Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 17 December 2014

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Steverci reported by User:Masusimaru (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: first undoing of unproven statements

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. fake source added (no information about subject there)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:User never responded directly on why does he do this or what academic sources does he have. He just waits some time and then reverts all edits that are aimed to balance his unproven claims.

Masusimaru (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Masusimaru has made fifteen edits since account creation in June 2014; thirteen of these are on this same article. Interesting. _Fortuna 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note. There's a competing discussion here at WP:ANI brought by Steverci. Masusimaru did not notify Steverci of this report as reuqired; I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did, but Steverci has removed my warning, see . After that, he started the discussion on the admins page trying to block me. But what can he/she say in particular about his edits of Suvorov's page? I want fair answers and fair sources of information being added to Wiki. Thanks. Masusimaru (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Addeditor reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was banned for 24 hours on 10 December. Has edited again with the same edits for which he was banned

• Already blocked indefinitely by FreeRangeFrog. Wifione 10:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: no vio: )

Page: Various articles, including Juelz Ventura, Renae Cruz and Sammie Rhodes

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Sammie Rhodes:

Juelz Ventura

There are more, I can find if needed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
I'm uninvolved in all of this, so sanctions may be needed for the other party as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just spotted Qed237 is involved in this as well, just as much as HW, so he should be considered as well as above. This may need escalating to ANI, due to the nubmer of people involved, but I'll leave it down to the reviewing admin's discretion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is absolute crap, and User:Mdann52 deserves to be sanctioned for bringing it. There is no doubt that the notability tags on these articles were inappropriately removed. Neither of these BLPs includes independent, reliable sourcing satisfying BLP/RS requirements. Neither includes a claim to notability under PORNBIO, the applicable SNG (the tinfoil trophies they claim for "scene" awards don't count toward notability per the express and eminently clear language of the SNG).

But, of course, this notice is procedurally invalid. No attempt to discuss. No prior warning. And as is obvious to any competent, good faith editor, 2 reverts on two different articles don't amount to a 3RR violation. Just more trumped-up harassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: edit warring ≠ 3RR violation; 3RR is a brightline rule, not a right. Whether the tags are valid or not, there has been edit warring, they have not been discussed by either party, and that is the issue here. If you think my actions are inappropriate, feel free to take it to ANI. In any case, I have much better things to do than harass people. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Bullshit. I discussed, for example, here and here and here . You didn't discuss before opening this or related discussions, and you ignored my attempts to open substantive discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like open season here. _Fortuna 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like clear edit warring (and/or 3RRing) here. Removing/adding templates,no matter of their validity, without discussing it per WP:BRD, WP:EW or WP:3RR. And stating that the reporter to be sanctioned is just bollocks, AN/foo might be known for boomeranging a lot, but this is a clear cut case of edit warring. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You're just wrong. Note that I opened multiple discussions, which Mdann ignored; Mdann did not follow convention/practice here or at ANI; and that the tag removals, which were obviously contradicted by the applicable SNG, at least border on the vandalous/malicious, and at best show a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, you made a PROD nomination of Renae Cruz back in April 2014 but another editor removed the PROD. If you still think the article lacks notability, wouldn't it be normal to take it to AfD and abide by the consensus there? Your repeated additions of notability tags do not seem to be part of a good faith effort to reach an agreed-on result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't add the tags initially. {] put the tags on. Redban is a clumsy, and probably overzealous new editor, and some of his tagging has been lousy, but it's nowhere near as inaccurate as some editors involved in the overall dispute have claimed. I've looked at some of the tags, and where the tagging is accurate, restored it. In each of the BLPs where I restored the tags, there was no significant independent reliable sourcing, in many cases no reliable sourcing at all, and no credible claim to meeting the specific criteria of PORNBIO. (To the extent there's been an effort made to justify tag removal here, it uniformly rests on ignoring recent tightening up of PORNBIO, despite the overwhelming community support for the revisions).

I've nominated dozens of porn BLPs for AFD or PROD this year, with a very high accuracy rate. This has made me target for all sorts of harassment, on- and off-wiki, and the amount of support one gets from most of the administrative community for enforcing BLP and rules against promotional is vanishingly low. When I'm sick and tired of being treated like dirt, despite having 65,000 edits, done more BLP cleanup and improvement than 99.9% of the editors here, and having poured immense amounts of time into dealing with some of the most malicious folks out there trying to use Misplaced Pages to smear, you have no right to tell me I can't pull back. Suggesting I'm somehow deficient in good faith is appalling, and you should be ashamed of that comment. A few months ago, in an AFD discussion, an editor decided to cast aspersions, if not outright accusations, of racism against me (and others, but I was the main target). Two admins characterized those comments as "appalling" bad faith. What was done about? Nothing. Not one thing. Not one bloody fucking thing. And that tolerance of atrocious misconduct has lead to escalation of misbehavior and ongoing harassment of me and other editors, of which this specious complaint is just a minor example. No More Mr Nice Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. The individuals are either notable, or they're not. If they're not, then take the article to WP:AFD. Lugnuts 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a couple of observations. First off, I'll concur that HW puts in a tremendous amount of effort into BLP articles and has accomplished an impressive amount of "cleanup" with regard to the removal of vandalism and other "clutter". That said, as my 2nd point, I'd like offer that much of his perspective on content hinges enormously on the phrase "significant independent reliable sourcing" and his personal interpretation of it. He is very quick to revert content additions if the source is not acceptable. In my opinion, HW is somewhat jaded when it comes to a lot of content additions and often treats them as "spam", "trivia", "gossip", or "employee of the month awards" (for sourced, but non-Notable awards) without regard for the context to the subject. Again, these are just my observations, but for some reason HW and I interact fairly often. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain baffled by the argument that when a policy calls for content to be removed "immediately" and "without waiting got discussion", one should not act quickly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

clearly this isn't clear cut enough. I'm closing as no vio. Spartaz 01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue there was edit warring spread over multiple pages, and there was enough evidence of edit warring, but I can see your viewpoint on this as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DJ Erick Roman reported by User:Weedwacker (Result: Already blocked)

Page

DJ Erick Roman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DJ Erick Roman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of DJ Erick Roman. (TW)"
2. 08:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for DJ Erick Roman"
3. 08:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on DJ Erick Roman. (TW)"
4. 05:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
5. 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on DJ Erick Roman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

DJ Erick Roman (talk · contribs) has edit warred over speedy deletion tags on an article that appears to be an autobiography with no notability. The page in question has been deleted 3 times in the last 3 days. He has been addressed on his talk page several times.

I attempted to warn the user about 3RR but he committed the 3rd revert slightly before the warning.

The user's page has also been deleted 3 times for misuse of user page hosting the same information.

The removal of tags by the page creator also occurred on the previous deleted versions of both the user page and article page.

The user moved the page to Misplaced Pages:DJ Erick Roman Oficial Weedwacker (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Rschen7754. Wifione 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:75.162.212.197 (Result: Declined; filer blocked)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

spshu Adds and continues to readd false so-called "source" materials, which are false because even though several Saturday morning cartoons did sadly disappear from TV when One Magnificent Morning started, not all of them did. Ones that were specifically only on cable TV and satellite TV didn't disappear, and even if this were only about commercial broadcast TV, then even those didn't disappear completely. There are still some cartoons on NBC Kids (by Sprout Network), for example. It's not all a cartoon block, but cartoons are still there on Saturday mornings. But the false sources make inaccurate claims like "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and "R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons." So, even with edit-warring aside, this would still be a report about posting inaccurate "sources."

75.162.212.197 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined No violation. Dear IP, the article is protected. Get an account, get autoconfirmed, then use verifiable and reliable sources to place your statement within the article WITH a neutral point of view. If you have a content issue, try dispute resolution. Thanks. Wifione 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wifione: I understand that the article is protected, but that's not the point. An autoconfirmed user already *has* tried removing those inaccurate sources from the article. But look at all the reverts that spshu made, yet he's not being accused of edit-warring even though the other editors were. Why not? So are you saying that it's "not edit-warring" if you, the admin., agree with what was repeatedly added to or otherwise repeatedly reverted in the article? Why should it only be considered "edit-warring" for one editor rather than both (according to you), even though the edit-warring warning even says something about "even if you are correct," and other admins even say things like "it doesn't matter if you're correct or not; it's still edit-warring"?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear ip, the auto-confirmed user was blocked because the said auto-confirmed user was not discussing changes on the talk page of the article. My suggestion would be, try discussing the content issue on the talk page of the article as Spshu is the one who is following an appropriate WP:BRD cycle. Spshu has been awaiting responses on the talk page of the article since the start of this month. Proceed to the talk page and discuss the issue there, rather than repeatedly reverting. If discussions don't lead to resolution, follow dispute resolution. Wifione 11:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Wifione, for your response. Well you're saying that spshu has been doing BRD--a while back, anyway. I can see that. But not now, though. Even so, he's been edit-warring too. If someone is doing BRD but still keeps on reverting and reverting, does that not still count as edit-warring? So if a writer posts a comment to the talk page and then reverts, that's "not edit-warring"? How about when he keeps reverting while not still discussing? Doesn't that then still become edit-warring for him? If not, then why not? And if I were the i.p. who had been discussing with spshu before, but then kept reverting and reverting like he is, would I also get a pass from being accused of edit-warring just because I had been discussing in the past, or would there be some difference? And if so, then what would that supposed "difference" have been?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've Blocked the filer for two weeks for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mezigue reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: no vio)

Page: HappyHolograms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mezigue (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: User_talk:Mezigue#Edit_War_HappyHolograms

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User: Mezigue seems to believe that his revision of the article is correct, and that any attempt to insert internal pipe links to story references or notable plot points are examples of WP: EASTER. I have repeatedly explained in edit notes that these are not violations, and have even tried to explain them in detail in the article, but he simply reverts all changes made by me.

SanAnMan (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, I strongly suggest both editors take this to the talk page and seek dispute resolution. --slakr 03:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mitrale89 reported by User:Local hero (Result: )

Pages: Serbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Serbian Argentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Serbs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mitrale89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First revision on Serbs, ; on Serbian Argentine,; on Serbs of Croatia ; and on Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia

Diffs of the user's violation of 3RR:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No formal warning of the 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: on Serbs, ; on Serbs of Croatia, ; and on Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia,

Comments:
Since creating an account several days ago, this user's editing has consisted mainly of inflating the number of Serbs in various places (i.e. Serbs in Slovenia), either with no sources or with an unreliable estimate from a biased Serbian article, or of adding unsourced individuals to lists of people (i.e. Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The user has been asked to join discussions both on his own talkpage and on article talkpages but has not done so. --Local hero 15:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:194.54.154.139 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Blocked )

Page: Eric Carmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.54.154.139 (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:

Another IP address, also originating from Crimea, reverted again at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Both IPs Blocked – for a period of 120 hours Ks0stm 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if there is a sockpuppet in the form of User:GATW. See . Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Add User:77.35.8.175 from Russia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:GyaroMaguus (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:33 UTC 14 Dec 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:33 UTC 14 Dec 2014
2. 19:34 UTC 14 Dec 2014
3. 00:40 UTC 15 Dec 2014
4. 00:42 UTC 15 Dec 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (which the user has already replied to)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (the section '"Subject to confirmation"/"Provisional"')

Comments:

Prisonermonkeys, who has previously been blocked for edit warring three times since October (11 Oct 2014 / 1 Nov 2014 / 14 Nov 2014), has continued to edit war. The article in question has two points, one constructor entry and one Grand Prix, that are labeled "subject to confirmation" and "provisional" respectively. Prisonermonkeys believed that this constituted a violation of WP:WEASEL when in fact the FIA (the organising body) has so far declared these conditionals to be the most recent confirmation, so me, Tvx1, Burgring and Twirlypen have stated that it is clearly not a case of WEASEL, which Prisonermonkeys does not understand. To this effect, Prisonermonkeys, made four reversions (above) in just over five hours (no-one else violated 3RR). Following the second pair of reversions, Prisonermonkeys then decided to go onto the talk page to re-assert his stance, which was quickly rejected. Just over three hours after breeching 4RR, Prisonermonkeys then proceeded to add the notes back onto the page (using four edits, a perfectly legitimate set of edits). Prisonermonkeys claims (fairly) that he could not revert the pair of edits together, and feels that he only made two reversions (a view that the precise wording of 3RR disagrees with).

What is worse is that Prisonermonkeys is claiming that we are not applying WP:AGF and that we should assume his four edit summaries of 'That feels like WP:WEASEL', 'Inferred by TBA status', 'To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"' and 'Same as before' mean he actually wanted to change the style of the footnote, which I simply can't see. His edit to include the footnote was proceeded by a talk page message that started with 'I've modified it to be as unobtrusive as possible.' These to be does not fall in line with his story of 'I wanted to change the footnotes', nor does his phone's inability to load editing pages properly, as his four edits to include the footnotes took just three minutes to achieve. He makes absolutely no attempt to accept his actions were wrong or to admit to what is clearly the truth. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked for one month by me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:188.99.80.106 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Semi)

Page

Dirk Kuyt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

188.99.80.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638266790 by Lukeno94 (talk) Reverted. Just accept that the new version actually looks way better. I know you agree, stop being hard-headed."
2. 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638265844 by C.Fred (talk) So-called "consensus" doesn't hold true in practice. Otherwise you would have to edit tons of other footballer edits in which the hyphens are grouped together."
3. 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638230969 by Lukeno94 (talk) You are not eligible to set any fabricated standard of any kind on your own."
4. 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638213239 by Lukeno94 (talk) Format much better and appealing for the eye."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation from someone who has been reverted by two separate users, and yet carries on reverting. Insists their change is better, even though it doesn't match the standard style for this sort of thing, and also insists that I must really agree with them etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. This user may be switching IPs. Let me know if you see more edits elsewhere with the same pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could you also revert back to the previous stable version please, EdJohnston? As is obvious above, I'm at 3 reverts myself, and don't want to take any chances. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this truly an edit war over style? Truly? I think this belongs on WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: I'll reply on your user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:76.117.59.225 reported by User:Josh3580 (Result: )

Page

Survivor: San Juan del Sur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

76.117.59.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Citation needed"
2. 06:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Citation needed"
3. 06:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "CITATION NEEDED"
4. 06:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638319499 by 169.231.58.247 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Survivor: San Juan del Sur. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:VediKboy reported by User:TopGun (Result: )

Page: Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VediKboy (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: The user is not discussing in anyway and reverts only inspite of my attempt to persuade him to discuss. Instead of using the article talkpage, I went on to start a discussion on his user talk so as to give him notifications of my each message but my posts are all unreplied. He's made six reverts by now and possibly violated 3RR... though it was a slow editwar anyway. I have also notified the user of WP:ARBIPA but he has shown no intention of stopping; he has reverted 3 users in total and has reverted twice after the final warning. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• 81.156.250.214 is Nangparbat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP just made 3 edits / 1 effective edit, all here, so I have no idea how you reached that conclusion but if it is, it wouldn't affect the spirit of this report and hardly the letter of it as it would still be 5 reverts by VediKboy with clear intention to revert more and discuss nothing after the final warning and infact be non responsive on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yet another revert adding personal commentary by changing the word 'declaration' (affidavit as per source) to 'hearsay' and no discussion, though he left me a WP:BATTLE message to stop being an abpara bot . --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheKnightoftheHeart reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Junaid Jamshed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheKnightoftheHeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I have made my point on the talk page, please consult that."
2. 11:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "You are not accepting the clear-cut confession of blasphemy on the part of the living person himself, not conviction, but confession, hence the edit..."
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "You can respond leisurely, I will not mind that."
   2. 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Because he is now renowned as a blasphemer among the people he is famous in"
4. 10:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I have already made my points there, I see no response to that."
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 10:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "The commission of blasphemy accepted by the living person himself"
   2. 10:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Blasphemy */ Refer to the talk page, to stop the edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation */"
2. 14:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Outside editor's view on the blasphemy allegation */"
3. 11:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Violation of BLP guidelines designed to protect living persions */"

Comments:

User is flat-out failing to comprehend that they are committing BLP violations, and is also flat-out failing to stop their contentious editing and wait for the talk page discussion to reach a consensus. User is also practically a SPA at this point, since a huge proportion of their edits have been on this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Despite the addition of source, this user above kept on undoing the well-referenced edits of mine. I hope Misplaced Pages administrators will do justice, not based on my religion or religious standpoint. TheKnightoftheHeart (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• What a load of baloney. Your edits are not well-referenced (copyright violations of the same video on multiple sites being used as a reference for example), and they are heavily centering around your own translation, which is disputed by two separate editors who do understand Urdu. Even if you are right, then you are still violating BLP and every procedure in the book by trying to insist that he is most notable for what he has been accused of - which is utterly false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked Wifione 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Yezohtz2 reported by User:Luxure (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

Page

2014 Sydney hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Yezohtz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Kindfully request to discuss your objections to the source on the talk page. Please seek consensus if you don't want certain developments to be added. Undid revision 638343624 by Luxure (talk)"
2. 11:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Please see source: "(he demaned) public declaration from the government that his was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State". Undid revision 638343049 by Luxure (talk)"
3. 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Motive is what an attacker reasons for his actions. It does NOT matter what the Austrialian authorities call it. His motive is quoted by hostages in the source.Undid revision 638342746 by Luxure (talk)"
4. 11:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "HIS motive is quoted as: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack." Undid revision 638342069 by Luxure (talk)"
5. 11:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Please see source for the motive he describes before editing. Discuss your objections on the talk page. Undid revision 638341709 by Luxure (talk)"
6. 11:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Motive desribed in attackers own words: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
7. 11:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638341388 by Melcous (talk) See source: "... this was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State" he stated as his MOTIVE."
8. 11:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Added motive the attacker stated: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
9. 09:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Yes, it is. Why are you defending terrorism? Undid revision 638179779 by Sroc (talk)"
10. 09:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Updated motive and source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
2. 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
3. 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
4. 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
5. 12:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
6. 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Motive */ new section"
2. 12:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Motive */"

Comments:

The user also received a warning previously for uncivil behaviour and is biased and is seemingly anti-Islamic. He/She has not listened to discussing it on the talk page and continues to revert and argue Luxure Σ 12:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours It is clear that User:Luxure is well aware of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring, but has nevertheless continually edit-warred. (Apart from anything else, this report demonstrates awareness of the policy.) On the other hand, User:Yezohtz2 has never been warned about edit warring (the edits linked above under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" mention "unconstructive edits", "edits that appear disruptive", "reports that ... are UNCONFIRMED by law agencies", "remains unconfirmed", etc etc, but not edit warring) and I therefore would have merely warned Yezohtz2 had it not been for this edit in which he or she indicates an awareness of the fact that edit warring is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) thank you for overseeing this complaint and I profusely apologise for any inconvience User:Luxure and I caused by this silly, trivial (I'm a maths guy too!) matter. We should have known better but it escalated quickly. Yezohtz2 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:BeyonderGod reported by User:David A (Result: Both editors warned; page protected)

This user keeps inserting badly spelled slanted and/or revenge-driven edits that go contrary to given references and linked evidence within the Talk pages, both my own and in one of the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/BeyonderGod

I have previously filed complaints against him here and here. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment You did not notify BeyonderGod about this complaint. You cannot miss out on this procedural requirement. Also, you both have crossed 3RR. If I block BeyonderGod, I would have to block you too as per WP:3RR. You both have clean block logs, but your disruption is getting out of hand. Please stop revert-warring with BeyonderGod and continue discussions on the talk page. I'm protecting the page with a stern warning to you and BeyonderGod. Once the protection is lifted from the page, if there is any hint of edit warring from either one of you, I'll block freely. If talk page discussions don't help, use the process of dispute resolution|. It might help. Thanks. Wifione 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Warned both editors. Page protected. Wifione 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said any bad slurs unlike you insulting my spelling/grammar where you misspelled easy words which I don't care with people online yet you insulted my IQ? Overall thank you Wifione for locking the page. Beyonder (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Beyonder

User:Charliewolf79 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Concord Production Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Charliewolf79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
3. 14:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. 07:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Concord Production Inc.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Additional final warning: JohnBlackburne_deeds 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. John, could you please open up talk page discussions and invite the editor over to the talk page too? And maybe suggest to Beetstra to be also aware of WP:3RR, which he has technically broken. But I'm ready to infinitely overlook that in the case of spam links. Just saying as a matter of caution. Wifione 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note, I considered this getting close to abuse of Misplaced Pages - the editor has a very strong focus on one subject, though I do not see statements from this editor in line to what our terms of use proscribe, and the user is .. circumventing the spam blacklist - I did not look closer at this yet (considering to have a look at the other edits regarding this), but start to consider a block for that. --Dirk Beetstra 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Also noting that the editor now seems aware of discussions - they self-reverted their last addition. --Dirk Beetstra 18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Solo12gaug reported by User:24.226.133.134 (Result: )

Page: Saleen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solo12gauge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original undoing

Diffs of the user's reverts:

user keep trying to remove this section: transaction with a publicly traded shell company owned by David Weiner, a marijuana pennystock financer.

This is factual information that provides some background as to how Saleen went public. The user has done dozen of edit on Saleen related pages and he seems to be only doing these with user Murdock7.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

When trying to talk the issue out on the user talk page he removed it. User can't provide any reason why he is removing the comment other than "it is irrelevant", but he can't explain why it would be irrelevant. It is clear that the user is trying to protect Saleen's reputation. David Weiner and his W-Net fund are behind Saleen going public as per Saleen S1 SEC filling: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=7747636 and he is a marijuana pennystock financier as confirmed by the citations I provided which keep getting removed.

Comments:

User:Bonehill reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Page: Joshua Bonehill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bonehill (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: Talk:Joshua_Bonehill#Joshua_Bonehill_socking

Comments:
User has socked under other accounts, is referred to as an internet troll by an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not and have never been an internet troll, there is a conspiracy of bias left-wing users purposely making me out to be something I'm not at a wikipedia article involving me. I will not tolerate my name being dragged through the dirt for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonehill (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're only known for publishing racist hoaxes in a hate rag that isn't worth wiping one's arse with. "Troll" is an excessively weak understatement of what you are, and still sourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It dosn't matter if you are the subject of the article as you claim, or if you are "right". You were, undeniably, edit warring and probably need a block. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ashtul reported by User:Melody Concerto (Result: )

Page

Skunk (weapon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Melody Concerto - I brought a source to support the change I made Dec 14. Nishidani undid it for no reason"
2. 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "I put a link that proofs info was inccorect. Nishidani didn't like it so he undid change!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
2. 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"
3. 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned them twice about their reverting, noticed that the article was covered under discretiononary sanctions. Reporting under impression of 1/2 Revert Rule being in effect. Melody Concerto 22:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy.html
2. http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/sec-weed-wackers-sparked-growlife-fears/

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring