Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 18 August 2012

• 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:Eaglestorm reported by User:TiagoTiago (Result: no action)

Page: Talk:The 6th Day (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I didn't explicitly mentioned any specific rules, but i did ask if we needed some thirdparty to help us settle things)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The reverts are being done in the talk page itself, i already tried having a conversation but User:Eaglestorm keeps reverting my comments as you can see above.

Comments: As i wrote in the reverted comments i consider adding information about those aircrafts to help with improving the article, and therefore a request for more information about them does belong in the talk page of the article about the movie.

--TiagoTiago (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am tempted to block the both of you for playing at silly buggers, but let us see how this works instead. TiagoTiago, when someone removes a comment per WP:FORUM and WP:TPO, please only replace it if you also add some explanatory text or refocusing on the discussion at hand; your most recent version probably just barely qualifies; please try explaining your point more plainly. Eaglestorm, when someone disagrees with your assessment of relevance to improving the article, please invite them to elaborate before hatting or removing the content again. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm commenting back. I believe this entire report is NOTHING MORE than some attempt by a bitter editor who cries "why are my edits not considered? wahwahwah" and wants to circumvent WP:FORUM to generate some discussion about a fictional piece of technology. Such talk is not allowed on any talk page, and he has the nerve to label observance and enforcement of policy "rude". I never saw any valid points about the guy's diatribes, anyway.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:79.138.3.117 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 24h)

Page: Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.138.3.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 13:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */")
2. 16:48, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507490644 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
3. 16:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */ talk pages are not for censoring either;)")
4. 16:59, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "i see. would you kindly explain why its not constructive?=) try debating why instead this should or should not be in the article")
5. 18:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "you never said why it wasnt constructive. if you have anything you want to add or discuss why it shouldnt be in the article, please do so. edit warring is indeed not allowed here")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: User is insisting on posting long rants about how "jews... lobby for media control". It's been removed and hatted, but the ip continues to edit war and post more in the same vein, even past his EW warning. —  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. The IP has been edit warring to restore his own comments to the article talk page after they were correctly removed by others per WP:FORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You dont seem to have talked on why it was not constructive. the explanation seems to be given. it seems more like your comment was about you doing Historical revisionism (negationism) and seem to give your own opinion about well constructed facts. instead of being a denier of history, you can try to talk about putting the things proposed in the article. as we can clearly see from previous sources about the CAMERA case about lobbying people like zay and jayjg was paid for. Anti-nonsemitic of denying a crime to a gentile will be taken as serious as anti-semitism here. denying in this case is indeed anti-nonsemitism due to hypocrisy

the source "According to Friedman, "CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don't want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants."

this, coupled with the campaign by camera on wikipedia is indeed RELAVENT to the issue jewwatch. jewwatch being anti-semetic, will rather be given the same things other articles have, in this case, it was proposed a Criticism/expansion of Controversy section that it was not as jewwatch claim that it was because of their jewishness that they did what they did on america or wikipedia, but because they were moraly bad people.

On a further note, it was proposed that the jewwatch be added further commentary about its talmudic section. contradicting its statement saying that the talmud is anti-nonsemitic with the phrases given out of context77.53.83.107 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather have a civil calm discourse instead and debate the content proposed to be put into the article. if you dont like it then comment and say why.

User:Kkm010 reported by User:71.212.77.233 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see comments

Comments:Tried to engage the user on his talk page rather than the article talk page. The only feedback I got was unconstructive and non-specific. His edits introduce WP:ACCESS violations and are not aligned with the guideline on template:infobox company. I believe that I complied with WP:3RR, but I'm new to WP and could also be in error. Regardless, I tried to resolve the problem and Kkm010 would not engage in a helpful discussion.

71.212.77.233 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're both equally at fault. We don't assume good faith only of the person who screams the loudest that the other editor is a vandal. Page is protected for 1 week while you two figure this out. Try to get some third opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:174.48.32.232 (Result: Declined)

Page: PolitiFact.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Did not break 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor refused, after much prodding on my part, to take his issues to the talk page.

Comments:
This editor continues attempting to remove a massive amount of sourced content on this page for reasons he refuses to clarify. He points back to his original "reason," given in a previous edit summary: "rem sentence not supported by source; (only says 'runs the risk of...' and 'sometimes do...')." Not understanding what sentence he was referring to, along with being only semi-fluent in Misplaced Pages edit summary speak, I asked him to translate what he meant into the Queen's English onto the talk page, and he smugly replies "ibid," before the page was locked by an administrator.

He is the only editor trying to remove this content, he hasn't even attempted to gain consensus on the talk page after I asked him to take his problems there, and he seems to not even be pretending to have a legitimate reason.--174.48.32.232 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing truthful in the above comment is that I "Did not break 3RR rule", whereas the reporting IP has. Boomerang?

The article is already protected, at my request. See this RFPP, and please note my reasoning.

I have left multiple requests on the article talk page for the IP to engage in discussion about his repeated edit. The IP has never responded.

The IP's problematic edits have been reverted by several editors, not just me, and he has several warnings on his personal talk page regarding this.

Please advise the IP to utilize the article Talk page and address the concerns raised there about his edits, instead of revert-warring. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Article is fully protected. IP has been previously warned for disruptive editing from sequence of a couple of days ago. IP reverting too much more recently but not warned of edit-warring. Close call whether to block them but will warn them instead. Xenophrenic has been reverting too much but no technical violation of 3RR and appropriately requested article protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

User:76.189.121.5 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Protected)

Page: Hotel Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.189.121.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 16 August 2012

1. 1st revert: 16:12, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507703270 by TBrandley (talk)Per previous edit comments, my version removes all unnecessary content/wordiness and corrects all grammar/usage/redundancies.")
2. 2nd revert: 16:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507708344 by AussieLegend (talk)edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content")
3. 3rd revert: 16:54, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507709580 by AussieLegend (talk)I did original rv so you are obligated to take to talk page, my edits were to improve content per previous comments, stop EW over good edits")
4. 4th revert: 17:02, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507710594 by AussieLegend (talk)I did the first rv, so no other editors should've done a rv (especially a complete rv) w/o going to talk page")
5. 5th revert: 17:20, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507712710 by Drmargi (talk)Collusion among editors is a violation that is cause for a block. I made the original rv and improvement edits, so others need to go to talk page.")
6. 6th revert: 17:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507716467 by Bihco (talk)There is a talk page discussion going on. I made the original edits/rv's of content, so no further rv's should have been done w/o talk page discussion.")
7. 7th revert: 18:01, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507717803 by TBrandley (talk)Stop rv my edits w/o discussing the legitimate concerns raised in the talk page discussion, these rv's are hurting, not helping article")
8. 8th revert: 18:07, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507718547 by TBrandley (talk)See talk page discussion. If anyone disagreed with the orginal rv of content (mine), it should have been taken to talk page then.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff of attempt to engage editor on his talk page:
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP made some edits that condensed all of the article prose into the lead and remove cited, encyclopaedic content, claiming some of the content was redundant. This was reverted by an editor with an appropriate edit summary. The IP reverted to his version. I then reverted, explaining in my edit summary that the content was not redundant and it was reasonable encyclopaedic content. The IP reverted that, so I reverted to the status quo, noting in my edit summary that he should stop edit-warring and discuss on the article's talk page. I then posted a note on the IP's talk page. However, by that time the IP had revrted again. Subsequently the IP has continued to revert, accusing editors of collusion in several edit summaries. Other editors have reverted the IP, but the IP continues to revert back to his preferred version of the article, despite having been warned that he has breached 3RR, and even after it was suggested that by revrting back to the status quo he may avoid a block. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not much better on the article talk page. The IP editor expected to be thanked for his/her edit, at least metaphorically, and has made a series of bad-faith assumptions, which have in turn driven his/her edit warring. Any sort of consensus building doesn't seem to be on the horizon; he/she wants the edits accepted, unchallenged and unchanged. --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice spin. You should be in politics. First, you and your group of editors have colluded to revert nine times. Second, I've presented clear explanations in the talk page discussion about the specific changes I made. But contrary to all the claims of wanting to build consensus, my points have gone ignored. This was a simple, appropriate rewrite of a few lines of inadequately-written content, plus the removal of a couple non-encylopedic items. Administrators can read the talk page discussion for themselves to see what's really going on. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter has fully protected the page, so blocking the IP now would not prevent the edit war. It seems that discussion was difficult because an edit war was happening at the same time; perhaps now the page is protected, they will be more willing to discuss. If not, and if edit warring continues tomorrow, a block may well be warranted. ItsZippy 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now, all they're willing to do is finger-point and blame. I have no confidence that once the PP is lifted in 48 hours, the IP won't simply resume the edit war. --Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend and Drmargi are among the editors who initiated the edit-warring, so it's disappointing that they have chosen to come here and completely misrepresent the situation. But fortunately, any administrator can read my original edit comments and, more importantly, my clearly outlined explanations in the article's talk page discussion. And it should be noted that Aussie has not even partipated in the talk page discussion, choosing instead to simply revert and ignore the issues meant to improve the article. And although Drmargi has participated in the discussion, he has failed to address any of the specific, substantive problems I outlined. If there were some minor tweaks that were necessary after my edits, that would have been fine. But to simply make a wholesale revert of my entire edit does not indicate an intention to improve the article's content, but rather a focus on simply preventing any changes to it, warranted or not. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi didn't even touch the article until after you had already breached 3RR. I reverted initially explaining that content that you have removed was not redundant and was in fact reasonable encyclopaedic content and your only response was to revert me with the excuse "edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content)", although two editors had clearly opposed your edits. When I subsequently asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page and pointed you to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, you did exactly what you did when TBrandley pointed you the WP:LEDE, you ignored it. Then you reverted my edit and deleted what I had written from your talk page. Your edit summary was somewhat ironic, as you accused me of doing exactly what you had already done to two editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@76. Nonsense! I made one revert and started the discussion. I did nothing like edit warring. The others stopped short of WP:3RR. Et tu? --Drmargi (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I would remind you to act in a civil manner, Drmargi ("Nonsense!"). Second, I never said that you, specifically, edit-warred. I said you were "among those" who initiated an edit war ("AussieLegend and Drmargi are among the editors who initiated the edit-warring"). Big difference. And of course none of you violated 3RR. That's because you cleverly colluded so that each of you could do one, two or three reverts, and have power in numbers so that you could avoid getting in trouble. But the edit history of the article proves what you did. As a colluding group of editors, you did nine reverts in two hours. In any case, I was the first edtior to do a revert of content when I made some good faith changes to improve the article. So none of you should have reverted; you should have taken it to the talk page. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@ItsZippy - Given that the IP reverted 8 times despite being told numerous times not to do that, why not to do it and what they should do, I'd say a block is warranted now. They can't say they weren't aware of what they were being told, because they replied to edit summaries and kept deleting what was posted to their talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie. A block is preventative, not punitive, but what needs to be prevented at this point? The issue is not preventing this edit war from continuing; the PP did that. With eight reverts, there's no reason to believe this editor won't resume edit warring once the PP is lifted. We need a block that will prevent the edit war from resuming, or at the very least, an 1RR restriction on the editor until he/she discusses in good faith. So far, the latter isn't happening. --Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – 24 hours, by another admin. See the comment by ItsZippy above. If the war resumes in 24 hours, the IP will not be in good shape if they just continue with more of the same reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the history of the editors making these claims shows blocks for edit-warring. And the editor who did the first revert of my revert (instead of taking it to the talk page) has been repeatedly blocked.. Anyway, Ed can read the article's talk page discussion for himself to see what really happened, not a few partial versions of it. And he can also see the very specific reasoning behind my edits and how the other editors have failed to properly address any of them. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

None of which excuses or justifies assumptions of bath faith, your own edit warring, serial violation of 3RR and refusal to discuss until pretty much forced to do so. --Drmargi (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith. I merely pointed out what the actions of some editors seemed to indicate. If I assumed bad faith, I would've directly said I assumed bad faith. It's interesting how there were mulitiple editors involved in edit-warring, yet no one else was addressed about it. Just me. I was the editor who did the original revert of content. Therefore, it was the editor who reverted me that should've instead taken it to the talk page. But instead, that editor, plus the rest of you, decided it was perfectly fine to simply throw out the baby with the bathwater by reverting my entire edit, instead of just addressing any objections you had with anything specific within my overall edit. So if someone changes 10 different pieces of content on a single edit and eight of them are legitimate, all of you would simply revert the entire 10. That's exactly what you did. And that makes no sense. And now that I've explained on the talk page, in specific detail, what the problems were with the version I edited, none of you want to properly address them. You all claimed you wanted a discussion to hash out my the specific issues, yet when they're clearly presented, they go ignored and most of the editors complaining don't even participate. They simply want to revert. Anyone can read that discussion and see what the real story is. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this conversation here. I tried to discuss some key policies with IP, and they just brought up my year-old block history for edit warring, and is making blatant personal attacks. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Djjamz340 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Djjamz340 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 21:35, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507701800 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")
2. 00:07, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507750548 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")
3. 00:18, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507763780 by AndyTheGrump (talk) His personal opinions are not valid. All information is verified with sources")
4. 00:23, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507764603 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Your attempt based on opinion is a gross violation.")
5. 01:14, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507766811 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Opinion not valid")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: There may be at least one other party over the bright line here.

—Tgeairn (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment There is an ongoing discussion regarding this article at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Attempted_WP:BLP_violation_in_our_left-wing_terrorism_article. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this has also been raised at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of WP:BLP policies in our 'left wing terrorism' article. Please also note that as I have made perfectly clear (repeatedly, in both threads), I can see no reason whatsoever why a gross violation of WP:BLP policy should not be covered under the relevant WP:3RR exception: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption". I have reported this to WP:BLP. I have reported it to WP:ANI. To suggest that "There may be at least one other party over the bright line here" seems questionable at least. Or is an entirely unsourced claim that an individual as yet not convicted of anything is engaged in "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes" not covered by the exception? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, my statement that there "may be others EWing as well" was NOT meant as a judgement on Andy or anyone else specifically. Only the reported editor was edit-warring without an apparent attempt to resolve. Andy claimed a BLP exemption in his edit summaries (and in other locations), and took this to BLP/N as well. I do not have an opinion as to whether or not the BLP exemption applied once the name of the alleged gunman was removed. As WP:NOT3RR says "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." <emphasis mine> --Tgeairn (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't merely consider it. I did it. Since this had no effect, I had little choice but to continue reverting until others responded. I can think of few more egregious violations of WP:BLP policy than one which states that an unconvicted suspect is a Marxist revolutionary out to overthrow the state. That his name was removed from the material was irrelevant - the sources cited named him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Georgewilliamherbert. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Stellabystarlight reported by User:Feline1 (Result: 24h)

Page: Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stellabystarlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user appears to have, and has already been warned about, a conflict of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Stellabystarlight#Conflict_of_interest

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, although technically this user did not violate 3RR. In the future, include a proper 3RR warning before reporting on this noticeboard, and before the editor violated 3RR, and make sure that there is actually a 3RR violation before reporting here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:SreejithInfo reported by User:JamesRoberts1949 (Result: page protected)

Page:Mata Amritanandamayi Mata Amritanandamayi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Sreejithinfo SreejithInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Every time an editor tries to make any changes to the controversies section of the Mata Amritanandamyi page, the user Sreejithinfo reverts back to his chnages. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The controversy section is now bigger than any other section in the article. People are trying to add libelous information to slander the living person. Most of the purported controversies are loosely related to the person in question. JamesRoberts1949 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. WP:SPI case opened for parties involved; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LanceMurdock999. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:77.53.83.107 and (2nd account) User:77.53.83.46 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Protected)

Page: Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

First Account: 77.53.83.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 14:18, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507635043 by Mann jess (talk)")
2. 14:23, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

Second account: 77.53.83.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 22:11, 17 August 2012 (edit summary: "why is it nonsense? why are you hostile to jews? you seem unable to put yourself in their shoes.")

Comments: Fresh off a 24 hour block on 79.138.3.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user has hopped ips twice today to continue edit warring to add inappropriate content to the talk page. He's added similar content at AN3 just today, as well. A block on these two ips would be helpful so the issue doesn't spread. I'll also be asking the page to be semied at RfP. Thanks.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 00:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The user mann jess seem to have sockpuppet and is having bad faith. user mann has refused to actual used TALK PAGE to discuss why or said content should be inside said article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.107 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All vandals and should be blocked indef. Obtund 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. Talk page protected by another admin. Note to Obtund: we cannot block IPs indefinitely. Any other admin is free to block any of the involved IPs if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:96.255.251.165 reported by User:Barayev (Result: Declined)

Page: Sumerian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.255.251.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Without a consensus, the unknown IP is removing the information and resources from the article. Also, he broke the 3RR. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is three independent reverts same as Barayev. I would like to note the condenscending tone of Barayev in the talkpage: "You don't understand well what you read, so you need to improve your English a bit" and "Fourth, I'm fed up with you, and not struggle with you. " --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as you're prejudiced. Barayev (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why the talkpage is not working. The user supported the insertion of Kramer (when Kramer made no such statements). The user needs to assume good faith. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Note to the admins: I'm watching this page, as I was involved earlier. The IP is actually acting in line with Misplaced Pages policies on sourcing , as he is removing a falsification/misquotation of a source by Barayev who is a SPA/revert-only account with less than 100 edits, 80% of which are reverts to introduce WP:Fringe material and falsification of sources that compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. An admin, earlier confirmed another misquotation of the sources by Barayev on the same page. Technically, neither side has broken 3RR. But Barayev has also made 3 reverts, against the Misplaced Pages policy on WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

96.255.251.165 might be a sockpuppet of you? His recent edits target me anyway. Barayev (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm watching the page, because earlier you reverted me there to re-introduce a misquotation of a source, the same thing you're doing now with the IP. Your conduct is the problem. Otherwise, I don't know who 96..nor is he related to me. You can request a check if you want. What I do know though, is that you're a WP:SPA/revert-only account who allegedly joined Misplaced Pages last week, and has since been causing disruption on various pages, pushing fringe Turkish nationalist theories that are against Misplaced Pages polices on WP:RS and WP:Fringe. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The IP never got an actual {{uw-3RR}} warning so this report is invalid. Δρ.Κ.  03:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Reporter has been indeffed at his request. Dispute between reporter and IP at WP:ANI. Contentious article. IP is strongly advised to be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:58.168.23.166 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: )

Realm of the Mad God's history will show you this user has vandalized it repeatedly, adding in nonsense, and removing content. Their only contributions are constant vandalism. Someone block them please. And please protect the article from IP edits for awhile. Dream Focus 17:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Principal adjoint reported by —cyberpower _Offline (Result: Protected)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring