Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 6 March 2014 (Undid revision 598343341 by 10.4.1.126 (talk) let bot do this). 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:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (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: and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:Niemti reported by User:50.83.87.8 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:51, 2 March 2014
2. 05:03, 2 March 2014
3. 05:06, 2 March 2014
4. 05:12, 2 March 2014‎
5. 11:41, 2 March 2014
6. 14:27, 2 March 2014‎ (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)
7. 15:20, 2 March 2014 (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning posted on Users Talk page and he has also been warned in the Interplay Productions change log area.

Comments: User continues to use blanket reverts without even attempting to correct spelling errors, and continues to unorganize a game list and delete info, please look into this. Also instead of at least posting a comment as to why he thinks an undo is appropriate he puts things such as

(cur | prev) 14:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (besides the obvious lack of spelling Ex "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it.", the deleting the location, deleting public company info, unorganizing the games list, this is your official warning of the "3 Revert rule".) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:41, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:15, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, you "revision" does little to add to the page. Perhaps you should visit ALL of your other entries to see what else you have vandalized.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:12, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (Wikpedia:Vandalism; Troll Hard 2: Troll Harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, how is disorganizing the products area useful to this article other than vandalism?) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:06, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (you're not trolling hard enough) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:05, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (I do not see how your organizing of the products area helps the article. Until you can explain how it helps it I will continue to delete your vandalism.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:03, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (troll harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:01, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (learn the guidelines of Misplaced Pages) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:48, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:34, 27 February 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

Page protected – Fully protected 48 hours. Both of you guys know how to discuss. It appears that neither of you knows how to wait for consensus before reverting. It is better for me to protect the article than to block both of you for 3RR violation. User:Niemti, try to cut down on the personal attacks in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:69.120.212.166 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Lupita Nyong'o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.120.212.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Nyong'o has been subject of several recent changes, as a mixture of vandalism and GF edits, I assume this is the link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. restoring to original content
2. diff
3. i guess lupitas interview of her talking mexico makes you upset because it doesn't support your claim of her being a proud mexican.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I don't, but there's an open ANI case (Misplaced Pages:ANI#Lupita_nyong.27o), which was open by 68.194.18.81 (talk · contribs). Both 68.194.18.81 (talk · contribs) and 69.120.212.166 (talk · contribs) are geolocated in the same city (Bronx, New York), so although 69.120 hasn't broken the 3RR rule itself, the user has been edit-warring from before. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And now the IP has broken the 3RR rule despite the warns to stop . This IP editor is here just to have a war. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And the IP continues , is it needed more evidence? © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – User:69.120.212.166 is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BetterThanSuchAsYou reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:Culture of Canada sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BetterThanSuchAsYou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - (no edit summary)
2. - (Canada finds unique cultural expressions in its pornography no less than it does in it humour, its cuisine, or its cinema)
3. - (template to reflect actual article content)
4. - (he adding of one item to a list is a minor edit)

The editor is involved in a few edits wars at once 2014 Crimean crisis - Culture of Canada - Template:Muhammad Ali.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor has gone to the talk page as seen at Template talk:Culture of Canada - however 4 editors have expressed concerns in edit summaries with BetterThanSuchAsYou still reverting all of them (including me). Clearly no consensus to add the link thus far.-- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Not sure the editor is here to actually help the project - as per the edit that added to the Culture of Canada a Legendary Canadian bisexual porn cock "woodsman". we had this same problem a few years ago on the same template..bit odd -- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

BetterThanSuchAsYou also unilaterally renamed Crimean War to First Crimean War; renamed 2014 Crimean crisis to Second Crimean War; and edited 2014 Crimean crisis to identify Viktor Yushchenko as the "incumbent" Ukrainian president and his successor as "acting President in-pretence". Upcoming events might (or might not) end up vindicating these changes, but at the moment they are premature, and in any event they should have been discussed first. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:37, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,630 bytes) (-2,891)‎ . . (unexplained removal Undid revision 597920445 by OccultZone
2. 06:00, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,629 bytes) (-230)‎ . . (Most of the links are authoritative news sources , hence removing "biased" banner) (undo | thank
3. 05:58, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,859 bytes) (-147)‎ . . (Most sources are valid news sources and are authoritative , STOP trying to encourage edit wars)
4. 05:21, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,222 bytes) (-2,299)‎ . . (partisan sources removed, the references are from personal blogs of one of the claimants, we need independent third party validation) (undo | thank)

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

• • Both Muffadalqn and Occultzone have removed content without gaining consensus. The links are third party non partisan. I had warned Occultzone first but he even removed his notification from his talk page , so did I. I had also gave an edit warring notice to Muffadalqn but he persisted in adding unsourced or slanderous information. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• On the contrary it is summichum who is adding slanderous information. I had in no way added any slander. you can verify in the history.infact I had added information pertaining to subject sourcing reliable source such as 'Times of India' . In fact it is summichum who is citing web based petition and forums as source. Mufaddalqn 08:17, 3 March 2014

Muffadalqn is taking one side removing well sourced content regarding Mufaddal who is characterized by the succession dispute. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am removing only content that is libelous to the person whose biography this article is. Mufaddalqn 08:21, 3 March 2014‎
• summichum removed the tag and other blp issues without discussion. contantly reverting edit done by anyone else, without discussion.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mr.Sumchum, please restrain from doing unnecessary edit, removing well reported facts and encouraging edit war. We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV. We know that there is succession dispute and Wiki is not a platform for publishing your POV. NPOV will prevail. Your constructive inputs and well reported facts are welcome. If you act as an agent for someone, Wiki will never allow you and have means to control you.--Md iet (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
User:Summichum is clearly using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it might be unintentional but accusatory statements like "We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV" is a troutworthy assumption of bad faith. If it was meant like a NPOV warning I'd suggest using templates to help make it more clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket:, just count how many reverts User:Summichum has made in last 24 hours. I had warned him, but all he did was copy-paste that warning on my talk page. OccultZone (Talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Cmoibenlepro reported by User:Psubrat2000 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: 2014 Crimean crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmoibenlepro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=598001444

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The people making these comments are not some random people on the internet. They are important European and US politicians. And Gary Kasparov. It is important in the context of how the world and the Ukrainians are seeing the situation develop.Psubrat2000 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) -->

• Comment. Both these editors broke 3RR on the article in the space of little more than an hour. Before today, the OP had roughly 15-20 edits/year, and hadn't edited in about 18 months; the target had only four prior edits. Both, however, show enough familiarity with Misplaced Pages processes to make one wonder if either or both are just bad-hand accounts used in a POV-pushing dispute. No other editors, as of right now, appear to have supported either set of edits. It therefore appears appropriate to block both and give other contributors a better opportunity to work on the pertinent issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I often edit from IP, without logging. Good-hand, bad hand, eeither one.Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User keeps adding comparisons with Nazi Germany in the article lead.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:81.100.136.89 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: )

Page

Wantage Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "No, "All that Student life stuff" is fact. The skeleton article you keep turning the page into is unsatisfactory for anyone wanting information about Wantage Hall. Indeed editing is needed, but not to the entire article."
2. 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "Indeed waffle in part, but as a resident the traditions can be be confirmed. You cannot reference student tradition. This article is being made unessasarily short. Must be someone from St Pats."
3. 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "This page should not be a stub"
4. 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Wantage Hall. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

First edit in sequence was a revert to this edit, with a few tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over the history of Wantage Hall. Much is unfortunately un-referenceable as traditions and other day to day life aspects are not widely reported. It would be a worthy compromise to keep the page as a purely historical reference, so will not re-edit without references I find from the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.136.89 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: )

Page: Lent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
LimosaCorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
131.123.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Too many diffs to list; massive edit war shown in page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e has added a sentence to the article that is not supported by the source he added: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lent&diff=598056601&oldid=598056566 He claims that "In the 20th century, certain Lenten customs, practices and traditions derived from Roman Catholic tradition prior to the Reformation also became part of mainline Protestants, evangelicals and Anabaptist traditions as well." This sentence is to be found nowhere in the source. I added a source that demonstrated that Lutherans and Anglicans mantained the tradition and he removed it. Unfortunately, the article remains in the incorrect version after protection from Drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LimosaCorel has also been a part of this edit war, as evidenced by these reverts. Warned here. Novusuna 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You know why? It's because they're the same user - that's why they revert to the same version as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 4:24, 4 March 2014‎

• This dynamic duo, guised as a trio, has effected massive disruption by their misconduct. It has engendered reports at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive edit war and possible socking and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel, as well as here. IP 131.123.177.19, you are not blameless in this matter; for I believe you were well aware that your conduct was unacceptae – making you a willing participant in an editing activity that playfully mocked this encyclopedia; and the community of serious editors who invest thir time to build it. I am anxious to hear your account; for you did nothing but disregard my admonition on your talk page; to stop your part in the edit war.—John Cline (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention of mocking you or this encyclopedia. I thought your message on my wall was a result of 2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E/User:LimosaCorel's threats so I did not take it to heart --your message said that I was vandalizing when I was clearly not. The dispute is about the aforementioned man pushing the ultra-conservative agenda of the banned SSPX on this encyclopedia. I was trying to introduce neutral edits here, as noted by your friend, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lent&diff=598057666&oldid=598056601 and on the discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lent#What.27s_wrong_with_this_material.2C_eh.3F Unfortunately, Lent starts in a day and that article still contains his biased viewpoints. The duo reverted, even after the article was locked. If you must take action against me, then so be it, but if the aforementioned man continues to edit, the integrity of this encyclopedia will be compromised. This duo has introduced other biased edits to this encylopedia, such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=598042159&oldid=598012970 and has told those who disagree with him to "Fuck off my Pagan you bareback mancunt pig slut", http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LimosaCorel#NEVER_write_anything_like_.22Fuck_off_my_Pagan_you_bareback_mancunt_pig_slut..22_on_any_page_again If these things don't raise any red flags, then I don't know what will. Be well.

• Ahem, if there is to any help, Lutherans have NOT historically observed Lent. That was one of the things that was removed after the reformation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:76.31.187.169 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)

Page: Texas Longhorns football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.31.187.169 (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:

ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:74.73.35.53 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: blocked)

Page

Alonzo Holt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 05:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"
2. 05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly adding hoax content to a BLP and has now violated WP:3rr. Not to mention it is User:Biodude73 evading their block. Pretty open and shut case. STATic message me! 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week --slakr 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: no vio)

Page: Brendon Villegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Brendon_Villegas
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=595527775&oldid=595527701

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598114840
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598117800
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598106283
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598101393

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#edit_warring_3

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Brendon_Villegas Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carriearchdale&curid=41581894&diff=598121200&oldid=598063560

Comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&curid=6398673&diff=598120707&oldid=598120343

Also after following the protocol of warning the user about edit warring, the link is above, said user that was warned on his talk page reverted the warning itself and made a person attack by saying the editor or edit was "bizarre"

then same user that is being reported here for edit warring went to my own talk page and put a "FINAL WARNING" for vandalism when first of all there was no vandalism and secondly you can't give a final warning for some perceived offense if there have been no previous warnings at all. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014

Will someone please block this deliberately disruptive editor, on whom I have wasted too much patience and effort. I'm not going to repost the issues I raised at ANI yesterday, which have now led to Carriearchdale's histrionics and false accusations. But they deserve attention. I'll just note that 1) I've made two pairs of consecutive edits, which count as 2 reverts for 3RR purposes; and 2) Carriearchdale's unexplained and groundless removal of well-sourced content from a BLP in an edit like this is vandalism, and its reversion is exempt from 3RR limits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• there is no vio here. I have full protected this for a week to force a discussion... Spartaz 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: notification listing of more than 8 reverts in the last hour or so TODAY

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 minute ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

21 minutes ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

23 minutes ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

40 minutes ago

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz left a message on your talk page in "March 2014".

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further n...

1 hour ago | View changes

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Comments:

Comment - I don't' have the dif gathering skills that others do, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is an ongoing issue with User:Hallaballo Wolfowitz. Granted, I've seen this User make good edits as well, but I have also seen this user attempt to discredit long standing sources as well as misrepresent information in those same sources seemingly to further their POV. One example is "here" in an article for deletion discussion. Furthermore, under the auspices of BLP policy (among others) I have seen this user outright ignore WP policy such as 3RR in instances where the exceptions hardly seem to apply. Additionally I've tried to communicate and "make peace" with this User only to have my comments erased with an accusatory edit summary. A quick perusal of this User's Talk page edit history reveals what this person thinks of attempts to communicate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove warnings placed on their own user talk page - removal indicates that they did see the notice. However, people who repeatedly re-add such material are in violation of Misplaced Pages norms of conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The two parties to this dispute are both warned – Carriearchdale for edit warring on a user talk, and HW for using personal attacks ('caterwauling'). If this behavior continues from either party blocks are possible without notice. Anyone is permitted to remove notices from their user talk and per WP:3RRNO this does not count toward 3RR. But anyone who reinstates the removed notices is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input, but I never reinstated any removed notices on the talk page of HW. As he continued to personally attack me, I did put notices on his talk page which he immediately reverted, I understand that he is able to do that. Please do not characterize my actions against someone, who was personally attacking me 3 or 4 times, by reporting them and putting simple notices on their talk page as the instructions say is proper to do as edit warring n my part. Really? Really? Yes really...

If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here.

BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........ https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gnyan1 reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: )

Page

Cinema of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gnyan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "7 international awards"
   2. 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "added most notable award winners only"
2. 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598103500 by Vensatry (talk)12 yrs is a large period of time"
3. 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "included B Nrasing Rao significant contribution to parallel cinema in telugu language"
4. 17:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "discussion is going on, on the other editors POV, do check his talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
2. 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I came upon as a 3rd party, I warned the reported editor for edit warring and observed some minor attacks and assumptions of bad faith with a declaration to remove information ] and ] if they did not get their hoped for result, this edit ] and ] is the beginning of those edits despite several warnings on WP:POINT. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, he has been involved with disruptive editing in Telugu-cinema related articles. He never comes forward to discuss with other editors and has been involved with edit-warring in at least two articles Cinema of India and Chiranjeevi. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:KajMetz reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KajMetz (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 / SCWGS 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:

KajMetz was blocked for edit-warring in early February on the same article and was warned of WP:SCWGS by Bbb23 on February 8th. He has however just violated the 1RR on Syrian civil war topic once again. I warned one of KajMetz's edit-warring opponents, as a first notice of violation on WP:SCWGS; in case of KajMetz a more serious treatment might me required.GreyShark (dibra) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you've reported me. When I revert something I state why and only once per day (not that I'm reverting all days). I'm not currently involved in an edit war and as far as I know I only removed some content that had Facebook as source (twice in the last couple of days, on two different days with a different content by a different user), which isn't allowed the last time I checked. I feel like this is some kind of misunderstanding. - KajMetz — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumudpant reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

Page

Jab Tak Hai Jaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   2. 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   3. 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   4. 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) to 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   2. 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   3. 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* You in JTHJ */ new section"
2. 05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding his name to Jab Tak Hai Jaan, claiming that he acted in the film but provides no reliable evidence for the same. He does not even seem to open his talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Related, he has created an article on himself at Kumud Pant, but the sources don't seem very strong and a vanity article is flashing its caution lights at us. I've dropped a line asking for help at the Reference Desk. The roles he is adding seem very, very thin. "Man at bar" and such. I'm on the verge of AfDing, but only as a courtesy because I'm still waiting for a response from the Ref Desk. A speedy-delete seems more obvious, and the article was previously nominated, but the user removed the template. I PROD-ed in response, and he delivered some references, though not compelling. That's all I've got for now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I changed my mind. I nommed the article for speedy delete. The editor deleted my discussion attempt on the talk page and replaced it with copy/pasted interview content. I think he believes the article is "his", and so he can do what he wishes. I wish to bring light to that assumption. He hasn't responded to any questions or warnings. I left my speedy delete notes on his talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

He has gone too far this time. Repeated recreation of the article that keeps getting deleted due to lack of notability and sources. He does not even respond to all the warnings given to him. Somebody please block him right away. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I opened an ANI discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Darouet (Result: Warning)

Page: Right Sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (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 have only just notified the user, so perhaps any decision should wait for Lvivske's reply. The article Right Sector was recently semi-protected as a result of two days of intense vandalism, mostly by IPs or new accounts, responding to the developing Crimea Crisis. Unfortunately much of the resulting article was unsourced.

Today I returned the sourced descriptions of Right Sector that I added some time ago, noting its right-wing, far-right, or fascistic views. Lviviske removed this summary from the lead and placed it in the "ideology" section, while keeping more benign descriptors in the lead. I reverted the change, and placed a note on the talk page explaining my position that all political parties have their ideological views summarized in the lead. Lvivske again reverted and did not contribute or explain on the talk page. In this case I assume that a 1RR is in effect due to WP:ARBEE.

The user edits heavily on Ukrainian politics, has been blocked on many occasions for edit warring, and is well aware of WP:ARBEE restrictions. The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda, another far-right political force in Ukraine. The two of us have come into conflict repeatedly at Svoboda (political party), though until now we've been able to come to an understanding, in each case, through talk page discussions. -Darouet (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, looking at their talk page, I see they're deleting 3RR warnings from others and throwing abusive language in as well: . -Darouet (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I was unaware of any talk page mention, or 1RR in effect since my editing has been down heavily the last few days. By your own statement, if this is the case, you restored once, then reverted me, right? Doesn't that put us both over now? Please refrain from COI accusations like "The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda", as it's an accusation of bad faith. You edit war with me all the time, taking this to admin is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND since I'm always willing to use the talk page with you. My argument was format (too many unsupported words, style issue) and your argument is me POV pushing (when I didn't remove a word of your content). Come on, now. (if there is a 1RR in effect I'll self revert, but I checked and see nothing?) --Львівське (говорити) 06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would think the page is under 1RR like all contentious east European articles.

Looking through the article's history more carefully, I see that these IP edits show the exact moment when those descriptions were removed (less than 24 hours before I returned them). However, the article was then protected because the flood of IP edits was deemed vandalism.

I really feel that your "format" argument is a content argument because, in the name of style and concision, you've removed uncomfortable descriptors ("fascist") from major newspapers (Time (magazine), The Guardian, USA Today) while keeping others ("opposition group"). The effect is to bias what a reader sees when they first intend to learn about the group. These descriptors aren't being foisted on Right Sector: in an interview a few days ago, one member told the BBC that many (not all) in Right Sector want "a clean nation, not like under Hitler, but in our own way, a little bit like that." Which is why those reliable sources are providing accurate descriptions.

If you're willing to engage in the talk page (which I see you're now doing), I will appreciate that. -Darouet (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Львівське you state on your own user page that you support Svoboda, so I don't think my statement is so far-fetched. -Darouet (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'opposition group' isn't an adjective requiring good sourcing, why would I move it to the ideology section? Also, me +1'ing Svoboda has nothing to do with Right Sector or even a COI, unless you're saying all Canadians who like Obama be banned from American politics articles due to rampant COI. In which case...--Львівське (говорити) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• To whichever Admin reviews this mess, in light of the COI accusations I went over the diffs to review the content and found that User:Darouet knowingly and deliberately used a source on wikipedia's blacklist diff, which was followed by adding original research. The blacklisted site is eutimes.net/2014/02/we-did-not-overthrow-the-government-to-deliver-it-to-us-eu-ukraine/ EUTimes.net and the diff shows he filled out the rest of the citation info and access date, but left the URL blank for obvious reasons.--Львівське (говорити) 07:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did that, because the site showed up in google news, and I couldn't find the entry explaining that it was blacklisted, or why, when the url raised a red flag as I posted. So I assumed it was a mistake. And Lvivske, in your revert, you also removed an entirely different source, which is now a third revert on the same page. Lastly, I never accused you of WP:COI, which refers to something entirely different. -Darouet (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it's PR firm and that you paired it with a blacklisted source. I posted it on the talk page for transparency, but you seem to see no issue with using PR firms and blacklisted sites. Per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and revert rules do not apply to BLP libel. I acted bold because this was such an egregious edit. --Львівське (говорити) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that the EU Times was a PR site (it describes itself as a newspaper), and Eurasia Review is something quite different. Here is a video of the man Eurasia Review supposedly slanders. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is dealing with a section of the article, in the body, entirely unrelated to your violation of 1RR in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Lvivske was put on 1RR restriction for all Ukraine-related articles by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on 30 October 2011, more than two years ago. See Talk:Ukrainians/Archive_2#Sanctions. As far as I can tell, no violations of WP:ARBEE was registered since. I think two years is almost eternity by wikipedia standards. I think we must keep a good faith and remind him about the restrictions before applying the block. There is also a BLP component in the editorial conflict. Organizations that are active in the present time are protected by WP:BLP, we need a much better source than an opinion of couple of journalists to state that a part is fascist and far right as a fact, not as an attributed opinion as in Lvivske's version. I will give Lvivske a warning, reminding that his 1RR restriction is still active. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand: Lvivske was not adding those tags, (it was me, if you look at my complaint, who wrote that "Right Sector has been described as having far-right, or neofascist views"), and my complaint was only regarding 1RR. Regarding the tags, by the way, another editor already upheld them twice on the page, because of the high quality of the sources. -Darouet (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand your position. It should be noted that Right Sector is only a few months old, which is why we don't yet have academic, as opposed to journalistic sources. I will refrain from adding Op-Ed pieces using the term "fascist", though I believe that multiple news articles from reliable sources should be sufficient to characterize their political position with confidence, even if that position includes fascism. The presence of editorial boards should prevent the simple opinion of journalists from replacing the published record of the newspapers. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Alex Bakharev has closed this report with a warning to Lvivske that his 1RR restriction on Ukraine-related articles is still in effect. The 1RR restriction is actually still listed in the WP:ARBEE log if you search for it. Refer to Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2#Sanctions. The full text was (per a decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in 2011): ..placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC). EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:DAJF (Result: Blocked)

Page

Futsukaichi Rest Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598096131 by DAJF (talk)the content There is a reference support."
3. 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Futsukaichi Rest Home. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not strictly a 3RR violation yet, but the IP received a 3-day block for similar edit-warring back in February, and has returned to continue adding unverifiable POV-pushing despite warnings and reversions by other editors. DAJF (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)

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

07:36, 4 March 2014‎ Mufaddalqn (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,408 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Succession controversy: typo) (undo)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (cur | prev) 07:02, 5 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,766 bytes) (-6,642)‎ . . (still a claimant dont introduce biased information, the diary is not written NOR signed by burhanuddin , the signatures are wrong. Moreover it is a personal blog of mufaddal and cant be referenced here as its a biased primary source.) (undo | thank)

March 2014

I made 1 revert, you made 3 reverts. Know the definition of edit warring. OccultZone (Talk) 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC) please refer user:summichum talk page

Comments:

After being unblocked he started edit warring again without any discussion and reverted all the well sourced and neutral inputs.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user has deleted edit warning from his talk page and is not ready to discuss the issue.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

user:summichum has deleted all the discussion from his talk page.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user:summichum is persistent in reverting the editing done by any other users. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:XinJeisan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kono Statement of 1993 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.110.203.17 (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=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598188651&oldid=598182435
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598160854&oldid=598132872
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598089736&oldid=598075440
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598025289&oldid=598006720
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598006156&oldid=597926559
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=597922530&oldid=597796584

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:219.110.203.17&diff=prev&oldid=598075405

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor has continued to attempt to add two blog-like youtube links to this page in spite of several other editors removing the link. Even after being warned, editor continues to revert changes.

The editor has a similar pattern on other articles and has several warnings already on their talk page. XinJeisan (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Note: Also reported above for similar edit-warring on Futsukaichi Rest Home. --DAJF (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

There are floods of users adding unsourced or poorly sourced information regarding the succession controversy, or removing sourced content in this article. I've frankly given up, as I can't stop them all and stay within 3RR. Here's one removing that he is a claimant, addition of poorly referenced claims to support a political position.

Comments:
The user Mufaddalqn with other users has been warned several times , yet they persistently vandalize the article adding biased primary blog sources.

• you are acting as if you are the only authorized person who has the right to edit.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Summichum (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry to say that but it is you who have been indulging in edit war. my edit is relevant and i have cited proper source. you seem to be persistent in reverting whatever edit I have done or done by anyone which do not comply with your point of view. Stop using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. That is what you are doing. regarding khuzaima qutbuddin nass you can use the arguments in his site. their is no need to discredit other editors.your edit is libelous and defaming Syendna Mufaddal Saifuddin. You can clearly see that I have not reverted nor vandalised any article from history. you are treating this as war because I have reported you above. once you were blocked for the same issue yet again you persist.Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This is not enough documentation to show edit warring by Mufaddalqn. The other party, User:Summichum, is already blocked for a week per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Hanibal911

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amensnober91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user broke the rule 1RR.

Here are some examples:

1. her
2. her
3. her

He do not listen any arguments of other editors and simply insists that only he is right.her and her He was offered a compromise solution but without success, he does not even want to listen to other editors. He does not want to compromise and provokes war the editors. I ask you to take action. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Amensnober91 made a clear violation of WP:SCWGS - i counted at least 6 non-consequent reverts in the last 24h. He needs however to get a formal 1RR warning first prior to further sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I informed him. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But he continues his actions. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You notified him after reporting here, but he has to receive one warning on WP:SCWGS from an experienced editor or from an administrator (which will probably happen, once this case is examined).GreyShark (dibra) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:GSK (Result: )

Page

Jurassic World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Jurassic World vs WP:NFF. Two articles are not justified - and this is only a cut and paste job from Development of Jurassic World"
2. 16:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "NO! We do not need two articles for a film that has not even entered production yet. This is a WP:CONTENT FORK"
3. 14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598043430 by Koala15 (talk) Revert was is essentially a cut and paste move. Stable article was at Development of Jurassic World"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jurassic World. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:NFF */"

Comments:

Instead of the usual 24 hours for 3RR, this is more like 25 hours, but it's still edit warring, in my opinion. FWIW, the redirect on Jurassic World was temporarily removed to make this report via WP:TW. gsk 20:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add I asked he stop and talk, but he ignored me. Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:83.200.15.5 reported by User:Silvrous (Result: )

Page

Giuseppe Garibaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) to 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598319115 by Silvrous (talk)"
   2. 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940. People of nice are italian. Garibaldi is an Italian surname and Nice are italian until 1860."
2. 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598318207 by Silvrous (talk)"
3. 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "it wasn't french in this time"
4. 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940."
5. 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "??? garibaldi is french loool"
6. 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "It wasn't french"
7. 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Giuseppe Garibaldi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resolution attempts were made through edit summaries by myself and Discospinster, and by adding a reference; Silvrous 22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:25162995 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

25162995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 23:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Again reverted back to sources. No consensus is needed because it is clearly stated that conviction stands. This is stated in sources in black and white. DO NOT 3rr"
3. 23:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk. Do no start an edit war. Provide a source that says she was not convicted and prove this in talk. Then revert when you have proven your case in comparison to black and white facts. WP:BOLD"
4. 23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"
5. 23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Use of the word convicted in the lede */"

Comments:

Multiple editors have tried discussing this on the talk page but 25162995 does not accept contrary views and ignores the apparent consensus against their preferred version Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of 3 editors with a clear POV banding together to try and change and article to their own OP whilst ignoring black and white sourced facts on the issue. 3 editors claim POV on the issue which clearly comes under WP:NOR. They have consistently reverted highly sourced info whilst providing no real interaction on chat barring OP. 25162995 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This case is crystal clear. User 25162995 must be blocked to prevent disruption, since the user has multiple 3RR violations with no cessation in sight. User 25162995 does not respect the strong consensus against the word "convicted", saying instead that "there is no need for any consensus on this issue", because the user thinks they are the only person who is correct. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwer1995 and User:Newwikiuser12345 reported by User:Meters (Result: )

Page: Airtel Super Singer 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwer1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Newwikiuser12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

A small sample of what has been gooing on
Diffs of the user's reverts:

And by the other:

Diff of edit warrings / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved. Since being warned has at least made a token attempt to resolve the issue, albeit by proposing mutually exclusive ownership of sections.

Comments:
Edit war between user:Qwer1995 and user:Newwikiuser12345 on Airtel Super Singer 4. Approximately 60 reverts between the two of them in the last 3 days. Both have reverted since being warned. Meters (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring