Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:16, 9 June 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:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Topic ban)

Page

Baruch Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "wikipedia: overcat (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality)"
2. 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "reason? It's precedent."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "already in category"
   2. 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Comments:

Previously blocked for violation of 1RR; my edit summary at Goldstein reminded the editor of this rule, but the editor ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That was two reverts. The third was completely justified. It's blatant overcat. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry all. I thought it was 3RR, not 1. I self-reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks after you were blocked for violating 1RR, you thought the rule for Israel/Palestine material was 3RR?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the general rule for Israel/Palestine 3RR? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. Baruch Goldstein's article is obviously related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor do not just jump into articles and edit. Read all the appropriate banners that you will find on the article and talk pages, so you get an idea of the current "DEFCON" state of the articles. It was decided a long time ago now that all I/P related works are 1RR's. Please read around articles before you begin to edit. I really don't want to see you here again, MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Nomoskedasticity I would have appreciated a ping from you on this. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MM, This is for your own good. I propose a 1-2 week topic ban for all I/P and Jewish - related subjects for you. I urgently need to know whether you can function in other subject areas, as many of us do, in a constructive way. You have a great interest in retro technology, and there is masses of articles that would interest you. I am proposing this for your own good, as your mentor. Your supporter's patience (of which there are many) is not inexhaustable. It would do your reputation an immense amount of good if you voluntarily refrained from editing these areas yourself for a one or two week period, and stated this yourself. Kind regards Simon Irondome (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I went ahead and added Template:Editnotices/Page/Baruch Goldstein, though it does look like the user's previously been DS alerted in the area, albeit 11 months ago. --slakr 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely commit to that. Can I edit non-controversial Israel-related articles? Ie, I was thinking of uploading the Hebrew Teva logo. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MM, are you capable of leaving Jewish-related subjects entirely for a short period? Analytical Engine. Have a look at that. WP is sooo big Georgia! Simon Irondome (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: the answer to your question appears to be no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: well at least it's happening on talk now! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by reluctance to deal with a clear violation of 1RR, especially as a repeat instance. In any event: today, we have a repeat of the same sort of edit on the same article: . It's not a further violation of 1RR -- but one would surely hope for use of talk page rather than simply repeating an edit that has already been rejected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• The additional editing today on Baruch Goldstein makes it clear that this editor has no intention of adhering to 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Monochrome Monitor didn't clearly respond to Irondome's proposal she agree to a break from editing Jewish-related articles. She's already been blocked twice for violating the ARBPIA 1RR rule, and this complaint asserts a new violation on June 1. On June 5 (while this complaint is still open) she has resumed editing Baruch Goldstein. The time may have come for a three-month topic ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't violate anything this time. Also, many of my edits (ie, deleting category:20th century physicians) were accepted.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Context is important. The first ban on A/I was two years ago. I was fifteen. The last one was a good-faith edit on Israel, a compulsory one-day edit ban. This time was different and I broke 1RR (albeit unknowingly), and I'm fine getting penalized for that. But A three-month ban is completely unjustified since the last one was one day. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I forgot about the 2-week thing. I did try to work on other things but my article got deleted by a bot. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of bots, a bot just made the same edit on the article that I did. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Monochrome Monitor is banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards. She does not seem able or willing to obey the 1RR rule on these articles, since this is the third violation. This action is per the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. For some negotiations elsewhere, see User talk:Monochrome Monitor, especially the comments of User:Irondome who has been trying to serve as a mentor to MM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)

Page

Manchester United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665226347 by SLBedit (talk) this is unnecessary"
2. 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "no, it's just unnecessary whitespace"
3. 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "loans are all as good as over now that the season is over"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */ new section"
2. 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
3. 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
4. 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
5. 22:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
6. 23:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

PeeJay2K3 is ignoring MOS:HEADINGS. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

SLBedit is making unnecessary edits. Why would you even go into an article's code just to add two lines of whitespace that isn't even required by the Misplaced Pages software? It's recommended to help editors, but it's not mandatory. – PeeJay 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you admit the minor edits were helpful (to help editors). It's not mandatory to revert other people just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just childish. No offence has occurred here. Not to suggest that edit warring only occurs when more than three reverts have occurred, but there are only three reverts here, and one of them was by accident; I started making my edit about the end of the loans before SLBedit re-reverted me, so when I saved it, it went back to a version before his re-revert. – PeeJay 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If you say so but I think it was not an accident. You are against two blank lines just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work assuming good faith there... – PeeJay 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If it was in good faith or an accident, why didn't you add the blank lines back? You can. Or do you want me to violate 3RR? SLBedit (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: SLBedit (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Okay, people. This is whitespace we're talking about here. Had I seen this report within an actionable timeframe, I would likely have been tempted to block both of you for sheer childish behavior edit warring, but now that it's 5 days hence, let's just agree to act like adults and drop it, hmm? —Darkwind (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:176.239.107.149 reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Stale)

Page: Soghomon Tehlirian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 176.239.107.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP has been involved in several edit-wars and does not seem to stop. The IP has reverted three different users in a matter of several hours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stale At this point, a block would be useless since the IP has not edited in 5 days. —Darkwind (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mnnlaxer reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Declined)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This is a violation of 1RR restriction for the page . The user is well aware that she/he violated the restriction, but decided to do it on purpose, i.e. to battle/"make the problem bigger" , which is also a violation of WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR and will accept any penalty for that transgression. However, it was not to battle. My response to the notice was "No. The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. I could have waited a couple hours to avoid it. But that wouldn't be right. I would rather take @Volunteer Marek:'s suggestion and go to WP:AE rather than a technical 1RR complaint. And I prefer for someone else to do the filing. I would love to see someone actually argue against the points I have made on the talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)" Full discussion at User talk:Mnnlaxer#1RR

I have since learned that WP:AE is for conduct disputes, not content. So after this is closes, I will file a WP:Mediation request to get to the content dispute, unless someone has a better idea. I really would like to see a formal argument against my points on the talk page. If it takes a Mediation to get there, fine. I would have preferred to gain consensus on the talk page, but only one other editor was willing to engage in a compromise. Several other editors simple asserted WP. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by other users

Yes, the 2 reverts are within a 24 hour period. But at least one of them (this one) is in response to vandalism. Several editors were in the middle of a discussion on the talk page when this "My very best wishes" user showed up and deleted the whole Motivation chapter. An administrator should look very closely at this. It is not Mnnlaxer that is edit warring here. Yes, Mnnlaxer reverts, but he is working to improve the article, and he is open to discuss his changes. In this incident he responded to an intentional provocation done by this "My very best wishes" figure. I strongly believe this was deliberately vandalism of the page, with the aim to block/scare or silence an editor they don't like. Even if he didn't blank the whole page, he blanked the whole Motivation chapter we were working to improve. According to the Edit warring policy that does not count as reverts for the purposes of 3RR/1RR. It is obvious vandalism, or at least very close to obvious vandalism. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer still did not self-revert on this page as was suggested at their talk page by Kudzu1. My rationale for removing these materials as "undue" (this an outdated speculation about a political conspiracy theory) was explained a couple of times on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah right, the whole motivation chapter was a conspiracy theory, so you blanked it in your very first edit on the page. Or was it? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this whole chapter was discussion of outdated speculations. This low importance, but highly contentious material should be removed because the article is already too long. I commented several times on the article talk page, looked at opinions by participants (they happened to strongly disagree with each other rather than with my arguments), and made my edit to improve this page. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time and therefore mostly remove irrelevant or poorly sourced materials on various pages (as one can conclude after looking at my recent edit history), but I think this is all within the policy. However I am not sure this is relevant to my request here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer says: "I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR ". This is not true. The "unwittingly" part. On their talk page clearly indicates that they knowingly - not "unwittingly" - violated 1RR because, quote, "The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. ". Translation: I'm a battleground warrior and it was more important to win the battle than to adhere to the editing restriction on the article. This pretty much exemplifies Mnnlaxer's mentality on this topic area.

Bottom line is that the article is under 1RR restriction. Mnnlaxer has been tip toeing around the 1RR restriction (claiming that they're only reverting "vandalism" or waiting just the right amount of time to revert again) - i.e. WP:GAME - for some time now. Here they admit on the talk page they purposefully violated the rule but then show up to this notice board and try to play innocent. A block is long overdue.

Erlbaeko's statement above - in support of a POV ally - is also blatantly false. This was NOT "in response to vandalism". The edit being reverted is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Erlbaeko knows this too. They're just making up bullshit excuses for a fellow battleground warrior. No, these kinds of reverts are NOT exempt from the 1RR or the 3RR restriction. Enough of this nonsense already. There is a reason why 1RR was put in place on these articles in the first place and that's exactly to deal with disruptive behavior such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On 5 June 2015‎, Mnnlaxer made this revert in response to this revert, where "My very best wishes" blanked the whole Motivation section despite of ongoing discussion on the talk page. I call that vandalism. On 4 June 2015‎, the part of the Motivation section that was agreed to remove was removed by me with this revert. My edit also removed the recently inserted "Gywn Winfield" statement that failed to get consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Unwittingly at the time of the revert. I thought that would be obvious but Volunteer Marek thinks that is some kind of revelation he has discovered. Once pointed out, yes, I admitted it and said lets go to the real thing, the content dispute, and if this is the trigger to get it started, fine. The idea I've been tip-toe-ing around the 24 hour 1RR is laughable. In fact, my revert within 24 hours shows that is false. Marek has constantly projected his own behavior onto me. IDIDNTHEARTHAT, GAME, POV, misrepresenting a source, and more. All of his behaviors somehow are transferred to me when I disagree with him. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You've broken the 1RR rule. You've been reported for breaking it before, although in the past you've managed to wiggle out of a block by WP:WIKILAWYERING about whether something was a revert or not. You're trying the same thing here by calling an edit that clearly wasn't vandalism "vandalism" (probably the most over-used lame excuse for edit warring on Misplaced Pages).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you can't tell me from Erlbaeko. I've never been reported for anything that I can recall. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. You two act and talk much the same way though. And you've both broken 1RR on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, I have never been reported for anything neither, except for one incident in late May 2015, when Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 reported me twice, for the same incident. Both was rejected. Ref. AE request and EW report. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There's an obvious content dispute here that is probably overdue for mediation. But there are just a few rules on Misplaced Pages, and one of them is against edit-warring. Mnnlaxer broke 1RR, I notified him that he broke 1RR and asked him to self-revert, and he declined to do so. And so now we're here and an administrator should deal with the edit-warring as he or she sees fit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that several previous violations I reported here were left without action, despite being obvious violations, just as that one. Maybe this is a hint that I should not report anything on administrative noticeboards? That's fine. I have no problems with this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Yes, a 1RR violation did occur. However, at this point, a block would be purely punitive in nature, and blocks should not be punitive. There is no ongoing disruption to stop. Further, a block at this time would not serve to "encourage a more ... congenial editing style" or otherwise benefit the encyclopedia. —Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Astral Prince reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked)

Page: Battle of Phillora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Astral Prince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Battle of Phillora; diffs/reverts:
2. Kargil war; diffs/reverts:
3. Battle of Chawinda; diffs/reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multiple users have tried to communicate to the user and warned him to stop his editwar but he hasn't paid heed. Due to the similarities in disruption and other facts, I have also filed an SPI on this user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86‎ but in the meantime he's on an all out editwar on 3 articles. He has been reverted by around 3-4 users each on each article (including cluebot). Furthermore, he's resorting to blatant canvassing and personal attacks . No signs of stopping. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather disingenuous 'attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page' as that links to the editor's TP, not that of the article; and even that was not so much an attempt to discuss the issue, but rather to bombard him with templates. And notifications of AN/I and SPI do not an attempt to talk make!!! I note also that you were very much on the cusp of WP:3RR yourself. "lol" _Fortuna 10:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're well-acquainted with the situation here. Have you reviewed the edits made by the user concerned? Many of them are indeed disruptive. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a lower burden of proof is not justified just because of what another editor does. I'm not suggesting there's nothing wrong with Astral Prince's edits; merely that they don't absolve Top Gun of adhering to the procedure- specifically, not pretending to discuss it when that discussion has clearly not taken place. _Fortuna

I have not made more than two reverts on any of the pages to Astral Prince. So no, you're wrong.... and that's not it. Many others have reverted him again and again while he refuses to discuss at all. Before I suspected him as a sock and filed the SPI, I dropped him numerous warnings in order to get him to discuss - he instead chose to go ahead with NPA vios and editwar. In any case, other editors have tried to discuss (not template) him as well on his talkpage... so please do check before you accuse. That did not stop him from edit warring either. Even if this user was discussing, such behaviour and repetitive reverts are plain out disruptive. So no, I do not have to put up with the disruption as many of the edits are against consensus and even RFC established consensus including plain out vandalism like this where he is totally changing the war outcome inspite of RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86#05 June 2015. Unless User:Astral Prince responds here and agrees to stop the war a lengthy block seems appropriate. He is extremely confident that India scored a decisive victory at Battle of Phillora but has never posted on the article talk page to give his reasoning (though TopGun didn't post on article talk either). He also canvassed another editor to help him revert there, asking "Do visit Battle of Phillora few dumb Pakistanis like TopGun And Mar4d are creating Vandalism WP:VAN." EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well EdJohnston, i agree it's my fault that i didn't posted this on article talk page, Let me clarify your few doubts, You said I'm involve in an edit war since middle of may, well just see the history of Battle of Phillora you can see i just reverted edits done by pakistani editors, for ex:- few days ago an Anonymous editor erased the causality2 section and it's references and he added imaginary claims there like most of the Pakistanis do, I just reverted there edits and no Other editor has complaint about that, and you can also see the conversation between me and User:Winner 42 he reverted my edits because I didn't mentioned what I have edited but later he agreed that I'm just trying to solve those problems.

now talk about User:TopGun , just ask him why do he is erasing the word " decisive " from Indian Victory on the Battle of Phillora while I wrote every time that mentioned references support " Decisive Indian Victory " and do read them before reverting my edits.

Is he feel shamed that his country has faring miserably in all wars.

and ya I'm confident that India won the Battle of Phillora " Decisively.

How do you define victory in an Battle??

• You captured enemy territory ( India captured Phillora )

• You thwart enemy offensive/infiltration with teeth ( achieved in Battle of Phillora

• the enemy retreats from his territory ( Pakistan ran away from Phillora )

• you took more casualty on enemy ( India - 6 tanks damaged , Pakistan - 66 tanks destroyed ).

Conclusion - India Won the Battle of Phillora " DECISIVELY.

you all can read Battle of Phillora (@especially conclusion section) and match my stats.

and now talk about those 5 reference mentioned on Result section.

like for ex :- reference no.1 on article " do read page 84.

it is written " In the Sialkot sector, the tank battle continued for fifteen days and on September 11, in a decisive battle fought at Phillora, the Indian troops destroyed 66 enemy tanks on that single day. " Battle of Phillora Indian casualty were only ( 6 tanks damaged ).

and do read remaining 4 reference to, they all supports " Decisive " Indian Victory. And the reference no.11 mentioned on conclusion section also Claims Decisive Indian Victory ✌ " " Astral Prince (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – Edit warring, ethnic POV pushing and battleground editing. "you can see i just reverted edits done by Pakistani editors". I guess that makes it all right. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYK0BhcgwaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9788170998907&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATN0VfCyAYTpmQXQjYGICQ&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Phillora%20&f=false
2. Zaloga, Steve (1999) The M47 and M48 Patton tanks ISBN 1-85532-825-9 pg.34-35.

User:Truth200 reported by User:Mentelucida (Result: Declined)

Page: Velliscig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truth200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 6 June 2015
2. 3 June 2015
3. 3 June 2015
4. 31 May 2015
5. 1 June 2015
6. 1 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Frustrating. maybe he/she have problem with Slavic people... Mentelucida (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Two users, both with few edits, involved in a slow-burning edit war. It's true that Mentelucida tried to reach out to Truth200, but their English is not very good and one comment was odd, and the other awkward. Truth200 doesn't talk, which is a problem, but the edits are so sporadic it's hard to justify sanctioning either one of them or even locking down the page, which doesn't seem to interest hardly anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EDC0:7700:E92A:8A9:2661:C95D reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:6000:EDC0:7700:E92A:8A9:2661:C95D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "alma mater is a place someone graduates from - he only graduated from high school - to put a college he attended is misleading"
2. 01:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665828306 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665828477 by RoadWarrior445 (talk)"
4. 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. "/* Edit warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:edc0:7700:e92a:8a9:2661:c95d reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:6000:edc0:7700:e92a:8a9:2661:c95d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This IP editor keeps adding dubious info in Scott Walker's alma mater box, claiming that since he never graduated from college, the university can't be considered his alma mater, and is adding his high school instead. It's been explained to him that this is not what alma mater means, but he started edit warring, and then I warned him on his talk page, and now he has made four reverts in 24 hours. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:98.246.208.42 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Cleaned up sensationalist editorialization"
2. 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Clarified SPLC mission"
3. 04:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "cleaned"
4. 04:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "clean"
5. 05:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "clean"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
2. 04:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
3. 04:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
4. 04:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

First edit shows what IP is here for. NeilN 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:Sfarney (Result: Declined)

Page: E-meter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scottperry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: though the comments in the reversion claim to have reverted it to December 27, 2007

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not forced this to an edit war. Two reversions of the same 8 year old material is sufficient.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Within the last few days, Scottperry (talk · contribs) began discussion on the Talk:E-meter#Article_no_longer_compliant_with_WP:Due.2F_Undue page, arguing that E-meter was no longer neutral according to WP policy. Scottperry suggested he would be reverting it to some version of months ago. I answered him that the current page was fully supported by peer-reviewed references and he should read them. He said the history was all wrong with "such nonsensical claims as its supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims." Again I referred him to the journal references. Instead of addressing the sources, Scottperry reverted the page prior to my reconstruction of months ago (his page comment states he is reverting to a 2007 edition). I reverted his change and requested him to (1) study the sources and (2) address the issues on the talk page. Scottperry reverted the page a second time and has now opened an improper RFC that is highly prejudicial and misrepresents the history of the discussion as a "consensus." I have enumerated my objections to that RfC in the responsive body. This is much more than a content dispute. Scottperry's conduct is not within the spirit of the Misplaced Pages and cooperative editing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This has already been raised at WP:ANI, and doesn't need duplicating here, in my opinion - it is confusing enough already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this complaint has already been cross-posted in a reworded version of this same complaint at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section). Please refer to the earlier cross-posted complaint. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The cross-posting was an error. I had thought I had deleted it from the other board. Andythegrump, please select the most appropriate board. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't my decision (I'm not an admin), but I think that ANI is probably the better location - this isn't a simple edit-warring issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is doing this posting, SFarney, Grammar's Little Helper, or who? Are you two acting as one, one acting as two, or what exactly? Scott P. (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Same person - SFarney is Grammar's Little Helper - the first is a Misplaced Pages user name, while the second is a signature. Confusing, I know, but permitted, and actually quite common (And of course, your User name 'Scottperry' isn't identical to your signature 'Scott P.' either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this guy sometimes signs as Slade Farney, sometimes signs as Grammar's Little Helper, and sometimes comes up as Sfarney, and it's all legal. Amazing.... Whatever's legal I suppose, but if I were writing that policy, I'd say that it should require only names that are not likely to confuse, as this seems to be prone to do. But that's just me. Thanks for that. Scott P. (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Already at ANI. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mondiad reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Blocked)

Page:Përmet
User being reported: Mondiad

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:
Mondiad operates under a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is also noticable in his edit summaries. After a clear breach of 3rr (4 rvs in ca. 19hours), per above diffs, I adviced him to self-revert and participate to the correspodent talkpage]. The explanation for editting in such a way wasn't appropriate, using aggresive tone ], thus refusing to participate in the discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Maticsg1 reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wayward Pines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maticsg1 (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:

Edit warring. User continues to add improperly sourced information--or should I say, the authenticity of the source is being challenged, and editor keeps adding it anyway. Two different editors have challenged his source. Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked)

Page: Walt Disney World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cla68 (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 am reporting partly on behalf of McDoobAU93- I don't have the strongest interest in theme parks.

Cla68 has not violated 3RR on this article, but has attempted to game Misplaced Pages's policies to edit war his preferred version of the article through. In the edit summaries of the diffs above, they make reference to a 'first mover advantage' they hold, which they elaborates on at their talk page- because Cla68 was the person to insert the contentious material, they can edit war to keep it without violating 3RR before the person who disagrees with them does, stating that 'The way WP works is that everyone uses the rules to their advantage.' They acknowledge the attempt by McDoobAU93 on the talk page to reach compromise, but do not participate in the discussion themselves, stating 'Since I added the information first, it means you would cross the 3RR threshold first, so I win if I choose to continue. So far, I choose to continue.' I believe this displays a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Cla68's last dozen or so edits contain a few rather troubling edits.

• This edit from about a week ago advises a pro-acupuncture editor (one who has a history of poor judgement and counterproductive engagement with Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes already) to recruit meatpuppets in order to distort Misplaced Pages's coverage of certain topics—I mean, "I suggest...going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you." And that's posted on an Arbitration requests page.

The last couple days' edits to Walt Disney World follow a similar pattern of encouraging (and embracing) game-playing, manipulating the system, and a battleground mentality to 'win' content arguments.

• Cla68: 2 edits. Cla68 adds two paragraphs to the article.
• McDoobAU93: Reverted good faith edits by Cla68 (talk): Attempt to verify failed; please discuss on talk page as to how this is unique and notable to Disney. McDoobAU93 reverts Cla68's additions. (McDoob's first revert.) So far, so good. They should now have a discussion about the content.
• Cla68: Undid revision 665542078 by McDoobAU93 (talk)taking first mover advantage; please discuss why it shouldn't be in the article Cla68 re-reverts to restore his material to the article. Instead of discussing, Cla68 has explicitly opted to take a game-theoretic approach (see first-mover advantage), implicitly relying on the bright line of 3RR as an entitlement that will let him 'win' an edit war.
• McDoobAU93:Reverted 1 edit by Cla68 (talk): Restoring per WP:BRD and will open on talk page. McDoobAU93 re-reverts (making McDoob's second reverts.)
  • With this edit, 17 minutes later, McDoobAU93 creates the promised talk page thread.
• Cla68: Undid revision 665562014 by McDoobAU93 (talk)reverting while discussion determins if stays or not. Another revert of this text will break 3rr, which is why I claimed first mover advantage. Cla68 reverts again (his second revert) about 4 hours later. Cla68 does not make a talk page post at this time, apparently believing that he has 'won' the edit war by making the third revert of the article. In other words, not only was he trying to game the system, but he was doing it badly, thinking that three-revert bright line applied to the article rather than to each editor.
• PeterTheFourth: Undid revision 665588685 by Cla68 (talk) Please engage in the talk page and stop edit warring, Cla68. 3RR is not there to give anybody an 'advantage' PeterTheFourth reverts Cla68 (PeterTheFourth's first revert) about 4 hours later, advising him not to try to game 3RR.
• Cla68 is away from Misplaced Pages for a couple of days. While he is gone, McDoobAU93 asks Cla68 on his talk page not to try to game 3RR, and reminding him of BRD: .
• Cla68: Undid revision 665616881 by PeterTheFourth (talk)Since it's just between one other editor and I, then the info can stay until talk page discussion decides otherwise. A couple of days later, Cla68 reverts the article to his preferred version, advising PeterTheFourth that he's really just having a mano a mano edit war, and Peter should butt out and let Cla68 play his game.
  • At the same time, Cla68 declares on the talk page that "... Since I added the information first, it means you would cross the 3RR threshold first, so I win if I choose to continue. So far, I choose to continue."
  • At the same time, Cla68 responds on his own talk page, declaring "...The way WP works is that everyone uses the rules to their advantage. ...".

...And that pretty much brings us to this complaint. As edit wars go, it's slow-burning and not very advanced. As a manifestation of a corrosive attitude problem, it's quite serious. (Parenthetically, I would have expected an editor like Cla68, with his years of experience and long history of blocks for tendentious behavior and edit warring, to have a better grasp of WP:3RR policy.) This is conduct that should be strongly discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I agree with PeterTheFourth and TenOfAllTrades. This kind of blatant and intentional manipulation of policy should be grounds for a longer block. The fact that most recently another editor has agreed with Cla68's position doesn't negate the misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Epilogue - B came to the talk page after more fully reading one of the sources used in the contentious edits and revealed that the source actually mentions Disney as one of many examples of lower-wage positions in the area. They further remind us that the state of Florida has raised its minimum wage above the federal minimum, and that Disney itself has raised its starting pay above the state minimum. And yes, disagreement is fine; it's how you handle it that counts (although in this case consensus seems to be going against the addition). --McDoobAU93 13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Atlantacity reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Sorry, the talk page consensus is for inclusion. "I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126."
2. 14:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665893074 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
3. 14:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "It's not an addition but merely the undoing of a deletion for which there was no consensus."
4. 05:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "The discussion on the talk page doesn't justify removing the complaint."
5. 05:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not sure what's up with the text below -- stray refs? Not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed with {{reflist-talk}} in an earlier thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skullballoons reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Gabapentin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Skullballoons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15 May 2015 diff as IP 174.60.194.10
2. 15 May 2015 diff as IP
3. 15 May 2015 diff as IP
4. 15 May 2015 diff as IP, article then protected pursuant to prior case here
5. 17 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons when protection expired
6. 17 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
7. 20 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
8. 29 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
9. 7 June 2015 dif as Skullballoons

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - IP/Skullballoons has never come to Talk.

Comments:
Slowmo edit war. IP and Skullballoons are the same user per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skullballoons/Archive. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the edit war is User:Skullballoons sole editing contribution since August 2012. This account has become a single purpose account - to push an edit that has been rejected by consensus at the talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week —Darkwind (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:24.139.196.132 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"
2. 17:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"
3. 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Murder of Selena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly deletes the same sourced material. No attempt to discuss, or respond. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. _Fortuna 19:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:92.23.33.144 reported by User:Andrewying (Result: Page semi-protected )

Page: Edexcel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.23.33.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of 92.23.28.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to 92.23.28.134:

Comments:
Appears to be linked to 92.23.28.134, who has previously been warned for edit warring. The editor seems to be doing similar reverts and magically continue discussion initiated from 92.23.30.156, which is also in the same IP address range, at User_talk:Edfilmsuk#Regarding_Edexcel_edit. The edits from this IP only began after the original IP was warned. The two IP addresses are also from the same location (). A discussion related to content concerned is in progress at Talk:Edexcel#Not_a_Controversy_.28Semi-protected_edit_request.2C_5_June_2015.29 but neither editor were involved.— Andrew Y _talk 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protected I've semi-protected for one week. There is a clear consensus as to how to proceed, hopefully a short protection will encourage anyone else to contribute to the discussion if required. The diffs above come straight off the back of a previous semi-protection. Ritchie333 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erlbaeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The article is under 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

One warning

Another warning

Yet another warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (and related discussions)

Comments:

The article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions. Erlbaeko is fully aware of this as they've been reported for these violations before (they squaked through by arguing that reverting IPs is ok - this isn't the case here). The edit summary also suggests that Erlbaeko is violating 1RR purposefully, to make a point (in pursuit of some kind of WP:TRUTH).

Blocked – 48 hours for 1RR violation. Ghouta chemical attack is covered by WP:SCWGS which imposes a 1RR on all articles related to the Syrian Civil War. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rymax23 reported by User:Howicus (Result: User warned )

Page: Template:Avengers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rymax23 (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:

This is not a 3RR violation, but rather a very slow edit war. Rymax23 has repeatedly added an excessive number of links to Template:Avengers, and then been reverted by another editor. Each time, Rymax23 has left the page alone for a while, only to re-add a new overly long list later. The user has never used the talk page to discuss the additions, nor have they shown any response to the various questions and warnings on their talk page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Warned Rymax23 has also added similar content to Template:X-Men. He has left one user talk page note here, so I can't easily hand out a "until you start talking" block. I've left them a final warning that they will be blocked if they reinstate edits on those templates again without consensus. Ritchie333 11:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Brandywine589 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: USS Scorpion (SSN-589) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandywine589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

New editor, with two bursts of editing in 2013 and 2015 (offshore service on a boomer?). All are single-issue and gross WP:OR to right the WP:GREATWRONGS concerning USS Scorpion. However none of this has the slightest source to back it up. When it's reverted it comes back immediately. No discussion, despite invitations. This stuff is maybe the basis for a great book, but it's not what belongs in this encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Many of the comments added by the user contitute vandalism (gross OR is an understatement). On that basis, I restored the article to prior to the user's last edits. If anything productive was added afterwards, feel free to restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:71.121.241.118 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: No violation)

Page: Quill (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.121.241.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly edit-warred a sentence out of that article because he feels his changes are correct. I reverted him, explained to him that I felt his changes weren't correct, he told me that his changes were correct, and proceeded to revert a fourth time. All in less than 24 hours. According to WP:EDITWAR, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Therefore, I am making this report. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Response: Well, first of all, in no way have I violated the 3rr policy unless somehow a post from May 19th can somehow be retroactively be included into a 24 hour period with today. Also, in all the reverts I made save for one, I have made some attempt at discussion in my edit summaries with the random other users who continually re-added with no discussion put into their edit summaries at all. Furthermore, I am the only one who has made an attempt at a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, , something the reporting user has conveniently left out, as well as a discussion on his own talk page, where I fully explained this whole thing yet again to him and not in any way that just boils down to "but my edits were right and yours wrong" as he alluded to. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:76.14.131.132 reported by User:MrX (Result: blocked)

Page

Homosexual agenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665937534 by MrX (talk)"
2. 22:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Are you presenting this article from a neutral viewpoint or intending it to be written from the viewpoint of GLAAD? Keep the biased adjectives out."
3. 23:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665955679 by MrX (talk) It is NOT consensus. It is a single viewpoint in a 2-sided controversy."
4. 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "If you have an agenda...having it named will be considered "pejorative" Are you representing the side of activists instead doing the duty of wikipedia in maintaining neutrality?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Homosexual agenda. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Removal of content */ new section"

Comments:

• Note also edit warring three days ago at Global cooling.- MrX 03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• It appears this ip has a long history of agenda driven POV pushing in addition to the bright line violation of 3RR. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

Page: CHiPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others - see below)
User being reported: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All dates are in (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 19:59, 4 June 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:03, 4 June 2015
2. 22:27, 6 June 2015
3. 14:22, 8 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:59, 7 June 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:38, 7 June 2015

Comments:
To clarify, this is a report of edit-warring, not a 3RR breach. Skyerise has been very careful to avoid that. However, she continues edit-warring while the matter is under discussion, not only at CHiPs, but at other articles as well. The matter deals with Bruce Jenner, who has changed his name to Caitlyn. Skyerise has been travelling Misplaced Pages, changing all instances of "Bruce Jenner" to "Caitlyn Jenner", adding rather long notes, citing MOS:IDENTITY as justification. This has received significant opposition, resulting in a rather long discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. At CHiPs she made the change in this edit, which was subsequently reverted by Knowledgekid87. Rather than discussing this on the talk page, Skyerise simply reverted. Since I felt Knowledgekid87's edit was valid, I reverted asking "If you still disagree, please respect WP:BRD and discuss" in my edit summary. Skyerise did not discuss, instead simply reverting again. Unknown to me at the time, Dennis Bratland subsequently opened a discussion on the article talk page, which Skyerise later posted to. When I saw Skyerise's reversion I reverted to the status quo and left a warning on Skyerise's talk page, which I subsequently clarified, before finding the article talk page discussion and adding my own comments. Skyerise has made no further attempts to discuss this matter on the article's talk page and has subsequently reverted again, while the matter is still under discussion. Skyerise has resisted all attempts to discuss this, reverting every post I have made on her talk page and even asking me not to post there, demonstrating a clear unwillingness to discuss disputed changes. She prefers to simply revert using a MOS guideline as her justification for her edits. CHiPs is not the only page where Skyerise is edit-warring over the same content. Other articles at which she has edit-warred today are:

• Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Edit-warring with multiple editors, no attempt to discuss on the talk page.
• Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon - Edit-warring while there is a discussion in progress on article talk page
• San Jose City College - No attempt to discuss disputed edits on talk page.
• List of athletes on Wheaties boxes - edit-warring with multiple editors no attempt to discuss on talk page.(entry added after report filed by AussieLegend (✉) 20:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC))

It is clear that this is a controversial issue, as evidenced by the discussion at WP:VPP, and Skyerise should be waiting until that discussion is resolved instead of persistently reinserting her clearly disputed edits at multiple articles without consensus. It was only 5 days ago that Skyerise was warned as the result of another report on this page. Clearly she is still testing the limits, this time of what level of edit-warring will be tolerated. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note but after she undid my edit I attempted to reach out to her on her talk-page . Because she was making so many changes I was worried something like this might happen given how contested the issue is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I note her response to that was simply to delete your edit, as she has done with all of mine, simply stating "fixed" as her edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has commented more than once that she reverts "once a day", indicating she has a plan to continue to revert, regardless of the discussion on individual talk pages, the discussion at WP:VPP or any other place it might occur. Though not a 3RR breach, it does breach the spirit of policy regarding edit warring. Skyerise has appointed herself the arbiter of what will and won't be done on Misplaced Pages, even though Caitlyn Jenner herself has announced that she considers Caitlyn and Bruce two different people with two different set of accomplishments, and has expressed no interest in having her athletic records listed under the name Caitlyn. (See: here for news regarding the USOC's offer to make the change.) --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That's misrepresenTation, User:Drmargi, and you know it. I have repeatedly stated that I am editing to the current state of MOS:IDENTITY until such time as it changes. If VPP changes it, I will edit to the new standard and have never said otherwise. Please don't make up stories. Skyerise (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Interjecting here. Never said otherwise? What about "per MOS:IDENTITY" "I will boycott Misplaced Pages and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks." Which you were warned about on your talk page. Full diff at Village pump talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Funny how you don't mention my retraction. Also, leaving Misplaced Pages obviously means I would stop making the edits. Duh? Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Two things. 1) It's still there. Retraction usually requires strikethrough and an apology. I see no strike through and no apology... just you saying it doesn't apply. I see no acknowledgment that what you wrote was wrong. 2) You still said it, so even struck through it would still be valid to counter your "I will edit to the new standard" comment. Whoever closes this will have to make up their own mind as to whether to take it into account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added List of athletes on Wheaties boxes as another article at which Skyerise is edit-warring. I haven't, as yet, added Decathlon, which is another, as he has only reverted twice there, so far. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misgender me, you had it right the first time. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned As Jenner related articles have been authorised for Arbcom discretionary sanctions, I have given a formal notice on Skyerise's talk page of this. She can ignore or revert that notice, or complain that it's intimidating (which, to be fair, it is) but it will mean any further disruption can be dealt with swiftly and with the weight of Arbcom behind it. Ritchie333 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am observing 1RR. And I would like to note that the current state of MOS:IDENTITY supports my edits and that AussieLegend (talk · contribs) is insisting on editing to a possible future decision about this which has not been made yet. Finally, my similar report about reverts by Drmargi (talk · contribs), who made single reverts across around a dozen articles was deemed to not be edit warring. I've feel that AussieLegend's multiple template posts to my talk page and this invalid report to be intimidation attempts. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • No, you are not observing the 1RR. You claim you're following 1RR then 8 minutes later repeat a revert for the fourth time with zero discussion. All because nobody's opinion of what MOS:IDENTITY means counts except yours. Extremely bad faith. This is exactly why discretionary sanctions were put into play here: seasoned editors who are otherwise rational, civil, and neutral who suddenly can't control themselves because they can't put aside their own feelings about the article's topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course that's 1RR, my last edit to the article was June 6, two days ago. 1RR allows 1 revert per day, it's not edit warring, and doesn't result in edit warring by other parties. It does not disrupt Misplaced Pages. Apparently it just annoys you. Get over it. Skyerise (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It's almost like you're utterly surrounded by people who don't understand what things mean, and you have no choice but ignore what they think. When TRUTH is on your side, who needs consensus, am I right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
          • There we go, making a personal attack, discussing the contributor rather than the contribution. Please review WP:NPA, Dennis Bratland. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Let me repeat my "personal attack": You are treating others as if they are ignorant fools, and not respecting their opinions. You are not assuming good faith. You think your interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY or WP:1RR is the only correct one. Would you go and read WP:1RR right now, by the way? All the words, please. Thanks. You've demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that shows you can click that revert button an infinite number of times based solely on your confidence that you're right. This issue is under debate, and has been for some time. You know that. What is the point of carrying on reverting if you know it's unresolved? The point is to bully others. Stop playing the victim. You're not fooling anyone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Clearly, the reporter, yourself, and some of the other respondents are not assuming good faith on my part either. I mean what I say: MOS:IDENTITY is the current guideline, and I don't like being bullied by a gang of editors for editing to it, which according to WP:BLP is the right thing to do. Initially I went over the line on one article, reduced to 2RR and then 1RR. If I were not acting in good faith, would I have done that? Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
              • And they are engaging in very typical 'shut down the woman's speech' behaviors. And I've read 1RR. While I have not discussed on all the article talk pages, I am participating in the VPP discussion, as that's where the decision will actually be made, not on the article talk pages. And that last revert was to an anonymous IP, not an editor I am "reverting repeatedly". So unless the discretionary sanctions are specified as a weekly period, I am within the bounds of the sanctions. Your speculations are off the mark. I don't think anyone is an idiot and have any bad or competitive feelings against anyone. I guess your across-the-Internet psychic abilities are simply not as good as you pretend they are. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Assuming good faith would be to treat others as if their efforts were intended to make the encyclopedia better. Instead of assuming good faith, you assume they know your gender and are disagreeing with you in order to "shut down women's speech". When they revert, it's sexism. When you revert, it's righteous. AGF requires that you find it in your heart to see others as well intentioned as yourself.Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • And I always start by assuming good faith. Multiple days in, when I notice a pattern, it'd be stupid to ignore it. Skyerise (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
              • (ec)Just to clarify, I've posted precisely two (2) templates to Skyerise's talk page, an edit-warring warning, and notification of this report, which I am required to do. Skyerise removed the latter (which she is allowed to do) with the edit summary, remove notification of invalid edit-warring report from editor who has been asked not to post here. @Skyerise: - I suggest you head to the top of this page and read the "Definition of edit warring". Even if you observe 1RR, you can still be edit-warring by repeatedly overriding the edits of multiple other editors, as you are doing. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • Skyerise, it should be of concern to all that you don't see your persistent reversion of multiple other editors (not just Drmargi and me!) at multiple articles as edit-warring. You've even gone to the extent of suggesting on Ritchie333's talk page that this is not a valid edit-warring report. This, though, seems to be a disturbingly consistent attitude. An edit on your talk page was reverted with the edit summary, I've joined the discussion on every page where asked, I don't like be misrepresented when the facts showed that to be a misrepresentation itself, as I tried to explain to you. You clearly did not join any discussion before edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't add this sort of thing but it seems relevant.... When it comes to edit-warring, Skyrise does not seem able to control herself. At List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, an article I have edited extensively over the past several years, but which Skyerise has never edited until (coincidentally?) now, Skyrise made this edit, which I reverted, with an explanation. She did open a discussion on the talk page, but without waiting for discussion, reverted. It seems in Skyerise's nature to edit-war and I don't think a DS warning alone will stop that. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit and 1 revert do not edit warring make. It came up on random article, which I use frequently. I'll take it off my watchlist since it bothers you. Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

With 2 reverts on it, you are now closer to 3RR than I am. And that's your regular pattern, repeated multiple reversion when another editor does something you don't like. Isn't there an essay on that? Something about a pot? Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* And then there is The Suite Life on Deck. Your response to my explanation on your talk page seems to be a deliberate attempt to trick me into an edit war, but don't expect me to take the bait. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you don't need to be tricked into an edit war, you do it constantly. If I gave a shit, I'd go through your edit history. Pretty sure I'd find reportable edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• To the closer: There is also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Skyerise as more of a backround. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to request that the name of that thread be changed to something neutral. That personal attack has been left there too long. Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I would ask there, I see no problem with having it changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• To the closer: both User:Drmargi and User:AussieLegend are is also making 1 revert per day on multiple articles. They are also coordinating these activities on their talk pages: , . If my activities are edit-warring, so are theirs is Drmargi and they should both he should be blocked for an equal period of time. Do I need to file detailed reports on each? I've refrained because I see no reason to escalate this further. If I do need to do so, please give me some warning on my talk page so I can file such reports before blocking me. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardly coordination. I saw your continued edit-warring (you know, the edit that resulted in this report) and noticed that Drmargi had reverted your latest edits at one of the articles so I advised Drmargi not to continue reverting and suggested that she could instead comment at this report when it was raised. What's wrong with that? --AussieLegend (✉) 22:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not for me to say. But as I say, if 1RR on multiple articles is edit-warring, then both you are Drmargi are is equally guilty. See WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand the concept of edit-warring. You've been persistently overriding the edits of multiple editors. And please, don't accuse me of making 1RR edits on multiple articles. The only article I've reverted you on that is related to this is CHiPS. Plenty of other editors have reverted you on the other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, you are right. You've made two 1RR reverts to CHiPs, with an edit summary that implies we should not maintain current standards simply because a lengthy discussion that might and only might change the standard is underway. It's only Drmargi that been mirroring me in terms of 1RR. You're off the hook. :-) Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the fact that Jenner has decided to call herself Caitlyn now, the whole situation surrounding Jenner's past accomplishments and credits just screams to me that Skyerise is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Canuck 22:23, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

Nope, User:Canuckian89, just applying the very clear guidance as it currently stands at MOS:IDENTITY. If the guidance changes, I will follow it. How is that righting great wrongs? If that were my motivation, which everyone seems so psychic to be able to discern, why would I stop if and when MOS:IDENTITY gets changed? I've repeatedly said my only concern is to meet the current standard of IDENTITY until such time as that changes - if it changes. Yet everyone ignores what I actually say and presumes to know my motivations. You'll see that I've had a "This user believes that we should do no harm on any biographical article" on my user pages for years, and frequently address BLP issues which do not involve transgender people. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is disingenuous about that is that there is no discussion to rewrite MOS:IDENTITY. The proposals all deal with how and where to apply the guideline. The very thing which you are doing -- choosing to apply this guideline Misplaced Pages-wide -- is what is up in the air. Previous discussion of that question reached no consensus. Of course you know all this. But you go on edit-warring as if where the identity guidelines applied -- and in the end, the MOS is only a guideline -- were settled and you are innocently applying unambiguous rules. Not so, and you know it.

It's also disingenuous to wrap your assumptions about others motives a "pattern" that you'd be "stupid to ignore". But when anyone sees a pattern in your actions, that's denigrated as "psychic." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you bring a few more buddies in, boys? Y'all can discuss your insights and pat yourselves on the back while I take a little Wikibreak. Skyerise (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's sexist, and a false accusation of conspiracy, and you don't have a special dispensation to get away with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Either that or you got your way already, even without the backing of a sympathetic admin, since I won't be editing the involved articles while taking a wikibreak, will I? Skyerise (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting my way would involve understanding what is actually wrong with this picture. Going away and coming back with the same attitude doesn't fix anything. Those who happen disagree with you are not evil. They're here to build an encyclopedia, same as you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, one of the things Skyerise seems to like to do is "bully" other users by slapping "{{subst:alert|pa}}" on other user's talk pages after they edit pages related to the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner dispute (at least, that's how I felt when they rudely applied this tag on my talk page). In my mind, this has a chilling effect (similar to WP:NLT, I guess, except, in this case, it's about users editing LGBT pages). From my interactions with Skyerise, I sense that they are not a very compromising person, and Skeyrise just seems to be more interested in getting their way, above all else. For example, these notices they posted over at WT:LGBT: 1 (which looks like a pretty strong case of WP:CANVASS, by the way) and 2. If Skeyrise can't seem to understand that they have to discuss things with other users, and not just slap threatening discretionary sanctions tags on people's talk pages, we might have to consider a full-on LGBT topic-ban. Canuck 05:02, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

I can attest to that also. You don't find yourself in all that friendly a mood the next time you deal with her. She has some issues working and playing well with others here, often applying labels instead of trying to compromise as we often do at wikipedia. Even in this thread terms like "Why don't you bring a few more buddies in, boys?" or "they are engaging in very typical 'shut down the woman's speech' behaviors", or the Village pump (policy) thread..."I will boycott Misplaced Pages and organize protests against it in the LGBT community" or telling us she needs to bring in more people to "balance out the 'oh, no, I'm not transphobic, I just care about sourcing' crowd"... it's as if she edits with a chip on her shoulder. We all post things from time to time we aren't proud of, heated discussions can sometimes do that. But as I read here this seems to be a common occurrence with Skyerise and this topic. That's not good for Misplaced Pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Weathereditor reported by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus (Result: 31 hrs)

Pages: Death Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Weathereditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Death Valley:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

That's just for that article. Hopefully I did all right here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Vsmith (talk · contribs). I've recently encountered this user on Faversham and Ashford, Kent and we did manage to reach a consensus, though he seems to be very narrowly focused on weather boxes, which I can't get excited about myself. I wouldn't have blocked myself as I'd consider myself WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Is WE still blocked? Vsmith removed the block notice from his page, as "involved". FWIW, he's been edit warring at Climate of Antarctica too, again over weather boxes, but hopefully will settle down William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've undone the block as seems I've been involved there - bit hasty of me sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Tide rolls (talk · contribs). Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:68.110.212.125 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Main cast */"
2. 04:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Main cast */"
3. 04:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Main cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on UnREAL. (TW)"
2. 04:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "Field producer"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours —Darkwind (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Blocked 1 week )

Page: When contact changes minds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. , 11:43, 9 June 2015 ‎ "(Undid revision 666153534 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
2. , 23:36, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 666110351 by David Eppstein (talk))"
3. , 23:27, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 666052001 by David Eppstein (talk) Undo inappropriate and extremely rude edit."
4. , 12:23, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 665942660 by 23.242.207.48 (talk) Undo improper and rude removal of relevant, well-sourced content)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Article talk page section

Comments:
The edit summaries say it all: four instances of "Undid" in <24 hours. A block log with three previous blocks for edit-warring indicates more than adequate awareness of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by reported user; in content disputes it's customary to state a reason for removing material, and it's even more customary for that reason to be based on an identifiable content policy. Got to go to work, BBL. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm surprised Factchecker has been left free to edit; they're little more than a troll, and the saga around demanding that a certain editor be sanctioned for having a "bad" talk page comment, which went on far too long, showed that clearly. There are more than enough warnings on their talk page; time to prevent any more time being wasted on them, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is very plainly edit warring over a period of three days, crossing the bright line of 3RR within 24 hours, ignoring WP:BRD, and as Lukeno94 so aptly stated, I am surprised that FCAYS is allowed to continue to edit. The disruption, incivility, and inability to edit collaboratively are a constant theme with this editor.- MrX 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -- GB fan 13:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hope he wasn't late for work... _Fortuna 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring