Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 6 February 2015

• 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:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hand snoojy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC) "Added new sub-section"
2. 05:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Added news, facts and some other content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */ new section"
2. 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article is on WP:1RR as prominently displayed on talk page. "New" editor is adding in content of a blocked sock. NeilN 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours for 1RR violation on an article subject to WP:GS/SCW. The material that Hand snoojy was restoring was previously added to the article by User:Malam kanam 2003 on 25 January. That editor is now indef blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999. On 29 January Hand snoojy quickly made ten trivial edits to their own sandbox, presumably to get autoconfirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK of the other sock puppets. Same insertions, same whining on talk pages, same English language errors as the other versions of this editor. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy is back editing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He has made a series of edits that restore some of the same content (Special:Diff/645878331/645908644). EastTN (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No action)

Page: UFC 168 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Undid revision 645315193 by Paulmcdonald (talk) Irrelevant. Only this non-mma editor insists in his opinion with something that doesn't belong in this article.
2. →‎See also: restored entire section removed without discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Gsfelipe94#blanking sections

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I attempted to resolve this issue on the article talk page and the editor's talk page but was met with hard opposition and refusal to discuss the issue. Disagreement has quickly become apparent, the editor refuses to work collaboratively, and does not move on to appropriate dispute resolution. Therefore, I have started this discussion.

Comments:
I believe the information in question about the broadcast of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in conflict with this match is worth mention. It had received coverage in third party sources. While I agree it is not a major part of this topic, it should be mentioned. It has been placed in the past at the bottom of the article. We could make an article about the "broadcast" or maybe the "controversy" but I think that would dilute the information and not concentrate it.

I have not restored the section that was blanked at this time--no need to respond with throwing fuel on the fire. Whatever the outcome, the removal of the information, refusal to discuss it, and the editors threat of edit warring are uncalled for. --Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I don't see any edit warring at all. There two reverts: one was completely normal as other editors (registered or IPs) also reverted it based on relevance to the article. The second was that you reverted mine and I went to the talk page of the article to show me opinion. I also replied to your message in my talk page. I see no threats at all in this situation. All I see is a user that has no updates whatsoever related to mixed martial arts articles that decided to add one info that has no place at all in such article. While I understand the good faith at the beginning, Paul McDonald found opposition on the article's talk page and still decided that his opinion was the consensus. I was another user that stated I'm against this update and I'm sure others that didn't see will feel the same. It shows me that you're making a big deal of something that is completely uncalled for. There's no edit war at all and if you reverted my second edit, I would just gather all the people that seem to be necessary for you to understand that people related to the MMA articles also disagree with that content. It honestly has no sense at all to be added in that article. And if other editors do see it, I'm certain they'll agree with the editors (including me) that felt it was a non-sense edit for the article. I'm open to discussion there as you can see on the article's talk page. Instead of taking a moment to see there was a majority of editors against his edit, he decided that we were approaching a 3RR situation - something incorrect. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It was User:Technical 13 that closed the discussion as "not done" on the talk page. I don't see any other discussion. That I haven't edited a lot of MMA articles has no bearing on this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning semi-protection whatsoever that was requested. I'm questioning a majority (at that moment and with another user now) saying that they do not agree with your update based on the relevance of that fact to the event. How many situations of a establishment supposed to show one thing and then showing other should be added to wikipedia? You had a good faith edit at first, but many people had the same questioning to it. That's why I said that we should spare time and realize that. If you reverted it once again (I wouldn't find it an edit warring as I would do what I said - "It will happen": I'd gather the people (like I had to now) to also voice their opinion. It's a group of editors I've seen frequently in mixed martial arts articles with a good possibility of giving a fair opinion to the situation. I do believe they'll agree (probably all of them) with what other editors said (including myself) and tell you that there's no relevance to the info added and the event's article. I wouldn't revert you as it would be 3RR violation and I would have to do what I'm doing now.

With that being said, I do not believe there was an edit warring (neither yours or mine). You wanted to prevent it, I give you props for that. It wasn't going to happen, but ended up as I said it could end and as you probably wanted to: a newer discussion. I say leave it as it is as let's wait for the other editors opinion on the matter. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully my last comment: I requested that the editor discuss the issue on your talk page at User talk:Gsfelipe94#Blanking sections. The response was to revert without discussion and then... well, the reviewers can read the details there. Less than 10 days ago, the editor had a 24-hour block and was given the advice to first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Because it is so recent, I think it bears consideration again that this editor does not take these measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And the block was reverted right away as the administrator didn't check the entirety of the situation. I was blocked for a moment because I did break the 3RR rule. Wasn't my intention as I was constantly reminding the other user that we had a consensus about that situation. I don't see how that can relate to this, specially if you do check the entire situation instead of just seeing I was blocked and unblocked right after it. If you check my contributions page, you'll see from that day on how I have acted in other situations. You rushed a edit warring discussion here presuming I would do it. The discussion is on, yet you accuse me of canvassing - once again I bring here this word: funny. One of the editors I pinged to the discussion was the one involved in the situation one week ago. 1- You asked me to create a discussion on the talk page: I did it. I manifested my opinion there and there were already 3 opinions similar to mine while your remained alone till that moment. 2- Your denial of those opinions and removals gave me the impression of you wanting to defend your update at all costs until the end. Just like you said you have the impression I'm canvassing, this was my impression. 3- More info on the talk page. Please spare our time, I don't want to get more editors just to make it clear and obvious for you. It will happen. -> Here I confirm you that I gave my opinion there (as you asked me to) and then asked you to avoid a longer discussion (like this one actually) as you already had 4 users disagreeing with your update, while you were the only one defending it. If you didn't do that and reverted it again (or a situation like this happened - something I honestly didn't predict), I would get the editors to opine and I believed they would agree with the 4 people who already voiced their thoughts. Once again, this has nothing to do with a semi protection request by an IP user. I've said it on the article's talk page. We should focus on the situation: 3 editors against you in the past. I came up, found that out and I also disagreed with the update. Despite the 4x1 situation, you still thought there was room for the update. I just pinged some editors that are known to contribute to MMA articles (I asked you to bring people too) and let's see how it goes. If in the end there's a majority vote to keep your update, I would respect that. There's nothing complicated about that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Several editors at Talk:UFC 168 agree with removing the paragraph in question from the article. If anyone is not convinced of this, they can open a formal WP:RFC to gather opinions. But the material (about televising of football versus MMA in Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants) does appear too trivial to include. Not everything that can be sourced belongs in an article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: )

Page: Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Not in 24 hour period, but very close.

1. (19:35, 1 February 2015) - A series of edits that removed text, re-added links that were removed per WP:REDNOT, and re-added the revisionist label that violates WP:BLP.
2. (08:01, 2 February 2015) - Removal of text, claiming OR unless I provide a translation.
3. (15:07, 2 February 2015) - Removed the same text, and made other reverts that were not stated in the edit summary.
4. (19:54, 2 February 2015) - Same as above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user keeps removing text (which has been in the article for a long time), claiming that I need to provide a translation of the original text from the source first. This is by itself disruptive, since a simple quotation tag, instead of a revert, would have been enough.
I spend time on the translation and posted it on the talk page. However, he then claims that I need to provide a translation done by a reliable source, which goes against WP:NOENG.
He also constantly added text that violated WP:BLP, and made off-topic, heated and combative talk page comments.
His comments, especially the last two diffs, show that he is concerned with combating the "Russian POV" in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict articles and is bringing this fight to this article.
Also, over a month ago there was another user edit warring in the same article. The article was later protected. -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd argue that this user could do with a topic ban under WP:ARBEE (he is aware). Repeatedly edit-warring in EE articles over the course of a long period time (see block log) indicates that this user is not capable of handling the topic area. Blocking him again is not going to solve the problem. A topic ban is the solution. RGloucester — ☎ 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think Sayerslle made only two obvious reverts during last 24 hours. YMB29 also made at least two reverts. This is a complicated issue. If anyone wants this be considered at AE, that's fine. Please submit an official WP:AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between two reverts and four in almost a 24 hour period. Some reverting is allowed under WP:BRD. My last revert was to undo the previous revert by Sayerslle after I provided what he asked for in his revert summary. I thought that would settle it, but it did not... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

this is 'stale' in sense that I have become so revolted by YMB29's TE that I have told him I don't want anything further to do with the main article page. he didn't provide what I asked for - the original text , on the article page,('in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - he says, that doesn't mean on the article page, but it says what it says) -he studiously ignores everyone he disagrees with, -he kept removing RSourced material from the lead for no reason apparent to me, kept twisting the text in his favourite section, and so on. as for RGloucester's remarks i think that would be an over-reaction and I also notice that though I have edit-warred over 6 or 7 years, it is rare in the context of my overall editing ( this is an editor who put the MH-17 Malaysia airlines article up for deletion - he has his personal agenda and does things like that for a laugh apparently - and yet presumes to teach others about how to respect the encyclopedia ffs )-- i shant edit the article any more- do admins ever look at the substance of disputes btw - the lead was virtually 'these rapes, they've been nailed as part of an effort to portray Germans as victims, especially in the West -' - it was tendentious, it was odd, - and then YMB29 wants the views of marginal extreme Russian nationalist propagandists - everywhere, but if you try and add that a historian has been identified with a certain attitude to the history of Russia - and source it to the BBC - look out, you'll get called a violator of BLP, ( if you believe that take it to the appropriate venue - see what others think, that would be good), - you'll get your edits trashed - and then after the editor involved has edit warred with you, and others, but plays the game apparently against those who just care about the integrity of the text, well - he'll try and get those he basically hates politically taken out. Sayerslle (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is just to clarify what is happening (in chronological order):

1. YMB29 is engaged in sustained slow-motion edit war on this page ,,,,
2. EdJohnston blocked another user (and rightly so) for edit warring, protected this page for one month, and issued YM29 an EE warning, with a reference specifically to this page
3. YMB29 asks to revert protected page to "his" version. Others object
4. YMB29 resumes edit war immediately after expiration of protection
5. He now reports yet another user for edit warring. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would not defend YMB29's behaviour. However, Sayerslle has a long history in this ARBEE topic area, and of being in similar disputes. By now, it should be come apparent to him that his style of editing has not led to a productive result in this topic area. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a big threaded argument, but I just want to note that user "My very best wishes" is not a neutral observer here. He has been engaged in edit warring and harassment in the EE topic area for a long time. He also has a long history with me, including recent examples of clear wiki stalking. I can provide all the required diffs, but this is not the right place I think.

The user also commonly makes claims that are simply not true. This is not an EE warning, as it clearly says This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. And I did not edit war after the protection expired, as there was an agreement to re-add back some text. -YMB29 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You tell that you did not edit war after expiration of protection. How come? Here are last 50 edits on this page. They are made during last 48 hours. I can see three reverts made by Sayerslle and three reverts made by you (in addition to my diff above). In addition, it was you who brought this request here, asking to deal with an edit war between Sayerslle and who? My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that this is edit warring, which is false.

You also never explained your sneaky revert to remove text without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

there is no consensus as far as I can tell to add all the stuff you want to from dyukov and senyevskaya , two fringe historians, - you just ignore others -and if you think the 'revisionist 'tag is unjustified why not take it to a venue where that could be looked at - its you that just edit wars - Sayerslle (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, changes have to be restored to the previous state, per WP:NOCONSENSUS.

If this basic wiki principal was followed the first time, before the page protection, we would not be having this problem again now. -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant there was no consensus for your massive verbiage of extreme fringe pov historians to be quoted - it was only you fighting for all that pov verbiage as far as I could see- you writing 'this problem again' - what, you mean this has been a problem before? why do you think that is ? because its problematic ? ever thought of that? - and it was you that repeatedly removed sourced material for 'revisionist' - you that disruptively edited ad infinitum over that - why wont you take that source to a RFC or something - you prefer to edit war don't you , that's what you're like Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant that you are not the first one to edit war against consensus in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

you are the principal edit warrior at this article . full stop. you are the principal pov pusher. you ignore consensus and other editors opinions. I see at rootless cosmopolitanism you leave edit summaries like - ' It is a valid source. Your opinion does not matter here' - and impose your (invaraibly Stalinist/Putinist/extreme Russian Nationalist/xenophobic pov writer of choice . I like the way some opinions don't matter to you. your opinion matters to you, thats all. disgusting. why don't you take your challenge of 'revisionist' to a forum of some kind? why do you just edit war over that? -yu say I violated BLP and you kept edit warring - ask for another opinion. go on. Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations are usually removed right away. I was actually going to go to the BLP noticeboard about this, but then I saw that you keep reverting other parts of the article too. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

no, not 'other parts of the article' - just your verbiage from fringe historians for which you have no consensus whatever - you edit war over 'revisionist' and don't take it to a noticeboard becase you like to see people you disagree just blocked or tpic banned rather than have your edits scrupulously looked at no doubt - at 'rootless cosmopolitanism' one sees again the nature of your 'work' and editing 'style' ,- diverse, well sourced material is removed and huge blocs of text , the work of your favoured Stalinist/Russian nationalist/xenpophobic writers are put in their place - you denigrate other editors , 'your opinion doesn't matter' - you edit war - you accuse people of BLP violations but don't take it to a noticeboard, just edit war - awful. a menace. Sayerslle (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @RGloucester. Yes, Sayerslle has a short temper, just like you. However, I have seen him contributing positively on a number of pages - just like you. YMB29 is very different. I believe he is simply a POV-pushing SPA contributor with nationalistic agenda, someone described in the essay by Moreschi. I think he does not contribute positively at all, but engaged in WP:TE editing and slow-motion edit wars on multiple pages, just as on this page, and this is something I tried to tell with supporting diffs here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your last link is to an old version of the page that does not include my response.

You are just throwing baseless accusations. So I am a nationalistic SPA... Is that why you are keeping an eye on me and following me around?

I can understand why you are defending Sayerslle; you are both pushing the same POV together in many articles (like ). Given your history, I would not be surprised if you canvassed him to this article; he never edited the article until last Friday, which was when you complained about me "edit warring" but said that you don't want to get involved yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB 29 - that is not AGF. What I have a habit of doing YMB29 is sometimes clicking on the contribution histories of contributors that I have encountered , that is all, and that is why I looked at this article , and rootless cosmopolitanism. Sayerslle (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For the rootless cosmopolitan article, he openly canvassed you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

that looks like open talk page conversation to me - is that what made me look at that article -anyhow I do look at contribution histories and that is what ,as I recall anyhow , brought me to this page about 1945 - I don't know what shared 'pov' you think we might be pushing anyhow - evryones pov is shaped by a multitude of things really - the thing is , is to be self aware when editing Misplaced Pages, to be aware of any bias and always seek to edit for the best of the encyclopedia - you just use wp as a place to pursue your nationalist pov - that's my opinion. and its shaped by my reading of Orwell's Notes on Nationalism - the tell-tale signs of that kind of mind - my personal opinion, not the result of a canvassed campaign against your (pov) edits Sayerslle (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what your accusations are based on exactly, but a simple look at your user page will show that it is you who has an agenda here. -YMB29 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

a simple look at my user page reveals an open ness - a simple look at your user page - reveals - nothing. which in its way is revealing also. My user page reveals I am not a nihilistSayerslle (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile the reverting continues. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

good faith editing continues. i'm editing the discourse section , is that all right with the FSB? and your edit to the lead was POINT-y and pointless - you present a source and then challenge it yourself - twittish disruptive idiotic edits. and you whine about others canvassing and stalking you ffs, yet you carry on here a pathetic campaign monitoring others good faith edits - nauseating. - another editor observed of you 'you are doing almost nothing but reverts in a single article for the entire month' what are you here for really - you don't contribute to the encyclopedia except for a few articles where you edit war- hypocrite, you are 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)

It looks like the disruption is carrying over to other articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

its called editing - are you going to label 'disruption' any edit that doesn't endorse your world view. totally ridiculous. why do you keep running here with your whines anyhow ? why are you not discussing on the talk page differences of opinion? - you are just seeking to get people who don't agree with your pov blocked really on spurious grounds. I am editing - that is the whole bloody point of this place. - dégueulasse. Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You never edited the article until today. Again, you are there only to support "My very best wishes," who followed me there today to revert my old edit.

Plus comments like "she is Fringe ffs - its fucking obvious" don't belong on wiki. -YMB29 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

is it no swearing ever as well now, prig-ish nonsense, - one doesn't wish to swear but sometimes one is so exasperated by the kind of nonsense one encounters dontcha know - and is one not allowed to edit an article that YMB29 hasn't explicitly said one can edit? if you don't want your precious edits ever changed in any way you are told not to edit wp because that's exactly how it is on wp.Sayerslle (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior:

• 80.117.117.225 removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .

• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .

• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Nug removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Volunteer Marek removes text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Iryna Harpy removes the text .
• Page protected.
• YMB29 reverts
• a series of minor edits
• My very best wishes removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle and My very best wishes remove the text .

• So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus.

MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page. Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely true that YMB29 has been engaged in a slow motion edit war and regularly ignores input from others if they don't match their own POV. Sometimes s/he'll wait for a day or two, to avoid crossing 3RR, but they ALWAYS come back and revert. There's a good bit of stubbornness and, well, dedication here. Just not sure it's being used for good, rather than ye ol' regular POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not even come across you much. You are just repeating the same thing "My very best wishes" said. If I remember correctly you two were members of the WP:EEML (under your old names) that targeted and harassed users... -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you're resorting to making false accusations. I've never "targeted" nor "harassed" anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that you were not a member of that list? Anyway, your edits in the article and comments here were not exactly neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: Was the linking of other users an attempt by you to canvass them into coming here and saying how bad of an editor I am?
Also, you have to look at the reverts closely:

• For this revert - A whole paragraph was removed on the pretext that RT is not a reliable source, but the main citation was actually to a different source (RT was only cited to show that the person was a historian). I simply removed the RT citation and re-added the text.
• - Three whole paragraphs were removed on the pretext of "coat racking" criticism of Antony Beevor, when in reality, as I later demonstrated, only part of the text mentioned Beevor.
  
• - Sayerslle reverted text, demanding that I provide a translated quote, for which the translation is done by a RS. He does not trust my translation. This goes against what is said in WP:NOENG, where translations by wiki users are allowed.
• - It was agreed on the talk page that this should be put back, as it did not have anything to do with coat racking.

So simply saying that I reverted six users in a 3-4 month period does not mean much without examining in detail what went on. -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stickee, I am also curious why you skipped over in your summary this attempt by CurtisNaito to restore legitimate text and then the revert again by MiGR25? -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOENG 'In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - and you said this didn't mean 'in articles' - but it does say 'in articles' - and on such a controversial topic its important to be as open as possible with the sources and what one is doing with them- you asked 'why would they clutter the page?' or something, in response - well, how would I know I didn't write the rules , I was just saying what the rule suggests as good practice - so it wasn't me going against what NOENG says , it was you Sayerslle (talk)

No, posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed. I provided both, but you still remove the text, which shows that this was only a pretext for you to remove it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that all these comments make it hard for the admins to read this report, so here is a summary of the facts:

• Sayerslle was just short of breaching 3RR, by less than 20 minutes.
• He never edited the article until 30 January, which is when user "My very best wishes" complained about me "edit warring" there and said that he does not want to get involved himself.
• Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.
• He made edits that violated WP:BLP.
• He and "My very best wishes" have made reverts after this report was opened.
• As RGloucester pointed out, Sayerslle received lengthy blocks relatively recently for edit warring in the EE topic area.
• Sayerslle has made inappropriate comments here and on talk pages, such as calling my edits "twittish disruptive idiotic," calling me a hypocrite and a menace, using the F word, and complaining about Stalinist/Putinist/Russian nationalist POV, the FSB and NKVD...

-YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yes I do think your edits are disruptive - and your charge sheet against me is hypocritical , you are an edit warrior who has edit warred at the page over time -- you compile great vindictive dossiers but don't edit articles of the encyclopedia much except your hobby-horses. 'posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed' you say -yet the rule is clear that if a wikipedian is translating, the translation should be together with the original, - you just ignore that don't you - Sayerslle (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.": Mate, 6 other editors removed text, and you reverted every single one of them. Looks like there was a consensus for his edits, not yours. Stickee (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, six editors in over 3-4 months. Consensus is not built by reverting, especially by users who never or barely edited the article before and suddenly "became" interested. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this report. In fact, there is also a slow-motion edit war going on with article Lewis Carroll which Sayerslle is involved in (see edit history). This prompted me a few hours ago to fully protect the article for one week and inform people on the talk page that they should resolve the issues or go to dispute resolution. If not, I mentioned action that probably would be taken. I just add this for further information.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited that article in my life til I saw a BBc documentary last week and added one bloody sentence. That sentence was removed yesterday, and would have stayed removed. Consensus, however wrongheaded over the BBC , saying it was not respectable or some tosh, was clear, and I was not intending to edit that artcile again. I may say the admins decision to totally protect the article is absurd imo , over the top - I really am beginning to despise certain administrators who detect a 'pattern' of edits when what they see are brief moments in a contribution history that they are primed to seek out and destroy -you're discouraged DDStretch? well you are spreading discouragement also imo, - I edit articles o.k. - I added one sodding sentence at the lewis carroll article -it was not a big deal at all - -in the meantime perhaps this appeal of YMB29 for me to be blocked could be decided ? Sayerslle (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A clear look at the revision history shows that you are not telling the truth in what you write above: you have done far more than just add one sentence. You have removed material. Additionally, replying in the manner you have is something you have history at, and which has had action taken against you in the past. I recommend an uninvolved admin take the appropriate action now.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the lewis carroll article and deleted nothing . - I added one sentence from a BBc documentary - what material did I remove? vindictive admins! Sayerslle (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, you did not remove information, but you did repeatedly add the same infoermation. The personal attack on me is noted. Here are the editing events where you sometimes added the same material despite it being removed by others and subject to discussion on the talk page: Note all of them are much longer than the "one sentence" claimed.

2015-02-02

2015-02-04 added again with extra deleted information being re-added

2015-02-05 re-added

2015-02-06 re-added again

To summarize: I apologize, you did not remove material. However, you added far more than the "one sentence" you claimed, on 4 occasions, making that 3 re-addings. You also made a personal attack against me. I draw your attention to the relevant bit in the information about WP:3RR : "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". You have history of engaging in edit-warring and in the case of Lewis Carroll the question about whether that material should be included or not was already being discussed on the talk page, -and you took part in it, and yet you still engaged in the slow-motion edit-war, pacing the re-additions to avoid more than one in a 24 hour period. When this is pointed out, you do not tell the truth, but repeatedly say it was only one sentence, and then you accuse me of being vindictive for taking action to stop this disruption, though I do understand that you may have been slightly annoyed by my (now retracted) accusation that you had removed material. However, the fact remains that you have by-passed the 3RR rules and done so while you knew the dispute was being actively discussed. You should know better than this, given the block log that shows a number of blocks in the past for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. One should simply quickly look and decide if a 3RR violation took place on one particular page. If in doubt, pleas close this thread without action. If anyone has other issues with other articles, please report them on other appropriate noticeboards, or make a new thread here about an alleged 3RR violation on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, MVBW. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. There is no paperwork to file, no departments to be shuffled between. If there is an issue, it can be dealt with on the spot. This is especially true when discretionary sanctions are in effect (WP:ARBEE). RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not bureaucracy, but efficiency. One should deal with only one specific question at a time. No one wants to read TL:DR walls of text, such as that one. That's why we have a number of different noticeboards for different purposes. Let's use them properly. In addition, a discussion by several admins on WP:AE (if there is a reason for such discussion - I am not sure) helps to find the best possible solution. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is not only about 3RR violations, but edit warring in general. I don't see why the fact that Sayerslle has a history of edit warring, and is still edit warring while this report is open, should not be brought up. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:108.6.38.122 reported by User:Gloss (Result: )

Page: Survivor: Worlds Apart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.6.38.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - Jan 22, before the DRN discussion was opened
2. - Jan 22
3. - Feb 2, Another IP just opened a DRN discussion, but this IP decided to revert back to their preferred version for the time being
4. - Feb 2, DRN still open
5. - Feb 3, DRN quickly closed but talk page discussion quickly opened, 108 didn't comment there since
6. - Feb 4, talk page discussion still open, 3RR warning had been given already

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names

Comments:
The issue was brought up on the talk page and the IP has not commented there since. They've continued reverting to their preferred version despite an edit warring/3RR warning. Gloss 17:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gloss: I actually did comment there and filed a WP:DRN. Look carefully. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You filed that DRN? That was filed by a different IP address than yours. - so you're admitting to having used two different addresses first of all. And secondly, you commented after making your fourth revert… after receiving an edit warring notice. The comment after the final revert doesn't make the final revert okay. Gloss 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There haven't been three reverts in 24 hours. The reverts have been in a longer period, so that the edit-warring doesn't cross the bright line. Also, since IP addresses change, the use of multiple IP addresses is not considered sock-puppetry. However, I do advise the IP to register an account, because the article is likely to be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard, no? Not the 3RR noticeboard, specifically? 24 hour time period or not, the IP was reverting to get their way throughout the discussion and after 3 reverts over Feb 2/3, a warning was given and an additional revert took place. If a block isn't issued for something like this, I don't see what this noticeboard is for. Gloss 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B102:5588:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: )

Page

Justin Amash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1006:B102:5588:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645672907 by 41.142.112.36 (talk)"
2. 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645671315 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) reason previously stated"
3. 23:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645669650 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) still a parent category"
4. 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645662927 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) parent category, per WP:SUBCAT"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Justin Amash. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also 41.142.112.36's edits. ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:109.145.70.145 reported by User:SuperMarioMan (Result: )

Page

Giuliano Mignini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Add: 86.160.219.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same editor/edits)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

See below

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See below

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See below

Comments:

Blatant edit warfare, with reverts carefully spaced out to avoid violating the letter of WP:3RR. Repeated insertions of content – unsupported or insufficiently supported by sources – on a BLP.

User has reverted myself and others seven times to date: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/109.145.70.145

I gave them a standard 3RR warning (which they later removed from their talk page): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:109.145.70.145&diff=prev&oldid=645208883

Another user explicitly invited them to discuss the edit on the talk page in lieu of further edit-warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Giuliano_Mignini&diff=645088208&oldid=645026066 SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting BLP issues is exempt of the 3RR, see WP:3RRBLP. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes – but the text that the user kept adding was problematic with regard to WP:BLP. They were creating BLP issues rather than reverting them. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I just added a second IP they started out with.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Since the article has now been semi-protected for two weeks, I have no particular objection if this report is closed. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Equality Party and various other articles, see ANI for more details

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: )

Page: Equality Party (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. s1

1. s2

1. s3

1. s4

1. s5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

At Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party, same discussion

Comments: See for ANI reports at various articles, all removing references to socialist libertarianism, and edit warring to get their way at numerous articles. Obvious POV push. All listed at ANI.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Earlier diffs showing same behaviour again removing info box description and refs to article. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Grinbriar reported by User:The Stick Man (Result: )

Page: A Streetcar Named Desire (play) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grinbriar (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: None, only a disruptive editing warning was given

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The week before, Grinbriar made an attempt to revise the plot summary in the Streetcar article. I liked the idea of someone coming in to improve it but reverted it, due to the presence of several grammatical errors, unnecessary detail, and what I felt was just not good writing. We had a brief discussion in the linked article dicsussion page and my own talk page, but it didn't lead to anything. After about half a week he resumed making the same edits with the same errors and stopped responding to talk page messages altogether. I even tried to explain myself on his own talk page, but seeing how he hasn't even commented on any talk page for over a week it's clear that I'm being ignored. He did stop for a few days, so I had assumed he had just given up, but he went back to making the same edits (with the same vague explanations like adding "key details" or describing "what the play is actually about") just last night. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do at this point. TheStickMan 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad and User:JHunterJ reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: )

Page: Aurora (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JHunterJ (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:
Slow moving edit war so avoiding 3RR but at 8 reverts between them already too much.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Edit summary here covers it: Maintain noun phrase descriptions, which is the point of repeating "song". No problem with WP:MOSDAB, so take it up on talk per WP:BRD. Which Bkonrad has failed to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Elblanco123 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

Page

Eve Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Elblanco123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "removed using HotCat"
2. 16:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk) to last revision by Elblanco123. (TW)"
3. 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk): Wrong else? (TW)"
4. 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Eve Torres. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See user talk page for attempts at discussion. Also noticed previous EW notification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Al Khazar reported by User:M60a3tts (Result: Blocked filer and IP)

Page: T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al Khazar (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 user is trying to neglect the source which I stated on the page, "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery design practices:1945 to Present, which is written by military experts, for example, Steven J. Zaloga. And he is also removing the source and keep editing the protection value of the T-90 MBT. I gave him the photos I took from the book, to prove that my reference is credible, but his attitude does not change.

↓ These is a proof for his unchanging attitude.

I am sick of re-editing the T-90 page. Khazar don't you think this is reliable enough?M60a3tts (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You've already been blocked before. If you continue this, you will be blocked again. Learn to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Khazar (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This book is written by Andrew W. Hull, David R. Markov and Steven J. Zaloga, and they are all experts in this field. This was even adviced by Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and Christopher F. Foss, who is the editor of IHS Jane's. You are the one who believes that internet shit is much more credible than specialty publication.220.76.25.116 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Khazar http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=375286&page=1 These photos are all taken from the book I mentioned before. Yes, I was banned before, but does that doesn't matter at all. You are the one who doesn't know how to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Learn to read English, and use your eyes.M60a3tts (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked M60a3tts and his IP sidekick for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:85.164.61.86 and User:80.212.4.12 reported by User:Ldvhl (Result: )

Page: Free Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.164.61.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.212.4.12 (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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I believe both IPs are the same user. Note how 80.212.4.12 has a warning for using multiple IP addresses to vandalize Misplaced Pages.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• 1980s births