Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 27 May 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:66.214.143.68 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semi-protected )

Page: Orion (constellation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.214.143.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. - where he also makes a personal attack

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, because this is a long-running IP-hopping sockpuppeteer that @Dougweller: and others have been dealing with for a long, long, time. Honestly, I'm kinda tempted to propose an edit filter. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

True, but protection has brought him to my talk page to discuss the issue. Part of the problem is that he's reading the Robert Graves bit at Orion (mythology) and also doesn't distinguish between solar hero and sun god, something which I've explained on my talk page. I'll be doing an edit this weekend clarifying it. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He's just responded to my edit on my talk page reasonably and adds that he is not IP hopping but switching between iPhone and laptop according to connectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected I've semi-protected, there is now a discussion at the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:69.123.195.235 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked+)

Page

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

User being reported

69.123.195.235 (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 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Modern herbal medicine */"
   4. 00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Prevalence of use */"
   5. 00:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* == */"
   6. 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Clinical tests */"
2. 01:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* History */ splelling mistake"
   2. 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Modern herbal medicine */ spelling mistake"
4. 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 21:30, 23 May 2014 no edit summary

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Herbalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Changes require discussion, must be supported by sources */ new section"

Comments:

Note also false edit summaries and prior notice from other editor link MrBill3 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked the IP for 48 hours and two weeks for his alter ego, User:James321123.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Amicably withdrawn by reporter)

Page

Gull Lake High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by John from Idegon (talk): Https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gull_Lake_High_School#Vandalism_Incident. (TW)"
   2. 02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "another source. No reason given for reverts other than 'unencylopedic' which it is not (edited with ProveIt)"
2. 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by John from Idegon: Again. It is inherently notable as it is from a direct link from the official facebook page. Per WP:PRIMARY You have not created an edit on the talk nor anything like it. (TW)"
3. 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by John from Idegon (talk): Nope. Reliable per WP:PRIMARY and is notable to the school. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gull Lake High School. (TW)"
2. 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Vandalism incident */ re"
2. 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Gull Lake High School "/* Vandalism incident */ new section"

Comments:

No violation. If you look at the last revert, it's simply me adding another source. We're both at three reverts at the moment. Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He is at 4. And I am not looking for blood, just for a third party to explain WP:AGF and WP:RS to this editor. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin, look at the diffs. I have reverted three times, and he three times. The '4th' time he tried to claim is when I added Twitter as a source. I've recently added another reliable source for the content at hand.

• Additionally, the editor has claimed 'edit warring' when he himself reverted twice after claiming that I was edit warring.
• The editor has combative comments about "How he's been here longer than me" and that "I called him a vandal" and "That I'm wrong" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATutelary&diff=609892836&oldid=609892348
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGull_Lake_High_School&diff=609893408&oldid=609892540

Do not look at it at face value. Look at the page, investigate, look specifically at how many each reverted. Adding a source is not reverting content. We are both at 3 reverts.

• Additionally, the claims and attempts to solve the content on the talk page (the section was created by me) has only focused on personal attacks against me, rather than the content at hand. Tutelary (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've sorted things out. First: as for the question of whether the article on the school should mention the vandalism, John is right and Tutelary is wrong. Second: as for the question of how you were both behaving on that talk page, Tutelary was right and John was wrong. Not very wrong, but John was still crossing the line as Tutelary was attempting to remain peaceful. I have talked with Tutelary about this, and she's conceded my point: if the school takes permanent action due to the vandalism (installing cameras, switching regular doors for security doors, etc), then that will be worth mentioning, but only in terms of what measures were taken, not re: what the vandalism actually was. Tutelary has agreed to not try re-inserting that content in the article, so now we can all move on and edit productively. Isn't that right, Tutelary? DS (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've personally considered it and second guessed myself regarding it. A single act of vandalism with no long term effects should not be included in the article, as it isn't important with regards to long term notability. We discussed it civilly on the IRC and have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong about the content. I do concede the edit unless there does show signs of long term notability of the incident. Tutelary (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling another editor a vandal is never appropriate (unless of course, he or she is). If you were referring to the section title, then I owe you an apology. If you were referring to me, then you owe me one. I concede easily that I may have misunderstood, and if so, I am sorry. Been awake for roughly 30 straight hours now, and I guess I am not seeing things that well. Happy editing to all, and to all a good night. John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you were to link me to a diff where I described you as a 'vandal', then I will apologize. However, I aver that the claim is baseless if there is no diff. I did not call you a vandal. Tutelary (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I am so sorry. Exactly what I alluded to above is what happened. This would be a great time for me to pull my foot out of my mouth. Please forgive me and thanks for being interested in schools in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And with that, we are at peace and the article is too. Consider my complaint withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:LucrativeOffer reported by User:Freemesm (Result: Both blocked)

Page: 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LucrativeOffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:34, 22 May 2014 Sourced content blanking.
2. 07:35, 24 May 2014 Content biasing by reverting
3. 10:20, 24 May 2014 Content biasing by reverting
4. 11:26, 24 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I found User:LucrativeOffer as a wp:spa, after watching its contribution. He was trying to bias the article according to his opinion. Severel times I warned him, he didn't care about that. Moreover his message in my talk page make me more suspicious about his more than one identity . --FreemesM 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is some serious misunderstanding. I never blanked any content, rather expanded the texts. Besides, I reworded the biased tone of the article which had words like extremist, fundamentalist etc. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch don't permit us to write an article with this tone. This is why I edited the article reworded the sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucrativeOffer (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You are quite sensitive about Hefazat-e-islam's Fundamentalist and extremist identity. I am citing few news, which clearly identify them as Fundamentalist and extremist --FreemesM 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This diff indicates that there is a relation between User:LucrativeOffer and user:Fugstar. user:Fugstar was engaged in disruptive editing in William Nicholas Gomes and 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article and then suddenly User:LucrativeOffer is created and start editing in 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article. In this diff User:LucrativeOffer mistakenly linked William Nicholas Gomes's article. Later he removed that in this diff --FreemesM 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I'm not convinced based on behavioral evidence that LucrativeOffer is the same person as Fugstar. Without that connection, each of you had edit-warred, three reverts apiece.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, May be they are not connected, but how did LucrativeOffer know about William Nicholas Gomes's article, which he mentioned in my talk page  ? Please check his edits, don't you think he is quite experience in wikipedia? Ok, apart from that LucrativeOffer was trying to push wp:NPOV without any source and he removed those contents, which are presenting negative activities of Hefazat-e-islam. All of them are properly sourced. He didn't attend to any discussion anywhere. But every time I noticed him in his talk page. Moreover as far as I know, preventing vandalism doesn't counted under 3rr.--FreemesM 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Gomes edit is the only thing that struck me as suspicious, and it's not enough for me to block. If you wish, you can file a report at WP:SPI. Claiming an exemption for vandalism is always risky unless the edits are egregious. In my view, the exemption doesn't apply here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, Currently I am not interested in LucrativeOffer's more than one identity. Please make a decisions about his edit warring attempt. He is continuously removing sourced content and push wp:npov content. Check diffs, which I reported, you will get an idea about his activity.--FreemesM 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• FreemesM and LucrativeOffer have both continued to revert the article while this report was open and since User:Bbb23's comment above. The word 'violent' in the lead has been steadily going back and forth, always added by FreemesM and always removed by LucrativeOffer. In my opinion both should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Meh, I didn't even look when I responded to Freemesm's comment on May 25 - so much for good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:186.31.20.28 reported by User:Disembodied Soul (Result: Blocked)

Page: Carlos I of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.31.20.28 (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: 186.31.20.28 is conducting a global edit war by inserting a hoax daughter into the article about Carlos I of Portugal.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:The_Real_One_Returns (Result: )

This user is continually reverting the edits of multiple articles to previous versions, with unsourced claims and erroneous and/or factually incorrect information.

Examples:
Page: Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Some Kind of Lover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Jody Watley (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Real Love (Jody Watley song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Don't You Want Me (Jody Watley song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Buffalo Stance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have explained to this user why his reverts aren't useful and have cordially requested that he or she cease their disruptive editing, to no avail. In addition, this user has also violated the and has resorted to threats. Please assist. The Real One Returns (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections/explanantions :

• This user is one of these typical genre warriors who like changing genre to suit his/her own point of view. I first noticed a genre was changed at I Was Here and I realized someone decided changing "new-age" into "pop" without any explanation at all. Then I realized this user changed numerous genres to suit his/her own point of view and I simply decided reverting as much edits as possible, providing an appropriate edit summary.
• Afterwards this user started reverting my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Real_Love_(Jody_Watley_song)&diff=prev&oldid=609909455 and provided POV-pushing explanations on his/her edits summaries.
• After reverting this editor with edit summaries like this one, my edits were reverted again and this user started attacking me on me on talk page, calling me a vandal while I was reverting him/her.
• I didn't violate the 3RR
• The Real One Returns accused me of "hiding behind an anonymous IP address. This is a false accusation against me ! I didn't log out to revert him/her edits. This is simply a coincidence. I imagine someone else noticed genres were changed and this person decided to revert The Real One Returns.
  • To sum it up :

1. I'm not a vandal
2. I never violated the 3RR
3. I never used any IP adress Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This wound up on my talk page, and I will post publicly to both Synthwave.94 and The Real One Returns: stop it. Both of you. Now. If you want to change a genre, provide an inline citation from a reliable source that supports the genre you are reverting to or adding. If you continue this widespread edit-war of unsourced material, a block will quickly follow.—Kww(talk) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Synthwave.94 is continuing to vandalize articles by reinstating previous, erroneous versions -- but is not providing any sources to back up listed genre. This article being an example, and is seemingly bragging about his reverts at this point; yet he/she insists on name-calling me a 'genre warrior.' - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing articles but for sure you're a "genre warrior". Anything else ? Any better remark ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know - or care - what a 'genre warrior' is...but I do know what a vandal and a troll are, and your activity epitomizes you as both. Trying to lie your way out of your deliberately reckless activity is futile, as it is all on record. Anything else ? Any better remark ? I'll let you ponder while I remind Synthwave.94 that persistent vandalizing of Misplaced Pages articles with reverts of unsourced claims, because you have a chip on your shoulder, is a past time that can and will get you banned. - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about but I perfectly know I'm here to contribute and that I'm certainly not a vandal or a troll. See what I did at The Power for example (one of the numerous articles where you clearly pushed your own POV, changing "hip house" into "hip hop") : I added new peak positions, changed some dead links, corrected links, added a certification table,... This is one of my typical edits when improving an article. Not this kind of ridiculous edit. See the difference and keep your disparaging comments for yourself. I'm not here to waste my time with typical troublemakers like you who are trying to bring faithful users down. There are numerous proofs I'm here to contribute : the awards on my talk page, positive feedback on my userpage and the kind of edit I just evoked. More than enough to prove my edits are well received. Now go back to your activities and drop your genre-warring behaviour for good. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I never intended beginning this "war". I'm simply fed up to see all these editors who changed genres without providing anything at all in their edit summaries. And The Real One Returns seems to be one of these typical genre warriors no one is looking at and who will continue changing genres without any explanation and sources if someone like me doesn't warn him/her. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your reverts have been completely groundless. "Genre" and "style" are separate, yet on one article your reverted back to a version that listed 'quiet storm' as a genre -- something that it is not. Apparently Synthwave.94 happened upon one of my revisions, became disgruntle because he/she saw me as an editor who is a "genre warrior" (whatever that is supposed to me, but whatever it is it is a name-calling insult that needs to stop) and decided to vindictively go through my entire contribution history to revert all the edits that I have made going back months at a time...undoing new revisions that made been made by succeeding editors in the time since...while simultaneously failing to provide *any* sources to back up what had been stated on the previous version he/she reinstated. This editor Synthwave.94 appears to simply have a vendetta at this point, which has made virtually all of his reverts and revisions unproductive and useless. - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not a vendetta at all. I correctly explained in my edit summaries why I reverted you. Also changing genres on a good article like "I Was Here" is not very clever. You clearly proved you were here to change genres only. I saw few helpful edits in your contribution history (at least your 500 last contributions). You don't seem to be here to contribute. If you are unable to edit without providing sources (that's what your talk page seems to say) then someone should block you right now. Immediatly change your behaviour and stop changing genres if you don't want to have more troubles with me or with someone else. And drawing your own interpretation from Billboard charts is completly stupid : a song which chart on the R&B charts doesn't automatically make this song "R&B". This is obviously your own opinion, which doesn't matter at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Warned)

Page: April Jace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trackinfo (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:
Trackinfo has continued to add a self-published source to the biography of a recently deceased person (April Jace) in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy against it. Rather than discuss it on the talk page, Trackinfo chose to disrupt the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/April Jace (). After being warned of the 3RR, Trackinfo temporarily ceased reverting. After the discussion on the talk page went nowhere, I suggested that he/she bring the discussion over the disputed source to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#masterstrack.com. After waiting 24 hours with no discussion, Trackinfo resumed reverting. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly trying to tell the complaining editor that there is no problem with the source. Instead of listening, this user is the one creating the edit war by continuing to remove content, at a critical time when the entire article is nominated for deletion by this same editor. In other words, this editor is deliberately trying to weaken the sourcing on an article they are also trying to remove. That's deliberate, underhanded sabotage in my book. At this editor's suggestion I have taken the source to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. This user's contention has received zero comment, other than their own response to my entry. After waiting over 24 hours, I put the content back. In this entire sequence, I believe I have been the reasonable one in using a common source for the subject at hand as a reliable source and retaining the content it and other sources justify. Trackinfo (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Insistent on weakening the article during the debate. This user is now on their fourth removal of this content.

1, 2, 3, 4 and they too have previously been counter-warned about edit warring, as if this were necessary here Trackinfo (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Trackinfo, the problem here is that Hirolovesswords is correct: you cannot use a blog to source data about a recently-deceased person (actually, you can't use them pretty much anywhere, but the rules for biographies are particularly strict). He has immunity from our 3RR policy for removing them, but you do not have the same immunity for adding them. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Trackinfo has reverted again, this time adding new sources . However, these sources do not support the content added and appear to be original research. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? Seriously? nbclosangeles is about as big a news organization as there is in Los Angeles. They aren't a reliable source? Original research? They reported on the tribute video (shot and posted to youtube months before her death), which I added and was removed by KWW, and how well loved she was by the members of her new team both reported in the story and in the text, calling her "Sunshine." And official meet results showing her participation in championship events? Your misinterpretation of information in order to achieve a result is childish and laughable, but also dangerous to have around a serious information source such as wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

nbclosangeles stated that she was a member of the team and that they called her "Sunshine", not that she was "known in the Southern California Masters track and field community as being a top sprinter". Using her official meet results to declare her as a top sprinter is original research because it is a novel interpretation of primary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Trackinfo has been warned (above) by User:Kww not to keep restoring the masterstrack.com blog source to the article since it doesn't qualify as a valid source about a recently-deceased person under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:96.253.65.178 reported by Diego (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Saving Mr. Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.253.65.178 (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 IP user has reverted the article 5 6 times today (one more time after this warning was posted) (seven now, and counting), but the thing has been going on for weeks.
Diego (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. And now this is becoming ridiculous. Are there no administrators watching this thread today? I'm going to request protection for the article. Diego (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been trying to move the article's Historical Accuracy section from under Plot since it was first created. The reason changes every week, but none of them have been able to support their points after making them, and yet continue to move the section without consensus. You can read the discussion in Talk, and a summary of it at the bottom of the page. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been informed that Edit warring is unacceptable behavior in Misplaced Pages. Even if you don't think that moving the section is justified, forcing it back again and again, against the will of everybody else is forbidden. Diego (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@96.253.65.178: Still there was no reason to edit war. According to my guess, the article might end up with protection. OccultZone (Talk) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Well past 3RR, obviously aware of policy. I did not see any other editors breaking 3RR. Kuru (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• After the 24h period end, the first edit of this user has been to repeat the revert for which he was blocked. Diego (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Klocek reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Klocek (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 does not see that their is any concern with them reverting a bunch of other editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the 5 reverts cited were completely different edits, not the same. Furthermore, several editors suggested and approved the changes on the Talk page Klocek (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cvhr reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

Page

Doc McStuffins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
2. 20:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
3. 20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
4. 20:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
5. 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Doc McStuffins episodes (Season 1). (TW)"
2. 18:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Doc McStuffins episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also repeated removal of CSD templates on related articles and insertion of copyrighted content from imdb.com. (I assume the user is probably a child unfamiliar with our policies.) - MrX 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Too much sneakiness to be attributable to the "innocence" of a child. And, even if a child, too much disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Slenderdan (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 Isla Vista killings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sceptre (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 strange thing is I haven't objected to her view that he committed violence against women. I simply see that he also committed violence against men.

• Comment She hasn't reverted since I warned her, though nobody's reverted her since then either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

((ec)) The edit-warring is about Category:Violence against men in North America, a category that with the removal of this page has only 2 entries and no definition of what articles should be in this category, and I can see BLP issues arising both with the category and its addition to this page. Apparently the perpetrator of this killing has written about his hatred of women, but not of men, which would justify the Category:Violence against women in the United States category (although I'd still like to see a definition for this one also). Adding the violence against men category appears to be stating that the perpetrator was acting because of his hatred of men (as well), and that doesn't seem to be justified - thus a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've replied to Doug's comments on my talk page and also started a section at Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Violence_against_men_category to discuss the category. Dan, next time editing gets tendentious like this, it will probably be best to go to the talk page first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Went right back to EWing after she was reverted.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Now unblocked by blocking editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still engaged in edit warring by reverting others edits more than three times. Is that acceptable now on wikipedia?--Slenderdan (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Stalkford reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)

Page:

• God in Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Gautama Buddha in Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Pratītyasamutpāda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Buddhism and Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• God in Buddhism:
• Gautama Buddha in Hinduism
• Pratītyasamutpāda
• Buddhism and Hinduism

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Warnings:
  • User talkpage
  • User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Joshua you reverted my articles. Please go and check the history. I gave the sources which were verifiable and also many articles of Buddhism were quoted from the same website. But you didn't make any unchange. But on this you made and unchange and reported me. I know I haven't done anything wrong. Stalkford (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Comments:

Comment by JJ: Also abuse of warning-templates . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan reported by User:Stalkford (Result: Filer blocked)

Stalkford Page:

• God in Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Gautama Buddha in Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• God in Buddhism:

• Gautama Buddha in Hinduism

This man is continuously engaged in edit war. I gave the sources which were even there in the article. He refused to discuss and when I asked on talk page, he didn't gave any response. * User talk:Joshua Jonathan

I ask him to kindly peacefully discuss rather than just showing his dictatorship on all Buddhism articles. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• No violation. Filer blocked 72 hours. See above report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Hockeyloveisgay reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fukuzawa Yukichi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "i hate this gay shit"
2. 16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "it was plagiarized and i didnt like it"
3. 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 16:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
5. 16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
6. 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Works */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"
2. 16:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"
3. 16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked Jehochman 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Walter Sobchak0 reported by User:Lucy1994 (Result: )

Page: Citizens – Party of the Citizenry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Sobchak0 (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 user has deleted information referenced with reliable sources (centre-left and anti-nationalism), he has also written other information without any source (Spanish nationalism) and lastly, he has used questionable sources to add lerrouxism and third way.Lucy1994 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call it a day with respect to the ideology section but I'll reintroduce the other changes (the ones in the paragraphs, arbitrarily erased in the latest edition) because they are properly referenced, all of them. I agree Lerrouxism and Spanish Nationalism are open to discussion and the refs are questionable but the in-text edits are not; references are all adequate. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, @Walter Sobchak0:, you will not re-introduce anything. As per WP:BRD, if you make a change and it's reverted, you then open a discussion on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for all or part of your suggested edits. If you ever fail to follow BRD - even if it's as you say "adequate" for references, you will be blocked for edit-warring, and no further warnings will be required. The above disgusting show of brute-force edit-warring is unacceptable, and unless you have a really good reason AND show that you indeed do NOT intend to re-implement previous changes in any section, then a block right now is inevitable the panda ₯’ 22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) DangerousPanda, not obeying bold, revert, discuss is not grounds for a blocking. It is not a site policy, and is only an essay by some users. Of course, I'm not sure if they've violated the three revert rule but I would limit the blocking based on actual policy, not an essay. Tutelary (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's an essay. Have you seen their edit-warring above? Are you aware that editors can be placed under WP:1RR? Is there a good reason for you to chime in here? the panda ₯’ 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Man of company (Result: Trolling filer indeffed)

Page:

• List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Robo Shankar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Ekk Nayi Pehchaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Bobby Simha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Robo Shankar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Mellisai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films:

• Robo Shankar:

• Ekk Nayi Pehchaan:

• Gavin Menzies:

• Bobby Simha:

• Bevin Boys:

This user is highly vandalazing the wikipedia . Please do watch his contribution section ]. He only revert the changes giving the reason it is either outsourced or unimportant. There is nothing whatsoever he has constructed on wikipedia by only deletion. It is recommended to block this user immediately.

(Non-administrator comment) I do not see any WP:3RR violations. The only revert I can see is on the last page, and that's just a single revert, not even close to edit warring. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. Filer is a troll and probably a sock puppet, I just can't think of whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 25 May 2014‎ (more or less this version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:32, 26 May 2014
2. 15:59, 26 May 2014
3. 16:19, 26 May 2014
4. 17:27, 26 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Brews ohare#May_2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multiple on talk page (Talk:Enactivism#AI,Talk:Enactivism#Snowded's recent wholesale deletions,Talk:Enactivism#Treatment of Evan Thompson,Talk:Enactivism#Autopoiesis)

Brews_ohare: Response

The items:

1 14:32, 26 May 2014

2 15:59, 26 May 2014

3 16:19, 26 May 2014

are the insertion in the subsection Enactivism#Participatory_sense-making of identical material regarding the contributions of Luhmann to the subject of applying enactivism to social interactions.

The fourth item listed:

4. 17:27, 26 May 2014

has no bearing at all upon this matter.

There is no dispute that Luhmann is very well regarded as a source, nor that what is said in the WP article is in any way a distortion of his position. The reasoning behind inclusion of Luhmann was provided on the Talk page as Talk:Enactivism#Autopoiesis.

The assertion of Snowded was that this material was irrelevant to enactivism, and he made no attempt to substantiate that point of view. His responses at Talk:Enactivism#Autopoiesis were unsupported by sources and consisted of erroneous conceptions of the topic conjured from his own mind. It was apparent that he had no intention of discussing this material or its sources, and instead was simply asserting and re-asserting his opinion with less and less civility.

Following the third insertion of this material, Snowded placed a tag {{importance-section}} on the entire subsection (even though only a few last sentences were involved) questioning the importance of the entire subsection, an issue never raised. I subsequently added another source (Torrance) and his views to this subsection, to support its relevance to enactivism.

I think with the attachment of this tag, a proper talk page discussion is now in the works, and this busy-body intrusion by FyzixFighter is just that. The matter will settle itself, and no action is necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not an involved party in what appears to be a long simmering edit war here (and on a number of other page) between Brews ohare (talk · contribs) and Snowded (talk · contribs) and few others. I was involved years ago in some of the physics article disputes that led up to Brews ohare's arbcom case and sanctions, so every once in awhile I drop in to see what he is up to. I wish I could say I'm surprised to see what is IMO some of the same behavior that got him in trouble before, specifically tendentious editing (including, but not limited to, accusing others of vandalism , accusing others of malice ), personal attacks (take your pick from the talk page), disregarding WP:BRD entirely (yes, I know this isn't policy, but it's a damn good essay on consensus building), and requiring that the onus be on those removing his new additions rather than on him when his edits are challenged (hence his justification for his reverts). The other actually involved editors might be able to give better examples. I'm not saying that the other editors are blameless in this edit war, but this looks like the first time in the edit wars that Brews has crossed the clearly defined line set by WP:3RR, which is IMO a good indication that his behavior needs to be examined, especially in light of his previous dispute and editing issues. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Putting aside Brews's history, which is complex and I'm unfamiliar with it, and even putting aside the unfounded accusations of vandalism and censorship (not really "malice"), it appears that Brews is not the only editor who has breached WP:3RR on this article. Snowded has also done so, and both of them have been edit-warring for quite some time. One other editor that I can see has been slightly (in comparison) involved, but Brews and Snowded stick out like a sore thumb. How can I justify blocking one without blocking the other? Frankly, I'd like to hear from both.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem lays with how Snowded tends to trail him around. I also think one of the refs is a little misleading, the one showing the removal of the essay tag ]. The diffs for the refs are close to violating 3rr but I agree that there is an overall long term edit war between the two of them. I think that if blocks are handed out they should be handed out evenly because there isn't just one problematic set of behaviors being shown here and Snowded has clearly shown a battleground mentality too. I think Brews has had a rough hack at things here and this has lead to a lot of the scrutiny that at times is petty, I often wonder if he would have an easier time starting a new account and see how things go, IMHO it might help but there isn't any mistaking brews that's for sure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: - I'm not seeing Snowded violating 3rr; I do see him doing 3 reverts total (,,) in a 24 hour window but there is more than 24hrs between the earliest of those edits and his revert () just previous to those three. I'm not saying that he wasn't edit warring, but he didn't cross the distinct 3RR line that Brews did (reverting a good-faith tagging is still a revert). I don't know if Snowded has been previously warned regarding expected standards and decorum, but Brews has explicitly been warned previously. In regards to "malice", I was basing that on the description in WP:TE#One who accuses others of malice, which includes as examples accusations of "censorship" and general lack of AGF. I agree "malice" may be a strong word here, but WP:TE is what I was basing that description on. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, you are correct about Snowded and 3RR. I counted edits on the 26th that were not reverts but pure additions. I'm not sure in this instance it matters much as the edit warring by both users is so blatant, but it can't be classified as a 3RR violation. As for a warning, an experienced editor like Snowded doesn't require a warning. Neither editor has edited on Misplaced Pages since I asked them to comment on their conduct, so for the moment I'm taking no action. Another administrator may feel differently, and I must say my inclination is to block them both, but I feel that would be unfair after I invited their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring