Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 20 February 2019

• 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:汉族公民最 reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: both warned)

Page: Jamie Chua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 汉族公民最 (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 continues to make nonconstructive edits to the article, even after I tried to discuss the matter on their talk page and the article talk page. They have accused me of WP:Ownership. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please admins judge who say right, this user is trying hard to avoid of understanding the fact, he think since he has created the article, he is owner of that!!!!!汉族公民最 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• By my count you are both at 3 reverts, so both are warned that any further reverts may result in a block. @汉族公民最: I suggest you discuss at Talk:Jamie Chua where Willthacheerleader18 has begun a thread. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Blamen1 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Various)

Page

Kalash people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Blamen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "I did discuss. And I just checked this source was removed soon after it was added, it was removed many times after that."
2. 11:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "I did and explained how I discovered it unreliable, I read it. You offer no disputation."
3. 10:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Sorry lost my password. But you have offered nothing disputing what I said. Please don't add an unreliable source with conspiracy theories and fake claims that's been removed her before too."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kalash people. (TW)"
2. 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kalash people. (TW)"
3. 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883750706 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
4. 11:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kalash people. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I told him repeatedly to discuss the matter in the talk page. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

He left out the part that I did discuss it at talk page. Didn't dispute it. The source he keeps adding back was removed many times in past which I checked. It is unreliable. I tried to explain but he doesn't stop adding it back. So what am I supposed to do? Blamen1 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

One cannot initiate a talk and keep reverting the article simultaneously. The religion section had been discussed extensively in the past here and here, but the Minahan source (to which user Blamen has objected) has been kept. For example here: here. I even asked Blamen to communicate with the users involved in the discussion here in the article talk page.

I would request @Kautilya3:, @Anupam:, @NadirAli:, @Mar4d: to look into the matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor has not crossed 3RR, and they made a detailed post on the talk page. So I can't see any applicable sanction. Blamen1, please read WP:BRD and follow it. When the issues are contentious, you need to go slow and allow WP:CONSENSUS to develop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't offer any real disputation, just calling on others rather and avoiding the issue. Maybe the religion part was discussed, but I don't think that was the problem here which I think no one will discuss since it's a sensitive one. The issue rather seems to be the book itself including his conspiracy of Arabs invading in 700 CE and slaughtering or converting everyone. I tried looking it up, turned up nothing besides him in real historical sources of Arab invasions. Also the source is not needed, there are much better sources already there it seems. Blamen1 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I still suggest Blamen1 to discuss the issue in the talk page and develop a WP:CONSENSUS first. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize I must wait but you should talk after I presented unreliability of Minahan. Blamen1 (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Blemen1 and User:Blemen2 are socks. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Blamen2(Franchiodiol (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. With this, the editor is on their 4th revert.

Blamen and Blamen1 are the same person, but Blamen2 (talk · contribs) is probably a different joe-job account. See their contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blamen2 and Franchiodiol are socks of Nsmutte. Franchiodiol has been blocked as such. --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. My bad then for getting taken in. Will unblock Blamen1 who hasn't violated 3RR after all. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blamen2 blocked indef, this is a classic Nsmutte disruption. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: another SPA Tyrosinephosphate emerged and refactored Franchiodiol's comment (see Special:Diff/883798341) any idea it is a sock of which master, or yet another unrelated SPA lurking AN? Matthew hk (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didnt edit any thing , just i corrected the space between two words (Tyrosinephosphate (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

User:TommyVictor reported by User:Bignole (Result: blocked)

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TommyVictor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. February 14 - 1
2. February 15 - 2
   1. Warning by GoneIn60
3. February 15 - 3
   1. My request for explanation of removal of sourced content
4. February 15 - 4
   1. Explaining what the infobox guide says and directing to article talk page
5. February 15 - 5
   1. Officially letting him know his edits could result in being reported and blocked
   2. His response that he'll just make a new account
6. February 15 - 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
There appears to be a history of this. If you go to the article talk page, you can find him consistently removing budget information he doesn't like all the way back in May 2017. I did insert the links for discussion into the revert report just so it was easier to see the timeline of events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. The usual duration for first offence would be 24 hours but with their editing pattern, it might go unnoticed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Luciusfoxx (and likely IPs) reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Glass (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-02-16T06:51:50

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2019-02-16T23:26:42
2. 2019-02-17T00:51:56
3. 2019-02-17T03:42:44
4. 2019-02-17T03:52:47
5. 2019-02-17T16:26:56
6. 2019-02-17T17:43:30‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: evidence No warning given: Editor claims to have edited here for years using a prior account dating back to 2006-2008, then editing anonymously as an IP. WP:3RR has been a rule during all periods covered and editor has in depth knowledge of content policies exposed in other talk page/edit summaries.

Comments:
Two of the reverts are from IPv6 addresses that, given the language used in the edit summaries, is highly likely to be the reported editor. Reported editor has also been excessively hostile to anyone that edits contrary to their goals. @TropicAces: You may want to mention your experiences with this editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge the IPs, that I think are referenced here. Didn't realize the 3RR side of it which honestly I forgot. Been awhile. Haven't edited since 2006-08. Also, will be sure to log in for now on, to avoid the IP edits. To be clear, I wasn't trying to be anonymous. Just forgot to login after my dinosaur of an older computer logged me out.lol..In light of that, I can take a break for a few days, a self-imposed banned of sorts. Or if blocked anyways for a few days by the powers that be I will respect it, my bad. However, John Locke IMHO is disruptive and being insincere. This other editor TropicAces which clearly has an agenda and clearly engages in WP:UNDUE violations regularly on film articles, usually because he doesn't seem to like it when critics pan a movie. Locke Cole for instance has made several personal attacks. And when warned by me and others, defends it. He should know better than to do this as well, since he's been here long enough. Tropic aces IMHO is attempting to game this article in dispute, and others movie pages like it. And though it might not be relevant here, Locke Cole is a probable sock of a banned user that he makes the point to complain about on his own talk page. In the meanwhile, I would like a little time this morning to present the provocations by both editors here with proper refs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciusfoxx (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually in the middle of starting my own section on this Board when I got the alert, that’s pretty nuts... anyways, yes, this user has been very passive-aggressive and/or straight up ignorant with his dealings with me, with comments on my Talk such as “first warning.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/883787522) and “So please start backing up your -ahem- concerns with actual citations or direct sources. It's clear you don't appreciate our contributions with your obtuse behavior.“ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/883791675) He either has a gross misunderstanding for how the citation and Metacritic quoting works, or more likely is a blocked user. Let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

2019-02-17T18:16:48 User notified of this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole and editor TropicAces are engaging in what I think is clearly gaming the system, on some level meat puppetry, and at least these personal attacks by editor Locke which would provoke any new or returning editors:

1. John Locke - remarks with ROFLMAO
2. "Your ignorance is truly stunning." - quote by John Locke attacking me
3. At one point, John Locke says "You are being a dick" - clearly a personal attack
4. John Locke makes attack against other editors disagreeing with him, saying "Clearly reading comprehension is going out of style around here lately. " Clearly denotes battleground mindset
5. Editor TropicAces is clearly canvassing another editor for his edit war, which back in the day was also called meat puppetry.
6. John Locke accepts offer to canvass and game page by other editor
7. Also this page blanking behavior and this page blanking behavior when I attempt to work things out with them, despite them engaging in provocation by talking about me.

Finally, also consider this recent disruptive dispute on the very same article between User:Locke Cole and ANOTHER generously-civil editor who warned him against breaking the rules and andand and. "Your ignorance is truly stunning" is clearly a personal attack and that User:Locke Cole argues when confronted that it is "far better" than what personal attack he "originally" planned on writing not only does not make it any better but exposes his battleground mindset and gaming-the-rules philosophy which he proudly defends and rationalizes. He's been told repeatedly to "please discuss content, not editors" to which he brazenly dismisses, saying he "will happily comment on content as soon as all other editors involved are held to that same standard".Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it matters, the accusing editor John Locke complains about this other blocked disruptive editor that he claims ain't him, which certainly is common of socks trying to evade blocking. I only mention this because the editor himself has a history of personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and these attempts to game wikipedia, and a lot of this smacks of projecting, common of disgruntled editors who were banned. All that said, admittedly, I'm rusty at this and accept the outcome regardless. But have tried to stay within what is right by the rules and article. Thank you for your time and sorry for any where I have erred when dealing with these disruptive editors.Luciusfoxx (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I could do a point by point rebuttal, but I won't.. to the closing admin, please look very closely at the linked diffs provided by User:Luciusfoxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and observe the gross misrepresentation once they're taken in context. Example: His last link where he claims he was "trying to work it out", but the actual message being removed was an attack claiming I was a sockpuppet of a banned user (he's made this claim repeatedly, in fact). Civility is a two way street, and when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind. WP:AGF is not a death pact. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This...that he wrote "when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind" Translation: When another person is breaking the rules (i.e. someone makes a personal attack) then it's ok to break the rules back. P.S. If the truth matters, I didn't become snarky or make observations about his own behavior until AFTER he referred to me "as ignorant" or "a dick" and made a series of false accusations against me. However, if my snark did rise to the level of an attack, even if provoked or par for the course (his logic, not mine), then I humbly apologize. See everyone in a couple of days regardless.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Suddenly this edit happens which is similar to these reverts and by Locke Cole and this revert , one of many like this from TropicAces. Note that the edit from TropicAces is carefully concealed in a bit of misdirection in the subject-heading as a minor edit concerning a link over "world building." The anon IP just so happened to make this edit on the article in contention, which has little traffic, suspiciously restoring the deleted content that the editor TropicAces was aggressively advocating/editwarring for. User:Locke Cole was also advocated for this change, look at his reverts: and . Interestingly, editor John Locke claims he did not add the disputed Metacritic content, IN CAPS NO LESS, despite doing it twice: and . Maybe both editors could go on record that this is not them. Either way this anonymous IP editor just happened to appear in the middle of this dispute, and gamed the article in their favor, consistent with their edits over the last 24 hours. Given all the projecting going on over anon IPs, thought it important to mention this update. If this is truly a coincidence, and this IP is no where near the two editors, then I apologize in advance. Thank you everyone involved!Luciusfoxx (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

haha I don’t know what to say besides that wasn’t me, I wouldn’t log out of my account just to make an edit. All due respect I don’t put *that* much time and effort into my Misplaced Pages edits... TropicAces (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

• Result: User:Luciusfoxx is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they make an edit that doesn't have prior consensus on the talk page. I have semiprotected the page two weeks due to the high probability of some logged-out editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger that. Got the memo. Thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122

I hereby report that Musicfan122 has been engaging in edit warring and harassment of other editors on Slavery for quite some time now and has violated the 3 reverts policy. Diffs of the user's reverts:

Balolay (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to block both of you for edit warring on that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:144.140.230.8 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
3. 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
4. 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
5. 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
6. 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
7. 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
8. 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Taipei. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked by Materialscientist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Vcuttolo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: blocked)

Page

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Awards and honors */Building a "criticism" section to replace the deleted part of the media section. A work in progress."
   2. 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Fixed my own typo"
   3. 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Added source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Step One of a work in progress. Please hang in there."
   2. 16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */This should for everyone, I hope."
   3. 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Fixed typo"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   2. 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added another source; removed request for source; removed neutrality claim."
   3. 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Alright, hopefully this works."
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content and context"
   2. 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source, clarified her comment as her own and not that of neutral WP."
   3. 08:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   4. 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content. Separated out unrelated items into discrete paragraphs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
2. 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media section */ cmt"

Comments:

1RR violation. Not really a sign of willing to hear out other editors when repeatedly trying to add original interpretations, and when reverted and opposed, built a separate criticism section for virtually the same content. Sanctioned back in November for warring on the same page to make the subject appear to endorse Hamas "terrorist invaders". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page, you will see that I made a number of edits in an attempt to improve the page. Some of my edits involved adding to the criticism she had received for repeated gaffes, which seemed to fit in to the "Media" page as it was constructed.

I was reverted, and told that I had used WP:WEASEL words, because I had not specified the gaffes; I had written that she had made a number of gaffes, but I had intentionally not specified the gaffes, so as not to oversell the point. Instead I added to the sources for that one statement, so that there were now a total of seven sources, should anyone care what the gaffes were, as well as which media organs had mentioned them.

As I say, I was accused of violating WP:WEASEL by saying that she had been criticized, but not providing more specifics.

I also was told that the topic did not belong on the "Media" page.

In a good faith attempt to address those issues, I opened a separate "Criticisms" page, and began to specify some of the specifics I had been referencing. Again, it sounded to me that I was doing precisely what I had been asked to do.

Evidently, Tsumikiria disagrees. More notably, Muboshgu told me to avoid a "Criticism" page, as they are generally bad things to have on BLP pages, which is news to me. I responded to Muboshgu by asking how the media criticism should be included.

I am requesting assistance as to how to deal with Tsumikiria, who has been hounding me for a long time now. Every time I breathe, he drops a warning of potential suspension on my page. (A glance at his Talk Page shows that I am hardly his only target.) He once reverted me on precisely the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page because I used an Israeli newspaper as a source. Wrote Tsumikiria, "everyone knows that israeli (sic) media lies". He wrote a similarly disingenuous claim above, in relation to the Gaza protests of 2018. I had noted that the Gaza protests were violent, and supported by Hamas, which is exactly what the WP article 2018 Gaza Protests article said. Tsumikiria wants me suspended for mentioning that fact.

I want to be able to make good faith improvements to WP pages without having deal with an editor, with an ax to grind, constantly harassing me.

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the article I used to guide my comments came from 2018 Gaza border protests. (I omitted the "border" part above.) Despite what Tsumikiria wrote above, I was not sanctioned for edit warring, nor for making AOC appear to support Hamas. I was sanctioned - at Tsumikiria's insistence at the time - for mistakenly including the wrong source. I had a source supporting what I wrote, and which matched the content of the then-edit-protected 2018 Gaza border protests article. I mistakenly used a different, irrelevant source, dated three months after the fact, for which I was sanctioned.

Vcuttolo (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is concerning to us that you're unwilling to recognize your edit warring, and when getting opposed with explanations, throw around accusations of harassment or revering the subject more than god. Your willingness to intentionally misquote people (I said "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel", not "israeli media lies". I was unfamiliar with Haaretz at the time), as well as writing disparaging original interpretations (using a conservative columnist's comments to support the claim that progressives criticize AOC; writing "Ignoring the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group"), is indicative that you're essentially treating this page as an ideological battleground. If you cannot work in a collegial manner, you might be walking yourself to a ban from such contentious topic areas. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I agree that the 1RR remedy has been breached. A phrase about "verbal gaffes" was added three times in the last 24 hours. Blocked for 1 week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: blocked)

Page

Sporting CP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. What is happening here! I gave you official sources and links to the games and someone keeps reverting back the page to fake facts! This is censorship!"
2. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. If one checks the links I provided, one can see that in fact the futsal derby took place on the 7th of February 2015 at 5pm local and that the football derby took place on the 8th of February 2015 at 8pm. Facts are facts and not opinions. This kind of censorship and cyber bullying is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages. Hope this settles this argument, otherwise I will have to report this situation to someone in charge. Regards."
3. 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Again I think that Misplaced Pages must be about facts and not opinions. Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Regards."
4. 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Also the description of the Sporting / FC Porto rivalry as simply an alliance between the two clubs against Benfica seems to be very biased and partial. Maybe it was written by one SLBedit (benfiquista) that can’t see anything but red and should not be allowed to publish lies and opinions in the Sporting Clube de Portugal page. I always thought of Misplaced Pages as a place to publish facts and not opinions and blind rage. Best regards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Sporting CP. (TW)"
2. 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sporting CP. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Censorship attempt */"

Comments:

In addition, user made another revert while logged out. Fore more information see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/OctopusFactCheck. SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 36 hours for 3RR violation. I think the actions of Kingerikthesecond should be considered also. They reverted 5 times without once leaving a suitable edit summary. This is not "obvious vandalism" so an exception does not apply. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not including edit summaries. Twinkle's vandalism-revert feature does not allow for summaries. I did, however, warn the user multiple times. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sword313 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )

Page: Atropatene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sword313 (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:

The reported editor is actively edit warring at Atropatene and refuses to discuss in a constructive way, see this comment on my talk page. The article's lead is clear about historical Atropatene and the infobox has been legitimately corrected by Qahramani144, but the reported user keeps edit warring and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks.---Wikaviani 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Atropatena covers the Republic of Azerbaijan from the north. Therefore, it should first be the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It also covers the main part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The root of Azerbaijan is connected with Atropatena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is your POV and this is actually contradicting the lead of the article which is sourced. Anyway, this is a content dispute and the above remark of yours does not justify your refusal to discuss with fellow wikipedians on the article talk page instead of edit warring. Best regards.---Wikaviani 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Between,it's not a good thing to say "dadash" to you. Do not forget that the letter "A" in English comes earlier.Best regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't understand how your last comment was relevant here. Also, please sign your posts with four (~) and indent your answers for better readability. Thanks.---Wikaviani 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Qahramani144's edit can be anywhere near legimate here. It is clearly visible on this map that Atropatene covered southeastern territories of modern-day Azerbaijan. It is the third time that I see Wikaviani disrupting the work routine and pushing his own political agendas to surpress the Azerbaijani Wikipedians. Such actions must have consequences. There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality. Also, in my opinion, we should use CheckUser on Qahramani144 to guarantee that there is no hypocrisy in here. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time you attack me and you've been already warned for that by someone else. About Qahramani144 being a sock, just go ahead and file a SPI if you want, but do not accuse people of sockpuppetry without a legit reason. Also, about my "agenda" against Azerbaijanis editors, just take a look at my contribs, and you'll see that i just try to report users who disrupt this encyclopedia and i don't care at all about their nationality or ethnic background. I reported Sword313 here because he broke the 3RR and refused to discuss on the article talk page, not because he may be an Azerbaijani. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, evidenced by your above comment (and many other of your comments) is just another proof of the kind of editor you are. Regards.---Wikaviani 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read this about what is a personal attack : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.".---Wikaviani 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Sullay (Result: blocked)

Page: Ben Shapiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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:

1. 01:59, 18 February 2019‎
2. 17:40, 18 February 2019‎ "Unnecessary. The ARTICLE is cqlled "Ben Shapiro", the INFOBOX is titles "Ben Shapiro", do you really think that are readers are so stupic as to be told that the PHOTOGRAPH is of Ben Shapiro? Whose image do you think they might be expecting there, Lady Gaga? Please don;t do this again"
3. 18:09, 18 February 2019‎ "unnecessary"
4. 00:31, 19 February 2019 "IAR"
   Added 4th revert wumbolo ^^^ 09:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has done this before in December (link). I have no idea why the user is so obsessed with writing weird captions, even when several users tell him it is against the usual style used in Misplaced Pages. In Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Captions#Special situations it is stated: "The ideal caption can range from none at all to a regular full-sentence caption. "Shapiro in 2016" doesn't add up with "none at all", thus it is a full-sentence caption. "(2016)" is neither. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BRD - when a Bold edit is Reverted, the next step is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page
• WP:STATUSQUO - articles stay in the status quo ante while a dispute is being discussed
• WP:CONSENSUS - disputes are determined by a consensus of editors
• There was no attempt by OP to discuss on the article talk page and get a consensus
• This is a comment by another editor on the talk page
• OP goes to BLPN with the complaint, which is not pertinent to BLP policy
• OP comes to my talk page, where he calls the status quo version "idiotic"

(Although the content argument OP makes above is not actually pertinent to this report, I should point out that the OP has quite obviously misinterpreted a "range" of possible captions to mean "either/or", so if a caption is not "none at all" it must be "a regular full-sentence." There may be a language issue here, or a WP:CIR concern, because it's quite obvious that a "range" means anything in between and including those two options. In any case, MOS is, as always, an advisory editing guideline "which is best treated with common sense", and is not mandatory, as the OP appears to believe it is. Again, I realize this is not pertinent to an EW report, but I add this in the hope that perhaps the OP might learn something.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sullay—image captions can be used flexibly. Captions can be brief or lengthy. WP:CAPLENGTH is giving guidelines only. For an opposite approach to that seen at Ben Shapiro consider the captions under the images at Kay Sage. (I wrote those captions.) Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear violation of 3RR on this article. Blocked 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Shame on the users with no sense. See WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Callind reported by User:Moxy (Result: sockblock)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884031933 by Moxy (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) to 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 04:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 04:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 04:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 04:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 05:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   11. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   12. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   13. 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   14. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   15. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   16. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) to 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 21:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No communication from this editor at all....no replies for sources ....not even edit summaries. Adding guess work and the one source used is a blog. Moxy (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In adition to that, we have large-scale copyvios from England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History. Dr. K. 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The reported account has since readded the copyvio three more times through fast-paced edit-warring. Dr. K. 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: blocked as a sock of Krajoyn -- zzuuzz 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Liqunaei reported by User:Fradio71 (Result: no violation)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Fradio71 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Liqunaei (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:

Comments:
The user reported me for vandalism because they didn't like that I was removing the fancruft about fan behavior in the article. I kept telling them just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. The user then reverted her warning for the report back onto my talkpage despite it being my talkpage. It's not like it was a block template. I was allowed to remove it. User kept telling me I was warned, by other users, however I hadn't interpreted as directed at me. User said the only reason I removed it was because I didnt like it, but that's far from the truth--Fradio71 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3 edit rule. In fact, the moment I realized that I had reached two edit reverts in a 24 hour period I immediately stopped and reported him for his behavior. He has now edited over six times in less than 24 hours against four different editors. Prior to his actions, four editors were working with one another to edit, fix, and change the article into what we believed as suitable. Liqunaei (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already been lectured about this: That is not how the 3RR rule works.

WP:3RR isn't permission to revert three times but no more. It says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

And you did have a third, rulebreaking revert: You readded content to my talkpage you were not within your rights to readd, and then used that to further paint me as the bad guy. You were still edit warring and readding unencyclopedic content. You called me a "vandal" because you didnt like that your unfocused section on "fan reaction" was being removed. You couldve tried to correct me and talk to me on my level instead of immediately painting me as a vandal because I removed an unnecessary section you liked. Removing fancruft from pages is completely permitted and you were actively trying to prevent me from doing so--Fradio71 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no.

“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.”

It is not allowed on a single page: IE, the Voltron page you have now edited over six times. The bit about “the same or different material” is about the material on that single page—as in editing multiple sections repeatedly, as you have done now six times.

And the talk page I was not meant to read? It is an open talk page where people leave you comments. You removed the comment stating that I had reported you for repeated violations and vandalism. I spoke to you on the article talk page and on your own talk page, which you deleted. I reached out in good faith and you deleted my comments and attempt to reach out to you.!you attempting to erase your behavior against four editors should be acknowledged. Liqunaei (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You didnt reach out to me in good faith. You called me and my edits "disruptive" and a vandal, and that I was acting out of an alleged "bias". I never said you couldn't read my talk page, so dont try that. Your use of the disruptive edit template showed you didn't want to know why I removed the section. You just wanted to be seen in a good light. You started off with personal attacks, so please do not try to rewrite the history of the conflict in such a manipulative fashion. That is no way to carry a conversation.--Fradio71 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will allow Misplaced Pages to go through your content and your behavior. While it may have been wrong to revert your edits the two times I did, since you removed well-sourced content from four different editors it felt appropriate. Your behavior has been nothing but deplorable and rude to the three other people who were working together with me to make sure that the content was appropriate and well documented. We were all talking it out through talk pages and edits, doing fine with changing and editing until we all came to something we agreed on. You came in and deleted our hard work. That is inappropriate. I will no longer be responding to you or your behavior. Liqunaei (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Well sourced"? One of the removals was when "citation needed" templates were plastered all over the passage. Possibly two. How has my behavior been "rude" and "deplorable" to the other editors? Just because I asked questions that didnt have satisfying answers? Just because the four of you thought the content was appropriate (without even having a proper talkpage discussion), doesnt mean it was. And even then the sources weren't solid. I do not want to be blocked again, and many of your claims are either false or too shallow to hold up--Fradio71 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The missing citation was from when you removed it. No one has been able to add it back because you keep cutting them out and changing them. Reverting after your multiple edits has been a headache for four people for the last 48 hours. Everything was sourced before you started hacking the article to pieces. And if you stop repeatedly abusing the edit function, the citations can be added back where they belong. Liqunaei (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are blatantly distorting the truth. There is clearly very little sourcing at the time I made this edit. You are exaggerating when you say removing a single subsection is "hacking the article into pieces". And who are you to say the other editors have a headache because of me? You do not get to speak for them--Fradio71 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet if you look at the most recent edit, most of it includes the clearly sourced material. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=884055939&oldid=884055262

If you look at your other edit here, you clearly edited out the sources adding the “citation needed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=883883539&oldid=883877080

You are the one who has been editing out properly sourced information to suit your narrative, and now you are lying about it. Liqunaei (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation by Liqunaei — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment "The user reported me for vandalism" in the OP seems to refer to this post to WP:AIV initiated by Liqunaei regarding Fradio71, which was removed by Materialscientist with the edit summary of "not for this board".—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Liqunaei (Result: blocked)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Liqunaei (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fradio71 (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:

Comments:
The user has been edit warring with four different users on the same article. He has ignored multiple requests on the talk page where everyone else has made it clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. G. Capo, Jesip Lunati, Max1057 and myself have attempted on multiple occasions to ask this individual to stop. He has continued even after being warned, and has removed the comments and warnings left on his talk page. The moment he sent me a message stating that I may have been involved with breaking the 3edit rule, I stopped editing his constant edits. He has, however, continued editing and additionally breaking the vandalism rules as well as edit warring. This is a constant behavior for this user; if you look at his previous behavior, you will see that this is a regular hobby for him. His repeated abuse of Misplaced Pages makes it clear that he is not acting in good faith, despite people repeatedly trying to speak with him on the article talk page. Liqunaei (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", seemingly to only use it to try to smear me as something I'm not. Your attempt to report me for vandalism was removed because it was not vandalism and yet you're insisting upon it here for what possible reason? There have been no "people" repeatedly trying to talk with me on the article talk page, or else you would have actively tried to bring me to it. Your first restoration of the section says "You need to be reported for vandalism". What happened to acting in good faith? You expected me not to try to get that content off the page? If you look at my previous behavior, yes, I've been imperfect but I've never acted in bad faith. It seems the words "regular hobby" are also misused here, as my current Misplaced Pages hobby is adding game show and competition series to actors' filmographies, and I would like to continue that without being blocked for removing fancruft from that makes up anywhere from 1/13th to 1/20th of a show page.--Fradio71 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because it wasn’t the right place to report you. And I quote, “not for this board.” This is why I have come to this board to report you. In addition, you falsely reported me for breaking the three revert rule when I only reverted your edits twice. Prior to your behavior, the editors and I were working together to make sure that we had a fair and balanced article. Your vandalism (and it is vandalism) is something you have done repeatedly for multiple articles over the past two months. Liqunaei (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Plese see above, just because you insist something doesn't make it true. What I was doing was not vandalism. And again, that is not what 3RR is about. Your idea of a "fair and balanced article" means turning a huge chunk of the article into something that wasn't about the show. Tipping the balance of the article with 3-5,000 bytes on fan reaction, compounded with the reception article, is not balanced at all. You keep calling my work vandalism when I have never been blocked for vandalism. Just because you were working with multiple editors on fancruft does not legitimize the fancruft--Fradio71 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been known for editing and participating in edit wars on multiple occasions. You purposely have done so against multiple editors on over 4 other occasions. This individual also is known for reverting review admins posts, disruptive editing and personal attacks, and edit warring. They have been blocked repeatedly, and continue on with this trend through multiple articles. Their toxicity and unrepentant behavior is known by the Misplaced Pages staff. Liqunaei (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have the right to smear me as "unrepentant". I have never been disruptive, I never made personal attacks (and this was proven in my appeal). I have only participated in one edit war and been blocked twice and the first was an accident they decided to stick with. You condemn me for making personal attacks while claiming all these things I'm allegedly "known" for. You're painting me with broad strokes and no context considered. You tell me I'm known for personal attacks…while making personal attacks.--Fradio71 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 4 days for 3RR violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've also fully protected the article for a week to prevent other editors taking advantage of one side of the dispute being blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Would it be possible for you to revert the original which he vandalized, please? Liqunaei (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Please read WP:NOTVAND for starters. And then meta:The Wrong Version might be of interest. Suggest you try and reach a consensus at the talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The others and I had come to a basic consensus and were working through the kinks before this particular person came and started slicing and dicing up the article. We had an open dialogue available that he opted to ignore in the talk thread and on our personal talk pages. I wanted to state that for the record before ending this conversation. Liqunaei (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Once you have a clear consensus, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Abhijeet Safai reported by User:QueerEcofeminist (Result: )

Page

Jagannath Dixit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Abhijeet Safai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Jagannath Dixit */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) on User talk:QueerEcofeminist "/* Stop removing important information from Misplaced Pages */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring and personal attacks, name calling and threats QueerEcofeminist (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, there was no edit-warring and no action is warranted.

Abhijeet Safai; she has enough experience over here and your message was needlessly patronizing and aggressive. Your previous creations have been subject to a series of AfDs for promo-spamming on subjects of dubious notability and additionally, your addition of so many Youtube links fails miles afoul of the concerned policies. Please assume good faith and settle it out via discourse over t/p(s). ∯WBG 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks WBG for your comments, I would try to sort the things on article talkpage. I prefer "they" for myself, use of she doesn't harm though. thanks again. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Art Deco article

Coldcreation reported by User:95.180.55.184 (Result: ) ==

Page: Art_Deco
User being reported: Coldcreation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I do not know how to do that because of rollbacks done Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Art_Deco&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

}}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Art_Deco

Comments: He refuses to communicate and when he does he is hostile. He is reverting it because he does not like it I assume and because he thinks I am some banned user.He called reliable sourced material nonsense without any explanation.

User:Avatar317 reported by User:Qzekrom (Result: blocked)

Page: Market urbanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avatar317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

This user has been engaged in multiple edit wars, according to the messages left on their talk page. Qzekrom (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked both combatants (Avman89 and Avatar317) for 24 hours. It would not have been fair to block one side and not the other. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:109.240.80.16 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: )

Page

Game Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Trail Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.240.80.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Game Camera
   1. 13:20, February 18, 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 883424666 by KH-1 (talk))"
   2. 05:44, February 19, 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883926583 by Polyamorph (talk)"
   3. 09:25, February 19, 2019 "Undid revision 884067940 by PRehse (talk)"
2. Trail Camera
   1. 13:19, February 18, 2019‎ (UTC "(Undid revision 882347833 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"
   2. 06:14, February 19, 2019‎ 109.240.80.16 (talk) "(Undid revision 883926269 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
3. 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continued to restore these spam forks despite reversion to appropriate redirects by several other users Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment possible sock of 91.155.247.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made similar reverts and added the original spam content. Polyamorph (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The pages have been protected by Dlohcierekim but I request indef. blocking of both IPs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Swapachi8890 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Indef)

Page

Anand Teltumbde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Swapachi8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "reinstating previous correct version"
2. 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 05:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "troller again change so i will change valide information about teltumbade"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anand_Teltumbde. (Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spamming SPA, indulging in long term edit-warring with at-least 4 editors. Please indef. ∯WBG 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely but opening threads in multiple noticeboards isn't really the way to do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  NinjaRobotPirate, that thread wasn't opened by me but on retrospection; this report was needless:( ∯WBG 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: )

Page

Sara Duterte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Diverse contradictions with the national legislation or even with legislation enacted by the City Hall of Davao */ unsourced"
2. 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884179026 by MPS1992 (talk) per BLP"
3. 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884173802 by Sennen goroshi (talk) BLP vio"
4. 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884096189 by Sennen goroshi (talk) per BLP - poorly sourced contentious material about living persons - please work to find consensus on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sara Duterte. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor believes that he is not beholden to Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring, nor is he required to discuss his changes before summarily reverting everyone who disagrees with him, solely because he considers his edits to be covered under a WP:BLP exemption. MPS1992 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring