Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 16 September 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:Scalhotrod reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: User warned)

Page: Pornographic parody film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scalhotrod (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: (immediately removed by Scalhotrod with dismissive edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Scalhotrod repeatedly edit wars over sourcing issues in pornography-related articles, not because of any good faith disputes over content but in order to discourage other editors from enforcing basic BLP and RS requirements. This is the third example of such disputes with me in the last ten days or so. The two immediately prior examples were Tera Patrick (obviously false claim added with no sourcing, then without reliable sourcing) and Rebecca Bardoux (extensive promotional content without reliable sourcing, extensive copyvio text). In this case the disputed text claims a particular porn video has "high production values", even though the cited source says nothing related to production values. In each dispute, Scalhotrod does not defend his edits substantively, but employs uncivil (at best) edit summaries,sometimes including personalized insults or personal attacks;

• "Useless, lazy Editor refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn" (Tera Patrick dispute, 31 Aug)
• "No substantiation given for claims made, this amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, article cleaned up" (Rebecca Bardoux dispute, 5 Sept)
• "Clearly you don't understand the term (current dispute, today)

He also has developed the inappropriate habit of marking later reverts in such disputes as minor, perhaps to disguise their import or to keep them from appearing on some watchlists.

I don't believe this is good faith editing. Scalhotrod and another editor were topic-banned at AE after an acrimonious dispute, and I believe he's trying to provoke me into precipitating a similar mutual topic ban here. The long-running porn sourcing/notability disputes admittedly tries the community's patience, but the level of nastiness and rancor has ratcheted up a notch or five after the "overwhelming" consensus achieved late last year to significantly tighten up porn biographies. I suspect Scalhotrod would count it a victory for his "side" in that morass if both of us were topic-banned, and trying to goad another into such a situation is intolerable and illegitimate, even if he skates along the 3RR line without ever quite breaking it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Scalhotrod

This dispute seems to stem from a recent issue that was discussed at ANI (here) where the accuser made edits to a BLP article that the article's subject (in this case the Rebecca Bardoux herself) not only objected to, but then publicly commented about on her radio show (at the 27:40 mark) and on her Facebook page . She and others (I assumed her fans and supporters) maligned Misplaced Pages as a result over August 27th and 28th. It's my opinion based on recent events and our collective past that this dispute is an attempt at retribution by HW for the ANI posting. On their Talk page, this User has accused me of making racist accusations and being a paid editor (along with a perceived attempt at revealing my personal information) and when asked to substantiate the claim, would not do so

Furthermore, the accuser admitted that this is not the first time that he has made edits to an article knowing about objections from article's subject

And speaking of edit warring, the Rebecca Bardoux article involved a series of reversions by the accuser:

The accuser used a variety of claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional" in this article too.

To the point of the issue at hand. That said, I may have a bias or just benefit from actual experience or perspective as I have worked in the Entertainment industry as well as have friends and relatives that are Producers, Directors, Writers, and Performers. So when I read a source that talks about an emerging technology (the use of 3D) in a production which has not traditionally used such a technology (adult films) and then goes on to make a statement about the costs of such a production technique ("Created by Hustler's studio arm... ...is apparently the most expensive movie the studio has ever produced."), IMO summarizing these statements with the phrase "production values" is not a stretch its just accurate use of vocabulary. I do not think it requires formal education in film-making to understand that the cited article, even though it does not explicitly use the phrase "production values", is entirely about just that.

References

1. Westbrook, Logan (July 21, 2010). "Hustler Making 3D Avatar Porn Movie". The Escapist. Retrieved September 10, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Without difs, I can't address the claim about "minor edits". I use the marker when it seems appropriate.

In the accuser's defense, he does make edits to a large number of BLP article and many of those edits are what I consider good edits that either remove truly questionable content (common sense versus the accuser's personal opinion) or improve the overall quality of the article, but the vast majority are the former as this Editor does not seem to contribute much content to Misplaced Pages. Although the accuser changed their pattern recently with regard to the a fore mentioned Tera Patrick article .

But, this Editor in their zeal (or what I referred to as "fanaticism" at ANI) to strictly uphold BLP policy seems to forget the 5th pillar, understand that there are no absolutes, and that policies and guidelines may apply differently from field to field and industry to industry based on available sources. As one User observed about the Rebecca Bardoux article, "It's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer without talking about their careers and what they do..." In this regard, why would someone object to a statement (and then revert it) when the problem seems to be that they do not understand the vocabulary of the subject?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are you referring to production costs? Because production values seems to make little sense, and seems original research. And further, keeping the article being reported in context, why haven't you gone to the talk page to enter into discussions about this issue? Please enter into discussions with Hullaballoo on the talk page of the article in a congenial manner instead of reverting. You have to do that to avoid getting blocked. Can you manage to do that from this point onwards? Wifione 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Production values refer to the quality of a production, does this include expense, of course. It also includes how its made (technology used, costuming, casting, etc.). Wiktionary has this definition: "(film, performing arts) plural form of production value; the combined technical qualities of the methods, materials, or stagecraft skills used in the production of a motion picture or artistic performance." How the interpretation of the reference I cited would be considered WP:OR, I'm not quite sure. IMO it simply involves an understanding of the term, maybe this makes it a good candidate for its own article.
• As for discussion, sure, happy to, this has been my method in the past. HW and I interact on quite a few articles, but the "parody" one was an exception, not the norm and probably why HW saw the opportunity to bring it here. But in any given circumstance when HW is BOLD with a deletion and then someone REVERTs, he usually claims that the onus is on the reverting party to start a DISCUSSion on the Talk page, WP:BRD. And when there is discussion, congenial is not how I would describe HW's comments.
• Do you have any opinion or comment on what happened in the Rebecca Bardoux article given the difs above and the ANI discussion? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Your clarification of the term production values is sensible enough. Your mistake has been to repeatedly revert without participating in the talk page discussion that Hullaballoo started. Blocks are exceptional events for an editor; therefore, your reasoning that your non-participation on the talk page was an exception, is accepted only as an exception, given the fact that you've started discussing on the talk page of the article. Be careful the next time you enter a revert sequence without opening up discussions on the talk page or participating in discussions started by other editors. I have no opinions about the article you mention as the issue in hand in this thread is your reverting behaviour in one particular article. Take care and be careful in future. Wifione 19:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it may sound sensible, but it doesn't rest on any reasonable factual basis. Just plugging the same analysis into other contexts -- the most expensive late-career Ed Wood film, say, or the most expensive Tom Baker episode of Doctor Who -- would come with a pretty silly conclusion. And I don't think there are any reasonable folks out there who associate Hustler with good production values to begin with, so even if we accept that spending more on a video increases its production values, "better" production values than the Hustler norm hardly translates into even "good" production values by general standards, let alone "high production values". In general, it is better to use sources who have actually seen the video to assess its production values -- and in this case, the better sources are quite caustic about the video's low quality. Our porn-related sourcing is already bad enough, and lowering the bar further to allow commentary like this on a video based on sources who haven't seen it should be plainly unacceptable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. For the sake of clarification in the future, in a similar instance when content is deleted and then the deletion reverted, whose responsibility is it to start the Talk page discussion? If the User who originally deleted the content, reverts (deletes it again) I would reasonably assume the responsibility to be theirs, am I correct? Or is it the responsibility of the User who restored the deleted content (1st revert) to start the discussion (assuming its not vandalism)? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I just reread the WP:BRD page and spotted this, "Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Forget my question, I'll use this as my guide in the future... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• If Scalhotrod reverts even once again without discussing the issue on the talk page, he will be blocked. If he does so after discussing on the talk page and providing relevant logic, we'll go the dispute resolution way after the page is protected. Wifione 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The edit war here appears to be very much mutual . Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  ...with a critical exception. We respect talk page discussions, and editors who revert unilaterally without talk page discussions are almost always the first ones to get blocked. If you have any diffs to add to this thread to support your contention, you're welcome. Otherwise, it just makes the thread longer. Thanks. Wifione 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • • I posted a link to the history, which clearly shows the mutual sterile revert war. And I see exactly two comments to the related talk page, one by each of the revert-warring parties. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Warned. Post warning, Scalhotrod has started discussing on the said article's page. Wifione 19:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Stale)

Page: 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ism schism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(yes, first diff is a revert, he just waited a couple of says - since Sept 6 - to resume a previous edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: . Also warnings were issued during discussion, by other users, for example here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . A lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Comments:

• Result: Stale. But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:reverse polish reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Higher consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reverse polish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• diff
• diff
• diff

Comments:

• Not blocked. The user has not reverted after you left a warning note on his talk page. The user has also started discussions on the talk page of the article after the warning. If there is another revert war, come back, otherwise I would not block Reverse polish right now. Jonathan, please also note that you yourself may be blocked for 3RR if you continue reverting without heeding the three revert rule.. So be extremely careful from this point onwards. Wifione 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oaky. Fair; he did start a discussion. Thanks for the warning; this was dawning on my mind too... I'll take a break now, and do some gardening instead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JacksonRiley reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

Page

Airbus A340 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 02:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Airbus A340. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple users have reverted his edits but he insists on keeping his view in the article. Multiple warnings for edit warring and article ownership have been ignored, discussion on article talk page didn't help either. After discussion did not support his view he stopped discussion and kept restoring his view over and over. Multiple reverts are not listed here but available in the article history, multiple discussion attempts on the article talk page. --Denniss (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those multiple users. Once JR became aware of the 3RR "bright line" he slowed down his reverts, but it is the same material being inserted once or twice a day instead of three times a day. This is kind of frustrating - obviously we don't want to bite the new editor too much, but when several editors keep on deleting the same material citing policy (WP:WEIGHT, mainly) and we keep on seeing the same stuff put back in day after day, there's a lesson that is not being learnt. Airbus A350 XWB has some of the same sort of behaviour. I'm getting the feeling that this editor has a role in one of the American jet engine companies and knows his material, but he's just not working within the community. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I've explained my edits and the sources on the Talk page, but Pete always responds with a vague "Synthesis" or "does not match the sources". Pete does not even want to bother finding sources to support his/her position, instead claiming that the article is fine as it is. A central part in my dispute is that I have one sentence attributing the A340 cancellation to the 777-300ER (due to the several sources), and a separate sentence for the A330 (which only has one vague source). The other editors involving in the edit warring, such as Denniss, have not responded on the Talk page. As for Airbus A350 XWB, User:Wolbo was removing sourced material but it was now settled. Lastly, the charge that I work with an American jet engine company is a cheap shot by Pete, as he has been ignoring the references I found to back my contribution. JacksonRiley (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. While I'm foxed at why multiple editors with considerable editing experience are rejecting the Bloomberg reference being provided by JacksonRiley (I must be missing the elephant in the room; please do tell me if it's there), I'm protecting the article until consensus can be worked out on the talk page. Jackson, try dispute resolution; take this to WP:DRN to get more views if you wish; but till you get consensus, your change is not happening, so don't try it or you will be blocked for disruptive editing in the future once the article is unprotected. And please realise that I'm telling this despite believing your Bloomberg reference holds considerable weight. Pete, Skyring, Jackson, et al, come back if you believe consensus has been reached or you need any other additional assistance. Wifione 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching this debate mostly from afar. From that vantage point I think the problem is that many people are uncomfortable with the new additions concentrating on the 777 being the (major?) cause of the A340's cancellation. While this has some grain of of truth, I also believe that it should not be overstated and that user JacksonRiley is pushing a particular POV that is not really supported by the breadth of analysis available. Oil prices, gradual ETOPS extensions, a general and ongoing imporvement in the specifications of all 2 engines aircraft and the "two engines good" "four engines bad" situation that has developed are all generic factors affecting the A340 cancellation decision.

I would prefer the original more neutral text is retained. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:VideoGameHistorian reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

Page: Elite (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VideoGameHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. (Edit summary also includes inaccurate accusations)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has also been warned about their editing here (by me), which they subsequently removed here, and most recently here, by another uninvolved editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elite_(video_game)#VideoGameHistorian_.26_Seminal_edits.

Comments:

Editors argument is that the term "seminal" is subjective and so inappropriate. Multiple editors have disagreed and reverted, including myself who has also shown sources (discredited in the eyes of VGH as "marketing sources") that describe Elite as seminal. VGH has also used bad faith - and inaccurate - accusations in edit summaries ("reverted vandalism of undoing several changes at once without adding specific reasons, also missing edit summary"). Editing behaviour is to not use "revert" but manual edits, and a boiler-plate edit summary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also informed HyperspaceCloud of discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Vidya Bharati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625408903 by Kautilya3 (talk) Irrelevant. See WP:ORDER and WP:CITEVAR."
2. 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Three reasons: 1. Follow WP:CITEVAR, No actual 'discussion' on talk page. 2. Also removed wiki-link. 3. The numbers you added are contradicting other source and are much older."
3. 16:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625538032 by Kautilya3 (talk) Same reason as last time."
4. 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625539204 by Kautilya3 (talk) I have. Please discuss before inserting repeatedly."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Vidya Bharati */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* References */ comment"
2. 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Vidya Bharati "/* Lede */ new section"

Comments:

Subject seems to believe that WP:CITEVAR is a 3RR exception. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Wifione 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=prev&oldid=625541627

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User Paolowalter has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him the edit and the source i used,but he insisted on reverting me without discussion and User Hannibal agreed on my edit.Alhanuty (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And also the User has been warned that he have broken the 1RR edit three days ago by an Admin.Alhanuty (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

he also made a second revert reverting User Jafar Saeed.Alhanuty (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Wifione 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Vidya Bharati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmritasyaPutra (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:

I entered a few Bibliography entries into this page last night, hoping to work on the content this morning using sfn-style references. I then noticed that AmritasyaPutra deleted the Bibliography entries claiming that they were "irrelevant" and referred to some policy pages in the edit summary. I opened a discussion on the talk page about why I am using Bibliography, which he did not participate in. I noticed that he was doing edits of his own. When he was finished, I took his text, converted it to the sfn-style references and added an expanded History section to the page. He kept reverting my contribution, which included not only the Bibliography entries but also the section I added. I then counted the reverts and noticed that I had done 3 and he had done 4.

AmritasyaPutra has been doing a lot of reverts on all the pages he has been involved, including ones I have been involved in. I have been repeatedly begging him to engage in discussions on the Talk page and dispense with trigger-happy reverts. It has been falling on deaf ears. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Wifione 18:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MehulWB and User:BengaliHindu reported by User:Amortias (Result: Protected)

Page: Ahmed Hassan Imran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehulWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)BengaliHindu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: MehulWB

BengaliHindu

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am extremely sorry for unknowingly violating the rules. I promise I won't repeat this. I got the message after undoing the edits by Nirmalya1234 whom I believe is the same person who edited it earlier. I undid the edit as the edits are unproven defamatory statements against an elected MP and editor of a newspaper from another news report by Anandabazar Patrika which is being challenged now in court thus I request the other editor to wait till the verdict or further reports come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected two days by User:MusikAnimal. There seems to be a BLP issue about terrorism links per this diff. There has also been a revdel due to copyright violation, though possibly on different material. If reverts continue after protection expires, one or more blocks are possible. If any editors want to argue the BLP issue, consider posting at WP:BLP/N for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaid almasri reported by User:WarKosign (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zaid almasri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Case one of 1RR violation:

Case two of 1RR violation:

Diff of edit warring / 31RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user constantly pushes a change that undergoes an RfC. It is not closed yet but leans toward not including the change. Here several editors tried to convience the user to cease pushing this change. Here the user promised to continue edit warring as long as it takes for them to win. WarKosign (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Wifione 19:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Russiansunited reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: No action)

Page

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "news organizations around the globe using the term pro russian separatists, not pro russian groups"
2. 00:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "the sources call them sepatatists"
3. 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "cannot edit anymore 3 revert rule / most secondary sources refer to pro Russian separatists, article must reflect the mainstream media, and not a few secondary sources to reflect a point of view calling them a group / this is a movement of millions"
4. 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Mondolk received a merit of the Ukraine award in his talk and therefore the 3 revert rule does apply to groups / the majority of secondary sources say pro Russian separatist and NOT pro Russian group // lets compare our sources in talk to decide"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ Comment"
2. 01:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ Suggestion"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* The POV warning attached to the article should not have been removed */"

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, the user has violated WP:NPA. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The user has great enthusiasm for his position but as of this moment has not violated 3RR. (The first listed edit is not a revert). If the editor continues to revert any of the same items, you can make a new report and link to this one. They have already been notified under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rob.HUN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:11, 14 September 2014
2. 16:02, 14 September 2014
3. 23:06, 14 September 2014
4. 23:56, 14 September 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:10, 14 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

That section on the Talk page IS NOT about the Cause section of the article

Comments:

User was given a softer 3RR warning prior to being reported here. I've now issued a stern warning. I doubt this is going to do much though. Dusti 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I originally gave a stern warning, but didn't want to template the regulars or be too bitey, so I gave a soft 3RR warning. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As soon as those concerned can give a valid reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)

Page

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "As soon as you can give a reason (instead of merely labeling it) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page."
2. 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "As soon as you can give a reason (instead of merely labeling it) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page."
3. 23:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Cause */ Unballanced emphasis on öne party's standpoint through biased editing leveled."
4. 23:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625584191 by Volunteer Marek (talk) There is nothing "obviously contentious" about the edit. Please stop name calling right now."
5. 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Unballanced editing changed."
6. Consecutive edits made from 06:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC) to 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625331420 by Stickee There is nothing "undue" about the order. The information and references in the section as a whole _do not_ follow a temporal order."
   2. 06:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Cause */"
   3. 07:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 07:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   5. 07:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   6. 07:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   7. 07:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Please refer to Talk page!"
   8. 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Cause */"
7. 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Cause */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
2. 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This person refuses to go to the talk page and wait for consensus before making said changes to the page. Dusti 01:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been to the talk page, but noone debating my edit has addressed me there on this topic. I have opend a Talk section earlier, but on a different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.HUN (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I got there first: 24 hours is fine with me. Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Having too many admins at AN3 is hardly ever a problem. Your closure looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• No issue with the closure but just a note to make sure people saw what I was trying to do here with a much stronger push and block warning (but the block happened in the middle :) ) in case it comes up. The block was completely reasonable though even if I was being squishier on it. James of UR (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Laval (Result: No action)

Page: Timex Datalink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. K (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:

I have tried to update the article to reflect the present tense usage since the product is still in use and also to remove a sentence that is using a source inappropriately to suggest that something was once high tech, but no longer isn't, but the above user simply keeps reverting and posting bad faith generic warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in genuine discussion. Laval (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please note: We have a WP:CIR issue here. First, Revert 4 as listed above is not a revert but my blanking warning on the reporting user's page. Second, all of my reverts reverted vandalism because Laval blanked a cited sentence with a citation which provided a quote to support the sentence. My first edit reverted a clueless placement of a citation in violation of REFPUNCT and blanking of a properly quoted sentence, even though another citation did not have to be moved in the first place because there was another, already existing, citation just at the end of the sentence which fully supported that the Datalink was made in conjunction with Microsoft. In another edit, Laval again blanked a citation and its quote and the sentence it supported. My other two edits reverted similar blanking incompetence. Please see also the text snipets below in the form of quotation boxes. I suggest this user be cautioned about his reckless editing tactics, fast-paced edit-warring and repeated blanking without discussion and his spiteful report. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional Clarification

The top three reverts show clearly that I restored the following blanked information:

At the time of its introduction the watch was considered high-tech.<ref name="Magazines1994">{{cite book|author=Hearst Magazines|title=Popular Mechanics|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=guMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44|accessdate=18 November 2012|date=November 1994|publisher=Hearst Magazines|page=44|quote=mong the more high-tech entries is Timex's Data Link. Developed in conjunction with software giant Microsoft and chip-maker Motorola, the Data Link allows you to easily transfer information from your computer to your watch. Specifically, you ...|issn=00324558}}</ref>

As you can see the quote inside the reference fully supports the sentence that the watch was considered high-tech in its time. Laval kept blanking this fully cited fact and its fully quoted citation despite my warnings. I suggest he be blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring except if he is excused due to WP:CIR. Δρ.Κ.  03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment

• Laval wrote in his report: and also to remove a sentence that is using a source inappropriately to suggest that something was once high tech, but no longer isn't,
• Aside from the wrong grammar of the sentence above, Laval's claim is patently false. The sentence Laval was removing said:

  At the time of its introduction the watch was considered high-tech

which is absolutely true because the review of the watch in the citation is from 1994 not 2014. I am the original author of the article btw and I know its referencing intimately. Δρ.Κ.  04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Further analysis of Laval's edits

• Here Laval moves up another citation immediately after the word "Microsoft", in violation of WP:REFPUNCT while erasing the sentence that "the watch was considered high-tech at its time" in violation of WP:BLANK. Laval's incompetent edit made the wiki code at the affected section have a ghastly placement of a redundant reference immediately after the wikilinked word "Microsoft" and even though there was another reference from the "Timex Corp. History" supporting the Microsoft connection just below the introductory sentence at the end of the same paragraph. Please see the bolded segments in the quotations below:

  The Datalink line was introduced in 1994 and it was co-developed with Microsoft<ref name="Magazines1994">{{cite book|author=Hearst Magazines|title=Popular Mechanics|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=guMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44|accessdate=18 November 2012|date=November 1994|publisher=Hearst Magazines|page=44|quote=mong the more high-tech entries is Timex's Data Link. Developed in conjunction with software giant Microsoft and chip-maker Motorola, the Data Link allows you to easily transfer information from your computer to your watch. Specifically, you ...|issn=00324558}}</ref> as a '']'' alternative to mainstream ]s with additional attributes such as water resistance, that PDAs lacked, and easy programmability.<ref name="Timex Corp. History">{{cite web|title=Timex Corporation History|url=http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Timex-Corporation-Company-History.html|work=Funding Universe|publisher=Disqus|accessdate=15 July 2013|year=1999}}</ref>

  However moving the additional reference was not necessary because the article already had a reference supporting the Microsoft connection:

  The Datalink line was introduced in 1994 and it was co-developed with ] as a '']'' alternative to mainstream ]s with additional attributes such as water resistance, that PDAs lacked, and easy programmability.<ref name="Timex Corp. History">{{cite web|title=Timex Corporation History|url=http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Timex-Corporation-Company-History.html|work=Funding Universe|publisher=Disqus|accessdate=15 July 2013|year=1999}}</ref>

  As you can see Datalink's Microsoft connection was already supported by "<ref name="Timex Corp. History">". Did Laval spot that before he started his blanking/edit-warring? I guess not. Δρ.Κ.  04:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Laval's claims of bad faith on my part

• Laval said just above: but the above user simply keeps reverting and posting bad faith generic warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in genuine discussion.
• Engage in what discussion? Please check the timeline of Laval's reverts with lightning speed, which prevented any possibility of discussion:
• 3:03, 15 September 2014‎ Laval (-571)‎ . . (then remove the sentence instead of constantly reverting me) (undo | thank)
• 3:02, 15 September 2014‎ Dr.K. (talk | contribs)‎ (+73)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Laval: No need to move the citation. It covers the information where it was. Violation of REFPUNCT. Please discuss instead of edit-warring.
• 2:59, 15 September 2014‎ Laval (-73)‎ . . (that sentence was incorrect and took the source out of context)
• 2:58, 15 September 2014‎ Dr.K. m (+73)‎ . . (Undid revision 625608492 by Laval One sentence was erased, wrong placement per WP:REFPUNCT)

For his false accusations of bad faith on my part, his incompetent blanking and other disruption on the Datalink article and this spurious report against me, I think Laval should be blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring. Δρ.Κ.  05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Nobody broke 3RR. Let's hope the dispute is now over. User:Laval, your 3RR report would be more credible if you had used the article talk page before coming here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:5.202.119.79 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.202.119.79 (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 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) to 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Criticism of open access publishing */"
   2. 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal threat */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC) to 05:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal threat */"
   2. 05:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Criticism of predatory open access publishing */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC) to 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Criticism of open access publishing */"
   2. 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal threat */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) to 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal threat */"
   2. 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal threat */"
5. 12:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Beall's list and Science sting */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeffrey Beall. (TW)"

Comments:

Please note additional reverts subsequent to this report: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours
• Page protected Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AChildOfTwoCultures reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Missing white woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AChildOfTwoCultures (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

An SPA has repeatedly added content that violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and has repeatedly failed to address the extensive concerns laid out on the talk page. The edits have so far been reverted by three other editors, either in part or in full by myself (, , ), by Bali88 (, , ) and Dodger67 (). Bali88 has requested further input at WP:DISCRIMINATION, but the SPA continues to edit-war and act aggressively against all those who oppose them i.e. they keep posting passive aggressive comments at my talk page (, ) and implied Bali88 is a neo-Nazi (). Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long-term warring. The user has made seven reverts of similar material in the last five days. The account was created on 12 September and it is logical to assume it was created just to engage in this particular edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Greco23 reported by User:Greco22 (Result: Blocked )

Thus user obviously took its name offensively to mine Continues the blanking on Panathinaikos and on various Greek sport articles Possible previous no named accounts: 77.49.49.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 176.92.122.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before seeing this report, I blocked Greco23 for the user's apparent attempt to either impersonate or mock Greco22. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fiva16 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Referred to WP:SPI)

Page

Ioannis Kapodistrias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fiva16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "(Kapodistria was 100 %Greek. He had some Italian, and Albanian origin. He was mostly of Greek origin.)"
2. 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625669194 by Alexikoua (talk). You can't use a blocked user as an explanation for your doings."
3. 11:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625620246 by Dr.K. (talk). According to sources."
4. 05:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625584661 by Dr.K. (talk)"
5. 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "It is proven theory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ioannis Kapodistrias. (TW★TW)"
2. 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Dr.K.. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Probable sock of Biar122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edit-warring adding fringe information to the article. Warned about discretionary sanctions on Balkans by EdJohnston. Δρ.Κ.  15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we don't get an appropriate response a block for WP:NOTHERE might be considered. But Dr. K., in the meantime why don't you reopen the SPI for Biar122. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I agree. About the SPI, I was thinking of exactly the same thing. But I need some time to gather the evidence. I will file it later today if Alexikoua doesn't beat me to it. Δρ.Κ.  15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

An spi has been filled here.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Alexi. I'll come around. Δρ.Κ.  19:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Being handled at WP:SPI. If they come back with no conclusion that Fiva16 is a sock, then a decision should be made whether a WP:NOTHERE block is justified based on the partisan content of the edits and the lack of response to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ed, would it be possible to temporarily block the sock given the amount of edit-warring disruption they are causing? Why wait for the two extremes, SPI and NOTHERE if temporary blocks can mitigate this problem somehow? SPI is also backlogged with a record 81 open cases. Also, technically speaking, an open SPI seems to make a sock 3RR-immune. This is not part of the 3RR policy, as far as I can tell. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ reported by User:Augurar (Result: Page protected)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JHunterJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

(This has been a back-and-forth dispute, so I have included all related diffs, including my own.) Diffs of relevant reverts:

1. (JHunterJ) "Synonyms: clarify, after misunderstanding at Talk:Dick"
2. (Augurar) "Undid revision 606904625 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverting attempt to unilaterally set Misplaced Pages policy"
3. (Bkonrad) "Undid revision 625450140 by Augurar (talk) this was not unilateral"
4. (Augurar) "Undid revision 625454562 by Bkonrad (talk) Reverted until consensus can be established (see talk page)"
5. (JHunterJ) "Reverted edits by Augurar (talk) to last version by Bkonrad"
6. (Augurar) "Undid revision 625544556 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted disruptive edit (see previous)"
7. (JHunterJ) "Undid revision 625618339 by Augurar (talk) Augurar's interpretation is not the consensus; work with other editors, please"
8. (Augurar) "Undid revision 625641866 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted to original version once again pending outcome of RfC"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Synonyms_on_disambiguation_pages
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Proposed_addendum_to_MOS:DABSYN

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly attempting to edit the MoS guideline without establishing consensus first. I have created a RfC on his or her behalf (see above); however, this editor appears unwilling to engage in discussion, and instead is repeatedly reinstating his edit to the policy.

I would be willing to accept a block as well, but I strongly recommend that the page be restored to its original state until this dispute can be resolved. This will require another editor to once again revert JHunterJ until the proposed change is discussed and consensus is reached. Augurar (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Further history. This dispute originally arose from a discussion on Talk:Dick regarding the linking of slang synonyms. After a compromise was reached on that page, JHunterJ modified the MoS page according to his interpretation of the guideline. When I noticed this, I reverted his change and attempted to initiate discussion on the talk page, but to no avail. I have repeatedly attempted to involve the larger Misplaced Pages community in this dispute, but have thus far been unsuccessful. Augurar (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: @JHunterJ: hasn't violated 3RR. Users have to exceed 3 reverts for that block to happen. Dusti 19:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am reporting this editor for edit warring behavior, not for specifically violating the 3RR. Despite my numerous efforts to engage in discussion and consensus-building, this editor has refused to seek consensus and instead repeatedly adds his proposed changes to the guideline. In my opinion, this constitutes tendentious editing and merits disciplinary action. Augurar (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be somewhat of an issue. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. An admin isn't going to come along and punish JHunterJ. If his edits are harmful to the project or are disruptive he may be blocked to protect the project, but I think you have the wrong interpretation of what a block is and what it's meant to do. Dusti 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a block may be justified, in that this editor's disruptive behavior is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping as far as I know. (For that matter, JHunterJ might consider my editing disruptive. His position seems to be that he was "clarifying" an existing policy, and I am interfering with this by attempting to discuss the changes.) Should I just keep reverting until the 3RR is breached? That doesn't seem efficient. Augurar (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And that post there is the most indicative of where a block may be justified. You appear to be intent on gaming the system to make sure you get your way. You are the single editor warring against at least two others. Your edit history starts back in May (and this MoS is hardly inactive; the project members saw it and understood), then jumps to your unilateral revert. Bkonrad explained that my edit was not unilateral, but that doesn't fit with your desired outcome, so is ignored (just like the explanation on the Talk page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages has been protected five days. The RfC, 'Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN', got off to a rocky start but it is now focusing properly on the matter at issue and has attracted new participants. I urge all editors to wait for the outcome of the RfC before trying to revert again. Reverts in the middle of an RfC look bad for the reverter and can lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:212.181.160.22 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected )

Page

Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625686369 by Sayerslle (talk) Not relevant. RT IS a reliable Source, only a simian would think otherwise."
2. 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625588105 by Sayerslle (talk) Only a very biased person with a clear agenda would claim that RT is not a RS while Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Fox, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Brown Noses "is"."
3. 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625540888 by VQuakr (talk) RT is definitely a Reliable Source."
4. 16:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625532318 by Sayerslle (talk) Stop sabotageing!"
5. 15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625521406 by Sayerslle (talk) Sällström have never said it's in their formula. You cannot provide source for that quote because it's made up, by Kaszeta."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ghouta chemical attack. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussed at User_talk:VQuakr#Again_RS_nonsense

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Discussion seems to have been taking place via edit summaries during the revert war; move it to the talk page, please. Ks0stm 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, User:VQuakr and user:Sayerslle are working as a team of bullying and claim that "RT is not a Reliable Source", shows their bias when they allow "sources" from the Saudi Dictatorship Propaganda organ Al Arabiya and the Qatari Dictatorship propaganda Organ Al Jazeera, not to mention all the references to Sofa "researchers" like Elliot Higgins/Brown Moses and his minion Dan Kaszeta, none of which have no credentials whatsoever. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

RT is not regarded as a Reliable source for anything but the barest statements of what the Russian regime is saying as far as I know, it is widely regarded as a propagandist and controlled outlet - certainly on the Syrian civil war it is not a reliable source where the Putin regime is, with Iran and Hezbollah, most clearly aligned with the House of assad that has ruled Syria for more than 40 years - its links go way back to the soviet era - ' I believe in any case this ip should be blocked for far from being bullied is in afct the most awful bully, and given to the vile abuse of others , - calling Misplaced Pages ZionPedia and expressing himself thus - 'I have done that mr. peanut, I have made my case very clear, it's not my fault that some sorry soule with feces for brains Pushes for his/her Personal Russophobic agenda and pretends that RT is not a RS.' - I do not work 'as a team' with anyone -- you obviously have a very clear agenda , you, this ip address, sought to redirect a page on the journalist Christiane Amanpour to the page for 'prostitution' Christiane Amanpour ‎ (←Redirected page to Prostitution) - I believe you should be banned from wp as you are a poisonous presence. that's how I see it, anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yakupyilmaz reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Removed Turkey from the list. Because all the references given about Turkey and its President are biased Abbatai (talk)"
2. 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Bu başlık altına o zaman bizim liderlermizden önce girmesi gereken batı liderleri onları koymayı deneseniz ;) KazekageTR (talk)"
3. 19:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Haklısın işlerini yapsınlar bencede bende senin kadar eleştirel bir insanım ama bu kadar acımasız olma Elmasmelih (talk)"
4. 19:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Kime neye göre arkadaşım böyle boş işlerle uğraşmayın memlekete yararlı işler yapın Elmasmelih (talk)"
5. 19:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Yalan Yanlış şeyleri niye yazıyorsunuz Elmasmelih (talk)"
6. 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625702585 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
7. 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625700136 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
8. 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625699195 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
9. Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) to 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625693231 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
   2. 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Examples of authoritarian states */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Authoritarianism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User also reported in Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. kazekagetr 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Ronhjones as a vandalism-only account. Stickee (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dvannamers reported by User:Boorsours (Result: 24 hours)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kevin_Mitnick&oldid=625128228

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kevin_Mitnick&diff=625831812&oldid=625831480

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has also been reported for suspected WP:COI

Boorsours (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Boorsours

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours I ran into this while patrolling recent changes. I don't mean to be harsh, but I had every reason to believe both users were not going to stop. This war was going at a very high edit-rate, with only two parties involved I opted for blocks rather than page protection. — MusikAnimal 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof et al. reported by User:MicBenSte (Result: )

Article: GamerGate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• The Red Pen of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625817543

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625832137 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GamerGate&diff=625832036&oldid=625831941 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GamerGate&diff=625831669&oldid=625831477 (And a lot more - will compile the full list later - and sadly there are more with enough hour passing by)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (will get back at this later, it's a mess and I need to cool down atm)

Comments:
I admit, I reverted myself things a few times without talk page - but a lot of editing has been going on where the 'misogynism' and 'harassment'-angle is being pushed by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TaraInDC, User:Tarc and User:TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom with and without talking about it (and if talking about it, without consensus and a lot of times even just flaming/insulting others) while people have tried to represent both POVs in the article, corresponding to newer, other RSes - yet it's still being pushed for one POV. Considering I received ZERO feedback/comments on the Admin/Dispute pages and a few of them are even already archived due to the time period, I'm playing it this way.

MicBenSte (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly edit warring, this is an ongoing problem-he was reported for this before, including violations of 3RR. Last time he avoided any reaction because the article was locked.If you look at the article's editing history, he clearly attempts to revert any edit not in line with his POV.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of a shotgun approach to the situation. "MicBenSte" and "MyMoloboaccount" are just two single-purpose accounts among a throng that has recently arrived on-Misplaced Pages to do battle against the so-called "social justice warriors" over topics relating to sexism in the video game industry. Zoe Quinn, Anna Sarkeesian, and GamerGate have all seen numerous attacks over the last few weeks, attempt to insert blatant WP:BLP violations, the more egregious of which have hat to be oversighted. That so many experienced Wikipedians, most of whom have little to no prior involvement in video game articles, have rejected their edits should be a clear indication of where consensus lies on the matter, and how these SPAs are on the wrong side of it. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring