Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 23 September 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:MilesMoney reported by User:Srich32977 (Result:Warning)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com
User being reported: User:MilesMoney

Previous version: Version prior to reverts by MilesMoney.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. MilesMoney hatted section of discussion (no hat summary or edit summary comment, but did add discussion commentary)
2. User:Binksternet unhatted, with edit summary
3. MilesMoney re-hatted, no edit summary but did add hat comment
4. User:srich32977 (OP) unhatted table with edit summary about refactoring other editor talk page comments
5. MilesMoney removed the table with the edit comment "do not misquote editors"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Message left on MilesMoney talk page about disruptive removal of material.
2. MilesMoney removed talkpage message with edit summary WP:BOOMERANG

Comments:
When the table was originally posted on the RSN editors were invited to post concerns about changes needed. (The table endeavors to summarize editor comments in the RSN.) MilesMoney did post some comments, and changes were made by me. When the changes were made, I again asked for comments about needed changes. At that stage MilesMoney did the removal of the table. – S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored the table a few minutes ago, then I noticed the existence of this 3RR discussion. It appears to me that MilesMoney did not like the table because it showed all too plainly that his position was in the minority. Of course, the purpose of the table was to show that a clear majority had been reached. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the blow-by-blow action, I've listed the relevant versions. But then I hatted it, because I realized that it's a distraction from the bottom line, which is that I haven't violated WP:3RR and Rich's initial report is full of errors. This is where WP:BOOMERANG comes in. MilesMoney (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I posted this AN3 after MilesMoney did the "hat — re-hat — removal" of the table. My alternatives were to restore and/or post a WP:ANI. Given the fact that Miles' "blow by blow", seeks to argue the RSN by claiming rudeness, dirty-hands, inaccuracy, false accusation, intimidation, mis-quotations, etc., I am more inclined to go with an ANI based on WP:TE. Please feel free to close this AN3 with no action. – S. Rich (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User Srich has been tendentiously pursuing various minor issues on several articles recently. After having requested guidance on/removal of certain blog-sourced content on RSN, Srich declined to respond to various dissents and requests for clarification from other editors, including MilesMoney. Srich then abruptly posted a request for closure at AN and posted the disputed table on the RSN thread. The table misrepresents the views of editors who disagree with Srich in violation of WP policy not to misrepresent other editors. The RSN thread itself is long, convoluted unfocused and inconclusive. The timing and content of Srich's posting of this table has the unfortunate appearance of a tactic to unduly influence the decision of the closing Admin toward Srich's point of view in this matter. I pointed this out and asked Srich to strike through the table, but he declined to do so -- instead, he responded as if I had asked him to correct his misstatement of my view. At that point, I realized he would not cooperate and walked away. Shortly thereafter, editor MilesMoney also objected to the table and hatted it. The series of reverts followed. This sequence was precipitated by Srich's violation of WP policy and his failure to respond constructively when his lapse was explained to him. If anyone needs a warning/block in this situation it would appear to be Srich, an experienced editor of whom we expect much better. His needs to stop his recent tendentious behavior, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right on the money, no pun intended. I like to think the best of people, but the fact that Rich is shopping around for someplace else to report me makes it hard to believe his heart is in the right place. If he really cared about the issues, he'd at least try to debate them (and not just by repeating stuff that we all know is wrong). So, yeah, he's being a tendentious editor in a big way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Warned @MilesMoney: Please be very careful about editing the comments of other editors (including hatting). If someone reverts your editing/hatting of others' comments, do not revert them. If two different editors revert you, absolutely do not revert again. Please consider this a warning about disruptive editing. And for heaven's sake, use edit summaries. (No opinion on whether the table was accurate or on the underlying dispute.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've learned not to be baited into reverting when SRich and Blinkersnet double-team me and try to trick me into violating WP:3RR. I hatted because he was misquoting me, which I believe is also against the rules and deserving of at least a warning. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:109.158.164.49 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Angellica Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Evertatops (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:

Details that the IP didn't mention.

• The editor has been warned multiple times not to edit war (see User talk:Evertatops).
• They are edit warring to include trivia from a tabloid in an article covered by WP:BLP despite having been reverted and without any attempt to discuss the issue.
• They have made a total of 147 edits since registering their account without making a single edit on an article talk page.
• They also appear to be edit warring at another BLP, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring is still continuing at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge even after being notified of this ANEW case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already blocked for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:LogX (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573798223 by LogX (talk)"
2. 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573797127 by Dodger67 (talk)"
3. 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573792862 by DrKiernan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Now the user is moving on to another article Maurice Roche, 4th Baron Fermoy. This user must be stopped. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) And another - Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy. The user is showing absolutely no sign of heeding multiple warnings or even the notifications of this process here and the one above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TJRC reported by User:Elvey (Result: )

Page: Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TJRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
   Above are the two recent diffs showing edit warring. There's been lots and lots of edit warring prior to this, as well as edit warring on the talk page itself, and dispute resolution efforts regarding both in other forums (including a couple that he opened while this ANI (diff) was still open) but the above is what's recent; there's no 3RR violation, it's clearly edit warring though. A couple of TJRC's many previous article reverts:
3. diff
4. diff

In the past, instead of answering my questions, he's deleted my questions from the article talk page not once - diff or twice - diff but three times - diff — justified only by a false claim that his edits were removing interruptions from his comments; if you look at those diffs, you'll see they do no such thing. All these three diffs show is TJRC removing my own additions to my own comments. Yet, TJRC still maintains that these edits were not improper, even after he was told otherwise, even by others, at AN/I!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. discussion. All he's done lately is reverted-without-talk. Diff of most recent attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. diff
2. diff

Comments:

After the edit shown in the very first diff above, I wrote the following on the talk page to TJRC, but his only response was to revert, yet again (second diff, above).

If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,

Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."

I edited per your suggestion. And yet: Your response was (diff):

Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)

A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, " serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."

Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" ?

All I really want to do is leave the article in a state such that a reader is not left with the wrong impression about state works. So long as this article indicates that the works of some states are PD, that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, or doesn't lead the reader to believe otherwise, we should be good. TJRC finds my wording unacceptable and keeps reverting it, but won't offer wording that is acceptable that does what he had at one time agreed was acceptable - "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" (that last quote is a quote from TJRC (diff showing him saying it!)) The worst of the insanity is that he keeps reverting me, claiming I'm a lone wolf, when what I'm doing is diff adding what he said he had no objection to! It's inexplicable. I feel TJRC is too often WP:NOTHERE, which is why I think A 0RR or 1RR restriction is warranted. If he was here to improve the encyclopedia, the article would certainly "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" in it by now.--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User:91.154.115.69 reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Fermat's Last Theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 11:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 11:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC) "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n and always determined the site of power of n of next integer by adding the nexus number ,"
4. 11:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC) "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n and always determined the site of power of n of next integer by adding the nexus number ,"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned very clearly in my final edit summary, and then took a break before reinstating the same dubious content again. James12345 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Since it's now 24 hours since you created this thread, I would be inclined to consider it stale (why didn't someone resolve it before now?), but the user came back 24 hours after the first edit to do more of the same, so it plainly wasn't stale. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Nug (Result: No blocks)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:51, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "worse map: it makes extra room for Yukaghir, which is not Uralic"
2. 04:17, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "now you're falsifying sources"
3. 04:24, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "knock off the bullshit"
4. 10:31, 21 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "rv to map of correct family per BOLD"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Seems Kwamikagami waited out the 24 hour period before making his 4th revert. I found a more detailed and better looking map used in German Misplaced Pages so I translated it and replaced the existing map (which BTW was originally created by myself as User:Martintg back in 2007). Kwamikagami reverted the new map because it included Yukaghir. Okay, so I removed Yukaghir from the map to accommodate his objection, but then Kwamikagami still reverted because it excluded Yukaghir, claiming it was a "falsification", expressing his battleground mentality "I had to fight with you to even get that , because you were falsifying the map" and then subsequently edit warred over the image at commons to re-include Yukaghir even though he objected to its inclusion, which seems somewhat WP:POINTy and may be related to a wider issue that other editors have noticed about Kwamikagami's recent behaviour here and here --Nug (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reverting the map at Commons wasn't WP:POINTy; if the map isn't a faithful reproduction of the original it may count as WP:SYNTH. — Lfdder (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if the map was a reproduction of a published source. But this map was created by a German Wikipedian, we don't know for sure how faithful that map is to the original source used by this German Wikipedian, and as we can see this editor made many different permutations of that map, for example another including Altaic and Turkic in addition to Uralic , so omitting Yukaghir from a map meant to focus on Uralic is legitimate. But objecting to the inclusion of Yukaghir while simultaneously objecting to the exclusion of Yukaghir from a map that was not a reproduction but created by a Wikipedian, is certainly untoward. --Nug (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

ah ok, I didn't notice. — Lfdder (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nug is pushing a POV for which he can't get consensus , in this case pushing a map of the wrong language family . Per BOLD, he should take his suggestions to talk rather than edit warring over them.

BTW, the map in question cites its authors , so Nug changing it to better support his POV is fraud – assuming he knows what he's doing . — kwami (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Nug has violated the principle of WP:BRD. Rather than being bold, being reverted, then proceeding to the Talk Page to build a consensus for his/her preferred map, s/he simply proceeded to edit war over the map, continually replacing his/her map rather than building a consensus on the Talk Page before touching the actual article again. Rather than trying to ram his/her new map through, s/he should have been presenting the proposed map on the Talk Page, discussing it, then abandoning it if a consensus could not be reached. The real edit warrior in this case is Nug, who was unable to build a consensus for his/her new map, not Kwami, who was simply insisting that Nug follow the principle of WP:BRD. --Taivo (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm seeing edit warring here from both parties. Nug may not have technically violated 3RR, but that's no excuse, and I see no grounds for a block of one party here. So should I block both or none? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Map being discussed, warring hasn't continued, I see no point in blocking either. — Lfdder (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Declined because of what Lfdder says; it's a downright bad idea to block people who are discussing and who aren't editwarring anymore. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, my question was more of a rhetorical "is there going to be more edit warring necessitating blocks?" Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:87.68.144.122 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Israel national dish."
2. 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Israel's national food"
3. 17:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Israel"
4. 12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) "Israel"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 3RR warning
2. 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Falafel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that this article is subject to 1RR. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:FutureTrillionaire reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No action)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FutureTrillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Retracted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is on a 1RR restriction per 24 hours. He reverted the "mujahideen" bit twice within 12 hours. Pass a Method talk 15:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Opps. I wasn't counting. I've now reverted my edit. Come on. Let's discuss this at the talk page. Talk:Syrian civil war#Syrian Islamic Liberation Front are Islamist(sectarian) or not?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have retracted my post in light of the self-revertion by FutureTrillionaire. Pass a Method talk 15:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: No action taken since FT reverted his change. Editors are now trying to find agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Protected)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. < This diff consists of two reverts.

The first reverts Future's edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573721775&oldid=573698751

The second reverts my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573790858&oldid=573782806

Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• striked out as I assume pass a method has retracted his report on Futuretrillionaire. Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

:*Result: No action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC). See below.

Update: It appears that Pass a Method, has made two reverts with in 24 hours: . In both cases, he readded "Sunni Majahideen", even though discussion of this issue is still ongoing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply See Edjohnston's talk page, where he stated that it is not considered a revert. Also, i moved it two lines down. Pass a Method talk 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed content I added, regardless of how visible it was. Thats a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Template protected three days. The editors here are well-informed and they are perfectly capable of discussion. Please use the next three days to get consensus on the talk page. So far on 22 September there have been six reverts; there is no excuse for that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

Page

Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Z07x10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "You ought to have read the talk page and realised that there is. Also see German wiki who agree. Furthermore the matter is currently in dispute resolution so you shouldn't be making reverts until that process has been conducted."
2. 19:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574082173 by Fnlayson (talk)"
3. 19:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) to 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted Mach to Mach 2.35 because of change that lacked consensus."
   2. 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) "Re-inserted reliable sources. Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#Typhoon_max_speed

Comments:

Repeatedly making changes that lack support on the talk page. As seen both on the talk page of the article and by the fact that the user's five reverts within the past 24h have been reverted by five different users. Thomas.W 20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The user has now made five reverts within 24h. I can add that I made my revert well before the case was filed at the dispute resolution board, while Z07x10's latest revert was made after he filed the case. Thomas.W 20:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  

This is a gross misrepresentation of facts and if you'd bothered to read through the Talk Page, you'd realise that the changes were agreed with Bushranger and Julian H before McSly edit-warred the issue a month later and then again another month later. Bushranger is just sick of dealing with it now so refuses to get involved. Up to the point where admins became involved I made 1 change for every change he made to reflect the standing consensus. I don't feel I should be singled out just because of a 24hr timing issue. I have raised the matter in Dispute resolution and on Policy. Furthermore my stance on the issue (maximum speed Mach 2.35) is in line with an independent consensus by German Wiki ('3O'), so it'll look a little stupid if two parts of Wiki list contradictory information. https://de.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon I therefore move that the page should, by right, be protected at Mach 2.35 until resolved. Cheers.Z07x10 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A) It's not a gross misrepresentation. I can't find a consensus supporting your views on the talk page, and your five reverts have been reverted by five different editors. Which ought to tell you something.

B) It doesn't matter what it says on the German WP or what consensus they reach, each WP is independent of all others.

C) You made four reverts before filing a case at the dispute resolution board, and then a fifth revert after that in an attempt to have your version "frozen". Which is not the way to do things. And filing a case at the dispute resolution board does not absolve you from the edit warring charges.

Thomas.W 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas.W Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Corbynz reported by User:MyMoloboaccount (Result: )

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

User Corbynz has been removing sourced information(mostly work by historians and scholarly books) about history of Masuria,mainly abuses by German authorities regarding pro-Polish site in plebiscite about future of the region, this has been done without any discussion at all, and included ethnic based attacks such statements that he is removing "Polish propaganda".

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 07:51, 21 September 2013
2. Revision as of 15:34, 21 September 2013
3. Revision as of 08:03, 22 September 2013
4. Latest revision as of 17:14, 22 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by another user-I am not sure if this is sufficient, or admin level warning is required?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article contains unsubstantiated claims and propaganda. The warning that was posted in the heading last year is both correct and highly appropriate. "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2012") The sources quoted are predominantly Polish and are based upon rationalisations to justify the expulsions of the Germans between 1945 - 1947.

I concur entirely with the comments made by Filipcyk on the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Masuria

Personal family history that may shed light on whether Masurens considered themselves German or Polish

There is much discussion on this page about whether the results of the referendum in Masuria after World War I to determine the wishes of the population to be a part of Poland or Germany were affected by the fact that Poland and the Soviet Union were at war and by the fact that perhaps much of the population thought they were voting to be a part of Prussia, but not Germany. I am not a historian and do not believe I am qualified to contribute to any article in Misplaced Pages. I am writing this to provide additional information to those who are so that it may help them. My grandfather and mother were masurisch. Like many masurisch, they had German first names and slavik sounding surnames. For example, my grandfather's name was Johann Filipcyk. Based on conversations with my family, masurisch people were almost exclusively Lutherans. Perhaps for that reason, their culture was very German and they very much identified with and considered themselves Germans. My grandfather was a German soldier during World War I. My grandmother and her children, including my father who was a child at the time, were at one point refugees fleeing the Russians during the first battle of Tannenberg during World War I. My family and other masurisch friends of the family always without question considered themselves to be Germans, and nothing else. They would be shocked if anyone would suggest otherwise. I realize this is just one personal experience and I have no way of knowing what the total population was thinking on the ground in Masuria in 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Like him I come from a Masuren family who lived in Kreis Johannisburg (Pisz) for over 600 years. I have their records and my Grandparents and other relatives were there during the plebiscite after World War 1 and the allegations of so-called widespread intimidation by "the Germans" are nonsense. Most Masurens were Lutheran and culturally German even if they had mixed German, Polish and Old Prussian ancestry. The fact of the matter is that 99% of the Masuren population voted to remain as part of Germany because that is what they wanted and no end of Polish propaganda can change that. I also had family still living there in 1945 and they were expelled west of the Oder-Neisse river by the invading Russians and resettled Poles. For this contributor to claim that totally unbalanced and biased Polish propaganda is a substantive source is utterly ludicrous. User: Corbynz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:

I have largely expanded the article over the years with valuable material and noticed that this is being removed without discussion and using dubious motivation(statements "removing Polish propaganda" seem to indicate high bias based on ethnic grounds).I have asked the use in my comment to stop removing sourced information to which the only response was that he is removing "Polish propaganda". Another user has been trying to engage him on talk-without success. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result:No Violation )

Page: Ludwig von Mises Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srich32977 (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:

Rich is very familiar with WP:3RR (see above), so this is not an innocent mistake. MilesMoney (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Response: In order of the diffs posted, here is explanation:

• Diff "previous version" (37) gives the difference between 6 intermediate revisions.
• First Diff (38) is my correction of a broken link & converting data to a template webcite.
• Second Diff (39) preceded 37, but restored much material removed in violation of WP:PRESERVE. E.g., sourced material, categories, proper formatting, etc.
• Third Diff (40) preceded 37, and added the actual title of a journal article, the journal name, particular page #s, and date of cited journal.
• Fourth Diff (41) added the headcount of the faculty at LvMI (At this diff SPECIFICO had removed the number of "adjunct faculty" at LvMI. My edit provided another number plus a citation to verify the number.)
• Warning (42) is MilesMoney's template message on my talk page.
• Diff "Attempt to resolve dispute" (43) is MilesMoney's response on the article talk page to a thread I posted about the unjustified removal of {{SPS}} tags (the subject of which are under discussion on the RSN). It has nothing to do with any of the edits above.
• Alas – S. Rich (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to Srich's entire list, but he seems to be asking for a pass because "he's right" and others are wrong. Srich's interpretations of policy are dubious and he tends to insist on his interpretations even when others explicitly explain their disagreements to him. Such was the case with various of his recent reverts. I was not involved in most of this matter, but I can say that Srich's re-insertion of the term "adjunct faculty" after I removed the term "faculty" (explaining in my edit comment not that the number was incorrect but rather that this characterization "faculty" is not supported by secondary RS) should not give Srich an exemption from 3RR. I have, to my dismay, noticed that Srich has been unduly aggressive over the past four to six weeks in undoing good faith reverts of other editors with whom he may disagree. Rather than open a discussion, he re-reverts first and then waits until he's challenged before acknowledging other editors' concerns. He has been warned repeatedly about this behavior by various involved editors and at least one Admin. Srich is quick to bring or threaten complaints against others. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifico has his facts backwards. He removed "adjunct faculty" and I used the term "faculty", based on the RS supplied, when adding new information. (Either way, secondary RS is not required as to that particular fact because LvMI is sufficiently reliable to report the number.) I've made one user noticeboard report as to MilesMoney – and it was done after MilesMoney rejected my message about disruptive edits at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. Specifico won't address the particulars on MilesMoney's list, but is quick to bring up unspecified matters and baseless warnings. Jeez, why am I responding to these absurd non-3RR comments? Perhaps because my integrity and good faith is repeatedly attacked. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for Srich to litigate his disputes concerning article content and sources. The fact that he's trying to "win" that dispute here, as if that would excuse his edit-warring, is very disappointing. As Srich knows, I challenged whether the LvMI website's self-description of its employees as "faculty" is RS, given that it is not a school or accredited educational institution. Regardless of which view is correct, Srich's disagreement with me does not justify his edit-warring and his assertion of his viewpoint as fact is the sort of behavior which 3RR is intended to prevent. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article talk page is where content debate goes. This is for dealing with Rich's edit-warring, not his POV-pushing or incivility. MilesMoney (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Diff #3 has nothing to do with reversion; it is instead a small step toward building the article by fleshing out a citation. Diff #1 also is fleshing out a citation (a different one), something that nobody is arguing against. There are disputes at the article but diffs 1 and 3 are not part of the disputes. This 3RRN submission fails to prove its point. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I am concerned about your WP:Competence in evaluating questions of edit warring. For instance, you recently claimed I was engaged in an "ongoing" "edit warring" on Hanns Hoppe (1) when in fact I had made a total of 1 revert within several weeks (at the time of your complaint). Given your erroneous statements there and here, I encourage you to focus on building your WP:Competence prior to participating in these discussions regarding 3RR/editing warring generally. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifico Steeletrap, every time you point me to the Misplaced Pages:Competence is required essay it signals that you have run out of better arguments. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Diff 3 is Srich removing the disputed word "polemecist" -- which both Binksernet and Srich have taken turns warring out of the article text. I'm not familiar with the other, but contrary to the above, #3 is certain a reversion. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The prior version in Diff 3 took one word from the article and posted it as if it were the title of the piece. My revision provided the proper title of the Boettke article, plus more citation data. In this regard, the revert promoted NPOV.

Specifico has made a point about the usage of the term faculty in the infobox. (And as far as I can tell, this revert is part of MilesMoney's complaint.) I have opened a BRD on the article page about the use of the term. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the purpose of this noticeboard is not to litigate your content disputes, nor for you to make a series of excuses for your 3RR violation. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How does a BRD now make up for the 3RR violation? Oh, look over there!!! SHINY!!!!!! MilesMoney (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, the diff 3 action is not removing article text at all. It is instead fleshing out a citation which was poorly composed in the first place. Nobody at the article is arguing whether the citation should be fully fleshed out versus poorly composed. The word "polemicist" was serving in place of the title of the citation but the cited source did not use that word as the title. The cited source used "Economists and Liberty: Murray N. Rothbard". Again, nobody is arguing that the title of Boettke's paper is really "Polemicist". Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is not to try out various excuses after having edit-warred, is it Bink? I think that's the 3rd time I've said that here, so I am done. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to deal with edit warring behavior. Toward that end, the submission of evidence is expected to show a violation of 3RR or long-term edit warring behavior. This one fails in its attempt to show a 3RR violation, and it does not even try to show long-term edit warring. Srich is building the article, not warring. If MilesMoney tried to show long-term edit warring the WP:Boomerang would be whistling back in his direction. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No violation As far as I can tell the only clear cut revert is diff 2. Diff 1 is putting an html link into a cite web template, and I can't see how it could be called a revert since there was no substantive change. (I actually tried to find what it could be a revert of but came up empty.) Diff 3 might be considered a revert if you're counting that the word "polemicist" was removed, but that would be a stretch, since it is just another html link being put into a citation template, and "polemicist" was not the title of the linked page. Diff 4 can be considered a partial revert of Specifico's edit. That said, this is the second time this crowd has been here for the same article, and I strongly advise all parties to tread carefully until the dispute is resolved. I will be putting this article on my watchlist, and I don't want to have to shut down editing for everyone with a gold-lock. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Cavann (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Complex case, but is mainly about the deletion of material in this section Turkish_people#Prehistory.2C_Ancient_era_and_Early_Middle_Ages.

Athenean does not participate in talk page discussion, unless right before or right after a revert. Pretty much most of his recent contributions are reverts (in other pages too) . He seems to want an edit-warring conflict.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 1. 29 August 2013
• 2. 2 September 2013
• 3. 02:04, 3 September 2013‎

After this revert, I tried to solve the issues in the talk page. Athenean ignores the discussion, except his posts right after the revert. Without any response I make this edit 16:20, 5 September 2013. Barely an hour later, Athenean reverts.

• 4. 17:31, 5 September 2013

Since that date, extensive discussion has taken place in the talk page, including me posting bunch of sources . I have made this change 16:13, 22 September 2013. Despite being absent from Turkish people or Talk:Turkish people since 17:32, 5 September 2013, Athenean reverted barely 30 minutes after my edit.

• 5. 17:18, 22 September 2013
• 6. 17:27, 22 September 2013

This seems like a disruptive editing pattern, and edit warring. He also filed a Good Article Reassessment amid edit warring , even though he was warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Athenean is well aware of consequences of edit-warring, since he was blocked for it various times . He is also well aware of it with respect to Turkish people page, given that he posted the 3RR template on my talk page himself. .
Further warnings I posted on his talk page: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussions in Talk:Turkish_people#2.2B_millenia_time_gap_.28Hittites_at_the_first_paragraph_of_the_history_of_Turkish_people.3F.29. Also here, which Athenean did not participate: Talk:Turkish_people#Lede.

Frivolous bad-faith request by User:Cavann, who is the prime edit-warrior in this article (count 'em!). In fact I have only 4 reverts in this article in September, while he has accumulated almost a dozen. He displays clear WP:OWN behavior regarding this article (hence his revert warring), and is desperate to have me blocked so that he can get away with his POV-pushing. In his desperation, he resorts to all kinds of dirty tricks, such as bringing up my past history (even though I haven't been blocked for edit-warring in over 3 years now), mischaracterizing my edits as reverts even though they are not, bringing up edits from last month, and outright lies (about me not participating in the talkpage even though I am the one who has opened the discussion thread ). He is arrogant, belligerent and contemptuous towards other users in the talkpage, and has been repeatedly warned for this . Regarding the GAR, "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.", enough said. Athenean (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You opened the discussion thread right after your revert. You say nothing in the talk page for 17 days (even tho you were active in Misplaced Pages), and then miraculously appear and revert 30 min after my edit, and then start a discussion thread in the talk page. This is disruptive. Cavann (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

All my reverts are accompanied by talkpage posts. There is nothing "disruptive" about that. In fact the opposite. When I don't edit the article (and I haven't been very active this month for RL reasons), I don't edit the talkpage. I am not obligated to participate in discussions when I am not reverting or editing at all. Your understanding of "disruptive" needs re-calibration, e.g. by looking in the mirror. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is the problem. You only participate in discussion right before or after a revert. I have waited 17 days in the talk page for more of your input, yet you returned 30 min after my edit to revert. Cavann (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, after this edit , which, for once, you did not revert, I was under the impression that we had reached an understanding. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong, as today you resumed your Anatolianist POV-pushing with full force. Your dispute with Alexikoua regarding page numbers, I was not involved in, and did not feel like getting involved, nor was I under any obligation to do so. The only "problem" here is your WP:OWN and WP:TEND behavior, and the edit-warring and arrogant, abrasive attitude that accompany it. Athenean (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

After you removed "material sourced to backpacker guidebooks," I came with journal articles and an Oxford Handbook, which was quickly reverted again. Please do not fake an "understanding," I was very clear in the talk page, 7 September 2013, which was ignored. Cavann (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this , and you didn't revert (amazingly), so I took as a sign that for once you had finally understood the point and backed down. You seem to think you can add all kinds of irrelevant stuff to an article just because it sourced, but it doesn't work that way.

Also very interesting you filed this report not after my last revert to the article, but after I filed the GAR (which you made sure to mention here, even though I am well within my rights to file a GAR). Proof that this is a frivolous report filed purely out of spite and retaliatory intent. Unsurprising, since you have been edit-warring on this article more than everyone else combined. If anyone should be blocked, it is you. Athenean (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring