Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 2 March 2015

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

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

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Page is subject to 1RR

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

I don't object to closing this without action, as Huldra conceded the 1RR violation and self reverted. I do take issue with the claim that there was no relevant discussion - her second revert, in addition to removing the "advocacy" title also reverted all my changes related to the map interpretations in the lead, as I noted in the report .I have discussed those map interpretations extensively and that is what I linked to. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk · contribs) also fails to mention that I was never warned about this report. Editors can check my talk-page to see for themselves. The above "warning" was for an unrelated offence, where I had reverted a notorious vandal, and as such: was not sanctioned. Huldra (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

User:DePiep reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Users alerted)

Page: Template:Largest cities of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (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:

Page is subject to 1RR restriction, USer acknowledges reading the warning by deleting it from his talk page I actually agree with this user, but don;t condone 1RR violations, even by people on "my side"

1. See page Template:Largest cities of Israel: Three editors are acting in this against me within a short time span. I consider this single-editor acting (to the effect of conspiring), just relaying. The three editors are: I invented "it's not you, it's me", Gouncbeatduke, Flinders Petrie.

2. All three editors and I are involved in a talkpage discussion about the template. It even is an RfC. Sound editing says that this precludes any outcome injected in the article (template), but none did. What I did was restore the pre-RfC status.

3. The editors complaining are narrowing the topic to xRR only, without having a critical overview. I'd that is wikilawyering or nitpicking or so.

4. I request that the pre-EW situation be restored . I planned to raise this xRR issue myself to the same target I can say. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

5. The complaining editor first reported me here, then reverted the page into what I would do so myself. So I don't see the point of this report, except for beancounting and bad faith. What is the request, baby? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I have been brought into this and apparently implicated in edit-warring by DePiep, but I'll give some replies:

My only direct communication with Gouncbeatduke has been at-first sympathising with him after he received death threats from a deeply-troubled former editor, and then commiseration (nearer the bottom) after I received the same. In the case of the edit we're dealing with here, I just happened to agree with it, though I agree more with WarKosign's point raised on the resolution thread as I feel it's the best solution. I have never had any communication with I invented it's not you, it's me. There is no conspiring or anything else against you, but rather a disagreement that seems to have gotten out of hand.

You conflate my action regarding this specific edit with those of IIINYIM (sorry, not writing it out again) and Gouncbeatduke saying that you were violating 1RR when I have made no such claim nor have I tried to narrow it down to that or complain against you. I specifically said that I thought it did clarify things for people (and something else along those lines that got cut-off in the edit summary) and did not accuse you of anything and I did start a talkpage thread which has been linked here multiple times as per the suggestion in your edit summary. I felt that the RFC was about what we call Jerusalem here and so the details in the footnote—though briefly discussed between myself and WarKosign in a now-collapsed section—could be treated as a separate matter.

Also, even if he has made a serious accusation like this towards you, you should not call IIINYIM a "baby" as above and in the edit summary of the blanking of his notice, or a "nuisance" in your edit summary here as the former is very rude and the latter is a deeply insulting term as it implies the target has no value beyond being an annoyance.

Anyway, I would be happy to edit with you on more civil terms, but your current conduct towards me makes this difficult. I have asked you multiple times to stop assuming bad faith about me and I would prefer it if you were to deal with and explain our differences (as I truly don't understand them) on our user talkpages rather than tossing out unfounded accusations on the template talk page and edit-warring noticeboard. Also, sorry about all the links, but they were necessary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 10 Adar 5775 15:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what DePiep wrote, pre-EW article did not contain the statement that the user requests to "restore".“WarKosign” 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensile. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that WarKosign's point is easily understood. He's saying that the diff you put in your first reply made it look as if the statement about Jerusalem being disputed had been there all along until IIINYIM removed it and you wanted it put back, whereas the diff WK posted showed Gouncbeatduke's bold original addition which became the bone of contention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 10 Adar 5775 17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff given here about where the attempt to resolve the dispute took place is very dishonest, just like in the recently closed report (#User:Huldra reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Declined)) filed by the same user. The discussion took place at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote. The filer of the report actually didn't even write there but he just reverted, which he has done several times on other articles too. As the introduction here says: "your own behavior will also be scrutinized".

It is also dishonest to portray this as something in which I invented "it's not you, it's me" reports DePiep despite them agreeing and are on the same side, when DePiep has a different stance on the actual issue (including on the RfC on that page). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with DePiep on many issues, including the fundamental one re:Jerusalem, but on this issue, of whether or not we need an additional footnote on the template, I happen to agree with him. Nonetheless, he violated 1RR (note that he does not deny this in his lengthy response), and needs to be sanctioned, Re: "The filer of the report actually didn't even write there " - is belied by the diff I provided. Here is what I wrote there: "Interesting that you bring that up, as the Misplaced Pages article on ISIL lists Mosul as its largest city, with absolutely no qualifications of the kid being contemplated here for Jerusalem. Some consistency , please" I don't take kindly to liars, and neither should admins. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I was clear that I talked about Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote so don't call me a "liar". It was only after I pointed out this here that you wrote in that section (around ten minutes are you wrote this answer above). --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don;t get to pick and choose which subsection of the dispute you're going to refer to. I am an active participant in the discussion over there, and was active there long before this undisputed 1RR violation. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the link in "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute" is not correct. It wasn't discussed there but rather later, at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote. This is the diff of where the attempt to resolve the dispute is. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"you don;t get to pick and choose which subsection of the dispute you're going to refer to", what? How does that even work? He was clearly talking about Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote as he clearly states it as so in his original reply to you. So it's quite foolish to call him a "lair". AcidSnow (talk)

re I invented "it's not you, it's me" who writes: "note that he does not deny this in his lengthy response)". I did and do deny that. You are beancounting, I did "make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary".

And while I am here, I do not see how your "even by people on "my side"" observation would or could matter. And I don't see how you qualification "lengthy answer" matters. You claiming to know all and writings suggestions as undisputable facts is getting a nuisance. -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment DePiep says above "I don't see the point of this report, except for beancounting and bad faith." I would have to agree. This issue has already been resolve via talk pages with a POV tag on the section and an agreement to leave the template alone until the RFC is finished. There was no need for a Administrators' noticeboard report. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note Sent {{Alert}}s to involved users. I strongly recommend everyone take this to the template's talk page as this point. --slakr 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Binvoiler reported by User:Random86 (Result: 24h)

Page

Jessica Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "'dismiss' and 'kick out' are not synonyms."
2. 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "she used 'forced out' but that's too spicy for the people who sided with the label+group who are still in denial"
3. 05:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "there is a source source to check out icym"
4. 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "corrected misquoting, added new source"
5. 06:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "quote the phrase"
6. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649339255 by Random86 (talk) it's a different source for the first sns ost, not the official statement"
   2. 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "it's a well know grammar rule that a phrase should be quoted as a whole if it's reproduced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jessica Jung. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user continues to edit war with their preferred wording even after being warned. He/she will not start a discussion on the article's talk page and the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Random86#jessica forced out of snsd) didn't help. I have already reverted several times so I don't want to keep doing it, but he/she has since added questionable sources and inaccurate quotes to the article. Random86 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: Locked)

• Page: General Motors streetcar conspiracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Spearmind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

As you will see, this followed on my reverts, of his reverts, going back to reverts which are still open for discussion on the talk page, or on a noticeboard. The page has undergone a great many changes recently, but some of the changes were, IMO, not for the better. This has not gone to three reverts, BTW; I felt it best to bring it up here rather than join or start an edit war.

This was, and is being discussed both on the talk page ] and forward, on the RSN page ] and forward, and in a now dormant DRN discussion ]

Discussions seldom speak for themselves, certainly some of the other interaction on the GM Streetcar page has not, but I think you'll see that the above do.

I will notify Spearmind immediately after this edit.

Please excuse the template selection, it was all I could find; and forgive the ugly editing, it was the best I could do.Anmccaff (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No violation, in my opinion. Note that we have only just concluded a DRN discussion that I brought (see Archive 109 'talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy') and I am in discussion with the volunteer for that case, user:Bejnar and Spearmind with a view to bringing Anmccaff to the administrators board, see this section of Bejnar's talk page for details . I have also discussed Anmccaff's behaviour on Anmccaff's talk page in the past few days here and then here. Bejnar's time on WP is limited at present. I was awaiting his response but feel that we need to proceed without his input. Personally I would like to curtail extensive discussion on this board so that I (with the support of Spearmind and also of user:Trackinfo I believe) can bring a case for a 'topic ban' of Anmccaff to the administrator's board. It should not go unnoticed also that Anmccaff has not managed to do the basic formatting of his report above correctly, and has failed to use place recommended ('subst:an3-notice') template on Spearmind's talk page or linked from his talk page to this page in a useful way. I have also just noticed that he has started a thread on the reliable sources board here that mentions me by name but he didn't ping me, or alert me to the discussion either on my talk page on clearly on the article's talk page. Personally I think he needs to be given time out really soon! PeterEastern (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• To note that a 3d party has kindly fixed two of the formatting errors I mention above with this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• A question: is bringing up such outside material here appropriate? I neither wish to leave something that will be taken as fact if not refuted unanswered, nor to clutter this board with matters not germane to it. I think even a quick glance at the article, and the changes in the article, suggests that there is still a great deal of controversy over fact and POV; removing the warnings that...well, warn the reader of this is extremely premature.Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wished to bring the wider context of this report to the attention of people who will be responding to. I will now absent myself and let the process talk it's course. PeterEastern (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks a bit like preterition, especially after the DNR experience.Anmccaff (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the first diff that you refer to above links to an edit to the Space Patrol Delta article that neither you nor Spearmind appear to have edited? PeterEastern (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of. It was copied and pasted off of the article history, and appeared to work, once. Is it worth checking and fixing?Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I do concur that this issue is not an issue for this board. From what I have observed, Spearmind is making a diligent effort to try to sort through the sourcing and issues of the previously mentioned dispute. Not that there is any agreement on the content, but it seems most of us are aimed at a more neutral article, which the NOM seems to oppose. There is plenty of trouble with the article, but Spearmind does not seem to be the problem. Trackinfo (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you've effectively implied the exact opposite, though. If you describe a situation where there is a strong divide between some of the editors about what is fact and what is POV, and which are weak and which are strong sources, surely the warnings should stay in place.Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I have. If there were one editor on this article who has fought against a collegial attitude and has forced POV into the article, it would be Anmccaff. I have personally stopped trying to make little edits into the article because of the immediate reverts and potential of edit warring brought on by Anmccaff. The apparent futility in trying to remove POV forcing text by Anmccaff is why I posted the initial {{Disputed}} tag on the article. Trackinfo (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have also stopped editing the article due to the impossibility of achieving progress with Anmaccaff involved. This most recent edit to the article is impossible to respond to and it typical of why Trackinfo and I retired. Anmccaff is certainly fighting a one man battle here, and is devoting huge effort to this subject - I would estimated that over 80% of his last 500 edits have related to this subject, and I can't honestly point to any useful progress he has made with the article. This is why I am keen to impose a topic ban for long enough for the rest of us to work on the article. Anmccaff, is there anyone else who will support you on this accusation of edit warring? PeterEastern (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Given that there only two, three people editing at all? What better case could you make for some outside inspection?Anmccaff (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I'd like to note that

Regarding the lack of notice: I was pointing out where the editing changes began, not raising any issue with his edit. I would have expected my revert to be discussed, in the normal course of things, on the talk board. If this is wrong, please make any needed change.Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread which thread he was referring to. Won't a RSN mention automatically ping a user mentioned? Again, he was only mentioned in the context of being originally in the conversation, not as a participant in this part of it.Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. A brief question: Should the other stuff on this page be taken anywhere else in particular? As you probably saw, there are other issues.Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is WP:FORUMSHOP going on here? We have a DRN in progress, there is a ton of chaotic argument on the talk page. What we need is some coherence, rather than a chase. Trackinfo (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with things like FORUMSHOP and that they have their own shortcuts but it describes the situation very well. Sometimes it takes a certain amount of time to look through before able going back to work. What I can see is a one man dancing on many "marriages" the same time as we say. One or two days ago he started the case at the DRN board, shortly after the RSN Board and now we meet here not to count the subjects he started under far from neutral topic names "...not a good source" and so on, he even used user names in negative-touched topics. The "crowning event" today was that he added lots of dubious claims to several sentences in the article with no aim to discuss it on talk first. Delete first challenge later? A timeout for Anmccaff on this article would be helpful. It was like a ringing bell when he came up with terms like "conspiracy theorist" or variations against voices not representing his personal opinion. Also I did not see any constructive attempts by him making the article anything better. I'm open for constructive arguments in benefit of the article which is an interesting journey back in time but it makes me kind of angry when the articles "dinosaurs" lose their interest because one person overweighs his personal opinions in matters of content and also behaviour over majority.Spearmind (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To be accurate, he didn't start a DRN case, he simply attempted add a new section to the existing DRN but missed the first '=' resulting in something that was treated by the system as a new DRN and wasn't archived with my original report. That has now been cleared up and his section has now also been archived correctly. It is not really helpful to this process that @Bejnar: (our DRN volunteer) has not been online since Feb24 and has therefore been unable to comment on the drama's for the past few days. I agree re Forumshopping. PeterEastern (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayup, it's always nice to sit down here of an evening, soak up the collegial atmosphere, and feel the waves of assumed good faith radiating about...

Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• As the DRN volunteer, in my opinion the DRN here has gone as far as it can in bringing the parties together. Some content issues were resolved, but understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines by some parties was insufficient. Often rather than address the issue Anmccaff would go off on another track, or try to bring in behavioural issues inappropriate at DRN. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Purely for the record, I'd like to observe that the other editors brought in almost nothing but what they saw as behavioral issues. (The only questions about sources were aimed at ones which one of them himself had added.) Viewing the early versions of the dispute will clearly show that, and that several requests for clarification about that were, frankly, ignored. It is rather much to expect someone to completely ignore a bunch of inappropriate, scurrilous commentary simply because it was placed before the moderator arrived; if it has no place, it should have been removed, and passed on to a different moderator.

That said, I think Bejnar was helpful in clarifying the possibility of equivocation with terms such as "conspiracy theorist," and going past that would be more a job for the editors rather than the moderator.

Anmccaff (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

23 editor 3rr violation (again) (Result: Malformed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Kolubara&action=history (I'm editing from a mobile phone so I can't post normally.)--VS6507 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Perhaps you should wait until you can edit "normally", post the required notice at the reported editor's Talk page, and then be embarrassed to be involved in this "nationalistic" battle about a battle. My god, who gets first billing? This belongs in Hollywood.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

23 editor also hasn't violated 3RR, VS6507: they've reverted 3 times, not 4, which is what a 3RR violation is: more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Try to warn them before they add the fourth revert (and then we'll hope they won't). Bishonen | talk 17:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

User:62.253.57.164 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: IP and registered account blocked)

Page

List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649393496 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
2. 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649286867 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
3. 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649280576 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
4. 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please kindly see the articles provided, as per all 'Honours'. Undid revision 649274648 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
5. 20:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "The second placed articles are linked, as in the same way the first place articles are. Undid revision 649265036 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
6. 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "I see no eason why you should object to factual and cited information being listed. The article is open to the addition of such information. Undid revision 649260274 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
7. 18:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Runners-up medals are included for most other teams. Can you direct to this consensus please? Undid revision 649259051 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
8. 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Open a discussion if you object. Thanks. Undid revision 649258085 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
9. 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not vandalise. Undid revision 649256253 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
10. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) to 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* European */"
    2. 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* League */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Far too many reverts without either discussing the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the IP account of Bbx118, who is also reverting edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk • contribs)

• Blocked the IP and Bbx118 for one week each. RealDealBillMcNeal, you should have notified not just the IP but also Bbx118 of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I only found out about Bbx118 after I'd made the reports, chief ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand it was an addition, but once you added the user, you should have notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "rv per long-standing consensus and sources provided"
2. 21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "there is no consensus for this"
3. 21:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "rv to last good version; vandalism"
4. 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649272502 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) that's not a citation, that's a wikilink"
5. 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649262283 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) I see no citations, plus consensus is still against you"
6. 18:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649259937 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) that's not my job, and please respect WP:BRD if you want to make changes to this Featured List"
7. 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649258295 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) there is a long-standing consensus not to include runners-up"
8. 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649257851 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) please don't add content that is not approved by consensus"
9. 18:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "no thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Far too many reverts without discussion. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing on the talk page of the anon who keeps reverting me. Furthermore, my edits are supported by consensus, as you will see I have continually attempted to tell the anon. Still further, the anon has not provided any sources for their edits, nor are their edits supported by any existing sources in the article, which is prima facie grounds for reversion. – PeeJay 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. You'd think with the editor's extensive block log for edit-warring, they would actually understand policy, but apparently not. The length of the block is directly related to the previous blocks and their durations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ramdiesel reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: Blocked)

Page

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649309618 by Huon (talk)"
2. 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Does not reflect what was disscused on the talk page"
3. 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Actual article include reliable links"
4. 23:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "According the talk page, rewrite the article to reflect the truth"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. (TW)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Edit-warring
2. – n, where n is a very large number: innumerable attempts, particularly by Huon and WikiDan61, to reason with this and other similar, though differently-named, editors.

Comments:

This editor shows no sign of being here to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to promote a particular view of a questionable Costa Rican university, a view widely different from that reported in the few available sources. Interminable talk page explanation and discussion has got exactly nowhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:Kasparjust (Result: No action)

Page

Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

this user is making many edits without any real reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasparjust (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:07, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
2. 19:13, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
3. 19:15, 18 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
4. 10:28, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
5. 19:50, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• I think this user's acting in good faith and I'm sure they have a "reason" for what they're adding to the article, please assume good faith and be accepting of other editors' efforts. That being said, they were given a warning on their talk page and continued to edit war, and they haven't made any real effort to discuss their proposed change on the talk page, so a block for that is warranted. Swarm 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oops. I totally got this report mixed up with the one below. My mistake. No violation. Report appears to have been made in bad faith. Swarm 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kasparjust reported by User:Yagmurlukorfez (Result: 24h)

Page: Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kasparjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Violation of 3RR. User keep reverting the old revision of the page with no reason. User restoring non-english sourced content that removed by me. Sources are in Russian internet sites which is not even reliable. Therefore it's been removed. The issue is explained in the article's talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User reverted the page again after his report about me.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649509222&oldid=649346904
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649401216&oldid=649372296
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649509222&oldid=649420709

and same revert first made by IP 89.165.96.162 probably related with user Kasparjust:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=647728152&oldid=647609453

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 20:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:d:a500:2a1:d93b:a427:b670:6bbf reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24h)

Page: Minnie Miñoso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:d:a500:2a1:d93b:a427:b670:6bbf (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: My talk page

Comments: This is a dispute about Minnie Miñoso's year of birth. It's given in most sources as 1925, but may indeed have been 1922, as Miñoso may have attempted to shave off three years to appear a better prospect. However, all obits posted following his death yesterday go by 1925 as the year of birth, and we should follow suit. Verifiability, not truth. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit reported by User:Collect (Result: )

Page: Project for the New American Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: et seq

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. long sequence ending 08:32 2 March started at 23:30 1 March with and many intervening edits
2. 08:52 2 March
3. 12:08 2 March
4. 12:14 2 March
5. 16:28 2 March

Notice given after his response was "Aren't you playing it a little loose with the definition of a "revert"?The top diff is a copy edit.Are suggesting that the last edit was a revert because I took out a source that I put in and copy edited the text?" Note the "top diff" is a sequence of , , , , , , etc. comprising more than "I copy edited the text" indeed by a mile . Say by close to 10,000 characters of revert, and all of these are well under 24 hours (first was 23:30 on 1 March) Collect (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Typo in notice fixed at . Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (actually many messages within 24 hours) Notified at his response: "Be my guest" Collect (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Comments:

Offered him a chance to self-revert with warning. Note also an edit war notice on I/P regarding his edits at Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its talk page from Precision123. given an ArbCom DS notice from Robert McClenon on 17 Feb. Ubikwit is under an ArbCom Topic Ban on I/P except for seven articles. notified by Callanecc Washington Institute is not on his allowed edit list, and if that article connects to I/P sanctions, then he may be in violation there as well. Just off an edit war warning from Johnuniq

just responding saying "these are not reverts." Problem is the first one was end of a sequence of many reverts amounting to many thousands of characters. Not a mere "copy edit" IMO. Telling him now. Collect (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• First response

First, one has to look at the edit history of the PNAC article and this Talk thread opened just today, because Collect has been deleting large amounts of text from the article, trying to transform it into a POV screed against 9/11 conspiracy theories because British MP Meacher was quoted. Almost all of the text I restored today had been removed by Collect, basically against consensus, at the very least without consensus as a BOLD edit. The only text I added to the article today was a copy edit to the lead after adding sources for the table and discovering in the processes that the lead only covered PNAC members that had served in an official capacity in the Bush administration, whereas there were also many that served in an advisory capacity.

Second, a content dispute related to the table that I restored had been through the processes of a BLP/N thread with consensus giong against Collect and him refusing to defend his position at the end of the thread. I linked that thread on the Talk page today when I posted the sources for the table.

I don't know if my understanding of a revert has gone awry, but I don't think that a couple of the diffs he presents represent reverts, as per my reply on my UT page. And in fact, earlier in the day when I made a revert to leave a BRD message in an edit summary I worried that I might be getting into 3rr territory with this deletion, and self-reverted a minute later after a quick look over the days history for my edits.

As an aside, note that Collect has been opening redundant threads on the same topic keeping me busy, with one open thread at BLP/N to which he has not responded to the last comment, and two at NPOV/N on the same topic, basically. And he has been editing against consensus of all those threads with respect to the conspiracy theory angle he has been trying to push. In fact, I didn't even notice the "See also" and category he added for "9/11 conspiracy theories", which was against consensus. He added a slew of other categories a couple of days earlier that had been deleted, but I hadn't noticed the "9/11 conspiracy theories" addition. I see now that @Fyddlestix: didn't delete that category when he deleted the others, but it was added a day before he started editing the articlehere, and Fyddlestix subsequently opposed transforming the article into a conspiracy theory coatrack, basically.

• at any rate, when I finally got around to searching sources for the table from the already closed BLP/N thread, this other maelstrom was already newly underway, but as I said, I don't believe that two of the edits are reverts (I could be wrong), and one of the others I'd already self-reverted.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have precisely a total of 19 edits out of the last 250 edits on the article. Ubikwit has 22 in one day. I presented him with a clear chance to self- revert - he not only declined, he asked for this report. And once again, he blames everyone else for his battleground mentality - for which he has a few current topic bans, a near-banning from WP:AN/I and a number of warnings from multiple editors and admins on his talk page. Cheers - but I think the problem might possibly lie with the person who was nearly banned, and who has multiple current topic bans. Collect (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Now you're adding a personal attack to the mix.

As I said above, twice already, I may be wrong about those edits of mine involving copy edits and additions, with the removal of a source I added myself, not being reverts.

Counting edits, considering that I added numerous sources one at a time, and then fixed refcite errors, etc., is not a meaningful statistic, and is irrelevant to the discussion. The content of the edits is, however, meaningful.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a very polite warning, and asked you to self-revert. You took umbrage at doing any such thing. Any edit which affects edits made by others counts as a revert, as has now been explained to you a few times. Even if you only change a word or the like. In the case at hand, there is no way one can so count your edits that you did not reach 4RR, period. Nor can you assert "but my content was meaningful" as an excuse here. And I trust you will understand I have no personal animus here against you. Nor do the others who have posted on your talk page about your behaviour bear you personal ill-will. Please have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Diff 3 + 4 is followed by a self revert within a minute. So what's left?TMCk (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to talk here? I was summoned by Ubikwit's ping. I'm not exactly defending Ubikwit but it might be worth noting that Collect and him have a major ongoing argument that has spilled across multiple articles and noticeboards, and that Collect has basically been goading Ubikwit into making reverts with WP:POINTy edits like this and this, in which he's adding more of the material he opposes to the article. Neither editor is squeaky clean here. Sorry if I'm out of line to comment here, I'm pretty new to this stuff so please don't bite me! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring