Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BBBAAACCC (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 4 November 2013 (→User:BBBAAACCC reported by User:Fareed30 (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.

User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Warned)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578603918&oldid=578582412
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578918583&oldid=578855810
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579545760&oldid=579538212
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579642942&oldid=579641210

Note that this user has been previously blocked TWICE for 3RR violations on this page, once in 2009, a second time earlier this month.

Also note that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of a living person, in this case a distinguished professor Richard Wiseman, that make Wiseman look like he is endorsing pseudoscience (or WP:FRINGE as is the euphemism we use around here). Not only is this extremely disingenuous but it is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

How ere you getting four reverts, that user has only two edits to the article today? The last edit was four days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see relevant discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Illegitimate_reversals. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what that section is going to show other than you obviously have NOTHING close to consensus for the content that you have been reinserting over a number of days. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the two previous two blocks for warring at Rupert Sheldrake included "incivility", which reminds me of this comment in the thread mentioned above. (I haven't diffed out the rest of the thread.) vzaak (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see two instances of Alfonzo Green editing the article in the past 24 hours but they don't appear to be reverts. Others have, in fact, reverted whatever he writes. If he/she is responsible for violating some BLP concern, maybe that issue should be posted on that noticeboard. I don't see him/her edit warring here. In fact, it seems like editing on that article is overwhelmingly dominated by Editors posting in this complaint. Liz 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is "dominated" by editors who can't or won't understand policy and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Liz (talk · contribs) pretends to take an impartial view on this but consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. The edit in question is an "attempt" to subvert POV by falsely attributing views to a person who doesn't hold those views. The edit warring is slow granted, but my understanding is that WP:3RR doesn't have to be in the same 24hrs, and IMHO slow edit warring is reasonable cause for a longer ban, and the problem of incivility remains. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Given Alfonzo Green's history, he should consider himself warned that if he continues to edit the article without a clear consensus for his edits, he risks being blocked, even if he reverts only once. That said, I have some advice for other editors who have commented here. Alfonzo did not breach WP:3RR. Barney's understanding that it doesn't have to be in the same 24 hours is wrong. I think he is confusing edit warring with a violation of 3RR. Next time you file a report, pay attention to the diffs and disclose that this is not a 3RR violation you are reporting. As for incivility, all I see is sometimes heated discussion. I wouldn't label it incivility. All editors should avoid commenting on other editors and focus only on content; very few do, alas.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 Please reconsider your warning. Not only did I not break the three revert rule, but my edit in no way represents Wiseman as a supporter of pseudoscience, as Barney the barney barney alleges. Here's the edit that triggered his complaint: "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." It's clear from this quote that Wiseman disagrees with Sheldrake's view (which Barney falsely implies to be pseudoscience). Barney's complaint is entirely bogus and should result in a ruling of no violation. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You have 186 edits to article space, over half of which have been to the Sheldrake article. I suggest you broaden your contributions to Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guess what, Bbb23? You make a lot more edits when they keep getting reverted. I haven't run into that problem on other pages, but then most pages haven't been hijacked by a clique of editors determined to impose their POV. Telling me to go work on another page doesn't resolve the issue on this one. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo is right. Neutral or Editors sympathetic to Sheldrake have either been driven off or they are confined to the Talk Page. It's exhausting trying to read that page. There are probably less than half a dozen Editors who are allowed to edit the main article. Anyone else who tries to edit the article, like Alfonzo, will find themselves in an edit war or be resigned to being reverted. I thought it would have simmered down by now (this all started in September) but it hasn't. Liz 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RoslynSKP reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: )

Page: ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This edit reinstated citations to the Official British history to the first two versions of the division's name and the link to the contents page of the official history on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a revert - its an expansion of the article --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit reinstated the citations to the Official British history regarding the first two versions of the division's name. --Rskp (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

and

Here Jim Sweeney cut the information which expanded the article (referred to above). --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit reinstated the link to the Official Australian history contents page on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No template warning but commented at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Citations for all the names of the division

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Citations for all the names of the division

• Note. I'm going off-wiki and don't have time to review this properly, but glancing at it, my sense is that the two of you are having your own private edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue was also discussed on my talk page here --Rskp (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney mistook a citation which linked to the AWM web site, with a cite to a particular page, and it has taken me a number of reverts to finally clarify the issue here . --Rskp (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: some of these issues are being discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Illegal use of rollback. Anotherclown (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Due to a slight change in the naming of the topic discussion this can now be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_use_of_rollback. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Til_Eulenspiegel reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: )

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

Version before edit warring

Previous version reverted to: preferred version, including some edits to the section on China and East Asia.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

Comments:

Re: the talk page, there was only one editor, so I tried to resolve the conflict in the edit lines and at his specific talk page instead. I was also writing a recap of my points and the relevant policies on the talk page but kept getting distracted by reverts and (now) abuse of process and warnings, so I came here to fill this out first.

In short, dude is falling back on page ownership and feels; lowering the defcon; and refusing to interact or address my points and good faith or any of the relevant policies, which have been noted repeatedly. Ban is probably a bit much, but if a third party could talk him down, it'd be nice. (I've never done this before, so sorry if there is someplace else I should've gone for that. Lemme know.) — LlywelynII 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You gotta love it when an editor keeps edit warring in his bold edit based on systemic bias, edit wars it in three or four times, wouldn't discuss on the talkpage, then tries to get the other editor reverting to the status quo 3 times blocked! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is also deceptive, there has been no further reverting since the warning. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• @LlywelynII:, regarding these four removals of the same content ( ), is there any good reason why you should not be blocked under WP:3RR? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  Apart from that not being 3 reverts? There's the policies the material violates, the fact they're completely unsourced, the banner on the page saying unsourced material will be removed, and the observation that I made repeated good faith efforts to bring Til into a conversation about what was going on - to which he responded with reverts, ad homs, and warnings.
  
  Sorry for your issues with {{...}} and I'll take a page ban if people really have the opinion that I was the one edit warring, but none of that changes the fact that I was the one constructively editing the page, that the material in question was unsourced, and (even if it is accurate, which Wiktionary doubts) it belongs at Wiktionary until there's some more context to it. — LlywelynII 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a broader perspective to this, see User talk:Til Eulenspiegel#Removing talk page comments, etc where User:JamesBWatson wrote " Without even looking further back than today, I found that you have been edit warring on Myriad and on Cuneiform. Any further edit warring at all, on any page, at any time, may lead to an extended block, without further warning." Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Llywelyn, it's not wiktionary that doubts these are the honest-to-god Hebrew, Albanian, Afrikaans, Mongolian etc. words for "myriad", it's YOU, because your mind has been softened to the point where it accepts wiktionary as the ultimate authority on all things - so if it isn't in wiktionary yet, there must be no such thing, eh? Once again, if there are editors who speak these modern languages with tens or hundreds of millions of speakers - regardless of how obscure YOU may find them - then we accept on good faith that they aren't making up words to fool you, just as we don't demand proof and references to be convinced that fleur means flower in French. Why do you keep writing things into the policy that have never been there? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." To my mind, the removal of exactly the same content four times within one hour counts as four reverts. These are reverts because they undid the actions of other editors, even though the actual content removed was first added some time ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Jingiby (Result: No action)

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: Kingdom of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on dispute resolution noticeboard:

Comments:
This issue appears to be clear edit warring and POV-pushing. It may be called ahistorical revisionism or original research that is aimed to projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the past. There is no doubt, this editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed even my warning to discuss the issue on his own talk page. There is missing real discussion on the article's talk page. The user didn't provide a single source in support of his agenda. I think the editor refuses to collaborate and continues simply to edit war. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note. @Jingiby: So you get into an extended edit war with DIREKTOR over ethnic-related content and you come here to report the other party? Shouldn't both of you be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Brilliant move, isn't it? I guess he thought nobody was going to check, or that if he reports first he somehow gets away with it. In my defense, I was rolling back to a stable status quo before Jingiby introduced his Bulgarian-nationalist slant. The man refuses to accept that we don't use contemporary terminology, but modern-day terms blah blah... In short, this is one of those obscure Balkans conflicts that can't really be solved in any way other than through edit-war: nobody along the entire DR process gives a damn, and I'm stuck rolling back various ethnic POV-pushers that regularly pop-up with their ideas on how everybody is Bulgarian/Serbian/Albanian/Bosnian/Croatian, etc etc..

If you've gotta, fire away (*lights cigarette and ties blindfold*). -- Director (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

On a contrary, the issue is not so complicated. You was not rolling back to the stable version Direktor, but to the unsourced POV added without any comment by James Lindberg (talk) . Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to comment on the matter. From what I can see James Lindberg have removed some sourced information, without giving a reason. Also the same user have taken information from a source for 1918 population (non census information), and copied it to the section of the official census results from 1921. Jingiby have reverted that and did few more edits, which DIREKTOR have reverted, claiming that version after James Lindberg edits is the "stable version" (which does not correspond to the truth). The rest is just usual edit warring. StanProg (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to start a content discussion here, but I feel I must add something to StanProg's review.Here is a link to the relevant (ignored) DRN thread. The central issue is Jingiby's removal of reference to the Macedonian ethnicity prior to its formal institutionalization in the aftermath of WWII. This is essentially like removing reference to Galileo Galilei being "Italian" by a "Pisan nationalist" because there was no such formal nation at the time, and supporting that with a slew of sources that explain how the Italian nation was not officially declared until much, much later. Essentially what he's doing is introducing contemporary (Interbellum) terminology, instead of referring to these people by what they're known today. He's been doing this all over the project for a very long time. Its basically in-line with Greater-Bulgarian ideology that claims the modern-day Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. Its damaging to the encyclopedia, and I tried to stop it here. This is the result. As I said, noone replies to DR attempts in these sort of subjects (I know this because of my 50,000 edits on such topics, e.g. the ignored DRN thread). -- Director (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment @DIREKTOR When you do a reverts, you should be very careful what part of the edits you revert. In the current situation you've reverted a disputed (by you) information as well as edits which are usually classified as vandalism (census results and exact quote for 1918). Being a Macedonian Bulgarian (by origin) I haven't intervened in your discussion with Jingiby because of a conflict of interests. Trying to help solving this dispute, I can point that in all the of censuses before 1913 (Ottoman) and the Greek, Serbian, German, etc statistics, these people were identified as "Bulgarian", in the period 1913-1931 they were called "South Serbs" (officially - which can be seen in 1921 census - they are part of the "Serbs & Croats" - by mother tongue), in 1931 census as "Yugoslavs" and since 1944 they are called "Macedonians". What you're trying to do is to push the 1944+ nation name to 1918 people. I think you can both agree with "Macedonian Slavs" i.e. "Slavs from the region of Macedonia" as a common name, or the other official terms based on the period for which you're writing and continue with constructive editing of the article. --StanProg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, yes, I agree... -- Director (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems. With one exeption only: Chernozemski was Bulgarian not only by self-identification, but also by place of birth. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: HistorNE warned)

Page: Exodus of Iran's Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: HistorNE (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:

An Arbitration decision placed all articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict under a 1RR limitation. It has been clarified that this includes topics related to Israel-Iran relation (which this article clearly is0 here: . The relevant comment reads "Also, there was a previous case at AE where someone was editing about Iran-Israel relations. Iran's government refers to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'. I would interpret an I/P topic ban as excluding *all* of the edits and topics listed by Sean.hoyland in this complaint" - said topics being " Israel–Iran proxy conflict or Iran–Israel relations" This editor was just here a day ago for edit warring, and got off with a warning. It may be time to step it up a notch. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE was blocked this September for edit warring. An edit warring report against User:HistorNE was recently (yesterday?) closed with a warning, which as we can see did not accomplish its task. I advised User:HistorNE to revert but s/he has refused. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

These are actually related to their edits on a different article than my report. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize that. So he's edit warring on multiple pages the day after he was issued a formal warning. Awesome. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't refused, I misunderstood you. It's reverted now. --HistorNE (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First, Iran is irrelevant to Israeli-Arab conflict (not Arab country, neither participated in their wars), and Persian Jews are irrelevant to Iran-Israel relations. Citations from article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community, in American Encyclopædia Iranica, written by David Yeroushalmi (Jewish Israeli professor from Tel Aviv University):

• Moreover, because of a variety of historical conditions inside Persia, mainly the absence of state-wide persecution or popular harassment of Jews, freedom of movement and immigration from and into Persia during the years 1948-79 (and actual possibilities for immigration from Persia since the establishment of the Islamic Republic), the Persian immigrants who moved to Israel ordinarily did so out of their own free will. These immigrants, as well as those who settled in Mandatory Palestine, did not perceive themselves as victims, refugees or displaced individuals whose immigration was imposed on them by events or forces beyond their personal control.
• Since the early 1960s until the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran in February 1979, there was an average annual immigration of some 1,000 to 1,500 souls from Persia. The average did not increase in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, which was followed by a major wave of Jewish immigration from Persia to various destinations, chief among them the United States and Europe.

This is completely apolitical topic which your pal User:Greyshark09 has tried to connect with "Israeli-Arab conflict" or alleged "post-revolutional persecutions", but according sources above it's pure nonsense. Regarding his pamphlet I already explained here and here. Even after explanations, he engaged himself in edit wars without any discussion or summaries (except insults like "disruptive editing"). I consider this as game of edit-war called "two mouses against one cat" to keep POV. --HistorNE (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• HistorNE was warned by Kipa Aduma that the article falls under the Arbitration decision, and I agree that it does. The lead of the article, rightly or wrongly, suggests so. Thus, the 1RR restriction applies; HistorNE is free to appeal this, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. Now, it is clear to me that, arbitration set aside, HistorNE is editing (redirecting) against consensus, and is taking an unfair advantage by claiming that the Arb restriction does not apply; Greyshark and Kipa Aduma have reverted only once. So I am going to undo HistorNE's revert, with the warning that any further revert will result in a block. They can take the issue up on the talk page and achieve consensus there; alternately, WP:AFD is a solution, or WP:DR. But on the note of that talk page, I take serious exception to HistorNE's heading, "Another propaganda piece by Israeli user Greyshark". "Propaganda" is already a non-neutral term, and "Israeli editor" is simply a personal attack; see WP:TPNO. If HistorNE wants to play collaboratively, they will change that heading. In addition, the next such comment will result in a block for incivility/personal attack, as will the next revert to the redirect without consensus on the talk page or elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• The scope of WP:ARBPIA is an important issue and the AE case Kipa Aduma, Esq. cites is one example where admins have interpreted 'broadly construed' to include things like the Israel–Iran proxy conflict and Iran–Israel relations. I think there have been similar clarifications concerning Israel/Iran when ARBPIA topic banned editors have, from an admin's perspective, strayed into the fuzzy zone that defines the scope of topic bans (although I can't recall whether it's been at AE, editor/admin talk pages or perhaps both). Whatever the merits or relevance of that argument to this case with respect to ARBPIA 1RR restrictions (and I don't know whether HistorNE is currently ARBPIA topic banned), that argument should not be made by a sockpuppet of a block evading topic banned editor. Kipa Aduma, Esq's edit history, their first edit being a revert of Dalai lama ding dong (who went on to become a sockmaster) and the proximity of many other edits to NoCal's perceived foes like ZScarpia, Dlv999 and Nishidani suggests that it is likely to be another NoCal sock. Edit warring reports like this should be filed by established editors in good standing who are allowed to edit here. There was nothing stopping Brewcrewer or any other editor who is allowed to be here from filing this report. Socks don't need to be here, are not allowed to be here, there's no excuse for them being here and rewarding their actions is counterproductive. HistorNE should play nice, but why should he play nice if Kipa Aduma, Esq is breaking a rule to be here ? When an editor thinks someone else is breaking a rule, any rule, they are far less likely to follow the rules themselves. This kind of futile tit for tat is endemic in the topic area, partly thanks to the corrosive effect of the presence of sockpuppets. And just in case anyone wonders why I haven't simply filed an SPI report instead of saying these things here, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100 for a currently stalled SPI investigation into other suspected NoCal socks. Apparently SPI does not work effectively, and given the amount of sockpuppetry it's easy to understand why. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: He hasn't stopped, despite being warned. As you can see here in this link, he continues to push pov, without trying to reach a consensus with other users. Coltsfan (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've provided eight reliable sources verified at talkpage, without removing doubious sources. You didn't verify anything, you simply reverted it. Considering threats and false reports, it's more then obivous your not interested in improving article. --HistorNE (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: A sockpuppet investigation is opened regarding user:HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Attleboro reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: )

Page: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Attleboro (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: Ongoing discussion here. Attleboro began the discussion only after being warned by another editor.

Comments:
To be clear, this isn't a bright-line 3RR violation, as Attleboro reverted 4 times in a 29-hour period, but I do believe it's worthy of a block. Not only does it appear to be gaming the 3RR system, but Attleboro was warned repeatedly and warned that violation of the bright-line rule isn't a prerequisite to sanctions, and after being forced to the talk page he/she then re-reverted against consensus (Arzel, Fat&Happy, and me) while the talk page discussion was ongoing. (On top of that, it's pretty clear from the discussion that Attleboro refuses to learn basic concepts about WP:NPV and WP:RS.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's more going on here than Fleischman mentions. First, these aren't reverts to the exact same text. Rather, Attleboro is trying out different formulations in an attempt to get a reliably-sourced view onto the article. In particular, he moved from an unattributed statement to an attributed one, which shows an attempt to compromise.

Second, as I point out on the talk page, some of the edit comments in the reverts are simply inaccurate. The same thread shows Fleischman and the others who reverted taking on a confrontational attitude and refusing to cooperate with Attleboro's attempts.

Based on this, I suggest instead protecting the article to force these people to listen to Attleboro instead of reverting each attempt he makes to hit the moving target that they present.

Please note that I haven't edited this article in a while, so I'm not part of the edit war here. My hands are clean. MilesMoney (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter that the reverts aren't the exact same text. They all include the same material that was objected to.
2. Characterizing Attleboro's edit warring as "an attempt to compromise" is about as distorted as it comes. The edits speak for themselves. Qualifying a quote with "evidence from economists of..." doesn't come close to proper attribution. Plus, MilesMoney's reconstruction is belied by the lack of any offer of compromise by Attleboro in the talk page discussion. (Nowhere did he/she say something like, "But I did attribute the quote.")
3. Strange that MilesMoney is accusing me of being combative and not listening to Attleboro; the talk page discussion shows pretty clearly in my view that I've bent over backwards to entertain Attleboro's arguments, but that he/she has ignored mine. But this is, frankly, completely irrelevant; if I had been combative, it still wouldn't have justified edit warring.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at what DrFleischman did here and suggest less wiki-lawyering on his part. Orthogonius (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell, what did I do there... and how is it relevant to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the DrFlieschman's report of edit warring. Please take it elsewhere. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Olde Hornet reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Alabama State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olde Hornet (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:
It's unfortunate that I have to ask for this editor to be blocked but he or she doesn't seem to be responding to messages posted on his or her Talk page while he or she persists in deleting material without participating in discussion with other editors. It's possible that he or she simply hasn't noticed the notification icon (it's now rather small and tucked away in the very top of the screen) so perhaps a block would be sufficient to get his or her attention...? ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for 12 hours. This will hopefully get the point across. John Reaves 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It didn't; he or she has continued to edit war without any discussion whatsoever. In fairness, he or she may not have even noticed the 12-hour block (if we can safely assume that he or she doesn't see the red message icon). A longer block that he or she can't miss may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Protected)

Page: World Organization of the Scout Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP POV-pusher

Please lock down World Organization of the Scout Movement to edits from IPs for a while. A troll tried to pick a fight with our admin on the talkpage, luckily the admin didn't take the bait. So the IP went on to the article, adding assumed "facts", miscapitalizing and mispunctuating things, with no cite. Naturally I reverted. A decade-old article with dozens of registered users watching isn't going to be that replete with mistakes that a user who doesn't bother to sign in or register will catch things the rest of us haven't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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:

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week as two IPs were involved. Kintetsubuffalo, you should have either filed this report properly against the last IP or you should have taken the issue to WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The second IP was the one making the 3RR edits, and as to RFPP, I'll know for next time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:101.170.85.76 (Result: No action)

Page: World Organization of the Scout Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kintetsubuffalo (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:

Talk:World Organization of the Scout Movement#Exaggerated claims of "membership"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite entries on article Talk page, Gadget850 and Kintetsubuffalo engaged in edit warring by repeated complete reversions and Kintetsubuffalo makes his intention to revert any edits clear - "I will continue to revert all IP changes that look similar".]

Reversions by Kintetsubuffalo:

08:58, 2 November 2013

13:14, 2 November 2013‎

13:50, 2 November 2013‎

13:58, 2 November 2013‎

Kintetsubuffalo justified his reversion by claiming the edits lacked cited references but deleted considerable links within the article, to other articles and to sources as well as references to sources.

Having reverted all contributions, Gadget850 belatedly edited the article to include changes to dates which were the same as those he and Kintetsubuffalo had reverted but Kintetsubuffalo did not revert Gadget850's changes. The two users work in conjunction to revert any changes made by other users and dominate the article.101.170.85.76 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. See above report (article semi-protected).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:71.79.64.188 reported by User:Space simian (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Ender's Game (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.79.64.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.79.66.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. by 71.79.64.188
5. by 71.79.66.64

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ender's Game (film)#Reception

Comments:

Anonymous user keeps making POV edits to the reception section. Began as 71.79.64.188, after several warnings and comment on talkpage suddenly user 71.79.66.64 shows up and makes the same edit. Since they are in the same IP-range I think it is safe to assume it is the same user who very cleverly reset his router. --Space simian (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: as below)

Page

Demographics of atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GrunterVonHaart207$! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 14:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 14:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 14:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Demographics of atheism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned several other times by @AndyTheGrump: and @Dougweller: as well. Rhododendrites (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24h)

Page

Ulla Lindström (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GrunterVonHaart207$! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 12:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 13:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 14:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 14:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Demographics of atheism. (TW)"
2. 14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear 3RR. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Importance of religion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GrunterVonHaart207$! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) to 13:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
   1. 13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Demographics of atheism. (TW)"
2. 14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"
3. 14:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warrants more than a 24 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Kuru. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BBBAAACCC reported by User:Fareed30 (Result: )

Page: Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BBBAAACCC (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:

• BBBAAACCC is not only disruptive, an edit-warrior, a POV-pusher and a violator of 3RR, he seems to be prejudice towards certain people and is attacking me on my talk page "You are laugable:)"' ... "and you are still a dark skinned Indian." ... "You are laugable. I've an account in other wikis, not just English wikipedia." He keeps adding questionable images of Indo-Iranians (possible Indo-Aryan, Dardic or Nuristanis) into Iranian peoples article, which is not only unsourced POV but plainly wrong and disruptive. For example, Zarine Khan is an Indian woman of ethnic Pathan background and he decides to add her to Iranian peoples. There is no such evidence that she is of Iranian stock, absolutely none. My side of the argument is that Pathans are of unknown origin so their images shouldn't be added in Iranian peoples article, and when someone does this it's forcing pro-Iranian POV on the world when all the leading experts of the world (scholars, historians, researchers and Pashtuns themselves), do not know the origin of Pathans, it's concluded that Pathans are a confederation of various tribes of different background who formed one nation. As an educated guess, this likely includes Turkic, Indian, Arab, and others in addition to Iranian peoples.

• In addition to being disruptive and etc, I'm almost certain that he's wrongfully abusing multiple accounts. A name like BBBAAACCC with only few disruptive edits and yet behaving like an experienced editor smells like a fish to me. He's now trying to change his English writing to reduce my suspecion. This all began on 10 October when an Iranian editor (Mani1 (talk · contribs), who has been suspected in the past of abusing multiple accounts ) expressed his POV by making Pashtun people an Iranian peoples group but this was reverted. After Mani1, Krakkos (talk · contribs) appeared at Pashtun people article and expressed the same pro-Iranian POV An IP from Ontario, Canada, then appeared at the same page and aggressively lowered the population of Pashtuns in India, then that person behind the Ontario IP created Observerpashtun (talk · contribs) but stopped editing after I suspected him of being a sock. This IP assigned to someone in Turkey behaves alot like BBBAAACCC, it writes "regards" before signature, has very recently added "Pashtun" as the nationality of Indian born, Indian actress Zarine Khan, and also very recently edited Iranian peoples.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Below is BBBAAACCC's argument, which includes his copy pastings of previously-published comments by other editors

• Pashtuns are not Indo-Aryan, they are Iranian. And also you are edit-warrior, not me Indian guy BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Here is our discussion on his talk page. No comment:

Read the article Zarine Khan and her "Early life" in the article. She is a Pathan/Pashtun(Iranic) girl who live in India, not ethnic Indian. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I suspect that you're a disruptive serial sockpuppeteer and an exteme POV pusher so I went and reported your action at . Secondly, why out of all the people you selected 2 famous Indians (Zarine Khan and Sher Shah Suri) and also Mir Wais Hotak (Ghilzai Pashtun) to represent Iranian peoples? No where did they ever claim to be Iranian and also there's not source that they are part of the Iranian peoples.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You are laugable:) There are source in the article(source 4). BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that I am a sockpupperter, this page is for it. BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Appears to me like you just experienced a panic attack. If you continue with your extreme POV pushing and disruption then I'll be forced to email a few admins who can determine whether you're abusing multiple accounts or not. You only have a few edits but act like an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, isn't that fishy? A name like BBBAAACCC itself suggests sockpuppetry.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are laugable. I've an account in other wikis, not just English wikipedia. That's the reason why I "act like an experienced Misplaced Pages editor". As I told you, if you think that I am using multiple accounts, you can complain it in here.If you continue harass me, I am going to complain you. BBBAAACCC (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also I've discussed that issue with this user in an another page. BBBAAACCC : (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the imagebox in the Iranian peoples article because I have reasons to believe that an extreme POV pushing and very likely serial sockpuppeteer is adding images of famous non-Iranian people. She is disruptive and often attacks other editors. . She's also very likely abusing multiple accounts. Some of her socks are probably BBBAAACCC (talk · contribs); Krakkos (talk · contribs); Observerpashtun (talk · contribs); Mani1 (talk · contribs) but there may be more. If this may help, she's appearantly editing from Toronto, Ontario, Canada . Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1/Archive. Based on behaviour, POVs, area of interest in Misplaced Pages, style of English and everything else they all seem to be connected very well, trying to Iranianize everyone and everything.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained dozen time but you do not want to understand I think. Why don't you look at ur message page? Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pathan(Iranic) person who live in India. Therefore she is Iranic and anyone can add her to Iranian people. So you are the only POV pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The accounts that you have mentioned above are not belong to me. Admins can investigate it. In addition, I want to an explanation about your reverts and edit war despite the sources. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no such evidence of this Indian woman being of Iranian race. I watch pages all day long and I'm sure that you're using multiple accounts for edit-warring. You adding Pashtun figures into Iranian peoples article proves alot.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told, admins can investigate whether I use multiple accounts or not. It is so simple. And there are evidence, you can see it in the article(Zarine Khan-Early life). If you cannot see it you can read thish BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit: "... Asked about whether it was a risk casting Zarine Khan, the debutant from the UK, Khan says: 'She's a Pathan girl who speaks Hindi and Urdu well and was spectacular in the screen test. It was pure luck.' " BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All the leading researchers around the world have concluded that the origins of Pathans is UNKNOWN. You're the only one assuming that they are part of Iranian peoples and adding their images in Iranian peoples article. That makes you an extreme POV pusher.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that you're disruptively abusing multiple accounts.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have not attempted to engage with BBBAAACCC on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This is a content dispute, and as such you must WP:DISCUSS the dispute at those locations, not here; AN/I does not deal with content disputes. If you can't reach a resolution that way, then WP:DRN is the next step. As for accusations of sockpuppetry, that's what WP:SPI is for. There's nothing here that's appropriate for AN/I at this point. Accordingly this is being closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No comment. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Here is his edit-war. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Iranid race represents here. An Afghan/Pathan man represents Iranids. In addition, Pathan language classified as an Iranian language. So it is not my POV-push. Conversely, this user who is complaining is a real POV-pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Being dark skinned" is not a shame or inferiority. So there is no personal attack. I wanted to say that Indians are dark-skinned and some of them-just like this user- feel shame because of their skin colour and want to be white. That's the reason why he is trying to label Zarine Khan and other non-Indian whites as "Indian" despite the sources. The actress is an ethnic Pashtun who live in India and Pashtuns are Iranians. Therefore there is no reason not to adding her into Iranian people. It is so normal. But this user's behavior is "abnormal". BBBAAACCC (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What does the above pure-and-total-BS have to do with the fact that you edit-warred? Even if you're "right", it's NEVER permitted ES&L 22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pashtun(there are source in the article to confirm it) who live in outside of Afghanistan and therefore I can add her into Iranian people. That's it. BBBAAACCC (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring