Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrChrissy (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 5 June 2016 (→Proposed Topic Bans and 1RR for JPS). 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:Hammad.511234 reported by User:Barthateslisa (Result: Blocked)

Page: Biryani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammad.511234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is persistently adding his POV on the mentioned page, he started it on 16th May, was reverted by others and started again on 29th May. The subject of the page is Biryani, and there is whole section devoted to its origin, but User:Hammad.511234 is keen on adding his POV as a sweeping statement about its origin in the intro para, I invited him on the talk page, told him about his error but the user is too confident about his own theories.

Here is the user first on 16th May and then again on 29th May.

Barthateslisa (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hammad.511234 is warned. If they revert this article again before getting a talk page consensus, or they engage in more personal attacks they may be blocked. In your edit summary you said "The person who changed this really hates the word Muslim." Instead of hating the word Muslim, perhaps the editor you are criticizing just disagrees with your reading of the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Well I disagree with his vandalizing of my edits. It's been sourced, and it's a fact. Later in the article, he also changed the Turkish and Muslim communities of Macedonia to Turkish communities of Macedonia. Turkish Macedonians, and Muslim Macedonians are two different groups. He also removed the word "Muslim" centres, and made it Mughal centres, when the book that it's sourced from, said Mughal, and Lucknow, hasn't been under Mughal rule for years. Everyone in South Asia knows that only Muslims make Biryani. That's like me saying that Matzoh ball soup originates from Germany, and not the Jews of Germany. Sources used later in the page also support claim, but he wants to put his POVS in the article. His vandalizing of my edits wasn't justified, as the source was completely credible. He reverted all my edits. If you want proof of my statements, than here... http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." or how about this book that is sourced many times in the wikipedia page... https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj305vbjYrNAhXnyoMKHQ6FCYwQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false "The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." The person who's been vandalizing my edits clearly has a problem with the word Muslim, as he removed it three times. Why is it that Biryani is found in almost every Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent? That's because every biryani has it's origin among South Asian Muslims, and it's only found in South Asian Muslim cuisine. So idk why I've been reported, when he's been doing wrong. Thank you. Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are still not getting whats the issue here, its you, who have started pushing your POV, everyone has a POV, but thats not for Misplaced Pages, its an encyclopedia. You started with POV, first on 16th May, you were reverted by others and then you started again on the 29th and its been a chain since then. Time and again, I have told you there is an origin section for the subject, which is a dish, but no, you have to ignore the section, all of its sourced content and continue with your edits, at least bother to read the section I am pointing. On top of that you are judging me. Just look at the discussion again. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Since User:Hammad.511234 has responded here and continues to repeat the personal attack (that Barthateslisa is anti-Muslim) here at the noticeboard, I'm going ahead with a 48-hour block of Hammad for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 is back after his block and is not cooperating, still not sticking to the talk page and is pushing his POV, time and again I have reminded him about the relevant section on the page, but its as if he has made it a habit of doing it his way, plz intervene. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Gcook3354241 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lightning Rod (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gcook3354241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 31 May 2016‎ diff reverted by me
2. 02:18, 1 June 2016‎ diff semi-reverted by Rebbing
3. 08:14, 1 June 2016‎ diff reverted by me
4. 17:42, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by me
5. 18:29, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by User:McDoobAU93
6. 00:59, 2 June 2016‎‎ diff
7. 18:28, 2 June 2016 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: diff – This was an attempt on the user's talk page to address the issue on specific terms. The response from the user was uncivil: diff.

Comments:
In the midst of disruptive editing from several anonymous and/or new editors, page protection was requested and applied. Despite this, the edits from this particular editor persisted, hence the request for additional oversight at this stage. The sources the editor has cited (which have changed each time) neither confirm the claim, nor are they considered reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The most recent attempt appears to invoke the park's website, but when the URL is entered, it returns a 404 error. I manually browsed the target site and found what I presume was the intended page and there is nothing there to support the edit. --McDoobAU93 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks McDoobAU93. Yes, I came up empty as well when I checked that source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was willing to chalk up the activity at Lightning Rod to inexperience, but, based on his comment to GoneIn60 as well as his contributions, it's clear Gcook is not at all interested in learning how to edit constructively or play well with others. I think an indefinite block for incompetence or NOTHERE may be in order. Rebbing 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Faendalimas (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 2nd June
2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
4. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 31st May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my warning, 1st June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This has actually been going on for some time. The user has been repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page and has done little to cooperate with this. Is now just reverting everything. The user has been warned by both myself and @Elmidae:. As well as the other editors of the page. I myself have not edited the page but have been attempting to get the issue resolved but leaving it to the editors of the page to make the changes. I have commented on the talk page of the article.

WelcometoJurassicPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues editings (unopposed) even after notification of these procedings. Other users have not reverted the edits while awaiting Admin action. HCA (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@HCA: I have noticed this also, all other editors have held off, so I have asked, not formally requested as I do not know if its possible, an admin here if the page can be protected while awaiting this to run its course. Cheers Faendalimas 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection )

Page: I Predict 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 1 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 31 May 2016 as User:208.81.212.224
2. 01:17, 2 June 2016
3. 09:37, 2 June 2016 - warning issued at 10:41, 2 June 2016
4. 11:23, 2 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:41, 2 June 2016

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

Comments:
On May 31, an anonymous IP tagged a reference I put in the article as being unreliable on the I Predict 1990 page. I removed the tag put on by the IP and now Walter Görlitz is driving an edit war. I would like the user warned. --evrik  16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are both at 3RR now. Frankly you both need to use the talk page more than a single time instead of pointing fingers because it looks like you are both equally at fault. I've full protected the article for 4 days. Since almost no one edits that, I don't see much collateral damage here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

My user page makes it clear that I and the IP are the same editor.

Actually, removing a template to a dubious source is not acceptable. I'm surprised you walked away unscathed. The fact that you engaged in an edit war seems completely lost on you. Thanks @Dennis Brown:. The discussion at ANI makes it clear that the source is poor and a better one must be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

At AN3, the main focus is on warring, which it was bordering on. As to what content is best, that is why I locked the page. That is a content issue, not really an administrative issue. If a source is unreliable, WP:RSN is the place to has that out. Here, no one breached 4RR, so no blocks and it isn't the right venue to judge sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amitashi (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 haven't included too many diffs from Ukraine as the editing is complex but the edit warring there includes reverting changes where a helpful editor had corrected his English grammar errors. The revert pattern there is spread over several edits so its difficult to present as a clean diff. Edits violating WP:NPOV, using unreliable sources and blanking his talk page anytime he is warned. Rather suspect this may well be the sockpuppet of an already banned editor as they seem remarkably aware of editing for a newbie. WCM_email 22:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

On the article on the Ukraine, Amitashi made five reverts; the limit is three. The edits were as follows:

1. Initial edit.
2. Revert EvergreenFir
3. Revert EvergreenFir
4. Revert Rwessel and add citations to RT (unreliable source)
5. Revert Toddy1 and changed citations from RT to fake citations that do not mention the things Amitashi cited them for. This is discussed at Talk:Ukraine#New paragraph not supported by its citations.
6. Revert Khajidha who had objected to the word "Cancellation" and replaced it with "Cancelling"

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC):Reason why I made edits was absence of info that would correspond to image in Ukraine article. First edit was reverted because it had no cites, I repeated edit with adding cites, but it also was reverted because Toddy1 didn't like the source, I made third edit to add respective sources (The Guardian and NY Times) and then did few grammmar edits that were not caused by me but by editors of my additions! In Crimea article I made edits with explanations but when I saw that my edit is arguable I stopped edits and added subject in discuss page! In Self-determination discuss page I found violation of WP:NPOV because there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but editors reverted my same Crimea paragraph saying it is not self-determination. There should be both or no one. I understand edit warring policy so if i'll face such thing in future I will use discuss page.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Technically for the Ukraine reverts, but further reasons given below. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reported by User:Amitashi (Result: OP blocked)

Page: Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Uses being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

Page: Self-determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amitashi (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reason I am reporting is my feeling of personal manhunt from User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 as well their violation of WP:NPOV in mentioned articles. In Self-determination articles User:Wee Curry Monster reverted two changes that fairly equated statuses of Crimean referendum and referendums in Eastern Ukraine. As I mentioned in comment on report about me there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but there is no same Crimea paragraph. I consider fair to mention both cases or no one of them. In Crimea article User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reverted neutral word in advantage of arguable and politically affilated point of view. User:Toddy1 is clearly politically affilated as her pro-Ukrainian page says. I remind you that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine topics are strongly controversial so I made improvements towards impartiality. Also I accuse User:Wee Curry Monster of slander because it is my only Misplaced Pages account in years and I never cheated being as he said "sockpuppet" which is clearly insult.

With regard to clearing out my talk page, see the notice at the top "If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia." And also , , . Of the two reverts above, removes POV laden paragraph added by Amitashi, is restoring information removed by Amitashi per WP:POINT ie an act of simple vandalism. Reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. When he refers to "constantly edit my explanation post on Admins' page." he means reverting his editing of other people's comments per WP:TPG. WCM_email 08:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 36 hours (edit conflict) Running up to three reverts on two articles and five on another before reporting the editors only reverted a couple of times... Then complaining about someone cleaning up their talk page like they have no right to do so, after doing so not just once or twice, but three times within the past day... That's just far too hypocritical to leave unchecked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Hellchosun reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; and their response; "Jytdog! hey don't bother me. Massacre is proper word. Do you really know this dirty evil massacre?? Last chance! don't bother me wiki freak." Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Further diff -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hellchosun is warned. You may be blocked the next time you revert this article unless you have previously obtained a talk page consensus. You are replacing 'deaths' with the word 'massacre' and a number of people disagree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic reported by User:Too Small a Fish to Fry (Result: No action. Gentle warning to one editor)

Page: Fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epipelagic (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:

• Note Epipelagic's edits are hours apart; and in the meantime, Too Small a Fish to Fry has been reverted by multiple editors on theat article. _Muffled 12:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NOPE! I only reverted epipelagic's edits, not the others. And that's only because he was being so ridiculous like editing for consistency "required a consensus."

And that number of hours doesn't change the fact that he was edit-warring. That's the same kind of thing that people told me while I was in IP mode. Remember, if your edit-warring even cross the line of breaking 3RR, those 4+ reversions can be hours apart but still be in the same day. And why reverted by multiple editors: for trying to be consistent or something like that? And then for trying to fix my wrong? Oh, give me a freaking break! Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've sent more edits total during this time, but that was only because they were partial (a few groups of similar edits; make some and then save, make a few more and then save; they don't count as multiple reversions). I can't say this editor has broken 3RR yet, but he is still warring in general.

Sometimes, back when I was just an IP-editor, I got a warning only after 2 edits, but nobody supported me by calling that warning "trolling." However, this editor and his little crony Ihardlythinkso (see my other report here ) seem to believe that my warning to him "doesn't count," and are calling it "trolling" even though he was edit-warring. Now how does that work?

And then when they tell me not to include the s of a plural into a link with a pipe, per WP-advocated way of forming a simple plural with a link, I go back to unform those then. But instead of praise or even just neutrality for fixing those back, what do I get? I get YELLED AT and reverted AGAIN, and even accused of "disruptive editing" for doing what they told me was the preferred WP way! What's that about?

Therefore I recommend blocking both of these editors (see my report of Ihardlythinkso for more detail about this guy, including his WP:UNCIVILITY to me in the talk page).

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should examine Too Small a Fish to Fry's edits on that article. _Muffled 13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. You'll see that I was just:

1. Fixing comma issues, making them consistent to what was already there, even according to the MOS,

2. doing a few other little things along the way, maybe (I don't remember for sure what),

3. thinking (but I see now that I thought wrong) that it was better to to contain the s of a simple plural within a piped link, and then making all those adjustments, then

4. responding to an instruction that that was against WP code by putting them back, and

5. making some edits in parts (meaning that multiples between other people's only count as ONE edit, really), and then

6. noticing that McGeddon has shown the difference between links that should be that way vs. ones that shouldn't, and leaving his edits in place.

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• No violation I don't see a 3RR violation so there is nothing that needs to be done here. However, Too Small a Fish to Fry, you need to tone down your rhetoric. Repeatedly using 'edit warrior' as a pejorative as you do Talk:Fish#MOS_consensus (not to mention the use of 'jerk') is not exactly conducive to getting positive attention from the community. You'll be blocked if you continue to do so. Also, while it is an essay and not policy, WP:BRD is not a bad thing to live by.--regentspark (comment) 18:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, HELLOOO, RegentsPark, you do not need to break 3RR to still be edit-warring. The warning even says that. I already said in the report that I knew it was not a 3RR yet, but that it is still edit-warring. Why is it that there are so many times when someone can be blocked just for edit-warring that isn't 3RR yet but then you come along and don't see it as a violation until they've hit 3RR?

Why can we not call a person the actor of what they're doing (if they edit-war, then they're an edit-warrior, etc.)? And then why is it that if it's supposedly "not okay" for me to say that someone else is an edit-warrior, even ADMINS can call other people that only for doing this same thing like they sometimes called me while I was just an IP address here?

And why is it that I'm the one who gets chewed out for using the term "jerk" but nothing is said to the person who used it against me (Ihardlythinkso, whom I reported over at general incidents along with epipelagic, for incivility)?

Is there just something about you guys that make you think that the editors you believe have been here longer should get the upper hand and should get more immunity? What's with that? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: ^^^.

Too Small a Fish to Fry, a couple of edit reverts don't make an edit war. As far as I can see, no one is problematically edit warring on that page but you should consider the philosophy behind WP:BRD (in other words, you are on the weakest ground). About the behavioral issues, you can't go around calling editors "edit-warrior Epipelagic". You can accuse an editor of edit warring (along with evidence) but the way you've put it is not acceptable. My suggestions to you are well meant but, of course, it is entirely your prerogative whether you follow them or not. (You might also want to look into the virtues of brevity.) Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 01:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:124.170.2.188 reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked )

Page

Hamish McLachlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723512570 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - information being deleted is accurate and sourced/referenced"
2. 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723511699 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - "IgnorantArmies" clearly editing on behalf of McLachlin, deleting entirely correct & sourced information"
3. 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723510989 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - relevant information gone"
4. 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723506098 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - deleted critical information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Hamish McLachlan. (TW)"
2. 13:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Massive WP:BLP violations, but not really outright vandalism. Article has been the subject of sporadic but persistent BLP-violating edits (beginning in April 2012, most recently in September 2015), presumably this IP was involved with those earlier edits and has now popped up again to try and get that info back in the article. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was previously semi-protected because of these sorts of edits from April to July 2012. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected IP blocked for BLP violations and page temporarily protected. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niko Toskani reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action)

Page

T.J. Storm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Niko Toskani (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 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723514224 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
   2. 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723505809 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 12:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on T.J. Storm. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Result: No action. Only three reverts listed. The article is now deleted as G7 (user requested). User:Niko Toskani should consider using talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jauerback reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: No violation)

Page: Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jauerback (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: See entire talk page - ongoing issue, consensus not yet formed. Edit warring resumed by numerous involved editors on page unprotection.

Comments:

• Comment The links provided are not reverts. Also this User talk:Keri#Chris Kyle is not an attempt to resolve the issues. PVJ would do well to read what is and what is not a revert. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• This has to be a joke. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• No violation. Consecutive edits. Read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Seth Red Star reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page

Family Chrgd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seth Red Star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "The reason I wanted to make this edit was because Disney XD is now back in Canada."
2. 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
3. 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Something that had to do with the brand"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:3RR violation! This is the continuation of an edit war from two IP addresses for which both were blocked days ago. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I already blocked him a week. His last block was as an IP a week ago doing the same thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: page protected )

Page

Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (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 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) to 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Clear per discussion till this mess is sorted out."
   2. 00:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Awards and decorations */ Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."
   3. 00:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is exercising WP:IDHT and pushing POV through sweeping removals of content replaced today by myself as well as an administrator, Jauerback. The content was replaced following edit warring and restoration of unreliably sourced content by the individual being reported here three days ago. Same editor has been edit warring at another Chris Kyle-related article, American Sniper as well as at the Chris Kyle article talk page , . He's been warned before about this behavior at the Kyle article and the article talk page and was brought here a few days ago before it was FPP'd . Further, he filed a bogus 3RR report on Jauerback (seen here, above) today. The reversions he just completed were to revert what Jauerbach replaced.. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Look in a mirror Winkelvi. I stayed OFF the page when you started edit warring mere minutes after PP expired, described by another editor as ""a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Irondome (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think WP:BOOMERANG be appropriate, Irondome. I have not been edit warring at the article nor any of the other pages I mentioned in this report, so your suggestion that I should received a 3RR block for reporting PVJ is confusing to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am curious why you resort to the boards so much. Talk more, less drama is my suggestion. I will say no more. Please just reflect. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So you don't think the individual being reported has been edit warring and should not have been brought here? If that's the case, why has the page been full protected for a week by KrakatoaKatie? No one else other than the editor reported has been edit warring at the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw your complaint and continue dialogue. This should be the last option, not the first. Advice. Have you ever voluntarily withdrawn a complaint and resumed dialogue? Absolutely my last word, as you deserved a comment. Irondome (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dialogue has been ongoing with the editor for days, to no avail. I started an RfC so dialogue would occur. The same individual was reported a few days ago for the same thing at the same article and they started up with it again today. The article is now locked down for a week, a solution that is preferable to me. I'd rather see the article FPPd than someone blocked as it forces dialogue to happen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To review: Winkelvi discussing with another editor regarding collusion to not work with other editors and intent to begin the edit war again as he did. I'm not the only one noticing Winkelvi's pedantic and disruptive behavior either - it's been observed as "a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming" (quote from Keri), and "This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck... Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen" (quote from same). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably has much more to do with the IP editors, whether recruited from on wikipedia or outside wikipedia... plus the fact that admins are backlogged and I was one of the ones who helped REPORT the IP war that Winkelvi started several hours ago before I went out for a date. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I was pinged here so I'm going to close this. I locked the page after an RFPP request, because there are way too many actors in this little drama, IP and registered. I need to note that I'll be mostly unavailable starting Sunday for the next two weeks, so any admin can remove the protection once the dispute is resolved. Katie 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked one week)

Page

American Sniper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723628798 by Winkelvi (talk) Source is a gossip rag with no editorial trust; "Interview" claims fail as WP:SPS."
2. 04:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723625039 by DHeyward (talk) please stop inserting nonsense with bogus sources."
3. 04:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723617971 by DHeyward (talk) gossip rags don't count as "sources" for ridiculous and fantastical claims."
4. 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723583730 by DHeyward (talk) seriously. What's your WP:COI personal connection to the subject?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Confirmed kills */ comment"
2. 05:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Confirmed kills */ comment"

Comments:

This is the third edit warring report filed on this editor in as many days with the second filed earlier today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Just another round of bad faith lying and misconduct by Winkelvi, the abusive personality. Getting tired of his harassment and trolling shit. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz removed this section twice 1 2 Jim1138 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: the abuse by Winkelvi and DHeyward is getting downright silly. WP:TAGTEAM behavior, constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and roving around to find anywhere they can to push their POV about someone they have agreed to tag-team edit on in DHeyward's talk page. I'm not surprised that Winkelvi is trying yet another bad faith posting, it seems his go-to harassment technique to try to troll people. So you know what? I'm going to bed now because I know precisely what these two disruptive editors are up to and guess what, their troll tactics are having the desired effect - it's pissing me off that they continue to do this. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring and Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is getting old. This

• 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723583730 by DHeyward (talk) seriously. What's your WP:COI personal connection to the subject?"

and this

• "Undid revision 723629464 by DHeyward (talk) do not remove templates properly placed. Especially when you're the most likely suspect for the WP:CANVAS issue."

These attacks and insinuations, including the canvassing template, keep coming even after his bad faith SPI was closed.

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is just coming off a 3 month block/no TP access for similar personal attacks, edit warring and socking. Since that 3 month block ended in mid-May, he's already been blocked for edit warring. One year or indef seems appropriate.

--DHeyward (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

(rm personal attack) --DHeyward (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Their individual sub-par behaviour at American Sniper and Chris Kyle indicates that this group of editors are prepared to edit war and POV push until an admin fully protects a page to put an end to their nonsense. They are all veteran edit warriors, all should know better, and have been made aware recently that they should seek page protection and discussion rather than tit-for-tat reverting one another. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, DHeyward and Winkelvi are all equally at fault on these 2 articles and all equally deserving of a block to prevent further disruption should they persist in this infantile fashion. Keri (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week This was more clear cut than the Chris Kyle saga, but here's a warning to all of you to cut it out right now. Katie 11:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Result: )

Page

Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723608625 by 1990'sguy (talk) You removed the original wording in December: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ken_Ham&type=revision&diff=702989316&oldid=702703849"
2. 01:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723603624 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) seems clear to me that this wording was inserted without consensus and is not in tune with facts."
3. 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted edits by StAnselm (talk) to last version by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc"
4. 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723531166 by 1990'sguy (talk) umm, unequivocally yes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ken Ham. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Scientific consensus wording */"

Comments:

A number of other editors have reverted on this page, but no-one else has broken 3RR. Also three reverts on Answers in Genesis, including one with the less than encouraging edit summary "Facts are facts. This is not up for negotiation". StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Heated discussion, trying to root out the pseudoscientific creationist arguments. Looks like it's died down somewhat now. I will be more careful in the future. jps (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc made it so. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc insults editors:, , , then claims that he/she isn't insulting them: . Now this editor is claiming that he/she will be more careful in the future. Since I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has a long history of edit warring, I think a long and possibly permanent sanction is in order. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because pseudoscience is not supposed to be promoted in Misplaced Pages. The fact that we have pseudoscience promoters parking on articles and their (perhaps unwitting) ignorant supporters attempting to WP:OWN articles on creationism is a bug in the Misplaced Pages model. It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject. jps (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an example of unnecessary personalizing the discussion. Speaking only for myself, I don't think I'm an "ignorant supporter" of pseudoscience! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think that, but it was clear from your commentary that you do not have a firm grasp on the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. You claimed, embarrassingly and falsely, that the age of the Earth was mostly a statistical inference which is simply incorrect and a misconception often trotted out by Young Earth Creationists. You may not be intending to support pseudoscience, but intent is not the same as impact. jps (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The personal attacks continue. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc is focussed on the word "fact", a word that is not often used by scientists, who at least try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and humility in the context of inferences based on assumptions (plausible though they may be) and data. I don't have any personal doubt that the age of the Earth is very close to what the scientific consensus holds, but I don't assert that those estimates are merely "facts". The subject is much richer than that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Again incorrect. The age of the Earth is a fact. You can go ahead and talk to any number of geologists and astronomers and see why that is the case, if you'd like. In fact (pun intended), you could talk to one right here, but it seems that you simply don't want to acknowledge your own ignorance on the subject which I pointed out. The age of the Earth is manifestly not "mostly a statistical inference". By spouting such incorrect ideas you belie your lack of competence in these matters. Why you are doing so or what your motivation is immaterial. It ultimately causes problems for Misplaced Pages to allow people who are ignorant and incompetent to contribute to discussions like this. jps (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Made trolling smaller for readability.jps (talk)

• Comment: I've interacted with the editor in question on the Talk page of another contentious article, the White Pride, on the thread that I started: Follow up to RSN. I found the editor's actions to be bold, but straightforward and policy based. For the article in questions, multiple editors were reverting the language advocated by the editor (I've found their version to be an improvement and started the discussion on the Talk page: Scientific consensus wording). The reverts were happening while the discussion was on-going, and leaning towards the support of the version advocated by jps. Nonetheless, multiple editors reverted back to the contentious wording. In this regards, I'd agree with editor Lipsquid that this was a "bad faith edit", for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I was on the other side of jps in an astronomy-related dispute on Earth_Similarity_Index. He responded to an AfD vote he disagreed with by accusing me of "wikistalking." When DrChrissy expressed similar disagreement he too was accused of wikistalking. Note that consensus ended up favoring our position despite jps' 3 or 4 consecutive AfD nominations.

There's a pattern (continued here) of jps personalizing disputes. Once he's identified the "bad guys" in a topic the rules don't apply because he's right and they're wrong, and whatever he does is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I don't know how to correct that but I think it's important to put this incident in context. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you forget being on the other side of jps on white pride? jps (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I was also on the receiving end of the edit warring against consensus by editor James J. Lambden: my edit (based on Talk page discussion) & revert by James J. Lambden, on White pride. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, this was the state of the talk page discussion at the time I reverted with the edit summary "no consensus." It shows no consensus for your removal. Per BRD I reverted, and jps edit-warred to restore your removal. These edits followed a discussion at RSN where jps and others petitioned to remove the same source (in fact I see a number of instances where your edits and jps' overlap) which also closed with no consensus. I stand by my edit and when consensus on the talk page arguably shifted towards removal I accepted it. I believe that's how we're encouraged to edit by policy.

What any of this has to do with jps passing 3RR and personalizing disputes I don't know but you seem to be the only commenter (other than jps himself) who doesn't see a problem here. I've said what I had to say. You're free to submit a report against me if you feel I've violated policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time. jps (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.

What the hell kind of threat is this? Completely out of bounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No threat intended. Your actions at this website and your coordination of such on certain external websites has been noticed by myself and others, however. Misplaced Pages has certain rules in place about this, but we can discuss this at the appropriate venue if and when you find yourself subject to a special kind of scrutiny of your ongoing actions. Carry on! jps (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, your beaviour has now reached a very worrisome level. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Isambard Kingdom, the Gamergate and white pride edits of James J. Lambden do not concern you at all. jps (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

jps, possibly not, but your threatening and non-constructive edits do. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The last time this user was reported here (April 2016), he/she was warned against edit-warring: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312#User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:LjL (Result: Warned). I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc said at the time "I apologize for stepping over the line of 3RR and commit to not doing that ever again." StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. We all try to be our best selves, but fall short. Surely you believe that to be true. I continue to try to be better. Won't you join me as we build the New Jerusalem? jps (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This user has been overly and unnecessarily personal in discussions. There are the numerous examples above of this, as well as another example where he/she (somewhat humorously) told me that he would give me a failing grade in his astronomy classes due to our differences of opinion (ouch! ;) ). BTW, this editor has labeled pretty much every editor that disagrees with him as "surreality-based" (again, ouch! ;) ). Clear WP:CIVIL concerns. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've amply demonstrated your lack of WP:COMPETENCE with regards to subjects related to science. Fortunately, it looks like WP:CONSENSUS has prevented you from controlling content related to that on the relevant pages. jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Identifying the problematic creationist accounts

There are two prominent creationists are out in force at Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and quite actively are arguing in favor of promoting pseudoscience on those pages: User:StAnselm and User:1990'sguy. User:Isambard Kingdom has uncritically adopted creationist talking points. We are not equipped to handle this kind of multiple-prong attack. This is the root of the problem. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct. However, poking them won't help. Those who push pseudo-science know how to get a rise out of you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were the case that poking them won't help. Sadly, I've seen many articles (including the two being discussed here) devolve into terrible states when the poking ended. Misplaced Pages doesn't have the editorial controls in place to correct for such problems, I would argue. The reaction is intentional. I want to bring more attention to these problems and, sadly, drama is often one of the only ways to do this because the site itself is so dysfunctional. One of the biggest problems with the so-called "consensus" model is that if you don't "react" to all the actions false claims of consensus will occur that argue against the core pillars. However, it seems to me that the outcomes that I was working for have been acheived for now. If people can monitor the problematic articles and accounts, we may be able to achieve (slowly) a better status quo. But there will always be new challenges to face. jps (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your dogmatic approach is actually counterproductive. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it now? It looks like the articles are fixed, doesn't it? jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Isambard (by the way, I live near your lovely bridge across the Clifton gorge!) this is a ploy by JPS. They throw up dust-cloud after dust-cloud in an attempt to distract attention from their own misdeeds, or make the thread so complex and convoluted that admins are reluctant to close it. Do your best to ignore them so the dust settles (and yes, I should do the same!). DrChrissy 17:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you stick your nose in here to make this more complex, then? Do you think you're doing me favors? jps (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans and 1RR for JPS

It is clear that JPS has exhibited disruptive behaviour in many areas of wikipedia and this has been going on for a considerable amount of time (a minimum of one block per year since 2006 (except for 2012). I feel it is time that strong action is taken here to protect the project and other editors. I find it deeply disturbing that even when the magnifying glass is being trained in their direction within this thread, JPS threatens another editor with "We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time". I feel it is due time for, at the very least, the imposition of topic bans. Having said this, JPS is undoubtedly an expert editor in astronomy and it would be a great shame to lose this expertise totally. However, even in this area, JPS' behaviour is far from stellar, so I am proposing 1RR for this topic. My 3 proposals are

Proposal 1 JPS is topic banned for a period of 12 months from pseudoscience and fringe theories, both broadly construed.

Proposal 2 JPS is subject to 1RR on astronomy articles, broadly construed.

Proposal 3 Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are adopted

DrChrissy 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Proposal 3" as proposer. DrChrissy 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, appears to be off topic per below. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy close. WP:AN is thataway. Topic bans and 1RR restrictions are not enacted at this noticeboard, love! jps (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong there. In the information for administrators linked to this page, it is stated Article or topic bans may be enacted if a user has a history of edit warring. But of course, if you prefer a block... DrChrissy 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Proposal 1". I'm not opposed to "Proposal 3", but I'm not sure why "Proposal 2" exists. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It exists primarily because of disruptive behaviour at Talk:Earth Similarity Index. It indicates the disruptive behaviour extends even into the area of expertise. DrChrissy 19:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Mawlidman reported by User:81.157.92.125 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mawlidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Undid revision 723538314 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) a notable controversy reported in many sources is worthy of inclusion (23:37, 3 June 2016)
2. Undid revision 723595366 by Montanabw (talk) Liar! Both links clearly working (04:20, 4 June 2016‎)
3. Undid revision 723649740 by 213.205.194.152 (talk) per previous reasons (12:05, 4 June 2016‎)
4. Undid revision 723666680 by 213.205.194.152 (talk) "Misplaced Pages is not advocacy" is a baseless claim. Proof of advocacy not provided by disruptive editor (14:06, 4 June 2016‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
4 reverts in 14 hours against 3 editors.

Yes indeed User:Mawlidman is reverting everyone and displaying WP:OWN.VictoriaGrayson 15:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

3 reverts in Hissène Habré adding the baseless claim that he is the first national leader convicted in the court of another nation; see Manuel Noriega for the counterexample. He has also displayed incredible rudeness on his talk page and has been flagged for disruption. Methinks he's WP:NOTHERE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Stevo1000 reported by User:Tony Fan123

Sorry if I am doing this the wrong way, but the above user keeps reverting edits of 'The Trafford Centre' page. The citation clearly states that the official name of the centre has changed, but the user does not seem to understand this. Please could you rectify this problem?

Thanks.Tony Fan123 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Tony Fan123:. When reporting users at AN3, you need to provide the diffs (edits) that have resulted in the edit warring. Hope this helps! Vensco (T / C) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, do you happen work for Intu Properties? Misplaced Pages is not an advertising service. It opened as simply the Trafford Centre and it is still commonly called the Trafford Centre. You only have to do an online search to see news outlets do not call it the Intu Trafford Centre - they simply refer to it as the Trafford Centre. I have cited WP:COMMONNAME on multiple occasions as Intu is not necessary. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot read the citation. Accept that you are wrong and move on. Yes it may have opened as the "Trafford Centre" but it is now no longer called that. It's new name is "Intu Trafford Centre" How is this making it an advertising service, when this is its official name. 2.125.3.219 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Katie 20:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hosam007 reported by User:Nile_Lover (Result:Filer blocked as obvious sock of someone)

Page: Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the three-revert rule by reverting more than three times in a single page in less than 24 hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

Response from Hosam007:

• Obviously a sock of someone, only edits were here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: These fourfive accounts are the same:

• Nile Lover (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• أحمد المنصورة (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• شامخ بشموخ (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• مصطفى النيل (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• متحور (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: If you're not already aware, there are two SPIs regarding this (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/شامخ بشموخ and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/أحمد المنصورة) that need to be merged and updated with this information. clpo13_(talk) 22:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw the latter case, at which my results have been posted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Two of those I had checked and was convinced he was one of them, even went to translate the names. Thanks for cleaning up, DoRD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine and refugees."
2. 18:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. Cites: The Guardian, NY Times."
3. 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Pro-Russian protests."
4. 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protest in Eastern Ukraine (links are provided)."
5. 07:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. EVIDENCE provided."
6. 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
7. 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
8. 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See recent report at #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29. User was just released from a block for edit warring. Within 1.5 hours, the user continued an edit dispute on Ukraine. Will add another diff momentarily. Wasn't sure if AIV would be appropriate since under 24 hours since block expired EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Think this is one for WP:ANI. WCM_email 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Feel free to copy-paste my diffs or just make a report there if you think that's the better venue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC) My new edit completes peviously logically incompleted paragraph. My previous edits were reverted because of cites. I included new cites and reverted information on refugees that was part of article before my very first edit on it.

I count 5 diffs where you provided sources, so that wasn't the issue. Before your block, Toddy1 reverted you and pointed to the talk page for discussion (). You failed to engage in discussion there and instead re-added the materials after your block expired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI report filed, I linked to this discussion. WCM_email 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)I admitted Toddy1's criticism on previous cites and added new cites in my new edit. What you doing now is doubling previous report! Details: Before my last edit paragraph was logically incomplete! It began with "Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions...". But that doesn't logically link to anything! So I added centence on protests. Now it is logically commpleted: "Protests... Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions..." My previous edits on Ukraine were already mentioned in previous report. And I already served my ban sentence for that. Now when I suggested constructive change you want to put me in jail again for sin I already worked out. For admin: I already said that I learned Misplaced Pages's edit policy and will not do edit warring if will face resistance. I will use Talk page instead. Thus I find OK that I suggested constructive improvement of article. If it will be rejected I will use Talk page.

@Amitashi: The blocks are not simply "jail time" that you serve in exchange for doing something -- they are to stop you from continuing that action. If you keep up the same behavior after a block, it is a lie to say that you've learned from it. WP:Edit warring is not simply a red line that's OK to dance in front of as long as you never cross it -- you need to avoid re-adding material when it is obvious that the consensus is against adding that material. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, it seems you do not understand quality of my actions. As I said my new improvements are essential for logic of article. And as long as I was criticized for cites I replaced them. So it is not warring it is doing what other editors asked me. Amitashi (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amitashi: by saying "it is not warring," you are only proving that you have learned nothing and know nothing about edit warring. You were given plenty of resistance last time to those edits. You did not seek consensus for those edits, but instead started up again with the same behavior and only went to the talk page after it became clear that you can be blocked for this behavior. I've explained this repeatedly, but you do not seem to be listening at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Ian.thomson, no your ban threat doesn't influence my actions. I follow my own strategy by which I use Talk page when I face resistance to my edits. And as I mentioned at your Talk page you deleted more than I added. You deleted other users' contribution on regugees that were presented in article before June 2nd (my entrance). I violated nothing with one edit being in limit of three same edits per day. Also it wasn't same edit as previous because it has new citations and brings essential logical improvement of article.

This is the exact action I took. You are completely wrong, and it is beside the point. The material was removed by Volunteer Marek and again by My very best wishes. To say that I removed it is wrong, and showing you this this evidence it would be a lie for you to ever again say that I removed it.

You don't think that being reverted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times is resistance? Why did you ignore that resistance completely? It wasn't a separate and distinct incident, the block does not make that "the past" and unrelated, you continued the same behavior from the previous incident.

The three-revert rule is not a privilege, it is something you need to stay away from. As WP:3RR says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Once again: you came out of a block and started back with the same behavior that got you blocked. You clearly have not learned anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by User:Ian.thomson. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:75.162.244.4 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result:Blocked )

Page: User:75.162.244.4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.162.244.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• I've already blocked the 75* IP for a laundry list of bad behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:24.212.206.48 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Semi)

Page

Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Biography/By profession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723771482 by Amccann421 (talk) 1. Collegiate Star athlete. 2. The rape. 3. The lenient sentencing. 4. Victim impact statement 5. Please let someone less biased weigh in."
2. 04:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723770833 by Amccann421 (talk) so you need to do 2 rapes to get a wiki page?"
3. 03:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723766538 by Amccann421 (talk) He's done plenty of things. He's a star collegiate swimmer, a campus rapist, and got an incredibly lenient sentence due to affluenza"
4. 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723749592 by Hoary (talk) The list isn't alphabetical to begin with."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been warned in edit summaries and on talk page. Continues to revert and ignore the fact that the proposed article fails WP:BLP1E. Has now called me biased, which is definitely not assuming good faith, and could be seen as a personal attack. Amccann421 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the warner/reverters. In very tepid semi-defence of the perp, I'll say that what he insists on adding the name to is a pretty dreadful list, many of which are of nobodies convicted (or merely accused) of this or that crime and notable for nothing else. The target page cries out for radical pruning. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Any admin who disagrees can lift or modify the protection. The long term question of whether to keep this list around could be a matter for WP:VPP. See the recent comments on the talk page about the quality of the list. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:82.127.22.47/User:81.64.61.5 reported by User:GabeIglesia (Result: Semi)

Page: Visa policy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.127.22.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 81.64.61.5 (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:

Persistent edit warring regarding a contentious addition that violates WP:NOR. Attempts by myself, Twofortnights, and Norvikk to remove the addition continue to be reverted by the aforementioned IP addresses, and extensive discussion has been going on at the article's talk page. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have also put in a request for a temporary upgrade of the article's protection level. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected for a week by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bartheslisa reported by User:Hammad.511234 (Result: Hammad.511234 warned)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Biryani&oldid=723750333

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Biryani&oldid=723780761

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been changing my edits without any valid reason. Biryani is found among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, and everyone knows this. There were even have sources down, 4 in fact, and it's necessary to tell people where the dish originates from. The user also changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" when the book sourced says Muslim, and Lucknow was free of Mughal rule since 1724, and Awadhi cusine developed it's own unique taste separate from Mughal cusine. Hammad.511234 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is in continuation of This report on Administrators' noticeboard above, I lodged a few days ago, after which Hammad.511234 was blocked for making personal attacks. The User is back again and instead of cooperating on the talk page, he is again busy pushing his POV. This is the discussion on the talk page that the user has been asked to engage in again and again, but instead of sticking to it he pushes his choice of the content on the page. He started this on 16th May, he was reverted by other users, he again started with his POV on 29th May. All of this have been mentioned in the earlier complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard Barthateslisa (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Warned Hammad.511234, from what I can see on the talk page, this is a case of WP:IDHT on your part and you appear to be pushing your own reading of the origins of Biryani into the article. You're welcome to take your case to WP:DR but if you continue to push your own views without doing that, you will be blocked again. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

comment How am I pushing my own views? Can you please explain? Was there anything wrong with any of my edits? Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In Talk:Biryani#Biryani_Origin your comments are entirely supported by a "because I know it" argument. That's the quintessential example of pushing your own views. Take it to WP:DRN or give it a rest. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

regentspark No they're not. I have so much proof. The User has no valid reason to vandalize those edits. And you're not helping either, as you know that the sources I have were also sourced in the page before. Are you saying Biryani is not found among South Asian Muslims? Are you saying that misquoting the book is correct? And yes, I am taking it there, because you're proving injustice. Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to DRN is your best option so you're doing the right thing. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Frank Reginald Carey

This a preventative measure, but there is a transient IP edit who keeps reverting for no good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dapi has breached WP:OWN with his assertions on my talk page, and will not correct the incorrect translation in the article that he keeps reinserting (even after it has been pointed out several times).2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This person doesn't understand what that means. The original content editor reserves the right to spell the article and use whatever title they choose. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And second, can he explain why he does not consider Wehrmacht to mean "German forces"? What other forces could it mean? Dapi89 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct translation, as pointed out several times to you despite you ignoring them, is "armed forces". You cannot provide a translation and half ass it like you did. Regardless of your argument, your spelling was challenged and being the original editor has no bearing since you do not own the article.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht refers to the German forces. This is not wrong. Do you understand?

Read WP:RETAIN Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You both know perfectly well you are both edit-warring over content, with no recourse to the talk-page from either of you. The IP might possibly claim ignorance of policy; but Dapi89 should certainly know better. _Muffled 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. I sent him a message, he ignored it. And you know WP:RETAIN is valid grounds for retaining "World War II". An opinion on that would be better, rather than stating the obvious (edit war). The link he added is wrong (also not in source). Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• No; I'm right. Sending him a message saying he's 'confused' and continuing the edit-war = not great. Indeed, he replied to it, rather than ignore it, as you say. Anyway. That's me done. Ciao! _Muffled 16:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You may say we are both in the wrong and the subject is over, yet Dapi has carried on the dispute and essentially gets go have his own way dispute three pieces of info being brought into dispute.

"German forces" does not translate as Wehrmacht, as Dapi has presented the information in the article. German "armed forces" would be more appropriate in the context (of keeping the translation). Other alternatives include removing the translation, rewording the sentence, or piping "German forces". Two attempts have been tried (rewording and removal), yet Dapi reverts for no other reason than because am an anon (or at least the attitude suggests so). So what, the whole argument has to be rehashed on the talk page where Dapi will no doubt ignore constructive criticism because they feel they own the article? Likewise rehash on the talk page the dispute over using a more British term than American, and what link is more valuable?2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that WP:Retain includes a disclaimer of terms that have strong national ties; Second World War has been in use by Brits since said war, that is nearly 80 years of strong ties.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Knoterification reported by User:Laser brain (Result: )

Page: Pedro II of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knoterification (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:

Knoterification has repeatedly inserted text into Pedro II of Brazil indicating that he spoke a "Jewish variant" of a language, always with blogs or other unreliable sources, or papers that don't support the change. Despite being reverted by two different editors, they persist. They have now reverted five times, and have broken 3RR today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 reported by User:331dot (Result: )

Page

Ultimate (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:PROVEIT"
2. 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723856837 by 331dot (talk) WP:PROVEIT "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliabl"
3. 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723729113 by YechezkelZilber (talk) wp:proveit is very very clear on this topic."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
2. 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"
3. 18:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
4. 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Blanking */ new section"
2. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) on User talk:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"

Comments:

Anon user is repeatedly removing the bulk of the Ultimate (sport) article with only stating WP:PROVEIT and not specifying what it is exactly that they want proven. The section does need references, and I had tagged the page as such, but it was removed- the tag should be given time to work. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

An IP with a slightly similar address started this whole process; possibly the same person. I don't want the person blocked as long as they will engage in discussion on the issue and allow time for the tag. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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