Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 13 March 2015

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

There is no limit of three reverts on Misplaced Pages.

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

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

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

Correct. I was addressing your claim that there's no limits on reverts. But you are edit warring. To quote WP:EW, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Blocked indefinitely (Tagging for archival) Swarm... 03:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User CorporateM has started the edit war on Sageworks page, despite the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Declined. (Tagging for archival purposes) Swarm... 03:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR (Result: Both blocked)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

• Note. Both warriors blocked for 48 hours. More detail in the report just above this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Already blocked. (Tagging for archival purposes) Swarm... 03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

A different previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk: Metric prefix#Misleading edit

Comments:

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

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

• Already blocked. (Tagged for archival purposes) Swarm... 03:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Page: Donors Trust
User being reported: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

6. (4th revert in 24 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FURTHER INFO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page: Gegard Mousasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Ihye1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gegard Mousasi#Biography, plus user's talk page

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

history which speaks for itself

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

I've watchlisted the article to see if they resume their edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:New England Cop (Result: No action)

Page: Zalman Schachter-Shalomi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Malik Warning to IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a slow motion edit war between Malik Shabazz and the IP 173.73.23.229. While the letter of the law has not been violated certainly the spirit of the law has been. (This is my first time making this manner or a report. I apologize if I have failed to fill it out entirely and correctly.) New England Cop (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Malik Shabazz has not violated any policy; certianly not 3RR or anything of that nature. May I ask:

1. Why are you reporting this supposed edit war, when you were not involved in it?

2. If you cared so much about it, why are you not trying to resolve the issue on the article's Talk page?

-- Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP is clearly inserting highly controversial information sourced with non-reliable sources. Someone needs to revert it. The spirit of the law is to improve the encyclopedia. That is what Malik Shabazz is doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked. Your report is appreciated, NEC, and I certainly don't find it unreasonable; I think you worded the issue rather well and it is arguably a slow-moving edit war. And, just to be clear, any uninvolved user is welcome to bring up a report here. However I don't think this particular incident is disruptive or severe enough to warrant any administrator intervention. The IP was trying to make a change, which Malik disputed while giving a clear reason, both on the IP's talk page and in the edit summary. Malik directed the IP to the article's talk page, but the IP has made no effort to discuss their proposed changes, and instead has just continued to edit war over it. Because of this, I can't particularly hold Malik's actions against him. In fact, I think he handled himself pretty well. He had the power to block the editor or protect the page, but he restrained himself and merely reverted the IP. I don't think that's all that unreasonable on his part. No harm in asking for an uninvolved review of the situation though, your concern is appreciated! Best, Swarm... 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Swarm, for your thoughtful reply. I agree with this outcome, tho perhaps the IP should be formally warned about any future edit warring? Maunus and Softlavender, during my law enforcement career I always thanked and encouraged uninvolved civilians when they reported a crime or concern that they were not personally involved with. Does Misplaced Pages require me to be personally involved in every subject before bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities? Moreover, we NEVER asked them to get involved before making a call to 911 and reporting a situation. New England Cop (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it is fine to report things without being involved. But rather than reporting problems it is always better to participate in solving them through consensus building at the page where a problem is observed. When an edit war like this happens, stepping in as an uninvolved mediator is the best help you can give. Reporting issues is generally reserved for egregious problems that has proven not to be possible to solve through collaboration, and which requires some kind of administrative action. Our policies are not laws to be enforced in the same way that laws are in society, they are helping guidelines that help us in building an encyclopedia together. This means that reporting an infringement of policy is not to be done just to get the person who did it punished, but rather to solve an issue that cannot be amicably solved through discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There's some confusion here. You are offering instructions about mediation and such that I can find nowhere on this page. I thoroughly read the instructions here and came across nothing of what you describe. New England Cop (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this page tells you how to report people if they you need intervention. It doesnt tell you when not to request intervention. That knowledge comes from understanding how wikipedia is a collaborative project based on consensus building, and from knowing the Basic values and principles we operate under (look particularly under the last two pillars: No firm rules, and consensus building). I am sure similar things exist in law enforcement, the knowledge of when not to arrest someone, is probably not written in to the manuals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything we do in LE is documented. Going with your gut or gestalt isn't good police work. I'll bring up violations to the authorities and not go vigilante as you might want me to. New England Cop (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not law enforcement, and we dont do police work here. And really we have no authorities either, just some people with mops to clean up messes. Participating is not vigilantism it is collaborating to build an encyclopedia which is what this project is about. It requires discussing how to do things. ANd the philosophy of the project is that the outcomes of discussions are better when more people participate. I think you may want to rethink the law enforcement angle here on wikipedia, it really doesnt work that way. Maybe you should rather thing of it as building a house together: if you see two other bricklayers arguing about how to make the wall, then stepping in and giving a suggestion on how to overcome the problem they have is going to get the house built quicker than running to the foreman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how to build a brick wall. If the masons were arguing I definitely wouldn't try to get involved. My first stop would be to the foreman. New England Cop (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just remember that what matters here is getting the wall built and that that is what we try to do together, the only valid reason to be here. The rules and policies are here to help us get the wall built, nothing else. SO for example even if Malik Shabazz had broken the 3rr rule he might not have been sanctioned, because what he was doing was clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia, whereas the insertion of controversial bad information and the IPs failure to discuss when approached by others was a problem for the encyclopedia. We dont use rules punitively, only preventively. And if it is against the encyclopedias best interest we dont use the rules at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Xanthis (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Glengarry Glen Ross (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ]
2. ]
3. ]
4. ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

] ] ]

Comments:

LawrencePrincipe deleted some material on the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page which is the subject of an open RfC, complaining that it violated WP:LEDE wiki style guidelines. I reverted the edit and asked him to discuss the matter (both on his user talk page, and on the article talk page) offering possible solutions that would satisfy his style concern while the RfC was open and explaining why, in my opinion, it was important that the material remain visible until the RfC was closed -- particularly so that less experienced editors (such as myself) could easily examine the disputed references and also in the hope that the "failed verification" citation notes would attract editors to the talk page during the remaining time of the RfC.

I offered several suggestions for how his WP:LEDE concern could possibly be addressed during the remaining week of the RfC. He will not consider any alternatives, and insisted that his deletion must stand.

He threatened to close the RfC himself -- which he then did ("per WP:SNOWBALL"). ]

He has accused me of edit warring. I am not very familiar with Wiki policy is on edit warring (this is my first time on a AN; perhaps I am calling fire down upon myself!) but to my mind it doesn't seem right that he will not stop his deletions or discuss possible solutions . . . or that he would unilaterally close an RfC in retaliation.

I look to you all for guidance. Xanthis (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the situation and I've found that user's behavior to be absolutely unacceptable. Falsely citing policy, closing an RfC where he was involved, blatantly misjudging consensus, edit warring over something that's being actively discussed, and then turning around and having the audacity to warn you for edit warring, unbelievable. You can see my comments at his talk page as well. The RfC closure has been overturned by a different admin. Given that there's not only edit warring but other disruptive behavior in play here, Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm... 06:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:28, 12 March 2015
2. 22:31, 12 March 2015
3. 01:30, 13 March 2015
4. 02:05, 13 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first two diffs are a series of edits to revert back to a previous lead. They should therefore count as one "revert." The other two are me reasserting that the material shouldn't be on the page. All the reverts had to do with:

1. Reintroducing sourced content that provided context to the lead and was originally removed by an IP editor whose apparent motivation is the make the article an attack page.
2. Getting rid of a sentence that (at best) was poorly worded and biased to the point of violating wp:BLP. This was clearly explained on the the talk page. AbuRuud (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2 are contiguous edits, thus counting as a single edit, - thus just hitting 3RR at worst - but the edit they reverted is from an IP in any event. Ubikwit has made two specific and separate reverts on non-IP edits here, and should be warned, as should AbuRuud as I am unsure that calling a small group a "cult of personality" centered on one person is a contentious claim about that specific person -- if so, then such claims should be considered a BLP violation in themselves, and anyone restoring that language would be the violator. Collect (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I also notice a lack of the required warning - a minor but fatal oversight when making an edit war complaint, if I recall correctly? Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The policy explicitly states, "A warning is not required".

If you're going to follow me around and suggest that I be warned for no good reason, you should at least read the policies beforehand.

Regarding the claim about "contiguous edits", that does not seem to be correct, either. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sniffdafanny reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page

Everton F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Crest */"
2. 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Revert. Original Latin translation"
3. 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105255 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
4. 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105620 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
5. 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "I added some new information"
6. 21:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This isn't edit warring, it's just persistent vandalism. It's not like the user has a different opinion about the topic. He is changing the translation of the team's motto (Nihil satis nisi optimum) from "Nothing but the best" to "No goals this season". That's just vandalism. And it has been repeatedly reverted. The user is currently reported at WP:AIV for vandalism past a level 4 warning, as well as spam (two article creations that were clearly promotional) and an offensive user name. I think the AIV people will resolve the issue and no action need be taken here. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also , , , . So if I breached then so did Wikidan! Sniffdafanny (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR clearly states an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, which this was. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SDF, it's not going to help your case by acting immaturely. While I also believe your edits to be disruptive, if you truly believe your version is correct, you should bring it up on the talk page first rather than edit war. - Amaury (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for vandalism. Also, repeated creation of spam articles and offensive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:142.129.113.158 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Provided a more balanced representation of conventional wisdom on the frequency of false rape accusations. Gave more credence to those who cite the false rape numbers at 8% by naming the FBI specifically instead of "others"."
   2. 05:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "removed the paraphrase of Michelle Anderson as it has no citation and is merely anecdotal, intentionally vague and in no way authoritative as mentioned at length on the talk page."
   3. 05:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "removed and others, too vague and doesn't contribute."
   4. 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "deleted the sentece, "Studies have found that police typically classify between 1.5 and 8% of rape...." it has no citation, sources and anonymously discredits itself"
   5. 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   6. 05:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 05:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   8. 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 08:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651007305 by EvergreenFir (talk) So you undid everything else why? Why did you bring back the Michelle Anderson quote? Why did you delete the FBI source?"
   2. 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Deleted DOJ 2% statistic it has no citation anywhere and I can't find this figure on the internet..."
   3. 06:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 06:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Gave context to the sentence"
   5. 06:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "deleted or more. they say 8% not more."
   6. 07:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   7. 08:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "changed False to unfounded for FBI. No reason given for retaining Michelle Anderson quote or unfounded 1.5 - 8% figure so deleted them. We have to be Scientific not politically correct..."
   2. 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
5. 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on False accusation of rape. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Figures without citation */"

Comments:

Violated 3RR after warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:The Destroyer Of Nyr reported by User:Yerevani Axjik (Result: indef)

Page: Party of Democratic Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The user had been already blocked for edit warring on 2 March 2015, and unblocked on 10 March 2015. He received warning from an administrator that if he continues with edit warring he would be blocked. He got this warning on 10 March 2015, as you can see on the reported user's talk page. Still, he continues to revert edits calling them "vandalism" (and they obviously aren't - those were very well sourced informations, like you can check in the history of mentioned articles) and "neo-nationalist" (what ever that means) "propaganda".

Also, the reported users calls Serbs - Chetniks, a historical group from the World War II that has really complex history and it's an offensive term. .

Hello. Obviously, the user doesn't know what they are talking about. They insist a referendum is illegal because it did not have 66% turnout, although voters were physically blocked from participating by the military. Also, he insists on calling Serb and Croat writers with a murky biography reliable sources. And he also called muslims "Wahhabis", another controversial term, if we are talking about these things already. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The user also violate 3RR several times, on https://en.wikipedia.org/Party_of_Democratic_Action and https://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_independence_referendum,_1992 (after having a warning on their talk page already). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Destroyer, look. I don't (I don't know who are they) insist on anything. I used reliable sources - namely, from the International Law Reports published by the Cambridge University (Bosnian independence referendum). I have never, not once used any Serb writer in any of the mentioned articles. I did however used one Croat writer, one Bosnian Muslim writer and two British as well as one Italian writer. Still, you labeled this Bosnian Muslim author a "Yugoslav communist", which he obviously isn't (even if he was or is, it doesn't mean anything, it's ad hominem attack). And nobody ever refered to Muslims as wahhabis, although, there is a branch of Islam called wahabbism... so...

And, no. I reverted you only once, after which I started a discussion at the talk page. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only are your sources laughable, but also your way of thinking. Concluding that a referendum was illegal because it did not have 66% turnout for the sole reason of voters being physically prevented by military from voting says a lot. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are basically building the entire rest of the article assuming that idea. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's what the source says, not me. Also, not any source mentions what percent of voters was physically prevented from voting. This is not a discussion about article. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a discussion about the article, but as that article is the subject of dispute, it must obviously be mentioned. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article and nobody removed anything from the article - except you. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you are building the entire rest of the article on the base of that claim. All the paragraphs about how the referendum was illegal are directly countered, negated and annuled by that fact. Also, this report should be the opposite way around, if anything. You continued vandalising even after having been warned, and seemed completely oblivious to any calls or attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page. I tried to act in good faith, but cooperation requires two people. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I continued vandalising after being warned what sir? I haven't edited not a single article involved in edit warring. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You did, I warned you for edit warring on these articles. Check your talk page. And don't try to delete it now, it would be too obvious. Also, you did not even respond to it, or to the previous vandalism warning, which says a lot about your will to cooperate. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Check my edit history. I can't delete that. Check the time you "warned me", and check the time since then in my edit history (contributions). --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I have only tangentially been involved with the focus of User:The Destroyer Of Nyr's editing, but I've seen enough of what happened to have some idea. From what I've seen, his main way of editing is to make changes to reflect his preferred point of view, which involves mainly removing sourced information and replacing it with information - perhaps also sourced, but not always to equally reliable sources - that suits him better. He claims he is removing unreliable sources or other incorrect information in his edit summaries, while that may certainly be up for debate. If you look at his edits since he was unblocked, the vast majority of it has been this kind of editing; since being unblocked, he has removed more content from Misplaced Pages than he has added. Any attempt to restore the removed content is then simply undone with "vandalism", which reveals another of his editing traits: anyone going against him must be a vandal, and therefore all means are warranted to stop it, including edit warring. To be honest, given that the admins involved in his block were very clear that they wouldn't unblock, yet he got another chance from a very lenient administrator who made it clear he was on a short leash, I'm baffled that the user has continued to display the same behaviour he was initially blocked for. Clearly, the user does not understand the reason for being blocked, or simply doesn't care and thinks his own personal goals are more important. Thus, it seems that he is not here to help Misplaced Pages, and I believe the block should be reinstated and no further chances given. CodeCat (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And I believe you have nothing to do in this dispute. I do not see that you have any kind of authority to talk on this subject, especially not telling admins what to do, or calling them lenient. Please return to your own matters, not stop by and cheer for someone in a case that obviously has, not even in theory, anything to do with you. This paragraph above is a purely subjective hate-spew. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Destroyer - you do not read your sources at all. You just paste various links around, so me and other users must read them whole just to tell you you read them wrong. I'm getting sick and tired of this. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs) is an obvious edit-warrior who is not willing to cooperate. An admin gave him a last chance – he has not changed his approach. --Zoupan 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems we have an entire bandwagon here? Obviously, some people have a problem when your POV doesn't match theirs. Also, I was perhaps TOO compromising in constantly calling the user to discuss the matter on the talk page and only mildly warning them, when it seems I should have taken the step he took first. This is simply an attempt of a group of people with an obvious objective (just check their talk pages and contribs, you will find quite a link between them) to change history. Luckily, the entire world knows what happened and is happening, so nobody believes that sort of ludicrous, unsourced propaganda anymore. Also, I am getting the feeling we might need a Misplaced Pages arbitration on some important facts soon, because it appears that, every day you check certain pages, it seems a whole different history happened than yesterday. Somebody should seriously consider this.The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not read them wrong. This is exactly the reason I warned you - DISTORTION of content. You seem to interpret sources and texts in the way it best suits your agenda. Anyone reading your edits on Party of Democratic Action and Bosnian independence referendum, 1992 can clearly see that. Having a POV obviously is not a problem, it is natural, manipulating sources to match it, however, is. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. It's pretty clear to see that this user was blocked indefinitely for long-term edit warring, was given a "last chance" unblock, and pretty much immediately continued edit warring after being unblocked. I really don't see any other option at this point. Swarm... 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Moorrests reported by User:Sunrise (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: any version without the contentious statement in the lead - the most recent is .

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (24 January)
2. (25 January)
3. (10 February)
4. (11 February)
5. (4 March)
6. (5 March)
7. (6 March)
8. (7 March)
9. (7 March)
10. (10 March)
11. (11 March)
12. (12 March)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The same sources were discussed at Talk:Alhazen#Excess citations - some edit warring took place at Alhazen also.

Comments:

The user is edit warring against multiple other users to insert their preferred content into the lead of Science. The first few diffs are from January and February, as are the linked discussions in which they initially tried to talk. After they couldn't find a consensus for inclusion, they returned to try and force the content in, especially over the past week, trying to say that the previous discussion supported their opinion.

There is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. I'm not necessarily requesting a block - anything that resolves the repeated reversions would be good. Protection would not be ideal, as productive editing is continuing while this is taking place. Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been no actual violation of three-revert rule here though I see there is an ongoing content dispute issue, all I can see is that User:J8079s is heavily implicated and the two editors have been equally responsible for the activities these past two weeks, so perhaps that editor's actions need to be looked into as well. Note that I am not party to this debate and have not looked into the logistics or any discussions on the matter. --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very much an asymmetric situation. J8079s reverted the majority of the 12 edits I cited above, but there are three of us who have done so - several more if you count the reversions at Alhazen - and even more who have commented in the talk discussions. Nobody other than Moorrests has been attempting to add the content. Sunrise (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging those editors who have reverted or opposed the edits: J8079s, Mikenorton, Ninmacer20, Dmcq, William M. Connolley, Johnuniq, and the one editor (Ancheta Wis) who I think is neutral. Sunrise (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear case of edit warring by the user. Swarm... 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haxz.999 reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: No action)

Page: WrestleMania 31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haxz.999 (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: Not available

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Also appears to be insulting other users and claiming that YouTube is a reliable source. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined What the hell are you guys doing over there?? While being "right" isn't an edit warring policy exemption, this content dispute is so ridiculous I'd say it mitigates the situation a bit. No, Youtube itself is not automatically considered a reliable source, but in this case the source isn't merely "Youtube", the source is a video hosted on WWE's official channel on Youtube. Ergo, it's official and can pretty safely be considered a reliable primary source of information. The user's clearly the one being insulted, and the information is being reverted with absolutely ridiculous rationales such as "not being a text resource", "need to use an official source" (ignoring the fact that it is still an official source), "YouTube isn't considered a reliable source" (but it can be), "Until it says so on WWE.com this is NOT confirmed" (according to whom??)...Here's another official source that was cited, and again reverted because it's not "WWE.com". Try to use some common sense here, guys, these are verified official social media accounts, don't you think it's possible that they might announce new information on those platforms before updating the website to reflect it? Or do you just think they're lying on their social media accounts for no reason? Which seems more likely? There's no blanket ban on using Youtube or Twitter as sources, obviously they're not ideal but they can certainly be a source of information if the accounts providing the information are verified as to be official. Again, it's a matter of common sense in situations like these, and the users who have been reverting the addition of this information have woefully failed to exercise this common sense, to the disruption and detriment of the project. I'm sure as hell not going to block this editor who was being reverted for absolutely no valid reason. Swarm... 02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:X1942 reported by User:Amaury (Result: three socks indeffed)

Page

Alan Hochberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

X1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651097051 by Amaury (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to remove sourced information with no explanation or elaborate explanation as to why. Amaury (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked three sock puppets indefinitely. Amaury, you need to be a bit more elaborative when filing a report of this kind. On its face, it looks screwy to see one revert listed. I actually looked first at the one edit by the reported user and was still mystified. It was only when I looked at the edit history did it suddenly become clear. I also semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Will do. Apologies, @Bbb23. - Amaury (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. (Reverted from )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Before the first revert the user already stopped responding on the Talk Page about the dispute. The user falsely (attacked me?-)accused me of "has repeatedly deleted a section agreed upon in the talk section" despite the talk section showed otherwise . The user has been edit warring for a few months with other users. I will admit that I did revert an edit 4 times within a 66 hour period - but it was with an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Just realized an active discussion on ANI

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring