Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 1 July 2015

• 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:39.47.184.157 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Protected)

Page

Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "I have already used the talk page as well as dispute resolution mechanism. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute."
2. 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
3. 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "I have already explained . read again. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
4. 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "THis para is bone of dispute so is removed till Dispute resolution decides. Do no intimidate on my talk page. Face the Dispute resolution discussion. Do not try to play admin"
5. 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kashmir conflict."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly removing properly sourced content and demanding that it not be readded until a dispute resolution discussion that was started two weeks ago, and has seen no progress, is over. The article has been protected to end similar previous disruption by IPs, but the protection ended yesterday, and the disruption started again today. And the IP obviously has no intention to stop. Thomas.W 17:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir, there is generally accepted practice in the world that once a matter is disputed between two parties then legally and ethically neither party try to impose his version and get page protection by using his greater WP knowledge or alliances again and again to keep it for ages. I used talk page for disscussion 20 days ago see here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kashmir_conflict then by mutual agreement we all went to dispute resolution noticeboard here https://en.w days ago ikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . Please stop clever childish and unethical practices; 39.47.184.157 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are a true nuetral admin then I request you to also initiate sock puppet investigation user Human3015 and Rsrikanth see here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history they edit togather to avoid three edit rule. they have done two times on kashmir confict and i am sure they must have done at other pages too. Similarly see offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I want justice for all including me 39.47.184.157 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: CosmicEmperor is indefinitely blocked. Dustin (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:Philg88, though the IP would otherwise deserve a block for 3RR violation. The issue of how to describe the 2014 elections is also being discussed at WP:DRN#Kashmir conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston I will try to comply with WP rules. What about sock puppetry investigation of Human3015 and Rsrikanth065 and SPI should also include Kautilya3 CosmicEmperor including investigation for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring and trapping users like us who have lesser WP knowledge. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Salar80s reported by User:Samak (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salar80s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Add a fake map in Kurdistan article & manipulating entries

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

Samək 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC) -->

Blocked – 24 hours. Salar80s has been edit warring to try to force a map created by himself into the lead of the article. The map is unreferenced. It proposes a much larger area for Kurdistan than the one given in the CIA map. User:Salar80s is missing the need to explain why his map is better, and where he got the data. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Rojava, Tell Abyad, 1R rule (Result: Malformed report)

User being reported

عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user removes sourced contents or changes it with his prefered one (, ).--Multi-gesture (talk)

• Comment : considering that Multi Gesture has already reverted five times in less than ten hours, then I dont think he is in a good position to complain .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. You have also broke the three revert rule so there is no actual reason to complain really. --TL22 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Multi-gesture reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multi-gesture (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:

This new user is only for edit-warring. This is the second time they are reported within a few hours. I have left a message to them (that they have also reverted), and we were with user Aram trying to reach a consensus with the user, but they always revert and stick to their point of view. The user has removed substantial amounts of sourced material, simply because it did not fit with their editing direction/agenda. They also did the same thing in Tell Abyad article here, here and here They are trying to fill the article with propaganda glorifying their side of the conflict. This is a third article where they are edit-warring. I urge the Admin to go through all their contributions. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Multi-gesture isnt just edit-warring, but he is a kind of Ethnic fighter. He went so far as to claim that ISIS, the multi-Ethnic terrorist group is an Arab group . He also tried to delete the accusation against Kurdish Militias while keeping only the accusation against the Arab ones . He restored them but only after I told him that I reported him here .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to describe me as an Ethnic fighter. Your contributions in wikipedia (you and عمرو بن كلثوم) shows that your only goal is to prove the racial superiority of the Arab race and it isn't fitted into Misplaced Pages Policies. I only opposed this idea by accredited references.--Multi-gesture (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My contributions revolve around Historic sites and ancient kings, bringing them to GA statues . PS. Im not an Arab and I edited the Arab article perhaps twice. But trying to stick ISIS to Arabs and make it their shame is kind of Ethnic fighting aiming at deforming an ethnicity. Remember, ISIS leader who destroyed Kobane was a Kurd. Other signs of your mission is adding the word claims next to every violation ascribed to Kurds, while presenting the violations ascribed to Arabs as facts not just claims.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are honest when you say you are not a Sunni Arab But I must mention that the Cristian Arabs (Aramians) are more nationalist than the regular arabs. Your edits in Kurdish related articles are mostly in the area of proving that Semetic christians are the original inhabitants of Middle East and Kurds are not aborigine to their area. It's the manner you have choosen toward these subjects.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont need to prove it, its proven by archaeology and written on the stones, artifacts and historical records of the region. Yet, again you are wrong, Im not a Christian :) By the way, this argument should have happened on Rojava talk page or your own talk page. But you chose to edit-war and revert our attempts to communicate with you But since you opened the topic, it is true that for most of its history Syrian Jazira was Semitic, but that doesnt change the fact that today, Jazira have Kurdish majority (in some areas) and that Kurds should have their full Human, Political and Cultural rights.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gesture, could you give me one example where my contributions show the "racial superiority of the Arab race"? Still, your claim is irrelevant here. You simply can't reach a common ground with other users. Your only aim is to spread PYD propaganda like the stories (e.g., HERISH ALI story) and quotes you add. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave some of the examples in my complaint section.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked, Multi-gesture (t c) for 24 hours, عمرو بن كلثوم (t c) for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. —Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1/User:Rmkop/User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Rangeblocked 72 hours)

Page: Mahmud of Ghazni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Faisalabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kalinjar Fort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rmkop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/2A03:2880:3010:6FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (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:
This is a rather complex issue, with user:Rmkop, logging out which shows up as two(or more) alpha-numerical accounts, to edit war their POV/OR ridden nonsense into three articles. I have posted multiple sources on Talk:Kalinjar Fort and have been summarily ignored. This appears to be some sort of personal dislike of what transpired. Attempts at discussion have been fruitless. I could have listed more diffs of Rmkop's logged out diffs, but I see no reason to overload the page. The edits of Rmkop(8 edits) and their logged out identities speak for themselves. At this point there may be even more alpha-numeric identities being used by Rmkop. If Rmkop is blocked for edit warring, page protection for the articles in question will be necessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rmkop continues to edit war whilst logged out, this time reverting Edward321, this being the 4th revert on the Kalinjar Fort article in 24 hours for Rmkop. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IP range 2A03:2880:3010:6FF0:0:0:0:0/60 has been Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I am reluctant to assume Rmkop (t c) is the same as the IP editor, though it will quickly become apparent if he logs back in to continue editing (in which case, ping me or repost here). —Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Multi-gesture (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Tel Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: عمرو بن كلثوم (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: --Multi-gesture (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• I don't think I need to defend myself here given the links provided of the "alleged reverts" :) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked, Multi-gesture (t c) for 24 hours, عمرو بن كلثوم (t c) for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. —Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:R2d2 ka baap reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R2d2 ka baap (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 has been warned quite politely not to edit war and the implications of continuing to revert. They instead chose to ignore it telling every one involved not to revert them while they appear to revert any one who has reverted to status quo (2 users have reverted R2D2 at the moment and a third has told them at the talk page that their edit is useless and to drop the issue). Furthermore, after reverting to his preferred version for the 5th time, the user has unilaterally claimed that the issue is now closed . I have no confidence that he will stop this slow edit war due to the WP:Wall of text he is throwing and being self righteous in reverts not giving a zich of value to what consensus means. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The last edit which has caused User:TopGun to refer the matter here was not a revert. A well referenced note was added whilst leaving the original disputed number as is. This was explicitly stated in the edit summary that the previous version's information has been left intact, whilst adding a referenced note to explain the term's well-known ambiguity for WP:NPOV. The reason I said the issue is closed, is because the last edit is not a revert, and after having a thorough conversation with User:Human3015 whereby the well referenced version was left on the page pending addition of sources for original number, User:TopGun reverted without disputing the validity of sources but rather claiming, off-tangent, an 'interchangeability of terms' between South Asia and Indian Subcontinent, which had no relevance to issues of extent being discussed up to that point. My request would be to compare the original version before this string of edit-reverts, with the version before TopGun's last revert, and adjudge whether my last edit was a reasonable compromise that helped improve WP:NPOV through a referenced note, or a "revert" worthy of referral that deleted or altered any information whatsoever of the original version. Thanks, and awaiting your verdict. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already referred to the possibility of a compromise version but you unilaterally readded a slightly changed version of the claim which was reverted. This is actually a revert. Changing the article whether with the same content or different still counts as a revert. The fact that you added "new" content which was inherently the same claim using the same word explicitly and claiming it's not a revert would be gaming the system. Also, you're the only one who said it was a compromise. That's not the definition of compromise - you have failed to achieve consensus but continued to revert inspite of being made aware of what edit war was and clearly showing that you had gone through warnings (and then re adding the claim). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I could not find where you proposed compromise, other than demanding 'extraordinary proof' and ignoring the two sources provided. The change in question is simply not a revert because the original and disputed number has been left entirely intact. I had called it a compromise because nothing had in fact been changed in the article other than an addendum/note below the unchanged number, which explained both points of view at the heart of this conflict. My aim is simply to improve this and other articles with references where they are lacking. It is not to pick fights with anyone. I am more than willing to resolve this amicably, even if by chance you incorrectly assumed my edit was an altering/deleterious revert and referred the issue here on that basis. Lets be clear, however, that you have referred the matter here after this change, which is not a revert of the nature you had been doing, in that it left all prior information unchanged whilst adding a referenced note explaining the number and alternate definition which the article admits do exist. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While 3RR was not violated, R2d2 ka baap (t c)'s last four edits to this article were pure reverts against multiple different users over a period of three days. A slow edit war is still an edit war. —Darkwind (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

2015 Copa América (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anaxagoras13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668865627 by The Almightey Drill (talk) because it's wrong"
2. 08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668878065 by The Almightey Drill (talk) no, it is not certain, so stop that"
3. 08:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668878235 by The Almightey Drill (talk) only include teams, if their position is certain!!!"
4. 13:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668902582 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
5. 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668902844 by ToonLucas22 (talk) final pos. of Colombia is not known yet!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Copa América. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to edit war even after being warned. TL22 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, reverting vandalism is edit-warring. LOL. Putting Colombia in the list is against WP:CRYSTALL and so is nothing but vandalism.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You were not reverting vandalism, you were reverting normal edits. An edit against WP:CRYSTALBALL is not vandalism but rather another type of disruptive editing. The edits you were reverting are not disruptive, vandalism or a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL (since its the final score of Colombia after being eliminated). Please also see what is not vandalism. Since you weren't reverting vandalism, your edits do not qualify under WP:3RRNO and as such it is edit warring. --TL22 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Violations of WP:CRYSTAL are not vandalism and do not qualify for a 3RR exception. —Darkwind (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, since the editor in question apparently disputes my ability to count, there were six reverts during a 24 hour period: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Again, these reverts did not qualify for an exemption to the three-revert rule, because they are not obvious vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would have reverted this pure vandalism 10 times if necessary.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Curse of Fenric reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Buddy Murphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Curse of Fenric (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:

This user refuses to accept the source given, citing his personal knowledge to disprove it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have seen a big, bold and red notice at the top of this page, which tells you to notify any user you report. I have done so for you, but please remember to do this yourself in the future. --TL22 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am acting in good faith removing a contentious source under WP:BLP. The claim being cited is controversial and requires independent back up. Under BLP, contentious claims through poor sourcing can be removed without question and that is what I have been doing. Continual re-additions without a consensus is disruptive. This action of mine is not about my personal knowledge of the subject - ie it's absolutely not true. This is about it being at best questionable. Heck I know who originally trained Emma, but I'm not about to add that to her article! Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. In this case, I suggest taking the discussion to WP:BLPN. There's clearly an edit war going on here, but as all participants appear to be acting in good faith and not with an intent to disrupt, I don't see the need for any blocks at this time. —Darkwind (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, and thanks. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Kardam of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 213.91.244.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff (switches to IP, but clearly same person)
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link

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

Comments:
Nearly identical edit warring on Tervel of Bulgaria. Same User / IP combination that is clearly the same person. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, both the IP and the account. (I took care of this several hours ago but apparently forgot to close this report.) —Darkwind (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:62.44.134.3 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Liberland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.44.134.3 (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: Obvious edit war.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours as obvious blanking vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Page protected)

Page: Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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:
I have run into problems with Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) before. S/he seems to have serious article ownership issues involving extremely idiosyncratic image sizing and placement. These idiosyncrasies diverge from WP:IUP and other image placement guidelines. Several of these idiosyncrasies significantly degrade the Misplaced Pages experience on mobile devices and for blind and visually-disabled users. The editor refuses to engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page about reasons for these divergences on the talk page, basically resting on personal stylistic preference as their only reason. They attempt to get their way by edit warring and provoking edit warring in other editors. They do this on every article they watch on which I try to correct the image usage, citing "status quo" but refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Therefore I believe that despite having made only three reverts, this behavior should be examined to determine whether it is a regular WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Skyerise (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Beyond My Ken and Skyerise, you're both experienced editors. Stop edit warring and use the bloody talk page. That's what it's there for. If it doesn't work, go seek dispute resolution. Don't revert again. Ed  03:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockybiggs reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Blocked)

Page: King David Hotel bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rockybiggs (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 / 1RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is part of WP:ARBPIA, therefore it's under the WP:1RR restriction. User continues to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, and keeps adding the word "terrorist" in the opening sentence despite there was no consensus on the talk page to do so. He was repeatedly asked to stop, but he refuses to give up on his behavior.

• Blocked – 24 hours for violation of the WP:1RR restriction at King David Hotel bombing. The user was making a similar revert (about the attack being terrorism) as long ago as March. There is extensive discusssion on Talk about the terrorist aspect which seems to have had no influence on his thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:129.127.13.227 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Die Hard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.127.13.227 (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:
This IP user has been disruptive and has engaged in edit war. Doniago & I have been reverting his edits in Die Hard and tried to be reasonable, but he refuses to talk about on the talk page and continues to edit war on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not much to say here given that the IP is blatantly edit-warring and refusing to discuss their edits despite several warnings. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, you two have been unreasonable and have refused to even start a discussion on the Talk page. You two have ignored my comments and will not allow others to introduce more suitable wording and are thus, indirectly misleading the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.13.227 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

These are your talk page contributions. None of them are at Talk:Die Hard. If they are to blame for ignoring one user's comments, you are twice as much to blame for ignoring two users' warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If I am twice to blame for ignoring them, then you are four times to blame for ignoring everything else and for not getting your eyes checked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.13.227 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? Your argument that them supposedly ignoring your comments somehow makes this their fault assumes that blame comes with ignoring other's comments, which you also did to both of them. If you hadn't ignored their comments, you would have started a talk page discussion yourself and not reverted more than three times.

I've looked at what you had to say (as evidenced by me pointing out the flaws in your argument) and what they had to say. What they said is actually supported by our site policies and guidelines (such as WP:BRD and WP:3RR). Your arguments are not connected to any site policy or guideline, but trying to blame others without any consideration of what you could have done to avoid this. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Obligatory "WP:BRD is not a policy or guildline!" But the IP did clearly break 3RR. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. 5 reverts now, I see, and lucky not to get extra time for silly trolling comments like this Bishonen | talk 19:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

User:98.180.138.204 reported by User:Aus0107 (Result: Semi)

Page

Twilight's Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 03:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 03:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 03:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "How is it not a good episode?"
5. 03:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "What do you mean?"
6. 03:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 03:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Twilight's Kingdom. (TW)"
2. 03:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected. An IP is warring to add a Good Article tag to Twilight's Kingdom although that status was never earned. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Saul Grant and IP 220.241.242.203 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Semi)

Page: Cinderella (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saul Grant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 220.241.242.203 (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: here and here

Comments:

Saul Grant is IP 220.241.242.203; compare Saul Grant's edits here, here, here and here to the IP's edits here, here, here, here, here and here. Especially compare this edit to this edit, and where I noted that Saul Grant was caught. Saul Grant, either while logged in or as the IP, repeatedly reverts without discussing anything. If he is really is ten years old, as he claims on his user page, that explains this (and, yes, I know that's generalizing young kids), but this behavior of his needs to stop. Soon after I made this post to the talk page, he showed up with his registered account to make this, this and this edit. He has also recently used another IP; see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. But the WP:Semi-protection won't keep the Saul Grant account from editing the article and edit warring when he is reverted. Isn't it a good idea to sternly warn that account against editing while logged out in this way and edit warring? As seen by the content I provided above, the "especially" content in particular, he is IP 220.241.242.203. If he continues this type of behavior, should I bring the matter to you or take it to WP:ANI? I don't think that starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation is the best solution unless the IP denies being Saul Grant (as he seemingly did on the IP talk page). Besides, if that were the case, while I have no doubt he would be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry, the WP:CheckUsers would not publicly confirm that the IP is his. Well, unless they see that it is needed to do so. We also have to keep in mind that we are likely dealing with a young child in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you notice any more problematic edits by Saul Grant, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Penelope37 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

Page

Chappie (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Penelope37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669121209 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) Same problem as before. Not reliable source and not independent research."
2. 01:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669076224 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) It's not original research. The production companies are listed."
3. 17:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC) "Baseline source incorrect. The production houses are listed and conflict. They are US, Mexican, and South African. Actually check them."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over many days, removing NYT source as 'original research'. Warning given, continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Five reverts of the country of production since 25 June. The NYT says it was United States. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:5.80.198.100 reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: No action)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.80.198.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs

1.

2.

Comments is reverting my edits at the talk page , please give warning or block is a possible sock of Special:Contributions/109.155.60.103 this administrator said this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: No action. Only one diff shows anything unusual -- he's moving a talk page comment of yours. I don't see where you requested him not to post on your own talk. If you think anything more should be done, ask User:Doc James. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, my side of the story was/is summarized under "FYI" here (posted immediately after the diff reported above) and under "Talk page guidelines" here. While I would not wish to claim that I haven't myself (inadvertently) made any minor WP:TPG mistakes, I hope I don't do anything substantially misleading as the OP did here (in this thread) . For the benefit of everyone – and of course without wishing in any way to discourage the user's constructive contributions – I believe the OP needs to understand: 1) the spirit of WP:TPG, and 2) that WP:AGF extends to all users, including gf IP contributors in general . And also maybe that it's better to avoid making wild accusations, such as that I'm a sockpuppet of my previous (stable) IP address. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

5.80.198.100, it seems you must have moved someone else's talk post and then reverted the original editor's restoration of it: "Undid revision 669176186 by Ozzie10aaaa (talk)". This behavior is risking a block. You don't get a personal right to police talk page format all by yourself. Why not ask others to fix any defects you perceive in talk page threading. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)ere in the diff did

Huh? I don't know where in that diff I'm supposed to have "moved someone else's talk post". My understanding was that I simply replied *above* a (confusingly indented?) post by the OP , who then moved my post . How could that possibly be cause for a block? (Though if you do wish to block me that would probably be good for my blood pressure right now!) It would also have been civil for the OP at least to have informed me that he/she was taking me to ANI (to accuse me of WP:SOCK!). 5.80.198.100 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding: On the other hand I have requested the OP several times (eg ) to respect WP:REDACT, but they apparently (looking at the detail of this diff) refuses to WP:LISTEN. In particular, this substantially affected the sense of the whole thread (but no, there's nothing "sneaky" about it... far better make unfounded personal accusations of sock puppetry?). I really think this editor needs to understand the *spirit* (not to mention the content) of some of these guidelines. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD (Result: Page restriction applied)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Talk:Americans for Prosperity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:53, 15 June initial add of WikiProject Organized Labour banner

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:39, 16 June
2. 17:08, 18 June
3. 19:14, 18 June
4. 23:04, 18 June
5. 00:13, 24 June
6. 17:25, 29 June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:39, 29 June excerpt relevant passage from WP:PROJSCOPE, including clear admonition not to edit war over project banners

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:55, 18 June "Wikiprojects are free to add tangential articles"

Comments:

Edit warring removing WikiProject Organized Labour banner. Reported user's talk page comments and edit summaries seem to indicate familiarity with WP:PROJSCOPE, though perhaps somewhat selective in understanding; possible WP:IDHT. Respectfully request administrator warning to reported user with clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Hugh (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit absurd. HughD is just back from his third (or is it 4th?) block from edit warring on this page, and his consistent refusal to obey the consensus on the talk page. On June 13 Hugh added a project box to the talk page of the AfP article as yet another way to attempt to assert his POV into the article. I reverted, as per WP:PROJSCOPE, which states further down, "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article." Hugh then went beyond mere statement of position and actually campaigned on that project's talk page for support, SEE HERE. Campaigning which gained zero support. On June 15th, HughD added a tag for another project Organized Labour, two minutes after joining that project. I reverted based on the same guidelines as the earlier reversion. Hugh reverted both project tags. I reverted both, but not wanting to get into an edit war or 3RR situation, self-reverted, explaining in the edit summary that I would ask for clarity on the projects' talk pages. In the interim, another editor, Tim1965 reverted the Labor tag. In the interim, Hugh has joined the other project. In light of his history of edit warring, non-consensus building, and attempting to assert his POV on this (and other articles), I would say his joining those projects is disingenuous at best, as a way to game the system. In a vacuum, the policy that project members choose which articles to include in their project is sound, however, when an editor does so to game the system, other factors, such as the tangential warning should definitely come into play. This is the third or fourth time HughD has bandied my name about on some noticeboard or the other, or placed warnings on my talk page. All to no avail. His attacks are getting a bit tiring. Onel5969 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some additional background clarification. After the reported user first deleted the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reported user had nominated the article for exclusion from the project. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#Americans_for_Prosperity. Significantly, the reported user made no mention of his anti-nomination at article talk. Please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#Article_Wikiprojects_and_rating.3F. I nominated the article for inclusion in the project, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. My fellow project member Tim1965, whom the reported user mentions above, concurred for inclusion "If there is that kind of evidence, then you're probably right and I guess it should be added to Wikiproject Organized Labour," as did a third editor (the same editor who had attempted in vain to explain to the reported user, back at article talk, about how guideline clearly states that projects define their own scope). Significantly, this consensus at project talk was not mentioned by the reported user in his above defense. Subsequent to reading WP:PROJSCOPE, and subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, and subsequent to the consensus at project talk, in which both threads the reported user participated, the reported user reverted the project add five more times.

Also, please note the article is a member of Category:Labor relations in the United States.

Thank you again for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An additional relevant excerpt from WP:PROJSCOPE, not included above:

A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner.

Emphasis in the original. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, this is starting to get ridiculous. This is the at least fourth time this article or its related pages have been reported at this noticeboard in the past 5 weeks. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and it's starting to look like high time some are imposed, because nobody seems to be able to edit this topic with a clear head.

I am proposing a page restriction of a one-revert rule per 24 hours to apply to this article and its associated talk page for the next two months (to expire at the end of August 2015, for easy record keeping). Any objections or suggestions should be made here in reply; I will log the restriction and add the editnotice to the article tomorrow, pending any discussion.

Furthermore, I am going to leave official WP:AC/DS notices on the talk pages of everyone who has participated in the reports about this page here at ANEW, as well as the top 5 contributors to the article itself (if different). —Darkwind (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for for comment. Thank you for restoring a ds alert to the talk page. In March 2015 I added brief ds alerts for climate change and the Tea Party movement to the article talk page, in hope that the humble advice to "please edit carefully" might have a moderating effect. The alerts were recently deleted by the reported user 00:13, 24 June 2015‎. The brief alerts had a negligible effect, best I can tell. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion of 1RR. Respectfully, a this time I opened this edit war report asking for advice from an administrator on the appropriateness of a warning and a clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to the reported user, which I still seek, thank you. Being squarely at the intersection of American politics, climate change, and the Tea party movement, as the article has approached the topic coverage of good article standards, it has attracted contentious editing, I plan to seek, through WP:NPOVN and RfC if necessary, a reversal of the reported user's recent ill-conceived section blanking of "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, as well as a radical reduction of well-referenced content with respect to the relationship of the subject of the article to the Kochs, which was not consolidated into own section. This content was work-shopped collaboratively over the last four months and deleted last week by the reported user without discussion. The reported user's recent content blanking included dozens of reliable sources. The reported user's recent content blanking is blatantly non-conformant with WP:DUE, and is a serious embarrassment for our project as it leaves our article in a state grossly disproportionate to reliable sources. I would support a warning to the reported user, or 1RR, particularly 1RR in conjunction with a restoration to a state prior to the recent content blanking by the reported user. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction - my recent edits were to bring the article into line with the consensus on the talk page to conform with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which Hugh has consistently ignored. But I'm not surprised HughD has once again miscategorized them. I let the other editors know I was about to do a major overhaul, and after I finished the edit, informed the page. Not a surprise that the only editor who has an issue is the single editor who refuses to follow the consensus. And of course HughD wants it restored to a point where his voluminous edits have created a biased and non-neutral article, with a very distinct agenda. But I would like to point out, that without this single user, HughD's activity on the page, there are really no issues. At this point HughD has engaged in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, ignoring concensus, and WP:FORUMSHOP (through his multiple postings on different admin boards and project talk pages), all to get is singular point of view in, which is definitely not a neutral one. As a result, he has been blocked multiple times, and continues to make attempts to disrupt he article, of which this ANI is yet another. This clearly demonstrates a continuing pattern of behavior, and detracts from more useful editing which other, serious, editors could undertake, rather than having to babysit this article from a single editor. But perhaps that's the type of editor Wiki wants. I attempt to stay away from political articles, focusing on other avenues of contribution. Onel5969 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have an issue with the restrictions, now that the article has been restored to a neutral POV. Onel5969 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Above the reported user, nominally an experienced editor, clearly re-states his fundamental misconception that due weight is proportional to Misplaced Pages editors rather than reliable sources, his mistaken belief that neutrality means blanking content considered negative, his inaccurate perception that a group of editors may override our pillars, and his disrespect for the efforts of the collaboration of his fellow editors. Respectfully, may I suggest that a warning to the reported user, including a clarification of WP:DUE, may be recommended. Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @HughD: The admonishment/warning you seek is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, which is for edit warring and related behaviors. Since, however, you brought it up, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide is a guideline, not a policy, and I do not see a need to admonish or warn anyone for the way they choose to follow it. If you honestly believe that Misplaced Pages guidelines are not being followed, and the disruption is severe enough to warrant administrative action, open a thread at WP:ANI.

Regarding the remedy I proposed above, it is clear at this point that enough POV editing is going on here, from whatever sides, that some kind of restriction is necessary. Therefore, I will log the page restriction as follows: "Americans for Prosperity and its associated talk page are subject to a restriction of one revert per 24 hour period ('1RR') until 2015-08-31 23:59 UTC due to repeated edit warring by multiple parties" Editors who violate this restriction will be subject to block or further sanctions per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. —Darkwind (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:72.186.123.12 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Semi)

Page

Cuban American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.186.123.12 (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 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) to 21:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669249114 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
3. 23:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"
2. 22:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"
3. 22:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I've tried to direct the user to the talk page where a section regarding the use of the gallery has been up for discussion.

Comments:

The IP has been adding and changing the image gallery without ES, asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. A fourth instance appears to be via IP2601:585:1:47AA:6116:BD77:CF70:A854, also on the 29th. No responses to myself or another editor = NOTHERE. This is a carry-over from the 28th where the IP reverted yet another editor's reversion without any attempts to communicate in any form. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gazmie reported by User:Goalie1998 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Proposals for a Palestinian state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Gazmie" is not a valid project or language code (help).

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:
One user has been making repeated edits despite requests to discuss first, and reverts to previous versions by two other editors pending discussion. A discussion on the talk page has been started, but the user has not engaged in the discussion, only making his changes. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite being invited to discuss her/his concerns at WikiProject Israel or WikiProject Palestine, and being warned about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions that apply to Proposals for a Palestinian state, Gazmie chose to edit war instead. I recommend a short block so the editor can familiarize her/himself with the applicable policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Violation of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction at Proposals for a Palestinian state. Brand new account (June 26) immediately gets into hot ARBPIA topics and starts revert warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:KnightWarrior25 reported by User:TripWire (Result: )

Page: Kargil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KnightWarrior25 (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: —TripWire  17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Comments:

It is necessary to note that User:TripWire was stick to one point an is involve in an edit war. Even I've mentioned him on the talk page but instead he keep on editing the article Kargil War I've just reverted him twice because his edit was unconstructive WP:FAKE he neither replied in the Talk:Kargil War nor did he paid attention to the dispute which is already solved and instead he keep on editing the article and was stick to one point which is already solved long ago by administrators and patrollers KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) -->

I have commented on the page to quite an extent, even gave my comments on the RfC. The discussion is still open, there's an RfC which is still open. No consesus has been reached. You were warned twice to wait for the RfC to conclude and then edit, but you paid no heed. You participated at the talk page twice and thought other editors have accepted what you say? Sorry, sir, it does not happen like this on Wiki. You were even given ample comments to explain you to stop reverting and editing a topic/info which is still under discussion and have been there sine weeks, but to no avail, I had no other choice ut to report you for your undue reverts.—TripWire  18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• 5th revert now within ~ 24 hrs... obviously way beyond 3RR. The two net edits he is making are 1) change of out come to "Indian Victory" on which RFC is under way and the out come is supposed to stay as it was before the editwar / dispute per WP:BRD and 2) removal of information about peak 5353 which was compromised to have atleast a mention in the article per Talk:Kargil War#Peak 5353. Infact the user is citing me to have agreed to removal of this information while I never did. Infact the settled version was a compromise where this information was to be mentioned as per this which KW just removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Page: Alex Jones (radio host) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pudist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. -- User warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but reverted by multiple editors. Edit: User:Inks.LWC has started Talk:Alex_Jones_(radio_host)#Moon_landing_source, which fully explains why everyone has been reverting Pudist.

Comments:
Pudist has been attempting to add WP:OR claims based on an isolated primary source (a Youtube video which has possible copyright problems) in contradiction to multiple secondary sources which actually explain a few things the subject mentions in the Youtube vid. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why the third diff above says user warned as it's just an ordinary diff. I was one of the editors reverting Pudist. After I wanted them about edit warring, they attempted to leave nasty messages on my Talk page, which I reverted. I eventually warned Pudist to stop restoring posts to my Talk page. I also told them that the proper place to discuss the material at issue was on the article Talk page. They didn't heed my advice, even though one of the other editors reverting Pudist started a topic on the Talk page. Pudist's account was created a long time ago, but they have edited only sporadically.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the third diff, my guess is that Ian.thomson meant that the Pudist was warned after the third revert. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's when User:Bbb23 warned Pudist. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They do it again.... - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And again - Cwobeel (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

By my count they are on their 6th revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should I be warned for correcting an erroneous claim in a Misplaced Pages article? Reverters, do read the source. It is actually Alex Jones himself on his programme, being clear about the issue that the article tackles. Dont you see how lame it would be to not use himself as a source on himself, instead claiming that his own ideas are unreliable source on himself (and possibly infringement) ? GET A BIG IDEA, not harass other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:169.57.0.214 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )

Page: Talk:Ellen Pao (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 169.57.0.214 (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: N/A

Comments:
IP repeatedly reverting TheRedPenOfDoom's comments on talk page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Editor in clear violation of topic ban. I will continue to remove these violations. If anyone feels the editor should be reported for these violation they are free to do so. My only concern is the integrity of the topic ban. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop your lies. None of these are related to Gamergate, any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any of the previous things I told. --TL22 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:169.57.0.214 and User:169.57.0.211 and User:169.57.0.212 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: )

Page: Talk:Ellen Pao (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Social justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)>br/> User being reported: 169.57.0.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 169.57.0.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 169.57.0.212 (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:
A disruptive troll. whose previous comments a month ago required rev del, returning after range block expired. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Duplicate case, see above. You will abide by your topic ban. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor is also editing from 169.57.0.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- range block would be incredibly appropriate. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saddened to see a long-time editor won't show the decency to respect an AE-enforced topic ban, forcing myself a lowly IP to enforce it. I bear the burden out of respect for the encyclopedia - you're all welcome. 169.57.0.210 (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest immediately blocking the IP for trolling. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Danielburruss reported by User:MopSeeker (Result: )

Page

Chawn Rivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with ' Chawn Antonio Rivers Born in Los Angeles'"
2. 03:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with ' Chawn Antonio Rivers Was Born in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital on May 23, 2000. He Is An American Singer. At a young Age He use to love to d...'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "warning"
2. 03:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Chawn Rivers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated removal of Speedy Deletion templates and re-creation of content MopSeeker (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vimal varun reported by User:Diannaa (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Mayawati

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Diff of Mayawati
• Diff of Mayawati
• Diff of Mayawati
• Diff of Mayawati

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous revision of User talk:Vimal varun

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of User talk:Vimal varun (on user talk, because his edit appears to be a misunderstanding of what a redirect is). -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Oldstone James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )

Page

Jackson Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oldstone James (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 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) to 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) to 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "Move to Atletico confirmed by Poro's official website"
4. 15:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "No edit-warring please. Move appointed but not officially confirmed"
5. 15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "It was the last warning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Jackson Martínez. (TW)"
2. 15:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jackson Martínez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Atlético Madrid */ new section"

Comments:

User just reverts me and refuses to discuss. Also, see this diff. SLBedit (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Reply:SLBedit Well, just bear in mind it was you who started it all, it was you who didn't explain your edits, it was you who did not have reliable references for big statements, and it was you who reverted the most edits. Other than that, I don't mind being banned, it's only that you do. la 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring