Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:14, 24 May 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:LoveWaffle reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Warned)

Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LoveWaffle (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:
LoveWaffle appears to be one of a couple of editors that, for whatever reason, wish to remove any mention of an actor portraying "the Mandarin". Editor has made several reverts, violating 3RR with the last four reverts. - SudoGhost 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have only reverted edits twice:

Furthermore, I am not removing mention of an actor portraying the character in question. It's mentioned elsewhere in the paragraph that the actor in question portrays that character. I am merely removing information redundant to the paragraph. I apologize that this issue had to be taken here.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content aside (which is irrelevant to edit warring), you have made five reverts per the definition of a "revert", four of those reverts being in the past 24 hours. - SudoGhost 03:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If "revert" does not mean "undo an edit", I apologize for my ignorance.

LoveWaffle (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by third-party editor

Sudo is editing aggressively and in an WP:OWNy fashion at Iron Man 3. He has made a false accusation on my own talk page about edit-warring and throws the label about in harassing, bullying fashion. This needs to be taken into consideration.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring, so it's not "third-party" nor is it a "false accusation". Your accusation, however, of harassment and bullying are personal attacks that you've been asked twice now to stop. It's also hypocritical to remove content "during an ongoing discussion" as you put it and act shocked when it's reverted, yet you then go and revert an edit because it was made "during an ongoing discussion" as if that's a good reason to revert. If that's not "WP:OWNy" it's WP:POT, and if my two edits are somehow "WP:OWNy" I'm at a loss as to how you think that yours are not. - SudoGhost 16:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I made one edit at the time you made your accusation. That is not edit-warring, hence your accusation is false. If you believe I am edit-warring, then report me here. Otherwise, we do not make such unsupportable allegations. As for the rest, I think your language and behavior here say more than any words of mine. -Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So you claimed you were not edit warring, argued that you didn't do it, and then continued to edit war after the fact, as if that makes it better to continue to edit war? Ironically, if you think I am "harassing" and "bullying", you are more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI, because it's not relevant to AN3 and isn't the forum for it, since we apparently "do not make such unsupportable allegations" otherwise. - SudoGhost 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort; again, you falsely accuse me and I wouldn't be surprised if you do it with other editors. To make this perfectly clear: I said I'd made one edit when you made your accusation. A second, unrelated edit left alone what someone restored after I removed it in the first edit! For goodness' sakes: If you'd have read and looked more carefully, perhaps you wouldn't have made a second false accusation. I guess I wil take this up at WP:ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion on AN/I. - SudoGhost 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned LoveWaffle about edit warring. I'm not blocking them because I think at this point it would be punitive. They've apologized. They haven't reverted since the apology. They should have taken more time to read the policy after being warned by SudoGhost, but I'm willing to cut them some slack. I've urged them to leave the article alone for a while. Any revert in the near term may result in a block. @SudoGhost and @Tenebrae, stop sniping at each other. You did that enough at ANI. Give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)

Page: Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago Style (without pants) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see details below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2013-05-19T08:22:32 - "Undid revision 555574589 by Lazyfoxx (talk) long and unnecessary quote removed" (which is a repeat of this edit from 2013-05-09T05:24:50 and this edit from 2013-04-29T02:17:08 by the same editor. This is a clear example of an editor edit warring over an extended period to impose their view on an article.
2. 2 consecutive reverts 2013-05-20T00:29:06 - "Undid revision 555806875 by RabeaMalah (talk) Unexplained deletion. Restoring content to English-language conventions." and 2013-05-20T00:59:05- "Undid revision 555762912 by Dlv999 (talk) This is the simplest way to express this information." The second of those edits is a repeat of this edit from 2013-05-09T10:00:06 and this edit from 2013-05-02T10:07:35. Again, edit warring over an extended period to impose their view on an article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warring in the article and discussions on the talk page have been going on for weeks.

Comments:
The article was protected from 2013-05-09T10:47:57 to 2013-05-16T10:47 because of edit warring. The edit warring continued shortly after it was unprotected. It may be better to fully protect the article for an extended period and possibly permanently so that editors have to use the "Edit protected" template. Banning Chicago Style (without pants) from that article would help because they persistently edit war and are the source of much disruption. But they will no doubt be replaced by equally disruptive editors/socks, so full protection might be a better long term approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used the talk page to the best of my ability. I won't say my editing has been flawless, because I am still an inexperienced editor. I will say that I have good-faith and will try to learn from the criticism leveled by this report's author. Perhaps I need a mentor. Would the author accept me as a Protege? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And RabeaMalah has just broken 1RR at the same article too Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps grist for a separate report, but RabeaMalah's unexplained and unsourced series of edits at Arab American, along this line , violate WP:3rr. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The user Chicago Style has made little to no contributions to the Palestinian article since they started edits on it, they make POV pushed edits that attempt to disassociate Palestinians from historic Palestine, as well as making many edits changing the wording to more ambiguous terms and deleting useful and sourced content without justification or even a hint of consensus. This user's edit history is akin to the user IranitGreenberg who was just perma-banned from the Israeli-Palestinian area recently. I agree with Sean Hoyland's solution, "banning Chicago Style (without pants) from that article would help because they persistently edit war and are the source of much disruption. But they will no doubt be replaced by equally disruptive editors/socks, so full protection might be a better long term approach." Lazyfoxx 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I've blocked Chicago Style for one week and formally notified RabeaMalah per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Dervorguilla blocked; MarkBernstein warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:18, 19 May 2013
2. 13:52, 19 May 2013
3. 16:29, 19 May 2013
4. 22:33, 19 May 2013

Related reverts

21:16, 23 April 2013

15:41, 30 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (by May122013 (talk))

22:49, 20 April 2013 (by reporting user)

Comments:

Swartz died on January 6, less than six months ago. I think the article’s covered by BDP policy. Recent history-

1. The user tried to evade a request for disclosure of interests.

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Stale, editors discussing) 01:40, 3 May 2013

“My employer's house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I'd completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.” --MarkBernstein (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013

“The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an 'employee'. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article.” --Collect (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2. At 16:29, 19 May 2013 the user warned other editors at Aaron Swartz that he and David in DC are working as a team and can keep doing reverts indefinitely.

  22:33, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555850908 by Dervorguilla. RV because the rationale in prev comment seems wrong; what do Harvard downloads have to do with anything? Talk, please.)

  21:55, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→JSTOR download: 'JSTOR download' -> 'JSTOR incident' (no evidence supporting any implication that Swartz didn’t make large downloads at Harvard))

  16:29, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555804479 by May122013. We provide references later. There's no doubt. DavidInDC has did yesterday's reverts, so I'll volunteer today.)

  16:01, 19 May 2013 May122013 . . (Please discuss further on talk page. Sources use attributive language but Editors here do not seem to want to do the same and seem to want to make our own determinative statement of fact, which is not Misplaced Pages policy compliant.)

  13:52, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555751485 by Dervorguilla. What is gained by merging sections, other than making the merged section longer and more forbidding? What is the intended improvement?)

  06:26, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (merge 'Federal indictment and prosecution'with 'Arrest and prosecution')

  01:57, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555726011 by Dervorguilla. Let's wait on this, or at the very least take it to talk. See "hacks and hoaxes" for example.)

  01:18, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→In the press: -'Salon covered story of a Brooklyn NY muralist who created a mural of Swartz' (article subject not really notable for being an artists’ subject, but item would fit well in an ‘Iconography’ sec if others found!))

3. A quick review suggests that the user has rejected sysops’ recommendations more often than not.

BLPN:Stephen Heymann 00:27, 18 March 2013

“Silvergate's essay … is simply a conspicuous journalistic account of the affair…. Bbb23's insinuation that it is anything else is unjust.” --User:MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

“It's an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… And in response to your claim at the article talk page that I personally attacked you, what do you think I said that constitutes a personal attack?” --Bbb23 (User talk:Bbb23talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4. The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP.

Arrest and prosecution

JSTOR download

Arrests, charges and indictments

The first subheading should read “JSTOR incident” or “JSTOR incidents”. Swartz wasn’t arrested for a “JSTOR download” — he was arrested for two incidents of breaking and entering.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the 5th or sixth time Dervorguilla has resorted to a noticeboard to achieve what she cannot achieve by consensus in what is, essentially, a content dispute being fought by a tenaciously single-minded editor. I think argumentation here is pointless. I urge admins to review the history of the Aaron Swartz article and talk page and compare the various editors' contributions. The wheel-warring accusation above, as to me, is groundless. It rests on a single, inartfully written edit summary by MarkBernstein. I have more to say about that on the Swatz talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Revert 4, the user reverts an edit had that had brought the heading closer to the less controversial language of 19:18, 16 March 2013 – 16:32, 19 May 2013 (“JSTOR: Arrest and prosecution”), which says nothing about a download — or a breaking-and-entering. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "controversial", in this usage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because I'll be darned if I can find anyone else deeming the things you complain of here (or on the Swartz talk page) as particularly problematic. Occasionally, someone agrees with you. See stopped clocks and their frequency of accuracy, or blind squirrels and the frequency with which they find nuts. But even when some other editor aligns with your thinking, it's never with your vehemence nor are they ever moved to go running from forum to forum crying Controversy!, Controversy! David in DC (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Without regard to whether the edit is necessary, which I find doubtful, I've re-edited the passage about the conditions preceding Swartz's arrest to meet OP's concern expressed in Point 4: "The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP." Please see . David in DC (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a topic ban. Dervorguilla's behaviour at this article, the couple of related articles, and their continual trivia at the ALLCAPS boards is well past WP:TENDENTIOUS. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I couldn't agree more. This one user has tied many editors in knots for months, pursuing WP:POINTy ends known only to that editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Sadly, I reluctantly concur. We want to have as many eyes as possible and should abhor the idea of a topic ban. But given the volume of unnecessary conflict created by a single user on a single point, this may be the best course of action in this case. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week. I've blocked Dervorguilla for extended edit warring with just about everyone. However, I am not closing this report because Mark violated WP:3RR, and I can't just let that go. I've therefore communicated with Mark on his talk page and am awaiting a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Mark has been warned and has agreed (reluctantly would be an understatement) not to edit the Swartz article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I think the 5-day topic ban is unhelpful. MarkBernstein has gotten more this share of harassment due to a sometimes-hostile and often tendentious Dervorguilla. While 3RR does merit a warning, I worry the net result of this that a tendentious user has successfully used edit warring and noticeboard to demoralize a valued contributor. I would really like it if someone could "reach out" to MarkBernstein (talk) to ensure that this doesn't unnecessarily demoralize him. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with HectorMoffet. Bbb23, would you be amenable to reducing the 5-day period to a three-day period? I think Mark was clearly operating in good faith and so this punishment is especially frustrating. I think there may have been some confusion on MarkBernstein's behalf over whether 3RR required the edits to be "warring" or on the same topic. I certainly had a similar bit of confusion, and I've posted a note on his talk page to that effect. I'm not quite sure what to effectively say to Mark on this one. Maybe I'll give him a call tomorrow evening after giving him some time to potentially read the public note I left him on his talk page. jhawkinson (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MDPub13 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: User blocked )

Page: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MDPub13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

...and probably more by now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Also reported at WP:AIV

Comments:
I have reverted over 3RR at this point because his edits are clearly vandalism - completely-unsourced negative attacks inserted by an editor with an obvious axe to grind against the organization. The accusation is wholly unsupported by anything except his alleged documents.

Sample edit summaries:

• "this is true about UMKC. You can verify it by calling UMKC or I can email you the documents"
• "I have signed letter from dr Nasca, ca med board , Georgia med board, where do u want them?"
• "what is not to verify about UMKC, State Med Boards ACGME? ACGME fanboy im here is ignorant to corruption and lies at UMKC PAthology department"
• "Baranoff your a coward, answer the questions, where on this page can I upload"
• "where you live you jerk"
• "Fuck you UMKC you piece of shit I live in a cardboard box because of you. Fuck You the worst medical school in the country and the worst pathology residency in the world!"

This user is also a suspected sock or meatpuppet - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis

User has just admitted to an intent to sockpuppet: "I have access to hundreds of CPUs with unique ip. No need to make me restart go fix ACGME and UMKC lying to ACGME and state boards about probation. Letter from dr Nasca says I was never on probation why then did Dr Moormeier inform Georgia that I was??"

Obvious troll is obvious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked Lectonar (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hortbagy reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Origin of Hungarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hortobagy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Hortobagy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Note: I am an editor uninvolved in this dispute, and have made no contributions to the discussion. I have just observed the edit warring, and feel the need to bring the offending user to the attention of administrators.

• Blocked – for a period of one week. There is also a report at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:210.195.84.194 reported by User:EBusiness (Result: )

Page: GeForce 700 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 210.195.84.194 (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:
I have removed a lot of unsourced and irrelevant information from the article. 210.195.84.194 seemingly did not agree with this decision, but have not in a single word defended reverting to the old article. Protecting the article might be a good idea. EBusiness (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The problem is you've both made three reverts, and if you revert again, you'll breach WP:3RR. I'm uncomfortable semi-protecting the article without something more than a content dispute. I suggest two things. First, tell the IP clearly that you've opened a discussion on the article talk page and they should contribute. Second, and particularly if the first suggestion fails, try one of the dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• The problem is, dispute resolution seems to be geared towards solving outspoken disputes, my one-way conversation doesn't really fall into that category. This whole system is really big and confusing, if you think I posted on the wrong board please point to the exact course of action that I should take. As for semi-protecting that is mostly because articles on unreleased and unannounced hardware tend to get a lot of content on the rumour level, if 210.195.84.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hadn't reverted someone else probably would have, or they would have copied a new pile from their favourite rumour site. But I suppose proper protocol is to wait for a couple of drive-by editors to prove what I'm saying. EBusiness (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this kind of situation is not easy to resolve. Theoretically, a request for comment doesn't require talk page discussion, just an attempt to discuss. However, upon reflection, I don't see why you should have to jump through hoops if another editor refuses to engage. User:EdJohnston has left a warning on the IP's talk page, but it doesn't account for the fact that the present state of the article is the IP's version. I'd wait a bit, and if the IP continues to be unresponsive, I think you can revert the last change without fear of being blocked. I would put something in your edit summary like "see your talk page and the article talk page" so it's clear that you want to talk. I don't think I've ever recommended that someone revert before except in the case of a policy violation; I suppose there's always a first.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend reported by User:DavidinNJ (Result: Both editors warned here)

Page: List of The Big Bang Theory characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AussieLegend (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: Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters talk page

Comments:Aussie Legend reverted my edits to List of The Big Bang Theory characters 15 times in a 24-hour period, in violation of WP:3RR. Any edits that I make, he reverts. I tried to have a discussion with him on the talk page, but he essentially told me that I cannot modify the article because of compromises from the past. That violates WP:DRNC and WP:BOLD, and sounds like ownership of an article.

Two things immediately stand out when examining this situation: a) DavidinNJ has been giving as good as he gets where the edit war is concerned and b) DavidinNJ made no effort to warn AussieLegend prior to opening this discussion. Moreover, the level of edit warring is badly blurred by other, unrelated edits made by both editors. There is an active discussion on the talk page; AussieLegend's last four edits were to the talk page, with no activity on the article itself, so why the headlong rush here? --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I reversed two of Aussie's edits, and that's it. I filed the complaint after AussieLegend began to reverse all my changes in the last 24 hours without reason, and basically told me that I cannot make changes because of past discussions. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert all of your edits, only the bad edits (see below), and in doing so I assumed good faith, even when you did the same on the talk page. Most of the edits that you made, including deletion of the cast table and re-organsisation of the various sections have been retained. I did not tell you that you could not "make changes because of past discussions". I said that the content you were deleting was there for a reason and I explained why it was there on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think DavidinNJ should read WP:3RR, which says that "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Since 7 May 2013 I've edited the page only twice, once here and then here, although DavidinNJ did manage to get one edit in a few seconds before I did in the middle of the second run. He edited List of The Big Bang Theory characters making several questionable, and some quite incorrect edits such as demoting a main cast member to a recurring role despite MOS:TV#Cast information, adding redlinks to personal names despite WP:REDNOT, unexplained deletion of some content and duplication of different content, screwing up heading levels, leaving the article in a mess. Assuming good faith, something he obviously hasn't done, I simply cleaned up the edits. Despite specifically noting that Leslie Winkle should not be demoted, (there's an FAQ about it on the talk page), he again demoted her in his very next edit, I did revert that and then set about cleaning up the article, explaining what I was doing in multiple edit summaries, rather than doing everything in one swoop. While I was ding that, he managed to get in one edit while I was restoring some content that had been deleted inexplicably, after I had just removed a whole load of redlinks, even though I had already explained that the statement he insisted on was untrue. I thought we were still talking on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

None of my edits were "incorrect." We may have a difference of opinion of the formatting of the article, but nothing I added to the article was factually false. Moreover, while I changed the order of characters, I did not delete any characters from the article. In fact, I added several characters which had not been listed. Pretty much, you have decided that if article doesn't use the exact language you want, it's wrong. On the talk page, you made the following comments that implied ownership of the article: They weren't added by me but I, and other editors who have been watching the article for a long time agree they should be there and Everything that has been done in the article until now has been done for a reason. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained above, with diffs, some of the bad edits that you made Here are some specific errors.

• Unexplained removal of content
• Removal of maintenance templates without addressing the identified problems
• Demotion of main cast to recurring, despite what MOS:TV#Cast information says.
• Demotion of "Recurring characters" to be a subheading of "Main characters", addition of factually incorrect and misleading information.
• unexplained duplication of a significant amount of text that I later had to delete.
• This revision, before you started editing shows no redlinks in "Minor characters" but this revision, after you'd finished clearly has a number of redlinks to personal names, contrary to WP:REDNOT.

Fixing the errors was a nightmare. The comments that you've quoted imply WP:CONSENSUS, not ownership. As I've asked you previously, please assume good faith. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

164 - I did remove the second paragraph, but I subsequently replaced it with a new paragraph that I thought was clearer.

165 - I did remove three out of the four maintenance templates, which were outdated, as I explained on your talk page, and as another editor commented on the article talk page about a month ago. Maintenance templates can be removed once an issued is resolved, and there is no evidence that the article suffered from original research or lack of citations. I left the template on for excessive detail.

166 - As I stated on the article talk page, I did demote Leslie Winkle to the recurring character section based on the fact that she was only in 8 of the 135 Big Bang Theory episodes, and her role seemed similiar to that of many of the characters listed in the recurring section. I acknowledge that if the show's producers list her as a 'main character', then we should also.

167 - As I explained on the article talk page, your categories of characters are somewhat contradictory. You define 'recurring character' as "these characters appear in several episodes." My proposed definition that you undid is that "these characters have a significant role in multiple episodes." Based on your definition, a character who has a bit role in a few episodes should be considered a recurring character. On the talk page, I gave you five examples of characters who have repeated minor appearances, and yet you class them as 'minor characters' instead of 'recurring characters.'

168 - The duplicative information that you cite was on the talk page, not in the article.

I'm not sure if there was ever a real consensus for the current article format, but regardless of that, a consensus can change, and per WP:DRNC and WP:BOLD, you cannot use a consensus to block future changes. Normally, issues like the ones we cite above are edit disputes, but I filed a complaint here because you reversed almost all my edits, including very minor and uncontroversial ones. Furthermore, your comments on the talk page indicate that you believe that article shouldn't be modified: They weren't added by me but I, and other editors who have been watching the article for a long time agree they should be there and Everything that has been done in the article until now has been done for a reason. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph that you thought was clearer only addresses one character and ignores the rest. It completely removes Leslie Winkle. You explained removal of the templates after I had restored them, I didn't define recurring characters, the article does. The content you added here is actually incorrect as these minor recurring characters did not have significant roles, and so on.......However, this is not the place for this discussion, the appropriate place is the article's talk page and I thought we were discussing it. However, it's hard to discuss when your kneejerk reaction to somebody correcting a multitude of errors that you had made in the article is to complain about them. You didn't even try to discuss the corrections that I made, instead you came here while I was posting on the talk page. And, as I've explained, I didn't revert you 15 times, and most of the edits that you made are still in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Both of you are edit warring. Neither of you has yet breached WP:3RR (you have 3 reverts each). David, you need to (1) learn what a revert is with respect to edit warring policy and (2) present a report here with links, not just text. The two of you have a discussion going on the article talk page. You've continued that discussion here (where it doesn't belong). I strongly urge both of you to resume the discussion and NOT to edit the article until you've reached a consensus. If you can't, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available to you to resolve the content dispute. If either of you continues the battle at the article itself, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the text now and converted them to links. Just a little side note. Epicgenius 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:71.176.201.28 reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No action)

Page: List of people from Overland Park, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.176.201.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (other IP addresses involved as well)

Previous version reverted to: last revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - April 18
2. - May 8
3. - May 9
4. - May 16

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - May 22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of people from Overland Park, Kansas has gone ignored.

Comments:
I have recently picked up on this issue. As I've investigated, it seems that this has gone back quite a ways with more than just three reverts going on, many by me without actually picking up that it was the same revert. While they are not in a 24-hour period (appear to be spread out over time), they are the exact same revert. It appears to be unproductive edits that are unsourced and borderline something more. Would appreciate an uninvolved third party to review and make recommendations from this point forward. Because my involvement has gone on longer than it probably should have, I'm going to step back and let someone else take over for guidance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. The edits are from different IP addresses, and there doesn't even seem to be an obvious relationship between them. Thus, I think of this as a page protection issue, and if it were at WP:RFPP, I would decline it as insufficient recent activity. Therefore, I'm taking no action. If it gets worse, you can always go to RFPP directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for checking!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sageo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Warned)

Page: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sageo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: RE: Immigration, RE: Austrian School Economist, etc. RE: Academic Freedom/Views on Homosexuality section title

Diffs of the user's reverts: RE:Immigration

RE:Austrian School Economist, etc. (unsourced content in lede)

RE: Section title "Academic Freedom" vs. "Views on Homosexuality"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Sageo has steadfastly continued to assert that his versions of text are correct and has reinserted them repeatedly, ignoring specific responses and discussions from other editors as to what sources would be needed or other policies would need to be met in order to support his reinsertions. There is ongoing discussion on talk during which Sageo continues to edit war. User:Sageo has been warned several times. User:Sageo states that he is an experienced editor on Spanish WP, even though his experience on the English site is less extensive.

SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I second everything SPECIFICO is saying. In addition to edit warring, Sageo does not even attempt to provide any specific justification for sweeping wholesale deletions of well-sourced material, apart from vague claims that content is "malicious" and incorrect claims that edits violate "consensus." His or her editorial history should be looked into and promptly addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that Sageo has a 27k edit history on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Some of his/her English comments have been awkwardly expressed, so the use of single terms, such as "malicious", should not be read out of context or held up as evidence in this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will remark on the section heading question, as I am involved with it. The first fairly recent section heading change was here by user FurrySings (no edit summary was provided). I reverted here with a somewhat inaccurate edit summary about discussion, but asked for justification on talk page. SPECIFICO re-reverted here: . Saego then re-re-reverted here: . (I then initiated a talk page section .) The present section heading is the one before this series of reverts, and a discussion is underway. WRT BRD, Furry did the Bold, I Reverted and asked for Discussion, SPECIFICO did another Reversion, but did not initiate Discussion. Saego Reverted, but did not initiate discussion. All in all, I'd say, this portion of the ANI is a mole-hill. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think this is the place to litigate a small matter, which is raised here only in the context of listing Sageo's reverts. Nonetheless, Srich, let the record show that the Bold was in place, Furry did the revert, you began the edit war with a false summary as your "justification" and I called you out on it. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was under no obligation to "initiate Discussion" it was late where I live. I responded to your comment upon seeing it the next day. I am not understanding why you are speaking to issues which do not appear related to Sageo's edit history. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that Sageo's edits on 108/109 have been part of an annoying edit-warring pattern over the last few days on that issue where neither Sageo or Specifico bother to find correct references. . (Mea culpa myself on not doing that, in part because of confusion on the nature of one reference.)

However, the other edits are at worst Sageo's over-reaction to real WP:BLP problems with one editor using loaded phrases and section titles, excessive commentary, and cherry picked or even misrepresented quotes to smear the subject of the article. There has been a lot of discussion of these BLP violations at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe. (At one point I put a warning notice on the editor's talk page regarding libel, which was discussed on the article talk page and at WP:ANI here.) So I do not think User:Sageo other edits should be considered edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's claims about libel are false. Anyone interested as to why can see her talk page. Now, let us try to return to the issue at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue is: is good faith deletion of material problematic under WP:BLP a violation of 3rr?? Sageo was rather aggressive in doing so after reading my critique of the problematic edits at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Use_of_primary_sources_in_Immigration_section (and he admitted he too was engaging in WP:OR regarding primary sources and removed his own as well as yours). The context is the past negative material that had been put in (which was not allowed to remain), as I linked to above. But that discussion is finished. We are now discussing problems with new material and the right to remove them under WP:BLP guidelines. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On another article, i.e. Cody Wilson, after his earlier "reducing content" edit was reverted with valid reasons for the revert , Sageo again removed large portions of the article claiming material was merely a copy of another article (inacccurately, imo). This is or was while engaged in discussion concerning merging Cody Wilson with Defense Distributed. Apparently this may have been trying to prove the article being "blanked" (i.e. Cody Wilson) had insufficient notability and thus should be merged (with "Defense Distributed")...?

Sageo's second "blanking" was reverted by another editor , followed by an explanation (or "answer") posted on the editor's talk page . In part, Sageo claimed "repetition of info from another article (to one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself" which is inaccurate as several edits had FIRST been made to Cody Wilson and then later added to Defense Distributed, thus were not copied from Defense Distributed to Cody Wilson as incorrectly seemingly believed by Sageo -- example/s here (several others are available), note three edits on Cody Wilson followed later by edits on Defense Distributed to add the same or very similar content to both articles, intially Cody Wilson and later to Defense Distributed: . I was going to state, Sageo had only made two reverts (i.e. "blanking"), but it seems he has now made a third while this is being posted, . :-( 98.70.82.5 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Sageo is warned that if he continues to revert at either Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Cody Wilson without first getting a talk page consensus he may be blocked. It is more than 18 hours since his last revert at the Hoppe article, and he did not break 3RR at Cody Wilson. He has 27,000 edits on the Spanish Misplaced Pages and has never been blocked there. Language ability is a factor in whether you can negotiate well here, but it would be smart for him to dial down the reverting until he gets more experience on the English wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I denunce User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap for Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. They have used this warning to make changes in the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe without consensus. The deny all the discussion in the talk page, that is openly a malicius practice. Both are violating WP:BLP systematicly and they rejects basic notions of use of primary sources. In any other article that practices have been sanctioned. I claim for a revert to previus version of the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and that the parts discusse their proposed changes first. Also, if the are part of war edition the should warned too and stop editing without discuse the changes, and in this case they haver reverted content again and again, in particular SPECIFICO. In the case of Steeletrap he is using systematicly talk page as a anti-Hoppe phamflet. They need a kind of advice form Wikiedpa Community. --Sageo (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Malizengin reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours)

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

• Please note this is a special edit-warring 1RR violation on Armenian Genocide for which this user was warned earlier today but he continues. He is also edit-warring across other Armenian Genocide related articles.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 20:36, 22 May 2013 Malizengin
2. Latest revision as of 02:58, 23 May 2013 Malizengin

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning under WP:ARBAA2:

Comments:
Editor is edit-warring across many hot-button Armenian-genocide related articles adding POV edits. Δρ.Κ.  03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours as a first offence per report. As the user did not previously have a warning expressly naming the terms of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA, I have not placed this block under AE rules, but have issued a direct warning which guarantees that any future blocks may be so placed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Heimstern. I agree. Unfortunately I know of no template which can be used as a warning under ARBAA2 by regular editors. The one you issued can only be used by admins. Δρ.Κ.  04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. K: As I recall, this was actually a controversy at AC a bit ago, who can warn and how it should be done. I don't know if anything ever came of it. I'm'a ask AGK; he'd know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Heimstern for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of that. I also saw NW's reply to your question at AGK's talkpage. I'll watch for further developments. Thanks again. Take care. I also took the liberty to fix the link to my username. Hope you don't mind. :) Δρ.Κ.  13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected)

Page: Applied psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (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: User talk:Mrm7171

Comments:

No response on talk pages. Shouting in edit summaries is only form of communication. - DVdm (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the user's persistent failure to respond to multiple requests for a discussion, I am coming to believe that a block will be necessary to get the user to engage in a way that doesn't involve blanking and edit-warring with ALL CAPS edit summaries. At minimum, a block would prevent the user from continuing the edit war across multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. There is edit warring from both sides here, which makes it difficult for me. I want to avoid blocking so I've fully protected the page for 2 days; if the edit warring continues once protection has expired, users may be blocked. ItsZippy 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AdamLukeDocker reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Page protected and final warning)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

And since this was filed:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A new user adding unreferenced material to a WP:BLP, repeatedly inserting it even after advised of our policies. They need to stop and take time to learn the relevant policies, etc. but so far have not. Currently the article has a large body of glowing, WP:SPAMmy unreferenced BLP material. Heiro 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to avoid blocking a new user so have locked the redirect for 3 days and will leave a final warning. Spartaz 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's good for me, mebbe they will read some of the policy pages several users have left for them now. Thanks. Heiro 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BeingFaridKhan. Captain Conundrum (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And, blocked as a sock per the above. Guess we are done here. Heiro 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring