Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 23 April 2015 (→User:Oliszydlowski reported by User:Wikiuserthea (Result: Protected): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:33, 23 April 2015 by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) (→User:Oliszydlowski reported by User:Wikiuserthea (Result: Protected): Closing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Mustu6233 reported by User:Summichum (Result: Indef)

Page: List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mustu6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
2. 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "The changes is been made by looking towards the followers of super majority sects of group who are following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and let the world know who is currently the authoritative of the community.The other sect have less than thousand ppl."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

long history of reverting correct information, possibly a partisan of one of the claimants to Dai.

WARNINGS given by admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mustu6233#April_2015 Summichum (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if User:Mustu6233 will respond. He has not edited since this report was filed. Though it's not a 3RR violation it's a case of long-term edit warring -- several reverts since April 9. (Declaring one candidate to be the winner, while having no reliable source to confirm it). EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef per WP:NOTHERE. Mustu6233 continued the war without responding here. He is an enthusiastic partisan for one side of the dispute and has no edits outside the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra. It would be optimistic to assume he will ever be able to add neutral content to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not blocked yet, and continues to add his POV. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked at 16:09. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:برسام reported by User:Samak (Result: Warned)

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

According to agreement in this article and talkpage-Requested move, The correct writing is Hamadan not Hamedan. Even a valid source for example Encyclopædia Iranica wrote Hamadan but this user do not accept the agreement 1 and 2. plz investigation-Samək 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

^ Multiple Authors (April 18, 2012). "HAMADĀN". Encyclopædia Iranica. Retrieved 20 April 2015.

If User:برسام doesn't respond to this complaint a block should be considered. Meanwhile I've applied move protection to the article. The question is whether to render the town's name همدان into English as 'Hamadan' or 'Hamedan'. Since this is an issue of romanization there is no answer that is certain to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:برسام is warned. If they continue to change the spelling of Hamadan before getting a talk page consensus they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Laddypat reported by User:Widefox (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657489974 by Joseph2302 (talk) Undid deletion of New York Times sourcing information. Please put edit protection block back on page as per Chris Wilson at Misplaced Pages."
Consecutive edits made from 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC) to 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657463744 by Smartse (talk) Added New York Times reference link that was questioned and undid negative, non-factual comments that were questioning the validity of this article."
2. 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Added Vine back as another platform where Basedow's show Culture Pop is on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Basedow. (TW)"
09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "WP:COIN notified"
13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing afd templates on John Basedow. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive SPA & COI editor refusing to engage in dialogue and continuing to remove maintenance templates and the AfD after final warning given . See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Basedow Widefox; talk 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reported the same user to ANI. They hadn't been warned about EWing, but had been about AFD templates and are clearly being disruptive. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They're blocked. Withdrawn. Widefox; talk 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Laddypat has been blocked indef by User:Parsecboy per WP:NOTHERE. There is a longer explanation of the problems at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#John Basedow. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Amber388 reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: Protection)

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:

Amber388 has continually placed blog sourced and other self published defamatory material into the article. WeldNeck (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article protected two days. User:WeldNeck and User:Amber388 are warned for exceeding WP:3RR. Since I don't see a genuine BLP issue here, none of the reverts are exempt under the BLP exception. WeldNeck appears to hold distinctive views and would be well advised to carefully check for consensus before making large changes. He has made numerous appearances at admin boards since 2013. I previously warned him at this noticeboard for inserting partisan language into articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Using a self published blog to call an individual a "neo-fascist" doesnt qualify as a violation of WP:BLP? Several other users agreed with this interpretation so its not like I am in the minority here. As far as my "numerous appearances", this is my third edit warring report I have filed. I dont see how that constitutes as "numerous". WeldNeck (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought you are right that the comments of Philip Sandifer including the phrase 'neo-fascist' don't belong in the article, since the comments were made only in Sandifer's blog. But you were also removing the comments of Theodore Beale himself. This material is allowed by WP:BLPSELFPUB. A person can't be defamed by quoting what they have said about themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: If there is no notability conferred by secondary sources, wouldn't this be considered WP:NOR? I thought one of purpose of WP:PRIMARY was to avoid quote mining? 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. It is up to the consensus of editors whether Beale's own statements are interesting enough to include. Since he expresses himself very colorfully, the material seems interesting and relevant even if distasteful to many ('I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated'). Also it's germane to an overall impression of whether he is outside the mainstream. For example, whether he is a white supremacist. Criticism by others may or may not be fair, but his own statements can't be said to be unfair. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you suggest some techniques or examples of how to include information from the subjects own blog without synthesizing new information? It is turning out to be somewhat difficult. My understanding is that if the subjects own writing could be fairly described by some as white supremcist, unless the subject writes that himself, as editors we can't characterize it that way ourselves in our own words. If we can find reliable sources that characterize it that way, we can identity that source and quote them. Is this an accurate representation of how editing it should work? Kennedy Trengove (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. If you want to use his website postings to indicate to the reader what Beale believes, you'll have to limit yourself to taking direct quotes from his writing, within the constraints listed at WP:BLPSELFPUB. Unless you can find a third party who has characterized his views. We can't say 'white supremacist' unless that is his own choice of term. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TheGracefulSlick reported by User:CrazyAces489 (Result: Both warned)

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:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs)

This user is only adding irrelevant tags on specifically my pages as a type of personal revenge. Yes, I remove the tags because he/she has no base reasons to adding them. This user is negatively affecting articles and it needs to stop as I don't want part in his/her sad edit war. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Result: Both parties warned. Any further addition or removal of the notability tag may lead to a block, unless consensus is found on Talk. User:CrazyAces489, if you believe the article is not notable consider nominating it for deletion. That will allow others' opinions to be brought in. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @EdJohnston: , after report was filed user:TheGracefulSlick reverted again. I will bring forth an AFD. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopper (132.3.61.##) reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Two articles semied)

132.3.61.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.3.61.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.3.61.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.87.130.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Geolocates to near 132.3.61.81

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:
IP addresses belong to the same building. It's clearly the same person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that 132.3.61.81 is beginning to edit war at Minoan civilization, continuing edits made by 132.3.61.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for the same WP:ERA-violations as at Tetragrammaton (, ). I was going to suggest just protecting Tetragrammaton, but it looks like we've got an IP-hopping POV pusher with no interest in collaboration or conversation, and so may need to block the base. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And another IP (66.87), probably their cell phone. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected Tetragrammaton and Minoan civilization. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be on this IP at the moment, and I got a message it is being discussed. I'll let you in on two things. 1. It is aliased or "NAT"ted. The IP I see as a user is not what you see for me as the outside world, even though it is a fully routable IP. 2. It is from a US Government IP hoarde. So on any given day, dozens of people might use it. It might he possible to track back to find out who using it at a given moment, but I really don't know how it could be done reliably. I don't like the idea that someone is vandalizing WP articles, and ordinarily I login and edit as my UserName. But some folks just are not responsible like that. 132.3.61.78 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Had Ed blocked the IP addresses, he probably would've set it up so that editors with accounts could still log in from that IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:José Antonio Zapato reported by User:José Antonio Zapato (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Can you take my word that I've exceeded it? Here is the revision history, my reverts are clear from the comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A_Voice_for_Men&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm reporting myself for violating 3RR to remove disputed BLP content. Note the article is under article probation. Prior to exceeding 3RR I posted on the BLP Noticeboard but the discussion has not progressed beyond those involved in the dispute on the talk page. I've asked editors on the talk page to delay restoring content until the noticeboard discussion is concluded. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rastegarfar.mo reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Looks like an SPA with a limited grasp of English. The editor's only edits to date have been related to Ali Khamenei, lengthy quotes from which he is trying to introduce on Yemeni Civil War (2015), despite me challenging them on WP:UNDUE grounds and asking him to review some basic Misplaced Pages policies that would keep him from getting into trouble. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

comments: I also want to complain against User:Kudzu1 . He just want to insist that he knows that what is correct and what is not correct. So I want the manager to block User:Kudzu1 . Rastegarfar.mo (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regards

Result: Rastegarfar.mo is warned for edit warring at Yemeni Civil War (2015). He didn't actually break WP:3RR but he seems to be making no effort to find consensus for his changes. Requesting that admins block your opponent (as above) isn't a good-faith effort to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:BosnaSRB RS reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

after this report and notification on their talk page
and some more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page. I got this on my talk page. ???

Comments:
This is a clear case of an agenda account. A snowball block would be the most reasonable solution. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. It's hard to know what this editor is up to, except making record-breaking numbers of reverts. If he requests unblock maybe we will get an idea. Otherwise an indef appears likely. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Anglicanus reported by User:TITUSIIX (Result: No violation)

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:

This user is violating Misplaced Pages's editing policy and restricting the legitimate content population without COI of pages he deems irrelevant. I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this but the user is engaged in behavior that is borderline bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TITUSIIX (talk • contribs)

See a complaint about the same article at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editing and page creation by TITUSIIX. The reported user, Anglicanus, has only applied a COI template to the article but hasn't disputed the content. There's hardly an edit warring case here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TITUSIIX is going out of his way, wherever he can, to make complaints about my belief that he is engaged in very obvious COI editing on articles for church organisations that I believe he is very closely involved with. He also claims to be a "new" editor who has only been editing on Misplaced Pages for 24 hours. For such a new editor he certainly has very quickly acquired a considerable amount of know how on how to edit and do many other tasks on here. It is all highly suspicious. Anglicanus (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

More attacking behavior. I tried to edit a page and create another on my first interaction with Misplaced Pages. As a result I have been dragged into a ridiculous argument with an individual who is accusing me of being a fraud and a liar. If this is the sort of interaction I can expect on Misplaced Pages from zealous individuals then I certainly have no time for it. Good Day! TITUSIIX (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The only "attacking" behaviour seems to be coming from you. Your editing seems highly suspicious to say the least and I believe there are good reasons for me to suspect you of deliberate COI editing. I brought my concerns about this to your talk page but instead of responding to them properly you chose to keep on editing and reverting me and blanking your talk page instead. Such behaviour on your part does not encourage confidence. Anglicanus (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Plus all of your bizarre warnings on my talk page. Anglicanus (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation – Anglicanus did not violate 3RR. People such as TITUSIIX getting started on Misplaced Pages sometimes make mistakes. Even if they do have a COI this is not usually a fatal problem unless they are here for promotional reasons. I encourage User:TITUSIIX to seek appropriate assistance from experienced editors. Though User:Anglicanus, who identifies himself on his talk page as a priest, seems to be an expert on some of these matters it might be best for him to step back from direct confrontation with TITUSIIX. Admins will keep an eye on the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Epetre reported by User:Sarr Cat (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epetre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Creationist edit warring/being disruptive on the talk page. (sorry, i didn't include the diffs and stuff, this is the first time I reported someone for edit warring!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarr Cat (talk • contribs)

Note: Epetre has stopped edit warring over this issue, but still may not fully understand our policies. A block is unlikely to help, but a message on his talk page may help guide him in the right direction. I made an effort, but he may see me as involved. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Epetre is warned to observe Misplaced Pages standards for behavior on article talk pages. The discussion that you opened at Talk:Abiogenesis#False definition of abiogenesis has been now been properly closed. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:JohnCWiesenthal reported by User:ZLMedia (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on IntelliStar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Products */ new section"

Comments:

This user has continued to add unsourced and original research to the IntelliStar article that is trivial. It has been taken down at least three times and put back up twice by the same user. The user has also disregarded my first warning, and has now been warned twice by me. --Z L Media 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Hmlewis 728 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hmlewis 728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added content to provide more information on what antifeminists believe."
02:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Gave more information on what antifeminists believe. Someone just erased my last one"
Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Actually showed what antifeminism is about people keep deleting it!"
2. 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added a link"
03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added links"
03:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Antifeminism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also note the use of misleading edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Blocked)

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: Human3015 is engaged in an edit war at the article where he's reverted two users 4 times, within the space of a day. Within the space of two days, he's made a total of 5 reverts against 3 editors, and all very recently. He has not used the talk page, instead choosing to make blanket reverts, when the onus lies on him to use the talk page since he is the one reverting other edits. This is disruptive editing and not helpful. Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I accept my mistake but it is not good to report it when matter was resolved on TopGun's Talk page. . And same applies for Mar4d when he deleted map of Indian subcontinent without discussing it in talk and that map was part of article since many years.

But to be sincere with myself, I want to get blocked because I'm addicted to Misplaced Pages. But don't block me for very long period, block me for less than 1 week. I'm not studying, my many personal work is pending, all this is because of Misplaced Pages. --Human3015 05:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That map was not there for years, as this diff and all previous versions would show. It was inserted later. And the reasons for the removal of the map have been stated. Mar4d (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have cleared my stand already, I have done mistake but others are also equally responsible. Even I can claim that if Mar4d and TopGun are not sock puppets then they are surely related accounts and they are friends in real life. User page of both says that they are from Pakistan, one can see that they are editing same pages most of the times. I'm certainly not saying that they are sock puppets but surely they have made their duo group on wikipedia and they make other people in trouble.

I can show you old edits of Mar4d when he wrote in a template "Kashmiri militants" as "freedom fighters". see here This shows purpose of Mar4d that why he is on wikipedia. This link is not related here, but this is just for example, he has more than 50,000 edits and I can show you many such kind on vandalism edits by him.

But as I said earlier, I'm ready to get blocked. I'm very much addicted to Misplaced Pages. I know routine block can be of 24 hours for 3 RR but I have no problem if Mr.Admin blocks me for more period, but don't block for more than 1 week please. --Human3015 07:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA & WP:SPI. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In a recent development, I reverted another edit by Mar4d on same page. This time he/she(from now "he" means Mar4d) added new map See here which I reverted See here. My point is right, he is so Kashmir oriented that he don't even see rest of the world, his recent added map don't even show Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives as part of Indian subcontinent. He was having so much concern about small dotted line around Pak administered Kashmir in earlier map but here he is not even aware about entire 4 nations.

As I shown in my earlier link see here again that he writes internationally recognized "terrorists" in Kashmir valley as "freedom fighters", his main mission is only Kashmir-Kashmir-Kashmir, some people are using Misplaced Pages as tool to increase Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Some people have mission that small kids of Kashmir when reads wikipedia they should know that these militants are "freedom fighters".

They can't see anything other than Kashmir, I have used strong words but anyway I am going to block in all cases so I'm using some my liberty.

If you see his old edits he has been always a biased editor, I'm new at wikipedia, came 3 months ago and since I came here he is finding his democratic right of Freedom of Expression in danger and he is reporting my ID, we were involved in so called edit wars many times.

Stii I'm firm on my promise of getting blocked, my family members are scolding me being busy on Laptop all the time but I couldn't stop myself from being on wiki because of repeated vandalism by "some" people. But I welcome my block. I need a break. --Human3015 10:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That map is technically correct as all definitions agree that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh form the 'core' of the subcontinent; the other countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.) are usually only described in extended definitions. If there is a better map that shows the three countries in dark and the extended countries in lighter shade, that would be the best map. Why don't you WP:VOLUNTEER? As for the rest of your personal attacks, I am not even going to bother to respond to your malicious attempt of salt on wounds. Mar4d (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Now its new info that only India, Pak and Bangladesh are "core" of Indian subcontinent. Any source??? Atleast don't deny about Nepal and Bhutan which have continuity of land with India. And you will not reply to any of my allegations because you have nothing to say and you have been caught red handed. I'm waiting for my block but till I'm not blocked I will keep on reverting all kind of vandalism. And all nations which I mentioned are considered as part of Indian subcontinent since this concept of subcontinent exist. See this map --Human3015 11:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, And you have been caught again, you said your posted map shows India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as "core" part of Indian subcontinent and rest of so called "extended" territory like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives in light shade. But see you map again.. Click here , it don't show as you said, It shows entire rest of the world in light shade. It don't even show Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives in Map. Now is there any ground remained for you for debate?? --Human3015 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Human2015, this is not helping your case. You have:

Reverted 5 times recently, and 4 times in a day,
Went on to accuse two established independent editors (who are not even on the same continent) to be socks of each other,
And have started a WP:SOUP at this discussion along with requests for blocking you.

Please stop before it gets you blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TopGun, Maybe you both are from different planets, it doesn't matters, its about groupism. Atleast read everything properly, I'm fighting my case to get blocked, and I have already accepted my mistake. I'm just describing what mistakes others have done. Like recent map was not having Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka in it, and I reverted it and you are considering that too in reverts. Why Mar4d didn't discussed in talk before changing map again to non-Nepal containing map? I think everything is fair for him, not for me. --Human3015 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. If you are asking to be blocked so as to stay off Misplaced Pages, see Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Springing Up reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked)

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:
Seems intent on eliminating the word lesbians and replacing it with "gay women". Advocacy, anti-advocacy? Whatever, it's objectionable. Skyerise (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice that skyerise has not avoided being uncivil during talk page discussion or even on my talk page. She has called me "gay boy" on my talk page and "dick" and then "jerk" on the article's talk page.

My edit is neither advocacy or anti-advocacy, nor objectionable. You can't pay enough attention to the explanation I already gave? "Gays and lesbians" is like saying "lesbians aren't gay" or "lesbians aren't homosexual" or "gay people and gay women" (since it's like you want "gay" only to apply to men, but it really applies to both sexes the same way as the word "homosexual" does). So it's just illogical like "videos and DVDs" or "colors and red." What's wrong with just saying "homosexual people" or "gay people"? Why should lesbians feel ignored or eliminated if "homosexual people" is used?

Springing Up (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Aside to admin) Is this archetypal lesbian-baiting or what? Most lesbians identify as lesbian, not as "gay woman", regardless of the alleged sameness. Gay ≠ queer ≠ homo. Also, when changed to "lesbians and gay men", which is logically disjunct, the troll reverted anyway, even though their "logical objection" was fulfilled. Skyerise (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The troll here is actually Skyerise for having to have a big tantrum over the fact that a logical person simply wanted to include men and women together in the same terminology as "gay people" to make more sense than "gays and " is, which is not baiting. Where she gets the idea that there's something "wrong" for including lesbians as part of gay people in general, or that "'gay' does not equal 'homosexual generally'" (not sex-specific like "lesbianic" is) even though it does, I don't know. And even if "lesbians and gay men" makes a little more sense, why should the article not be even more concise than that with an encompassing term like "homosexual people"? Springing Up (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, people identify as they wish to identify. "Gay women" (mostly) identify using the word "lesbian". That's why the L is in LGBT. Everyone understands perfectly what the phrase "gays and lesbians" means. And it's what the majority of sources use. We go with our sources and common usage. Not with your intended-only-to-bait "logic". Do you realize how you sound? Testosterone keep you up arguing over the Internet much? Oh, but that would only bother you if you weren't a troll! Skyerise (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no intent to bait you or anyone else. Why do you guys like the implication of that terminology meaning "gay people, and gay people who are women" or "there are homosexual people, and then there are something that's different from homosexual people: the lesbians" (whatever that supposed "difference" is) that you feel like it's so important to identify separately that way, from gay population in general, as if being called one of just homosexual people in general (both sexes together) is so "degrading" or whatever you're complaining about? Springing Up (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Springing Up is unquestionably acting like a troll at the Dalai Lama talk page. While his/her initial edits could have been simple misunderstanding of terminology, the reverting and edit-warring belies any simple misunderstanding and now appear to be trolling. While Skyerise got a little sharp, the tone of Springing Up definitely qualifies as homophobic WP:BAITing. I do think a firm warning and a 1RR/one talk comment restriction on Springing Up is appropriate, with escalating sanctions if the behavior continues. Montanabw 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Springing Up (Result: Filer is blocked per an earlier report)

not only for edit-warring but being uncivil

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:

What's "wrong" with just using a term like "homosexual people" to cover both sexes instead of being specific and saying "gays and lesbians" as if "lesbians aren't gay (homosexual)"?

Comments:

skyerise Likes being uncivil rather than actually discussing the edits like an adult, and uses insults like "gay boy" and on my talk page and "dick" and "jerk" and "newbie" in the article's talk page.

Springing Up (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Here she is, being uncivil again, using the f-bomb and "asshole," etc. (See hidden comments in edit history.) Springing Up (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh so sorry for feeding the trolls, but how else to expose their true colors? Skyerise (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Correcting an article's logic so that it doesn't incorrectly imply "gay people, and gay people who are women" does not make me a troll. But falsely calling me one for that reason is what makes you one. Springing Up (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have commented on this issue in the thread above, the same comment applies here. Montanabw 18:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Springing Up is blocked per an earlier report. I don't see any of these insults in the current version of the talk page. If they occurred, I hope they won't happen again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:211.61.23.66 reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Rose_of_Sharon_Blooms_Again&oldid=606446226 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eyes_of_Dawn&oldid=654999542 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wednesday_demonstration&oldid=658415636 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bridal_Mask&oldid=653701880 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2005_anti-Japanese_demonstrations&oldid=639416815

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again:

Eyes of Dawn:

Wednesday demonstration:

Bridal Mask:

2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=658812698

Comments:
IP user is persistently reverting his edits relating to the categories of the above pages (a mix of South Korean TV shows and political demonstrations) without comment (they involve generally either the addition of unusual categories which do not make sense, or deleting categories which do). The user may also be actively switching IP addresses, since two other IPs, User:121.140.206.191 and User:58.123.52.247 have made the exact same reverts.

Zmflavius (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:ITfan1990 (Result: Filer blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has declined to participate in discussion on talk page, at RfD, or otherwise. Instead this user relies heavily on personal attacks while reverting without explanation, and has now broken the 3-revert rule. Because I redirected the page Acid Rap back to its owner Esham, this user seems upset about it and keeps trying to tag the new redirect for deletion, which raises possible WP:NPOV concerns.

ITfan1990 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you were trying to get the article deleted and i had no choice but to revert you. Why don't you explain why you were trying to delete it? And now your blocked so i was clearly in the right. Koala15 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hrs. Disruptive editing Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitter was blocked by User:MusikAnimal. There has been a dispute over the title of this article. For example, see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 23#Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album). Anyone who has an opinion about the title should pursue consensus in the usual way. It appears that WP:RM would be a more normal way to contest the title than RfD, but that's where it is now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Some rationale for the confusing situation can be seen at a thread on Tfan1990's talk which he has now blanked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I believe I finally understand their intention. I will continue to work with them on how to resolve the issue. Whatever the case, as far as I'm concerned it is safe to consider this ANEW report closed. — MusikAnimal 20:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Edokter (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Template:Mvar/doc

Diffs of the user's reverts:

TakuyaMurata keeps insisting use of the template is "controversial", or is regarded as such. See also discussion on Template talk:Mvar#Disclaimer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

One is an editor for thirteen years and the other an admin for eight. Perhaps a trouting is in order. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Oliszydlowski reported by User:Wikiuserthea (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658829220&oldid=658775284

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658757606&oldid=658664624

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658339746&oldid=658249605

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=638466007&oldid=638410128

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=626889677&oldid=575632242

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Oliszydlowski is not familiar with Rosa Raisa and he never claimed to be, but he is constantly abusing the Misplaced Pages article about her. He didn't even read the Misplaced Pages article, let alone her published biography with the memoir as cited in the References in the Misplaced Pages article about her. He is constantly making up ehr identity as well as her name. I contacted him on his talk page to ask about his credentials about this soprano. He provided none and instead demanded from me the source for my own editing .I gave him the reference to this book, published by the US academic press, in which it is demonstrated through the copious documents, her own letters, and interviews with her immediate family, that her identity was Russian-Jewish. Oliszydlowski then decided to ignore it and again reverted the edit by erasing "Russian". In the past, her would constantly would replace "Russian" with "Polish" and then, after I alerted him that the only languages she spoke were Yddish and Russian (which were fully documented) before moving to Italy and US, he dropped "Polish" but is relentlessly reverting by purging "Russian" from her identity without any evidence On his Wiki page he claims that Lithuania, universally recognized as independent state, should be a part of Poland. he is ultranationalist who is abusing Misplaced Pages to propagate his ethnic intolerance. Please stop this man because he has no idea who Rosa Raisa was and he is dismissing the authoritative biography *and* her memoir as not sufficient to convince him about her identity. He has absolutely no source to support his own reasons for constantly reverting the national identity of this singer nor did he offer to give it. I alerted him on his talk page that I will report his abuse and he continues to ignore it and the facts about this singer. Please stop him and let this lady rest in peace.
Unsigned comment from Wikiuserthea

You need to inform the user that you've reported them here. I've done it for you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this isn't a 3RR violation, since one of the differences is from December 2014, and another is from September 2014. This looks like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Her nationality is a tricky problem. If she was born in 'Congress Poland' that area was hardly distinguishable from Russia in 1893. You might ask other users who have worked on similar historical articles. Please use Talk to find consensus. Look at Category:People from Białystok to see how other Jewish people born in Bialystok in that period are identified. For example, Simon Segal. User:Wikiuserthea, if you are editing both as an IP and a registered account, you shouldn't. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CastleRockChick reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

Page: Castle Rock, Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CastleRockChick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Prairie Dog Controversy */ removed unsourced information"
19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inappropriate information"
15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) "Information from non-reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Castle Rock, Colorado. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion at User talk:Winner 42#CastleRock
Discussion at WP:COIN#Castle Rock, Colorado

Comments:

They are also under discussion at WP:COIN, where they have complained about this. They seem overly keen to removed sourced content, and refactor this paragraph to their liking. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories: