Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:50, 10 July 2014

• 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:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)

Page: Cornwall Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unscintillating (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:

3. referring to this

I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

Comments:
In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

Which states:

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."

He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Misplaced Pages is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V.  There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit.  This was way too complicated, this needed discussion.  So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next".  Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR.  I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article.  I am not aware of any edit warring by either party.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN. Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours. He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v. Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• No violation No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden.

After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here.

And the rest of Unscintillating's additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor.

But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note -- As noted above, the close above by Lord Roem is based on a mistake by the Lord. While it is true that the editor had reverted his own additions, as Lord said in giving his rationale -- the editor then restored the very additions that the editor had deleted. Lord clearly missed that.

His close can't be a legitimate close -- as the rationale is based on an incorrect understanding by Lord.

I would appreciate another sysop closing this. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the repeated comments above regarding WP:V, Epeefleche quotes from WP:V, but omits the following conditional, "Whether...this should happen depends...".  I have documented a recent case of an article that Epeefleche took to AfD in which he removed sourced material during the AfD while claiming a WP:V entitlement.

Over the weekend I spent a man day working up the details and sequence of events of this incident and posted them at (@RoySmith:).  What I have found out is that after I said "talk page is next", nine minutes later Epeefleche was working to avoid discussion.  He did finally post, but ignored my questions.  Since the closing admin hoped that Epeefleche would, "work this out on the talk page", Epeefleche is in violation of the spirit of the closing of this 3RR report.  Please also review Epeefleche's definition of "at length" discussion, as seen at .  It is appropriate that Epeefleche be warned for refusal to discuss.  @Lord Roem:.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I started to dig into Epeefleche's contributions around the time of July 2 tonight, and soon found .  @Lord Roem: You state, "I've looked at it again. I don't believe they were edit warring; they also appear to have moved their thoughts to the talk page. That is a productive step and I encourage you both to pursue it towards consensus."  You've now told him twice and I've told him once that there was no edit warring.  But subsequent to your 2nd ruling, he/she has found an excuse to not discuss, says words to the effect that he/she doesn't understand your ruling, re-asserts that there was edit warring, and above wants another admin to re-close.  Please support WP:BRD and issue a warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not issuing a warning for a user being displeased at one of my decisions. I think it would be far more productive for both of you to work out your disagreements on the article's talk page instead of prolonging the debate on this noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Lord -- As to your suggestion that the article's talkpage be used to discuss this -- first, that's not the appropriate forum for the gravamen of this report. Second, as indicated above, all the challenged text that Un had been restoring in violation of wp:v and wp:TENANTS has now been addressed, as it has been deleted (again), by other editors. So there is no longer any dispute as to text residing in the article (which itself no longer exists, it has been redirected). Only a dispute as to the reported edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• After what has been now almost a week, I do not believe a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. At this point, both of you should be clear on what you should and shouldn't do during a disagreement. You seem to be asking that the other editor be blocked as punishment, which is something I won't do. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Lord -- I agree blocks should not be used as punishment. The reason that this has lingered is that your rationale in your initial close was based on a clear mistake. See above. The goal here is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior -- it is not clear that the conduct issues have been resolved, as you have not warned the editor vis-a-vis the above-indicated violations of wp:burden, nor has he indicated - as you suggest -- he is clear on the fact that he is bound by wp:burden (just the opposite). In short, it appears you made a clear error in your close, and are now simply not re-visiting the matter to do as much as tender a warning that wp:burden is a guideline that must be followed. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Do you agree to continue this conversation on the talk page of the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing to discuss there -- inasmuch as the article itself no longer exists, and all the material you added in violation of wp:burden has been deleted by other editors. The only remaining item is a behavioral one. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.14.223.132 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 h)

Page: Israel–United States relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.14.223.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:50.14.223.132

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (by non-invovled editor) IP could be Hanzon (talk · contribs) looking a the similar edit history, Hanzon has added an espionage setion before and both have edit mainly in Ecudorian artilces, on 9 May on Ecua-volley right after each other. Hanzon may have forgot to log in (AGF), maybe he could explain, I will alert his talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes but it doesn't matter he still broke 1RR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The edit is suggestively similar to Hanzon's and the IP is certainly an experienced user, but I am not blocking the putative main account at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:PersecutedUser reported by User:178.164.179.114 (Result: already blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932155&oldid=615931749
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932610&oldid=615932480
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615932925&oldid=615932875
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615933537&oldid=615933391
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615933708&oldid=615933655
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romanians&diff=615934314&oldid=615933986

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
In addition, it's very clear that User:PersecutedUser is a sockpuppet of notorious sockpuppeteer User:Iaaasi, who edited the article recently under the user name User:Avpop. --178.164.179.114 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This report was removed, I restored it and will take responsibility for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

178.164.179.114 is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Stubes99. Just like User:Satandome. PersecutedUser (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So I looked myself, the IP who filed this and the one you say he is a sock of have two different ISP`s. BTW the IP is on 4RR himself and so needs a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact I am not sure about 178.164.179.114. He knows that I am Iaaasi and he knows how to make a 3RR report. He can also be User:Norden1990, another editor that had conflicts with me. 178.164.179.114. contributed at Matthias Corvinus, just like https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/178.164.210.101 these days. 178.164.210.101 also contributed at Apor Péc where Norden1900 was the sole contributor.

But a CU could confirm that User:Satandome is Stubes99 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersecutedUser (talk • contribs)

I cannot believe you just admitted to being a sock, this means the IP, as it is not proven as yet to be a sock has an exemption from 3RR. I have filed an SPI given your confession above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines, I see you just reverted to the version before sock-puppet editing. Don't you think the version prior to any edit warring at all would be more appropriate. Sock puppeting does not justify edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As near as I can make out, it is the same thing, the socks were both editwarring over the same content, so a rv to where I rv`d seemed the best solution. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Favonian for abuse of multiple accounts. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:178.164.179.114 reported by User:AlanS (Result: decline)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615933708 by PersecutedUser (talk) this was the status quo before your edits"
2. 11:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615933537 by PersecutedUser (talk) -OR"
3. 10:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Romanian origin ≠ Romanian (Hunyadi's father made career already in Hungary)"
4. 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 615932155 by PersecutedUser (talk) see sourced articles (Hunyadi family, John Hunyadi etc.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Aware of 3RR enough to file a report against another user for violating it. AlanS (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well PersecutedUser has admitted to being a sock at the SPI I filed, so the IP has an exemption, the article has also been semi protected. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no justification for edit warring. If the IP suspected a sock they should of reported it, not engaged in edit warring. They are sufficiently aware of 3RR to have filled a report. AlanS (talk)

Sorry no, see WP:NOT3RR "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely to be covered by WP:NOT3RR, one would have to know, not merely suspect a sock. Up until the admission all the IP had was a suspicion. In which case the proper path would of been reporting their suspicion, not engaging in edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as my reading goes they would of had to have reported their suspicion prior to their fourth edit and had it confirmed to have the exemption for their fourth edit. AlanS (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Since PersecutedUser is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet, no purpose would be served by blocking the IP at this time. 178.164.179.114 is cautioned to be more patient in waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:198.208.240.246 reported by User:Samsbanned (Result: 31 h)

Page: International Society for Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I am unsure how to report this vandalism as it is my first time, and it is an anonymous user vandalising with their POV. I can't find their user page to warn them and they repeatedly put back their biased off-topic comments Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Me, the reporting registered Misplaced Pages user Samsbanned Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Samsbanned, you have both made only two reverts. That doesn't constitute edit warring. If you would like to report vandalism I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. AlanS (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is not vandalism, but is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Protected)

Page

Lands of the Bohemian Crown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 615875444 by Yopie (talk): Still no consensus for inclusion. (TW)"
2. 22:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by RGloucester (talk): No consensus for second names. (TW)"
3. 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) "please, read Gdansk vote rule"
4. 19:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC) "wp:mpn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* German place names */"

Comments:

• Page protected. I would have to block several productive users to quiet this edit war that way, but I am choosing instead to edit-protect the article for one week. The discussion on the talkpage appears productive, so please comment at requests for protection if consensus is reached before then. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:114.31.218.104 reported by User:MrX (Result: 24 h)

Page

Good Luck Flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is slow roasting edit war. 114.31.218.104 continues to remove sourced content, replacing it with POV unsourced content, over the protests of other involved editors. While the IP has not technically violated 3RR, they have ignored an edit warring warning and requests to participate in a talk page discussion. The article was recently fully protected, during which time the IP did not join the talk page discussion. - MrX 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.

User:198.135.125.122 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 36 hours)

Page

CAIC Z-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html"
2. 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Hi Darkness Shines. The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html,"
3. 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Hello Darkness Shines, I am reverting eddits done by Pvpoodle. He was banned for 3 days for eddit warring and just got unbanned. He is now back at it again. I have talked to different Wikipedians about this and the okay me to revert his eddits. Thank you."
4. 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Undo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
3. 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Designed by Kamov */ Cmt"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I can't read the Chinese source but even if it was true this is not an excuse for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:I1990k reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: 1 month)

Page: Russians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I1990k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4 July
2. 5 July
3. 6 July
4. 7 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This Ninja here refuses to co operate and neglects negotiations to resolve edit conflicts. When being warned, the editor blanked the talk page.

• Nobody has used the talkpage whatsoever and both users are edit warring. I'm looking into the situation and will post fully soon. It's a little complicated since there are ongoing developments (Al Khazar just reverted me as well). Bishonen | talk 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

Sorry about that. I cannot see why you chose to revert rather than inform. As for the talk page, is that a necessity if only two users are involved and one is a WP:NINJA? Khazar (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. This is the third block for edit warring. No attempt to discuss editing dispute through talk page or even edit summary.

@Al Khazar: from my analysis it looks like the revision prior to the edit war reflects consensus, however there is no reason whatsoever to continue to edit war. Simply report here when necessary and wait for preventive measures to be put in place; I would generally ping the user on the talk page or inquire them of their intentions on their talk page after the first revert. You also did not issue a proper warning for edit warring, e.g. it's best to let them know about the three-revert rule. The {{uw-ew}} template is the most common way. Next, you didn't notify the user that you reported them, another user did it for you. The latter is a must. Granted, the user is clearly familiar with policy regarding edit warring, as this is the third such block. I also wanted to add the user was free to blank your notice on their talk page, as is the case for most notices. See WP:BLANKING for more.

@MusikAnimal: I sincerely apologize. I don't have the experience of being embroiled in such controversy. Khazar (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I responded to this report not knowing you were also looking into it. Anything you have to add (or further administrative action) is obviously welcomed. Apologies for this unintended conflict. — MusikAnimal 23:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, follow-up. Sorry it took a little time, but your diffs are pretty hard to interpret, Al Khazar. (They aren't actually diffs, they're page versions.) Note that people are allowed to blank their own talkpage, it's not a crime. And user talkpages + edit summaries aren't the best places for discussion anyway. I reverted you myself some minutes ago, while not being aware of this report, since your last edit, which turned up on my watchlist and which removed 20 kb of content, had no explanation in the edit summary and was marked as a minor edit (!). Those things are not good. I see you have now reverted me right back, with some explanation in the edit summary, but that is indeed too little too late. Moreover, I1990k's addition of content isn't vandalism, no matter how much you consider it undue or pointy, it's a content dispute. And in the timeframe you refer to above, from 5 July to now, I1990k has reverted five times at the most (your first "diff" is to an edit by BattyBot, and you need to explain how your second is a revert at all), only three of them before you filed this report, while you yourself have reverted six times. That's not counting your revert of me, let's ignore that — I'm speaking as an uninvolved admin, who meant to deal with this (but I was too slow, as often, unfortunately) since I stumbled on it without previous involvement. And, as I said, neither of you has used the talkpage, which leaves your mentions of consensus, and of the other user "neglecting negotiations", a little bewildering to me. There was a discussion of the infobox on talk in May, and another pretty desultory one stretching from January to April, but I struggle to see any consensus in those. And there's not a word on talk about the more recent issue addition/removal of the cinema text.

I had some thoughts of blocking both users, since neither has demonstrated collaborative editing, and both have certainly edit warred. But I can't in conscience agree with one of them being blocked and the other (the six-revert one, too) not, even though User:I1990k has form. I'm for fullprotecting the article for a week instead, and would ask the users to please try to work out their differences on talk, and please let's hear no more of "vandalism", because that's just not good for discussions. Of course it's worse, and indeed a bit ninja-like, to not discuss even on usertalk or in edit summaries, User:I1990k. All right if I do the fullprotection and unblock I1990k, MusikAnimal? I agree they would have deserved a block, if their conduct hadn't needed to be balanced against the other user's (who I'm reluctant to block). Bishonen | talk 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Wise decision. We'll see just how well that works out. I'll create two sections in the talk page for other editors to object or support the collage and relevant information about the ethnic group. Khazar (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you think so. I'm just waiting to see if MusikAnimal will agree. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: @Al Khazar: Sorry for the wait. My rationale behind the block was simply the history the user has had with edit warring, which implied some ongoing truth to this "ninja" mentality, as you both suggest. There is recent evidence of this outside this case, which makes me inclined to retain the block to prevent disruption elsewhere. Furthermore from what I gather the user has very little if any record of communication, which leads me question the efficacy of fully protecting Russians, as this user would be unlikely to participate in the discussion anyway. Meanwhile, I will note on Al Khazar's attempt to at least spark discussion in some form, whether it be user talk page or edit summary (though article talk page is always preferred). There is an apparent third party in this dispute, however, so I leave it to Bishonen's discretion as to if a brief protection period may be warranted. I hate to shut out any other impartial, uninvolved editors from contributing to the article, but so long as it helps draw consensus in some timely manner, I'm okay with it. — MusikAnimal 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, what I thought was to put I1990k on probation — that if he didn't join the discussion and then reverted or otherwise disrupted again after the protection period, he'd be blocked. But you're right, it's time. I'm as unimpressed by the apparent third party as I expect you are, so I won't protect. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

User:Ericablang reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Both warned)

Page

Kevin de León (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ericablang (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 18:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC) to 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Calderon Scandal */"
2. 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) to 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "adding in words for clarification"
   2. 18:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "organizing the paragraphs and adding more information on subject"
4. 19:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC) to 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
   2. 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kevin de León. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly re-adding information that has been removed by multiple editors. Not heeding warnings or following BRD. Single purpose account? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• User EFir has seven reverts to this article on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&action=history all his contributions to the story are only removals of others additions - he has not a single edit to the chat page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&action=history he has three reverts in the last couple of days and is at war himself there and repeatedly wanting others banned here, as can be seen recently in this similar report here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=&diff=prev&oldid=615231718#User:ChrisP2K5_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_.28Result:_Protected.29 shut down as protected article by admin user EdJohnson with this telling comment https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=615231718 Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both editors warned. If either User:Ericablang or User:EvergreenFir reverts again without making a reasonable effort to get support for their change on the talk page they may be blocked. The supplied diffs don't show four reverts: one (#2) is a change of capitalization in a header, and another (#4) is the addition of brand new material. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, WTF? EdJohnston, I was not edit warring and nowhere near violating 3RR. My "7 reverts" are over months dealing with vandalism. Understand I primarily watch for vandalism. How am I supposed to deal with editors who will not follow WP:BRD and are not "clearly vandalism"? If I cannot use AIV or AN3, what's left? This is clearly a single-purpose account and apparently has no interest in dialogue. Mosfetfaser, stop hounding me. EdJohnston, please revert Mosfetfaser's latest edit on this article. It is a clear violation of BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, Mosfetfaser warned for NAGF (for the umpteenth time). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't post your templates on my page, I have good faith , lots of it and I have applied it in all my comments and posted links to all the details as well, ta - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You display the exact opposite of AGF. Do not target me further. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you bring a case to the 3RR board and don't provide evidence of an actual 3RR violation you need to expect a little backtalk. I did see you vigorously reverting in the other direction, twice on July 7 and once on July 8. In none of these cases did you wait for a talk page consensus before making your change. If the reverting goes on much longer it is likely that full protection will be applied. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston - I apologize if 3RR wasn't breached; it appeared to me it was. That said, yes, I reverted in one direction as did C.Fred and ClueBot. This article has been the target of vandalism in the past which is why I follow it. You seem to have it backwards - BRD and responses to vandalism do not require that I wait for consensus. The bold editor needs consensus. And now Ericablang is removing information about the scandal. So again, what am I, a user who monitors for vandalism, supposed to do in cases like this? AIV is not appropriate as this is not "clear vandalism". ANI is not appropriate as this is a content issue. And now AN3 is not available, despite multiple experienced editors and a bot reverting this user? (Also, no I will not tolerate NAGF and hounding from that user; if it continues I will go to ANI). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.171.11.116 reported by User:Solarra (Result: Warned)

Page

Michelle Ruff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) to 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) to 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Michelle Ruff. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This anon editor has been edit warring this article for over a week. I warned them, but some sort of intervention is needed here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP user has demonstrated a propensity toward POV editing for a while, for example this string of edits in October/November 2013 where the IP was involved in long-term edit warring with numerous users. I first encountered the IP after they'd made this good-faith edit. I opted to remove wikilinks for common words like dog, lizard, etc, as well as voice actors for whom no roles had been listed per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This apparently rankled the IP editor. "They are listed as additional voices, thank you.", "How is it considered an over link if McFist has a link for a common word like crab?". And when I ultimately removed the voice cast list entirely because it was in conflict with MOS:TV for duplicating the character list, the user reverted with the edit summary GO AND SUCK A PIPE!!. User later restored the list in spite of an active discussion on the article's talk page. Compounding the issue, the user hasn't demonstrated any intention of participating in discussions, for example this one, or on their own talk page, where they tend to blank notes and warnings and "reply" in their edit summaries. "Well excuse me their is no reason to be so ANAL..." I've also noticed a recurring "I'm not the one to blame here" mindset in their edit summaries. They appear to have expressed an awareness of their mistakes, which is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure how to encourage this user to edit with consensus in mind or to adequately convey that this is Misplaced Pages's project, not their own. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been reverting my attempts to enforce MOS:BOLD on filmographies (lead roles should not be bolded, and some of this is OR without providing a source), and my attempt to flag BLP sources per list, which was prompted out of recent discussions with other editors to provide better sources on biography articles, some of which have been AFD'ed. Unfortunately I've been 3RR-warned on this as well so I am stuck on how to proceed from here. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Warned as it doesn't appear the IP is going to continue their disruption. If that self-asserted statement proves incorrect, they can be blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord Roem, after acknowledging that their editing warring is inappropriate, user continues to assert their worldview in these five edits. Misplaced Pages community consensus established MOS:BOLD, and local consensus at Talk:Michelle Ruff supports the removal of the boldface. User's edits are becoming disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.223.120.208 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

Page

Elite: Dangerous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC) ""target was plausibly reframed as "just the alpha"" That's false."
2. 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "Restored unjustified deletion of "it will be this year for sure", fully sourced."
3. 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "Removed unsubstantiated claim that Braben's words were simply a journo's summary."
4. 19:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted again"
5. 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "AGAIN reverted unsubstantiated claim that Braben response was a journo summary."
6. 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Removed unsubstantiated claim that what Braben is reported to have said is a journalist's summary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "/* "Braben said" */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Braben said */ new section"

Comments:

An IP editor is having trouble understanding the difference between quotation and paraphrasing (adding "person said 'X will be Y'" as a direct quote, from a source that only says "person said that X will be Y" as a paraphrase) and the BLP ramifications of confusing the two. They've been flatly reverting to their preferred wording as a direct quote, despite an ongoing talk thread with two other editors explaining that they're misusing the source. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours; I think McGeddon's reverts to keep the poorly sourced material out likely fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR. Plus, based on a look at the article's talk page, it's clear the IP didn't care about the issue with their proposed additions or the concerns of other users. Even more, their edit summaries were emblematic of edit warring behavior. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Amt000 reported by User:I am One of Many (Result: Blocked)

Page

India News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amt000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616200127 by 106.219.185.135 (talk)"
2. 07:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Channel Owner Detail */"
3. 02:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 616090556 by QuiteUnusual (talk)"
4. 02:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Channel Owner Detail */"
5. 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Channel Owner Detail */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 616193748 by QuiteUnusual (talk): Restoring to show repeated warnings. (TW)"
2. 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on India News. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The main attempt to resolve this issue can be found on User:Lord Roem's talk page , but the user did not attempt to resolve the dispute. I am One of Many (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

The edit warring started several days earlier. There is more discussion of this article here including another warning about edit warring. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm involved, but I agree Amt000 is clearly edit warring to keep this possibly defamatory material in the article. They did end up on my talk page (linked above) but never continued the discussion after asserting this was "very popular" information. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Amt000 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) i clearly say my refernce are good and beliable and its true . and i dont start edit war firstly it start any ipAmt000 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) and i dont delete any think only add with belibale and good reference . and who start edit war delete my edit. this is link ] i complain talk pageAmt000 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Amt000, what we are asking is why is something the owner's brother may or may not have done relevant to the news station? Moreover, even if your sources are reliable, it is not acceptable to imply something extremely negative about a living person based on something a relative (such as a brother) may or may not have done. It is for these reasons that your additions have been repeatedly removed. I am One of Many (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

i already say Jessica Lal murder case very popular so i attachAmt000 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and WP:BLP violations (violation removed by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Will102 reported by User:Kheider (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Will102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (Sailsbystars)
2. (Serendipodous)
3. (Kheider)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Will102 has been reverting 3 different editors and going against the consensus.

I don't see a 3RR warning, though it's clear Will broke 3RR. But frankly, Serendipodous and Kheider both have been edit warring on the same page dealing with the same matter. Page protection to compel more discussion might be a better approach than blocks. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I placed the original 'citation needed' on this back in May, and have been engaging in self-reverting ever since. This is not a violation.Will102 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Will, you are clearly reverting other editors and it looks like you added the cn tag back in March and it was rejected by other editors as misleading. -- Kheider (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to the page . Then go down the the section 'The three-revert rule'. Under the subsection '3RR exceptions', the #1 exception is self-reverting. Since I placed that 'citation needed', I have done nothing else to the text of the article.Will102 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Self reverting would be YOU removing the cn tag that you added. -- Kheider (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "self-reverting". It means that you revert an edit that you made yourself. When someone reverts an edit that you made, and then you revert that edit, it's not a self-revert. You've made four reverts to that article within the last 24 hours, and that's plainly a violation of 3RR. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, will be looking into page protection. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Monochrome monitor reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 36 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - 1st revert, 7 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T00:38:06‎ and 2014-07-10T02:00:03
2. - 2nd revert, 2 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T04:13:54 and 2014-07-10T04:24:46. I reverted this with the edit summary 'rv blatant 1RR violation while edit warring'.
3. - 3rd revert, straightforward undo at 2014-07-10T05:02:18 of my revert. Their response in the edit summary 'And revert doesn't count for when reverting someone else's absurd rollback', resulted in my filing this report. They are unambiguously edit warring and need to be stopped.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User_talk:Monochrome_monitor. The editor has received an ARBPIA notification and made aware of 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rachel_Corrie is littered with ongoing often acrimonious discussions.

Comments:
The editor should be well aware that that their actions violate 1RR and that there is no consensus for their actions, having participated in the ongoing discussions. Please do something to make sure they understand that they cannot edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Total bullshit. A consensus was reached on the talk page that my edits were far more NPOV than the last. My first revert was of someone who rolled back weeks sort of edits, got reverted, made the same edit, so technically they violated the revert rule. The second revert was because this editor was plain wrong. I added the word allegedly because the article assumes that ISM's claims are true when they are contradicted by Israeli claims, hence no side should be taken. the third edit wasn't even illegal because a new day started. Look at Sean's edits and you'll see why he's reporting me: pro-Palestinian POV. I am a new editor and in my actual "warning" I was intimidated and harassed by an admin who didn't understand common decency, and one lacky who thought i had secret accounts. There was a general consensus on the talk page that the article was biased, so I was "bold" and tried to fix it. I want to make Misplaced Pages a better, fairer knowledge resource. I think good faith outweighs any small bureaucratic rule. Thanks for your time guys! --monochrome_monitor 05:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring