as the many appended references do not provide any, the statement does not belong in this artice, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE LEDE. But dozens of attempts to clean it up have been blocked by Marek's reversions, as the history page will demonstrate. I would request that if the edit warring charge does not pass muster, that Marek (et al.)be instructed to accept the deletion of this allegation until such time as sufficient proof is discovered to merit its inclusion. Is that asking too much? Kenfree (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that a separate AE request should be filed about Kenfree, I can certainly do it, however I am not so sure given the outcome of my previous AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As I already explained, and backed up with close to twenty diffs, Kenfree has been reverted on this issue by seven or eight different editors. They're clearly edit warring against consensus. They're also engaged in forum shopping, bringing the same thing to one noticeboard after another in search of a result they want. Volunteer Marek  16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the board where you are supposed to explain the problem in itty-bitty diffs which admins can understand without them needing to read 20,000 words of prior discussion at other noticeboards. Don't worry about needing to file at AE, if you make a case here which is convincing enough, admins will follow up. A long list of he-said she-said diffs doesn't really parse. There is a lack of adequate talk page discussions which have a clear result. Hotly disputed pages need RfCs very badly. Why doesn't somebody propose draft paragraphs for the lead and then have an RfC. If the well-organized debate about the POV tag is any example it may not take long to get a result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

While the evidence of wrongdoing by Kenfree (two personal attacks on Ymblanter and persistent edit warring in EE area) is right here (see above), one probably can not report him to WP:AE, because he received an official warning about this only today... My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another of Ms. Harpy's growing list of fabrications! For the record, I have not been officially warned about any "wrongdoing" as she alleges, and my talk page and its history are evidence enough (please see). Kenfree (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action against User:Volunteer Marek. Whether sanctions are needed against anyone else depends on a better case being made. Those of you who think you are the consensus, prove it by holding well-organized discussions on the article talk that reach definite conclusions about the wording. Those who may fear they are in a minority should work on finding better sources and showing their skill in negotiation. Anyone who seems unable to edit neutrally on this topic should be aware that article bans are possible under WP:ARBEE. I don't recommend any use of WP:AE until more thorough discussions are held. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Overdtop (Result: No violation--at least not by Thomas.W , Overdtop blocked for personal attack)

Page: Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. see comment below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Calling_of_Bosnia_and_Herzgovina.27s_government> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Don't have 4r because User:Timbouctou seems to be a sock-puppet of the reported User:Thomas.W: a behavioral pattern is clear as they pass the Misplaced Pages:DUCK - their accounts were created 8 and 9 years ago, and the sock puppet made sudden, first-ever appearance when making the 3rd revert, conveniently enabling the reported user to avoid the 3RR. Also, the duo repeated the exact same behavior in the article Presidency_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina too, over the same 24h period. So it's hardly a coincidence that only these 2 users are involved in the same game of avoiding the 3RR, in 2 separate articles and in the same 24-hour period, while having a problem with the same edit (stating of regime type for country of Bosnia and Herzegovina as being protectorate, as per 100s of reliable media/scientific/legal sources). Please run a CheckUser if necessary. Reason: these are the most important articles about a country, and the user uses most unbelievable scare tactics like https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Overdtop#Discretionary_sanctions_notice Overdtop (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So apparently User:Overdtop seems to have read a book review (not even a book) in something called Peace Magazine in which a reviewer casually interpreted someone else's article on Bosnian politics as proof of it being a "protectorate", as opposed to a sovereign country. Overdtop then went on to insert this "reference" into a series of articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina, (, , ) basically redefining the concept of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ThomasW reacted and reverted, then engaged in fruitless discussion at Overdtop's talk page, and told him to seek consensus first. The said consensus was never reached - his edits were actually opposed by other editors at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina (, ). He reverted, I reverted, and then he ran over here to file some pointless report, ingeniously suspecting me and ThomasW are one and the same. Oh please oh please oh please do run a CheckUser. Timbouctou (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. The edit warrior is Overdtop; Thomas has reverted only twice. Now, Overdtop has been given the obligatory BALKAN warning and hopefully they'll stop this now, but just in case, I'll remind Overdtop that those discretionary sanctions govern a lot of the articles they've been editing, and that, depending on circumstances, one single revert can be blockable, especially given their apparent penchant for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Overdtop blocked for gross personal and national attack. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Agile Falcon and User:Calssico reported by User:Iselilja (Result:)

• OK, I tried to handle this without the use of blocks, but seems I failed. They have about twenty reverts each on Moroccan genetics. Warnings: 1, 2 and more. Iselilja (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mfield (Oi!) 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected also semi protected as IPs appear to have been involved most recently Mfield (Oi!) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: Indef)

Page

Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 15:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"
2. 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
3. 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
4. 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit with no reason for many many times, warned him would be considered "vandalism" already but no avail. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for long-term edit warring and refusal to communicate. The last block was in September for one week, but User:Ymblanter warned him that the next block (if there was one) might be indef. This block can be lifted if the user will agree to engage on talk pages and work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ComfyKem reported by User:DrogoChubb (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1 diff 2

Comments: He needs to compromise about the section and attempt to work together.--DrogoChubb (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Both ComfyKem and DrogoChubb are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR (three reverts each in a 24-hour window). If either persists in their reverts, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war & abuse at Tomb Raider (Result: Locked and one block)

Users Peacemaker67 & Parsecboy are persistently reverting from the agreed UK spelling to US spelling, also:

• greed spelling is shown here
• user Peacemaker67 is being abusive, see and now

This is an ongoing ENGVAR "issue" that this IP-hopping "coward" is driving, see history of Tomb Raider and other articles. It is a clear block-evasion. User:Parsecboy and I are well aware of the disruption. The IP is block-evading and has no business here. EOS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Peacemaker67. The spelling variant for Tomb Raider has long been agreed and is clearly stated on the Talk page. Also, there is no excuse for abuse such as name calling which includes your repeated use of 'coward' as well as and

Rubbish, this is a clear call-out for your ongoing ENGVAR crusade. The articles should just be semi'd to protect us all from the waste of time you represent. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. There's nothing rubbish about noting you have been abusive, as can be seen from the above links. There's nothing rubbish about noting you are changing from the agreed spelling variant, as can be seen from the above link.

parsecboy is at 4RR, but can anyone else hear a duck?

• Note. The article has been locked and Peacemaker blocked by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And parsecboy?? Peacemaker67 and parsecboy were both firmly in the wrong because, as the talk page states, the WP:ENGVAR is British English. The British English spelling of the word is 'centring'. and not 'centering' as both Peacemaker67 and parsecboy repeatedly edit warred over. The fact that parsecboy is an admin makes it even more serious as admins should abide by the rules that they expect others to follow. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, neither you nor the IP is signing your posts. If you don't start doing so, I'm going to close this discussion. As it is, it's difficult enough to parse.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

'Twas not deliberate, but purely an oversight. I think the sig got lost in the move from WP:ANI DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue was wider than just the Tomb Raider article (which should indeed be in BrEng, I did not notice that it was in fact a British topic - all I saw was the IP changing the variety of spelling on yet another article). See for instance this edit with the summary "non-US subject so incorrect to use US spelling" - a bit of linguistic imperialism that's unfortunately all too common amongst residents of Britain, I'm afraid. There's a reason we have WP:RETAIN. I'll also be blocking the OP for evading the block on the other IPs he's used. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll also point out that I was not notified of this discussion as per the bright red instructions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I'm assuming your justification for edit warring was block evasion. If that's correct, why was Peacemaker blocked? Wouldn't they be able to claim the same justification? (Sorry about the notification. It's the OP's burden to do so, but I usually check and do so if they don't. Here, the report itself was malformed, so I neglected to do that.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - I attempted to discuss with the OP on his original IP but he apparently had no interest in that. As for Peacemaker, I don't know, exactly, but I'd wager the less than civil edit summaries probably factored into it. A week may be a bit excessive, though, but perhaps the blocking admin was just matching the blocks I had applied to the IPs (which, incidentally, started at 31 hours and was only lengthened after he started evading the block). And no worries, it's not your responsibility to notify me (or anyone else involved). Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Centring

User:24.167.37.227 reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633979631 by Avono (talk)"
2. 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633979423 by Avono (talk)"
3. 20:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633978570 by Avono (talk)"
4. 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633631244 by MartinezMD (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
2. 20:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vaquero. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

editwarning IP, makes unconstructive edits that Vaquero are racist Avono (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:76.201.60.184 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semi)

Page: Orion (constellation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.201.60.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - where he reverts this removal by A. Parrot of redundant and poorly sourced material the IP added
3. - where he seems to make some bizarre claim that everyone else constantly reverting him means I'm edit warring and he's not, or something?
4. - where user explicitly refuses to discuss matters
6. - falsely accuses others of vandalism for removing his redundant and poorly sourced addition

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt

Comments:
IP has a history of edit warring for specific fringe views (focused on Orion and Osiris), refusing discussion, and ignoring other users under different addresses that locate to the same area (such as at 66.214.143.68 at Hayk). This address is static, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Indefinite semi. Appears to be the same kind of edits coming from multiple IPs over several years. Looks to be sockpuppetry. See the protection log. According to recent discussion at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt this IP might be WP:Long term abuse/Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gowtham avg reported by User:Davey2010 (Result:Withdrawn)

Page

Chutti TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gowtham avg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633950973 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633909631 by Davey2010 (talk)"
3. 06:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633874387 by Davey2010 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Unlink */ new section"
2. 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Unlink */ And again....."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After coming off an edit warring block myself I've been extremely cautious with this - After the first and second reverts I left 2 messages on the users talkpage explaining my reasons for reverting ,, The only response I got was him telling me to "Mind my own business" So as clearly shown I've got absolutely no where and don't think it's going to improve anytime soon, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well he's stopped after the warning so see no point in leaving this open any longer. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Declined)

Page

Of Pandas and People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mrbates76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
3. 07:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"

• Declined. The account is new and has not breached WP:3RR. Nor is their own version in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheSawTooth reported by User:Widefox (Result: )

Page

Jason Minter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Widefox (talk): Reverts harassment tag. Disputes notability, disputes conflict of interest, disputes harassment. Let debate conclude. (TW)"
2. 09:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverts tag bomb"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jason Minter. (TW)"
2. 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jason Minter. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "delete - non-notable" (AfD not talk since listed there by another editor)
2. 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "comment - massive undisclosed paid editor problem linked to Fiverr"
3. 11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "claims not backed by sources (and disruption addressed at the talk page)"

Comments:

• Also previous edit warring - 3RR limit reached (with different editors not me) at Electronic Recycling Association resulting in current lock

1. 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Disputes no connection. Do not revert everything just discuss case by case and let me make corrections. Also disputes disruption of my attempt to fresh improve."
2. 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Nikthestunned: Disputes removing good faith revision. Discuss on talk and request what you disagree I will correct it. You have also revised my other improvements that you do not dispute. (TW)"
3. 14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632422746 by Nikthestunned (talk) Disputes Three revert rule. It is my third revert as my first edits were new work. I will not revert so just discuss revisions on talkpg!"
4. Locked

Warned:

1. 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Electronic Recycling Association. (TW)"

I'm reporting here to prevent this article being locked like Electronic Recycling Association. A massive sockfarm undisclosed paid editor issue at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez is linked (but denied), (there's more info at ANI and 2x SPIs linked there). Widefox; talk 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment I have done only 2 revert on this topic today. Widefox is harassing me by adding harassment tag everywhere. I even corrected my one edit on his request so I am not in editwar. This report is made as counter report because I have reported widefox for harassing me with evidence. I move that this user should be blocked. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note I was not involved in editing Electronic Recycling Association, and have not seen ANI yet. Widefox; talk 11:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

He is involved because he has added my name to tag in talkpage of ERA and he has added my name to his list on conflict of interest noticeboard without proof. I have replied everywhere to ask him for proof but he does not have proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you either provide a diff that I have edited Electronic Recycling Association or withdraw the claim that I was involved in edit warring that article until it was locked, thank you. Widefox; talk 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your editwar was on talkpage of ERA but I left you alone even then your intention was to harass and tag in this new topic. If I leave it alone this time you will do it on third topic as well. So I have reported you. ERA was locked but you have continued to stalk me. I move that admins look at ERA talk page and see my efforts that how much I am replying and building consensus. I am discussing every single source. Widefox is trying to block me so that I can not edit at all because he does not have proof. So now he is using this method. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So we agree I have not edited Electronic Recycling Association and was not involved in the edit war there. Widefox; talk 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You were at talkpage but I did compromise. Otherwise you were tagging it again. Now you are tagging at Jason Minter and I did compromise again. I have answered your concern on talkpage and made one correction as well. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. SawTooth has not come close to breaching 3RR on the Minter article. The dispute is over templates. SawTooth's edit warring at the ERA article was more troubling given the promotional, undue content they were adding to the article, but that battle is stale. At this point, it seems to me that the allegations are better raised at other boards rather than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aku Indonesia reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Locked and warnings)

Page

Persib Bandung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aku Indonesia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634060227 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* First-team squad */"
   2. 09:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Players */"
   3. 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Intercontinental competitions */ This is Misplaced Pages! Everyone can edit. As long as the correct and sourced. Consensus? That is only talk with few people. not important"
   4. 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Performance in AFC competitions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Persib Bandung */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article has an history of edit-warring and a consensus was reached to remove the informations he keeps on adding. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, MbahGondrong, there's been too many reverts by too many editors since the lock I placed on the article expired. Although I warned editors on the article Talk page that reverts might be met with blocks, that warning was not necessarily seen by everyone. At one point in the last few days, I thought of blocking any editor who reverted on the article but had not participated in any discussion on the Talk page, but even that block might be unfair based on lack of warning. Part of the problem is there are too many editors. Another part of the problem is even those who have taken the time to discuss issues have not necessarily reached consensus, or the consensus has been very limited. With respect to the section added by Aku Indonesia, where is there discussion on the Talk page for that issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The case for the section that was added by Aku Indonesia actually was included in the first discussion here. There was discussed about the informations that should and should not be included in the article as a whole. As for the 'Performance in AFC competitions' section, this was included in the 'Honours' already and a separate section is seen as redundant information. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that month-old discussion very clear with respect to this section, and even some of the edit summaries regarding this section complain about other issues rather than "too much".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose there could be another discussion again to reach a consensus for this section, but still I cannot see that the user involved will participate as he already said that consensus does not mean anything. It will be pointless, unless you have any other way to solve this issue? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for two weeks. Apparently, Walter Gorlitz disagrees with you and reverted. I've therefore locked the article, this time for longer. Hopefully, the discussion on the Talk page will be more robust. Keep in mind that other content dispute resolution mechanisms exist as well.

• Warned. The following editors are warned that any reverts on the article after expiration of the lock may be met with blocks without notice: Aku Indonesia, MbahGondrong, Walter Görlitz, Tommy1933, and Fenix down. These are the editors who have reverted in the article after the first lock expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. What do I disagree about? There was a discussion on the talk page and the material there is what I reverted to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I thought it was pretty clear. You reverted MbahGondrong. That usually means you disagree with the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the edit where he stated that the content was already contained earlier in the article, yes, I disagree since it's not earlier in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Fortrade59 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Monte Boulanger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fortrade59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "←Replaced content with '

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Monte Boulanger. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content, EW */ new section"

Comments:

Note multiple notices on user's talk page. MrBill3 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw this report Apparently the editor is the creator and subject of this and another article on their pen name and wishes the content removed due to privacy concerns. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Of Pandas and People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mrbates76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
3. 07:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
4. 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 00:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"
2. 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Pseudoscientific in Lead Paragraph */ r"

Comments:

Second report, first was declined. Editor is now beyond 3RR. MrBill3 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! They seem to have no intention to stop. A block is due. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. deleted heavily debated consensus material
2. asked to revert self, snarky response
3. 2nd revert after another editor restored said material (note this is a 1RR Community Sanctions article)
4. sanitizing ISIL actions
5. disruptively tagging high traffic article with an essay tag.
6. engaging in disruptive arguments
7. Notified of disruptive editing
8. more strange behavior and false accusations
9. and more strange disruptive posts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk page links above

Comments: This article is under active 1RR Syrian Civil War and ISIL Community Sanctions. These edits seem to constitute edit warring.

Other involved editors: Gregkaye P123ct1 Myopia123 Dwpaul

Legacypac, I'm not sure what you mean by "involved", but please notify the other four editors of this report; you can use the template at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring