Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:03, 11 January 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:Tenebrae reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

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

• All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:40, 4 January 2016 "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited."
2. 02:08, 4 January 2016 "You can't just say that. You have to WP:CITE it. If you can't be bothered to properly footnote, you shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages."
3. 14:57, 4 January 2016 "per Template:Infobox television: "Reliable source required""
4. 15:41, 4 January 2016 "Don't threaten me on my talk page. You're violating the outcome of the RfC, and I quoted directly from what the ADMIN directed be put into the template. I'll ask that same admin to speak with you"

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, 4 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on:

1. article talk page: 15:53, 4 January 2016
2. my talk page: 15:48, 4 January 2016

Comments:
In March 2015 Tenebrae opened an RfC at WT:TV about runtimes (archived here). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by Tenebrae in the RfC question, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for {{Infobox television}}, so that it supported his position. Recently Tenebrae has been removing runtimes from multiple articles, edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes. At New Girl he reverted an IP who had changed the runtime from "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", by removing the content entirely. After he did this a second time I reverted him as he has been misrepresenting the RfC outcome. (see below for further comment) He reverted that, after which I left a 3RR warning on his talk page. He then made his 4th revert at New Girl 4 minutes later, and only then did he start to discuss. Regarding the RfC, Tenebrae's question was essentially "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves". The RfC close was This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. In a subsequent post as the result of questions, the RfC closer wrote The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time Unfortunately, Tenebrae refuses to accept this and insists that the outcome of the RfC was that citations are needed in the infobox in all cases. However, this is tangential to this report, which provides evidence that Tenebrae has reverted 4 times in 14 hours at New Girl, despite a warning, and that he has therefore violated WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As we know, 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of vandalism. Not abiding by an RfC is vandalism and deliberately inserting uncited OR in defiance of it is vandalism.

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

User:AussieLegend advocates for putting uncited running times and having us take his word for it. That's against Misplaced Pages policy, and between that and defying the RfC, he is committing vandalism.

He also deliberately misrepresents me. I never said running time has to be cited in the infobox; only that it has to be cited. I even stated this at Talk:New Girl here!: "Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox." So I have to question an editor who would deliberately tell an untruth that way.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that he himself has made the very edit I was requesting, giving a cite at . So he could have done this at any time, solving the issue between us — but instead chose to bait me? I think WP:BOOMERANG might be considered here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've already indicated on Tenebrae's talk page, per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Boldly editing, Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The RfC did not close with a consensus and RfCs are not binding. There is nothing in any of the multiple reversions of Tenebrae's edits by 3 different editors that identify them as vandalism. Therefore, Tenebrae can't claim to be reverting vandalism.

he himself has made the very edit I was requesting - I was too busy dealing with your edit-warring at multiple articles. As I indicated to you on my talk page, you could have just challenged the content with {{citation needed}} and left it at that, which would have simplified the situation. There was no need to edit war after I warned you.

I don't intend commenting further, except to note the incivility here when he berated the IP for not including a citation. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that "RfCs are not binding" seems an argument of truly last resort. The RfC ended with the consensus that you can't just guesstimate running time and have us take your word for it — as the closing admin said, the entire question was moot since we can't have original research, which you were advocating. The admin made very clear, in his own words, that "a reliable third party source is required." Choosing to deliberately ignore this cornerstone policy after being reminded of it isn't "bold" — editing against a cornerstone policy isn't "bold". It's the definition of vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And I am truly getting tired of User:AussieLegend's half-truths and misstatements. As for his claim of incivility, he notably fails to point out that the edit-summary came after this polite first one which the edit-warring anon-IP chose to ignore.

One additional note: He hypocritically doesn't seem to care, or to note here, when his friend is uncivil toward me. AussieLegend was involved in the discussion where user:Davey2010 said, "you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy" — in violation, I might add, of the dictum that the burden of citation falls on the editor who adds claims to an article. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just one observation - Me and AL have very rarely contributed together - Infact I can't remember the last time we even spoke so you can drop that card for a start! - I simply saw the runtime removal and disagreed with it, I stand 100% by that comment - AL never added the runtimes in the first place so you should've added a source instead of being lazy which could've prevented all of this mess!, All that aside you did edit war repeatedly, After AL reverted you you should've stopped and had a discussion but you instead edit warred repeatedly and I guarantee had I not reverted you would've carried on anyway .... –Davey2010 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In this seemingly never-ending array of picking and choosing which Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines some editors choose to follow, I must point out — for the third time, since this is one User talk:Davey2010 chooses to ignore — that WP:BURDEN says (boldface from the page itself): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So who is the "lazy" one, sir? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And incidentally, I was the one who did start a talk-page discussion, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Which you did only after you'd violated 3RR, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was never any outcome from the RfC that said runtimes must be cited. You said that yourself when you said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. The concern here is that Tenebrae is arbitrarily removing runtimes, sometimes even removing the entire parameter, without even giving editors the incentive to provide a citation by adding {{citation needed}}. More relevant to this discussion is that he has demonstrated that he is willing to edit-war instead of collaborating with other editors to provide an outcome that actually improves the encyclopaedia. You even suggested I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. Tenebrae never even did that, which would have solved the problem once and for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not an outcome from the RfC, that's canonical policy. WP:V. Runtimes, like everything else, must be verifiable by reference to reliable independent sources. That doesn't prejudge where it's sourced (you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body, referenced back to a source), but you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include challenged material, to justify and source its inclusion. That is absolutely core tot he whole ethos of Misplaced Pages. It's not specific to runtimes. I am not going to explain this again. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, film and television plots aren't usually referenced by anything verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That may very well be true, and if so, the figures should be removed per WP:V. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the plots should be removed? Because if you do, there are a fair few FAs that will need to be delisted... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:V requires that all content be attributable to reliable sources, it doesn't require that everything be cited. As I've explained below, the runtimes don't fall under "likely to be challenged", so there is no normal requirement to cite every one. If Tenebrae adds {{citation needed}} instead of deleting runtimes that encourages editors to add citations and eventually it will encourage them to add citations without prompting. However, it was explained at the RfC and prior to that at at Template talk:Infobox television why TV episode runtimes are difficult to cite. Runtimes can vary significantly throughout the history of a series, so the time in the infobox is only an approximation, usually a close one. Even reliable sources can be confusing on this. For example, this one shows episode lengths of 22 minutes for most episodes, but one is 24 minutes. Season 1 though had several 22 minute episodes and several 21 minute episodes. Other programs, like Top Gear can have episodes that vary in length from around 50-65 minutes. To cite Top Gear properly you'd need 22 citations, one for each series. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged - That's not correct at all. The only person challenging runtimes is Tenebrae. Runtimes don't seem to be challenged by anyone else so they don't fall under "likely to be challenged". Tenebrae's method of dealing with runtimes is counter-productive. He deletes the runtimes instead of challenging them with {{citation needed}} and, from what I've seen, does very little else in TV articles. In a few days, weeks or months somebody comes along, doesn't know the runtime has been deleted and adds it again, putting the article back to where it was before Tenebrae came along.

you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body - I guess you don't edit many TV articles. This is something that is almost never seen in TV articles. Generally, the only mention of runtimes is in the infobox. However, this is all tangential to the issue, which again is that Tenebrae, rather than editing collaboratively, violated 3RR at New Girl after he was warned. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:V:

All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.

It does not say how many people have to be likely to challenge it. You cannot possibly claim that you are unaware it is likely to be challenged. Now stop playing silly buggers and get on with adding properly sourced content. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How is runtime different from plot content? And those FAs also have uncited runtimes... So should we start tagging those? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Guy's argument everything on Misplaced Pages is likely to be challenged and therefore everything should be cited. {{Infobox television}} is used in over 36,500 articles and runtime is only ever challenged by Tenebrae in a handful of articles. On this occasion it was because he was following an IP who was making good faith edits, so he hit more articles than usual. Using a bit of common sense tells you that runtime is unlikely to be challenged. A single editor with an agenda doesn't make it likely. But again, this is supposed to be about Tenebrae's violation of 3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a precedent to be set here. If User:JzG is happy to overlook the 3RR based on a need to provide a verifiable source for the run time of a television episode, yet we have featured articles which don't even do this, and massive sections of FAs which have not one single verifiable secondary source for the plot section, there's a fundamental problem with JzG's "absolute" claim. I would like to see JzG comment back here with regard to the fact that he is clearly unaware that many FAs don't do what he expects, as a minimum, and therefore re-appraise this notice in that context. Or else I'd like to see Tenebrae doing the right thing and start tagging all those issues on all the FAs because, after all, those items appear on the main page from to time, so heaven forbid one does without a run time that is verified by a reliable secondary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, the closing admin of the RfC, isn't ignoring 3RR at all. Once again: 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Deliberately inserting a clearly disallowed, OR edit after being told that it violates both core policy and an RfC closing is both vandalism and pointy disruption.

Some articles don't cite running times? That doesn't set a precedent, as the editors in this discussion surely know and some choose to ignore. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes. I don't believe that is a viable or responsible argument. We can cite runtimes — even User:AussieLegend did so, albeit grudgingly. I don't know why anyone would spend so much time arguing not to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If run times now need a citation, like plots do (if that's what JzG is claiming) then we have a large issue that needs further discussion. It also renders this discussion somewhat moot until it's resolved. I'm not sure I understand why a whole plot section can go without a single citation (presumably because someone has watched the movie and written about it) yet the run time (which is trivial in comparison) suddenly needs a citation. It's utterly illogical and actually shows that some editors are more here to pursue inconsistent and pointed wiki-lawyering, and not to improve Misplaced Pages. Please be advised that if this report closes as JzG seems to wish it closed, we'll need to start addressing all the FAs and GAs that have entirely unreferenced plot sections, and I will be using this discussion as the precedent to do so. So let's get this right. (P.S. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes not just that, one of us is asking why plots can go citation-free and run times, according to you and JzG, can't.... Answer that please). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish the waters weren't being muddied, I hope not deliberately, by this tangential foray into film plots. The pertinent MOS at WP:FILMPLOT cites Misplaced Pages guidelines for writing about fiction and for use of primary sources to state clearly that a movie itself is used as the source for the plot. Alright?

A quantifiable measurement, like running time, is completely different. So let's not suggest that the sky is falling, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No-one is making such a suggestion, I wonder why you start acting so defensively? I am simply examining the claim made by JzG that everything should be verified and of course film plots have no such verifiable secondary sources. Of course, that is more absurd than getting highly strung about a runtime (which, of course, is as easily observable as a film plot). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am prepared to overlook AussieLegend's deliberate violation of WP:V, his wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like, and his transparent attempts to trap Tenebrae into a violation he could report. I'm even prepared - for now to hold off requesting a community sanction forbidding AussieLegend from adding unsourced runtimes. I'm prepared to overlook this because they are both behaving like children, and although blocking them both would be temporarily satisfying I am not convinced that it would be anything other than retaliatory by now. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Agree. But if you close this report, please try to do so in a final way that will keep the same dispute from showing up at other articles. Warning one or both editors that they might be blocked if they continue is one option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This has become absolutely ridiculous. I made no "deliberate violation of WP:V" as claimed by Guy. That's crap. To go back to evidence that I've already presented, because people are seemingly ignoring it:

• Tenebrae started an RfC asking effectively "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves".
• Guy closed the RfC stating Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. This caused confusion so he clarified that in a subsequent post.
• The clarification stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. Nowhere does the close say that citations have to be included. In fact Guy's clarification specifically states that his close only applies to the use of OR.
• The final sentence in the closer's clarification sums up the close well: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. In other words, nothing changed. The requirement to cite runtimes was not added.
• Despite what seems clear wording, Tenebrae was reverting changes by an IP saying in his edit summaries "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited". However, as indicated by Guy's clarification, the RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used, and the template documentation only says what it says because Tenebrae added it to the documentation. Well, actually it doesn't say that any more. The requirement to cite was removed later and the documentation now only says "Reliable source required", which Tenebrae clearly agrees with. Because somebody will no doubt fail to check the edit history I will point out that my edit immediately prior to his was a simple formatting change for consistency, which Tenebrae reverted in his edit.
• It was because of this clear misrepresentation of the stated outcome of the RfC that I reverted Tenebrae, not as a wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like. That claim by Guy is also rubbish. We have had lengthy discussions about this, resulting in this "compromise" series of changes to the documentation: That being the case Guy has no basis on which to claim that my actions were wilful.

I am not sure why I am being targeted by Guy here. I wasn't the only one to revert Tenebrae. There were at least two other editors who did so. It seems a bit of a vendetta, simply because I opened this report. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm loathe to respond to this litany, with its spectacularly annoying green typeface, I need to respond to claims that an admin and I both somehow misinterpreted the admin's own conclusion and that only this editor interprets it correctly. RE: "The RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used." First, WP:VERIFY applies to all circumstances of quantitative claims. A close doesn't have to tell us to follow a core policy. We just follow core policies. Second If OR is "not ... used", then ipso facto, one is citing one's claims: If one can't or won't say where a claim is coming from, then it's coming from oneself. That's OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So WP:V doesn't apply to qualitative claims all of a sudden? Where do you get that idea? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I said that?? We're talking about running times. Running time are quantitative. This reads as if you're trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters by bringing in tangential, unrelated topics. We are only talking about running times.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Backwaters reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: before anything happened

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, but I had warned him to stop per WP:COI and WP:BLPN, no single attempt to discuss

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Chris_Pitman; User talk:Backwaters; and WP:BLPN#Chris Pitman

Comments:

It's enough. I'm quite sure Backwaters is Pitman himself, or at least he knows him personally. But this Misplaced Pages article doesn't belong to him. The article is greatly unsourced, but replace it with even more unsourced content is not OK, as is edit-warring rather than to discuss it. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Warned This will do for now. Further disruption may warrant a block — MusikAnimal 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Backwaters was only correcting a long unverified and unreliable source used: http://www.mygnr.com/members/chris.html

 This is not edit warring,  but edit correcting with proper and verified information.
 Misplaced Pages:Reasons for deletion states:
6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopediaBackwaters (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Backwaters (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zippy268 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:)

Page

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

User reported

Zippy268 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version reverted to: 3 January: someone removed "particularly from diet" from the first sentence.

• 1st revert: 03:18, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
• 2nd revert: 03:25, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
• 3rd revert: 03:35, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"

• Edit: 05:01, 7 January: added citation tag after "particularly in diet"

• 4th revert: 05:26, 7 January: restored citation tag after "particularly in diet"

• Edit: 07:45, 7 January: added NPOV tag

• 5th revert: 12:16, 8 January: restored NPOV tag

Comments

Zippy268 is a new account and has said he is a returning user. He may also be Tha1uw4nt, who began this series of edits in December to prioritize the definition of veganism adopted by the British Vegan Society.

The issue is that lots of vegans (probably most) are dietary vegans only. They don't eat animal products, but they may still wear leather shoes, and so on. Ethical vegans go further and oppose all animal use. Ethical vegans often argue that dietary vegans aren't really vegans, and they arrive occasionally at the article to force their definition into the lead. That's what's happening here.

Zippy268 was warned at 03:28, 7 January about the edit-warring policy and about 3RR, and again at 20:42, 7 January. SarahSV 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that I may be Tha1uw4nt is completely unfounded. The issue in question is also being misrepresented by SarahSV Zippy268 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah has described the problem accurately and without bias. I support a block on Zippy268 because he has not only edit warred after being warned multiple times, he has also engaged in IDHT behavior in every user and article talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bruskom reported by User:Samak (Result: no violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Hi, Please see in my opinion the talk page's Bruskom. Urmia lake is located in West Azerbaijan in Iranian Azerbaijan region, Iran and this user write this lake for region of Kurdistan..please consider itSamək 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Katie 11:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Madaya, Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. (removal of the same content including reference to CNN)

3RR warning:

I was not involved in the dispute. Axxion conducted edit war with other users without any talking .

Comments:
Axxion continued edit warring (5th revert) even after receiving a 3RR warning from me .

There are community sanctions in this subject area. They tell: "reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." This is a clear 3RR violation, "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The situation is partly misrepresented by the disguised editor (administrator) above: my deletion (twice such as this) of my own text (it had been me who had put it there in the first place) sourced by CNN article (should I cross myself while typing it?) was due to a sheer duplication of this bit: it was still there, at the top of the section. Other sources are referencing Twitter. Is it RS now? So what is written above is part misrepresentation (through overlooking, i suppose), part misinterpretation. The real problem is that the article continues to be vandalised by IPs as evidenced by the latest blankings, etc. It should be semi-protected, like all other Syria-related ones.Axxxion (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Axxxion: What "disguised (administrator) above"? My very best wishes is not an administrator. For the moment, all I've done is place a sanctions notice on the Talk page and notify TheWikiManRules, a new user, of the sanctions. Axxxion was notified in December 2015, although the notification wasn't done with the proper template or recorded at WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Still, I don't think they can reasonably say they were unaware of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I find the whole discussion misguided, if not farcical: Is our purpose to create good articles, or be continuously engaged in meaningless squabbles? It is quite clear that for the sake of the former, the article needs protection. As for " My very best wishes", I honestly do not know what this creature is. Another feature of meaningless overzealous policing of the WP: it has become too complicated to navigate: one needs to hire a specialised lawyer to suss things out.Axxxion (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't call another editor a "creature"; it's absolutely offensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The revert war was being continued by IPs, so I've imposed semiprotection. Will leave this report open for more comments. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Axxxion and User:TheWikiManRules are both warned for 1RR violation. This should not continue. See WP:GS/SCW. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Samak reported by User:Bruskom (Result: no violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2

Hi, please look carefully reverts by Samak. Urmia lake is located in historical geographical Kurdistan region, Iran and this user delete all of articles.. Please block it Bruskom 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Katie 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Labattblueboy reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: no violation )

Page

South of the Border (attraction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Here's a brief overview of what I found so far, and I only went back as far as June before I quit. Yowza. Well, if this helps anyone, here you go. Sorry it's not formatted properly. Jm (talk | contribs) 05:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

11:56 5 June -- del - 96.253.26.19 Removed a personal opinion from the description.

12:01 5 June -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably racist" -- see talk page. comments cited

04:31 26 June -- chg - 104.61.153.65 from "arguably racist" to "arguably offensive" -- Mexican isn't a race. It's a nationality.

05:34 20 July -- del - 71.121.136.187

15:28 29 July -- add - Labattblueboy return "an arguably offensive"

19:55 31 July -- del - 107.14.49.1

17:22 3 August -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably offensive" - per sources

14:22 22 August -- chg - Erielhonan changed "arguably offensive" to "offensive" - "removed unnecessary adjective"

17:50 31 August -- del - 198.252.245.194 changed "offensive" to "non-offensive" then deleted

05:47 1 September -- add - Labattblueboy Reverted edits to last version by Erielhonan

23:57 7 September -- del - 71.70.167.48

09:12 8 September -- add - Labattblueboy "offensive"

03:10 12 September -- del - 66.87.143.225 Fixed wording

09:26 12 September -- add - Labattblueboy added with change to "arguably offensive"

15:35 16 September -- chg - Econ48 - changed to "politically incorrect"

15:45 11 october -- del - Old Naval Rooftops

16:23 11 october -- add - Labattblueboy

00:30 19 october -- del - 98.225.173.217

07:38 19 october -- add - Labattblueboy "see cited sources"

05:49 7 december -- del - 104.10.137.189 "removed an opinion from the text"

07:25 8 december -- add - Labattblueboy "statement is well cited"

15:36 6 january -- del - 84.186.113.219 mobile edit

13:18 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy revert

16:12 8 january -- del - CombatWombat42 undid rev. - wp:pov

19:29 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy undid

22:24 8 january -- COMBAT WOMBAT MAKES AN3 REPORT

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Actually, you didn't provide any diffs or links at all. Please follow the instructions if/when you make future reports. Katie 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gen Fed reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenFed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=697098924&oldid=695762822

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698952399&oldid=698951835
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698951508&oldid=698937810
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&type=revision&diff=698935380&oldid=698906694
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698906539&oldid=698851052

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698953578&oldid=698942039

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698642043&oldid=698586991
also https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698657544&oldid=698656301

Comments:

See also the histories of Equipment of the Malaysian Army, Royal Malaysian Air Force, Royal Malaysian Navy, SME Ordnance and DefTech. This is a fully committed PoV warrior who is wholly closed to discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF reported by User:166.171.185.208 (Result: )

Page: List of Kamen Rider Drive characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Kamen_Rider_Drive_characters&diff=698920855&oldid=698814136

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF&oldid=698959603

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Note: I am the IP editor 166.* - the following edits are mine: 166.171.185.208 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SupernovaeIA and User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: )

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1 (maybe wrong)

Diffs of the user's reverts (SupernovaeIA):

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

Diffs of the user's reverts (Suitcivil133):

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

These are just some of the most recent diffs. The dispute seems to go back at least three weeks.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: SupernovaeIA & Suitcivil133

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The personal dispute between these two editors dates back at least a year, see this rather distasteful comment from December 2014. With comments like this one, or this AIV report, to say nothing of edit summaries of the edits linked above, it's clear that neither of these editors is capable of engaging in discussion without accusing the other of misconduct. As such, I propose that the page be protected and both users blocked so that calmer heads may sort this mess out. Its worth noting that both editors have previous warnings for edit warring in other incidents. SupernovaeIA has a previous block for edit warring. Finally, a third editor involved in this dispute User:Alexiulian25 has been blocked indefinitely, mostly for behaviours unrelated to this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the very lengthy statement. However you seem to fail to see what the consensus was for that particular article. I was simply restoring it to the accepted consensus version. If you trace back the archives of this article's talk, you will easily find what went on. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is with all due respect a Nepali sock puppet who is using several usernames and a IP originating from Nepal. He is identical to the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323". At least his disruptive edits are that. This individual is removing sourced material at will due to his bias. It obvious that he is a biased Real Madrid fan hellbent on disrupting data/information about FC Barcelona.

He is disrupting the consensus in the "Football records in Spain" page which has been upheld for years. Now he is removing sourced material and the reference that I have added directly from FIFA.com (highest football authority in the world) which confirms that the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup is recognized by FIFA as a major football honor. Moreover UEFA themselves recognizes it as the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA cup. In order for a trophy to be recognized as official in the "football records in Spain" page, RFEF, UEFA or FIFA has to recognize the trophy as official. In the case of the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup FIFA recognizes this trophy thus it must be included. Organizations such as the RSSSF and Association of Football Statisticians also recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup.

http://es.fifa.com/news/y=2009/m=3/news=-1040575.html

If FIFA did not recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup, why have they recognized the trophy as such? It's worth noticing that the key people behind the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup were members of FIFA. This dispute has prompted me to contact FIFA about this issue and I am 100% sure that they will confirm my stance, namely that FIFA does recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup as an official major honor just as the same UEFA recognizes it to be the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup. The only difference being that UEFA did not organize the trophy. If they had done so it would have been recognized by UEFA too.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is no doubt a sockpuppet of many other Spanish catalonia based users. She has been trolling the article for months now and reverting the consensus version. The way she talks is a complete WP:Attack on other users. The references provided have been in the article for a long time and supports the consensus version bot a pro barca vandals version.SupernovaeIA (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I semi-protected the article yesterday and today I discovered the edit-warring with over five reverts from each side. Now I fully protected the article (for a week, down from two weeks semi), and I recommend that both users be blocked for edit-warring and 3RR violation since both of them believe edit-warring to be a legitimate means of resolution of this content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:24.24.152.100 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Affluent was there several months ago...not sure why it's been removed?"
2. 18:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 08:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Stop changing!"
4. 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring to add "affluent" to the lead as a description of a neighbourhood that judging by all official statistics isn't affluent... Thomas.W 18:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie 19:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:108.26.39.208 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Semi)

Page: Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.39.208 (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: Not really much to discuss on the talkpage, POV warrior complaining about a tangential topic, no response on their talkpage to my warning on NPOV (previous edit, since the diff link works for the second edit).

Comments:

Straight-up edit-warring over a couple of days to insert editorial commentary on a topic tangential to the main topic. At least in the form its been inserted, it wouldn't stand up in the main Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge either. I've reverted twice, so I'll take no administrative action. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jaccy Jaydy reported by User:William Avery (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Jaccy Jaydy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "You can "support" the 4-th International via some other method (not rollback, new materials). Note: If Trotsky was very clever man - he could understand ideas of Marx on high level (not interpritation)."
2. 22:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "You have no other arguments, only vandalism against relevant materials. And war of edits. Reminder: Misplaced Pages is not the Fourth International under mass murderer Leon Trotsky. Read article about this man. Rivers of blood."
3. 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Vandalism. One vandal uses support of other (nothing more). "This user is a Socialist." (supporter). Nobody will block me. Because I have no blame. Even id.ot understands aims of vandals (defend Marxism instead facts and high opinion). & the 4-th Inter.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Marxism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• They violate the rules of Misplaced Pages. My main reply: "Misplaced Pages is not the Fourth International under Leon Trotsky !" I ask you use the common sense. I have no blame. Their aim: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:RolandR :

"This user identifies as a Marxist." "This user is a supporter of the Fourth International" (under sadly known marxist Leon Trotsky). RonaldR has very great right be blocked. Is not about me. Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )

Page: Karait (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YuHuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 94.159.177.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:34, 8 January 2016 by 94.159.177.65 (Undid revision 698738846 by Неполканов (talk) vandalism)
2. 11:00, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698961396 by Неполканов (talk) restoring sourced citations)
3. 12:05, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698970785 by Неполканов (talk) please do not make this into an edit war. Discuss the citations in Talk if you have a problem with them.)
4. 06:30, 10 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 699057357 by Toddy1 (talk) a lot of work went into that please take your issue to discussion)

YuHuw admits to being the same editor as 94.159.177.65 here:

• edit by 94.159.177.65 comment on talk page
• edit by YuHuw signing the above comment with edit summary "I made myself an account"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karait -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Toddy1 has only linked to the entire talk page, rather than give a specific diff. This diff is their only edit to that page as of now. Edit summary: "This is just another one of Kaz's POV forks". See WP:Casting aspersions. You have no evidence that this is the blocked user Kaz, and have not attempted to resolve the dispute on that talk page. I find accusations that this new editor is engaging in "vandalism" another distasteful casting of aspersions. Difference in point-of-view, sure, vandalism, no. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:. I have not accused YuHuw of vandalism. In the list of diffs, I listed one for

Not having ever encountered the user before, I thought that the blanking of that article was simply an act of vandalism which needed reverting but I did explain my mis-assumption in the relevant talk page after that and the misunderstanding was overcome. (see my new para 3 here ) Although that User with a non-English Username (who originally blanked that page) is not here now, I would apologize to the User a second time for my mis-assumption if he wanted it, it was an honest mistake as I did not think he was a real editor at that time. YuHuw (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

He/she was not blanking the page. The page was originally a redirect. On 31 December 2015 the redirect was turned into an article by 31.154.167.98. Some people had/have a concern that the article was/is a WP:Content fork. This view has been expressed both in edit summaries, and on the talk page. The revert by @Неполканов: that YuHuw called "blanking" had an edit summary that explained the reasons for the revert, and that the revert was back to the version of 2008.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway I believe the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding between us and was resolved amicably on the talk page as has been demonstrated. YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask anyone who knows, are my comments below in the wrong place? YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I also ask if anyone here recognizes this IP address? 202.9.41.173 It looks like a WP:DUCK from User:Ancientsteppe and User:Toghuchar . YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I can see I have been named here although it seems a bit jargonistic to me. I will try to understand what is going on as until recently I have not really done much more than read and make spelling corrections on wikipedia. I come in peace! :) YuHuw (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I think there is a bit of bad faith about me being assumed by the User:Toddy1 here. First of all I was very polite to Неполканов both in the edit history and on the Talk:Karait page , . Although I perceived some disruptive editing and called for mediation and I have to confess I didn't understand every point he made and as it seems English is not his first language although he does very well and things were resolved. I made sure each point he made was acted upon as you can see , , and and also expressed my respect for his knowledge on Jewish topics and hoped we could work together in future projects .

As soon as we had reached a consensus and resolved all issues, along came the user who has posted this complaint, and reverted everything perhaps overlooking by accident our discussions. Instead he has assumed bad faith about me and called me "Kaz" or "Kazimir" over and again , , , , , , despite my requests for him to stop doing so , , . Looking through his history, it seems I am not the only person he does this to, but apparently to everyone who presents a different view to his own on the Crimean Karaites (in this case I think i upset him by distinguishing Crimea from Ukraine ).

I have asked for discussion with the user but I was ignored and mocked instead .

I really have done the best I could think of to avoid conflict and resolve issues through discussion, but the User sees simply prejudiced against me. I would very much welcome any kind of mediation to resolve things between us so that we can both enjoy editing wikipedia in peace. YuHuw (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

70% of article deleted by Yuhuw. It is obvious vandalism: . Yuhuw is sockpuppet of hongirid and kaz. Their edits are very similar: , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016

User:L435534l reported by User:Noq (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

L435534l (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699157131 by Noq (talk)"
2. 16:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699155726 by B m d (talk)"
3. 16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699154331 by B m d (talk)"
4. 15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699145107 by B m d (talk)"
5. 15:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144879 by B m d (talk)"
6. 15:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144597 by B m d (talk)"
7. 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144443 by B m d (talk)"
8. 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144233 by B m d (talk)"
9. 15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144034 by B m d (talk)"
10. 15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699143536 by B m d (talk)"
11. 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699142937 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
12. 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699140096 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
13. 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699138485 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
14. Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699101840 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
    2. 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699101144 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
15. 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698986842 by 120.62.194.191 (talk) ... Hindi and Bhojpuri language and culture did not do anything for Jamshedpur. Bengalis and Bengali culture established Jamshedpur."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jamshedpur‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Kanbei85 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:Blocked 60 h)

Page

Colin Patterson (biologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kanbei85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring inappropriately removed resource link. Undid revision 699173006 by Farsight001 (talk)"
2. 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "This reference was censored by a biased editor-- restored. Why they would allow ARN but disallow CMI is unknown."
3. 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699057980 by Pepperbeast (talk)"
4. 20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Added relevant reference , one word changed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked before for edit warring (hm, hadn't noticed that was by me), also edit warring at Creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calling editors "dishonest" in edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently freedom of speech doesn't apply to editor's summaries of why they make changes here on Misplaced Pages. Editors who censor people and apply double standards to what types of citations are allowed in articles are most certainly dishonest. Accusing someone of edit warring for simply attempting to keep a legitimate edit from being overrun by a mob of trolls who can give no good/truthful reasons for why they are reverting my edits is ALSO dishonest. In short, if you wish to exert the power of censorship to maintain the status quo of massively biased articles here on Misplaced Pages (at least when it pertains to creationism and other similarly-controversial topics), then obviously there's nothing I can do to stop you. But that won't change the facts, nor will it change the fact that you are assuming personal responsibility for part of why Misplaced Pages is giving such a twisted and unbalanced perspective in so many places. My edits have all been legitimate.

Kanbei85 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

Result: User blocked for 60h. They were previously blocked for edit warring and do not seem to acknowledge that their five reverts is not an optimal way of operation.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:184.100.184.73, User:184.100.252.129 reported by User:MaxBrowne (Result: )

Page: United States Chess Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.100.184.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 184.100.252.129 (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:IP editor just reverts without discussing. Semi-protection requested. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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