Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 28 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:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Soviet war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MiGR25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Article #1:

Article #2:

1. (IP user, but most likely it is MiGR25)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user was just created and its only activity is the removal of sourced text from two articles.
The arguments from the revert summaries are on the level of "I don't like it." There was no attempt to initiate any discussion.
I warned MiGR25 about 3RR and suggested to start a discussion before reverting. MiGR25's response was to copy and paste my warning word for word on my talk page (not only the template, but the comments I added after).
The use of links to wiki policies in revert summaries indicates that this is not a genuinely new user who is not aware of the rules.
So the user is highly disruptive and it looks like someone created a SPA to remove specific text from the two articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

"There was no attempt to initiate any discussion"

There was a dissucsion:Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: Soviet_war_crimes, Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany; Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945 without any acknowledge to the consensus of an WP:NPOV just because (you) I don't like it

• YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06)

So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.

It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.

MiGR25 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part.

For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May. -YMB29 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This report is ironic given YMB29 (talk · contribs) own propensity in engaging in slow burn edit wars to push dubious viewpoints while attempting to exhaust opponents with long intractable discussion on the article talk pages. For example, recently in the article Winter War (with discussion on Talk:Winter_War#Changes_to_intro):

• 20:14, 4 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636582381 by Gwafton (talk) This looks like a case of WP:IJDLI... Prove your argument on the talk page before reverting.)
• 21:40, 3 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636435465 by Gwafton (talk) Your opinion on what is largely accepted is not an excuse to revert existing text without any discussion.)
• 23:44, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Restored reverted text. I recommend that you don't revert text you don't like without any agreement. I can also say that the other view is a theory not worth mentioning.)
• 21:28, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Reverted. This view is just as significant as the other one. It has been in the text for over a year. No consensus to remove it.)
• 19:58, 1 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636149692 by 192.171.4.126 (talk) unexplained revert)

Seems WP:Boomerang would apply here. --Nug (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to switch attention from the issue here. What is wrong with my reverts above?

Are you wikistalking me? How do you explain your sudden interest in the Winter War article?

You also followed MiGR25's reverts and made a similar revert to his in the Berlin: The Downfall 1945 article (using a similar revert summary) even before MiGR25 got to the page. This leads me to think that you are working together with him/her or MiGR25 is your SPA and you signed into the wrong username to make that revert...

How am I pushing "dubious" viewpoints if the other users come in and revert well sourced text that has been in the articles for a long time? WP:BRD applies there.

The Winter War article had the same problem with a user reverting existing text that he did not like. However, he stopped reverting and decided to discuss. -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, extremely dubious, the source you are pushing from a Russian government website claims only 72 German women were raped in total by Soviet forces in the entire campaign to conquer Germany in 1945, that's right, seventy two. Editors strongly objected back in May, just because you were able to sneak it into other articles doesn't mean the consensus against it has changed. --Nug (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sneak it in? You and others have edited the articles many times since. Users have even reworded that specific text. If something was wrong with the source, it would have been reverted by now and not by this "new" user. So are you still going to claim that you only noticed this text now, when this SPA started reverting it?

The source does not claim that "only 72 German women were raped in total." This is not mentioned in the articles, so you are just repeating MiGR25's dubious statement from a revert summary.

Anyway, you are simply trying to turn this into a content dispute and divert attention from the actions of this "new" user, whom you support. I hope that admins will note this. -YMB29 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The source you claim is reliable states:

"Я привожу цифры, характеризующие это положение по 7 армиям нашего фронта: общее количество бесчинств со стороны военнослужащих в отношении местного населения, зафиксированных по этим 7 армиям, 124, из них: изнасилований немецких женщин – 72, грабежей -38, убийств – 3, прочих незаконных действий – 11»"

which translates to:

"I quote figures on this position for seven armies of our front: the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11."

Such a bogus claim calls into question the general reliability of the source. --Nug (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing bogus about that is your interpretation. She is talking about documented cases only for the 1st Belorussian Front in a two week span in Berlin.

A historian can't cite documents? Again, where were you before with your criticism? You need to stop trolling. This is off topic. -YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to belive whatever is on your distorted mind, but keep any false accusation and personal attacks WP:NPA out of the disscusion. I'm neither an alt account, nor an advanced wikiuser and definitely not a SPA. Anyone with a objective and impartially WP:NPV would acknowledge the consensus how biased and one sided Yelena Senyavskaya scathing hypothesis is. Starting with the first source give at Battle_of_Berlin and the disscuion Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits where She not only criticise Beevor, Bellamy and Grossmann studies, but giving dubious remarks. First source: The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels I want to qoute same figure as you: "the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11" and giving following date: from 22 April to 5 May 1945.

During the last days of the downfall and the weeks after, around 2,5 Million Red Army Soldiers and Personell where involved in the occupation of Berlin. How you can you receive an objective and unbiased analysis by examining solely 7 armies? For example, the 2nd Belorussian front, had 8 Armies under command filded around 319'000 mens, and a army per se, is given as a troop strenght of 50'000. Also, the same source indicates, that the approx. number of 2 million of all the raped womans during the whole conquer of Germany are just lies and invented by the Reichspropagandaminister Joseph Goebbels. The other source of Yelena Senyavskaya is not any better in the case, even when it consider a more analytical investigation: The Red Army in Europe in 1945 in the Context of Information War

You also contravened against the WP:3RR here: Berlin: The Downfall 1945: Revision history. Looks like a WP:BOOMERANG MiGR25 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't agree with a source, use the talk page. There is no excuse for just reverting text you don't agree with.

As for your claim that you are not someone's alternate account, your actions speak for themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment to YMB29:

"If you don't agree with a source, use the talk page. There is no excuse for just reverting text you don't agree with." Listen, there was already a discussion ongoing on the talk page of Battle of Berlin with the acknowledged consensus by multiple User, except you, that the cited source of Yelena Senyavskaya, is heavy biased. Yet, months after a fanatical tug of war, you decided to hoodwink the disscusion and to widespred the same contested source to the following webpages: 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 This can be verified by reviewing your contributions. That's surely not in the sense of the Wiki netiquette of co-educational behavior.

Its tremendous to demand a new Talk-Page for each wikipage I numerated above, just because you did not like how the disscusion turned out for you. Yes, I did removed the content of the following pages: 1 ; 2 but I did not initiate the revert warring. It was you, because you dont like the removal of the contested scoure, even it was considered as heavy biased. MiGR25 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You started reverting just after registering and you accuse me of edit warring...

And again, for a new user you are too well aware of my editing history. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about content dispute, but edit warring and disruptive behavior by a user who just recently registered. MiGR25 and Nug are trying to switch the topic to confuse others. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was already held at Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits and Paavo273 (talk · contribs) and PBS (talk · contribs) opposed your dubious source at the time, but you still persisted in spraying your text across multiple articles. Nothing has changed, MiGR25 and I also oppose it today, that's four editors opposing your controversial text, but you are continuing your slow burn edit war even while this case is open here , . --Nug (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How are discussions back from May relevant? A lot has changed since. The source was used in multiple articles since and has been there for months with other users modifying the text cited to it. If you want to change something the burden is now on you, see WP:BRD.

Again, there are a lot of questions about your involvement here. Why did you all of a sudden wake up to complain about the source now? Why did you follow me to the Winter War article? Why did you make that revert following MiGR25's lead ? Is MiGR25 your SPA? -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than abusing this board to get the upper hand in a content dispute and WP:PA claims that people are either stalking you or are some kind of SPA, perhaps you could accept that your controversial edits that give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority opinion are opposed by many editors and cease and desist in attempting to sneak it under the radar into every article tangentially associated with the topic of the rape of German women. That would help. --Nug (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you don't try to remove valid text you simply don't like because of your specific POV. Colluding with a random "new" user (who you know is not behaving in a correct wiki way) to achieve this is especially low on your part.

The text and the source is in the articles. The view is significant, not a fringe one that can be excluded. You don't like it and want to remove it? Use the talk pages and go through dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"And again, for a new user you are too well aware of my editing history." You can't be serious, any User who is willing to spend time and revewing your and the contributions made at those site: 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 can see, that you hoodwink the previous disscusion to widespread the contested hypothesis on these sites. My removal of the contested content is legitimate, you still dont accept the outcome of the disscusion which why you have reverted my removals - which started the edit warring. MiGR25 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still referring to an outdated discussion from May? We are not even talking about the Battle of Berlin article here. The dispute there was mostly about the wording, not that the source does not belong in the article.

Ok, so I guess you spent a long time reviewing my contributions for fun and then decided to register to revert some of them... -YMB29 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What ever consensus you imagined you had back in May clearly didn't exist then. Please accept that your edit which give way to much weight to a minority viewpoint has no consensus. --Nug (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that you can't backtrack and claim that the edits I made half a year ago don't have consensus. The source and the text associated with it is present in all the mentioned articles, and no one was against it until MiGR25 started his reverting. I think you need to read WP:CONACHIEVE carefully to understand how consensus is achieved. -YMB29 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. David Glantz, When Titans Clashed
2. Steven D Mercatante, Why Germany Nearly Won

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring at Rape during the occupation of Germany. Four reverts over several days from an account with only 18 edits. The last revert occurred while this 3RR report was open. User:MiGR25 is presumably a returning editor and is unlikely to be new to this dispute. All parties are advised to use the talk page. If reverting continues after the block expires there may be more admin actions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Atifabbasi8 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atifabbasi8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring to call ISIL an Islamic State and Caliphate, against calling them a rebel group, and ignoring hidden notes to do an RfC

1. - note says "do not change without a successful closed RfC"

Page creations that are POV against consensus to legitimize ISIL - mostly one sentence stubs with poor or no sources:

1. Wilayat Kirkuk (ISIL)
2. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
3. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
4. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
5. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
6. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
7. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
8. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
9. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
10. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
11. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
12. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
13. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
14. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
15. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
19. 2014 Iranian Airstrikes on ISIL in Eastern Iraq an unconfirmed event
20. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
21. 2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya
22. 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna originally a puff piece for the "Islamic State" but edited into a good article by others
23. Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Created page with 'Islamic State is claimed itself to be a Islamic Caliphate from 2014-Present.It is first Caliphate having Air Force.'
24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State a list of 1 person?
25. ISIL Caliphate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: multiple warnings on user talk page by various editors Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user operates a single purpose account dedicated to building credibility for the "Islamic State" and its structure and leadership. Misplaced Pages editors have widely rejected calling the group a state, or using "Islamic State", "Caliph" and "Caliphate" without qualification, but this editor refuses to follow this consensus. The consensus is reflected in the naming of all major ISIL articles and many talk discussions. It is reflected in the name of the Active Community Sanctions as well.
Most of the junk articles have been redirected or deleted. I started an AfD for a group of them today. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:76.110.153.151 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Topp Dogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 00:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 23:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 23:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639518365 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Topp Dogg. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring without discussion adding fancruft in poor English with incorrect punctuation. Δρ.Κ.  00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter_Görlitz reported by User:82.33.71.205 (Result: Warning. No block. Sigh.)

Page: Christmas Eve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter_Görlitz (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:

Comments:
I'm going to close this since nobody wants this shit on Christmas eve. Walter, you were wrong, and I will revert, since the IP gave a perfectly valid explanation and your edit summary, "revert unexplained removal of content", was thus completely incorrect. So, on the one hand, I will revert you, and on the other I will not block you so you can take the matter up on the talk page, if you feel thusly inclined. Merry Christmas to all. Sorry, Merry Christmas Eve. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. The anon's edits were made in with other edits and I didn't see a reason with the last edit in place. Merry Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Knisfo reported by User:Mentoroso (Result: Protected)

Page

Eurasian Economic Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
2. 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
3. 22:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
4. 23:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (user removing sourced material)
5. 00:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: User has been edit warring on other articles:

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 14 December 2014
2. 00:29, 15 December 2014
3. 15:27, 15 December 2014
4. 16:15, 15 December 2014

and

1. 22:08, 22 September 2014
2. 06:03, 24 September 2014
3. 08:30, 24 September 2014
4. 10:13, 24 September 2014
5. 13:24, 24 September 2014

and

1. 14:05, 13 December 2014
2. 19:20, 13 December 2014
3. 22:47, 13 December 2014

and

1. 13:13, 16 April 2014
2. 21:17, 17 April 2014

(There are much more... but I refrained from adding them as it would be excessive)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:51, 25 September 2014
2. 05:00, 14 December 2014
3. 02:29, 25 July 2014
4. 22:03, 21 March 2014

(User removed these edits on his talk page to hide all 4 warnings)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

User is exhibiting issues with WP:AGF and WP:OWN, taking the reversions personally, and not listening to any explanations for the reversions. Multiple editors have tried explain on the discussion page why they did the edits they did. His behaviour so far has been to ignore everyone and keep on going. He has also narrowly avoided the 3 revert rule multiple times (which is considered gaming the system per WP:EDITWARRING). He's also been editing out other sourced material.

EDIT: While consulting the User's history I discovered he also permanently hogs and reverts on the same articles. In multiple instances he inexplicably removes sourced material.—Mentoroso (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't list edits that are consecutive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User reverted my edit and told me to read the sources. Reading user's sources, I found those sources tell quite the opposite of what user writes in article. When I told them so the user accused me of harassment.

Unlike user I linked sources that do not contradict my edits but support them. Then an IP reverted my edits, called them "unsourced" and "vandalism".

On the talk page the user contradicts themselves and when being told so they accuse others of misinforming.

User puts words in my mouth I haven't said - I said quite the opposite.

User saying about me: "His behaviour so far has been to ignore everyone and keep on going". - My contributions to the talk page:

User saying about me: "User is exhibiting issues with WP:OWN .

Check my history The last three days I edited that article nine times. My last time before that was in summer this year.

Then check the user's history. They hardly edit any other article. So who is the one who wants to own that article ?Knisfo (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What the user does not say is that consensus had been achieved among 3 editors that we would make Kyrgyzstan (country in question) an "acceding member". Support for this by everyone but Knisfo had been achieved. He instead decided to vandalize and revert every possible edit to render the article incapable of any improvement—Mentoroso (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected three days. More than one person seems to be edit warring. Why not get an agreement on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

An agreement was achieved on the talk page. That the country in question would be considered an acceding state. However Knisfo keeps reverting edits. Also a very highly reliable source, the Financial Times, recently stated that the country IS a member now although its treaty comes fully into force in May. . I still think Knisfo's history of edit warring needs to be considered as he has not been held accountable for any of it.—Mentoroso (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:2A02:8108:8140:1108:38DD:A186:44E:9D27 reported by User:Yaan (Result: Declined)

Page: PEGIDA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:8108:8140:1108:38DD:A186:44E:9D27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several IPs who may or may not be the same user keep on reverting two sections of the article: One is about what triggered the protests (it eventually turned out different sources actually make different claims about this), the other is a sentence about counterprotests.

Yaan (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. My guess is they are the same person. However, all you have are three reverts each one day apart. If it gets worse, you could come back here or go to WP:RFPP. BTW, it may be a waste of time, but you should have at least notified the IP you reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

IP-Hopper (2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) continues edit-warring:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User received uw-3rr warnings , . Please protect the page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:333-blue reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked)

Page

2014–15 UEFA Champions League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

333-blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Top goalscorers */"
2. 08:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 639435111 by 333-blue (talk): References, yours is weird. (TW)"
3. 05:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 639429763 by 333-blue (talk). (TW)"
4. 04:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Qed237 (talk): Or you move it into section's name (if you want with cite). (TW)"
5. 23:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Qed237 (talk): References can do that, can't they? (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2014–15 UEFA Champions League. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He keeps modifying sources from more than one user despite warnings. There is no need to remopve cite template as proper way to source content. Also at 2014-15 Europa League QED237 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Based on the user's history, there seems to be some incompetence mixed in with obvious stubbornness.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:91.79.78.200 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:31 hours)

Page: Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.79.78.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 11:36, 24 December 2014
2. Revision as of 18:01, 24 December 2014
3. Revision as of 09:31, 25 December 2014
4. Revision as of 14:32, 25 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Aleksandr Dugin#Labeling someone as simply FASCIST!!! ? has a discussion of whether it is correct to describe the subject of the article as a "fascist". Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours only (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Saya Ganteng reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Declined)

Page

Persib Bandung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saya Ganteng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 01:20, 20 December 2014
2. Revision as of 13:01, 22 December 2014
3. Revision as of 07:58, 25 December 2014

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps on changing information not as shown in the source, specifically for the Asia Club Rangking section. Source is this. Warned already in the revert summary. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to decline this right now as I don't see any discussions had with this user aside from edit summaries. I'm not ready to block based on 3 reverts in 5 days. Please try to engage with/discuss the issue rather than warning through edit summaries. I'll let other admins take a look and act, but I'm passing on action right now. only (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Declined. But the parties should use the talk page before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Антон патріот reported by User:Herzen (Result: Blocked)

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Антон патріот (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:30, 23 December 2014‎
2. 10:18, 24 December 2014
3. 07:02, 25 December 2014
4. 07:24, 25 December 2014
5. 07:42, 25 December 2014‎
6. 08:46, 25 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

In an edit summary, I asked Антон патріот to raise the matter in Talk before reverting again, but he just reverted again. A third editor started a Talk section about this, but Антон патріот has not made any comments in it.
If one looks at Антон патріот's global account information, one finds that he is blocked in commons.wikimedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, and www.wikidata.org. – Herzen (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The blocks on other Wikipedias do suggest that the user is not open to persuasion, so the future is not bright. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, as soon as the block was over, this editor resumed his edit warring. He made the same revert two times within few hours after the block was over . Vanjagenije (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours this time. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:98.217.155.45 (Result:No violation)

Page: Balsam of Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epeefleche (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:
User is displaying issues with WP:AGF and pedantry, making draconian reversions, and not listening to any reasoning or explanations for the reversions. I have tried patiently to explain things, but he clearly has no interest in cooperation or collaboration and, keeps deleting statements that are obvious reasoning, while he refers to WP:OR, without understanding that WP allows deductive reasoning within an article such as stating the obvious and, that reliable sources were provided directly supporting the material being presented according to WP:OR, so there is no original research, and what the sources implied was explained using basic logic and common sense and, not by combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion according to WP:ORIGINALSYN, so there is no synthesis of published material as he accuses me of. The point is that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious, as explained here. Thank you 98.217.155.45 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit summary states "There is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious". Actually, there is. Read WP:V. Lugnuts 11:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To Lugnuts: WP:V was the first thing I took into account when posting. Read here and, regarding the obvious, here which is exactly the case with the reverts we are talking about. Thanks 98.217.155.45 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a topic area where that applies. We're not discussing the colour of the sky or the sun here; not many people (in relative terms) even know what Balsam of Peru is, and that includes myself. Everything needs verifying as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation Two reverts in over a month is not edit warring. only (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Imperial HRH2 (Result:Protected page)

Page: FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FC_Barcelona&diff=639345031&oldid=639344903

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Suitcivil133 reverted multiple edits. He is going against consensus of all users and reverting edits without using any sources which support his reverts. Please see the history page for the article for a fuller picture. Also see the Talk page of the article where there are ongoing discussions.

Imperial HRH2 (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Callanecc has given it two days of full protection. only (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Candidar reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: warned)

Page

Paul Thompson (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC) to 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 10:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "removed vandelism. Other editors need to see complete run of edits before critisism, egghead06 did read tunebrokers request for help with html nor to see my full run of edits. Tunebrokers layout is ok now html prob in text has been fixed."
   2. 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Htmls corrections for the version by tunebroker, this version is ok and an improvement on original text before tunebroker made edit"
2. 10:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "sources temp removed sources added since"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Paul Thompson (musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Rather than deal with this myself: Editor is changing in conflict with MOS:BLPLEAD and adding unsourced additions to BLP. Needs other editors input. Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in the connections between Candidar and Tunebroker. A lot of overlap here in edits, and Candidar is only a few weeks old. only (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tunebroker based on these patterns and concerns. only (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Warned — the SPI was confirmed by a checkuser, and I've dropped some appropriate warnings on Tunebroker (talk · contribs)'s talk page. The edits in question haven't violated WP:3RR yet, and I don't immediately see any extensive history of prior edit warring, so for now, while it's sketchy to say the least, there's not a glaringly severe policy breach from what I can see. If the edit warring continues, however, regardless of sock—and especially if done with the sock—this situation escalates, so feel free to re-open or drop another report here should any of that occur. --slakr 08:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: No violation)

Disruptive Single Topic Edit of User Summichum

Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This User has been editing Single topic of Dawoodi Bohra with his SPA Since he has joined the Misplaced Pages. Discrediting any other users who doesn't confirm to his POV

Since he has joined, The dawoodi bohra articles has become a warzone.

he is attempting to delete or disrupt all the other dawoodi bohra related article such as Moulai Abadullah,Fakhruddin Shaheed,Moulai Hasan Fir,Mohammed Burhanuddin and other related articles. Comments:

There are so many differences that I think it would be better if the Admin just look this users history of edits.

Diff:]

he is assuming the ownership of the dawoodi bohra articles as shown above.Rukn950 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• 'No violation. Summichum is not a single purpose account. There is no violation of EW or 3RR on any of these articles. And then there's this. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:66.27.183.38 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Blocked )

Page

UB40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. 17:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
3. 05:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 06:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
5. 17:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
6. 16:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on UB40. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "/* 2 groups recording as UB 40 */"

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced category. I have attempted discussion but to no avail. Egghead06 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Seconding the report, and adding another instance. This IP has 6 edits, and each one is adding UB40 to the category "British boy bands." Clearest 3RR violation I've ever seen. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Marielopez124 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Selena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Marielopez124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC) to 06:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 19:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Selena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New editor insists on reverting and re-adding unreferenced content while not using edit summary and after receiving numerous warnings on their talk page over the course of several days and by various editors. Has been asked to review the Manual of Style, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User also inserts unsourced content and fancruft persistently. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• More diffs of continued edit warring at the Selena article: , , . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• User has also made similar edits on the Jenni Rivera article by changing her net worth without backing it up with a source. Said actions had caused the article to be protected until the user understand what she is doing wrong. Erick (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• In spite of a reasonable request by EdJohnston for the reported editor to participate in this report and to stop edit warring, they continue to edit war. The following is just the latest of several instances since Ed left his message on the user's talk page: . At this point I think it's safe to say the editor has no intention of stopping their edit-warring behavior, lack of communication, and re-adding of content not referenced. It's now definitely surpassed the disruptive threshold. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Vandalizing Another's User Page User:Marielopez124 just vandalized my User Page here and here . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Someone hurry up and block this user already. They have been warned an excessive number of times. Vrac (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and blanking others' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Boguslavmandzyuk (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:48, 26 December 2014‎ "See discussion"
2. 14:35, 26 December 2014‎ "See discussion"
3. 19:54, 26 December 2014‎ "It is a typical hoax and mystification. See discussion and documents. You will not find such information in historical documents, also, you can see the term Little Russia in sense of Hetmanate from the time of Chmelhytsky to Razumovsky"
4. 21:22, 26 December 2014 "Dear Boguslav, I really don't understand what is wrong with this sources. I can not find (sic!) any sources, which could prove your thesis about Little Russian state. Please, shaw me any sources"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:53, 26 December 2014 Attempt to resolve by User:Iryna Harpy
2. 17:20, 26 December 2014 Attempt to resolve by me

Comments:
This user operates a single purpose account focusing on historical subject matter to contrive an All-Russian nation rendering of Eastern Slavic history. The user has broken the 3 Revert Rule immediately after his previous block (regarding the same article) expired.

Editor refuses to accept the consensus at the talk page. Multiple users, including myself, have patiently reasoned with him on the talk page for days. Discussion there falls on deaf ears, as he ignores the sources agreed upon by the consensus, reverting them to his own. The sources have been continuously refuted, which he as cherry picked to follow his WP:POV. Several of his sources actually confirm the majority consensus. Ignores WP:MOS for the WP:Lede. The user has been warned routinely on the article talk page, edit summarizes, as well as his user talk page.--BoguSlav 22:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Request 48-hour temp protect at least. Maybe that will drive them to the talk page rather than the edit summary page. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Turns out they're already talking. Ушкуйник (7 comments) is arguing his point against BoguSlav (6), Irnya Harpy (2), and Faustian (2). Perhaps the 48-hour temp protect will prevent further disruption while they sort out the issues. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

He kept going after the last block (3 days ago) without missing a beat. I asked User:Ушкуйник to reply to this complaint. If he continues to edit Misplaced Pages while making no response here admins should consider an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Ed; I accidentally started from the second one and blocked the dude for a week without having seen this/your intervention (I thought that he was referring to the last report that got him blocked; not this report). :P That said, I'm 100% in agreement with indef blocking if he keeps going after this. --slakr 08:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod reported by User:Adlhgeo1990 (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:47, 26 December 2014 (Reverted 1 edit by 107.179.231.32 (talk): Not in source. (TW)).
2. 01:07, 27 December 2014 (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk): I did, these observations or comments are not made, WP:OR. (TW)).
3. 02:00, 27 December 2014 (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk): These are YOUR conclusions, find a source that states this explicitly. (TW)).
4. 02:22, 27 December 2014 (Reverted 1 edit by Adlhgeo1990 (talk) to last revision by Scalhotrod. (TW)).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see revision history notes

Comments:
Im not sure why, but this user seems to be making it his/her business to revert all my edits. And for tiny little reasons too. I feel that my edits are constructive edits, yet this person seems to think that destroying other peoples work is the best way for him to deal with things.

Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Adlhgeo1990, lacks understanding of WP:BLP policy about adding contentious material. What this User has been adding here (the first instance is I believe when not logged in) is their interpretation of raw source material. It is not stated explicitly in the cited reference. If my interpretation is wrong, I am more than willing to apologize, but given that it involves a BLP article, I was erring on the side of caution and on behalf of the site and the subject. I am claiming a 3RR BLP exception. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• May I just point out that, at first blush, this seems like the pot calling the kettle black? Your user history shows that your very first edit was to revert Scalhotrod. In fact, of your 9 edits, 44% of them have been to revert Scalhotrod. Can you say that 44% of Scalhotrod's edits have been to revert you? I think not. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would appear that way, but I made this account earlier today to try and defend my work from this user, I usually browse and edit from various IP addresses, and have been editing Misplaced Pages for several years anonymously. 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs)

The relevant policies here, and I would strongly suggest both parties review them, can be found here: WP:PS, WP:BLPPRIMARY Jsharpminor (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual relevant question here is this: is Adlhgeo drawing his own conclusions? It's a fact that these emails exist, and have been credited to Evan Spiegel. The only remaining question is if Adlhgeo is doing OR by stating succinctly what is contained in them. I tend to think that, upon reviewing the content and comparing it with PS and BLPPRIMARY, it's probably a tough call. Even so, Adlhgeo, there is no cause to continually restore this material time and again. Take it to the talk page, and no, edit summaries don't count as talk pages. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jsharpminor, I appreciate your comments and analysis. What I was going by is the usage of "contentious" used in WP:BLP. Its bad enough that there is a "Controversy" section in the subject's article, but I've seen far lesser claims not only deleted, but blocks handed out for their repeated addition when the source does not explicitly or directly support a claim. This is far from an instance of Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod: Indeed. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adlhgeo1990, you are Warned that if you violate WP:BLP in any article in the future, you risk being blocked without notice. Scalhotrod is correct in their assessment that you are interpreting primary sources (the e-mails) and then characterizing them. This is impermissible, particularly in an article about a living person. I might add that it doesn't help that the section is sourced to a blog in the first instance. @Scalhotrod, in the future, it is best to claim the BLP exemption in your edit summaries when you get into this kind of battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you for the advice. The characterization was my assessment from the begining including when I started a discussion on talk page. But this was the first time that the need for WP:3RRBLP exemption presented itself. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and time, and sorry to have wasted everyone's time here. The BLP exemption was only added by the user after he was busy trying to figure out a way to avoid being blocked. Parts of the article regarding the blog were already there and sourced as such, so I simply expanded by informing people as to the contents of the email without them needing to read the entire article. Best regards to everyone. Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:55, 18 December 2014
2. 23:34, 20 December 2014 (Dear Iryna, Gogol was by birth Gogol-Yanovsky. His grandfrather Afanasiy was Pole. In Britannica is said, that Gogol was Ukrainian-born Russian writer, but not Ukrainian writer. There is a difference)
3. 13:40, 21 December 2014 (See Britanica: "Ukrainian-born Russian writer")
4. 23:04, 21 December 2014 (See Britannica and don't play with rules)
5. 23:20, 21 December 2014 (See the sources)
6. 01:27, 22 December 2014 (Vandalism. You may not delete information with reliable sources)
7. 15:31, 22 December 2014 (It is an absurd, you ignore reliable sources without any arguments)
8. 14:22, 24 December 2014
9. 00:47, 26 December 2014 (See discution on the page "talk" and stop this circus)
10. 14:02, 26 December 2014 (See talk-page)

According to Ушкуйник, Nikolai Gogol is a Russian writer. According to consensus, he is a Ukranian Russian-language writer.

Comments:

This report is merely to supplement the report above on the same user re the article Cossack Hetmanate. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Actually, it looks like he violated WP:3RR on Cossack Hetmanate immediately after his last block expired (on top of this). --slakr 08:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pincrete reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Locked)

Page: The Weight of Chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:04, 25 November 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 2 December 2014 m (This is not per talk)
2. 21:33, 17 December 2014 (Undid revision 638482183 they are not classified by ethnicity and general observation is justified)
3. edit by User:Bobrayner 08:33, 26 December 2014 (back to the consensus version)
4. 20:21, 26 December 2014 m (Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments)
5. 00:37, 27 December 2014 (Perhaps someone could explain what is bad faith/discriminatory or 'ethnic' about putting good reviews before bad, or noting that they are all from a single country)
6. 02:06, 27 December 2014 m (Undid revision 639755538 consensus since October … please argue alteration on talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

This is a clear case when one editor adds controversial content, is opposed by editors, and then with a help of a friend edit-wars intensively in order to win the edit. The edit summary directing opposing editors like myself to the talk-page is clearly provocative as per BRD he is the one that added content and against any consensus is edit-warring to keep it in the article. I know he didn't made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours but it is not a new editor, and he is well aware of the rules, and he just abuses the revert button. I already saw that in that same article they bullied one senior editor, and I decided to intervene and they just keep on pushing the revert button, so I am asking here please here to block the user in order to show him that such behavior is not tolerated here. FkpCascais (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the user needs to make "more than three reverts within a 24 hour period", meaning 4 or more edits....did the user only make three edits? Adlhgeo1990 (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Adlhgeo1990 - That's not necessarily true. 3RR is a bright-line rule. It's like a barrier that's a few meters down a forbidden path. You don't have to break through the barrier to be on the path, but it's clear that if you have, you're indisputably where you should not be. The correct procedure is bold, revert, discuss. You boldly make an edit, and when someone reverts your edit you don't revert it back — you go to the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pincrete is repeatedly adding synthesized material, stating that "positive responses to the film have largely come from Serbian sources," and that "other reviews have largely been negative." Jsharpminor (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. I have also taken the unusual step of reverting the article to the version without the uncited ethnic comments. If during the lock, editors in favor of adding them back can find reliable sources to back them up, fine. Without that, they cannot remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• @EdJohnston:: You might want to take a look at this, having previously given a final WP:ARBMAC warning to those involved at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive255#User:Pincrete and User:UrbanVillager reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Both warned). (I'll also note that this article, and/or the behaviour of its two or three most prolific editors, has been cropping up every few months at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for years.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped an "official" DS warning ({{alert}}) on a few talk pages just in case they didn't get the memo the first time around (also because it adds an edit-filter tag so that other admins know down the line without having to dig into page history :P). --slakr 09:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais Re your remark: "This is a clear case when one editor adds controversial content, is opposed by editors, and then with a help of a friend edit-wars intensively in order to win the edit", firstly 'editors' is plural, until yesterday when YOU made an edit, only ONE editor has opposed the content, others have supported it. If the wording is inappropriate or 'synth', then let us discuss it on talk, which I will do when I have time over the next few days. You have failed to inform or even mention the other editor (whom I was reverting), failed to inform Bobrayner and failed to attempt to resolve this on talk, but brought the matter here immediately after your own edit was reverted. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I have already said (on talk), that if present wording is 'synth', I am happy to change it. However, what exactly is being objected to ? Are you saying that mention of the magazine/website's nationality is ITSELF inappropriate? That seems strange, especially as the film is intimately concerned with FYR and policies of US/UK/EEC. BTW 'reviews' are positive first, negative later, though negative are more numerous and more 'authoritive'. Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Faissaloo reported by User:Only (Result:warned )

Page: Lizard Squad
User being reported: Faissaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Mostly what was being reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:22 26 December 2014
2. 16:26 26 December 2014
3. 16:43 26 December 2014
4. 11:10 27 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by myself at 16:42 and by ThePowerofX at 16:50

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened discussion regarding one edit war and Faissaloo opened one about another edit war.

Comments:
On his talk page, Faissaloo acknowledge the edit war and agreed to stop in favor of discussion. He also mentioned at the article talk page the edit that Dizzyzane made. It seems like restrain was attempted, but he was not able to disengage and insisted on reverting the 4th time; marking that edit as minor and yelling in all caps about it didn't help either. only (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he read the talk page, it's been like that for more than 12 hours now and he hasn't replied, also I wasn't edit warring with Dizzyzane, I only reverted 1 of his changes. I've only been involved in an edit war with 1 user (I believe it was regarding the FBI stuff), and I stopped when I was warned. Faissaloo (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

THat was your 3rd revert related to the infobox, though. You reverted ThePowerofX twice and Dizzyzane once regarding the infobox (twice to restore when ThePowerofX removed it, once to change the "type" in it). Then, yes, a second edit war related to the FBI section with myself. only (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I spoke to ThePowerofX in the talk page and we came to the conclusion that Lizard Squad are a hacker group, he just didn't see the section regarding the Machinima.com hack, so the revert was agreed upon: "I was unaware of the earlier attack on Machinima Inc. That said, I have removed the Lizard avatar from the infobox until a reliable source identifies this as their official logo. — TPX 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)", also, I did not revert the logo, someone else did Faissaloo (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Faissaloo, if you came to an agreement, the other user ought to have self-reverted, instead of you reverting them. I'm not sure you understand what edit warring is. It's defined as repeatedly reverting to your own preferred version (whole or in part) of an article, not as warring with somebody in particular. It doesn't make any difference which other editor you were reverting. You might be blocked right now, if it wasn't for the fact that you're new (I'm discounting your first few edits a while back) and you misunderstood the policy. As it is, I won't block you, and I don't recommend anybody else to do it either. But I'm warning you : don't perform any reverts on Lizard Squad again, at least for the next few days (in fact, you might be safer not editing it at all in 2014, but that's just advice), and do have a good read of the edit warring policy. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

Very well then, I won't edit Lizard Squad until 2015, I don't think the article will need me for a while anyways since I've got most of the stuff I know about already in there, thanks! Faissaloo (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for being so reasonable. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

User:Miracle dream reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

Page: Battle of Nanking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miracle dream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:01, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639759051 by MtBell (talk) I used the previous consensus. Thank you)
2. 06:57, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639775355 by CurtisNaito (talk) how many oppose? how many agree with?)
3. 08:08, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639784764 by CurtisNaito (talk) 3:2 can be considered as "majority" ? In that 2 month discussion, we have 6:1 and still be required to convince the last one who disagree.)
4. 21:31, 27 December 2014 (I don't know how old it is, If you see the edition history. The old version is more closed to my version but user cn rewrote this article in June after previously discussion and changed it. However, this will be my last edition like thi)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
My comment: If you see the summary of the edition I made: "However, this will be my last edition like this". Hence, I have claimed that I will not change anything again before you notice me. Also, please see the final version of the article which is .My last edition was at 21:31, 27 December 2014 but was immediately reverted by user;CurtisNaito at 21:38, 27 December 2014 (Only 7 minutes later). His edition became the final version and I did not change anything when my edition was reverted by him. It is like what I claimed in edition summary the previous edition"will be my last edition". That means I stopped to edit anything when somebody immediately revert my edition. After that, I did not do anything. I did not change again when somebody revert the edition three times. Miracle dream (talk)

• Comment: It's clearly 4 reverts of the same material in a 24-hour period. But I have this question: What is the issue that's being discussed here? Can you summarize what the substantive difference is between the two versions? Jsharpminor (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This and the below report are the same thing. Both reports are correct. Miracle Dream and Curtis Naito are both edit warring here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is about the Nanking massacre. In Feburary, there are two month discussion about this topic. At last, the consensus is neutrally to keep all claim from different scholars. Hence, the result in article Nanking Massacre is " The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000." or "During this period, between 40,000 to over 300,000 (estimates vary) Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army." Then editors tried to use this summary edit all articles related to Nanking Massacre which include article Battle of Nanking. However user Curtis Naito rewrote this article by ignoring the previous discussion. The discussion before is Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8). Curtis Naito joined the 2 month discussion before. After this rewritten, the figure is "Though the Japanese also committed random acts of murder, rape, looting, and arson during their occupation of Nanking, military historian Masahiro Yamamoto notes that of the more than 40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking after the fall of the city only 129 were women or children which suggests that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." Please see this version . Then in December, I added contents again and keep the figures following the main article Nanking Massacre. After some version changed, the article became current version.

Thank you very much for the explanation. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very confused here. 10 months ago, we have a long discussion which involved more than 10 users. At last, we spent 2 months to reach the consensus. Now someone want to change the article, then we need to discuss again? Hence, it made previous consensus become totally useless by this theory. Then after 10 months, many users in that discussion left wiki. It is unfair to those users who joined the discussion before.Miracle dream (talk)

You and Curtis Naito are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. Curtis's post below seems to contradict the statement that a consensus was ever reached. If you could link to that discussion where a consensus was reached 10 months ago, that would be helpful. In any case, there's apparently a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussionTalk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8#Japan's official position or the completed version Talk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8. User: Banzaiblitz had been blocked because of sock-puppet. User: Kamakatsu is one of the sock puppet of Banzaiblitz Miracle dream (talk)

• Warned — Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:CurtisNaito reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Page: Battle of Nanking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:30, 27 December 2014 (Most users deny that a consensus exists on these figures. In the talk page a majority are opposed.)
2. 07:55, 27 December 2014 (I count three users concurring and two opposed)
3. 08:08, 27 December 2014 (no consensus for this change)

The same thing happened in 15 December 2014

1. 06:56, 15 December 2014 (WAY too many sources for the purposes of this article. Eventually though I think we should create another article on the Nanking Garrison Force including all these estimates and more.)
2. 07:15, 15 December 2014 (Discuss this change in the talk page before restoring the material)
3. 07:44, 15 December 2014 (Could we talk about this on the talk page first?)
4. 21:29, 15 December 2014 (No consensus to re-add this)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Comment: This and the above report are the same thing. Both reports are correct. Miracle Dream and Curtis Naito are both edit warring here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The information in the article had been stable for many months and at the time I thought it was inappropriate that contentious edits be added to the article when three of the five participants in the talk page were clearly opposed. In the talk page of the article, only two people agreed that a consensus among Misplaced Pages users had ever been reached which should appropriately have been applied to this article. Most were against the change and even those who remained neutral disagreed that any previous consensus had ever been reached. It seems I did go over three reverts once over a week ago on 15 December 2014, but that was before the talk page discussion had started and I stopped reverting after receiving a warning on my talk page on 27 December 2014‎.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You and Miracle Dream are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. Apparently there's a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Warned — Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Contributor82 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Locked)

Page

The Pinkprint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Contributor82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Not vandalism! There is no policy against aggregate score in the score box."
2. 06:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Unexplained removal."
3. 01:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "To make sure I'm not going against any wiki guidelines relating to this matter, please cite/link me to that guideline."
4. 23:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "There is no final rule as to how this issue should be done so I don't see why you have a problem."
5. 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "If an album has an excess amount of producers then there's nothing wrong with creating a space for the execs. It looks less clustered. This format was allowed on I Am Not a Human Being II."
6. 23:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
2. 23:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
3. 01:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Pinkprint. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted other users, without ensuing discussion, on The Pinkprint numerous times within 24-hours and has been warned against said edits. They're also acting in force of owning the article as it is the primary article they've edited since joining the site days ago. User was warned, with attempt to discuss within warnings; user ignored warnings, instead, removing them from their talk page. livelikemusic 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First observations:

1. Removing warnings isn't ignoring them. In fact, removing warnings is not only allowed, but it is prima facie evidence that the user in question has seen those warnings.
2. It's odd that you would bring this report up to AN3 when the last edit on the page was 16 hours ago.

The above being said, I don't deny that there may be a real problem here. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Isn't it a tad hypocritical for you to complain that this user is removing warnings from their talkpage when they asked you to link them to a policy on your talkpage, and you removed it without answering the question? Jsharpminor (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. The article has been fully protected for a week by NativeForeigner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: True, I did it as a bit of a stopgap. Take any action you see fit on top of this (or if my action was adequate, go ahead). I just noted the general edit warring atmosphere between 3-4 parties over hte last fwe days. NativeForeigner 03:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Heuh0 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

B-theory of time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Heuh0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "weird error in intro"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Support by physics */"

Comments:

User has been site blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. User has been warned ] User has been blocked ] As soon as the block expired, user is now back on the page, reverting against consensus, and still calling me a vandal. TMD Talk Page. 04:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I don't see the name-calling, but the edit warring is clear. I suggest you be careful, though, TMDrew, as another user's misconduct doesn't entitle you to edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny reported by User:Legacypac (Result: no violation)

Page: Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: new article

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Speedy Delete db-person reverted by User:Bbb23
2. removed sourced facts - reverted by User:Cullen328
3. removed entire sourced paragraph - reverted by Legacypac

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is under Syrian Civil War 1RR - something the bunny should know about as someone with a very full understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.

Clearly this is not an "edit war". Those diffs show unrelated edits. I am happy to discuss them. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I was totally unaware (prior to right-now, when I saved this and read above), that "This article is under Syrian Civil War 1RR". I will now look up what that means, and act accordingly. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"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 the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Note this is a 1RR page. You have not discussed any of your edits. And your last post is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Will this discussion include an explanation as to why you tagged an 11-minute-old sourced article (Citing The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph) for speedy deletion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

With 7 sources from 6 major news sites, plus two links as unsourced? Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, because this is the 'edit warring' noticeboard, so a possibly-probably-incorrect CSD tagging (since removed) is unlikely to be relevent. Feel free to discuss it if you want, though. As long as you are just not trying to find a reason to persecute me.

As I understand Misplaced Pages, the point of any requests to admins - such as here, or ANI, or whatever - are to prevent disruption. I think, in this case, you are causing disruption through your complaints.

Maybe you can stop now, and let us all go about our content editing business? Best, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I will note this user is also edit warring on User talk:Jimbo Wales: . I might have missed some. Chillum 08:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure sounds like edit-warring when you post a bunch of diffs like that...unless people actually look at them. If they do, they'll see 2 attempts at hatting a side-discussion, 1 revert due to the unblock to reinstate the sensible edit, and a couple of edits entirely unrelated, in a separate thread, attempting to DENY.

Hence, your post above is entirely misleading.

This isn't a case for EW. If you really want to continue to persecute me (which apparently you do, merely because I've edited before and thus surely am a sock), I suggest you try making a case from it.

There is no simple reason to block me. And if you do, it really won't help anything.

I suggest you stop harassing me, and let me get on with editing articles. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation I hope some admin will take stock of the other report of the same user below, which seems to have more meat to it, because I don't have the time, but I'm closing this one as no violation. It's about all sorts of stuff, that can perhaps be raised elsewhere — the speedy tag was ridiculous, for example — but by no stretch of the imagination has the user edit warred on Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Posting something, such as a speedy tag, which is then reverted by somebody else is not a "revert", for crying out loud, Legacypak. I can't see where the xmas bunny has reverted even once on the Raqqa article, so the 1RR restriction is moot, if it were even a proper complaint for this board, which it isn't. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC).

User:Mabanc22 reported by User:Snowager (Result: )

Page

Lockhart, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mabanc22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 08:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 09:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"
2. 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"
3. 09:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"
4. 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lockhart, Texas. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He just ignored the 3-revert rule. Snowager (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Macanc22's been blocked for 31 hours by another Admin. I just took related vandal User:Hunty221 to that notice board. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: Moot)

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:User is currently the subject of an ANI discussion into his/her behavior. User has also been reported here for edit warring violations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Diff 4 is unrelated. The user is harassing me, to try and get me blocked. WP:BOOMERANG time? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Still a revert. Doesn't have to be related, just a revert added to the others within a 24 hour period. Seems weird that alot of users are trying to "harrass" you and "get you blocked". Perhaps it isn't them, but it's you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why in the world is this editor blanking long sections of an article about a Thai scientist DOes he seriously think someone made up the gui's work history? Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's unrelated. Discuss it in the appropriate place. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the 'Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page' is not an article talk page at all.

And,

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not try to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, neither did Igor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a user talk page... Can we get that block reinstated already? Hes threatening to release thousands of draft articles now. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous and so melodramatic. I was discussing the principles of new users making new articles on Wales' talk page, is all. Sheesh, get a grip. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac has been here since 2007, I've been here since 2006, you have been here since yesterday. You are the new user, not us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for this discussion, so I will disengage. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Riiiight, like you were going to disengage on Jimbo's talk page and on ANI. Believe it when I see it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Based on the closure at ANI and the pending report at SPI, it would be best not to take action on this board. No comment as to the merits of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

•  No action Both editors are responsible for edit warring, but Igor was the worse because he was fooling with somebody else's comments, and Neutralhomer was arguably justified in restoring his own comments. Gorillawarfare has vouched for Igor. Please complain to her about his actions if anything new happens. At this time I see no benefit to issuing blocks for this incident, and see a risk that it could make things worse. Jehochman 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring