Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 2 March 2014

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (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: and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

List of Wagon Train episodes (Result: Warned)

Recently I created the List of Wagon Train episodes page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, Eclecticology added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as M*A*S*H, Smallville , Grey's Anatomy, and The X-Files. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:

I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.

No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. Wagon Train did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. Wagon Train (season one), Wagon Train (season two), etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.

I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? Jimknut (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.

Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. Wagon Train is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.

Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

• Warned. Jimknut and Eclecticology, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both warned that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gandon64 reported by User:Pol098 (Result: Blocked)

Page: FRG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gandon64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again". (The Gandon64 Talk page was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FRG (the only section). Edit summaries have clearly explained reason and quoted detail from WP:DABABBREV.

Comments:

The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.

• FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented waste to syngas conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:GadgetsGuy reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: stale)

Page

Samsung Galaxy S5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GadgetsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GalaxyOptimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using multiple accounts on Samsung Galaxy S5. (TW)"
2. 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Samsung Galaxy S5. (TW)"

Comments:

Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username GalaxyOptimus (talk · contribs) (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.

He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with CyanogenMod by default) and requested OTRS. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images , , and . So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

CyanogenMod is stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a fair use image either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This phone isn't even out yet and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion is properly contested. Open a discussion at files for deletion to properly vet the deletion question—and quit editing warring with the back and forth reverts.—John Cline (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the Non free content review.GadgetsGuy (talk)

I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—John Cline (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Misplaced Pages interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—John Cline (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Stale / considered warned. --slakr 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rushton2010 reported by User:ERIDU-DREAMING (Result: No action)

• Page: Breadsall Priory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User reported: Rushton2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the Breadsall Priory article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."

He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.

Comments:

In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.

This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:

• Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
• Monasteries in Derbyshire
• History of Derbyshire
• Marriott International
• Augustinian monasteries in England
• 13th-century establishments in England
• Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
• 1536 disestablishments in England

-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified). It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.

I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
--Rushton2010 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Response:

"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."

Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"

Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.

"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."

Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

"for example the removal of 8 categories"

• Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
• Monasteries in Derbyshire
• History of Derbyshire
• Marriott International
• Augustinian monasteries in England
• 13th-century establishments in England
• Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
• 1536 disestablishments in England

-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."

I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.

UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."

Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?

"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that if you make an edit, if it gets reverted, you're NEVER permitted to re-add it unless you have obtained consensus to add it via discussion on the article talkpage, right? DP 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This is a long-running dispute but nobody broke 3RR. Both parties are advised to use the talk page. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Housefullofcards reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Paul T T Easter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Housefullofcards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I think that this is likely the same IP editor (User talk:94.197.120.135) that had been trying to revert to an unsourced version of the article previously, as User:Housefullofcards created an account and began making minor edits about the same time the article was given semi-protection. That IP user was given a warning as well and there is currently an SPI underway to see if all of the accounts are related. Here are the IP's edits: , , and here's where I warned the user: . The user has been warned previous to my post on his talk page by User:Ruby Murray. While the page reversions have differed slightly, it is still the same unsourced information that they are trying to add. There is an AfD for the page where I've also asked that people stop reverting to re-add the information and given various reasons for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The Paul T T Easter article was semiprotected on 24 February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kakadesi reported by User:Sitush (Result: blocked 48 h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22 Feb
2. 24 Feb
3. 27 Feb #1
4. 27 Feb #2
5. 27 Feb #3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: here, here, here, here and here. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at Kapil Sibal and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.

The article already contained some appropriately-place criticism, so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

They've just reverted again. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Really a pretty short block considering they're edit warring on both Pratibha Patil and Kapil Sibal to introduce non-WP:BLP compliant material, and considering this frivolous revenge templating. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

User:JesseRafe reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 595754072 by SergeWoodzing (talk): . (TW)"
2. 05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 597306620 by JesseRafe (talk). (TW)"
3. 18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 597329987 by JesseRafe: Look at this user's history, he is using CN tags maliciously to push an agenda, look at the Talk Pages, he isn't even consistent in what his claim his, he is harming the integrity of these articles with his..."
4. 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Mendaliv (talk) to last revision by JesseRafe. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Götaland. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion underway at WP:EAR, but editor seems unwilling to discuss, and has indicated that he will continue to blindly revert. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, I already blocked the editor after he reverted yet again before seeing that he had been reported here. SpinningSpark 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I suppose. I'd consider Spark's block dispositive of the 3RR report given it's based on the edit warring, myself. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This user did not cross 3RR. But that is a meaningless line if it is a meaningless line. The other user, Serge is repeatedly adding tags in articles challenging that Geats is a valid English name, claiming it was coined in the 1980s. That is about as WP:POINT disruptive as claiming "French" is not a valid English term and was coined in the 1980s. Why should we be required to prove to people to inWP:COMPETENT to use google, that the term predates the 1980s, as if that would make it "invalid" even if it had? And how many times does the 1837 usage need to be pointed out before other editors will HEARTHAT? This block is a bit excessive for a common sense response to disruption.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I'm not to happy about being misrepresetned re: 1980s after having taken this very clear action on that subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is under discussion at the user's talk page. I admit in retrospect there was just over 24 hours between the first and fourth reverts, but that's besides the point as Spark issued a block for edit warring generally, and not a bright-line 3RR violation (though I have no doubt given JesseRafe's comments that he would have reverted a fifth time). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Spinningspark. Minima© (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8B50 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Kathleen Wynne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:20, 28 February 2014
2. 19:36, 28 February 2014
3. 20:09, 28 February 2014
4. 21:28, 28 February 2014
5. 21:46, 28 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:10, 28 February 2014

Comments:
Edit warring to add WP:BLP violating guilt by association to article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Paul Erik. Minima© (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mingling2 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mingling2 (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
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Malbin210 below Jim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't have any religious motive. The section about religion is very overcrowded. I request user malbin210 to resolve the dispute on article's talk page but does not respond. What should I do?Mingling2 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a exactly copy pasted from Mingling2 user contributions history > https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mingling2

1. 14:50, 22 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Albania ‎ (And the reason behind this is that Moslem women don't pray at mosques and evangelical churches which have a single church for every ten believers.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
2. 15:59, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Albania ‎ (Islam is largest religion in Albania so its image needs to be placed first.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
3. 15:50, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+571)‎ . . Talk:Albania ‎ (Tag: Mobile edit)
4. 12:30, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,001)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
5. 11:53, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2,438)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion: These estimates it cover just 79 out 83 fedral subjects. Not much informative.)
6. 16:18, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-437)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
7. 12:50, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+682)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
8. 12:43, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+849)‎ . . m Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)

Then he removes an image from the national hero of Albania ... because he faught the muslim Ottomans ! And then he gives an excuse , that only himself can understand !

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=596778004&oldid=596761300

And then he removes half of the section of the religions in Albania !!!! Why ? Because those minorities are christian ! ( Albania is a multireligious country )

1 2

Let me repeat that this user is lying . He is not an albanian . And he is a sock puppet account of multiple times banned religious fanatic from Pakistan , with no life , that has a certain fantasy with albania ! I am sorry but i have lost so many hours now trying to clean up his mess !!! Trying to restore content that he deletes !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by DangerousPanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Malbin210 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (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
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff1 by JamesBWatson

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Mingling2 aboveJim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing more than reverting edits that user mingling2 was making for religious purposes . All his reverts as demonstrated by his contributs history is about religion , be that in Russia Albania Macedonia or wherever !!! All in all is not edit warring ! Why ? Because when you restore the original version of wikipedia , when that version is being vandalized by a person with a religious agenda claiming to be albanian as well ( which he is not , because i am from albania ) then is called protecting the article from vandalizers !!!

He removes established sourced VERY VALUABLE content ABOUT RELIGION and only , that has been there for months or years , meaning that there has been a general consensus , furthermore look the latest edit that he made ( you have presented it here already ) . In the section of religion he removed around 1 kb of content about religious minorities in Albania which are a very active part of Albania society such as per example the Protestant community . Guess what he removed all that sourced and accurate content !!! And let me stress out THAT I HAD NOT WRITTEN that content . Why does he do that ? Because i think is one of the multiple sock puppet accounts that this person operates for Religious muslim propaganda !!! Please do investigate if he is somehow connected with an already multiple times banned user from Pakistan that has a certain fantasy with Albania! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week by DangerousPanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:DiverScout (Result: Protected)

Page: Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States (warned on talk page that I was reporting, but no reply.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States>

Comments:

DiverScout add information with sources that don't contain anything (webpages nonexistant or now foreign language sites), so I reversed the addition for reason as unverifiable ( "nonsense sources" & "nothing regarding scouting at those links"). After all when clicking the edit linked the notice "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is at the top, which the source are not. I have only reverse him twice and he had add it twice too. So, if I am block, he should too. He gave me minutes from his "warning" to posting here and another 2 minutes for an actually flagged message at my talk page that was to indicate that he was reporting me. In which time as was discussing his disregard for waiting for consensus in moving to rename the article. Also, note his attempt at improperly informing the responding administrator that he "Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior." When given the time frame given to respond was almost nil to respond, so no DiverScout did not try. Whether or not I am a "repeat edit warrior" is immaterial to the current issue. I have run into several contentious editors who would not show up to discuss the issue until reaching near the 3RR line. Any one can report me, just as frivolously as DiverScout has now. Spshu (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Locked for one week by CambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Template:Largest cities in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "It doesn't say anything about Bursa, just a pile of gecekondu style apartments without architects. The main square shows the Governorate (Valilik) of Bursa and the Atatürk statue in front of it."
2. 20:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "This picture shows the main square of Bursa, with the Governorate Building and the statue of Atatürk in front of it, and the hills of Mt. Uludağ in the background. (The Admin didn't revert it, YOU reverted it.) By the way, you are obviously an Islamist."
3. 21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "POV = Atatürk?"
4. 21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "The picture that you added shows slums, and is obviously stolen from an internet website, with very low pixel resolution and quality."
5. 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "There is also a lot of air pollution when the picture was taken. Looks like a dirty, ugly, backward city."
6. 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "Are your parents also cousins?"
7. 23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "Vre málaga..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Maybe... 18 August 2013, conflict with IP around the same Bursa picture.
2. back at square one... 14 February 2014, conflict with Lord of Rivendell around the same Bursa picture of the present conflict. No reply at all.

The Banner talk 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Warned several times, though not by me: RolandR (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template was protected at 14 Februari due to edit warring ( over pictures. A few hours after lifting of the protection Lord of Rivendell started the edit war all over again. The Banner talk 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocking him a third time for edit warring would be pointless. Continuous reverts may be annoying but more worrying is that he resorts to trolling other users (not me in this case) when he loses an argument and is unwilling to let go of his battleground mentality that caused the previous blocks.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been blocked several times for editwarring in articles related to Turkey before. Simonm223 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

89.79.201.171 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Blocked; protected)

Page: Cramér's conjecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.79.201.171 (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 IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address and as User:Marek Wolf. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked User:Marek Wolf for one week for edit warring and self-promotion. I've semi-protected the article for one week against his IP addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:1.10.217.3 and User_talk:1.10.193.26 reported by User:B20180

Page: Tetsuya Yamato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.217.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

warning:

Page: Tetsuya Yamato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.193.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

warning:

Comments:
The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --B20180 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. B20180, you are going about this all wrong on a number of fronts. First and foremost, you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editor. Second, what he's doing is not vandalism, and your report at WP:AIV was properly rejected. Third, taking this issue to the talk pages of multiple arbitrators demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how Misplaced Pages works. It doesn't help that your English is poor as others have some trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is a content dispute. Resolution of it belongs on the article talk page where you discuss the content and not the conduct of the editors (your vandalism label on the talk pagge is not a good way to approach this). If you can't resolve the dispute, then you'll have to use other forms of dispute resolution. The one thing you cannot do is edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I think I should use that talk page later in other way. (I still busy in this time) And thank you again. --B20180 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (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:

User:Niemti reported by User:50.83.87.8 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:51, 2 March 2014
2. 05:03, 2 March 2014
3. 05:06, 2 March 2014
4. 05:12, 2 March 2014‎
5. 11:41, 2 March 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning posted on Users Talk page and he has also been warned in the Interplay Productions change log area.

Comments: User continues to use blanket reverts without even attempting to correct spelling errors, and continues to unorganize a game list and delete info, please look into this. Also instead of at least posting a comment as to why he thinks an undo is appropriate he puts things such as

(cur | prev) 14:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (besides the obvious lack of spelling Ex "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it.", the deleting the location, deleting public company info, unorganizing the games list, this is your official warning of the "3 Revert rule".) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:41, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:15, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, you "revision" does little to add to the page. Perhaps you should visit ALL of your other entries to see what else you have vandalized.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:12, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (Wikpedia:Vandalism; Troll Hard 2: Troll Harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, how is disorganizing the products area useful to this article other than vandalism?) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:06, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (you're not trolling hard enough) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:05, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (I do not see how your organizing of the products area helps the article. Until you can explain how it helps it I will continue to delete your vandalism.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:03, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (troll harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:01, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (learn the guidelines of Misplaced Pages) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:48, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:34, 27 February 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined)

Page: Denis MacShane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (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: , which was met with: "dishonest and disruptive trolling"

Comments:

This user is very well aware of 3rr rules, and despite a polite note that they were removing sourced content while claiming it was unsourced, went back and repeated the same while attacking me. I've seen them in action before and can't say any of this surprises me, but no one should be attacked for pointing out errors when they are made, as long as they are done so civilly.

Each post I have left on this users' page has been met with equal hostility and attacks so I ask for other eyes on this, and to post notice. The last time i posted about his edit-warring , he also just removed the notice stating, in part, " are hypocrites unwelcome here -- as they should be on all of Misplaced Pages". The edit in question was reverted by another editor indicating that the onus was, in fact, on this user to defend the addition which they never did.

The content in question clearly has sources sited, this is one of several articles they are doing this on. This also seems to be a regular pattern of theirs.Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The content at issue appears to be

It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist .

Which appears at first glance to be a tidbit of gossip and not a statement of fact. There is a legitimate question as to whether gossip belongs in biographies of living persons, and I suggest the fact that an IP has re-added the material might be of interest here. One source is a single aside in a Telegraph article, and the other is a Daily Mail article which uses the term "boyfriend" and not the stronger "in a relationship" which shows the DM is more careful than the Telegraph at times. I suggest, moreover, that "gossip" in a BLP ought not be a protected addition. Collect (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. There's been no violation of WP:3RR. The material is poorly sourced and not even correct, using the word "currently" (a dreadful word) when the source is from 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:62.44.135.196 and sock User:87.63.80.142 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Both blocked)

Page

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

Users being reported

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

and its sock 87.63.80.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597834201 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
2. 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597833787 by Pjposullivan (talk) Other cities also have other langages for example Tetovo in Macedonia."
3. 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597831244 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
4. 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597827288 by 87.63.80.142 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "==ARBMAC Warning==
2. 18:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
3. 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering.
4. 18:40, 2 March 2014 3RR Warning by FPaS.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Coordinated edit-warring with sockpuppet 87.63.80.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) across many WP:ARBMAC2 Greek articles. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196. Δρ.Κ.  18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

Common target articles. Please check article history.

• Edessa, Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• White Tower of Thessaloniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Naousa, Imathia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kastoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Blocked for 60 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ.  19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Snowded (Result: )

Page: Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matt Lewis (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: (Note the latest batch is a continuation of earlier edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring against three other editors, personal attacks on the talk page. Matt seems to be back to his old ways ----Snowded 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "old ways" here: that's just something Snowded always says about me. This is a big one: policy has to come before 3RR here as the current wording commits a grave error in its misinterpretation of national identity. My clear 'OR'-correcting content has been removed from the article by a small group of people who want to break up the UK. 3RR makes less sense in this area, as it's just used to win arguments and stop change. Snowded has refused to give his opinion on the discussion page. As soon as a made a policy-correcting edit it was attacked, and it just went down hill from there. This was, however, settled last night with my compromising edit. Snowded today reverted it for no good reason other than just saying "talk" (which he personally hasn't done - he won't commit - so how can I?). It was settled, was all fine, and this is utterly needless now. It's entrenched nationalist politics at its worst imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see Matt you have been opposed by all other editors engaged, and trying the nationalist slur does not excuse the "I'm right so exempt from 3rr" stance you have taken ----Snowded 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you looked a bit more carefully you'd see that in the end the better editors involved accepted the compromise (decausa, martinevans etc) - You've just needlessly fanned the flames today, and give air to known trolls like 'British Watcher'. If you actually engaged in the discussion you would have spotted all this. For the first time ever, I even sent you an email to point out the mistake you are making. I pretty sure that I've never done that before to anyone. Why did you ignore it Snowded, it's so needless and painful it really is. The current content is so non-policy it has to go. My edit was 100% inoffensive. Whatever happens to me, the article will simply have to be free from incorrect interpretive bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A clear 3RR violation by User:Matt Lewis. He may be able to avoid a block if he will agree not to edit the article or its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. But please be aware that at one point this article stated that "74% of people in Wales had no British identity". It was all interpretation of a column heading. Over 74% of us has! It doesn't make us any less Welsh, and like the census people we ragard British as Welsh and vice versa. This article insists the census was mutually exclusive in UK terms, and a test of Britishness. IT wasn't. What I found (a bit buried-away I admit) was beyond unacceptable for me, and I wasn't taken seriously from the very outset unfortunately. Everyone I've spoken to yesterday and today in Real Life Wales finds it utterly absurd (even on St David's day), and one woman said "this is why daughter says don't trust Misplaced Pages." It's so sad, and it does nothing for the project at all. But I'll ring around and alert and try and get some better sources from the census people (see if they'll 'prove the negative' in some way - they won't want this at all). I assume that is acceptable - they can only say no. I'll take what comes any way. Sorry but I thought this was over last night (in fact I'm certain it was) and today I didn't feel I had any choice but to say I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts continued here Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the above comment since. It's just the final way of shutting me out Dai. It's pretty transparent imo. But as the person who put the above line in (no 74%) you've personally got what you want in the end, at least for a while. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring