Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:00, 8 June 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:Tieff reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Warned)

Pages: Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suicide of Audrie Pott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tieff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at Misplaced Pages:ELPEREN. Noticeboard thread: Misplaced Pages:RSN#findagrave.com_redux.

Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (6 in <48 hrs.:

Talk page discussion is here: Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#Date_of_birth_revisited.2C_and_sourcing

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Audrie Pott (4 in <48 hrs.):

User warned about edit warring:

Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of WP:SUICIDES, and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#date_of_birth, as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of WP:RANDY, so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Further comment by filing editor. Although the user appears to have made no edits since this report was filed, I believe that allowing it to go stale would be a mistake. Since the user has shown no sign of willingness to acknowledge being warned (even to refute the warning), let alone discuss the matter, it isn't improbable that they will resume edit warring and this will wind up at ANI. This is is really a rather clear-cut case of edit warring; on the first article listed above, 3RR was even exceeded. And it's not a run-of-the-mill content dispute at all; rather, it's at least three established editors trying their best to enforce a core policy in the face of a new editor who is completely disregarding policy. If something about the format of this report is causing difficulty or delay, I'd appreciate knowing so that I can fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Warned. I've left a formal warning on Tieff's talk page that if they revert again on either article, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PhunderMerwe reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: edit warring has ceased)

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

This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.

Note first that this is HTML element, not HTML. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

Specific problems:

• Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
• Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
• (Most importantly) "element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online." is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully separate content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
• %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now they're still "improving" the article by changing titles and direct quotes from sources, including technical non-prose changes like renaming the %inline; entity from the HTML DTD to %in-line;. This is simply incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result The edit warring has now ceased, and the other issues are a content dispute. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting participation at relevant Wikiprojects as unfortunately this isn't an effective forum for resolving content issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:LoveWaffle (Result: page protected for 36 hours)

Page: Captain America: The Winter Soldier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (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's Talk Page)

Comments:
User Rusted AutoParts has consistently reverted the order of the film's cast to one not represented on the film's press release without reason. The User has ignored any attempts to discuss this matter, so I am forced to bring it here.
LoveWaffle (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Plain and simple: I disagreed with placing the two most likely men to be credited towards the end of the cast above the primary players in the film (Evans, Johansson, Mackie, Stan). The first three reverts were 5 days ago, well out of the 3RR range. Assuming this is a legit report out of offence or the user wishes to be correct in the matter, the reverting has ceased and no furthur action will be taken in regards to LoveWaffle's pickiness of the location of the named actors. RAP (talk) 5:46 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. You both seem to have conduced a similar amount edit warring over what is, to be frank, a pretty minor issue with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page, which is where dispute resolution is generally best handled. I've fully protected the article for 36 hours to allow for this dispute resolution to take place. RAP, please note that there's no 'entitlement' to three reverts in a day, and edit warring which lasts across several days is strongly discouraged. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: No action)

Page

March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Five in the last 24 hours:

• ;
• ;
• ;
• ;

Plenty more before that.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

; Petrarchan47 has since removed that section from their talkpage.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Various talkpage threads have been started by other editors (including me) but the reverts keep on coming. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops - I missed a point. DGG also started a talkpage thread (after having been invited by Petrarchan47) but, alas, after DGG's comment it went the same way as the other threads. Not that I'm implicating DGG of course just that various different editors have started talkpage threads. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

For anyone unfamiliar with this (new) topic, please look at the references section at March Against Monsanto. This article was being considered for deletion when I discovered it, and began doing research and filling up the article with references. When you glance at the refs, you'll see "2 million" or "millions marched". Now you can see bobrayner quoting from a local newspaper (printed online while the protest was still ongoing) that the numbers "ranged from 200,000" to 2 million, and making a crack about RT, even though it is recognized as RS (CNN was also a source for the 2 million number and no major media has mentioned a "range from 200,000"). This change to the number happened at Genetically modified food controversies as well as Monsanto today.

The main issue at hand, besides having my words misrepresented as a promise to edit war, is that I am not being allowed to tell what one of the protesters' main points is. It gets reverted every time. I think it is an incredibly NPOV handling of the issue and is sourced to the Guardian: "in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This is all I have said about the GMO issue, besides adding some quotations from their protest signs. But this is an article about the protest, and what caused them to go out and marched HAS to be mentioned (this is not a promise to edit war, it's a simple fact).

If any administrators are listening, Please, can we get a babysitter at that article just while it's written? I don't know the right way to tell this story, but I do know that the fact that people are wary of GMOs, ie, the reason the protest exists, has to be mentioned. Why is it so hard to tell this simple story?

Yes, I erased the messages from my talk page because frankly, it seems like harassment. I've been around, and I have never had as many comments on my talk page about what I'm doing wrong (in fact, none that I can think of) as in this past week working on this one article. I think the article needs supervision. I don't know what else to say. I've put in a lot of time and effort to get a neutral article that is factual. What I see is a well established group that works on GMO articles who don't seem to see that March Against Monsanto is not one. I have gone to two administrators to ask about this problem, and was pretty much told there is not much that can be done. petrarchan47tc 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I don't have time to review this in-depth, but the five diffs listed are not all reverts. Two are out of order, but, more important, two pairs are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert each.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. Mea culpa; I lost track whilst up to my neck in tabbed browsing. Aggregating series of reverts, there's only 3 net reverts in the last 24h.
• It doesn't help that every single attempt to deal with the problem, including this report at AN3, gets bogged down in arguments about how other editors are biased and about how the article must reflect the TRUTH &c; but that's not editwarring per se. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• A promise from one or more of the parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further changes would be welcome. I did not detect much hint of compromise in Petrarchan47's statement above. His suggestion that the messages left on his talk are harassment looks to be incorrect. The most obvious reason for the complaints on his talk page is that some other people disagree with his changes. If he is interested in consensus, he could try negotiating with them instead of deleting their comments. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem agreeing to wait for consensus on future contentious edits. I have been choosing to work with editors on the talk page of the article, rather than mine. I am not making a formal complaint, but it is true that after a few of those comments on my talk page, it did feel like harassment to me and actually ruined my weekend to be very honest. I am not at all happy that I stumbled upon a GMO-related article. This is a most unpleasant task. I do hope someone will help. petrarchan47tc

What Petrarchan is alluding to here is that he thinks there is a large conspiracy to insert "Pro-GM" material on wikipedia: . Him, Gandydancer and Groupuscule appear to think they are fighting the good fight against US Corporations (they have been battling at the BP article for some time), e.g and have been relying on a mixture of favourable opinion pieces to insert highly polemic statements into the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what Petra is alluding to is that this RfC has no basis. No edit warring occurred. BUT, now that Petra is "in the pillary" he (?) is fair game for other questionable attacks. Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not an RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article, but I noticed this discussion on Petrarchan's talk page. This appears to be a content dispute, since it appears to be agreed that no 3RR violation took place. Why not close this out and end the drama? Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that Coretheapple and Buster are two editors piling in from User_talk:Petrarchan47#Editor_of_the_Week. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull. Thankfully, with the result of 'No action', we can all move on. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards. The March Against Monsanto article seems to have been recently improved since the person who opened the AfD was convinced to withdraw the nomination. A number of people seem to believe that the anti-GMO people are using Misplaced Pages for publicity, but that question can't be settled here. Petrarchan47 and his opponents disagree as to the extent that the article should uncritically quote whatever the protesters are saying about the bad effects of GMO. This is a matter for consensus and it is not up to admins to ensure that 'the story is told.' Reflecting what major news sources have said about the protest would be more defensible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked)

Page: Invasion of Normandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other related edit warring over the last few days
User being reported: Syngmung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts in the Invasion of Normandy article (all 5 June)

Diffs of the user's similar reverts in other Battle of Normandy related articles:

• (4 June)
• (2 June)

Previous related edit warring in the Rape during the liberation of France article

• (1 June)
• (1 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion of the problems with the content which is being edit warred all over the place at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France and Talk:Normandy landings#Rape allegations - inadequate sources. Syngmung has not been attempting to discuss why he wants to add this contested material into the other articles, and simply edit wars. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a report of sustained edit warring to push a point of view rather than a 3RR violation. Syngmung (talk · contribs) has created the Rape during the liberation of France article, and is trying to edit war material from it into other articles, despite serious concerns raised by myself and others about the neutrality of this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I know Nick-D well, we have had conflict concerning Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. We should try to unthread emotional entanglements.--Syngmung (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

? I haven't had any involvement in your edit warring in these articles other than in regards to the Rape during the liberation of France article. This is a report of your sustained edit warring, and not a discussion of content. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: See . Nick-D lose his calm mind. He refuse conversation.--Syngmung (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing a new thread you started on my talk page after this report was lodged in which you accused me of "hidding outcasters acts" is not relevant to this report, except to illustrate your POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I have been involved in trying to bring some sense to this article. Normandy landings refers to the initial day of invasion and not the Normandy Campaign. My reverts have been again changed without any adequate and understandable reason. I would add that there is only one source, and newspaper review of same, for any rape allegations, which have not been mentioned by any other reliable sources. I also have to say that this person seems to be pushing POV and also seems by their history, to have a unhealthy interest in rape. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I came across Syngmung's somewhat obvious WP:AXE edits to Invasion of Normandy and reverted him. Another user apparently thought based on a technical error in my revert that I was a vandal, so I figured creating an account might prevent this from happening again. This user is clearly attempting to promote a POV that American troops in South Korea are rampantly engaging in rape of local women, and so has been WP:SYNTHesizing sources to create links between this and other topics such as the Normandy landings and the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the source Military Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia by Katharine Moon.--Syngmung (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I already read it. You misrepresented it and I removed your misrepresentation here. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The comment above by Synmung illustrates their bias and POV. There is only one source quoted! It really is time to stop this POV pushing and obsession with rape. David J Johnson (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mean as custard reported by User:Bhtpbank (Result: Declined)

Page: Ansaldo STS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mean as custard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user appears to have a long history of trying to remove "promotional" content from articles without discussion. When I tried to resolve on his talk page I got this response:

For information, this was my latest response to this editor's complaint on my talk page:

"My reversion applied solely to a large edit made by a user (who has made no other edits to Misplaced Pages) on 30.5.13. It was clearly intended to be promotional and it was impossible to separate out the flagrant advertising from the potentially useful (but uncited) material. Misplaced Pages:Don't shoot yourself in the foot has been known to apply to editors who threaten to have me blocked. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"

Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Having read WP:PROMOTION I can see the intent of his actions, but deleting large sections of text, in my view, comes after (1) Tagging the article as such (2) Requesting on the talk page that the article be re-worded to reflect WP:NPOV (3) As a last resort, wholesale deletion of large sections of text. It is one thing to be WP:BOLD, but another to not attempt to get the article toned down beforehand. This user appears to be very deliberate in his actions, to the extent of removing "self promotional" material from user pages, as evidenced by this diff . I can understand the basic reason for taking out advertising from articles, but from the page of a user?? Bhtpbank (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if my edits to Ansaldo STS are the only subject of the complaint, as it appears my entire editing history is now under scrutiny. I am beginning to feel as though Bhtpbank is stalking me. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Mean as custard has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adelmira reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked)

Page: Swahili language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adelmira (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:

Editor isn't responding to warnings/requests for refs. Similar edit warring at Swahili people. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Qara xan reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: )

Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qara xan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079451
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079773
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558118054
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558282348
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558428541

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Qara_xan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azerbaijani_people

Comments:
The person refused to use the talk page to cease our edit war and he does not go against my arguments on the history page either.

History page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&action=history

Verdia25 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I again repeat that the reliable source, Encyclopædia Britannica writes Turkic people. Please read Misplaced Pages:IRS. Your propaganda edits in the article ( 7 times ) was undoned by two users: Samaksasanian and Qara xan. You are not right. Qara Khan 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Encyclopædia Britannica say : Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. but User:Verdia25 Does not accept Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people.--'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

with 'Turkic-speaking people' you know for certain that the ethnic group speaks a Turkic language which is the case. With 'Turkic people' it suggests that their origin is Turkic which isn't believed to be, explained in paragraph 'origins'. There was nothing wrong with the original 'Turkic-speaking people' so why change it? To propagate that their origin may be Turkic which again isn't the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdia25 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:117.200.157.144 reported by User:Uncletomwood (Result: Protected)

Page

Indian Ordnance Factories Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!

I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.157.144 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:109.145.244.1 reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Minorities in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T12:04:07Z "Undid revision 558590936 by Mrt3366 (talk) vandalism by Mrt"
2. 2013-06-06T10:05:27Z "article is basically a pov hell hole reads more like a transcript from a indian movie"
3. 2013-06-06T09:41:19Z "Undid revision 558313895 by Mrt3366 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-06T11:57:53Z "Reverted 1 edit by Faizan (talk): It's not your talk don't revert my posts here. It was not tagging the page, but undiscussed, unexplained removal of well-sourced content."
2. 2013-06-06T11:36:17Z "Final warning: Vandalism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Uncivility? thats rich coming from a guy who refers to some editors as "typical pakis" your hypocrisy in mind boggling your article is just a platform for you to express you anti-Pakistani pov which comes naturally to indian editors (not all but most) how about we create a few articles on indian minorities I can assure you that Mrt will send messages to canvass every indian editor to get the article AFD he is a hypocrite and a pov pusher 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

That IP wanted to unilaterally blank a section of relevant, sourced info (without any discussion whatsoever) and edit-warred about it too. When I told him "Tags should be added as a last resort." he behaved utterly uncivilly with me on my talk based on personal attack and allegations. He was given a final warning by me but he reverted it and continued disruption ← do something about it. It's classic example of tag bombing. Take appropriate action please.
he was also edit warring on 2002 Gujarat Violence. Admin Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington commented, "This is likely a sockpuppet account."
I don't know who the puppeteer might be. Mr T 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by Faizan: MrT needs to differentiate between Vandalism, and "removal of text" or "adding tags". He issued warnings on the talk page of the IP and named them as "unconstructive". That is not appropraite. Secondly four absoulte reverts are necessary for 4RR,resulting in "no violation". Faizan 13:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. The probable sock master is User:Nangparbat. @MrT, you should have looked at the IP's block log and the IP's user page; that would have pointed you in the right direction.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sir. Yes, I ought to have checked the user's block log. Mr T 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhanozkilic reported by User:Randykitty (Result: Blocked)

Page

Near East University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T13:27:10Z ""
2. 2013-06-06T13:08:23Z ""
3. 2013-06-06T09:45:08Z ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-06T13:13:34Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. talk page note

Comments:

Note: Twinkle did not give me the option to add three correct examples, so I selected as third one a partial edit, a complete revert is here.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:OrangesRyellow reported by Manofwar0 (Result: Manofwar0 Blocked)

Page

Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

reverted 5 times today in total Manofwar0 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone Manofwar0 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Prodego.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Archcaster reported by User:GSK (Result: 48 hours each for Archcaster and Beerest355)

Page

Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T15:52:39Z ""
2. 2013-06-06T14:32:44Z ""
3. 2013-06-05T18:53:26Z "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Misplaced Pages is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-05T21:08:22Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"
2. 2013-06-05T17:25:02Z "/* User page */"
3. 2013-06-05T17:24:50Z ""
4. 2013-06-05T17:05:15Z "/* User page */"
5. 2013-06-05T17:05:05Z ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the User:Beerest355 is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the User:GSK was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --Archcaster (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• This doesn't concern you User:Bbb23 and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --Archcaster (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Beerest355 reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked - see above)

Page

Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Beerest355 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T18:32:45Z "adding this back"
2. 2013-06-05T19:21:31Z ""
3. 2013-06-05T18:57:10Z "Undid revision 558486184 by Archcaster (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-05T21:08:04Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• I'm not sure if this has much to do with anything, but I'd like to point out that the first edit noted here is not a revert. Beerest355 Talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• It isn't a revert. I added the link back after citing it at the WP:ANI, and User:Archcaster, the user I was in a conflict with, seems to be OK with it. There are some disputes about the reliability of the source in question, so I'm intending to open a reliability discussion. Beerest355 Talk 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Holothurion reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)

Page: List of Rainbow Codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Holothurion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII X-Gerät radarradio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this radarradio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to RV Jones' book and TV series The Secret War, where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but for WWII German radarelectronic warfare the name was clearly Wotan.

In the article List of Rainbow Codes, itself about military codenames, the piped link "the one-eyed ]" was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link ], not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but

• This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
• Wotan is correct in this context, Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
• 4RR is 4RR

The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), "Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the Wōden article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in List of Rainbow Codes remains completely intact.

Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the three-revert rule, and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the List of Rainbow Codes article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — Holothurion (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why (per WP:NOTBROKEN) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?

If it is not "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Message answered on my talk page. - Holothurion (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't Reisio (talk · contribs)) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:46.239.60.21 reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Blocked)

Page: Yazdânism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.239.60.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

UPDATE: 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as User:46.239.14.76 yesterday, User:109.165.188.100 the day before... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started disscusion of Template talk:Yazdânism and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of User:Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ystino19827 and User:0987nervewracker reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: London School of Business and Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Ystino19827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 0987nervewracker (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:

The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as an IP involved in the reversions. Several users, including Special:Contributions/80.42.234.237 Special:Contributions/80.42.230.238 and Special:Contributions/139.222.18.162 have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. Epicgenius 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned)

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that here. He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.

• His 1st edit to the article: 01:24, 6 June, added two terms to See also

• 1st revert: 01:34, 6 June, restored one of the terms (partial revert)

• 2nd edit: 03:22, 6 June, added a hatnote linking to three terms

• 2nd revert: 03:45, 6 June, restored hatnote (wholesale revert)

• 3rd edit: 04:44, 6 June, added alternative terms to infobox

• 3rd revert: 21:11, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 4th revert: 22:03, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 5th revert: 22:39, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

SlimVirgin 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: "3 reverts is not 4".

The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to female genital mutilation after I opened an RfC to change the title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at 19:18, 5 June, he appeared at 20:21, 5 June on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples: It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. SlimVirgin 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for Clitoridectomy and Clitoridotomy, while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are not equivalent terms for FGM. This is the problem with editing the article to make a point, and not being familiar what is a complex and sensitive issue. SlimVirgin 00:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum to discuss the substantive issues, but the notion that you know and I don't, as well as the assertion that I'm trying to make a point (what point might that be?) is a bit misguided here. I'm emphatically *not* trying to make a point, by any edits, full stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin / Boomerang

Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.

• Revision as of 21:30, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 21:47, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 23:43, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 17:02, 7 June 2013

So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Obiwankenobi has agreed not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

] reported by User:Ian E. Fusco (Result: )

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:

User:AfricaTanz reported by User:Taroaldo (Result: )

Page

Michael Omolewa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AfricaTanz (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 Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM to Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM "Undid revision 558849262 by Lord777 (talk) Until this article is fixed, the tags must remain per Misplaced Pages policy. Removing them is disruptive and can easily get you indefinitely blocked."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:57 PM "restore some well sourced information that impacts the article's notability"
3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM "adding resume tag"
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM "Undid revision 558857432 by Taroaldo (talk) the clean-up is not complete, so tag should remain"
4. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 7 2013 11:34 PM "Second Warning Re: Uncivil Behaviour"
2. Jun 7 2013 10:01 PM "Warning: civility"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 7 2013 10:48 PM "/* Puff */ c."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:10 PM "That's a lot of puff!"

Comments:

Through 'recent changes' I noticed an uncivil edit summary given by AfricaTanz to Lord777 regarding edits he was making to this page. AfricaTanz feels strongly that the page is written like a fan page, and I agree. I attempted to begin making some dramatic changes to bring the article more into line with Misplaced Pages standards. I achieved a result sufficient enough to remove the "fansite" tag, but AfricaTanz again responded with hostility, this time toward me. So far in this encounter, AfricaTanz has not behaved civilly at all -- to any of the involved parties, and has shown no inclination to assume good faith, despite my attempts to make some of the changes to the article that he seemed to want. Lord777 had also expressed some of his feelings about the encounter on my talk page, if you wish to review it. Thank you.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring