Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 12 March 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.

Click here to create a new report

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

Page: Elder of Ziyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gouncbeatduke (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 page in question, like all articles in the topic area of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

The edit in question, repeated twice, is arguably also a case of vandalism - it removes the entire article content, including material sourced to reliable sources like Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post, and The Forward - using a false edit summary that says they are not reliable sources, but then ADDS back a single source which has been removed several times - which is clearly not a reliable source- a self -published activists' blog.

User:Gouncbeatduke has blanked a large part of the article content twice, which violates the WP:ARBPIA 1RR. In my opinion he might be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a Misplaced Pages article about an anonymous blog full of illegal Hate speech, Anti-Arabism, and Islamophobia. I was surprised to learn Misplaced Pages is protecting it with a 1rr rule, I see no mention of it on the article or the article talk page. When I started checking the sources given in the article, they were mostly citing information only on the anonymous blog and had no WP:RS. Sometime a WP:RS would be given, but there was no mention of the anonymous blog in the WP:RS, and the statement in the article was just original research created by combining information on the anonymous blog with information on a WP:RS that never mentioned the blog. The article should be considered very far below Misplaced Pages standards, and I cannot imagine why it is protected with a 1rr rule. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because you don't like an article doesn't mean that it is not subject to Arbcom sanctions, including, as in this case, WP:1RR. I agree that it would be better to have a notice of the sanctions on the talk page and, just to make it absolutely clear, an editnotice warning you about 1RR when you edit the article. However, like it or not, now you know about the sanctions, and Ed's question is still unanswered. I suggest you respond to it rather than discussing tangential issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not "protected" by a 1rr, it's simply part of a larger topic that has been determined to be an "area of conflict". To control this long term and widespread conflict, administrators are authorized to impose sanctions problematic editors at their discretion, and all editors are restricted to one revert per day in this topic area. It's not a protection for any article in particular, it's a remedy for a problem that has proven to be necessary in an entire topic area. Swarm... 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 1RR violation. Now that he is aware that 1RR applies, Gouncbeatduke could have backed away from the issue by agreeing to take a break from the article. He chose not to do so. He merely complained that this article is under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that User:I invented "it's not you, it's me", who created this complaint, has been blocked for using sock puppets.

I still think it is a mistake to include this article under Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. It is a anonymous, racist, anti-Arab, hate-speech blog that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. To give this anonymous hate-speech blogger credit for being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict promotes anonymous hate-speech bloggers to a far higher level of credibility than they deserve. The Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement tag was only added to the article after the blocked sock puppet User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" requested it. It appears sock puppets are becoming the most effective way to get admin action in Misplaced Pages. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:184.153.42.6 reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: 31h)

Page

Critique of Pure Reason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "I demand more respect than that."
2. 01:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "I wish to make the minor adjustments to phraseology I've just proposed. Please permit me to do so. I believe my edits are rational, permissible, and conducive to the reading experience and don't appreciate my views' being soft-pedaled by a pedantic admin"
3. 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "You're not being very "tolerant of my viewpoints," Sir!"
4. 01:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650692620 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)"
5. 00:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Axiomatic locutionary alteration"
   2. 00:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Redressing glaring grammatical, pronominal, and stylistic errata and solecisms"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Critique of Pure Reason. (TW)"
2. 01:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "3RR: new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "/* IP edits */"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:George Al-Shami (Result: 24h)

Page: Little Syria, Manhattan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Beyond My Ken Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Little_Syria%2C_Manhattan&diff=650539084&oldid=650492819>

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

<Beyond My Ken> Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link of discussion Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor in question has broken the WP:3RR rule by reverting my edit 4 times. I made a very simple and small edit to one of the sentences in the article. My edit substituted "Christian" with "Syrian", in the following sentence "The Christians lived on Washington Street to the south of the site of the World Trade Center, where they established three churches, including St. George Chapel of the Melkite Rite, which as of 2010 survives as Moran's Ale House and Grill, and which was designated a New York City landmark in 2009.". The editor in question reverted my edit by vaguely stating "The article is saying what the source says". So I thought there was a misunderstanding and that there was no need to discuss it and so I reverted to my edit and I source what the article says in my edit explanation, however the editor in question reverts again, and again until he reached 4 reverts. In his second revert he accuses me of being a "pov editor" and then in his third revert he employs the f-word. I start the discussion on his page, and then unbeknownst to me he had started a discussion on the talk page (we were online at the same time)and so I start discussing it there. I respond to his baseless accusations by stating the logic of my edit and that my intentions were to prevent readers from assuming that all Christians lived on Washington Street and all Muslims lived on another street. I then changed my original edit for a possible compromise by keeping the original sentence and adding the word "most", but that was not enough for the editor in question. He wants me to get a consensus for trying to clarify the sentence by adding the word "most" to it.

I believe the editor in question is trying to intimidate me, as he has reverted my edits on another article ; moreover he quickly assumed that I had bad faith, without even discussing it. I don't believe the editor in question is sincere in arriving at a consensus, because he quickly reverted my suggestion, without coming up with a suggestion himself.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite my having started a discussion at Talk:Little Syria, Manhattan#Description of neighborhood regarding the dispute between us, the reporting editor continued to press his preferred version, against the standing version -- which has been in the article for years and which accurately reflects the source -- without waiting for a consensus to form, or, indeed, any response from other editors at all. In fact, his last edit came a mere 4 minutes after his response on the talk page, indicating that this editor has no intention of following normal procedures and is simply intent on pushing his POV, whatever that is. BMK (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit referred to in the second paragraph above, to the article St. George's Syrian Catholic Church, was to remove the category "Landmarks in New York City" because the article already had the category "Landmarks in Manhattan", a child cat. (In fact, another editor had replaced the "New York" category with the "Manhattan" category, and the reporting editor simply replaced the "New York" cat, before I came along and removed it.) Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the current dispute, especially since that article is on my watchlist and I'm the second largest contributor to it (the reporting editor is the first). But the primary problem is that the edit he's reporting as indicative of my trying to "intimidate" him took place in March 2012. BMK (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing to do here--at least not in terms of blocks. User:George Al-Shami should have sought the talk page given that BMK made a claim of inaccurate representation of the source in his edit summary. I could conceivably block George Al-Shami for edit warring, I suppose--but I'd rather George continue this on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Drmies (talk The editor in question continues to argue that I have a POV or agenda to push, even though he has yet to explain what this agenda is. My initial edit was concerned with helping clarify the sentence/paragraph and to keep it as NPOV as possible. The editor argues that I have no regard for Wiki procedures, when in fact he is the one to have violated the 3RR rule.

• BMK, I'm astonished by your brazenness. You undeniably broke 3rr, and you were blatantly let off the hook for it by Drmies. Fine. But within an hour of being let off, you reverted on the same article, breaching 3rr yet again. I'm all for being reasonable and giving people a break, but there's a fine line between an honest slip-up and completely disregarding rules. Perhaps you need to brush up on WP:3RR, or maybe WP:NVC would be more appropriate. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm... 07:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 48h)

Page

Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Again, a previous editor told me to discuss on the talk page for a reason. Vocal, Vocal Jazz, and Jazz is redundant, just like Country pop, Country, and pop."
2. 01:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "I understand that they are referenced, but having those genres are redundant, and you typically do not place a genre that an artist has done on only, like, one album and it not part of their typical musical style."
3. 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650689398 by 5 albert square (talk) You told me to discuss on the talk. You haven't said a word. Vocal, jazz and vocal jazz are redundant sub-genres."
4. 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Moving to what genre source proves. And no one has answered on talk yet."
6. 00:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "I didn't change them. They are unsourced, that is Original research, which cannot be used. Plus, a lot of these are redundant overkill. Too many genres."
7. 23:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) "Sources?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
2. 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
3. 05:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
4. 02:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Seth MacFarlane. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk page discussion at Seth MacFarlane

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring at several articles over the last couple of days. Most recently at Seth MacFarlane. Yesterday repeatedly at Leonard Nimoy -- even after receiving several warnings on his talk page and an AN/I report filed about his behavior and disruptive editing at the latter article (see here: ). Editor has been talked to, advised, given warnings by numerous other editors. Nothing is sinking in and his disruptive editing behavior is escalating. I have included diffs to the warnings at the Nimoy article to give evidence of a current disruptive edit warring behavior that is not just isolated to one article and that he has been given several chances. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm only gonna say one thing. Note the reporter has violated 3RR as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, not one thing. This editor constantly insults me, especially on my age, which is a personal attack, for example, or "too young to vote or drive", yet I can drive, this editor doesn't help me any by angering me to the point where I can't edit calmly anymore, to the point where I have slight emotional breakdowns, which causes him to call me things such as a diva, and doing it when I "don't get my way", again, not helping me in any fashion, I can understand when I'm wrong, which he doesn't seem to recall. He claims to understand Misplaced Pages policy when he can't understand redundancy and such. And one of the main reasons I am removing on the MacFarlane page is because the editor who reverted me told me to take it to the talk page, along with the reporter, the reverter, not the reporter, barely said anything, and just kept editing regardless. The reporter seems to be out to get me blocked any chance he gets. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. User should be aware of 3rr by now, considering he's been blocked for violating it in the past. Swarm... 07:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Afterwriting for repeated edit warring on Order of St. John (Result:Fully protected)

User:Mabelina is constantly edit warring on the Order of St. John disambiguation page by changing the link to the Venerable Order of Saint John article to the piped page of Most Venerable Order of Saint John even though (1) this is contrary to WP:MOSDAB and (2) the fact that there is currently a proposal for changing the article name. I am aware that I am also possibly contravening the edit war guidelines but believe my repeated reverting is justified in this instance.Afterwriting (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - you will undoubtedly note that Afterwriting is using any means possible to escalate this situation & quite successfully so far, so I implore you to take action soonest. The essence of the problem is over the Order of St John and its style. This is a discussion which I was much obliged to receive help to set up as a Talk page, yet Afterwriting seems to think it is more productive to engage in a set to, rather than add anything substantive to the matter. I don't know whether this type of behavior is viewed favourably by Misplaced Pages, because from my point of view it is most unproductive, unsavoury and lacking in any purpose whatsoever (unless that is Afterwriting wishes to associate my name with arguments). Please give your view as soon as possible & I am more than willing to assist in your enquiries as necessary. Many thanks indeed. Best wishes M Mabelina (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, User:Mabelina's repeated disruptive editing which has escalted things. That is the actual "essence of the problem". Afterwriting (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop it M Mabelina (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As you've said, "Please stop it M". Afterwriting (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. I could have blocked both of you for edit-warrring and reverts in two-digit number, without any traces of talk page discusssions, but I hope this time 3 days full protection would be sufficient. Next time, blocks may be given around. Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There was, however, attempted discussion about this issue on my talk page but it was like talking to a brick wall. Mabelina kept asking for explanations even when I had already provided them. I eventually removed the "discussion" from my talk page due to Mabelina making increasingly absurd comments and then refusing to stop when formally asked. Afterwriting (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that I consider my reverts after attempted discussion were fully justified on the basis of WP:DABPIPE. When an editor deliberately keeps ignoring the Manual of Style on such things once it has been explained then this becomes a form of disruptive vandalism and not merely a content dispute. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not a valid exemption of WP:3RR. Valid exemptions are vandalism and obvious BLP violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Chealer reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality */ challenge OR (see Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive_22#Distribution_of_article_importances)"
2. 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650605543 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) "verification" does not exempt from sourcing and I do not edit against anyone. see Talk"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) to 04:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650523542 by GliderMaven (talk) faulty; please re-apply the change you intended to perform"
   2. 04:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650555455 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) see Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive_22#Distribution_of_article_importances"
4. 21:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "(Undid revision 650164563 by Engineering Guy (talk) already done)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring at Misplaced Pages */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Chealer has been edit-warring since 7 March on Misplaced Pages. Almost immediately after I left this user a polite warning yesterday that s/he was at three reverts on Misplaced Pages and that the three reverts were a limit that should not be crossed, he goes to revert a fourth time. Although two of these reverts were consecutive and the fourth was from the 7th of March, I don't think that this is acceptable and it shows intent to edit-war without discussing on the talkpage. The other party to the dispute has apparently stopped edit-warring after I warned him/her yesterday and has left a message on my talk reporting Chealer's recent revert history. Δρ.Κ.  16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a larger pattern of behavior by User:Chealer which Dr.K has identified. Other editors affected by User:Chealer reverts w/o Talk have included @GliderMaven: @Engineering Guy: @Ɱ: and @Smuckola:. In my own edits there, my attempts to ask User:Chealer to start Talk seemed to fall on deaf ears. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It feels surreal to see you decry deaf ears (perhaps that's because I lack blind eyes). As you were already told several times, this debate was done (many months) before your first "attempt to ask". --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Which "reverts w/o Talk" would have "affected" these editors? And what are you opposing with when referring to them as "other editors"? --Chealer (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no limit of three reverts on Misplaced Pages.

Diff 1 is not a reversion. Diff 3.1 fixes a bizarre edit, and its edit summary specifically asks its author to restore whatever part of it was intentional. The 3 real reversions you list all relate to a problem reported on the talk page months ago. If you accuse me of intending "to edit-war without discussing on the talkpage", I will accuse you of intending to attack others without attempting discussion. But I consider your report in good faith and will not, in particular since you added a message on my User talk. To clarify, I was surprised by your message to the point where I looked up your recent contributions and noticed that your message followed the 3RR violation notice you sent to LawrencePrincipe. I then assumed you had contacted me to show neutrality and proceeded to ignore your message. FWIW, while LawrencePrincipe certainly edit-warred and did technically violate the 3RR, he did not "violate the 3RR in spirit" (if that makes any sense), since some of his edits were reverting trivial edits performed by a bot. --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a limit on reverts. See WP:3RR. To quote, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. It is a bright-line rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR only limits the number of reverts performed during a day. An editor reverting 1000 times in a certain article does not violate the 3RR, unless more than 3 of these happened during a period of 1 day. --Chealer (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I was addressing your claim that there's no limits on reverts. But you are edit warring. To quote WP:EW, 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 what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is a subjective concept. You may opine that my actions constitute edit warring even though I did not violate the 3RR, but you already wrote that below. By the way, while that opinion may have value, it would be more helpful if you could substantiate it with specific actions, and even better if you would say how you would have acted instead in the same situation. --Chealer (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Chealer is not helping with his/her edits. This user is removing a table, a pie-chart and a graph that show quality- and importance-wise distribution of Misplaced Pages articles, at both "Misplaced Pages#Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality" and "English Misplaced Pages#Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality". The reasons given by this user (long back in September 2014, at Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive 22#Distribution of article importances) is that "the data used is highly misleading" and that this content does not seem useful or valid, which is all false. This user has been edit-warring in the past, too, as can be seen in the following archived discussions.

--EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are not the only reasons I gave, but in any case, if you think this is false, this is not the place to have that discussion. And if you think you are right on that issue, then you should not need to resort to misleading edit summaries. --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly I'd recommend this user be topic banned from articles relating to Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia. For a year now they've focused specifically on this topic and have had difficulty not edit warring. But this is just AN3, not ANI. I'd say it's a clear case of edit warring though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to the 4 editors here, User:Chealer has apparently decided to continue his edit warring on the "Misplaced Pages" page today with this edit after repeat requests to stop from @GliderMaven: @Engineering Guy: @Ɱ: and @Smuckola:. Again, with no explanation on Talk. The suggestion of @EvergreenFir: above concerning User:Chealer appears to have experienced merit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As you were told at least 3 times already, this was already explained on Talk. Which "repeat requests" from GliderMaven, Engineering Guy, Ɱ and Smuckola are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• New to the topic here about Chealer edit behavior. Here (as linked above by Chealer ) from long ago there was a post on the topic...but no effort at all to start a new conversation since then. I have started a tlak at Talk:Misplaced Pages#Odd tags for stats as I had no clue about the old talk that is archived and should not be edited . I am also a bit concerned with edits of this nature were a lack of understanding by the editor resulted in the removal of sourced material over an effort to clarify as had be requested. I am hoping this deletion of material because of lack of understanding is not the norm. -- Moxy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Continuation of edit warring by Chealer on Misplaced Pages picking up from the last edit reported by Dr.K. above:

• 18:22, 11 March 2015 - reinserted OR tags
• 18:59, 11 March 2015‎ - reverted and reinserted OR tags

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• What makes you think that these edits constitute edit warring? By the way, considering that an edit constitutes edit warring is not a sufficient reason to revert it. --Chealer (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing your dispute through reversions. That's edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This thread has been open awhile, but if I wasn't convinced a block is needed initially, I am now. Chealer's edits are clearly disruptive in that they've raised multiple good faith objections from several editors, and rather than handling this dispute properly (i.e. through consensus-based dispute resolution), he's been fanning the flames by continuing to edit war on the page. And, even as a complaint for edit warring against him remained open, he continued to revert on that article multiple times. Regardless of the merits of your actual arguments (which are obviously contested by several people), when a situation heats up like this, sometimes the correct course of action is to take a step back for a minute and let things cool down. There is no deadline on Misplaced Pages, after all. Sometimes, if it's a borderline case and you can just step on the breaks, these reports might just go stale with no action. However it appears you've just propagated the dispute you're in while taking no responsibility for edit warring at all, and even showing either an ignorance or a disregard for the policy. Since it doesn't appear you're willing to make a show of good faith and stop voluntarily, sorry, but you're going to get blocked. Swarm... 02:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Idjemememememme reported by User:Snowager (Result: indef)

Page

Chief Bender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Idjemememememme (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 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Early career */"
2. 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is just child-like vandalism; account is blocked as VOA. Kuru (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikiisawesome reported by User:Collegeisreallycool (Result: no violation )

Page: College Democrats of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiisawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

This is Israel Palestine related so 1RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeisreallycool (talk • contribs)

I was under the impression that it takes at least 3 edits to create an edit war? I was doing some anti-vandalism work when I made the first edit. The added content seemed like vandalism to me for two reasons:

• the added content was a reversion of someone else's (Qwer1ty's) edit; and
• the sources cited didn't (to my knowledge anyway) meet the criteria set out in WP:NEWSORG. This is also why I made the second reversion.

After my second reversion, I posted a message on the user's talk page the following message: "I've reverted your edit in compliance with WP:BRD. No hard feelings though; let's talk about the issue in detail on the talk page and then try to reach consensus." I don't think this is indicative of the intent behind an edit war. I also posted a message on the article talk page in an effort to forge consensus after my second reversion.

I realize now that I did not put an edit summary on my second reversion, which is my fault. But I do not think that is sufficient to make out an edit war. Thanks, wia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Reverts of IPs are exempt; it's also a good idea to engage in discussion and let people know that you feel the 1RR applies when dealing with an article in the "broadly construed" category. While most articles in this domain are explicitly marked, this one is not. Kuru (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Harald Forkbeard reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Sageworks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harald Forkbeard (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: (by Amaury)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was a previous report of this user on this noticeboard on March 4th after CorporateM and him both started reverting, regarding this edit, where he insisted that court records were admissible sources. He is back on here for a second time since the edit warring started reoccuring after the full protection of the page for 3 days, which was placed due to the edit warring. I think it might be time for a block of this user if he doesn't stop. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Users CorporateM, McDonald of Kindness have been involved in multiple reverts. CorporateM has violated the 3RR rule. Are you going to block these users as well? How about protecting the Sageworks article, as it is a subject of ongoing edit war. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I only made one revert, and that is it. I have not engaged in any more reverts. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM made three reverts already. He's in violation.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Obvious boomerang. Harald has been reverted by McDonald, @Jehochman: and @EdJohnston: (who reverted before adding article-protection). Keeps insisting there is some WP:TRUTH that absolutely must, must, must be included in the article, but has not provided any secondary sources that directly support the claims without requiring interpretation and extrapolation. Continues editing against consensus, alleging other editors are a part of a COI conspiracy and adding unsourced contentious material to a page on an extant organization. I don't see any reason not to treat it the same way we would for a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I did provide the secondary sources to support the collection and sale of data argument. There is a lengthy discussion on the Sageworks talk page regarding this. There is no consensus on this issue. I believe user CorporateM is engaged in an edit war with me regarding this, and thus has no say in this dispute here.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM misrepresents the situation. Please see previous report and Sageworks Talk page for the background on this ongoing dispute. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Please note that it takes four reverts to trigger 3RR, not three. The first edit re-introduced much the same material that was contested in the previous edit war. Since page protection was used last time, there's little choice but to block. Four reverts, only real discussion was accusations on the talk page. Kuru (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM reported by User:Harald Forkbeard (Result: no action)

Page: Sageworks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CorporateM (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 CorporateM has started the edit war on Sageworks page, despite the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation as there are only three reverts, but straying into edit warring territory; it's just the really suspect behavior of the other party that stops me from closing this. CorporateM, will you refrain from editing there for 48 hours? Kuru (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have any particular interest in the page. It was brought to my attention as an NPOV dispute that needed more watchlisters. CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Si. I've watch-listed now as well. Kuru (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Harari234 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Harar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harari234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 23:29, 10 March 2015
2. Revision as of 00:03, 11 March 2015
3. Revision as of 00:17, 11 March 2015
4. Latest revision as of 00:42, 11 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on 04:12, 8 March 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page section

Comments:

Harari234 has been edit warring on the Harar article since 6 March 2015 despite being advised to stop and come to the talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. First edit in series was to repeat material removed in the last edit war. Other three were clear reverts. Kuru (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR (Result: Both blocked)

MehrdadFR has been edit warring on Irreligion in Iran by removed sources and adding irrelevant information with errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Possible sock puppet.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem with AnarchistFakest is persistent removing of reliable sources like official Iranian census and Encyclopædia Iranica, and replacing it with blogs and third-rated activist sites. If he WP:DONTLIKE something, he simply remove it without further explanation. Another example is this blanking - five reliable international sources have been removed just because data doesn't fits in his political views. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanking was justified with WP:DISPUTED and then added in-line with the talk page. I've added MehrdadFR's relevant sources to the Irreligion in Iran article though user keeps removing mine.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. It's been a while since I've seen so many reverts done so quickly (literally minutes apart). Both editors were accusing the other of vandalism, and both editors were accusing the other of bias. I don't see an egregious policy violation in its present state (MehrdadFR's version), but it is true that grammatically it's fairly messy. MehrdadFR's idea that a bot will clean up the grammar is amusing. I didn't know we had grammar bots. Someone with more knowledge than I should probably take a look at the article if they have the time and inclination. I believe the sock puppetry accusation comes from the fact that before reverting as a newly registered account, MehrdadFR was reverting as an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AnarchistFakest reported by User:Snowager (Result: AnarchistFakest and MehrdadFR blocked)

• I reported the innocent user for due to edit warring.

Page

Irreligion in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AnarchistFakest (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 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) to 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 02:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "reverted; numerous grammatical fallacies from islamic republic worker"
   2. 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "relevant facts readded"
2. 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650855967 by 109.60.7.0 (talk) You're starting an edit war"
3. 03:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650856412 by MehrdadFR (talk) Again, there are many grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, and many RS's have been unjustifiably removed."
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) to 03:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650857080 by MehrdadFR (talk) see User talk:MehrdadFR"
   2. 03:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Within Iran */ source from Iranian.com"
5. 03:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "RV, nothing about it is "stable". RS's still unjustifiably removed & continuous errors"
6. 04:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650857652 by MehrdadFR (talk) RV, edit warring. Possible non-RS removed"
7. 04:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650857934 by MehrdadFR (talk) Your sources have nothing to do with "Irreligion in Iran" - more of propaganda and projected views"
8. 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "RV; to begin, "Quesion" isn't a word..."
9. 04:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "RV, I reported you bud. Take it to the talk page"
10. 04:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650859095 by MehrdadFR (talk) rv vandalism that includes removal of sources and addition of irrelevant information with grammatical and spelling errors"
11. 04:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "RV vandalism. "non-RS blog" removed". Your edits are nonconstructive and only mention why Iranians should stay religious..."
12. 04:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650859924 by MehrdadFR (talk) rv irrelevant & Mehrdad's see also section added"
13. 04:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650860078 by MehrdadFR (talk) RV vandalism"
14. 04:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650860291 by MehrdadFR (talk) Administrators please lock page due to Mehrdad's vandalism. He doesn't seem to comprehend his mistakes that I've mentioned on his talk page."
15. 04:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650860528 by MehrdadFR (talk) Pushing propaganda much?"
16. 04:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650860737 by MehrdadFR (talk) you're doing a great job of pushing your agenda"
17. 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650860923 by MehrdadFR (talk) are all the sources you're unjustifiably removing from Fisher?"
18. 04:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650861224 by MehrdadFR (talk) Then I suggest you only remove the source and paraphrase as opposed to the whole article..."
19. 04:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650861387 by MehrdadFR (talk) Once again, I suggest you only remove the section you are referring to, unless if you'd rather push your agenda."
20. 04:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650861577 by MehrdadFR (talk) Mehrdad is pushing his anti-irreligious agenda"
21. 04:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650861797 by MehrdadFR (talk) see source"
22. 04:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650861916 by MehrdadFR (talk)"

• Note. Both warriors blocked for 48 hours. More detail in the report just above this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:NebY (Result: 1 month)

Page

Metric prefix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650891041 by Jc3s5h (talk)rep lk and so..."
2. 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650891616 by Jc3s5h (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) to 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "rep lk"
   2. 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "/* List of SI prefixes */"
4. 12:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650895316 by NebY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "Erroneous edit to Metric prefix: DO NOT EDIT WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

12:21, 11 March (2015 (UTC) "Misleading edit"

Comments:

In recent days, Trackteur has become exceptionally tenacious on articles relating to metric systems (for example, International System of Units); if corrected, they not only edit-war but make further edits on the same lines as if wishing to make some point. I've come to despair of ever correcting the erroneous, misleading and even downright surreal ("Retail grocery store for the most part is weighed in SI units") results. NebY (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Clear reverts at 11:57, 12:03, 12:06, 12:41. Warned, and blocked twice before for same cause. Kuru (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: as above)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. Not an exact revert, but reintroduces confusion to section title.
4. Not an exact revert, but reintroduces confusion to section title.

A different 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: Talk: Metric prefix#Misleading edit

Comments:

There were two previous blocks for edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Previously reported, see above. Kuru (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:206.253.146.131/User:Scdawg14 (same user) reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Behemoth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 206.253.146.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a.k.a. Scdawg14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. and - As IP
2. - As IP
3. - As IP
4. - Logs into account, uses exact same edit summary as here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP and account are super obvious WP:DUCKs, being (poorly) used to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Both accounts Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Swarm... 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Myrmusp reported by User:Poltair (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Looking for guidance regarding a possible edit war as to whether Jihadi John and Mohammed Emwazi are one and the same person on the page List of University of Westminster alumni and deserves some reason for his notability. User:Myrmusp has reverted edits that wikilink Mohammed Emwazi and provide that "Jihadi John" is an Islamic State member/executioner. I and others have reverted his change and have asked him to discuss this at the talk page but the edit is just reverted to Myrmusp's preferred form. Hope someone can help. I have notified Myrmusp of this report. Poltair (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I corrected spelling of the editor's name: it is Myrmusp, not Myrmysp. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I share Poltair's concerns about Myrmusp's edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm... 02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action)

Page: Donors Trust
User being reported: HughD (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 is repeatedly adding the description "political advocacy group" for the organization "Americans for Prosperity Foundation" with the rationale that the organization is so described in its Misplaced Pages article. However, the organization doesn't have it own Misplaced Pages article. It redirects to Americans for Prosperity. Three separate editors, myself included, have reverted this description, but editor has reverted all three of us. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Hugh has received administrator warnings in the past for edit warring (, , ). He has also exhibited some disruptive behavior lately, e.g. insults, misrepresentation of consensus, and canvassing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from reported user: I apology for edit warring. I understand 3rr and recognize I violated it. Not an excuse at all but by way of perhaps explaining how an experienced editor might find himself in this situation, may I please mention that in comparing the 1st to the 2nd diff above, you can see that I responded to a fellow editors objection in an edit summary to wikilinking by removing the wikilinking. Again not an excuse at all but in comparing the 2nd and 3rd diffs above you can see that a fellow editor objected in an edit summary to wikilinking a term to an article, a term that was not the subject of that article, but was related, and defined in that article, and I responded to that concern. Again not an excuse but just to say this was not just a revert/restore of the same text over & over but rather a good faith effort to incrementally improve the encyclopedia and respond to the concerns of editors expressed in the edit summaries of their deletions. I would like to thank the reporting editor for not reverting my last contribution, the 4th diff above, which I take as a sign of good faith going forward. Hugh (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to thank the reporting editor for the above link to "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page," which is useful because it is an example of an on-going content issue between us. The reporting editor seems to believe that a wikilink is sufficient, and tends to delete brief definitions of new terms on first mention for wikilinked terms. I tend to embrace the charge "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links" of WP:LINKSTYLE and try to write good articles that can be read and understood by a wide variety of English language readers on multiple continents. particularly in articles that are no where near maximum page size guidelines. Including brief in-text definitions must needs force consensus on those few words. On the other hand, introducing a new term without any definition can lead to bad writing and can interfere with neutrality in that it can lead to lists of items that don't mean much to many/most readers. This difference tends to aggravate us both when collaborating. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked. Your apology is accepted; I'm taking this as an implication that you'll be closely watching your own behavior in the near future to ensure you don't slip up again. I do acknowledge the previous reports and warnings you've received for edit warring in the past, but as those were quite awhile ago so I won't hold them against you. Take care, Swarm... 03:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Admen1 reported by User:Nick Number (Result: Blocked 24 hours, trout to reporter)

Page: Spyro the Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Admen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:57, March 11, 2015
2. 12:49, March 11, 2015
3. 12:44, March 11, 2015‎
4. 12:16, March 11, 2015‎
5. 11:54, March 11, 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (subsequently blanked by Admen1)

Comments:
This new user is persistently adding a period to the end of a disambiguation page entry. Per MOS:DABENTRY, "Use sentence fragments, with no closing punctuation unless it is part of the description (e.g., a description that ends in 'etc.' would end with the period)". I've attempted to initiate a discussion about this, but he or she just deletes my Talk page entries () and continues. I'm not sure of the person's rationale, but the result is not productive. Nick Number (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I note that (a) no-one warned Admen1 about 3RR until you said you were bringing him here; (b) after being warned, Admen1 stopped adding terminal punctuation, but switching to blanking article talk pages, and removing this 3RR report; (c) both of you were in breach of 3RR, and you should have known better than to carry on as you did, Nick Number; (d) edit-warring about a "." is a real waste of everyone's time. A block for disruptive editing for Admen1 is justified, with a trout to Nick Number for letting it get this far. (And, while typing this, I see that Ymblanter has blocked Admen1 for 24 hours for edit-warring. Bencherlite 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• (ec) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Nick Number, please next time do not overstep three reverts yourself, WP:MOS is not a valid exemption to WP:3RR. The user should be speifically made awre of WP:3RR. If the user is not responsive, they may be reported after three reverts, shat should have been sufficient.Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wowee Zowee public reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24h)

Page: The Sound of Music (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wowee Zowee public (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

6. (4th revert in 24 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three editors oppose the insertion of the content on the talk page and Wowee Zowee public has failed to address any of the concerns raised. User:Wowee Zowee public has violated 3RR but still continues reinserting the material despite the fact nobody else supports inclusion. The editor is also edit-warring at NBC Nightly News too over the inclusion of content. He has already been warned by admin Zzyzx11 for edit-warring on both articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT AND THE TRUTH Betty Logan is very aggressive and not very nice. First of all, there is no 3RR. Every time, she/he didn't like something, I tried to modify it. I never posted the same thing. I explained stuff in the talk page. In contrast, she/he doesn't discuss things in the talk page much or at all and misquotes 3RR.

I can understand if Betty Logan wants to sanitize the article and wants everything to be perfect and happy. However, that is not life. The film had multiple sources about how critics and industry people thought the film was rubbish, lightweight, or similar but the public loved it. We cannot, in fairness, have an article that the film was lovable. It must be neutral and honest. Not slamming it but neutral.

If you look at the depth of my discussion compared to Betty Logan, she/he is the one that is not acting very kindly. In contrast, I think of many ways and do not re-insert the same edit. Instead, I try to compromise and try different re-wording but Betty Logan will have none of that. If you look at the talk page it was ME that discussed it, Betty Logan just revert stuff with no discussion until she/he added a little after I did. She/he is the one that needs a lesson though I am nice and will sit with him/her to listen.

One basic issue is "Should Misplaced Pages be an ad and a mouthpiece of someone or should it have articles that are honest and neutral, but are not always 100% positive and whitewashed". Answer: No, Misplaced Pages must be neutral and neither slam or whitewash stuff. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the user above. Don't see a violation of WP:3RR. I've requested the article to be fully protected in order to force discussion at the article's talk.--Jetstreamer  18:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does discussion need to be "forced" when there already has been a discussion? There is no requirement to keep discussing something until everyone agrees, just until it is apparent what the consensus is, which seems to be clear in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FURTHER INFO

Betty Logan falsely claims 3RR Diffs of the user's reverts:

   ..March 7 (that is 1R)
   ..March 8 (that is 1R) and different from March 7 so not a RR
   ..March 9 (that is 1R) and different from March 8 so not a RR
   ..March 10 (that is 1R and different from March 9 so not a RR
   ..different edit, not a R but a re-write
    (4th revert in 24 hours)
   ..March 11 (that is 1R) and different from before so not a RR

In contrast, Betty Logan is always a revert, never a suggestion for compromise or re-write. She/he should be sanctioned and blocked for being bad. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about Jetstreamer's full protection because unless you protect my version. This is because I discuss but Betty Logan does not discuss. Full protection with my version would force him/her to discuss but full protection of her version would just cause people to behave badly by complaining to WP and not discuss or compromise (as Betty Logan has done). In contrast, I've toned down my original edit and tried discussion. I even took out the part where Burt Lancaster said "Jesus, you must need the money (to do that film) Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It should be pointed out here that User:Jetstreamer is not neutral, having previous interactions with User:Wowee Zowee public. Secondly, a partial revert is still a revert, and in all the edits listed User:Wowee Zowee public persisted in restoring contentious material. Finally, the issue has been discussed on the article talk page and there is a consensus not to include the material. If Wowee Zowee public disagrees with the outcome then he has several options (i.e. an RFC, raising the issue at the Film project), but persisting in restoring content that no-one else supports is not an option. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• LIES and comment about Betty Logan In the above claim that Jetstreamer is not neutral, I have no interaction with him EXCEPT he and I DISAGREE about a current AFD! However, we are both civil and respectful as well as explain our beliefs. That is what Betty Logan needs to learn. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment on misconduct by Betty LoganHe/she seems to be a troublemaker. Look at how aggressive and uncooperative she/he is with another user a few days ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABetty_Logan&diff=650405617&oldid=650259414 For this and being untruthful, Betty Logan should be blocked or his/her complaint closed with no action. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that Wowee Zowee public has been blocked for 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Already blocked for 24 hours by User:Coffee. Swarm... 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User: ‎Ihye1 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: 1 week)

Page: Gegard Mousasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Ihye1 (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: Talk:Gegard Mousasi#Biography, plus user's talk page

Comments:
The user registered today and started to introduce false info to the article. Mousasi has a Dutchn nationality, he is naturalized Iranian, and never had Armenian nationality. (Note for the record that by Dutch law he may not have Armenian nationality if he is Dutch). The article sees its share of pro-Armenian PoV pushers, and this is why pending changes have been configured, however, when after the second revert I approached this pusher at their talk page, they implicate me and said that "I should get my fact straight". After that, he proceeded with reverts and overstepped four reverts. The user has no contributions outside the article. Since this is not obvious vandalism (at least if someone takes me to ANI I would feel comfortable defending myself), someone else has to apply a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. A WP:NOTHERE indef would arguably be acceptable here but I've opted to give the user one chance to get their act together...after a week off. Swarm... 02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drizzy010 and User:Justinw303 reported by User:Blackmane (Result: 72 hours each)

Page: Drake discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drizzy010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

history which speaks for itself

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I'm not involved in this article and picked up on it while reading a blocked user's talk page. Admins will note that I have not entered any diffs above but have linked to the page history itself. Justinw303 has performed a staggering 40 reverts of Drizzy010's edits in the last 2(!) days. Drizzy010 is at roughly the same count. The two of them are at 15RR each as of this post. Drizzy010 was previously manually reverting the edits but has since taken to using the Undo button. In comparison, the article talk page has seen zero edits from either party and in fact it has descended into petty sniping and personal attacks on Justinw303's talk page. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Wow! That really is a bad one! Thank you for catching this and bringing it here, Blackmane. Your concise assessment of the situation is helpful and appreciated. This is a first offence for both users, but considering the severity of the edit war, Both editors blocked – for a period of 3 days. Take care, Swarm... 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring