Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 25 May 2013 (→User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap reported by User:Sageo (Result: Warned): correcting my misspellings of user's name). 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:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Dervorguilla blocked; MarkBernstein 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: Aaron Swartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:18, 19 May 2013
2. 13:52, 19 May 2013
3. 16:29, 19 May 2013
4. 22:33, 19 May 2013

Related reverts

21:16, 23 April 2013

15:41, 30 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (by May122013 (talk))

22:49, 20 April 2013 (by reporting user)

Comments:

Swartz died on January 6, less than six months ago. I think the article’s covered by BDP policy. Recent history-

1. The user tried to evade a request for disclosure of interests.

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Stale, editors discussing) 01:40, 3 May 2013

“My employer's house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I'd completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.” --MarkBernstein (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013

“The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an 'employee'. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article.” --Collect (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2. At 16:29, 19 May 2013 the user warned other editors at Aaron Swartz that he and David in DC are working as a team and can keep doing reverts indefinitely.

  22:33, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555850908 by Dervorguilla. RV because the rationale in prev comment seems wrong; what do Harvard downloads have to do with anything? Talk, please.)

  21:55, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→JSTOR download: 'JSTOR download' -> 'JSTOR incident' (no evidence supporting any implication that Swartz didn’t make large downloads at Harvard))

  16:29, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555804479 by May122013. We provide references later. There's no doubt. DavidInDC has did yesterday's reverts, so I'll volunteer today.)

  16:01, 19 May 2013 May122013 . . (Please discuss further on talk page. Sources use attributive language but Editors here do not seem to want to do the same and seem to want to make our own determinative statement of fact, which is not Misplaced Pages policy compliant.)

  13:52, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555751485 by Dervorguilla. What is gained by merging sections, other than making the merged section longer and more forbidding? What is the intended improvement?)

  06:26, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (merge 'Federal indictment and prosecution'with 'Arrest and prosecution')

  01:57, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555726011 by Dervorguilla. Let's wait on this, or at the very least take it to talk. See "hacks and hoaxes" for example.)

  01:18, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→In the press: -'Salon covered story of a Brooklyn NY muralist who created a mural of Swartz' (article subject not really notable for being an artists’ subject, but item would fit well in an ‘Iconography’ sec if others found!))

3. A quick review suggests that the user has rejected sysops’ recommendations more often than not.

BLPN:Stephen Heymann 00:27, 18 March 2013

“Silvergate's essay … is simply a conspicuous journalistic account of the affair…. Bbb23's insinuation that it is anything else is unjust.” --User:MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

“It's an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… And in response to your claim at the article talk page that I personally attacked you, what do you think I said that constitutes a personal attack?” --Bbb23 (User talk:Bbb23talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4. The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP.

Arrest and prosecution

JSTOR download

Arrests, charges and indictments

The first subheading should read “JSTOR incident” or “JSTOR incidents”. Swartz wasn’t arrested for a “JSTOR download” — he was arrested for two incidents of breaking and entering.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the 5th or sixth time Dervorguilla has resorted to a noticeboard to achieve what she cannot achieve by consensus in what is, essentially, a content dispute being fought by a tenaciously single-minded editor. I think argumentation here is pointless. I urge admins to review the history of the Aaron Swartz article and talk page and compare the various editors' contributions. The wheel-warring accusation above, as to me, is groundless. It rests on a single, inartfully written edit summary by MarkBernstein. I have more to say about that on the Swatz talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Revert 4, the user reverts an edit had that had brought the heading closer to the less controversial language of 19:18, 16 March 2013 – 16:32, 19 May 2013 (“JSTOR: Arrest and prosecution”), which says nothing about a download — or a breaking-and-entering. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "controversial", in this usage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because I'll be darned if I can find anyone else deeming the things you complain of here (or on the Swartz talk page) as particularly problematic. Occasionally, someone agrees with you. See stopped clocks and their frequency of accuracy, or blind squirrels and the frequency with which they find nuts. But even when some other editor aligns with your thinking, it's never with your vehemence nor are they ever moved to go running from forum to forum crying Controversy!, Controversy! David in DC (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Without regard to whether the edit is necessary, which I find doubtful, I've re-edited the passage about the conditions preceding Swartz's arrest to meet OP's concern expressed in Point 4: "The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP." Please see . David in DC (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a topic ban. Dervorguilla's behaviour at this article, the couple of related articles, and their continual trivia at the ALLCAPS boards is well past WP:TENDENTIOUS. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I couldn't agree more. This one user has tied many editors in knots for months, pursuing WP:POINTy ends known only to that editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Sadly, I reluctantly concur. We want to have as many eyes as possible and should abhor the idea of a topic ban. But given the volume of unnecessary conflict created by a single user on a single point, this may be the best course of action in this case. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week. I've blocked Dervorguilla for extended edit warring with just about everyone. However, I am not closing this report because Mark violated WP:3RR, and I can't just let that go. I've therefore communicated with Mark on his talk page and am awaiting a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Mark has been warned and has agreed (reluctantly would be an understatement) not to edit the Swartz article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I think the 5-day topic ban is unhelpful. MarkBernstein has gotten more this share of harassment due to a sometimes-hostile and often tendentious Dervorguilla. While 3RR does merit a warning, I worry the net result of this that a tendentious user has successfully used edit warring and noticeboard to demoralize a valued contributor. I would really like it if someone could "reach out" to MarkBernstein (talk) to ensure that this doesn't unnecessarily demoralize him. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with HectorMoffet. Bbb23, would you be amenable to reducing the 5-day period to a three-day period? I think Mark was clearly operating in good faith and so this punishment is especially frustrating. I think there may have been some confusion on MarkBernstein's behalf over whether 3RR required the edits to be "warring" or on the same topic. I certainly had a similar bit of confusion, and I've posted a note on his talk page to that effect. I'm not quite sure what to effectively say to Mark on this one. Maybe I'll give him a call tomorrow evening after giving him some time to potentially read the public note I left him on his talk page. jhawkinson (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree Viewing all the behavior in its totality, including my own, I think it's clear Mark was acting in good faith. A gesture of recognition for his contributions to this article and to wikipedia, in the form of a symbolic reduction might help us keep a good editor. It would be very sad to retain the worst actor in this episode as an editor and lose a very good one. I understand Bbb23's actions and decision here, and they're not something any other actor should change. But I'm hoping Bbb23 can see the way clear to tempering justice with mercy. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:210.195.84.194 reported by User:EBusiness (Result: Semi)

Page: GeForce 700 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 210.195.84.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of similar reverts by 210.195.80.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same user, new IP:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have removed a lot of unsourced and irrelevant information from the article. 210.195.84.194 seemingly did not agree with this decision, but have not in a single word defended reverting to the old article. Protecting the article might be a good idea. EBusiness (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The problem is you've both made three reverts, and if you revert again, you'll breach WP:3RR. I'm uncomfortable semi-protecting the article without something more than a content dispute. I suggest two things. First, tell the IP clearly that you've opened a discussion on the article talk page and they should contribute. Second, and particularly if the first suggestion fails, try one of the dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is, dispute resolution seems to be geared towards solving outspoken disputes, my one-way conversation doesn't really fall into that category. This whole system is really big and confusing, if you think I posted on the wrong board please point to the exact course of action that I should take. As for semi-protecting that is mostly because articles on unreleased and unannounced hardware tend to get a lot of content on the rumour level, if User:210.195.84.194 hadn't reverted someone else probably would have, or they would have copied a new pile from their favourite rumour site. But I suppose proper protocol is to wait for a couple of drive-by editors to prove what I'm saying. EBusiness (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this kind of situation is not easy to resolve. Theoretically, a request for comment doesn't require talk page discussion, just an attempt to discuss. However, upon reflection, I don't see why you should have to jump through hoops if another editor refuses to engage. User:EdJohnston has left a warning on the IP's talk page, but it doesn't account for the fact that the present state of the article is the IP's version. I'd wait a bit, and if the IP continues to be unresponsive, I think you can revert the last change without fear of being blocked. I would put something in your edit summary like "see your talk page and the article talk page" so it's clear that you want to talk. I don't think I've ever recommended that someone revert before except in the case of a policy violation; I suppose there's always a first.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course wanting the article protected when continuously being reverted by an IP user also has to do with the possibility of that user possessing a dynamic IP. Say hello to User:210.195.80.31 who continue the job of User:210.195.84.194. EBusiness (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP is in the wrong by using multiple addresses to revert a disputed article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sageo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Warned)

Page: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sageo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: RE: Immigration, RE: Austrian School Economist, etc. RE: Academic Freedom/Views on Homosexuality section title

Diffs of the user's reverts: RE:Immigration

RE:Austrian School Economist, etc. (unsourced content in lede)

RE: Section title "Academic Freedom" vs. "Views on Homosexuality"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Sageo has steadfastly continued to assert that his versions of text are correct and has reinserted them repeatedly, ignoring specific responses and discussions from other editors as to what sources would be needed or other policies would need to be met in order to support his reinsertions. There is ongoing discussion on talk during which Sageo continues to edit war. User:Sageo has been warned several times. User:Sageo states that he is an experienced editor on Spanish WP, even though his experience on the English site is less extensive.

SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I second everything SPECIFICO is saying. In addition to edit warring, Sageo does not even attempt to provide any specific justification for sweeping wholesale deletions of well-sourced material, apart from vague claims that content is "malicious" and incorrect claims that edits violate "consensus." His or her editorial history should be looked into and promptly addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that Sageo has a 27k edit history on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. Some of his/her English comments have been awkwardly expressed, so the use of single terms, such as "malicious", should not be read out of context or held up as evidence in this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will remark on the section heading question, as I am involved with it. The first fairly recent section heading change was here by user FurrySings (no edit summary was provided). I reverted here with a somewhat inaccurate edit summary about discussion, but asked for justification on talk page. SPECIFICO re-reverted here: . Saego then re-re-reverted here: . (I then initiated a talk page section .) The present section heading is the one before this series of reverts, and a discussion is underway. WRT BRD, Furry did the Bold, I Reverted and asked for Discussion, SPECIFICO did another Reversion, but did not initiate Discussion. Saego Reverted, but did not initiate discussion. All in all, I'd say, this portion of the ANI is a mole-hill. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think this is the place to litigate a small matter, which is raised here only in the context of listing Sageo's reverts. Nonetheless, Srich, let the record show that the Bold was in place, Furry did the revert, you began the edit war with a false summary as your "justification" and I called you out on it. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was under no obligation to "initiate Discussion" it was late where I live. I responded to your comment upon seeing it the next day. I am not understanding why you are speaking to issues which do not appear related to Sageo's edit history. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that Sageo's edits on 108/109 have been part of an annoying edit-warring pattern over the last few days on that issue where neither Sageo or Specifico bother to find correct references. . (Mea culpa myself on not doing that, in part because of confusion on the nature of one reference.)

However, the other edits are at worst Sageo's over-reaction to real WP:BLP problems with one editor using loaded phrases and section titles, excessive commentary, and cherry picked or even misrepresented quotes to smear the subject of the article. There has been a lot of discussion of these BLP violations at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe. (At one point I put a warning notice on the editor's talk page regarding libel, which was discussed on the article talk page and at WP:ANI here.) So I do not think User:Sageo other edits should be considered edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's claims about libel are false. Anyone interested as to why can see her talk page. Now, let us try to return to the issue at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue is: is good faith deletion of material problematic under WP:BLP a violation of 3rr?? Sageo was rather aggressive in doing so after reading my critique of the problematic edits at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Use_of_primary_sources_in_Immigration_section (and he admitted he too was engaging in WP:OR regarding primary sources and removed his own as well as yours). The context is the past negative material that had been put in (which was not allowed to remain), as I linked to above. But that discussion is finished. We are now discussing problems with new material and the right to remove them under WP:BLP guidelines. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On another article, i.e. Cody Wilson, after his earlier "reducing content" edit was reverted with valid reasons for the revert , Sageo again removed large portions of the article claiming material was merely a copy of another article (inacccurately, imo). This is or was while engaged in discussion concerning merging Cody Wilson with Defense Distributed. Apparently this may have been trying to prove the article being "blanked" (i.e. Cody Wilson) had insufficient notability and thus should be merged (with "Defense Distributed")...?

Sageo's second "blanking" was reverted by another editor , followed by an explanation (or "answer") posted on the editor's talk page . In part, Sageo claimed "repetition of info from another article (to one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself" which is inaccurate as several edits had FIRST been made to Cody Wilson and then later added to Defense Distributed, thus were not copied from Defense Distributed to Cody Wilson as incorrectly seemingly believed by Sageo -- example/s here (several others are available), note three edits on Cody Wilson followed later by edits on Defense Distributed to add the same or very similar content to both articles, intially Cody Wilson and later to Defense Distributed: . I was going to state, Sageo had only made two reverts (i.e. "blanking"), but it seems he has now made a third while this is being posted, . :-( 98.70.82.5 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Sageo is warned that if he continues to revert at either Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Cody Wilson without first getting a talk page consensus he may be blocked. It is more than 18 hours since his last revert at the Hoppe article, and he did not break 3RR at Cody Wilson. He has 27,000 edits on the Spanish Misplaced Pages and has never been blocked there. Language ability is a factor in whether you can negotiate well here, but it would be smart for him to dial down the reverting until he gets more experience on the English wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Malizengin reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours)

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

• Please note this is a special edit-warring 1RR violation on Armenian Genocide for which this user was warned earlier today but he continues. He is also edit-warring across other Armenian Genocide related articles.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 20:36, 22 May 2013 Malizengin
2. Latest revision as of 02:58, 23 May 2013 Malizengin

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning under WP:ARBAA2:

Comments:
Editor is edit-warring across many hot-button Armenian-genocide related articles adding POV edits. Δρ.Κ.  03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours as a first offence per report. As the user did not previously have a warning expressly naming the terms of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA, I have not placed this block under AE rules, but have issued a direct warning which guarantees that any future blocks may be so placed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Heimstern. I agree. Unfortunately I know of no template which can be used as a warning under ARBAA2 by regular editors. The one you issued can only be used by admins. Δρ.Κ.  04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. K: As I recall, this was actually a controversy at AC a bit ago, who can warn and how it should be done. I don't know if anything ever came of it. I'm'a ask AGK; he'd know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Heimstern for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of that. I also saw NW's reply to your question at AGK's talkpage. I'll watch for further developments. Thanks again. Take care. I also took the liberty to fix the link to my username. Hope you don't mind. :) Δρ.Κ.  13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

Page: Applied psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (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 talk:Mrm7171

Comments:

No response on talk pages. Shouting in edit summaries is only form of communication. - DVdm (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the user's persistent failure to respond to multiple requests for a discussion, I am coming to believe that a block will be necessary to get the user to engage in a way that doesn't involve blanking and edit-warring with ALL CAPS edit summaries. At minimum, a block would prevent the user from continuing the edit war across multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. There is edit warring from both sides here, which makes it difficult for me. I want to avoid blocking so I've fully protected the page for 2 days; if the edit warring continues once protection has expired, users may be blocked. ItsZippy 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note - this might not stop with page protection: see . With a null edit and an edit summary () user Iss246 tried again to communicate with Mrm7171, but to no avail. Other than through shouting in edit summaries, there seems to be no way to communicate with this user. - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As the user continued to edit war on a different page after my final warning (and numerous warnings from other users), and because their approach to the dispute has been purely disruptive, I have now blocked the user. I will also unprotect applied psychology. ItsZippy 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AdamLukeDocker reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Page protected and final warning)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

And since this was filed:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A new user adding unreferenced material to a WP:BLP, repeatedly inserting it even after advised of our policies. They need to stop and take time to learn the relevant policies, etc. but so far have not. Currently the article has a large body of glowing, WP:SPAMmy unreferenced BLP material. Heiro 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to avoid blocking a new user so have locked the redirect for 3 days and will leave a final warning. Spartaz 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's good for me, mebbe they will read some of the policy pages several users have left for them now. Thanks. Heiro 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BeingFaridKhan. Captain Conundrum (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And, blocked as a sock per the above. Guess we are done here. Heiro 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap reported by User:Sageo (Result: Warned)

Page: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring (again) by SPECIFICO

1. (history: )

In deny of discussion about CV references by SPECIFICO

Reject of talk page discussions about BLP violations and by Steeletrap (and innaccurate use of the talk page as anti-Hoppe phamflets)

1. Edit warring >> (history: , )
2. >>

Comments:
I denunce User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap for Edit War in the context of a case of Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. They have used the warning (to me) for make changes in the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe without consensus. In the history they deny many of the discussion in the talk page, that is openly a malicius practice (a sabotage of consensus, I don't know which is the policies formule in English Misplaced Pages for that). Both are violating WP:BLP systematicly and they rejects basic notions of use of primary sources. In any other article that practices have been sanctioned. I claim for a revert to previus version of the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and that the parts discusse their proposed changes first in talk page. Also, if they are part of war edition they should be warned too and stop editing without discuse the changes, and in this case they haver reverted content again and again, in particular SPECIFICO. In the case of Steeletrap he is using systematicly talk page as a anti-Hoppe phamflet. They need a kind of advice from Misplaced Pages Community. --Sageo (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the passage in question because it misrepresents Hoppe's view. Specifically, the passage claims that Hoppe's remarks regarding immigration " not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state". While the quoted statement was indeed made by Hoppe, it does not reflect his position on immigration; in fact, it is his paraphrase of a criticism of his view. (According to that criticism, Hoppe's logic only implies that the welfare state should be abolished. Hoppe disagrees, thinking it implies a case against immigration.) That passage should be deleted because it misrepresents Hoppe as someone who does not advocate restrictions on immigration, when in fact he clearly and emphatically does advocate such restrictions, as can be seen through a quick google or in the RS cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Views_on_immigration)

As to the material I added, it is abundantly well-sourced and no argument has been made regarding specific violations of BLP therein; it has simply been deleted wholesale by Sageo with vague or nonexistent justifications. Steeletrap (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that two of Sageo's "four" links of "Edit warring" on my part (133/136) refer the same diff. So he really only provides three examples of alleged "edit warring." Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You have deny the objections in talk page and make editions by your way without listening other voices warning about subjective use of cites, if that is a systematic practice that could be consider sabotage. BLP violations are also about ACLU-UNLV issue. You have been invited to create a previus redaction in talk page before add more information in the sections, other editors don't have deny the posibility of change the section. But you deny discussions and continue reverting and adding content by yourself. --Sageo (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Outside comment: This looks like a garden variety content dispute with a bit of reverting on both sides, but with progress still happening. Discussion is happening on the talk page, and it is not overly contentious, so it's all good. Actually, if anyone has been reverting too much and hearing too little, it Sageo, so perhaps WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Suggest closing this as a waste of administrator time, and an admonition to Sageo not to post reports to make a WP:POINT. LK (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Along similar lines, it is worth noting that Sageo has been given a formal warning for his conduct on the wikipedia entry in question. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sageo_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_Warned.29) Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm not enough skillfull in Discussions in this Misplaced Pages, this is not my environment. But I trust that another community editors checking the attitudes will concern of what is happening, I trust in the wisdom of the most experienced. I'm not asking for blokcing anyone, what I want to notify is that the same user that denounce me, SPECIFICO, later he still do edition war (the first diff I provided is later of my warning). Also Steeeletrap still do it a edition war (or a in the way to do it) later of my warning. So, what are we talking about? Anyway I recognize I have to read more of the own policies of this Misplaced Pages to fit another causals, but still is clear to me that the edition war continued in two times of may 23 (24 may in UTC 0): philosopher/economist issue by SPECIFICO, and inmigration issue by Steeletrap. --Sageo (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are serious, long-term and repeated problems with User:Steeletrap's editing on the article. I will be bringing an extremely long list of repeated violations and repeated warnings at BLP Noticeboard on Tuesday. I just left my second warning (if not third) at his/her talk page at this diff. (Unless WP:Ani is more appropriate place?) I'm still trying to catch up on the article and the talk page with all the issues of the last 24 hours. For example: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Continuing_misuse_of_primary_sources...

a bit later: having looked at both Specifico and Steeletrap's talk page discussions today, I can see that they are making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes. As I said at this diff: This section makes it very clear that the intent is to synthesize defamatory material about Hoppe, per Hook or by crook. I don't even know how many stupid/nasty things he's actually said, because of all the BLP violations trying to turn Bibliomancy into PhD theses, or whatever analogy works for you. The problem here may go beyond mere POV distain for Hoppe into an actual WP:COI in that both editors as academics have gone into detail about their academic distain for one group of Austrian economists and economic writers. (A bunch of examples at (this talk page deletion diff). This "academic superiority" attitude carries over into their habit of taking any mention of or warning about various policies they are violating and claiming it is a baseless personal attacks. I'll put it all in the BLP complaint, but it's all pretty obvious to any admin who wants to take a look now.

Ok, I've put warning notices about defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes on both users talk pages and removed four sections of defamatory material from the talk page, after looking at the BLP notice on top of the talk page. They'll probably put it back, but here's the diff of the four sections that are overwhelmingly of defamatory nature'. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's inflammatory yet completely vague chargers against SPECIFICO and myself should be contextualized by her consistent violations of WP guidelines through her numerous personal personal attacks toward other users. Here is just a sampling of the evidence. Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) I am happy to detail more of her copious collection of PAs if prompted, as they have continued ceaselessly to this day. Steeletrap (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO: Another editor posted RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?. Despite this ongoing WP:ANI, tonight User:SPECIFICO (see May 24th edits) immediately posted a notice to 10 Wikiprojects with the very biased ("Campaigning") title →‎RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section). (See example here) These projects include Human rights, Universities, Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sexology and sexuality, LGBT studies, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. I have asked him to retitle them properly. User:SPECIFICO is very much aware of the policy having warned me here about it after I posted an announcement to just one wikiproject. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: The user who posted the RfC went to all the postings and made them neutral, which s/he should not have had to do. I assume Specifico is on vacation. I have tagged my concerns that two users who came as a result were canvassed. I realize this is not a very well formatted series of complaints and in fact does not include some of the biggest problems and offenses which I'm saving for a more appropriate forum. But admins should keep it all in mind. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor that posted the RfC and I initiated the initial talk page thread. And I am the one who went and changed the Project talk page notices. In my opinion, the issue as to canvassing is closed. But tagging the non-involved editor comments on the RfC as "canvassed" is not appropriate. One editor saw the RfC on a project page. I believe the other editor follows the particular article and/or other editor contributions. There was no direct contact on those two editor talk pages. The canvassed tags should be removed. (And as this particular EW notice has gone off the rails, it should be closed.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I went to WP:Canvassing and they suggested that as an option. Now I can see that there needs to be more guidance on what happens next. How are the people tagged supposed to respond? But it is not up to other editors to explain for them. Also, if there comments had been more neutral I probably would have not tagged them. But both were in the vein of the campaigning posting. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean if an editor (who was not canvassed) makes a comment, and then gets tagged as possibly canvassed, should then have to make a further comment saying "I was not canvassed"? In this particular case, the two editors who made comments were not canvassed. Posting the tag in itself has AGF implications. The best thing it remove the tags with a mea culpa in the edit summary. Just because they are fast on the draw to agree with one side or the other does not mean the non-canvassing influenced them. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I see a technical WP:3RR violation by Steeletrap on May 24. However, I don't intend to block him for it given the amazing number of contentious claims by so many about this article and the fact that he hasn't edited since. I am also taking into account the warning against Sageo in the report earlier on this page. That said, Steeletrap is warned that if he continues to revert in the article, he may be blocked without notice. As for the non-edit-warring claims, please take it somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Azcat90 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Protected)

Page: Lois Lerner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Azcat90 (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 user talk page: - I suggested that the user write a draft in userspace and propose that it be moved into articlespace.

Comments:
The article is a proposed "biography" of a person involved in a recent controversy, and several editors have expressed concern about WP:BIO1E issues. The status quo was a redirect to the page about the controversy, 2013 IRS scandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Idea that Lois Lerner is not a public figure would be plausible before 5/15/2013. Not today. She is without question a public figure worthy of a wikipedia page. Google "Lois Lerner" news search results in 53,600 results. The continued deletion and redirect of her page to "2013 IRS Scandal" I contend is an example of edit warring. Azcat90 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the policy, vs. making arguments that the policy specifically undermines. Federales (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

After this notice was opened, Azcat90 reverted a fifth time: - the editor is clearly aware of the 3RR and shows no interest in abiding by it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the BIO1E and pseudo-biographies policies and will not be making any more "updates". I believe LGL is important enough to warrant an independent URL but recognize that a biographical page should be complete and balanced before "publishing" occurs. I was not aware of the myriad of rules and regulations that have been developed around Mssr. Wales' creation. While it still should not be used as a cited source for research, crowd-sourced peer review does make wikipedia a very useful resource as a starting point for research. Azcat90 (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked The above statement seems to suggest hat Azcat now understands the problem and has committed not to continue the edit war. I'm hoping that this means an end to the edit war without anyone being blocked; Azcat, if you do continue to edit war, you will find yourself blocked. ItsZippy 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • How is this cat not blocked after 5 reverts on a BLP? We have gone soft around here. Years back, as I recall, 3RR was enforced with nearly zero tolerance... -- Y not? 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm softer than other admins, but Azcat said above that he'll stop edit warring; since posting that, he hasn't edit warred. I can't see how blocking him now would prevent any further disruption. ItsZippy 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • In a lot of the reports filed here, there is not necessarily one "right" result. Different approaches are healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Blocks shouldn't be punitive, and if this got the editor to stop reverting and start discussing, that's all that needed to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Ohwrotcod reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: Blocked)

Page: Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ohwrotcod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: : added 'not in citation' tag : reverted removal of 'not in citation' tags

1. : deleted large amount of text, added WP:SYNTH tag
2. : revert mostly the same as before
3. : revert mostly the same as before; edit summary accuses me of vandalism
4. : repeat of last revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and subsequent discussion there.

Comments:
Additional background is at an AN/I report here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ohwrotcod. As seen at User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F, Ohwrotcod (then editing as 41.132.117.15), took offence at some edits I've been making to some Dr Who articles and accused me of a "vendetta". There were later comments like and . In what appears to be a response, s/he then focused on various Dr Who novel articles, with tags, PRODs, and AfDs. Further non-WP:AGF comments today include and . Along the way, s/he started an AfD for the article under question, Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). I sought to improve the article to justify its retention and the result is as above. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) also. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. @Bondegezou, for the future, warning another editor of edit warring is not the same as notifying the editor of the filing of a report. Despite the lack of warning, there was too much disruption here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: No violation - BLP)

Page: Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: May122013 (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: Lots of discussion on Talk:Rob Ford, multiple sections

Comments: This user is edit warring to remove negative content about the subject which has been widely reported in the media, under the claim that it is a hoax, with no evidence to back it up. Claiming it is a hoax, the user is continuing to remove it despite clear consensus that it should remain, and clearly intends to continue this behavior as evidenced by his/her claim that this is "exempt" from 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is clearly one where WP:BLP is applicable - it contains Gawker blog posts and statements that there is no way of afirming the authenticity of the claims. Accusations of drug use do appear to be "contentious" in general, and the fact that a number of sources print the rumours do not make the rumours proper in a BLP. As for the claim iterated by several that BLP edits are not exempt from 3RR - the EW policy states There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy which sure looks like it uses the word "exemption." Now often an admin will say he does not see a BLP relevance - but the case at hand is farily clearly problematic when weighed by that policy. Misplaced Pages:BLP/N#Rob_Ford_-Inclusion_of_non-available_video_indications_that_the_mayor_smoked_crack_cocaine._The_.22news.22_about_this_only_came_out_5_days_ago. shows that the issue is indeed discussed at the BLP noticeboard, with substantial comment that this is, indeed, a BLP issue. If so, then the 3RR "exemption" may indeed exist, contrary to assertions otherwise. Collect (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation When the best secondary source admit that they cannot verify the authenticity of this video, BLP probably applies, and thus May is exempt from 3RR. ItsZippy 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a bizarre interpretation of BLP. The article is merely reporting what mainstream media say, not claiming that the video is authentic. TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a BLP violation to include material widely covered in secondary sources. The edit warrior has continued to edit war, so I've the latest revision and ask you to reconsider. As has been demonstrated on the talk page, this user is a conservative pushing a POV based on political ideology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is not a BLP violation, as addressed at WP:WELLKNOWN. Even The New York Times and the BBC have covered this scandal. Paul Erik 19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of felonies are, indeed, contentious claims of a crime per WP:BLPCRIME even if the NYT reports on the contentious source, it does not cure the underlying problem. Indeed the NYT article is quite clear that there is no proof of a crime - thus it is not a "source" allowing entrance of the accusation into the BLP. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and is not a newspaper. "The Star noted that it was unable to authenticate the video it viewed of Mr. Ford, which was produced by the drug dealers. The newspaper and Gawker declined to buy the video, although Gawker began an online fund-raising project Friday to raise $200,000 for it. " is pretty clear evidence that the NYT is not in any way vouching for the video - and indeed the idea that it was "available for cash" seems, to me, to indicate that the verity of the video is in question. Thus, while I am not taking sides in the edit, there are ample grounds for assertion that this is an exemption for WP:BLP whih is the only question to be answered here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied here. ItsZippy 09:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:37.11.162.133 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Declined)

Page: Citizens – Party of the Citizenry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Spanish unionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.11.162.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Citizens – Party of the Citizenry

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the reverts:

Spanish unionism

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I'm not part of this conflict, I just observed it. (Actually User:4idaho asked me to have a look and maybe do something about it) I invited her to start a discussion, but it seems that she has not yet found the time to do it. --RJFF (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined This seems to be an editor acting in good faith, so I'm hesitant to block. There's not a technical violation on Citizens – Party of the Citizenry, and the edit summaries on Spanish unionism seem to indicate that the user would be willing to discuss. I've left a note on their talk page encouraging them to do that; if they continue edit warring, a block will be in order, but I think we should be able to avoid that. ItsZippy 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also try to talk it out on Talk on Citizens - Party of the Citizenry, but RJFF is correct I haven't had the time yet. --4idaho (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hamitdown reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: No violation)

Page: 2013 Cleveland missing trio# Revision history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hamitdown (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:

Not exactly a straight edit war - the user is repeatedly adding inappropriate links and refs into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

While the links were definitely inappropriate, this is not a case of edit warring, in my opinion; furthermore, this guy is a newbie and could profit more from having the rules explained to him rather than being blocked. I suggest you inform him of our policy on inappropriate links and, if he perseveres, report him to ANI. Salvio 13:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Warned)

Page: Blue Is the Warmest Colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Film Fan (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: talkpage

Comments:

Both myself and User:Barney the barney barney have titled the article Colour and not Color as per the film poster and Cannes website. FilmFan picks random US reviews, which of course will use color as the source for the title and has reverted both of us multiple times. He has been warned on his talkpage, but just blanks his talkpage. Lugnuts 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing random about my constant reverting. I reverted first so you should have found consensus before changing to COLOUR again. On Misplaced Pages we use the title most used in the English-speaking world for foreign films WP:NCF, not the title used on a French website or on a British poster. Film Fan 10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to get the consensus first, before you revert edits five or six time to get your point across. Lugnuts 10:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No. When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again. That edit was COLOUR, since the article was correctly COLOR beforehand. Get consensus. Film Fan 10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again." Practice what you preach then! Lugnuts 10:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who made the edit. It was barney, and then you. Got it? Film Fan 10:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"It wasn't me who made the edit." Well that unsourced edit in diff 138 says differently. Lugnuts 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. This is utter silliness. That edit was a reversion. Film Fan 10:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your time would not be wasted if you had sourced any of your changes or citied WP policy for each of your five reverts instead of edit comments such as "I am reverting you, because you are wrong". Cannes sources it as Colour, the poster says Colour and WP:ENGVAR is against you. Please read WP:3RR too. Lugnuts 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually WP:ENGVAR is in no way against me. Cannes sources it as both COLOUR and COLOR, which is irrelevant anyway because it's a French website, and the poster originated in the UK. So... I'm kinda right. Film Fan 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The film distributor lists it as Colour and not Color. Lugnuts 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what you're talking about. The title used by the FRENCH distributor is IRRELEVANT. The title used in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING world is what you're all ignoring, and the very thing that should matter. But I'm done with this stupid shit for now, because some people will never see till we get hard proof (THEATRICAL RELEASES). See you for another round soooon. Film Fan 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Film Fan:, you are edit warring; I don't want to block you, but if you revert once again, I'll most definitely do so. Please, discuss the issue on the talk page. Salvio 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He's heading down the road of personal attacks and shouting to get his views across on that talk page. Lugnuts 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack; for the moment, the only thing I could do would be to invite him to calm down, which is something that usually has the very opposite result... Right now, he seems to have stopped editing; hopefully, he'll come back calmer... Salvio 13:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. Lugnuts 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring