Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:02, 10 March 2014

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Mrsud reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: stale)

Page: List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrsud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Created the content: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert after removed by another editor:
2. Revert after removed by another editor:
3. Revert after removed by another editor:
4. Revert after removed by another editor:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ANI Section: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mrsud

ANI Notice:

Comments:

• Comment. Mrsud didn't breach 3RR, as the second diff listed, this edit, isn't a revert. (It's a very strange edit, but that's something else.) He certainly did edit war, but I hesitate to block such a new user without talking with him first. (Not new in Misplaced Pages age, but in having less than 50 contributions.) To begin with, I have posted a question about possible COI on his page. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC).
• Stale --slakr 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Somas123 reported by User:Shriram (Result: )

Page: Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Somas123 (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:

This is about addition of Indic scripts. I have tried to explain in the edit summary like this: Do not add indic scripts: Misplaced Pages:INDICSCRIPTS. But the user I am reporting, actually accused me of disruptive editing. All I tried to do is to follow the Misplaced Pages:INDICSCRIPTS policy. The user that I am reporting has also edit warred Mangalore, Belgaum, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga. I have also communicated with the user before trying to resolve it on the article's talk page. Shriram 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept that I had added indic scripts in the above mentioned articles. But after I was informed about this policy of no use of indic scripts I used them only for the native name and not in the first sentence. But that too was reverted by Shriram. Now please don't tell me that I can't use indic scripts even for the native name because I find it being used in many other articles. And I feel Shriram is biased since he's making changes only to the articles where I have made changes but no change to articles of popular cities like chennai, hyderabad, tirupati etc where indic scripts are used to specify native name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somas123 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Now don't call me biased. I am never biased. You can check my edit history. I always try to maintain WP:NPOV and I believe I am successful so far. Just because you don't like my edit does not mean I am biased. So it took you 2 reverts in each articles to understand the policy? Did you not go through the policy on the first revert itself? I had clearly mentioned it, Misplaced Pages:INDICSCRIPTS. Just because you are careless does not mean I am biased. Be it a lead section or anything else, you should not deliberately add indic scripts. That's not acceptable. A proof that you did not read the policy on the first revert. If you had read the policy, probably you would not have asked me such questions. You have also added wrong indic scripts here 1 ,2 ,3, 4 and 5. I don't know where else, probably more. Now who is being biased? Shriram 06:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then why haven't u removed the indic scripts in the articles that I have mentioned in my previous comment? Maybe you should do that first. Even the article on MSRTC has an indic script. Why don't you remove that?

I have been trying to convince you, you should not attack me. You did not do this, you did not do that just to prove your point. You should not challenge me to do something. May be you should also go through these Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. Go ahead, Misplaced Pages:Be bold. Discuss, discuss, discuss with civility. If you think I have done something wrong. Do enlighten me. But please maintain Misplaced Pages:COOL. Shriram 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Just tell me whether it is wrong to use indic scripts for specifying native names. If yes then then I'll myself revert all edits that I have done and also edit other important articles which use indic scripts in the first sentence or for native names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somas123 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:62.98.113.152 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

Page: Eric Clapton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.98.113.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 3-nov-2013 "Rush is a Soundtrack albums not studio albums"
2. 20-feb-2014 (no summary)
3. 20-feb-2014 "'Rush (1992) is soundtrack album."
4. 6-mar-2013 (no summary)
5. 6-mar-2014 "Rush is not studio album but soundtrack album.)"
6. 7-mar-2014 "stop edit war. Rush is soundtrack album not studio album ok."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warning on ip talk page: User talk:62.98.113.152

Comments:

User seems not prepared to accept or even discuss proposed change on article talk page.

Wide IP-range. Perhaps long-term semi-protection is called for. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IP finally seems to finally have found their way to the talk page: . I'll leave it to the other regular editors of the article. I don't really care either way. - DVdm (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Add92 reported by User:JonathanHLee (Result: declined)

Page: Ryan Shawcross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Add92 (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: Reverted well cited facts thrice. And blanked his talk page after the warning I sent.

• Declined Not only is this not a violation of the three revert rule, but a likelihood exists that JonathanHLee (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), Miunouta (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks), and 128.189.191.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were either sock or meat puppets of the same person, thus verging on the three-revert rule themselves. --slakr 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Oracle55 reported by User:Aua (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Oracle55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Please stop Undid revision 598636103 by Aua (talk)"
2. 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "I read all of it Undid revision 598635770 by Aua (talk)"
3. 02:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Excuse me? Undid revision 598631957 by Aua (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) to 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC) "modify"
   2. 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) "more"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Please discuss before adding... */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The first 2 edits are essentially the same (so they could be counted as one), but the following 3 reverts make the whole thing add up to four, thus breaking 3RR. There is already a long discussion thread on the talkpage. User warned before their 4th edit on their talkpage. Additions are controversial and require discussion in any case. Λuα 02:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you could also semi-protect the page, that'd be tremendously appreciated! We've had quite a few single-purpose accounts before (like this one).

Cheers, Λuα 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Semi-protection isn't warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to make sure (and I have been here for 7+ years, but never had to do this): reverting to the original stable version (i.e. before blocked users' edits above) wouldn't be breaking 3RR since it falls under the reverting vandalism exemption, right?

Cheers, Λuα 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it qualifies as vandalism independent of 3RR seeing that it removed reliable citations, added inaccurate information, and had an unexplained removal of material. Though it'd still be good to know what the rule is on reverting back to the stable version following 3RR.

Cheers, Λuα 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lucia Black reported by User:DragonZero (Result: both editors warned)

Page

Rozen Maiden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lucia Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598637611 by DragonZero (talk)don't agree with this new structure"
2. 04:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598638401 by DragonZero (talk) per status quo of BRD rule, lets discuss this and reach to a consensus before re-reverting."
3. 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "reverting back, if you want this format, you will have to discuss, people have been banned for messing with 3RR."
4. 06:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598653449 by DragonZero (talk) lets not play this game, you know the one not wanting status quo is the one getting the hit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Format issue */"

Comments:

Four reverts. User argues status quo and uses reasoning along the lines of "If it's not broken, don't fix it" to undo my new structure to the article. I have already given my reasoning why the new structure is an improvement. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:GAME per status quo, he has to stop reverting and discuss the situation until a consensus or compromise is reached. Problem is DragonZero doesn't want to discuss it at all and simply wants his edit to stay i was the first to revert, so per status quo the revert must stay until it sticks. Him reporting me for this is pointless because he's even more wrong for refusing to make a discussion out of it, and saying BRD rule isn't something that applies here. Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Both Lucia Black (talk · contribs) and DragonZero (talk · contribs) should consider themselves warned that edit warring is still edit warring, even if you're not the first to violate the three-revert rule; the three revert rule is just a more bright-line part of it. Please use the bold, revert, discuss cycle or seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring. --slakr 12:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Victorkkd reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: already blocked)

Page: Nanking Massacre denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Victorkkd (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: Last week, Victorkkd was blocked for edit warring on the Nanjing Massacre denial page, and for general tendentious editing on the Nanjing Massacre Denial page. Almost immediate following the expiration of his block, he immediately returned to attempting to re-add the content which he had been edit warring over. Consensus among other users was that the content was poorly sourced (of the sources he provided, one appeared to have no relevance to the subject of the article whatsoever, and the remainder were not sources at all in any sense of the word) and of dubious quality, both in readability and content. In addition, during the talk page discussion regarding the content, linked above, Victorkkd likewise provided little to no reasonable justification for the additions, and has expressed little interest in constructive participation in the talk page discussion itself or towards consensus building (in the recent revert notes, he has indicated that he seems to view the talk page discussion and his edit warring as a "contest of stamina", and characterized opposition to his edits as vandalism). Furthermore, in this particular instance, he has violated the 3RR in the course of his editing of the page.Zmflavius (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) --slakr 12:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:172.254.79.43 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Sam Parnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "please review talk section and refrain from placing a link to parapsychology which is inaccurate and misleading."
3. 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "refer to comments in talk section. if there are not sufficient reliable reference sources other than personal opinions this link to parapsychology shoukd remain removed as it is misleading public."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sam Parnia. (TW)"

Comments:

IP just passed 3rr, but he's been ip-hopping and warring over this template since the 7th. I filed a request for semi protection at RfPP, but since he's now over 3rr, a temporary block may also help.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor reported by User:GabeMc (Result: GabeMc blocked)

Page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: STATicVapor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: STATicVapor reverted my work there 4 times within 23 minutes. They reverted my edit warring warning erroneously calling it vandalism. GabeMc 19:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a ridiculous report. The user is disruptively changing the projects wording to fit their not WP:NPOV to gain traction at the discussion at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Not to mention the first "revert" was copy edit of their edit, not a full revert in any sense of the term as I was not reverting anything. And the fourth "revert" was me cleaning up the mess they had made, all I did was move one sentence somewhere else, no reverting of anything occurred. So yes I reverted you twice, the policy is WP:3rr, you can be blocked for going over three reverts, not making two. I would like this user to stop harassing me as is clear by this and User talk: STATicVapor#Stop bullying me. If only they could quick close these sort of garbage reports. STATic message me! 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The third and fourth diffs are two revisions in "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user", which "counts as one revert" (WP:3RR), so STATicVapor only committed three reverts. Instead of making this report, why not focus on discussing this exchange at the article's talk page and getting other editors' thoughts? That's part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The page being edited is a WikiProject style guide, so I'm sure these changes can't come down to two editors but a thought out consensus. Dan56 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quite a ridiculous report when you also made three reverts yourself. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Three reverts? Diffs please. GabeMc 19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked GabeMc because they violated 3RR. I might not have done so except for (1) they brought this report here because they weren't getting their way on the project page and (2) they made a personal attack calling another editor a meat puppet. STATicVapor, you did not violate 3RR. However, you reverted three times. Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive. The "harmlessness" of your reverts may be taken into account be an evaluting administrator, but that's discretionary. Best to be more careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with BBB's action. He should have either blocked both users, or neither of them pbp 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Well I guess you do not understand WP:EW or WP:NPA. STATic message me! 20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a guideline called WP:MEAT if it cannot be referenced without committing a personal attack? Also, this edit summary is inappropriate. A 3RR notice is required and calling it vandalism is also a personal attack. Per WP:VANDAL: "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." GabeMc 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor:: Oh, I do. Gabe edit-warred; you edit-warred. Gabe was blocked, you should have been as well. If you don't realize that you've edit-warred, 'tis you who doesn't understand edit-warring. pbp 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Nope, incorrect. As myself and Dan56 explained, I in no way violated WP:3rr, as I did not go over the limit. Gabe was only blocked for his multiple personal attacks on top of the edit warring. Know the whole case, before you comment. STATic message me! 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Multiple personal attacks"? I called you a meatpuppett-bully just once. GabeMc 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor:: You do realize that EW and 3RR aren't the same thing, right? And that you can be edit-warring long before 3RR, right? pbp 23:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:72.220.176.33 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)

Page

Total Drama All-Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598662553 by Creativity-II (talk) Where's the proof of this reception from the fanbase? Links? Sources? If not, then it's speculation."
2. 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 06:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "That's the ACTUAL reception, you idiots."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Total Drama All-Stars. (TW)"
2. 01:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Total Drama All-Stars. (TW)"
3. 02:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Creativity-II. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has also engaged in uncivil behavior toward editors (including myself), referring to them as "idiots" and "morons" despite warnings against doing so. Doubtful if a dispute resolution would work given the IP's history of incivility toward other editors. Creativity-II (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Daniel Case.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tzowu and User:DIREKTOR reported by User:86.127.10.142 (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page 1: Croatia in the union with Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both editors broke 3RR on both pages. Direktor had many sanctions in the past - see his block log 86.127.10.142 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
This suspicious IP is probably User:Shokatz, who's also very much involved in the same edit war (apparently he's trying to be clever). I offer no defense aside from trying to defend the old sourced version from (what I perceive as) nationalist distortion. Is that you, Shokatz? --Director (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not User:Shokatz 86.127.10.142 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice try to divert the attention from your edit-warring, but no, I am not very much involved into anything, my involvement is mainly on talk pages for the past two months. My IP is 93.137.254.51 and I am certainly not from Romania. Isn't your blatant edit-warring enough that you will now resort to these offensive and baseless sockpuppetry accusations? Feel free to report me to WP:SPI, in fact I insist you do so....it will look good when I report you to WP:ARBMAC for a range of violations, among all those other nasty things you do and did on those two articles and elsewhere. Shokatz (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of one day. If you believe additional sanctions, such as topic bans, are necessary, please start an WP:AE thread. Salvio 13:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Salvio giuliano - only a 24h block for a user like User:DIREKTOR that has such an edit warring history and which broke 3RR on not less than 2 articles simulatenously? 86.127.10.142 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Both editors were edit warring on two articles simultaneously, Direktor's last block before this one was imposed more than two years ago and he was warring to restore the stable version of the article (which, per se, does not excuse edit warring, but can be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor). Taking all that into consideration I thought that imposing a block of the same duration on both parties was the most appropriate decision. Salvio 14:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Druid85 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

Page

2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Druid85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598805056 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 06:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598803565 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Avoiding copyright problems. (TW)"
2. 16:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Comments:

User is attempting to edit war in images on multiple articles (this, along with 2014 Winter Paralympics and Venues of the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics) that are clear copyvios. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:75.191.173.190 reported by User:Lieutenant of Melkor (Result: Stale)

Page

Flagstaff, Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Honolulu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Seattle weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Phoenix weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Salt Lake City weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Madison, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:New York City weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Boston weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts (amongst dozens)

1. 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
2. 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
3. 05:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
4. 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
5. 00:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
6. 00:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
7. 00:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
8. 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Climate */ Climate chart updated" (an obvious LIE)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flagstaff,_Arizona&diff=prev&oldid=598179780

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User talk:75.191.173.190#For greater emphasis

Comments:

• Clearly shows this user is WP:NOTHERE, and is in fact, here to "edit war ad infinitum" and distort climate data, and is ignoring (almost) all attempts at communication. This issue was also taken up at WP:AN/I#IP vandalising climate data for months, where other editors expressed their strong displeasure with this IP, whom was also reverted by others. However, no action (shamefully!) has yet to be taken there, and it is only upon the suggestion of another that I have come here (DO NOT misread this as "admin shopping") "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• A key point is that this is no longer a content dispute. The IP user is making edits of objective data that do not match the cited, reliable, official sources, without explanation. The edits are clearly contrary to the consensus of multiple users that are cleaning up after them. The IP user fails to discuss the issue substantively, instead continuing to edit and revert, ignoring multiple warnings. While the problem may ultimately be solved by discussion, the IP user needs to engage (possibly with the help of an interpreter – there may be a language issue). Disclosure: I took this to AIV yesterday, without success. I'm here at the suggestion of that admin. I had no exposure to the issue prior to that. —— 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Stale. If the IP resumes, WP:ANI may be a better forum than here as most of the battles have been between the IP and the reporter. Thus, a determination would have to be made that the IP's edits are disruptive independent of edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Thecodingproject reported by User:Sammen Salmonord (Result: Malformed)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thecodingproject (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:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tapered reported by User:GSK (Result: Declined)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598949725 by Codename Lisa (talk)"
2. 06:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598908016 by Codename Lisa (talk) Addressed on talk page of reverter"
3. 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598866839 by FleetCommand (talk) Very relevant --major issue for internet security."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Microsoft. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After being given a 3RR warning on their talk page, the user retaliated at me for apparently siding with Codename Lisa, even though I have yet to make any changes to the Microsoft article. gsk 07:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by involved user Codename Lisa

The comment "Addressed on talk page of reverter" is untrue. The editor did not talk to me before this, let alone "address" the issue. The only communication comes long after this assertion, which, in my humble opinion, is an attempt to intimidate me instead of a cooperative message. I was amid sending him another message when I noticed GSK's nomination. Given everything, this looks like either an instance of trolling or the editor is badly panicked (in colossal magnitudes) and must calm down. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Although some of Tapered's comments on user talk pages are less than optimal, they've self-reverted their third revert, leaving only two. They've clearly done so because of the warnings and notice of this discussion, but my sense is they don't intend to force their material back into the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring