Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 13 September 2013

• 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:Antopandeth reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: BLP block)

Page

Deepa Miriam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572264078 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
2. 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572258303 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
3. 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572130990 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
4. 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571780597 by Salih (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Deepa Miriam. (TW)"
2. 23:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Deepa Miriam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor insists on inserting unsourced personal information. I've explained that they need a source, but all I've gotten so far is a YouTube video. §FreeRangeFrog 03:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for BLP violations. ItsZippy 10:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:193.198.7.30 reported by User:109.227.24.180 (Result: 31 hours and one week)

Page: Croatian Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.198.7.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - section blanking
2. - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content (which was independently added between first and second revert)
3. - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content
4. - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Accusations by a minor group of extreme leftists (https://www.facebook.com/ndh.wikipedia?hc_location=stream) have no merit.--193.198.7.30 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

IvanOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also violated the 3 revert rule on the same article in following edits:

--37.244.136.51 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 31 hours by User:Discospinster & Blocked – for a period of one weekMark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Carelief1 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24 hours)

Page: CC Sabathia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carelief1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. and count as the same revision, done in two edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Paatv reported by User:paul Barlow (Result: 1 week )

Page: The White Queen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paatv (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:
This user (who also edits as an IP and as User:WhiteQueen2013) has ignored all attempts to engage in discussion on the article talk page or his own user page, so this was not specifically raised on the article talk page, as it seemed pointless to do so. It was raised on his user talk page. User_talk:Paatv#The_White_Queen. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing, edit warring, and socking. Additionally WhiteQueen2013 (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked as a  Confirmed sock. Tiptoety 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:MagicEagle67 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Fully protected)

Page

Old Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MagicEagle67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
2. 14:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572344123 by VanguardScot (talk)"
3. 14:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
4. 14:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572351524 by VanguardScot (talk)"
5. 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572351701 by VanguardScot (talk)"
6. 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572359640 by VanguardScot (talk)"
7. 21:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572387940 by VanguardScot (talk)"
8. 13:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572409550 by VanguardScot (talk)"
9. 14:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572487614 by BadSynergy (talk)"
10. 19:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572496344 by VanguardScot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeat history of edit warring on this topic. Previously blocked 9 months ago.

Escape Orbit 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is this? has VanguardScot not been reported for ALSO REVERTING? What a complete and utter farce.

• Page protected. I've locked the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:LTblb reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Antoni Gaudí (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Catalonia is a region of Spain. Catalan is no nationality; it wasn`t in the nineteenth century, and it is not today."
2. 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572535920 by Elizium23 (talk) WP:POV, WP:edit warring"
3. 20:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) "Catalan is no nationality"
4. 11:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571447558 by Elizium23 (talk) WP:POV WP:Edit warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user's talk page is suggestive of a history of Spain and Catalan related editing, with plenty of warnings. James12345 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Haberstr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2013 Ghouta attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Page is under 1RR restriction)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Numerous at Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks

Comments:
Notified: VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the examples, except for the first item below, I have not reverted anything.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

-- Reverted malicious edit which changed "veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern" to "veteran CIA analyst and conspiracy theorist Ray McGovern." My edit summary stated: "Undid apparently malicious edit by Sopher99. Let's be nice, people!"Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

-- This was not a revert. My edits were not reverted, were non-controversial, and became the consensus. My edit shortly thereafter on the 'Western' and 'Eastern' semantic issue became the consensus.Haberstr (talk)

-- This was not a revert. I corrected POV bias. The huge preceding section, 'government attack', spent many paragraphs summarizing the circumstantial and alleged evidence for governmental responsibility for the alleged attack. In the tiny 'rebel attack' section I added the first and only RS expert summary of the circumstantial evidence pointing toward rebel responsibility for the attack.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This was not a revert. I added the RS French intelligence service's '281 or more' estimate of the number of victims. I don't understand why this was controversial.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This was not a revert. I moved the death estimates to the second sentence. My edit was reverted, and I have not 're-reverted'.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I blocked Haberstr for a "normal" breach of WP:3RR. Although I could have blocked them under the sanctions, those sanctions are relatively new, so I chose not to. I did officially warn them. To make it clearer, in addition to the existing notice on the talk page, I will create an edit notice for the article. There's way too much battling going on in the article, and, strictly speaking, a warning is not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:PLNR reported by User:Podiaebba (Result: Declined)

Page: 2013 Ghouta attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PLNR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:21 11 Sep
2. 06:16 12 Sep
3. 07:13 12 Sep

The first and second reverts remove information; the third undoes an unrelated change of ordering. The first and second relate to the discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Pierre_Piccinin_da_Prata, where PLNR asserts the right to judge that this widely reported incident is not worth mentioning.

Comments:
Page is under 1RR due to being part of Syrian civil war. Note that probably a number of participants (including me, maybe) have violated the 1RR - it's very hard to stick to. But participants are mostly seeking compromise so I think it's fair to cut slack; PLNR is not. Podiaebba (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PLNR

• The first two edits, have been made on separate days. They are part of BRD effort which have been discussed here, after Podiaebba initial edit.(who imo have been consistently adding material based on dubious sources, with nothing but accusations that everyone else are pushing western propaganda to support them) The discussion wasn't concluded, nor there was consensus for Podiaebba phrasing, all we got is a suggestion for alternative phrasing, however, @Podiaebba choose to go ahead and reinserted what he wanted, disregarding BRD process and thus Editing warring.
• The third edit has nothing todo with first two, its in completely different section, where I done no other revert. Which I did due to my opinion that the death toll sentence flows better into the next/last sentence("If the death toll...). While the first two provide a good description of the subject i.e. what, where and who.

Overall there was no attempt at editing warring, in fact I started most of the threads on the talk page trying to discuss specific issues, in an effort to avoid the endless partisan edits by user to lead. With no new info, we should be able to reach a consensus over the discussion page and not in the edit summaries. Additionally, I would like to request @Podiaebba edit practices to be checked, this is not the first time he disregards discussion/consensus and does what he wants. (including this recent unrelated issue)--PLNR (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Even before I read this report, I was scrutinizing PLNR's edits at the same time as I was evaluating the report above. I concluded that PLNR violated WP:3RR but decided not to block them. First, they had received no warning. Even Podiaebba did not warn them. Nor did Podiaebba notify them of this report, at least not on PLNR's talk page. Second, they are a relatively new account. Finally, they appear to have stopped reverting, certainly since this report was filed. Instead, I warned them of the sanctions in place for the future. More reverting will probably lead to a block. PLNR should also read more carefully the policy on edit warring, including the sections on 3RR and 1RR so they understand the definition of a revert. It doesn't matter whether you are obviously reverting another editor or if you are editing in the same area of the article. A revert is undoing (changing) another editor's content, which means making almost any changes to the article anywhere in the article. And that can include adding material if you are adding material that was previously removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Neon Genesis Evangelion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Stable text pre-dispute text diff:
• Original removal by TeenAngels on 09:07, 10 September 2013 :
• Folken's alteration and reinsertion on 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ :
• Folken's 2nd reinsertion on 08:09, 11 September 2013:
• Folken's 3rd reinsertion on 13:32, 11 September 2013
• My third revert under BLP grounds complete with policy link on 18:54, 11 September 2013:
• Folken's 4th reinsertion on 11:59, 12 September 2013

This is not a 3RR breach, it is for continuing to edit war a contentious insertion and likely BLP violation during a discussion at BLPN. The original removal by TeenAngels was to remove a borderline to rather inaccurate reading of an interview by Hideaki Anno. TeenAngels gave the reason as it did not reflect the cultural impact and replacing/removing the inaccuracy he found. At 13:52, before Folken's alteration and reinsertion, I stated that while I did not have the Unofficial Guide to Neon Genesis Evangelion the text was not relevant and it was inaccurate and that I was already aware of Anno's comments, agreeing with the removal. A debate continues about it, Folken argues that Anno's response to fans is relevant and does not need to be NPOV. I disagree saying it is not relevant, neutral or accurate - noting it was out of context. Folken finds a brief editorial in Protoculture 41, (linked off of Gwern's English translation of the full text of the interview), and asserts it as fine before inserting. After some back and forth I give the full reason complete with the BLP matter and the inaccuracy in PA41 as it was written. After this post Folken reinserts, for the 3rd time, the text and I take it to BLPN. In the process of BLPN I assert WP:BLPREMOVE and point out that the original source is what must be used, and not this inaccurate third party account in the editorial which was paraphrased after being translated by a friend. Folken de Fanel reinserted it again and that is why I brought it here.

Lastly, this seems to be a continuation of the problems which lead to Folken's RFC/U. While I was not a party to that RFC/U or had contact with Folken, the behavior is the same. I have dozens of interviews with Hideaki Anno I can source and cite with ease, but I do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996. The content, by any measure including the extant translations found online, show that Folken's text is inaccurate and incorrect. For example the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to someone saying he was dead, not a response to fan's criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith report. That I modified my edits to incorporate other users' feedback (including ChrisGualtieri's) does not count as "revert warring" or whatever. Anyone can see the substancial differences between my first and last edits and I did not breach 3RR. My edit from 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ is a completely different text and source that TeenAngels's original and thus should not even be counted as a revert. I note, however, that ChrisGaltieri has reached the 3 reverts limit within 24 hours(02:01, 11 September 2013‎, 13:22, 11 September 2013, and 18:54, 11 September 2013‎). He tries to argue that his 3rd revert would somehow be allowed under WP:BLPREMOVE, but the policy states that "although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption". ChrisGualtieri opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard, but then he was told by two users that it wasn't a matter of BLP, but right after that he decided to revert anyway invoking BLPREMOVE. Considering he did not have consensus at BLPN, this 3rd revert was not only borderline 3RR, but borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE as he was specifically told wasn't a matter of BLP or libel justifying immediate revert.

I'll end on the fact that during this dispute, ChrisGualtieri received a comment on his talkpage from an uninvolved editor, who noted his tendency to get involved in disputes, with at least 3 different users recently, and which led to several reports at WP:ANI (here and here). I can only plead good faith for my edits when I tried to change and adapt my content as much as possible to ChrisGualtieri's remarks rather than purely reverting, but his 3rd self-proclaimed BLP revert shows was determined to have his own way, to the detriment of compromise and good-faith.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To break 3RR you need 4 reverts in 24 hours. And both I and TeenAngel have said the information was inaccurate even prior to your removal; and unlike TeenAngel - I have the source information and can attest that your edit is not accurate. As long as it is under discussion (especially at BLPN where it should be) the content is to remain out of the page and I have confirmed that your edit is inaccurate and I have provided the citation, but you reinserted the text anyways. Also refrain from your personal attacks; BLP is very serious and misusing sources to misquote Anno is a major concern for me. This is libelous and unlike the Akai's actual gaff, it is not supported by the original document. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the source information, you have an unreliable fan-translation. I have a reliable publication. My edit is accurate. There is no misquote anywhere. This isn't a BLP matter, as you have been told by two different persons at BLPN and you had no justification to revert. My last edit states: "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"", which is accurate. How you can interpret that as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism" (per your report) is beyond me. There is nothing libelous, and implying that I could be libelling is a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I have the source information. Secondly, let a volunteer deal with this. Folken's paraphrasing of the inaccurate editorial should not replace the original, even if the text is somehow relevant on that page. Message me on my talk page if requiring more details in the content matter, but I came here over Folken's edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You said in your report that you "do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996". I'm willing to let a volunteer deal with this, but not until I get to tell my view of the story. There is nothing inaccurate as the editorial says the same thing as your fan translation. I still have no answer as to how you interpret my edit "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"" as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism". And I came here to report your own revert warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)}}

I note that ChrisGualtieri has just been warned by yet another user against "revert(ing) constructive editing without discussion" in a separate discussion. I think this can be relevant to this case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The advice from Nick on RSN is to just remove the offending section. This is probably for the best and since no one has broken 3RR this should probably just stop. This way the dubious translation (either side) is moot and we can remove the irrelevant material or use one of the other sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I'm not convinced that Folken did not breach WP:3RR, but I'm happy to close this and permit the content/policy dispute to continue in the other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Ann2013usa reported by User:Yintan (Result: Already blocked for 48 hours)

Page

Holocaust denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ann2013usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572623802 by DoctorJoeE (talk)"
2. 14:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625363 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
3. 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625752 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
4. 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572625996 by Kirachinmoku (talk)"
5. 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572626367 by Triplestop (talk)"
6. 14:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572627335 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
7. 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572627945 by Dawn Bard (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note that user has already been blocked for 48 hours by Singularity42. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already blocked Singularity42 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Report filed and block issued within a minute of eachother. Great minds think alike . Yintan  14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:188.96.192.14 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semi)

Page: Maria Theresa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.96.192.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. , including a racist personal attack against Sjö (apparently the attack was left unfinished, but I suppose the IP wanted to say that Sjö should go edit his "own" Misplaced Pages)
3. , including a racist personal attack against me (suggesting that I am not fit to edit this Misplaced Pages due to being "Russian or some other Slav"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was never any indication that this would be properly discussed on the talk page. There is simply nothing to discuss; the IP claims that the world's best known empress (perhaps overshadowed only by Catherine the Great and Victoria) was never an empress. When I pointed out that, by her or his logic, the last 14 emperors were also not emperors, all discussion about her status ceased (though not the removal of her title) and personal attacks followed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected three days by another admin. The IP's edits make little sense. Let me know if he starts up anywhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Spieden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: NLT block)

Page

James Jannard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 04:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 03:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC) to 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 03:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
6. 02:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
7. 02:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""
8. 01:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User refuses to discuss reverts, has now made legal threats. "Now... who are you? Come out of the shadows. Or shut the fuck up. I have now engaged my attorneys to solve this problem. You will need to step forward an identify yourself. No more hiding behind your mouse." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that this user appears to be the subject of the biographical article in question. I am attempting to engage him to understand his objections to the material, but at first glance it appears to be well-sourced and not immediately a violation of any biographical policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The user has responded to my request to explain any issues he has with the article with another legal threat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely for making legal threats. I've also posted a note on his talk page with advice. ItsZippy 10:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Moonstarturk reported by 95.141.31.4 (Result: indef)

Page: Morphou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Famagusta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Kyrenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Karpass Peninsula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moonstarturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Please see Diffs and comment

Diffs of the user's reverts: Please note that the links below are not for 3RR violation but for the reasons explained in comments

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Links of North cyprus below the comments section. Main concerns are POV pusihing and edit warring

Comments:
User is on a campaign of reversing the order of multiple North Cyprus places names (Changed to Turkish first and then Greek) ignoring any conventions that could exist (In most places the Greek name is first) and also did not provide an adequate explanation. Most of these kind of articles have titles in Greek.Informed the user that the common name is therefore the Greek one and should hence be first but the user ignored me , , and never used the talkpage before/after reverts. In addition edit warred on changing the map of North Cyprus in North Cyprus showing only the North. (Diffs below) and also used the talkpage of User:Lfdder to intimidate him/her .I believe that this user is here for POV pushing and edit warring.

• Note: After report submission I got a sarcastic message containing a smily icon that I have been reported too . I think it is obvious that the user is not here for serious editing.

• Diffs of North Cyprus edit War

• Also 3RR violation since 4th revert in less than 24h
• Now trying to intimidate an administrator threatening with a formal complaint to Misplaced Pages
• Still changing names after this report. I reverted most of the names back as they were before and he/she reverted all of them ,, ,
• Now posting unsubstantial messages on talkpage . Story continues and now I was called a fool. Action needed please 95.141.31.4 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked indef by User:Bishonen. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:Kookoo Star (Result: )

Page: The Fog (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stiarts erid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. (3RR breached)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (made after 4th revert but before 5th)

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

Edit warring, 3RR, and Incivility. There has been ongoing disruption caused by this editor over the past couple of months, though yesterday they breached 3RR and have made the same revert again today despite warnings. The main issue surrounds the section for the plot of the film which was, until a couple of months ago, too long and contained too much irrelevant detail, as per WP:FILMPLOT. After it was trimmed down to the maximum length of 700 words by the efforts of various editors, Stiarts erid proceeded to engage in edit warring with the other users to reinsert certain details back into the plot summary. These details were deemed by several users to be irrelevant to the plot, and only served to take the summary back over the maxmimum word limit. Discussions and considerable attempts to explain Misplaced Pages policies to Stiarts erid were made on the article talk page and Stiarts erid's own talk page by several users, but these were met with incivility by Stiarts erid who referred to other editors as "idiots", "saddo", "pathetic", "dull witted sod" and "Hitler" and that Misplaced Pages policies were "idiotic". By the end of July, the matter appeared to be resolved after various editors informed Stiarts erid of his problematic behaviour, and he eventually apologised for the incivility and promised no more edit warring, but he also deleted all of his parts of the conversation on the article talk page on 30 July 2013. However, within a couple of weeks the problem resurfaced after two single purpose sockpuppet accounts began making disruptive edits to the article (Senotsgnillor and Antifeminist2), which led to Stiarts erid then continuing with his previous behaviour of trying to reinsert their preferred version of the plot summary. On 11 Aug 2013, Stiarts erid attempted to delete all other users comments about the matter on the article talk page (complete with yet another insult in the edit summary calling other users "childish"), but this was reverted by User:Millahnna who correctly stated the talk page conversation should remain on the page. Stiarts erid then proceeded to delete the talk page discussion several more times , , , stating that Millahnna was "not part of the conversation" and that he was going to keep removing them regardless. Millahnna placed warnings on Stiart erid's talk page on 12 August and two more on 21 August. This is in addition to a previous warning Stiarts erid had from another editor about disruptive editing on this same article only a couple of weeks earlier . By the end of August, Stiarts erid's edit warring tendencies has resumed in full. I myself left a warning on his talk page today, which was met with more incivility and contempt. Despite this, Stiarts erid then continued to make another revert on the article in question, despite already breaking the 3RR rule yesterday. Stiarts erid flatly refuses to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies, refuses to listen to other editors, refuses to gain consensus, and refuses to cease their incivility towards other editors and Misplaced Pages in general. Multiple warnings have had absolutely no effect and he has made it clear that he has no intention of ceasing this kind of behaviour until he gets his way. Even his edit summaries are incivil, often being rude towards other users, and one edit summary he made yesterday stated "Until you lot take notice of what I want this will continue GOT THAT?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?". Today, he left a message on the article talk page saying "I have just one thing to say to all those people who got in my way, and I don't care if I get blocked for this. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The offensive comment was removed by another user only to be reverted back by Stiarts erid a few minutes later. I believe Stiarts erid's account should therefore be blocked. Kookoo Star (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Engaged in personal attack, copied directly from my talk page:

Well it seems your group of bully editors are being as stubborn as you and won't let me contribute to the page even after saying both edits can stay or that my edit is allowed but modified to another editors interpretation so Thank you so bloody much.

He even called me a bully and an illiterate, and quoting his words "and truth hurts does it," proves that he deliberately sending offensive messages. I admits that I have learning disability, but that does not give him a right to call me illiterate.NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually let me put my point across before we all take sides. Yes it was wrong of me to make comments that caused offense but you must realise it was heat of the moment type things that most people would brush off quickly. I made several attempts for editors to discuss the matter with me but they refused so they could have their own way without taking notice of me. Millahnna actually was able to calm me down and made me see her point of view just by having a reasonable disscussion with me more than the other lot. Also whether one editor likes it or not his grammar is in fact partially illiterate that's a fact not insult, and without being harsh is it really wise to edit on here if you have that disability? None of the editors would listen to my point of view only their own and have bullied me to get their own way. I disagree with some of wikipedias policies but none of them say one editore has over riding say on things which some of these people think they have. I was quite happy for both mine and other edits to be included or for mine to be included but worded differently. Actually all the editors did was call me child ish and that I was wrong to edit because to them it was irrelevant. That word irrelevant is a matter of opinion no one can say it is irrelevant you can say in your opinion it is irrelevant. They will not leave me alone either please tell them to go away and not to talk to me please it is driving me mad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Also the quotations above other editors have used or not in full and taken out of context to make me sound worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your abusive attitude towards other Wikipedians has been going on for months now which proves this is not a "heat of the moment" issue as you claim, this is clearly your normal behaviour. It is not acceptable under any circumstances to hurl abuse at other editors, and trying to delete the evidence of your abusive attitude will not work either. And as for your claim that you have not been listened to, I can see from the edit history of the article's talk page not to mention your own talk page and those of other editors, that several people have gone to great lengths to explain Misplaced Pages's policies to you and why your edits are inappropriate. But you have ignored all of this purely because you want to have your own way. People have tried to engage with you but you simply refuse to listen. You agreed to stop being abusive and edit warring at the end of July, only to resume the same behaviour a couple of weeks later. Clearly you thought there would be no consequences for your actions. If you cannot abide by Misplaced Pages's policies then you have no business editing it. Kookoo Star (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Even when I edits some Back to the Future film articles, some editor reverted some of my changes and I would respect that, and I would not use profanity and name calling. Clearly, Stiarts erid has no respect of others and wants things his own ways.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring