Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 28 February 2016

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:AndrewGulch reported by User:SaintAviator (Result: AG is warned, Solntsa90 is banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin)

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: User-multi error: "AndrewGulch" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Lots of discussion in links below. User has a strong bent on this theme, not getting results in Talk, now involved in edit war. Received warning here after 3rd revert. Then did another revert. Is also spamming on talk page on same issue and same theme . Im also concerned about a possible Sock with same ideas, wording. and Another user deleted four other threads by IP with same geolocation as IP above, mentioned here, last comment . SaintAviator lets talk 04:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• As a newcomer I have found the editing atmosphere at Vladimir Putin to be utterly toxic. There are insults, blind reverts, and the like being hurled from both sides of the debate (including, I must say, the complainant here). It is worth pointing out that this is the edit warring noticeboard and not merely the 3RR noticeboard. In that regard I ask (beg, plead) for the admin who acts on this complaint to look in on the situation as a whole and apply sanctions liberally. Another possibility would be to full-protect the article for a long enough period that the combatants get bored and drift away. Maybe one of those measures will change the editing atmosphere sufficiently that some of the rest of us can edit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Recently there have been three reverts of the lede at Vladimir Putin by User:Solntsa90, who has previously been blocked for edit warring. It may be time for a ban of that editor from the Vladimir Putin page. Back in January he was banned by User:Drmies from RT (TV network) as shown at this link. Lately there have been complaints to admins about editor behavior on the Putin article (as echoed by VM above) and it may be time to start using the ARBEE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ed, I don't have it in me to do any more paperwork today: I agree with a topic ban for Putin. In the meantime, I have blocked him for two weeks (which I think is mild) for hounding Marek around the place; MastCell, I saw you were considering looking into that as well. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Another example of Drmies writing his own arbitrary definition of hounding and acting on it? Marek is well able to take care of himself, since he is the probably the most notorious hounder on Misplaced Pages ever. By that I mean real hounding, hounding as defined by Misplaced Pages policy, not Drmies's weird opinion of what hounding is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Solntsa90 is banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin on both article and talk pages, under the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBEE. User:AndrewGulch is warned and is being alerted to ARBEE. If anyone believes that User:SaintAviator should be sanctioned then a specific complaint is required. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to challenge this verdict, as I was not allowed to originally speak up in my defence. I would like this case to be re-reviewed. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, for the fact that the RT page has literally nothing to do with Vladimir Putin. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Rabenkind (Result: Protected)

Page: Sippenhaft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monochrome Monitor (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:
I might want to add that Monochrome Monitor at first argued that the sources are not understandable since in German while later on even translating from German to English and adding German literature to the article. Argumentation seems constantly changing. Keeps removing the entire section while only criticizing one aspect of two relevant. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean we shouldn't use German sources for readability. I said we generally shouldn't use german sources without a good justification. It's appropriate to use german sources in cases of German literature about traditional Germanic law. It's much less appropriate in cases of Middle Eastern politics. Also, I gave up on convincing you. Right now I'm trying to better the article by talking about Germanic/Celtic and Chinese traditional law. I'm trying to find a chinese character in unicode but it's really difficult.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, those weren't all in the same day I don't think. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, you kept on removing the section after I added articles from the New York Times and ABC News. The last four reverts were during the last 20h. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing no evidence by the OP to resolve the dispute on T/P apart from one very WP:SOAPBOX posting which does not appear to attempt to discuss compromise. Both parties are equally at fault at this stage. Suggest withdrawal of complaint and further discussion at article T/P before this escalates further. Irondome (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to remove that section again without a firm discussion. I was impulsive and I barely read your edits. But I still want to edit the page, the stuff about china needs more coverage. Anyway, next time warning me would be sufficient, I thought we were going to discuss it until it was reinstated. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion as long as people can wait with the article until an agreement. Edit where ever you want if you can leave out the subjects disputed. But what happened was a classic edit war. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note to admins I am MM's mentor, as some of you already know.

@Rabenkind Then I suggest this is withdrawn and conversation taken up. As an observer, there appears to be a large amount to be discussed on this. I've been watching but missed the escalation. The bottom line is, as always, is that it takes two to edit war. Irondome (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: It does feel a little awkward that you take part in this as a mentor of Monochrome Monitor and while your WP activities cover the same field as the discussed article. --Rabenkind (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That is what mentoring is about. A mentor keeps an eye on their mentoree. My interests on wikipedia are vast and diverse, and I actually very rarely edit the same articles as MM. Your point such as it is seems somewhat opaque. Irondome (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, use of non-English language sources are allowed. There is no mention of a need for a "justification" to use a foreign language source, only that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones. Foreign language sources are therefore not only suitable for usage in occasions where they are relevant to the article (like you mentioned with German literature about Germanic law), but outside of them as well regardless of relevance to the article topic, as long as they are supported/replaced by equal quality and relevance English-language sources when they become available. Not that this is relevant to this case any more, since English-language sources have since been cited. Alcherin (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Irondome very rarely edits I/P. Thanks simon! --Monochrome_Monitor 02:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The best thanks you could give me, MM is to stop being so impulsive and to communicate me weekly updates as to what articles you are editing. Mentoring you is like trying to herd cats sometimes. That being said, this is purely a content dispute aggravated by a lack of prior discussion. Looking at the material I am seeing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and would better off being in Collective punishment. To use a Germanic terminology based on an ancient Northern European law article to drag in Israel seems perverse at best. But as I have said, this is a content dispute. There seems plenty to discuss. The refusal of the OR to return to discussion and to continue this here is concerning. I am sure you are prepared to continue discussion MM, but the question is, is Rabenkind? There has been no substantive attempts by the OP to engage in dialogue, but rather an unseemly rush to the boards. The closing admin should take account of this I believe, and Monochrome_Monitor useful work here. Irondome (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I've gotten better, no? I haven't been involved in an I/P dispute in nearly a year. Well, over six months at least. I agree about the term sippenhaft... in Germanic law it is something very different than nazi law, even. In Germanic law it's a payment given to the family of the injured party in severe crimes such as murder by the offender's kin in place or in addition to the offender's blood money, the wyregild. This was one kind of punishment in germanic law, the other being blood revenge. Sippenhaft is just the principle that the kin of an offender can be made to pay the wergild instead of the offender. This was found all over pre-christian europe.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place for sustained discussion on content MM, which adds to my point that none of this has been discussed at the appropriate place in any length. There is much interesting material to be hashed out. This should end and dialogue resumed. It takes two to edit war, as I have said. Irondome (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your wisdom is truly boundless. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 weeks. The inclusion of Israeli examples of 'Sippenhaft' in the article is not clearly supported by the New York Times article. That article states that the relatives were expelled, not as relatives, but because they were participants in the militants' activities even if they didn't actually set off a bomb. Whether Israeli house demolitions may be contrary to the Geneva convention is already discussed in House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That article is well-sourced but never uses the term 'Sippenhaft.' Even if editors conclude that 'collective punishment' is occurring, associating this with the term Sippenhaft may be original research. I'm alerting User:Rabenkind of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While the New York Times article does not mention 'sippenhaft' explicitly, the article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about the same event does. As well as the German article from Süddeutsche Zeitung about house demolition. I don't see why the inclusion of those two subjects in the article would touch WP:OR in any way. Rather the contrary. --Rabenkind (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And an addition: That you excluded me form editing the article by ARBPIA feels like you made a decision on the content rather than on the dispute. It was me who asked Monochrome Monitor to use the talk page and me (after Monochrome Monitor ignored my request) used it first and after every edit in the matter. --Rabenkind (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

When I closed the 3RR case I had not yet noticed that you are below the 500-edit requirement for ARBPIA topics. So far as I know admins don't have discretion to relax the 500-edit requirement. Though the wording from Arbcom does allow you to participate on ARBPIA talk pages, just not edit the articles. The final answer about Sippenhaft is up to whatever consensus is reached by editors. The FA Zeitung link appears (from its tone) to be an editorial, not a factual report. The NY Times article about the same Israeli Supreme Court decision does not see the closure as a case of 'collective guilt', which is what FAZ seems to think. Of course Misplaced Pages can report that Amnesty International sees this as a 'war crime' if editors agree that it's relevant. Attributed as the opinion of Amnesty, of course. When admins close 3RRs they sometimes look at the content issue to see whether one side or the other might be pushing a POV, especially in a controversial area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Though the wording from Arbcom does allow you to participate on ARBPIA talk pages, just not edit the articles. Maybe you can take a look at the article history again - does that give you the impression that your suggestion is realistic? I didn't come to this noticeboard for fun. It feels a little kafkaesque... --Rabenkind (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:86.178.225.162 reported by User:Keri (Result: Semi)

Page

Black British (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
2. 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk) picture"
3. 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
4. 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

diff

Comments:

Keri (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. The IP has been reverting against the recent RfC decision about portrait galleries for ethnic groups. See also WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds and User:DantODB reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: Page protected )

Page: List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & DantODB (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:
These two are going back and forth on the page and there's too many to list.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for 24 hours. I got a sore head from reading the edit summaries from the pair, but they need to thrash out their differences on a talk page somewhere, which they can't do when blocked. If the edit warring starts up again after the protection expires, ping me and I'll bring my naughty step along. Ritchie333 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Justfollowingtherules reported by User:Only (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:57 2/24
2. 23:02 2/24
3. 18:55 2/25
4. 00:00 2/26
5. 1:29 2/26
6. 07:10 2/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:07 2/26

Comments:

Conversation was attempted at the user's talk page, but nothing has come from it as the user has not edited anywhere but the article. Presumably this is the same user as User:Foresttheaterguild who I blocked 5 hours prior. only (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Since the previous account was only blocked for having a promotional username, this one isn't a sock. They still have to follow policy, though. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Paintball331 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

Page

Battle of Vimy Ridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Paintball331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "ReInstated Last Revision Made By Paintball331 Due To It Being Removed For UnReasonable Reasons"
2. 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "(Note) ReAdded Previous Revision By Paintball331"
3. 00:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Marianna251 Has Been Removing True Information From This Article"
4. 00:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Marianna251 (talk) to revision by Paintball331 (TW)"
5. 00:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Marianna251 to previous edit by Paintball331 (talk)"
6. 00:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit made by Marianna15 (talk) to previous edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Battle of Vimy Ridge. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over the role of Canadians */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated edit warring and no response to warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Renameduser024 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: User talk:Mrfrobinson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuackGuru (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=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707249971
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250583
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250340
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250266
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250094

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=707250768

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=707250768

Comments:This user has been on a witch hunt accusing various IP addresses of being me. I decided to have my account renamed to leave Misplaced Pages however did not want my old username redirecting to the renamed one. Since I have now exposed my IP address (he had the wrong country) they were clearly wrong. They keep reverting my old talk page to reestablish this link. This user has a LONG block log and a history of disruption. Renameduser024 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are not allowed to be deleted for no reason. This is disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is userspace, redirects ARE allowed to be deleted. Renameduser024 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to who? The redirect was created when the account was renamed. Renameduser024 was stalking me with the previous account. This is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. An IP was initially removing the redirect. This is like vandalism. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I recommend this edit be reverted and the page protected. I don't see any legitimate reason for removing the link to the new account. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN " If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request" - Misplaced Pages:Clean start - "To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive, by using the {{retired}} tag or leaving some other message......no need to redirect if the editor does not wish to do so....just a note is fine. -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"just a note is fine." User:Moxy, what type of note instead of a redirect? QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vani_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=702689991

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APaleolithic_diet&type=revision&diff=703718434&oldid=703689858

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=705684241

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3AWikimedia_Foundation&type=revision&diff=705684331&oldid=705658807

Renameduser024 appeared to be hounding me and has not agreed to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Different IP numbers are doing the same thing.See IP 99.249.130.248. See IP 65.186.95.8. This is suspicious. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru if you think there is a behaviour problem that is a separate thing over the edit war of the users talk page - this is the wrong board. must keep in mind any user in good standing who has no unexpired sanctions, and who is not being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct, may have a clean start......they can just say the account is retired,,,by tag. They can simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use...no need to tell the world they wish to start fresh....Yes would be best to say they have a new account....but thats up to them.-- Moxy (talk)

The IP returned. I do not know who it is. This could be a violation of Misplaced Pages:Clean start when an IP made the edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP that made this edit reverted my edit on another page. Not sure what is going on here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

These IP are from many different countries...we should ask what is going on here. Is there a bigger problem? not sure? -- Moxy (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This could be related to my recent edits to KE. Another IP with 99 is deleting content. See this and see this. Also see this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking this to WP:ANI. clpo13_(talk) 20:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The comments by IP 99.236.126.9 are not that of a new editor. It started with the other IP 99.236.126.9. If you look further back it started with Renameduser024. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours There is no way these edits were covered under WP:3RRNO. As Moxy indicated, there is no law mandating such a redirect; a note is enough. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:43:0:4a27:9405:adc9:ddc5:f91f (Result: Semi, Block)

Page: Rottweiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:43:0:4a27:9405:adc9:ddc5:f91f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:48, 27 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:53, 27 February 2016
2. 21:56, 27 February 2016
3. 22:00, 27 February 2016
4. 22:05, 27 February 2016
5. 22:06, 27 February 2016
6. 22:08, 27 February 2016
7. 22:09, 27 February 2016
8. 22:11, 27 February 2016
9. 22:12, 27 February 2016
10. 22:14, 27 February 2016
11. 22:16, 27 February 2016
12. 22:19, 27 February 2016

After the article was semi-protected, this user made an edit of a similar nature on Dogo Argentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. 22:24, 27 February 2016

See also similar edits on Greater Swiss Mountain Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. 22:44, 27 February 2016

And St. Bernard (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. 22:45, 27 February 2016

This user has also engaged in outright test edits or vandalism on Bullmastiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. 22:56, 27 February 2016

Similar reversion on this article:

1. 23:00, 27 February 2016

Similar editing on Ca de Bou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. 23:12, 27 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:17, 27 February 2016

Comments:

DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Rottweiler has been semiprotected one year by User:Malcolmxl5. The IP has been blocked two weeks by User:Graham87. If you notice problems at other dog breed articles consider posting at WP:RFPP and mention this report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:FB90:24A3:6364:0:31:C882:2C01 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)

Page: Dave Brockie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FB90:24A3:6364:0:31:C882:2C0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:17, 27 February 2016
2. 22:42, 27 February 2016
3. 22:49, 27 February 2016
4. 22:57, 27 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Insistent WP:BLP vios. The anon IP is an apparent sock of blocked user Optim.usprime and his now-blocked block-evading IP 74.88.32.47, making the exact same edit as the latter after the latter was blocked. Two registered editors have reverted these edits, in which no citing whatsoever is given for the alleged names of two living individuals purportedly associated with the dead article subject. This inability to give citing suggests a possible prankster or an unsupported OR claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap reported by User:CounterTime (Result: )

Page: Apostasy in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Apostasy_in_Islam&oldid=706889982

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (04:12, 28 February 2016) 1
2. (11:00, 28 February 2016) 2
3. (04:07, 28 February 2016) 3
4. See the edit history: 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#On_the_recent_edits_by_.40Steeletrap

Recent one (10:43, 28 February 2016‎): https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#Violations_of_POV.2C_PRIMARY.2C_SYNTHESIS.2C_..._policies_by_user_Steeletrap

Comments:

Despite many attempts in the talk page to cooperate, and many invitations to change the page until a consensus is reached in the talk, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) has been very persistent in his behavior. He has additionally been violating WP policies on mutual respecting, stating that I was "lying", and calling wiki admins "too lazy", and "incompetent". 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

CounterTime appears to be a Single Purpose Account and after getting to 4RR and saying on 2/24 that it would step back from further edits has failed to do so. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Involved editor here. According to these stats, CounterTime has edited 217 unique pages, so I don't know what you mean by SPA. While the reporter has broken 3RR once (based on a subsequently clarified misunderstanding of the policy, according to the comment you linked to), he also has WP:BRD on his side and has taken the initiative to discuss the matter on the TP, which should have been properly done by the reportee. Eperoton (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Eperoton, please have a look at the edit history. All related to a single topic and with an apparent POV pattern. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I disagree with your judgment that I'm an SPA, and that my edits are POV, following examples will provide conclusive evidence to the contrary:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Color_of_water&diff=prev&oldid=684886812
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Poisson_random_measure&diff=prev&oldid=684883716
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Infimum_and_supremum&diff=703589069&oldid=703588870
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Poisson_process&diff=prev&oldid=685570042
5. But the fact remains that my last interests were confined to a particular set of topics as my contributions history makes clear (and not only one topic), this does not mean that I'm an SPA.

I also disagree with your judgment that my edits contain a POV pattern, and any Wikipedian who interacted with me long enough would attest to that.

Finally I would want to rectify something, I said that I "stopped editing at that page until a consensus is built in the talk page", and that's what I did. However for things like WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTHESIS... I had clearly the right to intervene, in fact, it's my obligation to rectify things like that. As for the rest I have been very willing to participate in the talk, see the two links given above.

Thanks for your comprehension,

Cheers! 16:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@SPECIFICO: It's a cross-section of topics in Islamic studies. Sounds too broad for a "single purpose". I've debated with CounterTime on a number of these edits myself. While I have disagreed with some of them, I can vouchsafe for CounterTime's good faith efforts to abide by WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I know nothing about this topic. This matter just happened to pop up on my watchlist of a user talk page. But I think it's fair to say that with a recent acknowledged 3RR violation, cited above, we can hope at the least that CounterTime would not become involved in a similar situation only a few days later. I'll have nothing further to say here. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I didn't violate 3RR lately with only 2 edits made lately, as anyone can check. And as I said, previous 3RR viol. can be objected since I made edits fitting in the exception, such as revert of material violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY. 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Comment: This would normally call for blocking both editors. Each party has reverted at least six times in the past week. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. CounterTime should be aware that WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY are not among the exceptions to enforcement listed in WP:3RRNO. Either party can avoid a block if they will promise to stay away from the article for the next two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Hengistmate reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Page

Talk:Plasticine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

This has been running since December Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling_again_from_Hengistmate, without any effective intervention.

Hengistmate has past blocks for socking and trolling in a similar manner Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive and there's a current SPI open too: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate.

Today Hengistmate decided to switch to simple edit-warring at the talk page, hitting 4RR against two other editors. This was the blanking of already-hatted content on a talk: page for being off-topic. Now that's maybe an arguable point, but WP:TPO is against such blanking, the content was already hatted and this is simple EW regardless. His edits over here (look at the article authors) are also far more about trolling a particular editor than about content.

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This is exhaustively discussed at the ANI report linked above. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Any discussion of this belongs at the overall ANI thread.

And Hengistmate has the cheek to accuse me of edit warring with this edit summary in spite of the fact that I have only reverted the deleted discussion once. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This "Using Misplaced Pages rules as weapon. Removed troll" is pretty unimpressive too, as an edit summary when blanking a legit 3RR warning from an uninvolved editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

His edit-warring has now moved back to an old favourite article of his, Mark V tank, and a tactic he has been using on Plasticine, that of simply denying sources that disagree with his truth

(Same edits in 2014)

Last time this came up at the article talk: page Talk:Mark_V_tank#Dates_of_Service. he took to editing my comments there to ridicule me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:PerelmanMorales reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Arsenal F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "Are you not a Arsenal fan? Thus you are a biased party here. I am objective on the other hand. How about you take a look at practically every other page that deals with top clubs in England? None have included what you are insisting should be included."
2. 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "This is not important here. There is a well-established consensus in this regard where trophies which are not recognized by either The FA, UEFA or FIFA are NOT included on the main page. See talk."
3. 14:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "I thought that there was a well-established rule that only official honors should be included on the main pages of every club on Misplaced Pages, particularly the biggest/most historic clubs?"
4. 14:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Honours */ None of those are official titles. No point including them."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arsenal F.C.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No consensus provided, he just removed what he does not like from a well established featured article, and I thought I betyter report instead of breaking 3RR. Qed237 (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not just remove "sourced" material. I just happen to uphold a consensus that is clearly well established. Namely that trophies not recognized by either The FA, UEFA or FIFA should not be included on the main page of clubs such as is the case with practically every other Misplaced Pages page that deals with football clubs in the Premier League and outside of it. I even started a topic on the talk page about this which you ignored.

Moreover it appears to me that you are not a objective party here as you yourself state that you are a Arsenal fan on your profile page.

--PerelmanMorales (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

PerelmanMorales is not engaging constructively on this page. They are engaging in personalisation of the issue, and are overtly engaging in aggressive and unnecessary beheaviour, for example questioning an editors impartiality. A comment left on the talk page discussing this by PerelmanMorales is not focused on the content but focuses on the editor they disagree with. A discussion on this issue has previously established a consensus on this issue. If that consensus is bing challenged, meaningful discussions, and not insults through edit summaries should be undertaken. Sport and politics (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

And the editor still continues (diff). I am starting to think this might be a sock of an other editor, Davefelmer, that does not agree with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football regarding honours and has been editwarring over them. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor is engaging is personal attacks, which are preventing constructive engagement being possible with this editor as shown in this diff. Sport and politics (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie 18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:58.174.70.103 reported by User:Andrewgprout (Result: Blocked)

Page

Air New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted other users ignorance"
2. 03:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC) to 13:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060

Plus several previous

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
2. 04:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Brisbane */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No attempt by the ip user to discuss other than rather esoteric inline edits and the final edit summary. Andrewgprout (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month for vandalism at various articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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