Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 28 February 2015

• 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:K7L reported by User:IJBall (Result: Page protected)

Page: Motel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (already there, currently)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1 14:13, February 21, 2015
2. diff2 10:07, February 22, 2015 (notice the completely unprompted removal of {{Use American English}} tag)
3. diff3 11:10, February 22, 2015
4. diff4 06:51, February 23, 2015
5. diff5 08:29, February 24, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (this was actually a WP:ENGVAR warning rather than an WP:Edit warring warning, but the former is the origin of the edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (this is an old discussion, but it shows how long this has been going on!)

Comments:

There has been a long-running slow-burn edit war going on at the article Motel – I'd say it's been going on for months (diff)... actually years (diff)!

The context is that the article Motel was originally written in American English (e.g. ) and by both WP:RETAIN, and based on the original WP:TIES, the article should remain in American English. The {{Use American English}} article tag was added back in 2012 by Chris the Speller (diff), and was restored after discussion and consensus in November 2013, again by Chris the Speller (diff), after it was removed without discussion in September 2012 (diff). Since about July 2013, editor K7L has been Tendentious editing for seemingly years, arguing variously that the article shouldn't be in American English, or that only "British English" is "real English". (Oddly, I've haven't seen evidence that K7L has taken this perspective at any other article...) This recently included trying to remove the {{Use American English}} article tag without discussion (see diff2, above). In any case, this has gone on long enough, and either a warning from an Admin, or a block, seems warranted in this case. --IJBall (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was originally written in British English, most of it by one anon-IP. The topic is not about the United States (which would be the usual reason for tagging something {{use American English}}) but is about motels worldwide. U.S. Route 66 has WP:TIES and, if it turns into a mess of Americanisms, so be it. Motel does not. There is no reason to favour US spelling over English spelling in this instance. There was also no consensus on the question of favouring one dialect over another. Most of the edit warring has been carried out by users who have contributed absolutely nothing to Misplaced Pages's understanding of motels, except to edit-war US spelling or tags into the page. Unfortunately, at least one of these editors has been repeatedly removing valid contributions to the article just because they weren't in his preferred variant of language. This, more than merely the agenda pushing to turn this article into Motels in the United States, is harming the project as it's interfering with valid attempts to contribute constructively to the topic. Based on the article history, User:‎Oknazevad has been particularly problematic in this regard. ("Chris the Speller" hasn't touched the page in years.) The appearance of "Oknazevad" and "IJBall" WP:RIGHTTHERE at the same time spouting exactly the same line is WP:CANVASSing, as can be seen at User_talk:Oknazevad#Motel. They're not the same user, but the collusion is clear. They've added nothing of value to the article, yet Oknazevad repeatedly reverts valid contributions by others, an ongoing issue for some time now, occasionally making sockpuppet allegations in an attempt to intimidate users into not editing - so the article needs work, but no one can fix it without becoming collateral damage to this ridiculous edit war. K7L (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick rebuttal: Your interpretation on this has been opposed by three long-standing editors over the years: Chris the speller, BarrelProof, and ‎Oknazevad – that is rather hard to ignore. --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was not written in British English first, as clearly seen in the edit history. It was written in American English first, and that is why the article should remain in it. There is absolutely no requirement of WP:TIES to the US for a article to be in American English, And the dismissive attitude towards American English (calling the valid dialect that is in no way inferior to British English a "mess of Americanisms" is just the latest in a long line of insults) is unacceptable. K7L is the only one insisting on changing the ENGVAR despite having the proper reading of WP:RETAIN explained to them multiple times, by multiple editors. User:Chris the speller told them outright on their and the article's talk page, and instead of remotely listening Chris was insulted and contrib-stalked until he just said to hell with it and walked away. (For those watching along, see here for background.) Yes, the article needs work, but most of the recent additions have been trivial detail at best. But none of it is in remotely good faith if they will not abide by a proper reading of WP:RETAIN, showing actual respect for all national varieties, especially when it has been explained repeatedly. PS, Hate to tell you this, but that was a sock, confirmed by checkuser, and he's been blocked, so there was nothing false there at all. oknazevad (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're taking content that is being submitted in British English and reverting it outright (removing content, not just spelling) for no better reason than that you like American spelling. This is disruptive. This has been ongoing, for years, and the other users you name have nothing to do with the problem as they haven't touched the page in years. You are disrupting Misplaced Pages and wilfully interfering with legitimate contribution. I've tried removing some of the trivial detail, including (most recently) a planned for 2012 "Motels of Route 66" documentary that never materialised. That trivia has been put back into the article just to make a WP:POINT of preventing me from contributing to the article, which is abusive. This needs to stop. K7L (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If your contributions were to actually respect the consensus and properly interpret the guideline, I would have no trouble with them. The issue is that a) some of your edits, such as the first one cited here, serve only to change the ENGVAR in contravention of the consensus and the proper interpretation of the guideline, and are blatant violations of consensus and RETAIN, and b) the ones that are not just inapporpiate spelling changes are so trivial that I have a hard time believing that their purpose is anything other that more of the same. After some of these edits, I have no good faith left for this situation. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, I've made substantial changes over the last few years, only to have you arbitrarily revert every one in an attempt to chase me away from contributing to the topic. This is WP:OWN and inexcusable given that your own contributions to Motel, except to edit-war spelling, are zero. Check the edit history. K7L (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line: You have made no recent efforts to build consensus for your position, and have attempted to remove the {{Use American English}} without discussion, and attempted no discussion when you were reverted by other editors, instead continuing to re-revert. That's pretty much the definition of edit warring. --IJBall (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected until 28 Feb 2015 by User:Ymblanter, so a block is not particularly warranted at this point. However, reviewing the situation, it seems pretty clear that the article was originally written in American English, which remained unchanged as it was slowly developed over the years. K7L is clearly engaged in an edit war in order to alter the variety of English, in clear contrast to WP:RETAIN's "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." K7L is warned that, right or wrong, continuation of long-term edit-warring may very well result in a block, but particularly if you're in the wrong. Using American English isn't what makes an article Americentric, and changing the variety of English does not alleviate the problem of bias in an article. I don't see any particular valid reason for your actions. Swarm 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Amandalee222 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: No action)

Page

Yeruham Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amandalee222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "The ENTIRE post was false. A lie. The direct source from which it came, is about a LAKE. It is NOT a dam. The person who made this today, did so, for political reasons and this article is NOT ACCURATE."
2. 00:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Yeruham is a small town situated in the northern Negev, 15 km from Dimona, 520 meters above sea level.'"
3. 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "My edit is due to the fact that the original post was FALSE. Not only do I live next to this town, for my whole life of 32 years, but it is not true what was written here. It was CLEARLY edited YESTERDAY as noted in the edit history by somebody."
4. 00:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "again, this is NOT a water area. Why are people who are NOT from Israel allowed to edit this website on what MY TOWN looks like??"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Yeruham Dam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user apparently insists in keeping their removal of content ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked per WP:BITE and WP:AGF. The user explained their edits yet they were reverted without any attempt to communicate with them. Swarm 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Of note as well, if you check my talk, the user apologized for the mistake and explained they perceived the article as being created yesterday to support Palestinian claims of flooding.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Hopefully she'll keep contributing! Swarm 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Last good version:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, with further message on user's talkpage:

Comments: Arcobelina (talk · contribs) is attempting to add the equivalent of the Obama birther conspiracy theories to our article on Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia. The addition of such material has been discussed on multiple occasions, most recently through September–November last year, with an absolute consensus to not include the material in any form. Arcobelina was likely unaware of this when they made their first edits, but having been alerted to this has continued to add the material. I've engaged Arcobelina on their talk page and also warned them for edit warring, and it's clear that they've read my edit summaries, yet still continued to edit war. I'm conscious that I myself have violating 3RR in reverting Arcobelina's edits, but given they are (1) against consensus, (2) a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, (3) sourced mainly using blogs, and (4) a violation of WP:BLP (and potentially defamatory, in stating that Abbott has deliberately concealed a violation of the constitution), I believe I am fully justified in doing so. This user has shown no interest in engaging with other editors, so I believe a block is in order to prevent further disruptive editing. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignorantarmies (talk · contribs) is refusing to read what I am posting, I am not starting a racist Tea Party conspiracy theory, I am adding documentation from Tony Abbots own Department of Prime Minsiter and Cabinet that show he has not renounced his British citizenship, which is illegal in Australasia for members of parliament. is the main document which stated very clearly that the renunciation papers do not exist. I want you to reverse all changes made by ignorant armies to my inclusion int he abbott wiki, and stop him or any others from changing factual documentation and citations. His petty complaints and party political allegiances are against what wiki is supposed to be about. Please stop him/her and allow the truth to be on wiki. Arcobelina (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42C_wWg31otWnE4Z0dtVEZpYzA/view

User:Aqlpswkodejifrhugty reported by User:Dcbanners (Result: both editors blocked )

Page

List of The Daily Show episodes (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648970457 by Dcbanners (talk) How about you stop until you actually give a reason why ratings should be here. Look at all the other late night shows. It is not needed."
2. 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Yes, every ACTUAL TV SHOW has ratings. This is a late night show. Where the show is on 4 or 5 days a week and the show doesn't ride on 22 episodes and it's ratings to get another season. Look at my user page at the other late night shows."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) to 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648855387 by Dcbanners (talk) Stop putting ambiguous/no edit summaries in your edits. I have put a clear reason why I don't think this should be here."
   2. 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* February */"
4. 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Can you read my edit summaries? This is a show that is on 4 days a week. This isn't a regular TV show where that would matter at all (22 episodes where the next season rides on the ratings)."
5. 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "/* February */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Ratings */ new section"
2. 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Daily Show episodes (2015). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing ratings without sufficient reason. Reasons such as "not being an actual TV show" and "Who cares about an outdated system when people mostly watch it on their website or on YouTube". User says uncivil things like "Fuck off with your "Welcome to Misplaced Pages" and bot bullshit". Dcbanners (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: I've blocked both editors for pretty over-the-top edit warring, and zero use of the talk page. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty for 2 days (first offense, but egregious, and after a warning), Dcbanners for 10 days (previous 1 and 3 day blocks for the same thing haven't registered). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:A M R Sydney reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: 24h)

Page: CBD and South East Light Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A M R Sydney (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:

A seperate section was established on the article's talk page where the reasons not to include were explained. Four editors have now explained to the editor why his post is not appropriate, yet he continues to insist it be included. Editor would appear to have a conflict of interest given that he has an ongoing gripe with the subject article's proponents , has a POV that lies are being told and has had direct meetings with government officials in some form of community representative role.

Editor is making suggestions that other editors are 'apparent political apparatchiks' when it is apparent his postings that are politically motivated. Mo7838 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And now an editor is suspected of being an employee or consultant posting inside information, he does like his conspiracy theories. . Mo7838 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I'll take a closer look when I get a moment just to make sure this block is sufficient. Swarm 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Page protected)

Page: Quantum Leap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:23, 25 February 2015
2. 01:19, 26 February 2015
3. 01:24, 26 February 2015
4. as sock 145.118.111.106 02:20, 26 February 2015. (I've opened an SPI, but that's a separate issue.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 was at the edge of 3RR at Quantum Leap, gaming the system by being just outside 24 hours, as shown below. He then made the exact same edit as 145.118.111.106 in a clear attempt to avoid 3RR sanction. (He also left an uncivil note when I tried to discuss his edit's WP:DATED vio at Talk:Quantum Leap.) Now, under his original IP address, he's back edit-warring.

• Page protected for a period of one month. Swarm 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:101el capitan reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result:blocked)

Page: Qutb Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101el capitan (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:
User:101el capitan has been edit warring against other editors on Qutb Shah since 10 February 2015. Along with edit warring on Qutb Shah, User:101el capitan has received numerous warnings for edit warring/disruptive editing on at least 2 other articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see where he's ever responded to any of the warnings on his page or on the talk page listed above. He's been given enough warnings to where he should at least know that people are contesting his edits and there's enough content in the warnings to where he should know to communicate at this stage rather than remain quiet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:DD2K reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: No action)

Page

Democratic Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Renewable energy and fossil fuels */ Restore wording prior to POV removal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Several editors are trying to include new content by force of majoritarian edit-war, rather than through discussion and consensus. Several warnings were given through the edit summaries. TBSchemer (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pshh....Smfh. Dave Dial (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@TBSchemer: You have reverted three times while the person you reported, User:DD2K, has only reverted once. Plus, you haven't used the talk page. Can you explain why DD2K should be blocked instead of you? EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@TBSchemer: I agree with EdJohnston... TBSchemer has been explicitly POV in a highly partisan way. If the article states with RS that the Democratic Party position is XYZ he erases it saying the Dems are misleading us & adds unsourced allegations in his edit summary. He won't discuss it, only erases. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me. But the discussion began 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and as of right now TBSchemer still hasn't participated in that discussion. AlexanderLevian (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to turn this around on me? I have only reverted to the last stable version. The last stable version DID NOT include the content in question. While maintaining the last stable version (within my 3RR limits), I have encouraged the other editors to use the talk page to hash out new content, rather than edit-warring over it. When @Rjensen: finally DID go to the talk page, he/she titled the thread "POV edits by TBSchemer," rather than creating a thread focused on the content they were trying to add. This is entirely inappropriate harassment. Additionally, this is not the first time @DD2K: has engaged in this sort of behavior. Dave Dial has engaged in a wikihounding campaign of overly-personal reversions and unprovoked personal attacks against me and other editors, with a long history of failing to discuss his edits. He has been warned for this behavior directly by Jimbo Wales himself. I have tried to maintain civility with this editor, but he seems determined to blow it up. In his current state of mind, I do not believe Dave Dial is capable of editing constructively. I think if he were temporarily blocked, it would give him some time to think about how to carry out more civil discussions of edits. TBSchemer (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. If you believe there's a behavioral problem on the part of this user that requires administrator intervention, you're encouraged to start a discussion at WP:ANI, the appropriate forum for something like this. However the links you have provided have not demonstrated a problem with edit warring. Swarm 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood. I have done so here. However, for my own knowledge, would you please explain to me why this is not considered edit-warring? It is my understanding that edit-warring is not necessarily characterized by the number of edits by a particular user, but by the behavior itself. In this case, several users have ganged up to try to include new content by outnumbering the opposition, rather than following the BRD cycle. When I have been on the other side of this, it has been considered edit-warring. Why is this now no longer considered edit-warring? TBSchemer (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Additionally, it is my understanding that, during the BRD cycle, pages are supposed to be restored to their last stable version until consensus has been achieved on the change, and I have seen administrators do this in response to edit-warring reports. Why is this not being done here? TBSchemer (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HanSangYoon reported by User:ColonialGrid (Result: No action)

Page: Busan Metro Line 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HanSangYoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HanSangYoon is edit warring for the inclusion of a template they made. It has previously been removed for being malformed, but has now been inserted again. Both SarekOfVulcan and I have reverted this templates addition, being reverted each time. This is what the article looked like before the template was added, so its inclusion is very fresh. HanSangYoon's poor understanding of the BRD cycle means he is trying to war it in, then discuss why it should stay, not accept it's removal and discuss why it should be included. There are other serious WP:CIR issues with this editor that have been brought up at AN/I: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Thank you for considering this issue. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Oppose and Defend. This is an absurd filing, immediate reactivity. I have reason to explain of why I am innocent, and why this user is corruptively filing against me:

ColonialGrid has criticized me (right now as you can see) of going against the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle (WP:BRD) on the page of Busan Metro Line 1. But, as you see right now, it is ColonialGrid who's actually stating his own problem, as he put up an inaccurate route map image (Bold), then I reverted this (Revert), then I placed a message on the talk page of ColonialGrid and SarekOfVulcan (Discuss), explaining throughly of why I reverted their edits, and of what issue they were committing by doing their image uploading (inaccurate editing (WP:V) (WP:Editing policy states, "on Misplaced Pages a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". To this end, potential inaccuracy is a consideration for each and every source brought to an article."), and therefore becomes an issue of WP:WONTWORK). ColonialGrid added the image saying that the route map was 'unneccessary', and I reverted his image (1st time), replying that there wasn't as much functionality, which was what most train pages had. As I placed my discussion thread on his talk page, SarekOfVulcan came to revert my edit, stating of geographical accuracy and size. I reverted his edit (2nd time), stating that the map was inaccurate, lack aboveground/underground information, and also lacked functionality, resulting in article degradation. I had no problem until when ColonialGrid reverted my revertion, resulting in his starting of breaking the Bold, Revert, and Discuss Policy. I had no problem with SarekOfVulcan, and leaving the edit I left for my second revertion could've left ColonialGrid safe from the BRD policy. However, his second revertion broke the BRD policy against him. I did a temporary 3rd revertion (currently not there anymore), stating for him to stop editing, to check his own talk page. This user claimed edit warring, in which it is completely wrong.

• "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." - WP:EW This was what I have done towards ColonialGrid. His image was inaccurate. "Libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published." - WP:WONTWORK
• The three-revert-rule stated that the maximum legal amount of time you could revert an article is three. "(The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.)" (WP:3RR) Since this was my only revertions during the past 24 hours, I am safe from that issue.

Therefore, his statement that I have committed edit warring is completely false. And with him getting reactive onto the editing of Busan Metro Line 1, I'd like to note, this user is committing WP:DSAN for ignoring my discussion notification, and continuing on to break the rules of WP:BRD. Check here for what I have sent to ColonialGrid, and notice the timing of when ColonialGrid decided to revert (after I sent him the talk page thread). Even as I explained of him of why the pictures needed to be reverted, he didn't give a proper response, only repeating bold discussions (in which it was ironic), confirming that his revertion on uploading the inaccurate image meant WP:DE; he kept trying to upload a false image without an attempted consent.

ALSO, we gave in an accurate route map of the Busan Metro Line 1 (Terramorphous, Sawol, Niceguyedc, and me) edited, nothing 'malformed' as ColonialGrid (I don't know about SarekOfVulcan) claims. HanSangYoon (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have performed major edits on the template. ColonialGrid, I don't understand why it was removed there is 1 thing that is not showing properly but everything else is fine. HSY's original template was really sloppy, unprofessional and should not be posted. However I believed that I have remedied most if not all these issues. So can you explain to me why it was removed?Terramorphous (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Both parties are equally guilty of edit-warring, but HSY was the one to self-revert thus I see no reason to block them. HSY is appears to be trying to communicate regarding the content, whereas colonial's argument seems to be more or less "I don't like it", start citing policy, and attempting to have the editor who they're involved in a minor dispute with blocked. This is simply unproductive and ignores their own contribution to the edit war. At the end of the day I trust all parties to cool off a bit and discuss which map would be best to use without continuing to edit war. Swarm 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:200.83.101.199 reported by Hafspajen (Result: IP blocked by Kww)

Page: Wilderness hut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.83.101.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: note there were TWO version removed -

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also - user has a previous historia of behaving aggressively - and on editwarring - before.

This IP started the whole exchange by telling me to that I am irritating and to grow up. What a good way to start a discussion, You provocative and annoying person grow up??? This was the beginning. IP doesn't want to listen to warning and to any arguments , the only thing is happening as soon I leave a message, in ten seconds - IP just goes and removes it. I don't know what kind of interaction was that but - this is not the way to act. That message he kept removing was not only a warning but an explanation about what I was doing. When you start reverting people you should discuss things with them and not remove each and every post non-stop like a machine. Because I was about rewriting the text in the article. IP removed a different text from the article that was first removed - maybe for a reason - that I tried to correct with my next edit. I was about to rewrite it to be less like a guidebook or a list. I was adding references too, I was working on the text and when I hit save three times the text was gone again and again and again - this while I was working on it, trying to add it again in a better form, plus references and all. That text was not so bad that it needed removed, with picture and altogether, when it it could have been easily rewritten. I hoped that by involving an other editor we can now discuss this, at his-her talk. I reverted to last stable version- with a note -do not revert but discuss - because I believe this is the way to proceed when there is an edit war - revert to stable version and then discuss - and was moving everything on this discussion to the talk page - trying to put up a draft, as the other editor -Yngvadottir advised me on IPs talk. Maybe that was wrong, I should have asked someone else from outside do that. And he reverts me again - how GREAT. Is this common sense, politeness, discussing and trying to reach a consensus? I tried to discuss and didn't get anywhere. So I might have not reverted to stable version but all the time I was trying to discuss with him on his talk he went on reverting my edits on his talk WHILE editing the article, so here we are, that's the situation. I am sorry about the revert for stable. I tried but failed to communicate - and might made the mistake to revert to stable, but to be sincere I have no idea how to cope here. He is editing it as we speak now, he never stopped, never discussed. Hafspajen (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Might have poste one twice. I was an extensive introverted monologue going on on the IP page, interrupted by a periodic removals of my posts and comments - well, maybe except for= one comment addressed to me ... You and your ilk cause immense damage to Misplaced Pages. Witch I really didn't know how to respond. My ilk causing damage, in what way? Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• 200.83.101.199 aka Best known for IP is doing the same thing for which he was blocked a few times earlier. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, trying to make articles comply with core policies is extremely unpopular. The long term War On Quality continues.

Please note that:

• Hafspajen has posted the same diff twice to falsely accuse me of breaking the 3RR

• I see they replaced the duplicated diff with one showing an unrelated edit. I get very bored of this kind of constant low level dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.101.199 (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• They have posted an unrelated edit made by J 1982, who has nothing to do with this discussion, for reasons which remain unclear
• There is extensive ongoing discussion on the talk page. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest both get blocked for clueless edit-warring (the talk page discussion was only started after the fourth round of reverts and after this request here was filed).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. I haven't been blocked last six years, and when I was blocked it was because false accusation of sock-puppetry. I had nothing to do with that user user. But the talk page discussion didn't only started after the fourth round of reverts and definitely not after this request here was filed. Please check my edits and you will see. Sorry, but be fair. I do want to say before anybody blocks me that the talk page discussion did started long time ago, - after the first revert - (you must be only looking at the article talk page). Also the article talk post was way before this rapport - and there was discussion both on my talk and IPs talk. And also he constantly removed my posts from his talk. So about the non-communicating - I don't think that was my fault. Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I have checked their edits and 200.83's version is seemingly better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but I stopped editing, so my version is not there. He was the one who never stopped editing, while editwarring. MY version could have been different but I was sitting on the article talk page waiting for him to show up to discuss things with me, and I never got anywhere editing. We could have had a discussion - BUT NOBODY WANTED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH ME. I was no my version, it was just a previous version. I added the pictures to article. Isn't all this matters? I tried to discuss while he was editing and kicked me out off his talk... all the time - while he did what he wanted with the article, alone . Hafspajen (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reason for edit warring and for refusal to discuss anything. Only vandalism and obvious BLP violations are exempt. Misplaced Pages should be a collaborative project, not a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. And I am one of the most collaborative editors in this project EVER. Ask any editor with whom I was, I am or were collaborating.

• Why this is wrong is because:
• 1) - He - not me - was calling me names and told me that I need to grow up, that I am irritating and so on. He - not me. Point me to the part I was name-calling towards him. - You will not be able to find such a thing.
• 2) - He was ignoring all my efforts to communicate with him removing my post circa three minutes from his talk after I posted them. I was trying to discuss things with him. He was continuing to edit the article and never cared to discussed content with me. I did what i should have done - reverted once. I tried to reformulate content and discuss it wiht him. He IGNORED ME all the time or just went on insulting me saying I am damaging the project.

• 3)- I stopped editing the article - after all . I went from his talk to article talk and waited for him to discuss things with me. In the main while he went on editing the article and in the top of everything. - he removed 50% of the pictures I added to that article in response. No discussion, nothing. I was still doing nothing to the article, waithing to discuss things.

• 4) - Four - if anybody knows me they will know that the worst thing to do against me is starting to remove images - without discussion. We had NO CONSENSUS removing images. In the middle of the edit war he does that- like I was a non-exising person. I what way is this a collaborative editing from his side?

• 5) Reverted - and posted this. THIS is what happened. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 5b)(edit conflict) - And - also - wilderness hut is not only architecture - it is a lifestyle. If there should be any editor involved on this who genuinely knows about hiking - anyone could tell you that these huts are intimately bound together with - a lifestyle around them. I agree that it could have been written differently - and IF anyone should have cared to talk to me I might had a chance even explaining it - before all my pictures were ripped off with no consensus. And just for the record - this editor is a blocked editor who was unblocked, here high up. Two admins, Drmies and Yngvadottir, have unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction. Looks to me that he was on called 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule). That means he should never been reverting anything at all - ever, he was under restrictions. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no hair to pull out, or dust to rub in my clothes, and I'm closing this nonetheless, by way of Administrative Powerplay, because these are two editors who have Misplaced Pages's best interest at heart. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Users Spumuq and Zozs reported by User:Pishcal (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Communist State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zozs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Spumuq (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

Comments:

User:Spumuq has for a long time followed me from article to article reverting my edits for no reason, a troll-like reason (e.g. he adds original research then when someone removes it he reverts with a summary like "no original research"), never participating in talk pages, and edit warring to meanwhile get the version he wants to be displayed. A quick view of his edit history will show that. It is this reason that, given that Spumuq never makes an argument or brings sources to the table, I have decided to simply keep reverting his nonsensical reverts against me, when these have no apparent reasoning other than harassing me - when something is reverted for no reason, it can be reverted back for no reason. Note that I have not broken 3RR. Zozs (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Spumuq Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. I've reviewed the situation and while I'm not particularly worried about this individual edit war, it appears to be part of a larger ongoing problem and I think there's serious cause for concern with Spumuq's behavior here. It is evident that the above assertion of hounding on the part of spumuq is indeed accurate; they've reverted Zozs on a wide variety of different articles over a continuing period, with either no explanation or with an edit summary such as "Zozs must stop." For the most part Zozs appears to have refrained from responding to these incidents with similar behavior. This is in my view a disruptive and highly-unproductive behavior that is not tolerated here. As far as I can tell Zozs is an established editor in good standing and thus not subject to the supervision of a user with an apparent battleground mentality. This is further demonstrated by their hardheaded responses and unfounded accusations of harassment in this discussion. And, finally, they were recently warned about edit-warring by a sysop on their page, a reminder they have obviously ignored. Based on my review of their behavior I'm blocking spumq for two weeks and will consider a longer block if it continues. Swarm 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikova Kalish reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: indef)

Page

Albert Langer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nikova Kalish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor claims to be the daughter of Albert Langer and keeps placing unsourced or badly sourced information about Mr. Langer's family into the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Its not merely a claim. It is a fact. I have the marriage certificate, the birth certificate, and documents from ASIC. Please let me know to which location you would like me to have the documents uploaded in order to have my claim verified.

Thanks. -- Nikova Kalish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikova Kalish (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen: we are not in the business of verifying anything--other than by way of secondary sources. I'm looking into this. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• For now, we're done: blocked indefinitely. See their talk page for more of my verbiage. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. Drmies is on it! Swarm 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2015newbie reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Tim Stephens (karateka) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2015newbie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor in question claims to not know how talk page works, has ignored requests to cease editwarring by multiple other parties. Appears committed to editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User is removing content and cites because "Distress is being caused with this page, respectfully ask for deletion and thanks from those affected" (see contributions history). ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And I can understand when a notable person is convicted of a serious crime some sensitivity is required. But as I mentioned in talk, it appears the quote inserted from the BBC was quite restrained and fell within acceptable practice for WP:BLP Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% - I was just providing more information on the matter (you and others kept beating me to the reverts), namely that it is content removal, with the irrelevant justification provided. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected so the user can contribute to DR. Looking at the article I can quite clearly see why someone might have a concern with it in its current state. Going to start a discussion at BLPN. Standby. Swarm 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• See discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Stephens (karateka). Swarm 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Anonymous8201981 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page: George Stinney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anonymous8201981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user has violated 3RR, removing sourced content without proper justification. They were warned about it on their talk page, but continued to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Actually, no warning of edit warring was ever given that I can see. Given that it's a brand new account, I might not have blocked just for that, but Dreamyshade went to a fair amount of trouble to explain to the user how to handle the user's concerns, and was ignored. Finally, there was a quasi legal threat in an edit summary by the user that, even though it didn't merit an indefinite block, was disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:YahwehSaves reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: Declined)

Page

Jim Landis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Changed MLB history to major-league history; reference, "big-league history"."
2. 02:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Improved introduction ...."
3. 06:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "Removed MLB career section to Major League career..."
4. 03:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "Somemore changes ..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jim Landis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same issues as previous blocks, well chronicled on his talk page history. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. There's been no breach of WP:3RR. Two of the diffs listed are consecutive and therefore count as one, and it would be outside the 24-hour window as well. The editor hasn't been blocked since July 2014.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand. I find that I just can't work with this editor. I haven't really experienced that with anyone else before, and it looks like I lost perspective and made a premature report. I appreciated your calm consideration though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ShaneH1990 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

Daniel Bryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ShaneH1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
2. 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
3. 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
4. 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
5. 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
   2. 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He's already been warned several times on his talk page about disruptive editing on other Wiki pages, he obviously hasn't learned. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:JapanerRusse reported by User:Mozad655 (Result: Blocked)

I want to report a new editor who has broken the 1RR several times (without source) and who has been warned.

Page

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:25, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649207115&oldid=649150787

14:45, 28 February 2015‎: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649233119&oldid=649229788

22:35, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649292071&oldid=649290716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JapanerRusse&diff=648642720&oldid=648633446

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=648643177&oldid=647304408

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JapanerRusse&diff=648633446&oldid=519265622

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648968947&oldid=648962437

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648114901&oldid=648095669

Comments:

I also believe that this user has two accounts and is using both to make reverts on the same page. Note that reverts of this user and the other (who I will report in a new section) are minutes apart every time and the same reverts are done by both. Mozad655 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours pursuant to community sanctions. Mozad655, next time please notify the editor of this report as required in the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alan Genco reported by User:Mozad655 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alan Genco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:30, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649207500&oldid=649207115

14:50, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649233606&oldid=649233119

18:57, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649263423&oldid=649235998

22:24, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649290716&oldid=649271646 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648821972&oldid=648813210

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=648822686&oldid=648643177

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648226291&oldid=617331775

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648633558&oldid=648226795

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648813210&oldid=648633558

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648968947&oldid=648962437

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648114901&oldid=648095669

Comments:

This editor has also continiously broken the 1RR rule, and I believe it is the same person as the editor that I reported above which would make it a double breach (1RR + two accounts same editor). Mozad655 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Declined)

Page: 'Anata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. removes "advocacy group", previosly added by me
2. removes "advocacy group", again, as well as my changes to the lead, back to ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user has been warned about 3RR mnay times, most recently:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Page is subject to 1RR

Declined. I considered blocking both editors, one for 1RR, the other for NPOV disruption, and both for edit-warring in a 1RR article, but decided they more or less cancel out. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who added content to support it, and that burden was not met, therefore the removal of a seemingly contentious WP:NPOV-violating phrase that was added twice seems warranted since its addition was not supported. I also don't see the discussion to resolve the dispute referencing the removal of "advocacy group" at all; that discussion is all about interpreting a map. Declining this request as somewhat malformed. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tron reboot reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: 24h)

Page: List of University of Westminster alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tron reboot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

7. - this one AFTER the 3RR report was filed and the user notified and asked to self revert -which he did, but then immediately re-reverted.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring