Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 27 February 2015

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:CSWP1 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 2 days)

Page

Talk:Juliano Mer-Khamis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CSWP1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: Removing the baseless accusations of a now-banned user"
2. 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC) "(Undid revision 644350594 by Nableezy (talk) bullys gonna bully)"
3. 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: I'll leave Sean's comment. It seems you guys want it for weight. But his mudslinging has no place here, especially since he's been topic banned for exactly this kind of behavior"
4. 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647661917 by Nableezy (talk) His accusation is being taken out. He speaks it as if it is fact, when it is merely his mudslinging."
5. 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
2. 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
3. 09:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
4. 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Link to User Page

Comments:

This editor has repeatedly deleted another editor's talk page comments. Depite the editor's repeated claims, the editor whose comments s/he has been removing, who has retired from Misplaced Pages, is neither banned nor topic-banned. Editor has been warned about this several times, yet continues, and has again removed the comment since this investigation has opened. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

*Sigh*, even after being warned by RolandR and various other users, CSWP1 still continues to edit other editors' comments. This seems to be a clear example of WP:NOTHERE. AcidSnow (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Please let us know if the problem persists. Swarm 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )

Page: South Bound Brook, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On other articles...

14. reverted on Feb. 24th, 2015, after being asked for an explanation on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

On the South Bound Brook, New Jersey article, I had made 4 distinct edits in a row. I provided edit summaries for each edit. Instead of picking those edits he disagreed with, he rolled back all 4 edits. I believe all of the edits I made were in keeping with policy, and no consensus has been reached in many discussions to the contrary. In particular, WP:USCITIES states : "if a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section. There should be only one coordinate relating to the article present." That's what I did at this edit. After rolling back all 4 edits--including that one--I reverted that edit and left the edit summary "please pay attention to what you revert; do you really want to add the geo-coordinates that are also in the infobox? Pay attention or go to bed friend." It was no use; he reverted all 4 edits again. I have had nothing but frustration with this editor while trying to make edits to New Jersey articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 is back to some sick, passive-aggressive "gotcha" game where he feels confident that he will drag me into some sort of punishment in revenge for some long lost crime perpetrated against him. Among many other manufactured battles, he challenged the use of a see also linking to a category more than two full months ago and was told here that "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles." He started an RfC in the article in question and a review of the responses here demonstrates consensus rebutting his concerns and supporting the practice. In response, Magnolia677 refused to respect this consensus and started yet another one of his edit wars at , and in direct contravention of the results of the RfC he started. Simply put, anyone who is here to perpetually pick fights and manufacture provocations is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No one should have to put up with this shameless abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link" I'm still trying to figure that one out, because I completely disagree with it. As for the RfC, I tried that in the hope of getting other opinions, but the only one who showed up to comment was another editor who edits in lockstep with Alansohn. This is all smoke and mirrors, and play the victim. This person is a relentless edit warrior, who seems to target me. He must have it his way at all costs. Again, thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to several other idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, Magnolia677 has waged repeated edit wars (see his list above) over the past several months in which he has fought to remove a "see also" link to a category, arguing that this is an improper use of categories and insisting that I am the only editor to use this method. This issue was discussed at WT:CLN a few months ago, where Magnolia677 was told here that there was no problem. After a few weeks of quiet, he was edit warring again on this subject. After starting an RfC on the matter here, he was told that the practice is appropriate and is widely used in several hundred articles for places around the world; No user supported his stance. After a few more days of quiet he is back to picking fights over this issue, editing articles he has never edited before to create provocations, which are apparently intended to create an edit war. This is an editor with a terrible case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT who keeps on ignoring feedback from third parties telling him that he is incorrect, who proceeds to find new excuses for why the practice is wrong and who keeps on fighting a war that he's already lost just for the sake of fighting. Any suggestions as to how to end this warfare by Magnolia677 will be appreciated, as he seems unwilling to walk away from this petty battling. Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was asking the same question at WP:CAT recently for how to handle a link to alumni from schools. I was told to add the category with colon in front, which I had not thought of before. My problem is not knowing if the category exists already, since it is not usually visible from the parent page. It is a clever way to solve the problem that I had not thought of. This needs to be discussed on a broader scale at the category talk page. I was skeptical of it when it was first introduced, and now I see the utility of it. The category needs to be visible from the parent page, otherwise you will not be aware it exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kraainem reported by User:ChamithN (Result: Warned about personal attacks)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648433805 by Wuerzele (talk)What makes a source about business in general and market platforms in general an unreliable source. Please discuss on Talk Page and quote WP policy."
2. 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648479663 by Aoidh (talk)Surely consensus is required to delete? All new edits only enter after previous consensus? Nothing (blank space) cannot be status quo."
3. 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648489411 by ChamithN (talk)You revert my reliable reference and then state I give no reference. Very strange. Plse dont remove referenced input."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
2. 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
3. "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bitcoin."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

You have to ignore the revert of the proposer of this ban ChamnithN´s edit where he or she deleted my edit that had a reliable source with the comment from her or him that I had no source. This is what he/ she reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=648500433&oldid=648493044

You can all see the reference. Are you all now going to say no, ChamithN did not revert a reliable reference? He or she did revert a reliable reference and then to add insult to injury, he or she stated that I had no source and went to great lengths giving me instructions how to edit with a reliable source. Are you all going to ignore ChamithN´s mistake. I told him or her on his or her talk page that I forgive him or her for the mistake. Surely you cannot count that revert of his or her honest mistake for the purposes of your ban that is just wasting your and my time: I have given up on improving the article regarding bitcoin in Russia. it is very clear that you are not interested in that. Now ban me quickly, although ChamithN lied about me not having given a source. I know all of you are going to say you cannot see that: that you are temporarily blinded for this purpose. Obviously you cannot delete a reference and then tell someone: hey, you have no reference and then round up people to ban this person who supplied a reliable reference but will not accept to be told that the reliable reference that is now still there in the history, never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*Comment - I'm not sure about this apparent 180° out of nowhere on the talk page, but they haven't violated WP:3RR and apparently have stopped after being warned and instead went to the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Look ChamithN, If you want to ban me because you made the mistake of reverting my fully referenced edit on top of which you had the gall to lie - for everyone to see in the article history - lying that I had no reference (when I have/had one), then ban me. If that is how you operate here on WP, then, go for it. There is absolutely nothing under the sun I can do for you if that is how you operate. Go ahead, ban me for life and really enjoy your cheap thrill. I was gracious to you and forgave you a few times for the mistake you made. That had absolutely no effect on you. So, do me a really, really good favour and ban me for life from Misplaced Pages - for your mistake. Kraainem (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to see someone getting blocked who is here to make constructive edits. But as far as I (and some other editors) can see most of your edits does not reflect Misplaced Pages policies. And in fact here you have violated one of the most important rule, which is 3RR. 3RR is common to all editors so no it's not just you. You can report me if you see me violating 3RR. User:Aoidh warned you about the 3RR when you were close to trigger it. Either you didn't care about it or you didn't notice it. Anyhow Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Please read guidlines and other policies before making a significant change. And no it wouldn't be a lifetime ban. Probably a day or two. Blocking you is solely an administrator decision. I'm not an administrator. I have no intention of banning you preventing you from editing Misplaced Pages. I do not own Misplaced Pages. I reported you to 3RR noticeboard simply because you have violated 3RR. Best--Chamith (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, you lack character. You lie a lot. You are still very young. You have a long way to go. We all pass the way you are passing now. Remember, only what is honest and good are worth it/make the grade. You are now still very dishonest. Good luck on your life journey. Kraainem (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I'm looking into this. Back soon. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

• Warned. Kraainem has violated 3RR on Bitcoin, and shows a poor understanding of the edit warring policy in their comments above, even after being told about it on their page. Please read the linked edit warring policy, Kraainem. On the other hand, as Aoidh points out, Kraainem didn't continue to revert once they had been warned. Therefore, I'm not blocking for edit warring at this time, and letting them off with a strong warning about making personal attacks, as their comments about ChamithN above are completely unacceptable. Completely. If they weren't such a new user, they'd be blocked now. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: - did you block Kraainem after all? I'm a neutral party in this, coming by the bitcoin page. He was in good faith trying to CORRECT the incorrect information. The information now is absolutely false to the point it is laughable, and does not even match what is in the source. I don't approve of his comment above about ChamithN but I can see why he would be frustrated. I also don't understand why he was told Business Wire is an unreliable source because of a purported "conflict of interest" (never explained) - this whole situation was very shady. This is not the way to treat new editors. Wikimandia (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, Wikimandia, but that's getting a bit off-topic for this board, so I'll reply on your page. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

Users Toghuchar, Mehmeett21, and Uniquark9 reported by User:3family6 (Result: users blocked 3 days, page protected 1 week)

Page: List of Turkic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toghuchar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an ongoing RfC on the talk page, and all three users have been warned multiple times, and have been reported on this noticeboard before.

Comments: The article was protected for two weeks due to months-long pervasive edit warring. There is an RfC in progress, but there is no sign of any consensus being reached any time soon. After the protection on the article dropped, the edit war resumed once again. Right now I'm just trying to preserve the protected version, even though I disagree with some of the listings. I made few small changes for better clarity and in once instance to try and improve accuracy to help in resolving the dispute.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </ br>

I'm tagging Kansas Bear, Rajmaan, and Bishonen, since they've been involved in previous disputes regarding these editors and this page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time to look into this later. In the meantime, I'll ping Future Perfect at Sunrise and EdJohnston, who are well aware of recent issues, compare this section on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

It appears Uniquark9, who was previously reported for edit warring has now decided to edit war on this article as well. Is it time to end this nonsense? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Users on both sides of the edit war need to be dealt with for edit warring and refusing to discuss on the talk page. They've been warned repeatedly to stop it when they edit warred before page protection was added and then just started doing it again after the page protection lifted. Madyas was helping Mehmeett21 edit war before he got blocked for a week.Rajmaan (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Each user Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've also reinstated the full page protection for an additional 1 week. Swarm 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The page was restored to the contentious edit warred version by the banned User:Madyas. Is there any reason why you can't revert it to the January 18th version before the edit warring started?Rajmaan (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, done. Swarm 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sevvyan reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Protected)

Page: Boris Kalamanos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sevvyan

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (user is warned about edit warning) (user is informed of a request for third opinion)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (dispute on talk page is initiated)

Comments:

• This is nonsense. There has been no more than 1-2 reverts in this "dispute" that's going on for mere 2-3 days. The other party filed this report in bad faith, as a precaution after I warned him I would file one myself. On the "dispute": the other party is the sole opinion, and he never sought consensus to overturn my good-faith synthesis of two published works which, according to Jimbo Wales, is part of the legitimate role of Misplaced Pages.Sevvyan (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  

• "1-2 reverts"? I count the word "Undid" in edit summaries 7 times in the last 3 days. Both sides are guilty of failing to follow WP:BRD here, and so perhaps they can agree to something on the talk page for the week in which the article will not be editable. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87 reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: No action)

Page: January 2015 North American blizzard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knowledgekid87 (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:
There has been some back and forth reverting between three editors on the article in question as to whether the phrase " by The Weather Channel," should be included in the lead section. As of now, Knowledgekid87 is the only editor of the three who has violated 3RR. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This may be a technical violation, but the specific revert Knowledgekid87 reverted as the fourth revert listed by Inks.LWC above was by Calidum with whom it appears there was some sort of mutual agreement to remove. I understand that this was just between those two, but I still think this is nothing worthy of much more than a notice in my opinion (at least yet, on the part of Knowledgekid87). Dustin (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We reached an agreement on the talk-page and the bit that was contested was removed by me. Per WP:BRD the status quo should have been kept intact, since this report was done another editor has undone the weather channel bit as being WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROMOTION and this whole thing was a misunderstanding on what was removed in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the thread at Talk:January 2015 North American blizzard#The use of the TWC name in the first line is an endorsement of TWC. it seems that an agreement has been reached. The name 'Juno' will be kept in the lead but The Weather Channel will not be mentioned. If anyone believes there are still unresolved issues, consider opening an RfC or a DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Blocked)

Page: 24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Since February 21, he has reverted 12 times, despite being reverted by five editors, and basically had to be forced to the talk page.

Diff of first edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of second edit warring / 3RR warning:
Editor has also been warned by User:The Rambling Man: , with rather heated discussion following.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Jimthing feels he is right, that only the policy he favors applies, and that allows him to edit war and ignore other policy endlessly. He's been reverted by three editors, warned more than once, and the article has been page protected; nothing helps. He's determined that the one policy he wants to apply allows him the absolute right to ignore others, edit disruptively, ignore WP:3RR along with a number of other policies and generally WP:OWN the article. For an editor as experienced as he is, he demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of policies and practice, beginning with WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Drmargi (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You on the other hand are snow white. You continually edited against WP policy which I went to the trouble of quoting to you A NUMBER OF TIMES that negates the use of "U.S." on the page concerned, and haven't even bothered to comment on the DRN I opened accordingly. While also slandering me because another IP address user had left a comment, somehow giving you some right to accuse me of puppetry (with no evidence to back it up whatsoever!), saying rude comments like this "Sadly, the Brits never bother to understand how we us U.S. versus USA, then presume to tell us how to abbreviate the name of our own country." And then go on to delete comments that went against what you said, which is also in clear violation of WP policy on doing so. Pot calling kettle black? Jimthing (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimthing has made about 13 reverts on 'US' vs 'U.S.' at 24 (TV series) since 21 February. The *policy* on edit warring takes precedence over any guideline concerns, no matter who is right about the underlying issue. In my opinion Jimthing might be able to avoid a block for edit warring if he will promise to make no reverts on style questions (like U.S. vs US) for the next two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ed, you may want to look at Jimthing's 12 reverts in fewer than 24 hours (February 21, leading to a PP and, incredibly, no block by Sarek of Vulcan) at Better Call Saul, including his exchanges on its talk page and that of User:Drovethrughosts (see also the next edit, where Drovethrughosts asks him to stop harassment), the edit warring on my own talk page beginning here, and particularly the exchange with The Rambling Man linked above to see how he justifies the extensive edit warring for which he's been allowed to coast, and responds to previous efforts by multiple editors to stop his edit warring. He's out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and policy beyond the one lone guideline he's trying to push is simply an inconvenience to be ignored. --Drmargi (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My observation is that in this dispute, Drmargi has been less than kind and collegial toward Jimthing, engaging in ad hominem personal attacks that include accusing Jimthing of sock- and meat-puppetry as well as making prejudiced comments about British editors (which Jimthing is). Not to mention some of her snide edit summaries in Jimthing's direction. All of this, along with her own participation in edit warring over the article in question, has just put more fuel on the fire. Drmargi is far from innocent in this dispute. If any kind of sanctions or blocks result from this report, I think a boomerang just might be applicable. But, that's me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi those discussions were perfectly civil on my end, so trying to colour them bad is appalling behaviour yet again. "Harassment" as you call it, means removing my explanations from their talk pages in the middle of discussions, as a typical WP methodology of hiding previous conversation; hence why I added them back in order to at least attempt a civil discussion but instead being accused needlessly of "harassment" as an easy get out of discussing anything further. Just the same as you do on your talk page (and others), by selectively removing the parts of the conversation you feel don't suit your argument et several more. And not forgetting your exuberant pronouncements on what "I'm out to do" (i.e. ad hominem) rather than what I was actually doing, which was quite clearly editing according to the rules I listed clearly over and over, against which you simply ignored over and over again, to instead go with ad hominem comments like "the Brits never bother to understand how we us U.S. versus USA, then presume to tell us how to abbreviate the name of our own country." (clearly you see some nationalistic xenophobic pride here, or something equally ridiculous), and "restored his attack post this AM, which I've removed again, and will continue to remove it. Too bad he lacks the courage to discuss without attacking, much less to avoid logging on as an IP to level such a crass one. Meanwhile, he remains blinkered to WP:NOTUSA in his effort to make American English articles British" ('he' supposedly being me, despite words like "jerk" being used by that IP-only address user, a word a Brit would likely never use!), et al. I could go on, but I think I've made the point quite clear enough as to your appalling behaviour in the face of other users explanations as to exactly what they are editing and why. Jimthing (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. To avoid a block, Jimthing could have agreed not to revert any style changes for two weeks but didn't respond to my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrs_E_Nigma reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Golborne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrs_E_Nigma (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:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. That's...strange. Possibly a vandal but I'll assume good faith for now. If the problem persists let us know. Swarm 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Chemsdine-badouri (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

Page: List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. 14:55, 24 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Edit warring and POV pushing since 5 February 2015. Currently at 4 Reverts within less than 24 hours. No attempt to reach consensus. Chemsdine-badouri (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• A couple of hours ago, Drmies semi-protected this article for 14 days because of persistent sock-puppetry (and blocking Sidihmed (talk · contribs) per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student/Archive). And now we have someone on their very first edit to Misplaced Pages reporting someone here? What are the chances of that? Bencherlite 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Name corrected in the original report (should be "-toons", not "-Toons"). See also WP:ANI#Wikihounded by "newcomers". Bencherlite 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• The edits also appear to fall into the WP:3RR#EXEMPT for vandalism I'm also hearing a faint quacking noise getting louder .Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• What are your thoughts on his edit warring? Chemsdine-badouri (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I think you're a sockpuppet, let's see what happens with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student. Bencherlite 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked, a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, nothing wrong with Omar-toons edits. Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: (already there, currently)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. - user begins shouting, while reverting a 1st editor who removed a bad CSD tag
3. - still shouting, reverted a 2nd editor removing the CSD tag
4. - doesn't say it in the edit summary but is reverting a good faith edit
5. - still shouting, reverted myself (a 3rd editor) removing the CSD tag

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - which was removed by the user moments later

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Horror Story: Hotel#Contested deletion - discussion was started but LLArrow continued shouting at other editors and reverting to get his way despite being reverted by four other editors about a bad CSD tag.

Comments:
This is the third time LLArrow has been brought to this noticeboard. The user is well aware of the edit warring and 3RR policies.

• - the user seemed to acknowledge they were wrong just after they reverted 9 times and were about to face a block.
• - user once again admitted to being in the wrong, thus being let off the hook again.

This user continues edit warring and getting let off the hook. It's clear they have no intent to stop edit warring because they see they can get out of it just by apologizing once a 3RRN post about them is put up. Also notice the five reverts from today were within an hour's time, not just one day. I'm pinging @EdJohnston: as the closer of the most recent edit warring case on LLArrow. Gloss 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator(s), I may not have approached the situation correctly, but I have the right intention. The article needs to be deleted. Editor Gloss has a personal vendetta against me, therefore their comments should be taken with a plump grain of salt. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against you, I have something against your edit warring, which I've now come across for a third time. You don't have the right intention if you think yelling at other editors and reverting to get your way even during a discussion when 4 editors were reverting you is the right thing. Gloss 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume the worst. I am not yelling (which is literally impossible to do digitally), merely enforcing my actions or statements when they are constantly being ignored by reckless editors. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SHOUTING as I've linked to you already. Gloss 20:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you I've read anything you have, as far regulations and guidelines go. LLArrow (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So then you must agree you were unnecessarily shouting. I'll not comment further until an admin has taken a look here. Gloss 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Denver Stevenson reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result:blocked)

Page

User talk:Denver Stevenson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Denver Stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826617 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
2. 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826665 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826769 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
4. 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826872 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
5. 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826943 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
6. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827024 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
7. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827091 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
8. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827178 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
9. 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827211 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
10. 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827271 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps misusing talk page since he was blocked from editing elsewhere. I had taken this to ANI but I'm not seem to gain consensus so I decided to do such here. ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Patience. Your ANI report is less than 20 minutes old. As soon as an admin wakes up, it'll be dealt with rather quickly. --NeilN 19:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last good version:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: CBD and South East Light Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A M R Sydney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Page: Qutb Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101el capitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

User:DD2K reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

User:HanSangYoon reported by User:ColonialGrid (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

User:200.83.101.199 reported by Hafspajen (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

This IP started the whole exchange by telling me to that I am irritating and to grow up. What a good way to start a discussion, You provocative and annoying person grow? IP doesn't want to listen to any arguments , the only thing is happening as soon I leave a message, in ten seconds - IP just goes and removes it. I don't know what kind of interaction was that but this is not the way to act. That message was not only a warning but an explanation about what I was doing. When you start reverting people you SHOULD DISCUSS things with them and not remove each and every post non-stop like a machine. I was rewriting the text in the article. IP removed a different text from the article that was first removed, I was about to rewrite it to be less like a guidebook. I was adding references, I was working on the text and when I hit save three times the text was gone again and again and again - while I was working on it, with references and all. That text was not so bad that it need removed, with picture and everything, when it it could have been easily rewritten. I hoped that by involving an other editor we can now discuss this, at his-her talk. I reverted to last stable version- with a note -do not revert but discus- and was moving to the talk page - putting up a draft. And he reverts me again - HOW GREAT. Is this common sense, politeness, discussing and trying to reach a consensus? Hafspajen (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring