Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 9 August 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:Yaysmay15 reported by User:TagaSanPedroAko (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2013 in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yaysmay15 (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:
The article 2013 in the Philippines is subject to edit-warring by Yaysmay15 repeatedly because of reverting removals of non-notable, redundant, routine, and "over-hyped" events. Hariboneagle927 keeps on reverting Yaysmay15's edits, but one reverted, he reverts them again. Hariboneagle927 even warned him on this diff, but still continued to come back reverting his removals, as in this diff.

Yaysmay15 has also other edit-warring cases, mostly on years in the Philippines articles, like 2014 in the Philippines articles. But no one reported that user for edit-warring with other users on those articles.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I attest to this. I've been warning the user and asked the user to explain his edits but did not listen to such request after all or don't even bother to comment in anyway where I could have any hint on their position on their edits. I can only guess why they keep on insisting on reverting problematic edits, that they want to include any widely-covered events nationally (in the Philippines), no matter how it is WP:ROUTINE or overhyped silly season (such as the case of the "mystery death" of Nicole Ella during the New Year's Eve; which is caused by a stray bullet and its not uncommon to have stray-bullet deaths in the country during this period.)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as His edits are primarily targeted on "XXXX in the Philippines " articles, and the user doesn't even place edit summaries to explain the edits, and the events he has been adding/re-adding, once reverted, is beyond the consensus of the Tambayan Philippines community that events in XXXX in the Philippines articles should be notable enough or not routine. User:Hariboneagle927 is very serious about this matter, but Yaysmay15 would not listen to any warning by other users, like him. He has been edit-warring with Hariboneagle927 and seems to be reverting his edits in violation of WP:3RR, and seems to be making "XXXX in the Philippines" articles a summary of nationally-covered events, whether routine or non-notable (in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTABLE). I suppose Yaysmay15 should be blocked for a week or a month to stop those editing behaviors, that seems to violate those mentioned policies.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Although the user has been temporarily blocked for 48 hours which I assume is related to this case. A new user with a similar name has continued to make similar edits. Yays Falcunitin which has a strikingly similar name to blocked user, Vince daryl falcunitin who has a similar editing history. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vince daryl falcunitin.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Yaysmay15 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Vanjagenije for sockpuppetry. Two other accounta, User:Yays Falcunitin and User:Vince daryl falcunitin, have been indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:92.0.27.29 reported by User:71.35.131.7 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.0.27.29 (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:

He is putting a false claim on Misplaced Pages. This is the false claim: The city is divided into two zones, where the main portion forms part of Galmudug state, the Suusacley (Israac) district is governed by the Puntland administration.

The source he provided was checked and it did not contain his claim. He is putting false information on Misplaced Pages.

References

1. Abdul Latif Dahir, Suleiman Abdullahi (3 April 2011). "Galkayo: A peaceful island in Somalia". Africa Review. Retrieved 9 June 2013.
2. "Somalia: Puntland businessman elected new Galkayo mayor". Garowe Online. 27 August 2009. Retrieved 9 June 2013.

• Page protected Both IPs warned before I saw this report. NeilN 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Mauro Lanari reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Stale)

Page: Red pill and blue pill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mauro Lanari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reinserting content after removal no. 1
2. no. 2
3. no. 3
4. no. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Mauro Lanari has also been inserting this content on The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) and attempting to edit war for it to remain there. Pinging Gothicfilm and Grayfell, who have been dealing with this editor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Stale and seems to be a non-issue now. Conversation occurred and agreement was reached. Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:HyeSK reported by User:Class455fan1 (Result: HyeSK is warned per another report)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 8 August 2016
2. 8 August 2016
3. 15:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted back to Western Armenian. I have also had another agree with me on this change and I backed it with solid arguments."
4. 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Changed back to Western Armenian"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three revert rule on Yerevan. (TW)
2. 16:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yerevan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Still edit warring with different users despite being previously warned without reaching a consensus with other users (even though he claims one person agrees with him).This time, it's on Yerevan. It's clear to see that this user hasn't learned from his previous warning, therefore he's being reported again. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a claim, wiseguy. Look in the edit history and you will see a user clearly telling Yerevantsi he agrees with me. HyeSK (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK

HyeSK is a single-purpose user. His response to my calls to discuss the matter in the talk page was: "I will be reverting them back". He should be blocked for edit-warring. His editing is simply disruptive. --Երևանցի 08:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not at all a single purpose user. I am here to put in place the truth and to improve Misplaced Pages. One of those improvements involves providing information to increase knowledge, specifically on Armenian articles. Armenian includes two primary dialects of Eastern and Western Armenian. Pages referring only to one dialect as "Armenian" are misleading, as that portrays only one dialect as the sole dialect of the language. If we are here to improve Misplaced Pages, denying this fact only hinders that cause. HyeSK (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK

@HyeSK: This is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You have to work together with other editors in a civil fashion. _Muffled 09:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Forgive me, but how is me stating their are two major dialects "RIGHTGREATWRONGS"? It's simply a fact.HyeSK (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're here to improve Misplaced Pages, why don't you stop edit warring and bring this dispute to a talk page. Even though there is one, you're still edit warring! You have to realise edit warring is highly disruptive and because you continue to do so, you find yourself being brought here again, HyeSK. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The one edit warring is the one who reverted my edits. Yerevantsi was warned about edit warring a month ago for the same reverts. The information I added only adds to the quality of the article. I have added this to the talk page on Yerevan's article:

Armenian language The Armenian language has two primary dialects - Eastern and Western. Eastern Armenian is spoken primarily in Armenia, Russia, Georgia, and Iran. The other major populations of Armenians around the world are speakers of the Western dialect. These nations include the U.S., France, UK, Germany, Brasil, and Argentina among many others. In the current day and age, the two dialects use different spellings for various words, and many times completely different words for the same topic. Eastern Armenian has been highly permeated by the Russian language while Western Armenian and Krapar (Classic Armenian) have not. Also, the Eastern Armenian alphabet has been modified at various times under Russian and Soviet rule, with various letters being modified or completely removed to "Russify" the language.

I, on various wikipages, have added the Western Armenian spelling to the pages, as it is relevant to proper understanding of the Armenian language. Listing only one dialect (Eastern) as the language Armenian (hy) is dishonest and disingenuous. It provides an incorrect understanding of the language. My edits are providing a greater understanding - is this not what we are all here to do?

The arguments from two wikiusers are that Western Armenian is not the official language of Armenia (neither is Eastern Armenian - Armenian is the official language) or that Eastern is more widely spoken (which is in fact false). Since when do either of these reasons negate the relevance of a language? And, since when do false arguments hold weight? HyeSK (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeSK (talk • contribs)

This user had no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. Instead of reaching a consensus on the talk page he prefers edit warring. He has one mission here: to make Western Armenian relevant in places where it isn't. Furthermore, he does not seem to be competent in the matter as he confuses different spellings of Armenian with its standardizes forms/dialects. --Երևանցի 09:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yerevansti - It is clear you do not have a solid grasp of the Armenian language or it's history. There are two (2) standardized forms of the Armenian language - Western and Eastern. This is a fact which anyone is able to easily find. Your arguments are false and have no weight. And, how is Western Armenian "not relevant" when writing in forms of the Armenian language? Please, explain this. I have entered a section in on the talk page of the article, which is posted above.HyeSK (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK

And you don't seem to understand that Երեւան is not the "Western Armenian spelling" but the spelling in the classical/traditional orthography. Iranian Armenians speak Eastern Armenian, but use the aforementioned spelling. Is it really that hard to understand that Western Armenian ≠ classical spelling. --Երևանցի 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:HyeSK has been warned by User:NeilN per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:50.183.99.254 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Bexar County, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733430500 by Feinoha (talk)"
2. 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733429640 by Gus Polly (talk)"
3. 19:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733425957 by Gus Polly (talk)"
4. 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733023915 by Gus Polly (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bexar County, Texas. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing the pronunciation of this without discussion. Has been both asked to discuss and warned. Feinoha 19:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Simple 3RR, was warned. Likely long term editing warring as well. Kuru (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon reported by User:HyeSK (Result: Filer Warned)

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

• Likely WP:BOOMERANG here, I've already reported the filer for edit warring and he's reported the user reverting his edits here. I don't see any violation here. Class455fan1 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• HyeSK, take note. NeilN 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Warned NeilN 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Hebel reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)

Page: List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hebel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

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

It would seem that's one to many by me and also by Xavier Green himself. I get the impression that Xavier is editing the article about related issues while a discussion about these related matters is going on without and before consensus or closure to the argument in progress. It seems to me he should wait for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually I haven't made any edits to change the page against consensus at all, my reverts of your edits were to restore the page to the status quo on two matters on which there was no consensus to change based on the current ongoing discussion involving those matters on the talk page. In actuality, it is you who have flaunted the dispute resolution process and have made edits contrary to the ongoing discussion on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I self reverted for the moment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

.XavierGreen, I wasn't talking about your revert of my edits but of Ladril's edit. He however has since indicated that he doesn't seem to feel that's a problem. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's discuss this here. --Yukterez (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not here User:Yukterez but here. You are in the wrong place. This is another matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hebel: You are formally warned to not edit war again. If you feel another editor is not listening nor adhering to consensus, make a formal report at WP:ANI and let an uninvolved administrator take a look; please, don't use the mainspace as a battleground. If you hadn't had self-reverted, and happened to have a clean block record, you would have been blocked as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:198.200.64.245 reported by User:PGWG (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yuliya Yefimova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
2. 15:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
3. 15:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 Olympics controversy */"
4. 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 Olympics controversy */"
5. 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
6. 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"
2. 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"
3. 15:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping controversy */ new section"

Comments:

Initially looked like simple vandalism/using main article as a talk page/soapbox, however continues to add the same material despite reversion from a number of editors. PGWG (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked Blocked for vandalism by Widr NeilN 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ajax1995 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

Page

Kanye West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ajax1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• Please note: Reverts 1 and 2 occurred after edit-warring user was warned about this report.

1. 17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "(Almost 200, 000 bites to explain a bunch of irrelevant facts, The Beatles article has much less content that this, filled up with 6 million quotes. Misplaced Pages is not his Diary Book)"
2. 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Misplaced Pages no needs for that kind of improperly content, that nothing adds to an ENCYCLOPEDIA, we are not his fan site or the Kanye West Official Website, the removed content are fan TRIVIA, Stop!)"
3. 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "What's wrong with this guy, please, build your own Kanye West fan site, you can add all those twitter feuds, misogynist offenses, non-sense behaviours and all of that USELESS content."
4. 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Stop your SARCASTIC behaviour and stop your irresponsible editings. I do not have the enough free time to revert again and again such irresponsible editions by this kind of person. Build your own West fan site. Stop vandalism an Encyclopedia"
5. 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Basta, Stop relocating this oversourced bad content "I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector." "Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" it is ANNOYING"
6. 15:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision by this person, STOP vandalizing and relocating UNENCYCLOPEDIC, IMPROPERLY, BAD WRITING, REDUNDANT AND FANDOM CONTENT! WHICH which noboy cares but you!"
7. Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) to 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverting addition of stupid content by some jerk fan, "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" Stop adding this kind of shit! Misplaced Pages in not your fan site"
   2. 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverting addition of stupid content by some jerk fan, "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" Stop adding this kind of shit! Misplaced Pages in not your fan site"
   3. 14:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Trim the associated acts, not according to Misplaced Pages´s policy"
   4. 14:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "More stupid content added by this West fan"
   5. 14:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Improperly/fan content in the Lead / excessive detail"
   6. 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "This article is filled up with irrelevant /peacock quotes, please add this chit chat to your West fan page or Wikiquote, SERIOUSLY"
   7. 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "And again this guy oversourcing this RIDICULOUS AND IMPROPERLY content "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/ Why? I made that bitch famous.""
   8. 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "This article needs a detailed clean up, it is filled up "AD NAUSEAM". Misplaced Pages is a serious online Encyclopedia, formal content, competent administrators. no need for this shameful "sourced" stuff"
   9. 14:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Shameful Never-ending Twitter feuds, which nobody cares but the fandom. Intricate detail for a single fact. OVERSOURCING/OVERDETAILING multiple irrelevant felony charges"
   10. 15:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "STOP! relocating this NON-SENSES "I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector.""
   11. 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "UNACCEPTABLE in Misplaced Pages. Advertising, promotional chit chat. My new high-top boots line has a glow in the dark sole....... blah, blah, blah.....This is already becoming ridiculous."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning
• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated mass removals of sourced content. Massive edit-warring. Attacking edit-summaries. Will not stop. Dr. K. 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes to the above, I've directed the user to the Talk page several times to no avail. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to report both users myself - Both users have taken up the entire history with this pathetic warring, Both users have been here since 2011 and 2012 respectively so therefore should know better and should know edit summaries don't count as a talkpage!, Both haven't discussed it at all and therefore should be blocked. –Davey2010 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I was thinking about that point myself but then I chose not to report the second user since s/he was restoring a large chunk of the article. But now I see s/he continued reverting even after this report. It doesn't look good but on the talkpage of the article s/he seems to indicate that s/he doesn't want to revert alone any longer. Dr. K. 17:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• To be totally honest Ajax was Bold, He was Reverted and so he should've then Discussed the issue so on a technicality Ajax is at fault however they both edit warred and therefore are as bad as each other, Personally regardless of whether "they said they'll stop" they should be blocked anyway as they've actually taken up 2 pages of wars but that's just my honest opinion. –Davey2010 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm simply reverting sourced content that's continually being removed, there's nothing contentious about that. I'm not sure why I'd be at fault for it. It'd be nice to have some help protecting the page, is all. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No. If it is not clear vandalism there is no exemption under the 3RR rule. By continuing the edit-war you risk getting blocked. Dr. K. 17:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected It was either blocks for both editors or page protection. I chose page protection. Further edit warring after protection expires will likely result in blocks. Uninvolved editors keeping an eye on the article and helping to settle disputes or achieve consensus would be appreciated. NeilN 18:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: From what I've seen of Ajax1995's history, he is keen on removing things on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis and then edit warring over it. He SHOUTS and generally comes across as unpleasant. All of that needs to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at more of Ajax1995's edits, I don't think it would be unfair to label his editing as WP:Disruptive. He removes some trivia, yes, but he also commonly removes important information and/or leaves parts of an article incoherent. And he will then get defensive about it if you challenge him on it, and we then have something like the edit war you see above. If more than one person reverts him, he is likelier to stop. Once he's done being disruptive at one article, he quickly moves on to the next. I do not think it will be long before this editor is blocked, indefinitely or otherwise. He does not have a good understanding of how this site works. And, NeilN, in addition to what you stated to him about less problematic edit summaries, he clearly needs to extend that to the subjects of the article, if this and this edit summary are any indication. If one is putting themselves out there as protecting our BLPs, they should not be badmouthing the BLPs in the edit summaries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

All good points. I've reinforced them on Ajax1995's talk page. --NeilN 02:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Blakegripling ph reported by 81.151.100.70 (Result: Nominator blocked as a ban-evading sock )

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

All within the space of ten minutes.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

With this edit user restored another editor's edit to a talk page:

With this edit user removed another editor's edit from a talk page:. This is a prohibited operation. 81.151.100.70 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ismadeby reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page

Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Misplaced Pages prefers rectangles over squares for Infobox images. Learn to crop."
2. 02:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 14:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ customize"
3. 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
4. 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
5. 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
6. 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is also editing disruptively by adding bogus warning templates at my own talk page. Diffs here , , . Not only is he verbatim copying the warnings and comment additions to the warnings I have left at his talk page, one of his edit summaries at my talk page stated, "Lets see who gets blocked". This editor was formerly editing disruptively under the username Misplaced Pages-Translator. Pinging Template:U:NeilN who is familiar with the issues at the article regarding the infobox photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, Winkelvi was trying to ping you:) DMacks (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

See next item for the opposite report. Even here on an admin board regarding his disruption, Ismadeby can't help but continue to be disruptive in relation to Winkelvi, apparently trying to give his later report greater prominence/precedence/priority. And then edit-warring to keep it there (against page instructions for ordering). DMacks (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

...twice. And deleting this preceding comment of mine (thanks for noticing, User:Laser brain!). DMacks (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And see these apparent revenge reverts. clpo13_(talk) 15:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would give Ismadeby a good long block for disruptive editing. As they commented in a discussion I started, I will not do so myself. --NeilN 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User: Ismadeby (Result: )

Page: Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User using the word "bullshit" as summary for his removal of edit war warnings:

Comments:

It seems pretty clear to me that in this particular case, WV is up against a returning troll who likes to push WV's buttons. What I don't undertand is, after 5-6 previous edit warring blocks, why the hell can't WV resist edit warring when provoked? I think an appropriate action for Ismadeby is an indef block as a troublemaking sock. I just don't know what an appropriate action for WV is: no action because he's being provoked by a sock? 1 month block for edit warring after 5 previous blocks for same? Somewhere in between? Indef block? A lifetime 0RR restriction, no matter whether it's a sock he's reverting or not? What will it take for WV to stop reverting everything all the time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting block evasion technically falls under WP:NOT3RR, but he really needs to start reporting obvious socks to WP:AIV and WP:SPI from now on. @Winkelvi:, when did you figure out that it was Misplaced Pages-Translator? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:206.167.168.128 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: )

Page

Scion tC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733692394 by Sro23 (talk)did you prove it, just because you are a clique of few ignorant editors doesnt change the faact Toyota rebadged the Celica as a tC."
2. 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733689328 by Stepho-wrs (talk) the proof is in my driveway. on the chassis label which states the plant of Tsutsumi which is the same plant as the Celica."
3. 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733682968 by Sro23 (talk) BECAUSE IT IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CELICA, but ignorant masses cant grasp the fact Toyota pulled a fast one on them"
4. 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "ill keep changing it , because it is a CHEAPENED TOYOTA CELICA. To all the morons (Stepho especially) just because you are in love with your old Celica doesnt mean Toyota stopped making it, they just found a way to make more money of ignorant masses"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ new section"
2. 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite being reverted by more than one editor, 206.167.168.128 has refused to stop their disruptive edit warring to Scion tC. I believe 24.114.92.193 is the same person, so that's even more reverts. On their talk page, they blatantly disregarded my warning about edit warring and request they stop. I know there's currently a discussion on the article's talk page, but something tells me it won't lead to any progress:, . Sro23 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And another revert. Their contributions to the talk page consist mainly of WP:OR and insults. clpo13_(talk) 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman reported by User:Anythingyouwant (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=733558622

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=733716031 17:36, 9 August (restored huge amount of material per edit summary)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=733581444 20:19, 8 August (removed the word “degree” per edit summary)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=733568899 18:35, 8 August (removed “of the Wharton School” per edit summary)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=733558622 18:25, 8 August (removed footnote per edit summary)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:DrFleischman&oldid=733725794#1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733718625&oldid=733718353 (re. diff number one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733581818&oldid=733581295 (re. diff number three)

Comments:

Please note that 1RR applies at this article per discretionary sanctions. According to WP:3RR, a revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why I and other editors have been avoiding the kind of edits like the four listed above. I don't think DrFleischman is a bad editor, but this is just a matter of fairness so everyone edits by the same rules. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," is it only referring to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history? If so, why doesn't the rule say that? When it refers to "in whole or in part," is it exempting good faith attempts at compromise? If not, why doesn't the rule say that? Even if the rule said that, I think this would be a 1RR violation per diffs one and three.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Admins, if you're confused by the complaint it's because yes, it's procedurally defective. Anythingyouwant simply took my four most recent edits to Donald Trump and called them reverts because they all deleted or modified portions of the article, i.e. "undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." This is an extreme reading of the edit warring policy and against its spirit if not its letter. In the first 3 "reverts" I was simply being bold and making constructive edits to the article. Two of these edits were never disputed, and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion, which I have readily participated in. In none of these cases was I reverting back to any prior version, at least to my knowledge. The fourth "revert" was simply me implementing this talk page consensus. There has been no dispute that the edit does in fact represent the consensus.

What makes this complaint extra-unfortunate is that Anythingyouwant only lodged it to make a point. They actually told me that they want me to be vindicated so that they can point to this discussion the next time they're accused of edit warring. Anythingyouwant's beef isn't with me, it's with the edit warring policy itself, which they believe considers any deletion or modification of any content as a "revert" (since it is a "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part"). I suggested that Anythingyouwant seek guidance at WT:EW or WP:VPP but they declined my advice and instead are trying to game the system by coming here. I suggest that this complaint should boomerang and Anythingyouwant should be admonished for disruptive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the third revert, DrFleischman says, "and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion". In what world is that a justification for saying it wasn't a revert? That third revert was obviously the subject of controversy at the article talk page. The main reason I filed this report is because I am firmly convinced that the first and third diffs are reverts that together violate 1RR. The other two diffs (the second and fourth) are less obvious, and so I am indeed interested in what the verdict is about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My point on the third edit was that I made a bold edit, it was reverted by another editor, and then we discussed. BRD. No reverts by me. Simple as that. You are disrupting the normal editing process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole subject of diff three is discussed at the current article talk page (not an archive) before DrFleischman made that bold edit. For example, "Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that 'he graduated from Wharton' should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)" Dr. Fleischman's edit #3 (about Wharton) was very clearly a revert. I would be happy to withdraw this report if DrFleischman would please remove his most recent revert. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? So each time I make a bold edit I'm first supposed to go into the talk page archives and literally hundreds of edits deep into the article's edit history to make sure the same edit hasn't been fought over in the past? Anythingyouwant's last sentence makes it seem like maybe they just want their version of the 4th edit to be restored against consensus. This strikes me as bullying behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I now reluctantly withdraw the offer to take down this 1RR report, which I made in good faith (not to bully anyone!). Both diffs one and three are very clearly reverts. And they are both controversial at the article talk page as it stands right now (during this month of August), in case the age of the controversy makes any difference, and that controversy existed before these two respective reverts. I don't suggest that DrFleischman needs to study the talk history of this article going back forever. The easiest way to avoid problems is to not make more than one edit --- like diffs one thru four --- per day. But if he wants to run the risk of editing like diffs one thru four, by undoing the work of other editors, then why not look at the current talk page sans archives?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion I believe you're referring to appeared from both the header and the first comment to be about a different subject. Regardless, I don't think anything in our policies or guidelines requires editors to review the talk page before making bold edits. Just because I made an edit on content that happened to be discussed partway down an old talk page discussion doesn't make my edit a revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Bello5Packo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

Page: UNESCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bello5Packo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please help to handle the SPA/sock user who reverts without answering in article talk page: Talk:UNESCO#Ataturk section. There is no 3RR yet, but it is looming. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I ask make the warning for Staszek Lem (he not must be vandal on this issue) Bello5Packo (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Bello5Packo has now breached WP:3RR despite my warning here:

They don't appear interested in discussing the situation beyond calling Staszek Lem a vandal. clpo13_(talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- GB fan 19:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733738700 by Electricburst1996 (talk) unsupported by non-primary reliable sources"
2. 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733736164 by Electricburst1996 (talk) again not a travel guide and no trivia"
3. 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733735774 by Electricburst1996 (talk) not a travel guide"
4. 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Surfbury"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Newquay. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "→ ‎trail, trivia: new section"

Comments:

Edit war started with unexplained content removal on the first edit, but escalated into a dispute over whether or not the information removed was worth keeping. Though I didn't state it in edit summaries, I felt strongly that the information on the town trail and Newquay in film should be kept. Given the other editor's lengthy, troubling block history for edit warring (six counts, to be exact), I see no reason for a temporary block at this point. ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ElectricBurst went straight to AIV with NO warning (against "The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.") dispite his false claim then removed my defense there. He did not give any reason for his edits while I did. I had though I had removed the information in a previous edit thus the first edit was just "Surfbury". I started a talk page discussion while he was here reporting me. He makes his fustration know that he can get me punished at AVI then removes my response twice now that he has been the instigating editor as NPA when it was similar in tone to his own post. Spshu (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

He has also attempt to add my starting a discussion as if he did so. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, NeilN, an administrator, has stepped in to assist Electricburst1996 in acting like he started the discussion on the talk page when he did not. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Spshu, the diff is not to show the reporter started the discussion, it is to show discussion exists. As it happens, you started it so that's a bonus for you. --NeilN 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As an outside editor, those edits were acceptable. IMDB is user-generated content, so it is an invalid source. Primary sources can be used sparingly, but secondary sources are preferred. The information removed looked and read like trivial statements rather than encyclopedic content. As no edit summaries were provided for the reversions, I assert that the burden of proof is on Electricburst1996 to determine whether their reversions were appropriate. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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