Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 11 March 2016

• 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:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)

Page: Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123Steller (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:
1. I reverted to the status quo, that existed until December 2015: . User:Rgvis also rejects the addition at the moment:

2. Borsoka, who reported me, is also involved in the edit war:

3. There is a difference of 2 days and 1/2 between my 1st and my 4th revert.

4. The recent discussion on the talk page was initiated by myself and I am an active participant in it. I want to get a consensus with all involved editors. 123Steller (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just two remarks. (1) No, I did not participate in an edit war. (2) No, you are not an active participant in the discussion. You are making declarations without referring to a single reliable source (; . Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears that User:123Steller has not continued to revert since March 6. If this starts up again let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: declined)

Page: 2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (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: He has been blocked and reported for similar behavior multiple times, so he's expected to be aware of what edit warring is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've opened a section for this regard on the article TP.

Comments:

There are some disputed points regarding the article which are being discussed on the article talk page. Some agreements and disagreements are being exchanged there, as it's seen. BlueMoonset correctly tagged the article writing " issues discussed at length on talk page and still unresolved". Suddenly, a user who has shown tendency to commit edit war on several occasions, jumped in and removed some disputed material without participating the discussion. It was weird, as the issues were not resolved so I restored them and kept on discussing my points on the TP. The reported user once again did his job of reverting without participating the discussion. After almost 2 Mins, he put a note on the article TP and accused me of POV editing (which it self should be proved). As I said He was not even involved in that discussion! Here my point is not that I was right regarding those issues as here's not the place for that, rather I want to say that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right," (as Drmies said) and I think that single diff of FC's revert is clearly enough to prove his edit warring where almost nothing is resolved. Note: Among other occasions, the reported user was verified to be guilty of edit warring some days ago. Mhhossein (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring: There is consensus on TP that article should be given a NPOV makeover. Mhhossein does not WP:OWN the article and anyone can edit the article to reduce POV edits. Everyone including BlueMoonset and User:Dr.K., except Mhhossein agrees with my edits, to be frank this is a simple case of one disgruntled user with a case of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI. If Mhhossein reverts me with the reason that TP discussion is ongoing, however, the issue about POV has already been decided and the article tagged, hence it is proven that restoring NPOV is not against policy. reverting any edits that restore NPOV is total BS. Enough is enough this time I want a damn boomerang for this guy who keeps posting shitty reports about me, simple as that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As It's seen FreeatlastChitchat pretends to ignore that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". I think because he simply survived his previous case although he was guilty of violating WP:3RR, as it was proved. Anyway, How do you know they agreed with your edit warring? could not they do it? BlueMoonset clearly asserted that the issues were not resolved! You should've participated the discussion instead of being such a disruptive user. Moreover, I'm asking the admins to take care of "Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring", because FC has been blocked and warned for being uncivil multiple times. He was also asked multiple times to practice diplomacy, the suggestion he ignores usually. Mhhossein (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What I said was that POV problems persisted, which is why I finally tagged the article. Neutrality issues have plagued this article for well over a month and were what sank its DYK nomination, which I closed over a week ago because none of the issues raised had been addressed. At some point someone was going to come along and attempt a rewrite to take care of the neutrality problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Look BlueMoonset! There are some disputes over some points and this naturally happens. Who is right and who is wrong is something and dealing with those issues is something else. I had my points, as you did and they are all respected. For example, at first it was said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. Here it's not important who was right and who was wrong rather the very important problem here is that edit warring retards reaching a consensus and is prohibited. You can see other sections such as "Just two SIM cards", "returned to the United States" and "Some points" where disputes were simply resolved via discussion. The very spirit of being able to discuss the issues with other editors leads us toward consensus, the point which is apparently hard to understand for some users. FreeatlastChitchat's persistent edit warring trend has to stop somewhere. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone calling one revert "edit warring" belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:edit war, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," the case is even more clear if the parties don't try to solve the issue via discussion. You made zero effort to resolve the issue! Moreover, any one who violates the limits of civility by calling others "...someone tripping on acid..." and "...should be taken care of on hourly basis" and had been repeating this behaviour over and over (I can simply present multiple diffs) probably needs to be addressed by admins. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Please consider WP:BOOMERANG -- perhaps a topic ban or a ban on noticeboard complaints -- for the editor who initiated this. At this point, their unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment. — MShabazz /_Stalk 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I know what you mean by "unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment"? Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein He means that you have been routinely opening up new reports on noticeboards about me. none of these reports hold any water. As per WP:HARASSMENT you are now going to be banned either from opening up new reports or from Iran/Islam related topics. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean that most of your complaints about FreeatlastChitchat lack merit, which is why they are rarely supported by administrators, and they are starting to appear—to me at least—to be "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior ... to intentionally target" FreeatlastChitchat, which is how Misplaced Pages defines harassment. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that's enough. Mhhossein's behaviour has crossed over to disruption and should stop. I also think he should be prevented from reverting editors such as FreeatlastChitchat who act after talkpage discussion and within consensus trying to clean up that article from its heavy-handed POV and propaganda. Finally, this report is a clear sign that Mhhossein does not understand when to file a 3RR report. Dr. K. 03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

1- ASFAIK, FC were proved guilty and were warned after my reports 2- I advice you and Malik Shabazz to read harassment once again completely to see this is not harassment. In fact, this is FC who is hounding me on multiple pages 3- You have shown enough cases not following TP discussions. 4- Dr.K.: There were no consensus! His act was disruptive as before. What you call "heavy-handed POV and propaganda" was being discussed and some agreements was forming. We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. Please get your facts straight. FreeatlastChitchat also participated in the discussion and I actually thanked him before you reverted him. You reversion was not justified on the talkpage so actually it was you who edit-warred without discussing on the talkpage and without anyone agreeing with your strong POV, for which you were admonished several times on the talkpage. Dr. K. 05:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's clearer now. As it's seen on the article talk page, We 3 were involved in the "POV issues" section that I had started. We were exchanging our points. For example, at first you said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. There were also some other points being discussed there. We were just three when the points were exchanged! suddenly, FC jumped in and removed some material while he hadn't participated the discussion and there were of course some unresolved points which needed to be discussed yet. I emphasize, He had absolutely zero participation in the discussion. The only comment he made was after the removing and reverting had happened accusing me of POV editing. I restored the material as there were no consensus yet. We were 3, and one (me) had his points and FC had no points there! He should not have done that when there were no consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein this shows your utter lack of WP:COMPETENCE and you serious WP:OWN issues. You do not understand(or you do understand and just ignore, which is a bigger problem) that I (or anyone else for that matter) do not require YOUR PERMISSION and your consent in order to edit an article you have worked on. ANY one can edit an article while adhering to policies. If I read a TP discussion and understand what the editors are talking about I have every right to edit the article according to the consensus that has been formed you can see that the other editors where quick to grasp that my editing was spot on and even thanked me on TP. Therefore I don't have to go to the TP to say "MR Mohossein SIR! Can I please edit the article"? Nor do I have to get your "express" consent if I see that Misplaced Pages policies are being violated AND the majority of editors are going against you. This 3PR thread is most likely going to result in you being banned from reverting my edits and reporting me, and if it does not I am going to ANI. This has gone on far enough it is highly ridiculous that you think you own articles and people need your express consent to edit them. Consensus does not mean that until you agree with something it will not be allowed, consensus means that the majority of editors form an opinion based on policy, and if you disagree and cannot quote any policy, then you should seriously reconsider your editing pattern. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin comment Having no involvement, but knowing both users, I'd like to offer them both some advice.

• Mhhossein, you really need to stop reporting FC unless there's an obvious policy violation'. In this case, it is obvious there is not a policy violation. Reports like this one is a waste of the communities time. If you don't know what a 3RR violation is, then I suggest you do not report 3RR violations.
• FreeatlastChitchat, you really need to start respecting WP:CIVIL. Even if the report is wrong (and it is), there's no reason to say that Mhhossein is "tripping on acid" or "belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis". If you're reported, state your case once and do it factually instead of engaging in repeated melodramatic personal attacks.

As both users have been warned before, for unfounded reports and for WP:NPA violations respectively, I'd not be opposed to (a short) block for both. Both can be useful contributors, but both far too frequently engage in behavior of this kind. Jeppiz (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz so if someone KEEPS on reporting and reporting and reporting another editor what should he be called? Calling something which is ridiculous as ridiculous is not a personal attack. Just how many times is an editor allowed to make "wrong" reports btw? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat, that is for the admins to decide (and I already adviced Mhhossein stop). But really, do you think accusing him of drug abuse or accusing him of being mentally ill is the best approach. I understand your frustration, but there is no reason you could not express that factually instead of these vile personal attacks. Saying someone is a drug addict or mentally ill is not just a little bit uncivil, it is far beyond what is acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz how do i express it factually? you tell me and I will do it. How do I stop this guy from opening up these ridiculous reports every single time I edit one of his POV laden articles. Just answer this question and I will be highly, highly indebted to you. How can I stop this frivolous reporting which wastes my time and everyone else's time, which frustrates me and puts a full stop to my editing, cuz I want to make sure this is solved before editing another article or else this guy is just going to pile on the reports like he did a couple of months ago. I will follow your advice to the LETTER. just give some advice. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz: Could you please present the mentioned warning diff? Warning for what? By the way, 3RR is different from edit warring. Here, we are talking about an edit warring. Per WP:EW, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." FC needs to practice democracy. The only problem here is that he can't and doesn't want to respect TP discussions. Did he participate the discussion? were there any consensus? Not actually. Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this diff (warning by Drmies) is worthy of mentioning. Finally, I tried to form a consensus on the article talk page. There were still points to be dicussed and resolved via discussion. Unfortunately, FC blew up the balance. Getting thank by one user is not shoeing anything. we were 3 and one of us had counter view. So, Should his view just be ignored? Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Mhhossein et al--please don't think I'm a cop you can have on call. I may be able to look at something, but only if and when I can--and want to. I'm a bit tired of y'all's bickering. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not want to bother, rather I thought there are things only you can take care. You could simply ignore the pingings. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: All above is about a flawed and incomplete Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. Freeatlastchitchat were bold enough to make this edit, I reverted because I thought no consensus were formed yet (you can see the TP to see some points are not clear still + see my edit summary). I kept on discussing the the points and unfortunately the cycle did not complete as Freeatlastchitchat reverted without bringing his points to the TP (He just made an accusation). Of course it does not mean that he should have got my permission for making the edits, rather I mean he should have respected the points being discussed on the TP. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Declined to take action, as I don't see long-term edit warring by this user on that page; {{Alert}}ed both Mhhossein and FreeatlastChitchat for American politics. If this continues within the topic area, editing restrictions, topic bans, and/or interaction bans may follow as arbitration enforcement remedies for either or both users. However, this isn't the typical place for discussing personal editing restrictions and complex patterns of long-term editing habits. If anyone feels that's necessary, please consider raising a thread on WP:ANI. --slakr 02:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Slakr: So, should the WP:PA's be reported at WP:ANI? Mhhossein (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I would bear WP:ROPE in mind. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Irondome: Thanks for the tip, but can you explain more? Mhhossein (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My tip. Walk away, drop it, leave the situation and get on with building the 'pedia. WP:BOOMERANG. Escalating or continuing this by any party would be unwise. Drop it. Use DR if you have to but nothing more confrontational. You need to de-escalate. All parties. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just attacked by him, as you saw. He had done same behavior before and received a heavy warning. However, thank you again. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Oldyeller123 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: protected, blocked)

Page: The American Dollar (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldyeller123 (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:

Conflict of interest user and various socks are reverting to non neutral promotional version.Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree 100%. The fresh socks are accusing experienced editors of being socks. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Several wikipedia accounts have been vandalizing the page with biased information/removing cited content/adding incorrect versions of events, and not discussing them first on the talk page. I do not know how to do all the fancy wikipedia tagging, but I do know bad writing when I see it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldyeller123 (talk • contribs)

• Page protected / Blocked by another admin --slakr 02:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: semi-protected)

Page

Executive Order 11110 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
2. 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
3. 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
4. 23:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
5. 23:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Executive Order 11110. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected — it looks like they have multiple ips and have also created an account to vandalize. --slakr 02:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DaniloFFloresCarvajal reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Danny Flores music artist page Misplaced Pages.org"
3. 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Numerous warnings on user's talk page for removing speedy deletion templates: Caution: Warning: Final: Chrisw80 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User being reported

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

This same person who's used multiple IP's made yet another account and went to delete JayFrance's involvement on My House by removing the song from the producers singles discography BlaccCrab (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:LongNailsShortHair reported by User:TheGracefulSlick

This user has been removing sourced material and rearranged content to his preference (but is not typical of format) in the You're Gonna Miss Me (song) article. I've warned the user in edit summary and sent the user a message, regarding the incidents. Although he/she acknowledged the message, he/she blatantly disregarded my warning and, instead, is beginning to remove material. At times, the user shows promise by adding helpful links, but other times, like this, he/she does not heed to formating and sources. At the very least, the user needs a brief block since a warning clearly didn't work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fonsy74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocks)

Page: Homotaurine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Fonsy74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.120.139.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.60.45.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff as IP
2. diff as IP
3. diff under account now
4. diff again
5. dif again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Fonsyn74

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

Comments:

Please block. WP:NOTHERE. Based on their IP and editing, this user may be a sock of the blocker user, Nuklear (see SPI. The style is the same, the interest in obscure old drugs is the same, but the edits are not adding synthesis content which was the hallmark of Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is finally happening here, but the article is still messed up. I stood down and allowed Fonsy74's version to stand, but this new editor is completely resisting paying mind to policies and guidelines and instead is just making personal attacks. There is no way forward here. Please do block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Update. So last night I finally got time to find good sources and was able to restore some of the content Fonsyn74 wanted but sourced to MEDRS sources - see here. Today Fonsyn74 showed up and edit warred back in the content (actually incorrect) based on the poor sources. They also came to the Talk page and made an argument that shows they lack competence in the underlying science, as I explained here. WP:CIR and this user and its IP do not understand the science nor the policies and guidelines, nor are they interested in working within the policies and guidelines. (they explained here that they are a software person who is interested in nootropics, which is a topic that unfortunately attracts a lot of cranks and advocates)Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

note - added 2 IP addresses this user has worked from as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Homotaurine&oldid=709390872 This is the summary of the discussion. Sorry if I've done something wrong, anyway it is necessary that an external person decide for my contribution or the other. We need a administrator. This is my humble opinion, Sorry to all wikipedia users to see the discussion and thanks. Fonsy74

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. I've blocked the two IPs each for a week. I tried to negotiate on the user's talk page but got nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• follow-up - Special:Contributions/Wintryce - obvious sock of User:Fonsy74 who was blocked this morning. Would you also please block the sock, and would you please consider protecting the article? Thanks. (Note - I posted this first at :EdJohnston's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up, Fonsy74 acknowledged here that their use of a sock was wrong and has apparently abandoned that account as they stopped using it after that. It should be indeffed, if anybody wants to do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Onel5969 (Result:36h )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Deffrman#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sukhumi#Edit-warring by Deffrman

Comments:

Several editors have tried to explain this poor behavior through the edit summaries and on the talk page. All to no avail. Onel5969 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:48, 10 March 2016
2. 03:50, 10 March 2016
3. 03:57, 10 March 2016
4. 03:58, 10 March 2016
5. 04:05, 10 March 2016‎
6. 04:06, 10 March 2016
7. 04:10, 10 March 2016
8. 04:13, 10 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
No fewer than four editors have had to revert his contentious edits, which remove https from link and adds pictures that are entirely too large for the infobox. Additionally, he is editing another editor's comments (mine) on his talk page to make it seem as if I am saying the opposite of what I wrote — blatantly misrepresenting another editors. ]

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Western Wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tallit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) <br/ ) Tefillin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts at Western Wall:

1. First addition
2. Revert of undo
3. Another revert of undo

Then he started to add the same Tallit:

1. First addition of material that was contested at Western Wall
2. Revert of undo

And here at Tefillin:

1. First addition
2. Another picture after the first was removed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On his talkpage: , In discussion:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: Talk:Western_Wall#Photos_of_the_Wall_and_gender_discrimination, Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall

Comments:
VanEman has huge POVs, every few months a new one, which various editors have told him on numerous occasions. His talkpage shows a lot of edit war warnings. This editor is a hothead who edit wars about all kinds of subjects in Judaism related areas. I recommend of temporal block and a topic ban from Judaism-related ares. This editor has proven himself to be unable to participate in community editing. We, the other editors active in the field, have tried to reason with him, he will not improve his behavioral problems. It is now time to say goodbye to this editor, at least in the field where he has proven he can not keep cool. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — MusikAnimal 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• I was just going to comment that I don't see much, if any, edit warring here. The edits were sequential and when reverted, it was not always the same content that was replaced. Am I missing something? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverts can not be sequential. There is always an undo in the middle.

Please also note that "3RR" means three reverts, not necessarily of the same edit.

The edits were analogous, even if they weren't identical.

The point I am trying to make is that this editor is a POV edit warrior, and unfit for editing on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: please comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Libby Schaaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mezzi10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) to 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
2. 17:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
3. 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Promo fluff */ reply"

Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserting promotional material to an active politician's page, previously blocked for socking to enter this material. Ongoing problem, and the editor refuses to discuss. Scr★pIron 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for soapboxing and edit warring, with no engagement on the talkpage at all. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Adamstraw99 reported by User:Ankisur2 (Result: )

Page: Template:Astra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:59, 10 march 2016
2. 16:09, 10 march 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:59, 10 March 2016

Comments:

The user is posting personal opinions calling them "general view" and deleting sourced material.He has been duly warned in the edit summary page,but continues to edit without referencing and deleting materials that have been referenced.

User:Herakliu reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )

Page: Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Herakliu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User insists on returning "In the 7th century AD, there is a reference to the "Ducagini de Arbania" on a Bosnian manuscript; the clan of the Dukagjini were engaged in a quarrel with the Byzantine Empire after stirring up a revolt in Bosnia." to the article, when this has been refuted on the talk page (see main discussion here). The faulty assertion was removed on 1 January 2016, an IP reverted it, but was reverted by another user, the article being stable until the coming of Herakliu, who sneak-added it on 10 March. The user refuses to acknowledge that the "Ducagini" were first mentioned in 1281, and Albania in the 11th century, and that the faulty assertion has its origin in an alleged 14th-century manuscript which lists a number of South Slavic princes, none of whom existed (one lived for over 200 years). The manuscript is not used in scholarship.--Zoupan 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Comments:

To the attention of the administrators or mods, Zoupan's and Alexikoua's reverts are plain and simple unencyclopedic, based on mere personal opinions and dislike of the state of facts. Zoupan said the source was refuted but I can't see any refusal from his side except that of "It can't be put", that is hardly an argument. The source is accepted by Makushev, Hammond and Gegaj therefore I really cannot understand how this cannot go in wikipedia. Herakliu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain once again. Makushev (1837—1883) published a transcription of, according to him, a 14th-century manuscript. This "ancient manuscript" enumerates the South Slavic states and Albania (meaning, centuries before the actual first mentions of these!), "Bosnian kings" (none of which existed, one lives for over 200 years) and various fictitious tales. The manuscript is not used in historiography or scholarship. Do I really need to explain this? Gegaj only makes mention of the entry on "Ducagini d'Arbania", while Hammond, likewise, mentions it. It is nowhere stated that this was a historical fact. As explained here:

• Memoirs of the American Folk-lore Society. Vol. 44. American Folk-lore Society. 1954. p. 64 (footnote 1). Gegaj writes further on this page that, according to the same source (published by Makushev), in the seventh century already the Dukagjini ("Dukagjini dAlbania") had fomented a revolt in Bosnia, particularly in Dubrovnik, but they had to retreat after a defeat, inflicted by the Bosnian lords. Indeed, it is in 1281 that Gin Tanusio (ducem Qinium Tanuschum) carries this title for the first time.

I really cannot understand how this would go in wikipedia.--Zoupan 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating again and again that the document is in 14th century, thing that doesn't minimally nick the sopposed validity of the same (in fact it is explained that it is a copy of a more ruined one). But apart from that, the datation of the source isn't even that relevant, because a chronolgy of events (with years!) is written in it. And it doesn't mention "Slavic States" but a single one, that is the (obviously the earlest) kingdom of Bossina. The 130 years thing (not 200, learn to count, or better learn to not falsify) can simply be explained as an error in writing 5 instead of 6 from the writer of the text (it's just really a single mistake because all the narration is coherent and realistic). The trivia about Gin Tanusio is irrelevant. And again for the last time, Makushev and Hammond agrees in the veridicity of the source! Herakliu (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Learn to identify Reliable Sources and stop adhering to pseudohistory.--Zoupan 12:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not saying anything relevant or useful. You made 4-5 desperate points, all of wich don't have any specific meaning or effects against the document. Herakliu (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

...right, like "can simply be explained as an error" and "coherent and realistic"? Haha, crazy.--Zoupan 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:UCaetano (Result: )

Page

Achaemenid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
2. 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"
3. 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not the first time he's done it, warned a few times, and been blocked recently for it. UCaetano (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And apparently he decided to report me here, copying my exact report, as you can see below, including listing him as the user reported. UCaetano (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time either he has filed a bogus case here as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:UCaetano reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result: )

Page

Achaemenid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
2. 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"
3. 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user had deleted two times 6 credible references regardless their contents.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Material restored to section lead , and reverted when page lock was lifted
2. Restoring the Feb section title that was unilaterally changed by HughD , HughD changing section title
3. New content added here , Removal of some of that content , adding an attribution in order to downplay the content
4. Added content , adding attribution in order to downplay content
5. Added content , and again trying to down play the source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User if familiar with edit warring definition. Link to notice of this posting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Once the article was locked HughD swamped the talk page with comments.

Comments:
Due to HughD's previous 6RR, the article was locked for 3 days.

Greglocock, a long term editor on the Pinto page has noted HughD's unwillingness to work with other editors. "You seem to be polite but largely incapable of answering a straight question or making a coherent point. ", "'HughD' please do not interleave comments it is deprecated behavior and you can and will get pulled up for it, as I have in the past. I can rarely understand your logic at the best of times." The latter interleaving of another editor's comments after I asked HughD not to do the same thing 4 times (example ).

Hugh has made an enormous number of edits to the article in a short period of time. Common sense would suggest most could have been done in his sandbox then added to the article. Since March 2nd, including a 3 day window when no edits were allowed, the editor has added 255 edits.

HughD has accused me of following him to articles . HughD does not have a history of editing automotive related articles. I've been involved in the Pinto page since last year with most of my involvement starting in January of this year. After a recent editorial interaction on an ExxonMobil related page, HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto article. This seems like the behavior of an editor who is looking for a fight rather than someone who wants to be left alone.

One needs only look at the difference in talk page etiquite and civility before and after HughD's arrival to understand how HughD's behavior towards other editors and their concerns is problematic. This problematic behavior is part of a pattern that can be seen in the editor's block history.

I would ask that the editor be topic blocked, narrowly defined to the Ford Pinto article for a period of time deemed appropriate.

Agree- topic blockThe fundamental issue is that “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” :- Alberto Brandolini . HughD makes many tens of edits in a day on a single article, and uses misleading edit summaries, so even tracking what is happening, never mind sorting it out, is a Sysiphean task. Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I idly note that in 12 hours after the article was unlocked he made 60 edits to the article and its talk page. QED. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Xismrd reported by User:Midas02 (Result: )

Page: Pantheon-Sorbonne University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xismrd (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: Despite multiple warnings by myself and C.Fred, this user keeps on reverting his preferred edit without making any attempt whatsoever in engaging in a discussion. I tried to put it off for a while, but the message just doesn't seem to sink in. --Midas02 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kindzmarauli reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff OK with me, or diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff reverting me
2. diff reverting me
3. diff reverting me
4. diff reverting QuackGuru
5. dif reverting QuackGuru
6. dif reverting QuackGuru

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, deleted, warned again here by Jeraphine Gryphon

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here.

Comments:
I took the time to build this case, but the user has now said they have unwatchlisted the article. originally with this unpleasant statement, which was removed by Quackguru here per WP:NPA I reckon; the user restored it then edited it to make it unobjectionable. I suspect that they have indeed unwatchlisted this. Because I took the time to do all this, I am finishing it. I expect this to be closed with no action, but I will cite it if they start up again. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This is the third notice board you've forum-shopped, including the one where you accused me of having "advocacy issues". I wonder which others are out there you can report me to? The idea of one person edit-warring is hilarious. Three of those reverts were yours and three of them were QuackGuru's. Have you reported yourselves? Or is this yet another way for you to win your war on my attempts to keep the article stable while it was at AfD, and to prevent people from poisoning the well with their COI templates? LOL. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the only place where I have dealt with your edit warring, and as I said, I expect this to be closed with no action. the posting at WP:COIN was to deal with apparent COI of the other editor, and yes I did that because you were contesting the analysis. I have not posted to any other board. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring