Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2over0 (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 7 July 2014 (→User:198.208.240.246 reported by User:Samsbanned (Result: 31 h): closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

Page: Cornwall Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unscintillating (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:

3. referring to this

I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

Comments:
In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

Which states:

"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.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."

He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Misplaced Pages is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit.  This was way too complicated, this needed discussion.  So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next".  Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR.  I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article.  I am not aware of any edit warring by either party.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN. Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours. He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v. Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden. After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here. And the rest of the additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor. But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note -- As noted above, the close below by Lord Roem is based on a mistake by the Lord. While it is true that the editor had reverted his own additions, as Lord said in giving his rationale -- the editor then restored the very additions that the editor had deleted. Lord clearly missed that.

His close can't be a legitimate close -- as the rationale is based on an incorrect understanding by Lord. I would appreciate another sysop closing this. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• No violation No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dlv999 reported by User:Wikieditorpro (Result: Declined)

Page: 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has reverted article five times with minimal engagement on talk page. User has previously violated 1RR on several occasions.

• Declined. This report is stale (reported user hasn't edited the article since the last report was filed) and obviously retaliatory. Perhaps the reporter should take this to WP:AE and see how he fares there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the the user made four reverts to the article in 24 hours, I am not sure why you claim that the report is "obviously retaliatory". There was no retaliatory motive on my part.

If you think that I should have filed this report earlier, you should know that:

1) I was not aware of the exact nature of a revert, until you answered the questions I had asked you about whether deletions and modifications constituted reverts too.

2) In Dlv999's complaint above, I noted the gist of this report and that I expected the information to be reviewed as per the note: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized."

I did not file a complaint until it was clear that the administrator had neglected to do so.

3) I was unaware of any time limits attached to reports or that a report could become "stale".

I request that you retract your claim that the report is "obviously retaliatory". Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reviewing this one at the same time. I don't see the 1RR at all. There are 5 edits in question. The edit at 00:38 (July 1) preceded the other by more than 24 hours. The edits at 14:14, 14:13, and 14:12 are consecutive and would only count as one. The edit at 14:27 explicitly notes it is reverting an IP, which is exempt from the 1RR per the WP:ARBPIA ruling and the talk page notice. This edit does indeed seem to revert an edit by an IP on June 30 at 21:59. So, bad faith aside, I don't see technical merit either. Kuru (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that consecutive edits count as one. I'll remember that one for the future. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro, it's hard to know where to start. First, you have been blocked before for violating ARBPIA. The policy is clear. If you can't understand it, don't edit articles that are subject to sanctions. Second, as Kuru said, one of the five diffs wasn't even in the 24-hour window. Did you not know that, too? Third, there are some aspects of edit warring policy that confuse users, but the consecutive part is extraordinarily clear per WP:3RR (spelled out in the pink oval). If you have to have everything spelled out for you, again, don't get yourself in these situations. Fourth, you don't know whether Dlv999's behavior was scrutinized in the report they filed against you; you know only that no action was taken. Finally, you were lucky to escape sanctions in the report against you. Instead of demanding a retraction, you should count your blessings. I'll have nothing more to say on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, You spent nearly half of that paragraph re-hashing the fact that I had a report filed against me for ARPIA. That is absolutely irrelevant to a report concerning Dlv999's conduct or your claim that this report is "obviously retaliatory".

Since it is clear from the previous report that even administrators who judge these cases have trouble with the details of the 1RR rule, it is not reasonable to expect an occasional editor or an editor making his first report, to have a perfect grip of them.

Given that you are an administrator and this is an administrator's noticeboard, I would like you realize that a brief note (thank you Kuru) of where myself (or another editor) went wrong is much more helpful than sarcastic remarks, ad-hominems, and assumptions of bad faith. That is all I have to say. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:DukeWellington reported by User:Diego Grez (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&oldid=615234270

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615625829&oldid=615234270
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615626311&oldid=615626060
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615626667&oldid=615626324
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615628081&oldid=615627456

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:DukeWellington&diff=615629074&oldid=615626231

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See messages at talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DukeWellington

Comments:

DukeWellington has long disrupted the article, by changing words refering to Pinochet and friends for some "softer" ones, despite there is consensus labelling their regime as dictatorship. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both users have violated the 3RR rule with regards to this dispute, regardless of which one is actually correct about the concensus. There has been no discussion or "consensus" reached on the talk page. Turgan 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have not violated the 3RR. I haven't reverted him four times. Discussing the article on its talk page would be useless since we would be most likely the only ones discussing. Duke's editing history shows he has constantly "softened" words about Pinochet on the article, and that is POV editing, which sums up the disruptive reverting he's been making... Diego Grez (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Soroush90gh reported by User:Qizilbash123 (Result: Both blocked)

Page

My Stealthy Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Soroush90gh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chronology of user's diffs

• 12:37, 18 June 2014 - Soroush90gh inserts claims that "Iranian state TV reported London-based activist was assaulted, stripped naked, and gang-raped in London in the presence of her son." This is a serious accusation, not by state TV side but by activist because her claim can not be found on any state TV website. That's why I do next:
• 12:57, 23 June 2014 - I inserted template {{dubious}} inside the text of article, and:
• 13:05, 23 June 2014 - Also I opened subsection "Alleged rape claim" on talk page where I explained mentioned above and I asked Soroush90gh for providing link of Persian site. After more then a week, he finally responded:
• 07:37, 1 July 2014 - Instead of giving any official link, he linked a Youtube video as "proof". Beside it, he also inserted a blog (07:44, 1 July 2014), and also removed both {{dubious}} & {{NPOV}} tags.
• 21:29, 2 July 2014 - I reverted it with explanation on talk page (21:32, 2 July 2014) that he still didn't provided verification from official web site.
• 19:43, 3 July 2014 - His respond on talk page wasn't constructive but rude and insulting ("Wow, who are you?", "the funniest joke I ever heard", "I'm amazed. I'm totally mixed up"), also followed by simple revert in article (19:44, 3 July 2014).
• 04:06, 4 July 2014 - I adviced him to avoid ad hominems and again explained everything about WP:VERIFY rule all over again. Since I realized he can't verify claims from activist sites, I also removed section of alleged rape claim from article (04:10, 4 July 2014) because over 10 days have passed.
• 10:06, 4 July 2014 - he reverted everything again and he still avoid to present anything reliable for verification, also continued with personal attacks on talk page (10:13, 4 July 2014) like "What's your problem?".
• 19:15, 4 July 2014 - for third time I'm explaning about verification and I also gave him comprehensive lists of state TV portals and even links.
• 20:58, 4 July 2014 - he didn't even engaged in discussion after all, just continued to reverting article in sheriff style.

Comments:

After everything my conclusion is that it isn't possible to have civil discussion or cooperation with User:Soroush90gh because he doesn't refrain to use serious and disgusting accusations from third-rated media as encyclopedic content, his edits reflects clear political motivation inappropriate for NPOV rules, he shows significant amoung of arrogance by avoiding discussion and engaging in edit wars. Action or opinion from above is inevitable. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. I blocked Qizilbash123 for two weeks and Soroush90gh for 48 hours for edit warring. The article was fully protected in early June for two weeks because of edit warring by these two editors and some others. As soon as the protection expired, these two editors returned and resumed the battle. They were the only two of the previous bunch except for one revert by another who then stopped, as opposed to many, many reverts by the two over the last few weeks. The reason for the difference in duration is that Soroush has a clean block log, whereas Qizilbash has a significant and recent history of blocks for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: It was semi-protected on 25 May, because Qizilbash123 tried to bypass 3rr with IP. This incident was referred to other admin who would fully protect on 4 June. Can be considered as long term edit warring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AmirSurfLera reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: @Mandatory Palestine

1. <- this is a revert according to the definition that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material
2. <- straightforward revert via undo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Since this person started using this particular account they have been blocked for edit warring twice. They don't need a warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in the content dispute nor do I care about this content. I saw edit warring from an editor with a very long history of edit warring and reported it.

Comments:
The edits at Mandatory Palestine are an unambiguous 1RR violation in ARBPIA as defined by a literal reading of policy according to several admins, that A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The context is unambiguous edit warring (rather than collaborative article development where technical 1RR violations are inevitable). It is also an example of an editor using a revert rather than following BRD in ARBPIA. After my revert with the edit summary 'rv blatant edit warring 1RR violation', the editor went to the talk page. Normally I would give an editor the opportunity to self-revert but not in this case. My edit was reverted by an obvious disposable sock account here, as per usual in ARBPIA.

There's more. @Rachel Corrie - there is edit warring at that article. There's also misuse of the talk page by various editors but that is another story.

• first 'revert' under the strict definition at 2014-07-04T05:15 - 2014-07-04T05:23‎
• second edit at 2014-07-05T00:57. Addition of new material which may be considered by some to qualify as a revert. Given the clear POV pushing intent I would be inclined to treat it as part of the attempts by various editors to engineer the content of that article. The edit was reverted here by Malik Shabazz with the edit summary 'See template instructions about linking to COPYVIO images.'
• clear revert and 1RR violation at 2014-07-05T04:08. It also happens to be a violation of WP:LABEL and a clear example of selective application of policy/guidelines given that they know about LABEL, having cited it.

I could probably go on but I can't be bothered because I see that another disposable SPA has just reverted me at Death march, so it's time for me to do something else for awhile as I am attracting socks to the project. An indefinite block for this AmirSurfLera account is inevitable in my view but that is another matter. I am not so much interested in what happens to the AmirSurfLera account here as a result of this report because it doesn't really matter, but I want to see how this pattern of edits is handled and whether they are treated as 1RR violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

These could only be considered violations of 1RR in the very strict, technical sense of "undoing any work that was previously in the article" - even if no edit war is a taking place. But if that is the definition to be used, then the filer of this report acknowledges he has done EXACTLY the same on Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, another article subject to 1RR:

• edit summary acknowledges it is "rm CAMERA-ish 'disputed territories'. rm info about control+claims."
• - edit summary acknowledges "this edit is technically a 1RR violation without an edit war"

And now this editor is seeking to get another editor blocked for doing the exact same thing he acknowledges doing. Either sanction both of them, or neither one. DanDanT (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

user:DanDanT claims that he "use DanDanT for editing from unsecure , public hotspots. Blue Duck T is my main account." He made 5 contributions. But user:Blue Duck T has 4 contributions all dating 2013. He is just a sock of NoCal100. Just block him. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely to be a NoCal sock as I've said before on this noticeboard since the MO is similar, but it doesn't really matter who it is. Accounts like this that look like socks should be blocked on sight. They cause most of the disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DanDanT/Blue Duck T, it's a tactical error to assume others think the same way as yourself or that you understand them. In my case I have made my intention explicit in the request. Regarding my 2 edits at Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, I agree with you that the second is indeed an unambiguous 1RR violation as I make quite clear in my edit summary. The difference is context, the presence or absence of edit warring, and whether it matters, an issue that I am interested in because it's important. At Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir I violated 1RR (as did several editors) without an edit war or an opponent in an edit war (as is commonplace during genuinely collaborative article development) and I was thanked for it by Dovid, the person who would need to be my opponent in an edit war for your "Either sanction both of them, or neither one" to make sense. That is the difference between collaboration and edit warring and there is a difference. The 1RR restriction was introduced to ARBPIA to reduce edit warring. It wasn't introduced to reduce collaboration. And bear in mind that you missed a second technical 1RR violation here where I added some information to a citation to address something Dovid mentioned on my talk page about paywalls. So that is 2 technical 1RR violations in the context of collaborative article development. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. This is for the 1RR violation at Mandatory Palestine. The first revert is not "technical". It is an important change to the article in an area that has been the subject of past and current dispute.

As for DanDanT's allegations, if a report were brought against Sean for violating 1RR on that article, I would not take any action. It's not so much Sean's admission because if that were all it took, any editor could violate 1RR with impunity simply by admitting it in the edit summary. Rather, it's the nature of the revert and the fact that the editor Sean reverted was happy about it.

One more thing while I'm here. Accusations of sock puppetry are running wild these days on this and other boards. Some editors have at least backed up their allegations by filing an SPI, but, as I recall, the SPIs were rejected. Even assuming that ARBPIA-related articles have been the victims of confirmed socks in the past doesn't give other editors an unfettered right to accuse every editor who comes along of being a sock. It's disruptive, and editors have been and may be sanctioned if they persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Then please find another way of dealing with the situation that has emerged. This needs a more comprehensive approach, and I seriously doubt that the community in general is going to be happy with admins taking the view that the right sort of admin action in this situation is to block long-time contributors while failing to get to grips with obvious socks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply.

• I think the 1RR restrictions are clearer with this straightforward definition of a revert combined with admin discretion. It's might even encourage BRD.
• I wasn't actually aware that the content in the first revert had been the subject of past dispute, but now you mention it I can see it all over the talk page in multiple sections.
• Regarding accusations of sock puppetry, I could say a lot about this but I'll be repeating myself, so I'll keep it brief. Current policy, guidelines and the tools available mean that the optimum editing method for the POV pusher is to use disposable registered accounts. It's inevitable that these kinds of accounts will proliferate in a topic area like ARBPIA because they have a higher relative fitness in this environment. Their activities are not stopped or effectively suppressed by SPI, semi-protection, pending changes, 1RR or any other method currently in use to deal with these kinds of accounts. It's inevitable that people will complain about this. And when direct language is suppressed, most people simply switch to indirect language and coded statements. The statements mean the same thing and nothing changes. The environment needs to be become more hostile for socks than non-socks. Admins can make that happen overnight because they can use their discretion and judgement under the discretionary sanctions to block accounts. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2001:558:6020:1A8:6826:BBB:7D1A:2F7F reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Julian Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2001:558:6020:1A8:6826:BBB:7D1A:2F7F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 17:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 17:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Julian Green. (TW)"
2. 17:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "+"
3. 17:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "/* July 2014 */ moving from my talk page and responding."
4. 17:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "+"
5. 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "/* July 2014 */ Reply"
6. 18:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "REply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resolution attempts all made on editor's talk page. These include explanation of WP:FOOTY guidelines on nationality and options for dispute resolution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note - user has been blocked for 48 hours for harassing User:Walter Görlitz. Panyd 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Walter was subsequently blocked for violating 3RR by a different administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Neev09 reported by User:58.111.196.148 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Nick Kyrgios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neev09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User talk:Neev09 just reverts without discussing and despite the fact that there's a clear reference with the quote that supports the edit.58.111.196.148 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In evaluating this report, I noticed that Neev09 stated on his talk page that he is Kyrgios's cousin. I added a COI tag to the article. Apparently, at least some of his edits are based on personal knowledge rather than sources. Whether they're biased I have no idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:86.212.60.138 reported by User:Dustin V. S. (Result: Blocked)

Page

2014 insurgency in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615836242 by Dustin V. S. (talk)"
2. 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615835238 by Dustin V. S. (talk)Don't threathen me again , you Dirty SC*M , you will go to pay a high price for your numerous lies and all your squalid propaganda !!!!"
3. 16:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615834934 by Dustin V. S. (talk)"
4. 16:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615834256 by RGloucester (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 insurgency in Donbass. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The IP never attempted to discuss the issue, and has thrown around multiple insults. It wasn't so much an issue involving me, but the IP still clearly is not acting the way it should. Ask for clarification. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already reported at WP:AIV. This isn't the appropriate venue for IP vandalism. There is no content dispute, just pure vandalism. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I will agree that there wasn't any real content dispute, but I would not classify the edits as obvious vandalism. The edit summaries don't make it obvious vandalism either unless the user says in its edit summary something along the lines of "vandalizing page" or "inserting false information". Dustin (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing by Mike V.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:98.113.143.89 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) to 15:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Please stop changing the edit until it goes to moderation. you have no right to change this edit until arbitrated."
   2. 15:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC) to 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "A full response was written outlining the justifications and facts supporting this factual entry regarding Lira. ."
   2. 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "A full response was written outlining the justifications and facts supporting this entry regarding Lira. ."
3. 15:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615830392 by MILH (talk)"
4. 15:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Formal mediation has been requested The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gonzalo Lira". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is"
5. 16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Mediation in progress.. please leave post"
6. 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "The biography that Wikipeida provided was not objective given my factual findings elsewhere. I thought it would be responsible of me, and an important matter of ethics, to update the biography to fact as follows; 1) Steve Keen is a well known economist wh"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits related to Keen */ new section"
2. 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gonzalo Lira. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Keen dispute */"

Comments:

Editor is using a self-published source from one party in a dispute to make claims about the other party (WP:BLPSPS issue). Despite multiple attempts to highlight the issues and get them to talk, they simply won't. Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,,

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

Comments:
User:Akocsg is using an online "source" consisting of a partial of Maenchen-Helfen's book, The World of the Huns, pages 401-412. Whereas Maechen-Helfen's book concerning the language of the Huns starts on page 376 and ends on page 443. This is clearly cherry picking information to push a certain POV. Also, the Huns article Language section, clearly indicates that what Akocsg is forcing into the lead is not academic consensus, with three other sources stating, "However, the evidence is scant (a few names and three non-Turkic words), thus scholars currently conclude that the Hunnic language cannot presently be classified, and attempts to classify it as Turkic and Mongolic are speculative". Despite this, Akocsg has chosen to edit war ignoring the facts posted clearly on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:99.249.219.4 reported by User:50.185.134.48 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Communication with the user

Comments

I am not familiar with the current formalities or the technical aspects of gathering the diffs. However the Vaporwave article is currently at the 3-revert limit between me and the reported user. The user wants to add a particular music album as an example of vaporwave style. There are no sources to support this claim,, only a link to the album on another site, and since it was released yesterday I do not expect any sources forthcoming. The user has been warned once about spamming, but not about 3RR specifically. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:99.249.219.4 reported by User:Ian.thomson (duplicating report to get formatting right)

Page: Vaporwave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.249.219.4 (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: There's a discussion going on at User_talk:99.249.219.4#July_2014

Comments:
If he didn't need a block for edit warring, he'd need a WP:CIR block for failing to get the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope that verbal abuse can be avoided and this user will come to understand the policies affecting his edits without being turned off from contributing constructively. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User also appears to be a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month as this is their third block (last one was two weeks). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.14.223.132 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 h)

Page: Israel–United States relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.14.223.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:50.14.223.132

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (by non-invovled editor) IP could be Hanzon (talk · contribs) looking a the similar edit history, Hanzon has added an espionage setion before and both have edit mainly in Ecudorian artilces, on 9 May on Ecua-volley right after each other. Hanzon may have forgot to log in (AGF), maybe he could explain, I will alert his talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes but it doesn't matter he still broke 1RR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The edit is suggestively similar to Hanzon's and the IP is certainly an experienced user, but I am not blocking the putative main account at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:PersecutedUser reported by User:178.164.179.114 (Result: already blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932155&oldid=615931749
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932610&oldid=615932480
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932925&oldid=615932875
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615933537&oldid=615933391
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615933708&oldid=615933655
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615934314&oldid=615933986

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:PersecutedUser

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
In addition, it's very clear that User:PersecutedUser is a sockpuppet of notorious sockpuppeteer User:Iaaasi, who edited the article recently under the user name User:Avpop. --178.164.179.114 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This report was removed, I restored it and will take responsibility for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

178.164.179.114 is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Stubes99. Just like User:Satandome. PersecutedUser (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So I looked myself, the IP who filed this and the one you say he is a sock of have two different ISP`s. BTW the IP is on 4RR himself and so needs a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact I am not sure about 178.164.179.114. He knows that I am Iaaasi and he knows how to make a 3RR report. He can also be User:Norden1990, another editor that had conflicts with me. 178.164.179.114. contributed at Matthias Corvinus, just like https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/178.164.210.101 these days. 178.164.210.101 also contributed at Apor Péc where Norden1900 was the sole contributor.

But a CU could confirm that User:Satandome is Stubes99 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersecutedUser (talk • contribs)

I cannot believe you just admitted to being a sock, this means the IP, as it is not proven as yet to be a sock has an exemption from 3RR. I have filed an SPI given your confession above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines, I see you just reverted to the version before sock-puppet editing. Don't you think the version prior to any edit warring at all would be more appropriate. Sock puppeting does not justify edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As near as I can make out, it is the same thing, the socks were both editwarring over the same content, so a rv to where I rv`d seemed the best solution. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Favonian for abuse of multiple accounts. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:178.164.179.114 reported by User:AlanS (Result: decline)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615933708 by PersecutedUser (talk) this was the status quo before your edits"
2. 11:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615933537 by PersecutedUser (talk) -OR"
3. 10:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Romanian origin ≠ Romanian (Hunyadi's father made career already in Hungary)"
4. 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615932155 by PersecutedUser (talk) see sourced articles (Hunyadi family, John Hunyadi etc.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Aware of 3RR enough to file a report against another user for violating it. AlanS (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well PersecutedUser has admitted to being a sock at the SPI I filed, so the IP has an exemption, the article has also been semi protected. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no justification for edit warring. If the IP suspected a sock they should of reported it, not engaged in edit warring. They are sufficiently aware of 3RR to have filled a report. AlanS (talk)

Sorry no, see WP:NOT3RR "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely to be covered by WP:NOT3RR, one would have to know, not merely suspect a sock. Up until the admission all the IP had was a suspicion. In which case the proper path would of been reporting their suspicion, not engaging in edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as my reading goes they would of had to have reported their suspicion prior to their fourth edit and had it confirmed to have the exemption for their fourth edit. AlanS (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Since PersecutedUser is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet, no purpose would be served by blocking the IP at this time. 178.164.179.114 is cautioned to be more patient in waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:198.208.240.246 reported by User:Samsbanned (Result: 31 h)

Page: International Society for Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I am unsure how to report this vandalism as it is my first time, and it is an anonymous user vandalising with their POV. I can't find their user page to warn them and they repeatedly put back their biased off-topic comments Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Me, the reporting registered Misplaced Pages user Samsbanned Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Samsbanned, you have both made only two reverts. That doesn't constitute edit warring. If you would like to report vandalism I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. AlanS (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is not vandalism, but is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

Page

Lands of the Bohemian Crown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 615875444 by Yopie (talk): Still no consensus for inclusion. (TW)"
2. 22:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by RGloucester (talk): No consensus for second names. (TW)"
3. 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "please, read Gdansk vote rule"
4. 19:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "wp:mpn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* German place names */"

Comments:

User:114.31.218.104 reported by User:MrX (Result: )

Page

Good Luck Flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is slow roasting edit war. 114.31.218.104 continues to remove sourced content, replacing it with POV unsourced content, over the protests of other involved editors. While the IP has not technically violated 3RR, they have ignored an edit warring warning and requests to participate in a talk page discussion. The article was recently fully protected, during which time the IP did not join the talk page discussion. - MrX 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:198.135.125.122 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 36 hours)

Page

CAIC Z-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html"
2. 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Hi Darkness Shines. The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html,"
3. 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Hello Darkness Shines, I am reverting eddits done by Pvpoodle. He was banned for 3 days for eddit warring and just got unbanned. He is now back at it again. I have talked to different Wikipedians about this and the okay me to revert his eddits. Thank you."
4. 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
3. 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Designed by Kamov */ Cmt"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I can't read the Chinese source but even if it was true this is not an excuse for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring