Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ItsZippy (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 18 March 2013 (→Cessna38671: reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: )). 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:BlackJack reported by User:Jbmurray (Result: Warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: History of cricket (1726–1740) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlackJack (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:

There's been much discussion, but see particularly Talk:History_of_cricket_to_1725#Theories_of_origin_-_Celtic_origins, Misplaced Pages:RS/N#Globalizing_Cricket, Wikipedia_talk:Englishness_and_Cricket#Credible_sources, among others.

Comments:

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The person who should be reported here is jbmurray. A series of edits were made to History_of_cricket_(1726–1740) by members of a college assignment group who are here temporarily to learn about English cricket. They are using a source that is dubious to say the least. I am the main author of the article and others like it as I am a subject matter expert and away from Misplaced Pages I have written widely on the early history of cricket. I have no objection to anyone editing an article as long as they do so using credible sources. There are serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of this particular source which have been discussed at length elsewhere.

Seeing the numerous edits to the article I immediately spotted one statement re a set of rules drawn up for a match in 1727 and I knew immediately that the information was false. I have pointed this out to Murray during his edit war but he has, as usual, ignored the advice. Some of the other statements also seem dubious but I have not had time to check them in detail and I decided the best thing to do was to revert the article back to its last credible version. I did this in good faith to maintain the article's accuracy for the benefit of the readers. Murray is somehow involved in the college assignment (see Misplaced Pages:Englishness and Cricket) and he is trying to prove a WP:POINT about this source book they are using. As a result, he has repeatedly reverted my removsal of the false and misleading information in this article and refused to take notice of my advice to that effect. He is therefore carrying on an edit war by trying to justify use of an unrecognised source against the advice of subject experts.

As the article is still "in development", I considered its future earlier today and decided that, when complete, it will be too long so I reduced its scope and moved it. I then made a number of appropriate changes to reflect the revised scope. Much of the misleading information is now out of scope in any case but Murray has ignored this too and has reinserted it, again showing no regard at all for the readers. The article is one that I have in my list to attend to. It is the sequel to History of cricket to 1725, a WP:GA which has also been subject to interference by Murray's group and was put under a form of protection yesterday to prevent their incursions, again using the same dubious source book.

If anyone wants more details, please drop me a line. ----Jack | 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what BlackJack says here is simply untrue. It's quite clear that I kept all the changes that reflect the revised scope of the article, with which I have no problems at all.

Nor is this in any sense "Murray's group." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And regarding the "credibility and reliability of this particular source," I opened a query at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so as to resolve that matter. Unfortunately, BlackJack has declined to contribute. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He clearly does not understand the word "scope". The article is now about the years 1726 to 1740 and he has reinserted stuff relative to years following 1740 which are therefore out of scope (and also dubious). No, I did not go to the reliable source page. Why should I? Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable and we have set about removing dubious content taken from that book by people new to WP and with no prior knowledge of the subject. The accuracy and integrity of the articles take priority over any WP:POINT you wish to make. ----Jack | 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi BlackJack, could you link to where the subject experts agreed Malcolm's book is unreliable? I looked through WP:CRIC's archives and drew a blank. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not discussed at CRIC, only within article talk pages and the most relevant discussion is this one. ----Jack | 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In that thread the only person I've seen demonstrate in-depth knowledge of cricket on Misplaced Pages is Jhall1, who said "I haven't read Malcolm's book, and it may be a very good one (and I accept that it qualifies as a RS)". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If Jhall1 is the "only person" then are you saying that I have not demonstrated in-depth knowledge of cricket? Haven't you noticed who wrote the whole of CRIC's 18th century coverage and most of its 19th century coverage? And besides Jhall1 there is a comment by CDTPP who is new to WP but is also an expert. I know that he is a long-term member of the ACS and he knows as much about early cricket and its recognised authorities as I do. What Murray is saying is that we have to subvert everything the acknowledged authorities (Arlott, Wynne-Thomas, Birley, etc.) have written because he says that this man Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject and we must populate articles carefully written over many years with crackpot theories like Lang's ludicrous Celtic origin. I'm beginning to believe that I really am wasting my time here and that I should forget WP and just concentrate on my other projects. Clearly, as YellowMonkey and jguk found out in the past, it doesn't matter that you are a subject expert. All that matters is "admins" like Murray who know everything and understand nothing. Go ahead and change the articles and fill them with rubbish and false information. ----Jack | 08:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackJack. I am far from saying that "Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject." I am not even saying that a) he is right or b) he has not been misread by the students in question. I note that, from all appearances, you haven't even read the book. All I am saying is that this is quite clearly a reliable source, as Misplaced Pages understands and defines the term.

But the place to debate that issue is over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which you still haven't deigned to visit. Here, what's at issue is your response to this disagreement: which involves repeated wholesale reversion, violating the three revert rule. This is not how disagreements are dealt with on Misplaced Pages as you, a long-term editor, well know. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am of course aware of your contributions to cricket on Misplaced Pages, and happily consider you an expert. Back in 2009 I tried to lend a helping hand when you were being bombarded with socks. It is quite clear that you don’t think much of Malcolm’s book, so when you said “Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable” I interpreted this as meaning three other people agreed with you rather than “Myself and two other subject experts have agreed this book is unreliable”. Please excuse my misunderstanding. However all in all, things don’t seem as strong as you put.

You are very strongly attached to this article, and I think it would be a good idea to step back. People who are beginning to learn about cricket could benefit from your experience and knowledge, but getting into an edit war (and this is clearly a breach of WP:3RR) isn’t going to result in a productive dialogue. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read the book and it's risible quite frankly and your comments seem to be attempted to justify nonesense from the standpoint that 'it's good to have a debate.' That's OK but Jack, and it is odd to find my self saying this, is an expert witness. You, with great respect are not, and we should be trying to make a valid encyclopaedia, not a catch all for peripheral theories.CDTPP (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Thanks, CD. And apologies to Nev1 for the misunderstanding above: I actually misread your comment.

Right, lets look at the 3RR thing. I read the edits done by two or three members of this class and, given my knowledge of the Articles of Agreement (cricket) drwan up by Brodick and Richmond in 1727, I realised immediately that the statement about "1727 laws" was completely incorrect and actually misleading. Check the quoted article which contains the actual content of the articles of agreement. Which means, given that the students have quoted Malcolm on this per the citation provided, his book contains false information about an aspect of the sport's history that, as CDTPP will agree and Nev1 will appreciate, is highly significant (i.e., the earliest known written "rules" in cricket history). If Malcolm is providing false information on such a fundamental question as this, then his book can only be considered dubious to say the least. I then looked at some of the other points added and, although I would need to check them in detail, I am very dubious about some of it while more (and this is student error) was simply out of scope. I therefore decided that the best thing to was revert back to the last good version by User:OhConfucius and that I would try and improve the article myself in the near future as it has not received attention for some time.

Next thing I know, Mr Murray comes along and reverts because he thinks I don't know what I'm talking about and how dare I revert material drawn from this wonderful book which CDTPP (who knows a great deal about early cricket, incidentally) has described with justification as "risible". I pointed out when again removing the false information that it is false and misleading, but Mr Murray is one of these who is always right and proceeded to escalate an edit war and then tried to blame me for it. What am I expected to do? Allow an article to be ruined by lies? ----Jack | 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are many processes in place to deal with content disputes, and making five reverts in a content dispute in less than 24 hours isn't one of them. Unless I'm missing something, this is a crystal clear violation of the brightline three revert rule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is indeed. However, Jbmurray reverted four times, which is also a violation. Shall I block them both?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed that when I posted my comment. I would be less inclined to block Jbmurray than BlackJack, since he's at least made an active effort to try to resolve the problem and hasn't demonstrated significant civility issues (he's brought it up at WP:RSN, WP:ANI, and the talk page of the article.) Given that both have committed technical violations, if I were you (or if I had a mop) I think I would be inclined to ask each person if they saw what was wrong with their actions and block them if they didn't make a positive commitment to stop editwarring and resolve the content dispute through a more appropriate channel. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough, although I don't think anyone has asked the question anywhere yet, certainly not on my talk page. Right, lets go through this. First off, this article unlike History of cricket to 1725 is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.

Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both User:CDTPP and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at History of cricket to 1725 and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.

I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see Articles of Agreement (cricket). The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of Articles of Agreement (cricket) but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.

After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to Articles of Agreement (cricket), I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.

After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a WP:POINT about allowing this university class carte blanche. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as this one with his "let the madness continue" jibe.

My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was bona fide and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert here and was then escalated by him with this revert here which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.

Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. ----Jack | 13:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have commented at ANI and warned both editors there. The discussion should continue there, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:93.173.149.97 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: No action)

Page: Itamar Marcus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.173.149.97 (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:

Article is related to the Israel Palestine conflict and under ARPBIA 1rr restrictions. Dlv999 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Seems to have quieted down. There were warning issues here, which is why I did not take action earlier. I did add an edit notice to the article to help in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same-sex marriage

For background on this case, please see this November AN3 case that resulted in a 48 hour block of Pass a Method. In that case, Pass a Method was edit warring on this very same article to include links to various small religions, specifically, Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans, Druids, Raelians, and Eckankar. While some of these eventually stuck, the Eckankar didn't. Today, Pass a Method effectively continued the old edit war, forcing the Eckankar link into the article.

Previous version reverted to: (Check any of the 4 reverts above)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:46, 14 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 00:21, 15 March 2013 (edit summary: "clarifying what i wrote")
3. 01:15, 15 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by StAnselm (talk) to last revision by Pass a Method. (TW)")
4. 01:40, 15 March 2013 (edit summary: "ok, added a source")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not that a warning was required, since the user was blocked a couple months ago for edit warring in the same article, same section.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Pope Francis

Pass a Method also breached 3RR at Pope Francis where they made a series of bold edits and reverts related to the headings of "Gay Marriage", "Gay Adoption", and a quote about Gay Adoption being the "Devil's work".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Bold edit 1 (create section headings for Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption); Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3. (Restoring headings)
• Bold edit 2 (add "Devil's work" quote); Revert 4 (Restore Devil quote).

  All edits were on March 14.

Diff of warning (note: not a 3RR warning): .

Comments:

The November report was filed by a sock who is currently blocked. Nevertheless i agree with Nat with what he said about bypassing redirects. Pass a Method talk 23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that (in hindsight) and I'm sorry that I am filing a similar report to a sock puppet. But what does my conversation with Nat have to do with anything? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Both Anselm and Pass a method were edit warring, why does the report not include both? The report is now stale, it's been over 24 hours since any edit warring. From Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Eckists it seems what was really needed was more opinions; not a block of one of the edit warring editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report St. Anselm because they stopped at 3RR, whereas Pass a Method was at 4RR on two different articles. More opinions would have certainly been helpful, but in my opinion, what was really missing was good old fashioned BRD. I made the report because I'm tired of the BRRRRRR pattern (7 edits, 6 reverts). ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I stopped at three reverts and started the talk page discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Pass a method behaved badly in the article. The main reason I didn't block earlier was because the content issue seems to have sorted itself out, placing the Eckan thingamajigger in a diferent part of the section. Unless I'm wrong (quite possible), that seemed to resolve the issue. StAnselm is correct that they stopped at 3 reverts, although that doesn't preclude sanctions for edit warring (something to think about please in the future). As for the Pope Francis article, that has so much activity on it, it's like looking through a jungle. If some other admin wants to see whether Pass a method deserves to be blocked for their conduct on that article, that's fine, but don't forget all the other editors on that article who have probably reverted more than 3x in a 24-hour period. Block city.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: )

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544561674
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544447044
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544446852
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544374558
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544155642

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alhanuty#Syria_red_flag

Comments: Frequent uncivil conduct and restoration of unnecessary information, is not assuming good faith, proactively asserts ownership of article by reverting changes made to it by any member for being "inconsistent and confusing", claiming a lack of concensus, has engaged in inappropriate use of reversions on Flag of syria, and i told him that wikipedia isn't a place to put your own opinion,and i gave the reasons and explanations why it has the article to stay as it is,then he says that the council doesn't represents me,asserting that he wants the article to go with his opinion and not go with consensus .Abdo45 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey , I'm not putting my opinion , it's the truth , and what's wrong with you ? , COUNCIL DOESN'T Represent me , do you want it to represent me in your mind ?GhiathArodaki (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Disturbedasylum reported by User:The Stick Man (Result: )

Page: Akuma (Street Fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Disturbedasylum (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: None, unfortunately. I neglected to warn him.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I've given him disruptive editing warnings and tried to reach out to him through his talk page, pointing him to the article talk page and encouraging him to use edit summaries. Both attempts have been ignored. I find it impossible to communicate with him. He has broken 3RR, though I neglected to put a warning on his talk page. His edits are mostly to preserve what I believe to be an excessively large reception section. TheStickMan 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Both editors breached WP:3RR. I have left messages on both editors' talk pages advising them that will not be blocked if they agree not to edit the article for 7 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Janicar reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

Page: Great Seljuq Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janicar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Janicar and his IPs have started no discussion on the talk page and have ignored all calls to do so.

Comments:
User:Janicar and his IPs(131.180.143.48, 80.112.146.109) have reverted 3 other editors. Calls to start a discussion on the talk page have met with these responses;

1. "undid disruptive editing"
2. "Undid disruptive editing, please don't delete any contribution to wikipedia without consulting to the talk page yourself."
3. "Undid disruptive editing, let's discuss this on the talk page before just deleting things". Note:Nothing has been discussed on the talk page.
4. "Settle your disputes on the talk page first, before deleting any contribution for this artcile." Note:Rather odd, since Janicar and his IPs refuse to discuss anything!
5. "Undid disruptive editing, see talk page". Note:There is no discussion on the talk page.
6. "Undid disruptive editing, take your concerns to the talk page yourself, before disruptively editing. Delete by an unfounded claim. (How many accounts have you got?". Note:Accusation of sockpuppetry towards User:Bobrayner, which is ironic, since User:Janicar is logging out to continue edit warring.
   

User:Janicar and his IPs have continued to edit war against 3 other editors, Users:Zheek, Bobrayner and myself. All attempts to have him take this to the talk page have failed.
As a side note, I noticed IP 80.112.146.109 was heavily involved in edit warring on Imia/Kardak and subsequently blocked by Favonian.
Prima facie evidence would appear to show that Janicar has been edit warring over numerous articles and simply logging out to do so. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this user and those IP users are socks of User:EMr KnG. Similar behavior, similar edits/edit warring, similar edit summaries (poor English), and same articles. For instance see the edits on this template and talk page: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Zheek (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Another similar activities/edits on the article Khwarazmian dynasty. diff1, diff2. Zheek (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have a few comments. First, it would be better for any one of the reverting editors to take the dispute to the talk page, not just "call" for Janicar to do so. Janicar might not respond, but at least then you would have tried. Second, there are multiple IPs involved, and although more than one geolocates to Ankara, at least one geolocates to the Netherlands. Third, with respect to the socking accusations leveled above (not by Janicar), please take that to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place. Finally, as for the some of the other pages mentioned, I advise all concerned to be careful of edit warring. I didn't block Janicar for breaching WP:3RR, which he didn't do; I blocked him for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vcohen reported by User:24.193.156.117 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: 6 (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vcohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544627113
2. 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544631028
3. 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544676147
4. 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
5. 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
6. 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544690124
7. 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544698276
8. 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544709657
9. 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544715769

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&action=history

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I blocked the IP. This is a resumption of an edit war the IP was warned about earlier this month. In addition, the edits themselves were disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Declined and Dogmaticeclectic warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Microsoft Office 365 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (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 would ask that neither User:Mark Arsten nor User:Bbb23 handle this, as both of these administrators have previously been involved and, more importantly, both have - at least - shown serious errors of judgement.

The user being reported has now got one user (myself) blocked and another blocked from editing the article in question (the other user is unregistered and the user I'm reporting got semi-protection applied). Once the IP user was no longer able to edit the article, this user almost completely ignored the IP user's numerous objections at the talk page and continued to edit the version of the article this user preferred. After that, I stepped in and reversed most of the changes this user made against the objections of the IP user, but was subsequently blocked after this user filed a report against me for a different - though directly related - article. After I was blocked, this user continued to edit the article in question, including at least partially reverting one edit of mine.

This user has also recently been involved in edit wars at other articles: Microsoft Office 2013 and Windows 8. I placed a total of six (!) warning templates on the reported user's talk page as that is the minimum number of policies this user has recently violated. The user simply removed them all.

Additionally, this user seems to have been very deceptive in dealing with these matters: opening a WP:DRN case about the first article and even mentioning me by username, but not including me in the case (or notifying me of it) and opening a discussion at the second article's talk page after filing a report against me here and then going back and editing the "iff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" to link to that are examples of this. This user has also made numerous accusations against multiple other users, many, if not all, of which are clear examples of the pot calling the kettle black, and at least some of which - the multiple WP:AGF accusations against me in particular - are actually groundless altogether.

As a final note, one of this user's latest edits involved reverting the IP user in question's relevant comments at the article in question's talk page (!), accusing those comments of violating WP:NPA - when in fact the comments in question would not be violating that policy even if they were not relevant to that particular talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. This is a retaliatory report. Dogmaticeclectic is warned that if they continue, they will be blocked for longer than their last block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:98.252.50.93 (Result: Blocked)

This user, no less than 6 hours after the page was left unprotected, proceeded to use both his an an alternate account to make immediate edits without getting any consensus in the talk page or allowing his comments in the talk page to be mediated upon for any time what so ever. The user merely leveraged the talk page as an edit summary. Upon notifying the user to adhere to wiki talk page standards after getting mediation from Penwhale on the topic, the user undoes my remediation and claims I am edit warring. I am trying to follow the wiki rights, but this users must receive a temp ban for this. See his 'notification' that he is altering something. This is the edits him and the socket puppet did (within same time frame, and same topics vein of topics).

This page must be protected again, or this user must be banned, he is in direct violation of the admin's request. Will an admin please research the users IP addresses User:Scientiom and user:Somedifferentstuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this board you'll see a case I recently brought against this user. User:Penwhale handled that case. Today this IP violated the neutrality of a BLP article by removing the addition made by User:Scientiom. I placed an Edit Warring Warning on his talk page as well as a note on Penwhale's talk page. As evidenced by this malformed complaint, this IP has around 100 edits on Misplaced Pages. His belligerence is disruptive to the project. He blanked his talk page today as can be seen here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMIN: I DID NOT REPORT THIS USER TODAY. HE FILLED OUT THE FORM INCORRECTLY. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I blocked the IP for edit-warring, personal attacks (sock puppet accusations), and disruptive editing (this report, among other things). I've changed the section header to show who reported this (Somedifferentstuff, no need to shout).

User:89.139.163.96 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of postmodern writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.139.163.96 (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: None. I am not directly involved in the article conflict.

Comments:

The user was warned after 3 reverts made to preserve their removal of a particular author's name from the list, and then they proceeded to blank their talk page to remove the warning and continued to revert to maintain their POV without concern for consensus. I have no direct involvement with the conflict on the page and have simply observed it from the outside. Ducknish (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, after these reverts, the editor continued to push his POV on the author with these additions. , , and (which were then reverted ). Ducknish (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked the IP for longer than conventional because of edit-warring on other articles. They seem to be tackling a lot of lists.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:94.156.112.192 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked)

Page: David Archuleta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.156.112.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The IP address is changing an image repeatedly without edit summaries or talk page discussions and has been reverted by a few editors. Just 33 minutes after receiving a warning about their 3rr, they reverted again without any discussion. It is also possible that this IP address is a sockpuppet of a banned user and if so should be added to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Davion100, who made the same edit with two different accounts. Aspects (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months for sock puppetry and edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MoFreedom reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked)

Page: Joseph McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MoFreedom (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: Fat&Happy hasn't warned or discussed, I added this after another user claimed removal of the POV was vandalism.

Comments:

POV warrior, a couple of previous insertions of the same material as an IP. While there has been a move in conservative circles to rehabilitate McCarthy, and it probably deserves mention, putting a vindication into Misplaced Pages's voice and offering editorial commentary is not appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was about to bring this here, too. User doesn't seem interested in working things out on the talk pages either. Location (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User is definitely persisting in inserting his POV on both Joseph McCarthy and Army-McCarthy hearings without talking things through on the talk pages. Doesn't appear to show any inclination of stopping, either, and any further warnings are probably useless. I've requested a FP at WP:RFP for both articles. -Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Three more reverts. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by Coin Operation (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Product activation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 12:18, 15 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 544278197 by ViperSnake151 (talk)")
2. 22:56, 17 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 545052870 by ViperSnake151 (talk) no WP:CON at talk page (including about WP:UNDUE)")
3. 23:06, 17 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Coin Operation (talk): Take it to the talk page. (TW)")
4. 23:17, 17 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 545082813 by GB fan (talk) see talk page discussion")

Dogmaticeclectic was not warned this time, but has been warned many times about editwarning and just came off a block for editwarring on a different article. They should know the rules by now without being warned. There are only 3 within the last 24 hours but their last 4 edits are all reverts of the same info.

—Coin Operation (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As my edit summaries show, I've asked several users to take this issue to the talk page - where I have provided an explanation - instead of reverting. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring why didn't you take it to the talk page? Coin Operation (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Not technically a 3RR violation, but continuing to edit war after various editors have told advised him not to over the past few days. ItsZippy 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Cessna38671: reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Blocked)

Page: Southaven High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cessna38671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been blocked during the past month, both times for a one-week interval, for edit warring at Southaven High School and has now repeated the exact same edit without discussion. For the record, during the most recent block, there was suspicious IP activity necessitating semi-protection of the article; I'm not filing a RPP request at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Has continued the same edit warring behaviour almost immediately after finishing his last block without any evidence that he's going to change. ItsZippy 10:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:KhabarNegar reported by User:Patriot1010 (Result: )

Page: Sanctions against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KhabarNegar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545162599&oldid=544859086

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=544859485&oldid=544859086
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007502&oldid=545006687
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007687&oldid=545007502
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545008203&oldid=545007687
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545012592&oldid=545011341
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545018967&oldid=545016321
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545048340&oldid=545046946

Diff of edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310 / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AKhabarNegar&diff=545164777&oldid=545143981

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sanctions_against_Iran Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASanctions_against_Iran&diff=545061571&oldid=544869527

Patriot1010 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

It started with a simple edit, asking user to at least include information about Iran in a Contribution, then set up the portion on the talk page. He reverted and I pretty much just let it go, then two other users attempted what I did, the guy was a bit non-sensical, tried to talk to him, but either hes a little off-kilter or is having trouble with English as he is an apparent non-English speaker. Patriot1010 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The talk page of the article is yet not used by you Patriot1010, Please use the talk pages of the articles, Plus do not try to damage other users good edits buy putting false edits in between and then deleting them all together...

There are some points here below:

1- I have no problem talking English.

2- Check my edits, They have no problem. above user added edits and claims by false sources. And then another user came and delete a huge amount of the article good and false altogether. I asked so many time and beg to use talk page before deleting any sourced text. (Please check all my own edits.) All is needed here is that people use talk page before deleting any good sourced part, SEPARATELY. They two are cheating. Read history carefully to see what I mean.

3- This one is very important: Please check recent edits by this above user (Patriot1010) he had done some edits which have claims which are not in the sources which he provided, plus some claims without any source.

They are trying to force a cheat, take time and see the situation (specially history) carefully, Thanks.

KhabarNegar (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

and look here!

above links (No.2 & No.5 & No.6 & No.7 & No.8) are mostly his own edits!

You see how they are cheating, They delete the whole good and false parts altogether, At once.

Without using the talk page before.

KhabarNegar (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring