Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:05, 28 May 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:AnulBanul reported by User:Dragodol (Result: Topic bans under ARBMAC)

Page: Posavina Canton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnulBanul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:AnulBanul has been edit-warring with several wikipedia users on multiple articles, including with me.

On Posavina Canton, he/she moved the Bosnian language translation behind the Croatian and Serbian translation in the intro. The country is called BOSNIA and Herzegovina, not Serbia or Croatia. If Croatian and Serbian translations are necessary, I would think they would follow the BOSNIAN translation, since that is the country after all. I reverted his/her edit, only to have him-her revert me with "Nope.." as the explanation for the reversal. I reverted that and wrote ""Nope" is no where near a decent explanation for this POV mess you're trying to create all over wikipedia", in reference to the constant edit wars and edits that this user makes, which are often reverted by several users. The user reverted me again, claiming that Bosnia is merely a "Region" and not a country. On my talk page, the user posted this: "Bosnian translation goes first because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country? What kind of logic is that? Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages, even if it does, Bosnian still wouldn't be numero uno. :D" (He-She added a cute little smiley face at the end of the post for no reason. Bosnia-Herzegovina DOES, in fact, have official languages, contrary to User:AnulBanul's uneducated claim.

On West Herzegovina Canton (which the user has an obsession with, I'm assuming he-she lives/lived there), the edit history is self-explanatory.

On Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, I reverted some users attempts to Serbianze a 16th century Bosnian man. User:AnulBanul reverted me, claiming that the Bosnian language didn't exist in the 1500s, but that Serbo-Croatian did, it just wasn't called Serbo-Croatian. ?????????? Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian is literally the same language. How does AnulBanul think this is logical to say that Bosnian didn't exist back then in any shape or form, but Serbo-Croatian did. EXCUSE ME??!? I reverted that and wrote "It's interesting that you makes excuses for the Serbo-Croatian "language"'s existence but Bosnian didn't exist; I never denied that the Serbian Orthodox existed, I said that there is no proof that he was part of that specific denomination." The user reverted me and wrote the very mature and professional summary "what the hell was he?! A Chinese Orthodox?".--Dragodol (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Bosnian language is one spoken by Bosniaks - Bosniam Muslims, and it is not an official language, since Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Moreover, Croats and Serbs have equal status to Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all three languages are equal in that sense. Moreover, we're talking only about three different standardisations of one Serbo-Croatian language. Croats make majority in Posavina Canton, and are followed by Serbs, and then Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. Your interpretation on language order is hardly acceptable and against customs, which can be confirmed by other users. Regardless, I have been careful not to violate the 3RR rule and explained my reverts where necessary. In this case, I believe the explanation was hardly necessary, especially after silly explanation that Bosnia is a country, and that's the reason why Bosnian language should come first. It's just stupid, sorry.

Nobody tried to "serbianize" a 16th century Ottoman man. But, it is important to note that he made his brother - Makarije Sokolović, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and reestablished it. You may say he was an alien, it's your opinion. Mehmed-pasha had a South Slavic, Serbian origin. Bosnian language is a late 20th century political innovation, Serbo-Croatian however, did exist, but its name was coined only later after national identities have been shaped in 19th century. Moreover, it is actually you who started reverting edits, and not me. --AnulBanul (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note @Dragodol: You listed the same article three times at the top, so I removed the two dupes. Based on the body of your complaint, I assume it was a mistake and that you intended to list other articles. Feel free to add them to the top of this report for clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. Yes, it was a mistake.--Dragodol (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: When people start revert warring about the order of languages in the article lead we can interpret this as nationalist edit warring. Both AnulBanul and Dragodol have been alerted about WP:ARBMAC, and both were warned in April for edit warring here at this board. (Dragodol used to be Sabahudin9). I propose a three-month topic ban for both editors from everything to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a common practice to add languages of geographical/political territories based on percentage of certain population living there. There's nothing nationalist about that. However, user Dragodol got an idea that Bosnian should be mentioned everywhere first (!), because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country. What does that even mean? Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sui generis country, with no official language, with three "constituent peoples" treated as equal - Bosniaks speak Bosnian, Croats Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian standard of one language, and all three languages or standards have equal status. What other solution could I have then to add languages in order based on the number of certain ethnic group living there, as these versions will be more common than those used by minority groups, therefore, it is only logical to add more common versions first, and others later. Regardless, I edited those few pages, expanded them etc, and there comes Dragodol with crazy idea of his that Bosnian should come first everywhere because Bosnia is a country... what is that? --AnulBanul (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AnulBanul's response is not persuasive, and User:Dragodol has not edited since the notice. If there is nothing more within 24 hours after my post I'll go ahead with the topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AnulBanul's edits are often reverted by other users. His/her edits have been called "disruptive", by other users and by me.--Dragodol (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only by you. --AnulBanul (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are banned for three months from anything to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina per WP:ARBMAC. Details on the user talk pages EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:121.219.135.128 reported by User:Curse of Fenric (Result: Blocked)

Page: Professional wrestling in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.219.135.128 (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: Warning issued by User:LM2000

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started by User:OldSkool01

Comments:

This dispute ranges wider but the core problem is the IP who keeps on screaming in his edit summary that this event section (WWE Global Warning) was shown on pay per view and he saw it in Vietnam. His only note is to give a non inline reference to Vietnam pay TV as well as use sources that I introduced originally as back up. OldSkool01 has been reverting him the most, referencing what he states are better and more reliable sources (although as a side note he did manipulate one and as good as admits it on the talk page of the article in question). I'm not touching that section of the core article until this is properly resolved and the IP has to be blocked to start with as it isn't helping in the debate between myself and OldSkool01. It would help - if the admin is prepared to - if said admin could pop a third opinion on the manipulation problem, but I'll understand if that has to be set aside and mentioned elsewhere. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and page protected as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:86.180.157.12 reported by User:Erpert (Result: Semi-Protected)

Page: Scott La Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.180.157.12 (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: The tone of the article seemed unencyclopedic, so I tweaked it. It was then reverted by the above IP twice without explanation in either edit summary, so I then suggested that s/he respond on the article's talk page. After that, a new IP who might be the same user (109.144.129.8) performed the same revert. Erpert 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protected 1 week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it be all right to revert to this version then? Erpert 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: )

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erlbaeko (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: Pretty clear violation of 1RR on an article to which general sanctions apply on two consecutive days. Complicating matters somewhat is that one of the parties in this dispute appears to be a blocked editor "contributing" as an IP, although that is unconfirmed (and Erlbaeko has reverted other editors, myself included, as well during this whole dustup). This might be the wrong place to note it, but I do feel this article requires some attention from administrators, as this kind of unproductive editing has not been uncommon in the page's history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin EdJohnston has been addressing this issue here. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Imo, it is not a violation of the 1RR-restriction, nor is it a violation of usual 3RR-restriction.

1. Revision as of 12:21, 23 May 2015, is an attempt to find a third version. It is also a revert of this IP-edit.
2. Revision as of 20:05, 24 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
3. Revision as of 18:07, 25 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
4. Revision as of 09:36, 26 May 2015, is a revert of this edit.

Yes, 2 reverts is made whithin a 24 hour period, but at least one of them are IP-edits. As EdJohnston have explained, reverts of IP editors doesn't count according to the 1RR-restriction on Syrian Civil War related pages, but are subject to usual rules on edit warring. Ref. General sanctions - Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kristijan Đorđević reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page: List of European countries by median wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kristijan Đorđević (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 18:01, 25 May 2015
2. Revision as of 17:16, 26 May 2015
3. Revision as of 17:26, 26 May 2015
4. Revision as of 17:35, 26 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, but twice on his talk page: and

Comments:

• In the last days I have been advised twice by IP:151.40.69.231 that this user was "vandalising" without apparent reason sourced content of another article (List of European countries by average wage), but he did not insisted with his edits there, so I took no action. Today I noticed that he edited in the same way (swapping the median wages of Italy and Malta) a very similar article without sourcing or commenting his edit, so per WP:BRD I reverted him, asking him on the article's edit summary for reliable sources, but he wrote the following comment on my talk page (). I reverted him again asking another time for sources (), and he answered in this way () commenting below yesterday`s request for help of the IP. In the meantime, I had searched on the eurostat web site until I found a source which shows that he is wrong. I invited him on his talk page to check the source() but, instead of discussing, he reverted the article again with the following comment (), where he pretends that he does not need sources, because this fact is "well known". In the last few months is not the first time that I meet this user, and each time he is editing disruptively, changing arbitrarily content regarding Italy, disregarding sources and accusing others of nationalism (it is funny to notice that some days ago I have been accused by another Italian user of being a "traitor of my homeland" :-)). I think that if he continues in this way a topic ban would be appropriate. Thank you, Alex2006 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Addendum:the reported user just "menaced" me on my talk page (). it is also noteworthy to notice that he sistematically does not sign his edits. Alex2006 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Alex2006, the user has broken the 3RR rule, but I don't like to block him for that, since you were edit warring too, just as much, really; he simply got to four reverts sooner because he started it. And you too have not used the article talkpage. Another time, I advise you to post on article talk (discussion via edit summaries is discouraged), warn sooner, report sooner, and revert less. You don't have to wait for a user to violate 3RR before reporting; if it's obvious that they intend to continue reverting, admins will be interested. Anyway, in view of the respective posts on your userpages, and the lack of edit summaries from Kristijan Đorđević, I have blocked him for disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

User:194.60.38.201 reported by User:109.152.234.14 (Result: Semi)

Page: Kwasi Kwarteng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.60.38.201 (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 keeps instantiating an unsourced claim about the subjects private life. I attempted to remove the line with full justification myself, and was also reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.234.14 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2015

The there was no attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. The link provided above shows that 109.152.234.14 reverted without talk. He/she is probably the same person as 109.156.108.31 who edit-warred with 194.60.38.201.

Diffs of reverts by 194.60.38.201:

1. Revision as of 18:29, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
2. Revision as of 18:27, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
3. Revision as of 18:25, 26 May 2015 Deleted: where he won the Newcastle Scholarship
4. Revision as of 18:23, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
5. Revision as of 09:43, 26 May 2015 Deleted: where he won the Newcastle Scholarship
6. Revision as of 09:42, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months per WP:BLP. An IP from 109.* was repeatedly adding an unsourced claim about the MP's private life. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: last stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile#Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific, open since 2 February 2015.

Comments:

Slomo edit warring, sort it.

User Dentren refuses any agreement and deletes all referenced information that rebukes his POV.

There is also a case in Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile.23Causes_of_the_War_of_the_Pacific

--Keysanger (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was Keysanger who has been showing an intrasigent behavious since he . I am solely holding these controversial changes (that are off-topic and irrelevant to the article) back until a consensus is reached. Likely this will happebn with help from outside. The stable pre-February version needs to remain until the dispute is settled. Dentren | 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like 6-9 reverts by each party since 24 May. Most changes are more than 1,000 bytes. This is a case of edit warring. Can you explain why both editors should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Current reverts date from May. Dispute dates from February, I haven't had time before to address properly Keysangers massive unilateral changes. Dentren | 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have time and explain my changes. Dentren says that he has no time to colaborate correctly with Misplaced Pages. --Keysanger (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both blocked 24 hours. The saga of the War of the Pacific continues. It's a very-long-running dispute, and may eventually require topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Semi)

Page

James Rhodes (pianist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Think about your actions."
2. 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Please think about your actions."
3. 21:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Once again, removed unnecessary detail about the ex-wife that could easily lead to her identification and therefore, identification of her son, causing him harm. The UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed"
4. 21:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary detail about ex-wife that could lead to her identification and therefore, lead to the identification of the son which would jeopardize his safety and well-being."
5. 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "The Supreme Court of the UK has explicitly stated that the mother and son should not be identified in this case (to protect the identity of the son). Adding details about his mother compromises that well-being and safety of the son."
6. 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"
2. 21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on James Rhodes (pianist). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Name of ex-wife */ reply"

Comments:

There are attempts to reach a talkpage consensus, however they are not engaging in it- the current consensus appears to be against their views. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Also, the article talkpage now has evidence from reliable sources that their assertion "he UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed" is not correct. New editor, but not working collaboratively, and it appears misguided in their information. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the diffs above that were reversions by User:Lightinlondon were in fact him/her reverting a blatant BLP issue. I have corrected the BLP issue for now, and have opened a talk page section regarding the information that is contentious about a living person. It is my understanding that when reverting BLP issues, they do not always count in a 3RR situation. I hope that all the editors involved can join in a civil talk page discussion about BLP issues in this article. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, except for that fact that everyone else at WP:BLPN seems to agree that it isn't a BLP violation. Also, their reasoning wasn't correct either- they were removing it based on an out-of-date Supreme Court judgement. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ummm, No you have that line of events incorrect Joseph2302. Administrator @CambridgeBayWeather agreed that the article needed to be protected for one week from editing by IP's and un-registered editors. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but all other editors disagree. You're just trying to cover your tracks since you've reverted 5 times in 3 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No again! The only administrator to have weighed in so far @CambridgeBayWeather protected this article for one week for the BLP issues at the article. You are guilty of not assuming WP:AGF for mis-representing this entire situation. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Now semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Anyone who wants to comment further on the BLP issue should go to WP:BLPN#James Rhodes. User:CorporateM has recently done some cleanup and this appears to be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow reported by Hadraa (Result: )

Page: State of Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hadraa (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:

*Sigh*, I haven't broken 3RR. For starters, this edit isn't even a revert but rather me adding a cat. Can someone just block Hadraa indefinitely at this point? He has caused a lot disruption these past few days (see the page itself and Somaliland). It also turns out that he is even a sock of the banned user Muktar allebbey, more on that soon. AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

first of all stop acusing me of someone iam not and second of all look at page

1. 02:55,26 May 2015
2. 22:52, 26 May 2015
3. 22:54, 26 May 2015
4. 23:58, 26 May 2015‎ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs)

Haha, I was reverting vandalism; which doesn't count per 3RR. Better luck next time. AcidSnow (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

first acussing me of someone else and now all your reverting is vandalism you even used a rasis map based on clans in Somaliland page and never answered.Hadraa (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly hope you didn't mean "racist" when you typed "rasis". AcidSnow (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ClaraReyes11 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

Page

Bajo el mismo cielo (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ClaraReyes11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664204083 by Philip J Fry (talk) Telemundo press release states that the show is based on "A Better Life" here is link"
2. 01:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664152804 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) to 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Added English translation"
   2. 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Bajo el mismo cielo == Hello, you could add references the next time you add information to an article?. Remove references to add information is not correct a...'"
2. 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Bajo el mismo cielo */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user removes references without any reason and adds information without reliable sources. Already leave you a message, but did not seem to matter. I hope some administrator to do something. Thank you. Philip J Fry • (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

131.191.80.213 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:131.191.80.213 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Protected by CambridgeBayWeather)

Page

James Rhodes (pianist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209468 by WordSeventeen (talk)WordSeventeen is abusing policy to censor- there is no BLP issue whatsoever."
2. 02:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209073 by WordSeventeen (talk)m /* Early career */ . There is no blantant BLP issue here. WordSeventeen is abusing the BLP policy . UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
3. 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664208345 by WordSeventeen (talk) There is no BLP issue here at all. Read the policy. UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
4. 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ Reinstated public material that is sourced to UK Supreme Court website; it is neither libelous nor contentious to include this material"
5. 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664183460 by Lightinlondon (talk)"
6. 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664182240 by Lightinlondon (talk) UK Supreme Court decision provides info that ex-wife is American novelist https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-press-summ"
7. 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664180918 by Lightinlondon (talk) The UK Supreme Court decision (https://www.supremecourt.uk/clearly identifies ex-wife as an American novelist. That is public information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:James_Rhodes_(pianist)#Blatant BLP issue

Comments:

The above is a misrepresentation. Additional relevant discussion pertaining to the "edit warring" claim is at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well as above on this page at User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302. The consensus at the Notice Board is that there was no "blatant BLP violation" as WordSeventeen claimed when he began the edit war, which led to him making more than 3 reversions in just 3 hours (listed in the NoticeBoard discussion). There were attempts at reasoned discussion on the talk page. Additionally, an additional secondary (non-primary) citation was added to the one already provided as the discussion on the talk page seemed to indicate doing so would address WordSeventeen's "blatant BLP" claim. After adding the additional non-primary citation, the paragraph WordSeventeen had censored as a "blatant BLP" violation was then re-added. However, another reverted that addition.

Although I had suggested (on the talk page) that WordSeventeen take the issue to the Notice Board rather than revert the addition (as there was no BLP violation, blatant or otherwise), that person did not do that. So I brought the issue to the Notice Board. The incidences mentioned above by Tigearn happened hours before WordSeventeen claimed a "blatant BLP violation" on the page. The statements above misstate the situation. The situation has been misrepresented by both Tigearn above as well as WordSeventeen in that person's claim of the application of 3 reversions.

The relevant evidence for my statements here is primarily on the talk page but also on the NoticeBoard as well as in the editing comments made with talk page edits and the main James Rhodes Misplaced Pages article. WordSeventeen consistently showed an inability to reason carefully, or to process anything stated on the talk page carefully, including what was already on the talk page before WordSeventeen even began making edits on the main Misplaced Pages page. In my opinion, the claim of a "blatant BLP violation" at best reflects WordSeventeens grave misunderstanding of what constitutes a "BLP violation" of any kind, as well as a misunderstanding of policy relating to how to handle such matters. At worst, the claim represents WordSeventeen's blatant abuse of a (completely unsubstantiated) claim that there was a "blatant BLP violation" to censor what material appeared on the page.

WordSeventeen's own history of more than 3 reversions in the past 24 hours on that page needs to be investigated. Those reversions are itemized by another editor in the notice board discussion of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes

What also needs to be investigated is whether there is any pattern of the editors involved joining in to support one another, even when there is no basis for the initial actions.

What happened in this incident is a good example of Misplaced Pages gone bad. WordSeventeen came in claiming "blatant BLP" violation (but failed to ever make clear what his objection was; another editor claimed it was due to lack on non-primary citation, but one non-primary citation was originally provided), when there was absolutely none. WordSeventeen was either incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion on the talk page, or was unwilling to do so. Unfortunately, two other editors also chimed in with misunderstandings of the BLP policy. When an attempt was made to fix their objections to the paragraph, which on the talk page was stated to be the lack of multiple non-primary citations (one non-primary, solid citation (The Guardian) was originally provided), that corrected version of the paragraph was removed. Then WordSeventeen misrepresented what happened in the incident, claimed edit warring (when in fact WordSeventeen had engaged in this initially), and requested the page be locked. My conclusion is that this incident, including all that happened on the page (esp. by WordSeventeen) and the edit warring claim which is made here by Tigern, represent a gross twisting of the facts, and blatant abuse of the BLP policy.

Incidents like these are what keeps many people with solid writing and thinking ability from participating in Misplaced Pages at all. The consensus on the Notice Board pages is that that was no BLP violation whatsoever in the paragraph WordSeventeen removed initially.

Please note there is discussion of WordSeventeen's actions as an editor over at the Administrator's Noticeboard which includes his actions on the James Rhodes Page so perhaps that will address my concerns about what happened in the incident that involved me. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 131.191.80.213 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected per a report higher up on this page. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Calidum (Result: )

Page: John Forbes Nash, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: n/a -- this involves at seven reverts to separate edits over the past 30 or so hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edit made by InedibleHulk (talk · contribs) at 23:10 on May 25 (UTC)

   Reverted by WV at 23:11

2. Edit made by Hulk at 23:15

   Reverted by WV at 23:16

3. Edit by Hipporoo (talk · contribs) at 2:35 on May 26

   Reverted by WV at 2:36

4. Edit by Newone (talk · contribs) at 3:47

   Revert at 4:56

5. Series of edits made by multiple editors

   Reverted at 20:26

6. Another series of edits

   Reverted at 21:30

7. Edit by JackFrondas (talk · contribs) at 2:58 on May 27

   Reverted at 3:13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: By me at 22:51 on May 26, which promptly reverted .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are threads on several of the issues on the talk page, but this is a pattern on edit warring. I myself have not edited the page. The user in question should know better as he has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past year. Calidum T|C 03:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I got pinged this way, so I'll note that the dust from my particular war with this guy has settled. I still contend nobody should be happy in a compromise, and he that cooperation is beneficial to society, but those simmering tensions have nothing to do with The Taxi War of '15. That's ancient history. Today, we're good. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • InedibleHulk Dude, that's the great "motor vehicle" war. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the great thing about great wars: we never have to agree on the "real" name. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

• Comments and diffs A content dispute was the bulk of the edits and reverts yesterday -- discussion followed here: . A compromise was agreed upon, and all was well (see here: ). Not to mention there have been a butt-load of edits since the content dispute which were great, didn't involve me at all, and have remained since they were executed (see history of edits here and here ). Today's edits reverted by me were explained succinctly in the edit summary -- all were based on policy or due to errors in the content added/removed. I don't really see what the problem is. Especially considering the response I received from JackTheVicar here in the edit summary and here at the article talk page ; I responded thusly ; he responded in this manner and then like this at his talk page "get off my talk page you obsessive article-owning harassing weirdo. do not post here again". JTV edited boldly, I reverted for reasons stated in my edit summaries, he refused to discuss, Indeed, he chose to personally attack me at the article talk page as well as in the section title. At this time, even after I attempted to get him to discuss his concerns, he has further responded negatively and in a non-cooperative manner, never discussing the article content at all . Just more personal attacks.

I do wonder why Calidum now finds it necessary to dog my edits and add warning templates on my talk page at the first possible opportunity he finds in regard to articles he's neither involved in nor has he ever edited. When he is not bringing me here to this noticeboard he's bringing me to AN where nothing comes of it. Why? Because he's concerned about disruption or he really wants to see me sanctioned/blocked in a bad way? In other words, what's the motivation? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is repeated reverts on the same content, not frequent reverts. If there is any of that here, it's lost among the rest and it would help to clean up the complaint. One could allege an ownership problem, but I don't see a case for that. I haven't looked very deep into it, but what I've seen looks like someone who disagrees with a lot of edits, and reverts them per routine BRD, but is willing to follow the rest of BRD to resolve the disagreements. Nothing wrong with that. In any case, this is not the venue for ownership complaints. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR "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." Calidum T|C 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I had forgotten about the "whether involving the same or different material", possibly because it makes no sense. I have probably exceeded 3RR myself a dozen or so times, then, without knowing it, and in the process of doing solid, good-faith editing work. BRD works fine when followed, no matter how many times a day you follow it. But I'll bow out and leave this to others, as the letter of policy appears to be against me. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the edit-warring/reverting behavior, I would add that User:Winklevi's behavior does indicate a sense of ownership, since I'm one of several editors that Winklevi has reverted with little explanation other than "I don't like it" (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The user's behavior has kept me away from working on the John Nash article. With my economics and business background, I think after some minor organizational problems are resolved I could add something of use. But if I have to worry about someone reverting any effort I make simply because they don't like it but claim "per BRD" (BRD is not a bludgeon to enable ownership behavior), it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me disinclined to engage in fruitless discussion--especially when previous engagement has led to my reasonable opinion and rationale for one side of a minor content issue being described as "ridiculous" and "silliness" by said user. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diff's where I've ever reverted or edited anything using the edit summary or reasoning,"I don't like it". Further, you chose to not discuss when BRD was cited, rather, your response was personal attacks and insults. That's solely on you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I chose not to discuss because my previous discussion with you was fruitless. Discussing anything with you would be a ridiculous waste of my time and patience and would not be productive or constructive. If there was an opportunity for a constructive dialogue that would improve the article, I'd gladly engage. But I fear that even if I did waste time discussing with you, maybe even meeting an agreement after wasting two chapters worth of words to change a phrase, you'd still revert any effort I made under the claim of BRD and we'd be back in another fruitless discussion. BRD is only a tool for you; a justification and self-justification for your ownership behavior, and you wield it as a club to drive other editors away from engaging with an article that you defend/own. I am not under any obligation to volunteer any more of my time on Misplaced Pages just so you can try to obtain validation or legitimacy for your ownership behavior under the façade of "discussion". Sorry, but I don't have the inclination to indulge you or combat your obsessive obstruction and your ownership mentality. I consider your ownership behavior the problem, and the reverting just a symptom of it. Therefore, I withdraw from a wasteful fight. Calling you out for ownership behavior is not a personal attack--even if posited cynically because of the frustration of dealing with you. The fact that another user brought you here with edits where you alone are reverting other users' contributions is indicative that there is a problem with your behavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems you are not only uninterested in discussing per BRD but you are also unable to provide diffs to support your claims and accusations? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because there is nothing to be gained or accomplished by discussing anything with you. Some people you cannot reason with. Can't reason with someone who feels they have the power to exercise wholesale reversions of several users' constructive efforts to improve the article with no valid reason except "per MOS" (with little or no explanation) or "per BRD" (as an empty self-justification). Can't reason with someone when it takes 5,000 words to get 4 words added to an article because you reverted them several times (ref: taxi) and you refuse to acknowledge or respect that other people have differing opinions (you called mine "ridiculous" and "silliness"). Your ownership behavior and your comments in our previous discussion indicate to me you simply don't like it when someone disagrees with how you see things. The pattern is clear...several users edited the article, added, moved things around, etc., worked with the edits and efforts of those working on the article before or at the same time. You, and you alone, reverted them wholesale with vague "per MOS" or "per BRD" rationales, but the subtext is overtly one of "i don't like it". There are several users work you reverted. several. that's not one user having a problem with you or disagreeing or refusing to discuss...it is several users having a problem with you. How many of them did you chase away from the article with your ownership behavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is worth noting that in the midst of the TLDR wall-o-text above laden with non-agf commentary, mocking of guidelines/policy, and pall of theersonal attacks, JTV still has not provided diffs to support his claims and accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note I'm not taking any action; nor am I closing this report. Winkelvi clearly breached WP:3RR. That said, when there is a lot of activity on a breaking event, it is common for editors to breach 3RR technically without violating the spirit of the policy. In Winkelvi's case, my belief is he violated both the letter and the spirit. However, my recommendation would be a warning, principally because he wasn't warned of the problem until after the 6th revert. Normally, a regular shouldn't need a warning, but, again, this is a breaking event, and experienced editors can lose track. As for the 7th revert, which came after the warning, the edit deserved to be reverted content-wise. Normally, that would not be a justification, and Winkelvi could have left it for someone else, but ... I'll let another administrator decide what they think is most appropriate given all the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I wish you would be a lot more AGF when it comes to me. When have you ever seen me intentionally violate a policy? (which is what I believe you mean when you say that I broke the "spirit" of 3RR). Losing track doesn't even apply because when I'm editing for content and quality's sake, not trying to undo anyone's edits with the intent of reverting them, just putting the article and its content in appropriate order -- it's only about making sure the article is the best it can be at the moment. Noting how many edits by other editors I never did anything with should tell you the obvious: my editing is in favor of the article and the encyclopedia, not me and not any untoward agenda. All that in mind, I just don't see how any of my edits at the article could be considered disruptive (which is what truly breaking 3RR is "in spirit"). I have asked for editors to be aware of BRD when appropriate - some have, some haven't. Those that haven't -- how is that on me "in spirit"? I have started discussions. Some have participated, some haven't. Again, when I make the attempt, am I truly being disruptive? I don't see how any of those edits can be considered such. Even when called names and disparaged by a particular editor who has commented here, I kept my cool and reminded them of BRD and making constructive comments. They declined (and are still doing so, if you look at the article talk page).

All that in mind, I will keep away from editing the article for the next 24 hours as an act of good faith. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• "I'm only doing it because it's good for the encyclopedia"....they all say that, or convince themselves that. I dont believe youre that blind to some of ypur behavior. Several editors took issue with it now. Do you see it if you rephrased as "I'm only owning the article because I think it's best" or "I'm driving away other contributors by my obstructionist behavior because I think it's best."?? Because thats the result of the behavior you displayed. Take a week off the article, let other editors take their swipes. The article will still be there, hopefully improved, and without ownership drama. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Orcohen45 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Indef)

Page: Herut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Orcohen45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (Herut) - similar to a series of reverted edits by IPs and now-blocked accounts about a week ago
2. (Herut)
3. (Herut)
4. (Herut)
5. (Iraq War)
6. (Iraq War)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by Malik Shabazz on 26 May); (by Roland R on 27 May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Herut#the herut can not be the major party and User talk:Orcohen45#Herut

Comments:
This editor is edit warring across multiple articles, and is possibly a sockpuppet of (blocked) Morbenmoshe (talk · contribs) and (previously blocked) 80.246.133.64 (talk · contribs), given that the account has made very similar edits to them with similarly poor English. Number 57 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already reported this editor at SPI, and agree with Numberr57's assessment. Several socks of Morbenmoshe have already been blocked, including 85.65.121.88 (talk · contribs), 176.12.140.114 (talk · contribs), and the range 80.246.133.0/24. Herut and Menachem Begin were semi-protected, which Orcohen is evading by making test edits until auto-confirmed. Editor is already in breach of 1RR on some articles, as well as averting a well-deserved block for harassment and incompetence. RolandR (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3644:13A0:607C:6C50:5E90:A6F6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi, warning)

Page

Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:3644:13A0:607C:6C50:5E90:A6F6 (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 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) to 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "remove redundant material -- "anti-Islam" mentioned six times in 1st paragraph"
   2. 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "remove opinionated material from biased sources"
2. 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664294805 by Cwobeel (talk)"
3. 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664295654 by Hair (talk)"
4. 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664296011 by Hair (talk)"
5. 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664296228 by Hair (talk)"
6. 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664296360 by Hair (talk)"
7. 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664296437 by Hair (talk)"
8. 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664296925 by NeilN (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pamela Geller. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that Hair has not reverted after I alerted them to 3RR. --NeilN 17:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected by User:Jayron32; User:Hair is warned. Both parties went over 3RR but Hair may have assumed he was reverting vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  Note: I protected the page because of what I saw as unexplained removal of content. I was unaware of an edit war per se, or of this report. The user in question needs to be told to discuss and reach consensus. This does look more like one-sided edit warring against consensus, now that I see it. The editor is trying to make some points, and some of them may (or may not. No judgement on that) be valid, but they clearly need to discuss rather than edit war. Anyhoo, the article is protected for now, and if the user wishes to talk about it, the talk page is open. --Jayron32 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jammer54 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Reggie Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jammer54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:51, 26 May 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:04, 26 May 2015‎
2. 11:57, 26 May 2015
3. 13:02, 27 May 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:35, 26 May 2015‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 02:51, 26 May 2015‎

Comments:
Editor is adding "Conference Champion" entries to infoboxes against current consensus. Behavior is seen in other article as well, which has also been reverted:

Charles Barkley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 02:01, 26 May 2015

Allen Iverson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 02:08, 26 May 2015

Editor has not responded to talk page requests, nor has explained edits in edit summary despite being informed to do so at 2:50:44 26 May 2015. I am an WP:INVOLVED admin, but other editors have been reverting Jammer54's changes as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, heavily involved would be more like it. Caden 17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: More reversions since Jammer54 was notified of this case:

• 18:02, 27 May 2015 at Reggie Miller
• 18:04, 27 May 2015 at Allen Iverson

Appears user is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not technically 3RR, but clearly edit warring & unwilling to communicate. ItsZippy 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Realnb reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: 2 users blocked)

Page

Mystery Diners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Source is valid and reflects the facts on Mystery Diners."
2. 17:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Restored correct edit."
3. 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Valid edit restored."
4. 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Source is valid. Show uses reenactments, which are scripted."
5. 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Source is reliably and was unjustly removed."
7. 15:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "The source is reliable and the evidence is extensive. The show itself acknowledges it uses actors and is staged."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning user for edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is pushing to include a change to the introduction, which does not have a reliable source. A discussion about the matter with him/her is in progress on the article's talk page. McDonald of Kindness 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The source I cited is reliable and is backed up by the show itself. Realnb (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I have blocked this user and also Drmargi (talk · contribs) for breaking the three-revert rule. ItsZippy 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew that Drmargi was violating the three-revert rule as well, but at the time of making the report, I was in a rush, so I didn't have time to include his details. Anyway, thank you for blocking him and Realnb. McDonald of Kindness 20:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

South Beach Diet edit warring.

There is currently a disagreement on the above page which is close to degenerating into a full edit war. I feel that the other editor involved, user:Jytdog is unequivocally violating MEDRS, and is violating NPOV, although that is not blatantly obvious at a glance, as the MEDRS is. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.

Background: A paid editor had been pushing to not describe SBD as a "fad diet" for a long time with no consensus, and had finally pretty much given up. Enter Anmccalff in Mid-March with this dif, picking up that argument where the paid editor left off, and also got no consensus. Our last exchange was Apr 30 here, where I suggested he implement some DR process.

Today Anmmccalff:

up and just deleted the "fad diet" language.

I reverted, saying please don't edit war and again pointed to DR

BRD would suggest, instead, that you discuss, and justify, your using cites which violate MEDRS, I would have thought.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmmcalff again deleted

I again reverted, and promised an edit war warning,

which I gave them, here

ball remains in their court to initiate DR for these edits that no one else supports. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "no one else," merely him at the moment...flagrantly violating a standard he is very quick to uphold in other circumstances.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS:Jytdog is a bit touchy about any edit of his work, so could someone (else) please correct the mispellings above?Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

you really need to read WP:TPG - i am not freaky at all, in not taking well to other people editing my comments. and clearly i do not agree with your interpretation of MEDRS. (and btw, that i am the last one with patience to continue talking with you, doesn't mean that anybody agrees with you) in any case, this is not a matter for 3RR unless anmccaff continues to edit war instead of using DR. i won't be responding further unless that happens and i need to continue this. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt reported by User:Midas02 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: Sorry for not having reported this earlier, but I wasn't aware of how this policy quite works. I had done a cleanup to a dab (James Jackson) page according to WP:MOSDAB, so within full compliance of an established Misplaced Pages policy. The above user then came along, triggered by an edit I had made on a page he has under scrutiny, and which he reverted thrice as well, although I had explained the reason for those changes. So he reverts the change to the dab page as well, without having anything to do with that page, without questioning or searching consensus, and with an apparent lack of knowledge of applicable policies. He has done so up to about twenty times! I was about to report it, when another user got involved, he immediately got slammed as well. . On the talk page he finally changed his position, but is now reverting again putting his demands to other editors.
More than the change itself, is the attitude which is a continuous issue. His talk page shows that in just two months he has already gotten into similar rows with half a dozen people. It's always the same issue: agressive, heading in feet first, reverting without respecting other people's edits, not searching consensus, and often accompanied by abusive language, finger pointing, poking , , and so on.
This attitude has to stop. Nobody needs his approval for the edits they make, and by using abusive language he is crossing a red line. Please deal with this appropriately. --Midas02 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tryntonroberts reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Boone County Fire Protection District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tryntonroberts (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 01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) to 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664352128 by Zackmann08 (talk) The station and apparatus are not current, that is why there is an asterisk to denote these changes, which will be in the next year."
   2. 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664352532 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
2. 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664344914 by Zackmann08 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */ new section"
2. 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Boone County Fire Protection District. (TW)"
3. 02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is clearly new and I respect that. I have tried to initiate a dialogue with the user on multiple occasions with no success. Zackmann08 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protected As nobody else is editing the article, I have locked the page for 2 days so you can sort your differences out on the talk page. I don't think templating a newbie lots really qualifies as "initiating a dialogue" myself. Ritchie333 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Taeyebaar reported by User:StarbucksLatte (Result:)

Page

Arrowsmith School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663981768&oldid=663958250 - reverted edits by user
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663838318&oldid=663788370 - reverted edits by senior admin
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=664362217&oldid=664362028 - reverted all my edits, repeatedly

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Taeyebaar indicates on talk page "some articles are endangered", implying sole ownership of the article.

User Taeyebaar has undone repeated attempts by various admins (including senior ones!) in the last 24 hours - and many more attempts in the last few months. They are protecting their own interest in the article without allowing additional edits.

• 'Starbucks' is a sockpuppet of the blocked user:Wiki-shield. I have just reported him to a CU administrator and the case should be persued as soon as he receives the message.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• 'Taeyebaar' has accused every editor of their articles of sockpuppetry, and managed to get numerous legitimate editors banned. Check out their user history! StarbucksLatte (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sam11012 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Sam11012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC) to 05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe , what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"
3. 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mastoi. (TW)"
2. 05:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mastoi. (TW)"
3. 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "/* May 2015 */ cut it out"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ahunt reported by User:41.224.101.46 (Result: Protected)

Page: GNU/Linux naming controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Ahunt has been edit-warring with one or more wikipedia users on the cited article above.

He has ] firstly reverting an important content concerning the opinion supporting "GNU/Linux" term of a well-known person (Jimmy Wales) under a reason that the reference wasn't reliable and that "It is also seven years old". The reference was updated by an ip user to refer to the http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=prev&oldid=189637292 made by the official Jimmy Wales' wikipedia account: to make sure that the info was reliable enough: but User:Ahunt didn't accept that: and instead tried to justifty his reverts with false positives. The deletion of such reliable content is considered vandalism. the editor has clearly shown his pure POV-pushing against the "GNU/Linux" term by the 5 edits (from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664259885 to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664267671) he did for adding non-reliable content (like "In May 2015 Stallman began calling Linux-based operating systems "the GNU operating system"" and "In May 2015 Softpedia reported that Stallman had abandoned his campaign to have people call Linux-based operating systems "GNU/Linux"") , which the cited source didn't say and which already differs with the truth that Richard Stallman was using the "the GNU operating system" term from 1983, without keeping the content related to the Jimmy Wales' opinion.

Such POV-pushing against "GNU/Linux" can be seen in several contributions the editor has done like , , , and .

The editor hasn't stopped at that, but has continued multiple reverts which can be seen in the article edit history, to violate the three revert rule policy describing the reverted edits to be vandal , while those edits was done to restore the ] already vandalized by him, to update the ref, and to remove the added non-reliable content against WP:NPOV: and already explained by the ip user in the article talk page.

The editor has been warned about such behaviour in his talk page and the article talk page, but he didn't stop and continued reverting and tried to accuse the ip user of Sockpuppeting with multiple IP addresses while the ip user has already explained all in the talk page.

By doing such edits, the editor is involved in a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:3RR and WP:DISRUPT: that's unacceptable POV-pushing against other contributions and thus a lack of constructive edits reflecting his ability of collaborating correctly with other editors. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a month. The 41.x.x.x and 197.x.x.x editors are obviously the same person, have not justified their edits, and refer to the correct reversal of their edits as "vandalism". Not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring