Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 25 June 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Limulus reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Page Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not an edit war in the traditional sense that there is a dispute with intransigent parties. There was a bit of a tussle between Limulus and 2 editors (including myself) over the section "Naxism and homosexuals", but that appears settled. But because of the tussle Limulus committed 2 reverts. Then a 3rd revert on a different issue. The real problem is that they don't think that the bright line of 3RR applies to them. They wrote "Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring." In fact, they were in a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content. Right after that statement they ignored my warning and reverted.Lionel (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the linked versions and reverts, first, if one checks the history the one immediately before Lionelt begins editing is 435214017 not 435129249; I find it interesting that he has selected the edit immediately before mine in which I commented "fixed last bit of damage by suspected sockpuppet Truthinmyheart" (see User:Truthinmyheart).

So we need to look at *435214017* as a starting point.

The end of Lionlet's first batch of edits is 435255378

Given that we are both doing batches of editing (note that I most recently started on the 18th and have been in a bit of a marathon of edits since), I don't see how even if I reverted *all* of that batch of edits (which I did not) that that would count for more than one, but let's look at the specific examples given:

• "1st revert" "diff=prev&oldid=435206242"

???? That is the difference between two of *my* edits *before* Lionelt even started! FAIL!

• "2nd revert" "diff=435307849&oldid=435255378"

Lionelt had removed a wikilink to persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and I added it back in with the comment "please keep a link to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in this section; The Pink Swastika as per its page is clearly fringe theory WP:FRINGE" BUT then user Nuujinn removed it again in the next edit saying "no, let's keep it nice and flat and neutral, just the facts." At this point (while I disagreed somewhat) I decided to let the matter rest and I did NOT re-add it. This is NOT "a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content". So why is Lionelt complaining about something that was resolved in his favor before he got back to editing again and AFAIK without him having to ask for intervention? To prove a rhetorical point here rather than be pragmatic about the community editing process? WEAK.

• "3rd revert" "diff=435311589&oldid=435309087"

The next edit of mine, "Shuffle sections; keep child-related items near top, fix ref issue, title tweak" This is several changes that are not exactly a rv. Before Lionelt's edits, I had put three sections into a "Fringe views" section. Lionelt had taken those three and another and put them into two new sections. I then put the one back (though not exactly the same way; I felt it needed to be readded as it was suporting the basic theme of its parent-section: "the imperative to protect children from this sort of harm became a driving force in her life.") and split the remainder up differently, modifying the names a bit. I continued to tweak the arrangement in my later edits until I settled on a still different arrangement . The ref issue (mentioned earlier) is definitely NOT a rv; Lionelt had reworded a section in a way that incorrectly sourced a quote to a different ref: that was me fixing a mistake Lionelt had introduced into the article.

• "4th revert" "diff=435383284&oldid=435375292"

Yes! Finally, an honest-to-goodness revert! But wait, look at the comments...

18:45, 20 June 2011 Lionelt (talk | contribs) (44,985 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?)

19:53, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,264 bytes) (Undid revision 435375292 by Lionelt (talk) please see my talk page; Regnery is mentioned later in that section and Reagan has to do with the social conservatives.)

(note: my talk page regarding this: User_talk:Limulus#Reisman)

21:28, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,219 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: removing "during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan" due to a WP:SYNTH concern by Lionel on my talk page)

So Lionelt breaks a mention of Regnery because he apparently didn't read the whole section and didn't read the refs. But then when he somewhat elaborated a concern with the Reagan mention, I undid that part I had reverted. Sorta rv?

Regarding the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template" this is the first time anyone has jumped down my throat like this and it seemed a hostile act for what was IMHO *not* 3. In fact if you look at the times, it seems that he reported me before even trying to talk to me! (and I only noticed this page thanks to NekoBot)

FASTILY: regarding "dispute resolution", I don't really know that there is a "dispute" that needs resolving. Obvious errors like the ref issue and the Regnery issue just need fixing. The Reagan issue was resolved between us (before I even knew that a complaint had been filed!) after he explained a concern. It seems like this was reported in haste, though in the future I will have to be more careful in 'counting' reverts (what to me was <3 was >3 to him). So, i guess in summary, if you wouldn't mind, please unlock the page. THX! -- Limulus (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of a revert is defective.

1. You changed "discredit" to "debunk"
2. You changed "wrote in the New Yorker that Reisman holds the" to "recounts a contrary position held by"
3. You changed "Causation of homosexuality" to "As a promoter of homosexuality"
4. You hit undo: obvious. Even though you re-removed Reagan, you left Regnery. It is still a revert.

Please see WP:NOT3RR. None of your claims for exemption are valid. You violated 3RR: consider yourself lucky that you did not get blocked. You know, I have nothing against you. I warned you about 3RR in good faith. Your arrogant response on your talk page and subsequent revert in defiance of the warning was probably ill advised. Lionel (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support lifting page protection. By their comments above it appears the editor in question does not grasp 3RR thus may continue to violate 3RR. Lionel (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I may not fully grok 3RR (and honestly, SYNTH gives me trouble), but (again) how is #1 (where you are pointing to two of *my* edits) a rv at all? In fact, looking at 435255378 you left debunk in... are you trying to say that it is a pejorative in the context of the lede? (that was not my intention) Or the fuller quote from the ref is? (But that's not a rv...) Does this have to do with the banned sock puppet account? *confusion* Why did you remove the first (wikilinked) instance of Regnery, but leave the second? For someone who just started editing () a somewhat mature article, you seem quite easily angered... perhaps the block will help you more than me. Anyway, the article was fortunately locked in a good state and one can always leave notes on the Talk page. If a week-long block is necessary, then so be it. -- Limulus (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert is: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Changing just 1 word is a revert, and for the most part the reason is irrelevant. Regarding Regnery, I didn't notice the 2nd appearance. But on first glance, it doesn't look sourced.Lionel (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced- specifically to "Trento, Susan (1992)." which is currently ref #14 and there's a link to a copy of the relevant section on Reisman's own website (as she puts up lots of stuff there about herself). When reverting edits in the future I will attempt to do it all at once rather than in a piecemeal fashion (though I do prefer the latter for editing). This conversation would be more appropriate on the JR talk page though, so if you wish to continue, please do so there. -- Limulus (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:Looks like someone is busy waging their battles by filing ever more reports. Reviewers, please check closely. Veriss (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, may I ask what's going on? :( -- Limulus (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

User:E2e3v6 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Declined)

Page: Press Your Luck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: E2e3v6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 10:50, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Winning the game */ Press was not on during November 1986.")
2. 18:52, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Home Player Spin */")
3. 19:17, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 435683574 by MegastarLV (talk) I have permission to put this stuff in by another wiki writer. check out discussion.")
4. 20:06, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 435685614 by WikiLubber (talk) Thank you for giving me another chance. Bye Bye.")
5. 20:20, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "I should have said Thank you for giving me a "Second Chance". Get it?")
6. 21:38, 22 June 2011 (edit summary: "This is the last one. please keep it in. The link is not dead.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Press Your Luck#Home Player Sweepstakes

Comments:

This user has been using a fansite to back up his claims. Fansites are considered an unreliable source, and this one is no exception. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, 3RR has still not been broken... The editor has been warned once by an IP. So I am not going to block right now until another revert occurs from the user. In case the user doesn't revert again, engage in further discussions, take up dispute resolution. In case the user reverts once more in the next few hours, come back, the block will happen. Wifione _....... 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And closing as Declined per above. -FASTILY 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Event.Horizon.000 and User:Maphobbyist reported by User:Asav (OTRS) (Result: Event.Horizon.000 one month)

Page: Cultural genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Event.Horizon.000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Maphobbyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
On June 17, OTRS received a notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. Both editors have ignored my warning and call for constructive collaboration posted on their and the article's talk page and continued to reverse each others' edits. For the record, I have no involvement in the article itself, but act only as an OTRS volunteer. Asav (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Malformed – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <!-- --> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the FAQ for more information. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Asav (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The header and the diffs are now OK so I believe the report is well-formed. It's a case of long-term warring, since nobody has reverted four times in 24 hours. In my opinion both of the reported parties should be blocked 72 hours and notified under the WP:ARBAA case, since both seem to be interested in the Armenian genocide and they are breaking WP policy by edit warring. (A diff that reverts Armenian material is here). Socking appears possible. User:Event.horizon.000 may also be editing as 178.78.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and as two other IPs, judging from Maphobbyist's contributions. Here are the userlinks for Maphobbyist: Maphobbyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both parties do a lot of reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Event.Horizon.000 I'd suggest that Event.Horizon.000's block be for one month. He has already been confirmed by checkuser as a sockmaster and has just returned from a 72 hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I reverted the POV material the blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 added in the Cultural genocide and Daşkəsən articles, he got angered by this, and is now erasing any editions I make indeed in any article for no apparent reason, except due to a gruge it seems. This user also has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars. (Maphobbyist talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: User:Event.Horizon.000 is blocked one month for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Cultural genocide has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gisling reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• A
• 1st revert: reverted A
• restored A
• 2nd revert: reverted A
• restored A
• 3rd revert: reverted A
• templates by Gun Powder Ma and discussion on talk and notification of edit-war (Gisling took notice)
• B
• 4th revert: reverted B
• restored B
• 5th revert: reverted B
• restored B
• 6th revert: reverted B

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notification of edit-war (Gisling took notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: templates by Gun Powder Ma and discussion on talk

Comments:
User reverts against four other users (User:Arthur Rubin, User:Kwamikagami, User:Gun Powder Ma and 115.117.153.184) a version which is untenable. Discussions on talk fruitless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Clearly edit warring, and clearly aware of 3RR having been blocked before, but I don't see a clear enough warning here. Continuing the edit war and or insults after the warning should be grounds for a prompt block.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fountainviewkid reported by User:66.112.61.23 (Result: 2 Weeks, reporter blocked 31 hours)

Page: Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

This user has been blocked for 3RR many times, and his edit warring on this page has caused the page to be protected two times prior. Simply protecting the page for the third time is unlikely to be a deterrent from further edit warring. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a "new" IP at an article which has been struggling with vandalism. I am trying to keep the IP from deleting whole section of the article. We need to use the Talk page rather than delete enmasse. Also the IP has violated 3RR as well, though it looks like it may be multiple IP's making the same edit (possible the same person)?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I might also add that the IP keeps trying to add unsourced allegations that a church leader resigned his ministerial credentials in spite of no evidence saying otherwise. Especially since this is BLP there needs to be a credible source saying such a statement and there isn't. All the evidence suggests the opposite.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Fountainviewkid seems to not understand how ministerial credentials are issued in the Adventist church. They are given to ministers of a specific conference and continue only as long as an individual is employed in a pastoral capacity by that conference. It is not the same as ordination. By resigning his employment with the Michigan Conference, anyone with knowledge of the Adventist system knows Pipim resigned his credentials (not his ordination) as well. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Pipim resigned his employment, but if he were to be employed by another conference he would have his credentials. The statement was very misleading and provides no evidence. Provide some reliable source about Pipim losing his credentials. And don't make it "synthesis" either.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. If he was employed by a different conference, that conference would issue him new credentials under their conference.

66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again provide some reliable sources showing Pipim had his credential resigned. When you provide the reliable source we can add it and the problem is solved.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been struggling with loads of promotional language that multiple individuals have attempted to remove. Unfortunately, Fountainviewkid continues to insist on including said promotional language that multiple editors have noted and accuses those attempting to trim it of vandalism. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really new IP? You know how the article is struggling? And yet your first edits were within the last hour? Yes there are issues, but those are best handled via the Talk page. You seem to be more experienced and should know that, of course you may have other accounts. I am trying to keep the article from being vandalized by having whole sections removed. Sections which include some reliable sources I might add. It's vandalism to make those kind of edits without consensus, discussion, or a very very valid reason. Simply not liking certain terms does not justify wholesale removal of paragraphs.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not justification to edit war. 66.112.61.23 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not justification to vandalize--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Comment The IP seems to be a disruption-only account. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid, if these disputes are best handled through the talk page, why have you not attempted to use the talk page yourself? Also, it is not vandalism to remove sections as you described above. A "very very valid reason" is a very subjective term, to the point that any edit that removes content could be considered vandalism by at least one editor. Simply not liking an edit does not make it vandalism. This can in no way be considered vandalism, these two were instances where the IP removed unsourced content, which you restored, which also do not fall under the definition of vandalism. This edit is not exempt from 3RR, as it does not meet the criteria of Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. as can be seen with the edit summary, as an explanation was given. Misplaced Pages's rules on what falls under vandalism are very narrow for a reason. - SudoGhost™ 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying one editor is "wrong" and one is "right", and I personally disagree with the IPs edits, but WP:3RR does not have a "I'm right" exception, especially with when there is no attempt to use the talk page. - SudoGhost™

I have used the Talk page. Check out the sections that are being removed. They include some reliable sources. The IP is removing them it appears more out of POV reasons than anything else. It has nothing to do with mean not "liking" an edit. I still see it more as vandalism since again I argue while some of the edits have merit, others are far too broad to be considered "constructive". While that may be too harsh of a term I guess I could call the edits "extremely disruptive". Either way the IP is adding statements that are not reliably sourced, removing reliable sources, and deleting whole sections that serve a valid purpose in the article. I might also add that the IP itself has violated 3RR, and suspiciously looks similar to another IP that was editing right before. I'm not saying there should be an "I'm right" exception, and you're right that I probably should have been over here reporting the IP for disruptive editing. If you look at the content under dispute, the IP however is clearly in the wrong in how it is editing. Yes maybe I should have reverted so much, but I just wanted to protect the page from what I see as "vandalism" from a disruption only account. Look at the IP's history.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole resignation situation, Facebook source, and other edits the IP is trying to put in are discussed at length on the Talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've requested the page's full protection at WP:RFPP. Hopefully in lieu of issuing blocks on both sides, so that the edit warring will cease, and talk page discussions will result (something that may not happen if blocks are issued). - SudoGhost™ 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a section on the Talk page called "IP's editing". Yes that may not be the best title, but I have my view of the situation. Hopefully others will comment. Page protection should help.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note Page has been full protected. - SudoGhost™ 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time the page has been protected due to Fountainviewkid's blind reverting. It needs to stop so everyone can collaborate on improving the article. 184.158.78.248 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And this is your first edit to wikipedia apparently. Please explain. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 Weeks by DeltaQuad + Crashdoom 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that everyone of these IPs who appear at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, edit war, and then disappear, seem to have an editing pattern, temperament, and familiarity with policies uncannily reminiscent of a certain edit warrior recently gone inactive? – Lionel 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the case hasn't been presented in the right forum, yet. Since CheckUser is fairly useless, we need to request a "behavioral analysis" of all these experienced SPA IPs and our favorite "edit warrior recently gone inactive". The only person in the world who cares about this stuff as much as Fountainviewkid is BelloWello. --Kenatipo 04:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:Avanu (Result: Declined)

Page: Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nobody

Santorum article undergoing massive rewrite, requesting more lax edit rules temporarily

Comments:

Editor and administrator SarekOfVulcan earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the tone of editing for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.

As reported in the Signpost, this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.

Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- Avanu (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As nobody is being reported here, I think this might be more appropriate on the talk page. - SudoGhost™ 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Not a report. This kind of post belongs at WP:AN/WP:ANI. -FASTILY 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks. Moved to Administrator's Noticeboard. Avanu (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kvvvvxvvvvv reported by User:Chimino (Result: No Violation)

Page: Speculation about Mona Lisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kvvvvxvvvvv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an ongoing dispute regarding the so-called "Roni Kempler theory" introduced to the page by user Relpmek (Kempler spelled backwards) earlier in the year (see talk on article page). It now appears the above user (whose page has been marked sock account by another editor) is attempting to insert the same theory despite well-worn explanations by several editors, including myself, on the WP policy against original research. It seems we have all attempted various means to diplomatically resolve the dispute, but the user, under his various names (Szs567 is likely another via ), simply will not listen.--Chimino (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So the editor, under his/her multiple usernames, may add their OR ad infinum until their fingers curl up with paralysis with no recrimination?--Chimino (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then this is the wrong forum to request administrative intervention. Please do so at WP:ANI instead. -FASTILY 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.--Chimino (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:S a narasimhan reported by User:Hari7478 (Result: Protected )

Page: Iyengar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: S a narasimhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: :

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user had been engaged in edit wars and high levels of vandalism, by reverting other's contributions that are wells sourced. "user:s a narasimhan" removed highly authentic sources(Government publications, online books by famous University Publications, Online books of renowned neutral party authors, etc). Except his last edit , all other previous vandalising edits were unexplained. I havent mentioned his other vandalising edits. Please check his contributions. The user had always disapproved of the authenticity of "source materials", and had urged me to edit based on "What one holds to be true" , and had denied wiki' policy of "Verifiability, not truth". Accepting the user:s a narasimhan's request for discussion, i had discussed the issue in the talk page. But the user gave no repsonse, and continued with his vandalising edits. In his last vandalising edit here:, the user had contributed an untrue discriminatory information without any source. In one sentence he had mentioned "though they consider Ahobila mutt as inferior because Ahobila mutt incorporates lots of Tamil worship in its rituals." Saying that "one is superior/inferior to the other, and saying a language is inferior" is highly prohibited here, but the user had used such terms in his contributions. None of his contributions were sourced. However the info' he had provided is untrue because the geneteic tests were done on "Ahobila mutt" group, as the test was taken from "Kurnool district(incorporating ahobilam), and the individuals' genes were similar to punjabi aryans. He should be blocked. But he's getting away with vandalism, as he calls for discussion, in his revert comments, but fails to discuss anything in the talk. Although he calls for consensus, he continues to make vandalising edits, even before a discussion, and has not provided a valid discussion in the talk page. Check the article's talk. "User:s a narasimhan" has also repeatedly disapproved of wiki' policy Verifiability, not truth, inspite of the fact that i've adequately explained wiki's policies to him in the talk page. Check this message here, which he{sa narasimhan) posted on my talk page: . He is consistently denying the authenticity of "Neutral party sources(online articles), and is repeatedly urging me to edit based on "observance & empathy". How could this be possible in wikipedia??. The user has clearly disobeyed and violated every basic policy of wikipedia editing, and should be blocked. Sometimes, he just does not choose the undo option, but changes the previous edit, by editing it manually. Please help. The user is also including polemics in main article, rather than in the talk page. Hari7478 (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop your forum shopping (your SPI case came back as unconnected) and follow the procedures of dispute resolution as I've mentioned to you on my talk page and on the article talk page. The page is protected, discuss on the talk page, WP:DRN or follow other processes at WP:DR. This has gone on for long enough. —SpacemanSpiff 09:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But the user i have reported had been removing source materials constantly, calling them "not reliable" , and had repeatedly committed vandalism , and for once, he had contributed a highly discrminitory information , as mentioned above. I've discussed it already. Most of his reverts were unexplained. But the user is repeatedly asking me to deny the authenticity of "source contents", and is asking me to edit based on empathy, i guess. How can a contribution like that be allowed here?? Expecting an appropriate result. Also, the spi case where the registered users were compared, was unconnected. But i'm sure the user had used anotgher(Ip), to win the edit war. But ips are not linked to names. Will certainly read the instructions from your talk page. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected prior to report. —SpacemanSpiff 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Stho002 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: 24 h)

Page: Four-dimensionalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stho002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:00, 23 June

• 1st revert: 01:12 (rv)
• 2nd revert:03:28 (rv)
• 3rd revert: 05:56 (rv)
• 4th revert: 08:33 (rv)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning on 00:47, June 21

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article talk page (see Talk:Four-dimensionalism#EditWarring).

Comments:Stho002 has been editing tendentiously as the sole opponent of the consensus. He was given 3RR warning on 00:47, June 21 and reverted 5 more times directly thereafter. Please note, on his user talk, he admits that he reverts using his IP address, 130.216.201.45, so his edit history doesn't look bad. Please let me know if I copied any diffs wrong, (page hist). Thanks.—Machine Elf  09:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69
User:Bretonbanquet reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: protected)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Mlpearc powwow 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Nobody has edited the article since the 3RR warnings above and nobody has broken the letter of 3RR, but all parties here are experienced enough that I expect that they are well aware of the edit warring policy. Please take a moment to re-read the policy regardless, and avoid future edit wars over minor issues of presentation on an FA. If matters are not resolved before protection expires in one week or if consensus is reached before then, please make a request at WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Neither of us have breached 3RR, and I don't really see the helpfulness in someone warning me about 3RR on an issue where I have already notified the other user of 3RR and asked him to discuss the matter. Furthermore, there have been no edits to this article between Mlpearc issuing both of us with warnings, and this report being filed. I have reverted this guy 4 times in 4 days, and got warned about 3RR. Do me a favour.

Hoponpop69 made a change to the article which I disagreed with - on a specific point that had been stable for over 8 years - and I reverted him. He continued to revert back, at which point I left the article at his preferred version and started a discussion on his talk page and the article talk page, urging him to discuss the matter. A discussion took place involving other users, during which Hoponpop69 called me and other editors "foolish" , "dense" and "lacking in intellect" . We ignored that, and the matter now seems to have been resolved, with another editor restoring the original version. Hoponpop69 meanwhile made another change to a different part of the same article, and I reverted him again. Some reverting went on between us and another editor as well, while I asked Hoponpop to discuss it. He seems to think that a change can be made to an article and then everyone else has to prove him wrong because as far as he's concerned, his edit was just common sense. It doesn't work like that. I continued to discuss on his talk page and he ignored it, reverting again, threatening to report me if I reverted him So it's "I'm not discussing this - don't revert me or I'll report you". He also accused me of reverting every edit he makes, which is patently not true and an assumption of bad faith. That is unacceptable. Why do other editors have to start discussions every time Hoponpop69 wants to make a change that is contested? The onus is on him to justify his change, not on the rest of us to justify the status quo. Furthermore, why should I be obliged to leave the article at his preferred version (again) and start another discussion when he has openly admitted that he is refusing to discuss the problem? I would have reported him myself, but since he threatened me with further action, I thought I'd trigger that further action in order to bring about a resolution. Thus my final revert, and my first in 2 days. Before that could happen, Mlpearc got involved with templating experienced editors without bothering to actually check through the discussion and the whole history of the problem. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just drop it and move on ? I'm {{done}} Good luck. Mlpearc powwow 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So the guy who shouts the loudest, throws some insults around and bends the rules always wins? It's about a principle. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Moni3 (Result: 24 h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer Tom O'Horgan.
• Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although technically that would be wikt:pederast, not wikt:pedophile. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: )

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

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned after the second revert by myself and a another editor

Abortion is on 1RR. DMSBel is aware of this. The lead is in a very active state of discussion; nearly the entire talk page and much of a recent archive is dedicated to discussing this. He has edit warred multiple times regardless. There are other editors whose conduct might ought to be examined; see the article history. NW (Talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring