Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Holybeef (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 25 July 2014 (→User:Holybeef reported by User:0x0077BE (Result: )). 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:Damián80 reported by User:Musicfan877 (Result: Resolved dispute)

Page: Mi corazón es tuyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been reverting every single edit I try to make in the 'Synopsis' section from grammatically correct English (translated from Spanish) to a poorly translated summary of the show. Nearly every single edit someone makes for correct grammar or style is changed by this user into badly written ones without any explanation or compromise. The user has changed multiple sections of this article for revisions that are incorrect in grammar and/or proper spelling. This has been going on for weeks. There are huge errors such as referring to female characters as "him", for example. They gave no reason for the changes either. I explained many times that their summary of the plot was too long and has too much unnecessary information about the show. I feel like a properly translated summary of 2-5 sentences is simple and easier for readers to understand. I have tried communicating via their Talk page (all I got were confusing replies.) and I even reedited what they had with a more simple, grammatically correct version, but they still reverted to their previous edit. Musicfan877 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Serious?, Those issues are not yesterday and came to edit wars. Even leaves a last message By explaining to reach an agreement, here is the message. Musicfan877 that it has ignored is none of my business. Here, I place another complaint, in his discussion clearly explain a reason to reach an agreement, and this user wants to make this a great dispute.--Damián (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. You're both at three reverts. Although I won't comment on the substantive content, your English, Damián80 is often almost incomprehensible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that fits the translation of the article, but the user wants to remove everything and leave the short frame. But if this is going to continue and better retirement and everything ready.--Damián (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your first sentence, but I have no clue what the second sentence means. Frankly, unless you can edit in intelligible English, I think it would be better to accept one of Musicfan's versions. If you really don't like it, you could always seek input from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at your latest edits, and it appears that you have adopted one of Musicfan's versions. Does that mean that the two of you are okay and this report can be closed?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth does not follow the subject, have pleased the user to end this.--Damián (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm closing this as resolved unless Musicfan877 objects.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:79.101.146.89

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 01:31, 22 July 2014

• 04:42, 22 July 2014

• 13:43, 22 July 2014

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Правичност is many times to get messages from user to violate rule 3RR, was is blocked.

• 20:37, 1 April 2013

• 22:12, 9 April 2013

• 11:51, 10 April 2013

• 19:44, 28 August 2013

• User:Wifione blocked him to 24 hour!

• 15:01, 10 February 2014

• 20:09, 22 July 2014

Very interesting while Правичност was not active, IP has vandalized page in the same way and the article has been protected! , protected Serbs‎ , example of work User:Правичност IP. --79.101.146.89 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• 03:29, 23 July 2014 --79.101.146.89 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, learn proper english instead of using google translate if you wanna use english wikipedia, second of all, you and your pal Shokac 121 were pushing these changes without trying to reach concensus since last year, you still are pushing unconstructive sources such as those who count language speakers and passports of one country, anything except counting or estimating ethnic groups and then you use same methods to protect yourselves doing it, accusing other people who try to maintain reasonable sources and figures. You push astronomical figures on Croats (for a few million) with circus sources so you could reach number of Serbs by lso degrading numbers on Serbs article, what you are doing is childish games of nationalism and internet frustrative vandalism... whoever you are hiding behind an IP adress, you have no right to accuse or suspect that i was hiding behind IP adresses while being non active. Only you can and your pal Sokac 121 are capable of such things as your reason on wikipedia is to do anything against Serbian related articles. get a life. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

User:Wilcannia reported by User:John (Result: Blocked)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wilcannia (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:

Blocked – for a period of one day Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:173.12.152.214, User:68.59.48.216, User:12.237.80.67, and User:216.162.148.49 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)

Page: 57 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 173.12.152.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 68.59.48.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 12.237.80.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 216.162.148.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IPs have few, if any edits, other than to the target page. There was some previous edit warring, but the "Previous version reverted to" below is when the IPs version became stable.

Previous version reverted to: 03:40, July 18, 2014 (as #1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:28, July 18, 2014 as #4
2. 22:58, July 18, 2014 as #1
3. 00:36, July 20, 2014 as #3
4. 04:45, July 21, 2014 as #1 plus personal attack
5. 22:22, July 21, 2014 as #3
6. 04:49, July 22, 2014 as #1
7. 03:01, July 23, 2014 as #1
8. 07:21, July 23, 2014 as #2
9. 08:03, July 23, 2014 as #2
10. 02:09, July 24, 2014 as #2
11. 03:02, July 24, 2014 as #2
12. 03:30, July 24, 2014 as #1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:40, July 14, 2014
2. 14:09, July 13, 2014‎ pointed to discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: July 13, July 14 (after waiting for the IPs to respond)

Comments:

I haven't submitted the AN3 warning yet, as it's possible there are other IPs the editor has access to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted 8 of the 13, Schlafly 3, and Kendrick7 and I both modified one of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring by a fluctuating IP. This break will allow time for the editor behind these IPs to read the WP:Sockpuppet policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:146.200.179.28 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: )

Page: July 2009 Ürümqi riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.200.179.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. (this one was made a few weeks earlier behind a different IP)

User was warned of 3RR here:

Comments:
This person has made 5 identical reverts, 4 within one day. 146.200.179.28 and 146.200.1.76 both have the same ISP and geolocation, so it's safe to assume that this is the same person. The problem on this page relates to the Archive.is uncertain stalemate that's currently undergoing community discussion. The IP user first reverts 2Flows's revert of an indef blocked user (Prebyslaff), but I revert him with an explanation; unsatisfied with my explanation, he reverts me, and at this point I suggest that he discuss on the talk page, however this does not occur. In my opinion, the IP user does not have a convincing reason for removing an archive.is URL link from a citation, and is merely removing it for the sole reason that it is an archive.is URL, despite that there has been no community motion whatsoever for mass archive.is URL removals. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: )

Page

Mohammed Burhanuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618103062 by Qwertyus (talk)"
2. 10:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618101779 by Qwertyus (talk) revised , may please discuss at talk page before further removal."
3. 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617429012 by Qwertyus (talk) unjustified removal. Rather removing please make it important information readable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"
2. 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Main resolution initiative is Special:Diff/618163654. For some reason I cannot mark it as such in the Twinkle ARV box. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply: The present matter inserted is quite different then initial one, taking due care of the objections raised by reporter to make the presentation NPOV. However the following makes the thing further clear:

Reporter User:Qwertyus's following revision speaks of the unjustified removal being done by the reporter, even after request made for discussion.

Diffs of the user's reverts

The complete point wise justification for inclusion given to User:Qwertyus, who is adamant to force his version, which is conveying a wrong and incomplete message contrary to information available in reliable sources.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Thanks,--Md iet (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to administrator: while Md iet has it seem like I violated WP:3RR, the last two diffs are the same link and the first one is a week earlier than the other two. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jusgtr reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Run the Jewels (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618244997 by STATicVapor (talk) Yes, well, I am focusing on keeping it with the EA Sports usage."
2. 08:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618219295 by Koala15 (talk) Yes, I also update BEMANI games with new info"
3. 03:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618125633 by Koala15 (talk) Well, Static & you should be blocked. I win"
4. 12:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618082206 by STATicVapor (talk) Get out! Static, I kicked out Koala"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Run the Jewels (album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just look at the page history of Run the Jewels (album), this has gotten ridiculous. Now they have violated WP:3rr after being warned about it a second time, and I was able to report it before it became stale. STATic message me! 09:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bumblebee9999 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Warned)

Page

Template:Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bumblebee9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618315637 by Ryulong (talk) until AFD is done."
2. 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618332767 by Ryulong (talk) A list of Power Ranger home media releases is not "general power rangers stuff", uh yes it is!"
3. 10:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "It is relevant as this is a template for Power Rangers and it is a List of Mighty Morpin Power Rangers home media release. Stop making false claims to remove stuff and edit warring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:Power Rangers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"

Comments:

Bumblebee9999 boldly added something to the template. I removed it because I felt it was not suitable for the template. It was added back despite attempts at discussion his user talk and on the template's talk page which has been ignored because he does not want me to talk to him despite our current direct content dispute(s). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How much more are you going to do to get your way? I am reporting you now as we speak because you have just pushed my last button by going way to far to get your way with this stupid List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases. You are the one edit warring making false claims of irrelavent when they are both fucking Power Ranger subjects. How do I report him for harassment to the Wikiboard cause I have had it with him. Look at all the crap he has been doing stalking me, leaving threatening crap on my goddamn talk page and I only reverted once today and now he making false accusation of edit warring when you can see clearly that one on different day. Please tell Ryulong to leave me alone and stop trying to intimidate me to get his way with List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You made more than 3 reverts to restore your preferred identical version of the page content within a 24-hour period. That is a violation of WP:3RR. I have attempted to discuss this with you in multiple places but you refused and you added this bunk warning to try to intimidate me or other users. And it is not stalking you when we are in a direct content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever dude, just anything to get your way with the List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases, you were editting warring by making false claims to remove it saying it was irrelevant when it is not as both have to do with fucking Power Rangers the template is "Template:Power Rangers" and the list is "List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases" so if anyone was edit warring it was you by reverting my edits with unfounded reasons. All you are doing is trying to get your way with that damn list and you need to stop and back off me. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please leave all discussion of the dispute on the template talk page where I have detailed my objections to the addition as I have in multiple other places.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You only want me to do that because you are actually the one who is edit warring and I just posted proof of it. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You've posted no proof. You're just trying to further the content dispute discussion on this page rather than where it should have taken place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and look who just did over 3 reverts in 24 hours themselves, dude you are so full of it. This is all so you can get your way, admins please do not give him his way. And yes I did you were edit warring with me making false claims of not relevant to the topic of the template when it is relevant as they are both Power Rangers' and that is proof you were edit warring first to get your way and now are putting on me and you just broke the 24 hour 3 revert as well so you reported me to get the crap of you and you should be blocked just as well if I get blocked. In fact I will go ahead and make a report just like you did. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not performed more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. The contested content that you posted is still there, but I've moved it to a more proper place. If it was gone entirely then yes I would have broken the limit. And I reported you after you restored everything despite all of the attempts I made to begin a discussion. Making a retaliatory report is not going to solve anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And to be transparent, I've restored the original version of the page that Bumblebee9999 created.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Bumblebee9999 (Result: User:Ryulong blocked for 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:18, 25 July 2014‎ "this warning is invalid, it doesn't belong in the "see also" section if it belongs at all"
2. 07:42, 25 July 2014‎ "Reverted 3 edits by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Bring it up on the template talk page. I removed it because it is not relevant to the whole of the topic. (TW)"
3. 22:01, 24 July 2014‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): It doesn't belong on the template because it is not about general power rangers stuff. (TW)"
4. 19:41, 24 July 2014‎ Ryulong "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Doesn't seem like a valid separate page. (TW)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:"/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"

Comments:
There are four reverts in 24 hours and not to mention he is doing the edit warring for false revert claim. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This report is retaliatory to the one above it. I've self reverted to the original version of the template which means that there are 2 reverts now. I've made all attempts to encourage discussion on this in the proper locations but Bumblebee9999 refuses to let me edit his user talk page and is going out of his way to try to get me punished, which included a threat to report me to a non-existant "Misplaced Pages Board of Directors".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the sentiment behind it, it is clear that you instigated the whole edit war and broke the 3rr first. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've self reverted so that means there's no more broken 3RR. And this happens every time I get into a content dispute with someone who doesn't know anything about how Misplaced Pages works. I revert. I begin a discussion. He reverts back to his version because he thinks he's right and I'm trying to take over Misplaced Pages. And I can't even direct him to the proper place to have a discussion on this content dispute because he doesn't want me on his talk page despite the fact we are currently discussing issues on multiple pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It still is a revert and it counts or so I been told, it does not matter if you did not actually revert with the "undo" button, you were still reverting/deleting what I posted, regardless. Also so he cannot claim that I did not give him a warning of this report I direct you to his talk page history where you can see he reverted and removed it because he seems the type of person to do that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A self revert is effectively a -1 revert. And those are not warnings. Those are notifications of this thread which I am already fully aware of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Others manage to avoid it. Maybe have a read of Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers. If you see a 3RR about to occur, stop and discuss before attempting to use this page as a sledgehammer to punish them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted once and attempted to discuss it with him but because of the AFD he has failed to assume any good faith of my actions and now forbids me from editing his user talk at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And just to be sure, am I supposed to add back his poorly written all caps and false commented out warning too in order to properly self revert?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS! LMFAOROTG! A self revert is not a -1 revert, it is a revert, LOL! Oh, thank you for more proof dude, you are a riot, you will make anything up to get your way and be right LMAO! Agrue away. I am so done with this. LOL! I hope we both get blocked. LOL! And no you have not tried to discuss anything with me, you have done nothing but cause trouble since I started List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases as you went and nominated that right after I reverted you, dude every thing you did is right there in the history of everything and they can see that you did not handle this right at all right off the bat so of course I would not assume any good faith in your actions and forbid you from editing on my talk page at all because why would I want to do with and work with someone who goes off and starts off on the wrong foot right off the bat? Keep trying to insult me to get me down, you did wrong bud sorry but you did but as I said I am done with this and I hope we both get blocked for 24 hours. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also I am done commenting because I been trying to post for the past 20 minutes and I keep getting an edit conflict, screw that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Self-revert and Template talk:Power Rangers#Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Ryulong for 1 week. Looking at his block log is depressing, he clearly knew what he was doing and was gaming the system. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to block me for 24 hours if you wish. I will take responsibility for my violation of the 3RVT. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Holybeef reported by User:0x0077BE (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous version here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First reversion
2. Second reversion
3. Third Reversion
4. Fourth reversion
5. Fifth reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning was issued before the 4th reversion. (History link)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Current version of the section in the talk page regarding this issue.

Comments:

• I am a neutral third party in this dispute, brought in by a notice on the Wikiproject Physics talk page (history link). From the talk page, it seems that Holybeef has been resisting any efforts to build consensus on this matter. He/she claims that the removal of this particular section is vandalism, despite strong evidence that these are in fact good faith efforts. I suggested that the principals involved here stop editing the page until a consensus is reached. SCZenz seemed willing to do this. Primefac devised and implemented a compromise version diff here, which Holybeef reverted, after I had asked him to stop editing the page in the talk page and after I had warned him using {{subst:Uw-3rr}}, in clear violation of WP:3RR. (Note: I erroneously suggested that he had already been in violation of WP:3RR after his 3rd edit, which SCZenz correctly pointed out in the talk page).

I see no evidence that Holybeef has used sockpuppets, so I would recommend that Holybeef be temporarily banned from editing this particular article while we work this out. I think the article should be reverted to the compromise wording in the meantime.0x0077BE 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Response There is no edit war here, not only because there wasn't one technically, but also due to the essence of the issue. Deleting (by user SCZent w/o discussion) an entire section (after it was previously discussed at length and agreed upon months ago) which contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is bad faith. So I base my judgment on Misplaced Pages:VANDAL#For_beginners. Also, this isn't the Dark Ages and there's no forbidden literature, so we don't delete reliable secondary references just because we don't like them or because we think they're slander. In this case: if Linde's statements were indeed slanderous, editors-in-chief of SciAm or Financial Times (referred to in the section) would have certainly vetted such statements. User SCZenz is clearly trying to impose his WP:POV by judging reliable secondary sources and top scientists' statements, and he's doing it in an aggressive manner, so I think he should be banned til he cools down a bit. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I will note here that Holybeef is unique in his assumption of bad faith on the part of both SCZenz and Primefac, which is prima facie evidence that it is possible to WP:AGF with regard to SCZenz and Primefac's edits. It's not clear what is meant by "not only because there wasn't one technically", here, as this is a clear violation of 3RR, and the violation occurred after Holybeef was warned on this both on his talk page and on the Alan Guth talk page. 0x0077BE 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well "technically" meant edit war occurs after third edit (4th and on), not on third edit. But that's besides the point since it's not an edit war to revert edits that were based on bad faith and thus constituted vandalism. Also, you should stop seeking consensus on this matter, see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Simply: there is no voting on the issue of whether or not reliable secondary references could be included or not, since finding and including such sources is a right and a duty of every editor so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I explained above why it's bad faith and vandalism to delete such references or sections that contain only such references and no interpretation. You can question neutrality of interpretation by arguing this and that. But in order to counter reliable references alone, you too must provide reliable references that counter the ones you don't like or don't agree with. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Despite my repeated admonitions and suggestions to the contrary, Holybeef has continued to revert good faith edits to the page, even after this official report has started. Obviously he knows what he is doing. I suggest at least a 24 hour ban if not more. 0x0077BE 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You're overreacting: note my comments in talk page, where I stated per your request that I do find the Dilaton version to be a compromise. I find it also disrespectful that you're not objecting to SCZenz edits at all (of not only mine but now of Dilaton's compromise version also), and a (edit) war takes two sides doesn't it? At any rate, I voiced my opinion and proposed a compromise as per your request. Why didn't you respond to it, instead requesting a ban for me? Note also that 24 h lapsed so I'm not in violation of the 3RR rule, but SCZenz is again close to it yet you take no action. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarc reported by User:R3ap3R (Result: )

Page

Yank Barry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618432530 by Choor monster (talk) - it is a factual, neutral statement sourced to metronews.ca. In all your WP:* page citations, give WP:CRYBLP a read-through sometime"
2. 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618426999 by Choor monster (talk) - It is not a BLP vilation to mention the basic facts of the subject fiuling a lawsuit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Yank Barry */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tried to give friendly warning; user removed notice, with edit summary of "Don't template me, nubcakes." R3ap3R (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is a confusing report. You need 4 reverts in 24 hours to be in violation of the 3RR. There are only 2 given. Also, I couldn't find anything on page that suggests 1RR restrictions were imposed, but if that's actually the case, edit history shows multiple users are over 1RR currently, so wonder why Tarc is being singled out here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tarc wasn't singled out, I left notice on two editors talk pages. Instead of commenting or replying to their fellow editor like a normal editor, Tarc decided to remove the notice with a snide comment. Perhaps he should read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks R3ap3R (talk) 12:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• I agree with BoboMeowCat. I'm not seeing any indication that Tarc is some sort of notorious edit warrior or anything. The big problem seems to me that Tarc was potentially uncivil to R3ap3R in an edit summary, deleting a 3RR warning template. I'm thinking this is something that should have been worked out on the talk page before taking it here. 0x0077BE 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea on earth why this was filed, I reverted twice, and there is no 1RR enforced on the page that I can see. This...filer, isn't even actively involved in the article at all; they attempted one very ill-informed speedy deletion almost 2 months ago and that is all. About the only thing I find more irksome than a WP:DNTTR faux pas is a busybody. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DNTTR is an essay, not a rule as stated in the lead "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. Essays are not Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines". WP:DNTTR further states: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template." R3ap3R (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps next time, you will do more than a shallow examination of the situation. If you had, you'd have seen that neither the 3RR warning nor was the "edit warring" report here were applicable. What you see as bad faith I see as a fundamental lack of due diligence. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A cursory overview of your talk page's history shows that I am *far* from being the first person to claim you have an issue with Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks R3ap3R (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, guys, can you take this somewhere else? If the discussion is about Tarc's civility, this isn't where the discussion goes. It's pretty obvious there was no 3RR and there's no ongoing edit war. Honestly, I think you can both just let it go and walk away. 0x0077BE 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

] reported by ] (Result: Shushed)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Comments:
Nancy Reagan is shushed.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring