Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 7 June 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.

User:Libertarian12111971 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result:user warned)

Page: Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Libertarian12111971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: May 16

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. May 16
2. May 21
3. May 30
4. May 30
5. May 30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• May 16 "An editor has now repeatedly ... in a slow-motion edit war ... deleted inlines to redirects."
• May 30 "You can't just edit war on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a cogent reason for your edit warring."
• May 30 "I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• May 21
• May 30
• May 30
• May 30

Comments:
Frustrating.

This editor has stopped just short of 4 reverts, but is edit warring. He is repeatedly overriding my contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Despite my efforts to engage him in discussion.

I've tried to engage the editor in meaningful discussion a number of times, on his talkpage, on the article talkpage, and in my edit summaries. I've received nothing helpful in response. The best has been along the lines of "I disagree". Followed by a series of reverts.

Sometimes -- a problem that has plagued many of this editor's edits (he doesn't seem to care, as he has been spoken to about it a number of times in the last 10 months, by at least 4 different editors), he doesn't at times leave an edit summary. As in his reverts 1 and 4, above. Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm noting other issues as well. This comment looks like trolling in response to your completely valid and universally accepted admonishment that inline links should not be deleted because they are helpful, the editor wrote, "No, they're not." This comes a few months after I encountered them inexplicably removing a reference from an unreleased film article. The editor never replied to my query about that. Their response of "That sucks" in response to yet another explanation that edit summaries are crucial leads me to wonder if they ever read up on any of the other notices about this, or if they understand that this is a community project, not a solo venture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed similar problems -- though they go beyond this board. An example -- the inexplicable removal of a pertinent fact, and then ... in talk page discussion ... denying his removal, though the diff clearly evidenced it. See here. Not in keeping with the rebut-able AgF we start out with. And perhaps that is pertinent to this board. Frustrating. Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Attention to this would be appreciated. Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned, if they continue they are likely going to be blocked. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

Baruch Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "wikipedia: overcat (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality)"
2. 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "reason? It's precedent."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "already in category"
   2. 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Comments:

Previously blocked for violation of 1RR; my edit summary at Goldstein reminded the editor of this rule, but the editor ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That was two reverts. The third was completely justified. It's blatant overcat. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry all. I thought it was 3RR, not 1. I self-reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks after you were blocked for violating 1RR, you thought the rule for Israel/Palestine material was 3RR?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the general rule for Israel/Palestine 3RR? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. Baruch Goldstein's article is obviously related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor do not just jump into articles and edit. Read all the appropriate banners that you will find on the article and talk pages, so you get an idea of the current "DEFCON" state of the articles. It was decided a long time ago now that all I/P related works are 1RR's. Please read around articles before you begin to edit. I really don't want to see you here again, MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Nomoskedasticity I would have appreciated a ping from you on this. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MM, This is for your own good. I propose a 1-2 week topic ban for all I/P and Jewish - related subjects for you. I urgently need to know whether you can function in other subject areas, as many of us do, in a constructive way. You have a great interest in retro technology, and there is masses of articles that would interest you. I am proposing this for your own good, as your mentor. Your supporter's patience (of which there are many) is not inexhaustable. It would do your reputation an immense amount of good if you voluntarily refrained from editing these areas yourself for a one or two week period, and stated this yourself. Kind regards Simon Irondome (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I went ahead and added Template:Editnotices/Page/Baruch Goldstein, though it does look like the user's previously been DS alerted in the area, albeit 11 months ago. --slakr 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely commit to that. Can I edit non-controversial Israel-related articles? Ie, I was thinking of uploading the Hebrew Teva logo. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MM, are you capable of leaving Jewish-related subjects entirely for a short period? Analytical Engine. Have a look at that. WP is sooo big Georgia! Simon Irondome (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: the answer to your question appears to be no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: well at least it's happening on talk now! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by reluctance to deal with a clear violation of 1RR, especially as a repeat instance. In any event: today, we have a repeat of the same sort of edit on the same article: . It's not a further violation of 1RR -- but one would surely hope for use of talk page rather than simply repeating an edit that has already been rejected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• The additional editing today on Baruch Goldstein makes it clear that this editor has no intention of adhering to 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:Monochrome Monitor didn't clearly respond to Irondome's proposal she agree to a break from editing Jewish-related articles. She's already been blocked twice for violating the ARBPIA 1RR rule, and this complaint asserts a new violation on June 1. On June 5 (while this complaint is still open) she has resumed editing Baruch Goldstein. The time may have come for a three-month topic ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't violate anything this time. Also, many of my edits (ie, deleting category:20th century physicians) were accepted.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Context is important. The first ban on A/I was two years ago. I was fifteen. The last one was a good-faith edit on Israel, a compulsory one-day edit ban. This time was different and I broke 1RR (albeit unknowingly), and I'm fine getting penalized for that. But A three-month ban is completely unjustified since the last one was one day. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I forgot about the 2-week thing. I did try to work on other things but my article got deleted by a bot. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of bots, a bot just made the same edit on the article that I did. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Warned)

Page: Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:27, 1 June 2015
2. 16:12 2 June 2015
3. 16:49, 2 June 2015
4. 16:57, 2 June 2015
5. 17:22, 2 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments: High-profile article, quite a lot of transphobic vandalism at the moment, quick action would be appreciated. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue, which is exempted from edit-warring penalties. Overemphasis of a trans subject's birth name is considered extremely offensive in the trans community. Normally the birth name is completely omitted from the lead, and mentioned only in the infobox and early life section. See media guides etc. for verification of offensiveness. I will not revert the article again today. Here are the sources: Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." - GLAAD Media Reference
• " Do not ask what the person’s birth name was." - Trans Etiquette 101
• "calling someone by their birth name is not only offensive to that person, but in some cases, puts them at risk." - Watching Our Language In Reporting Transgender Stories (NPR)
• "it may be rude to ask what their "real" name or birth name was -- they consider the name they have chosen to suit their gender (if they have done so) to be their real name, and they want you to think of them that way." - How to Respect a Transgender Person (WikiHow)

• Fully endorse Skyerise's actions as a BLP enforcement measure. Bozio's attitude around it is utterly improper. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Crying "BLP" doesn't excuse five separate reversions of five different editors (within a day) over a content dispute, which this is – not "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)", which is exempted, per WP:3RRBLP. ¡Bozzio! 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it falls under "contentious" due to it being offensive to trans subjects. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit-summary, "enjoy your block," which accopanied Bozzio's notification at Skyerise's talkpage for this thread, is entirely inproper.

Result: User:Skyerise is warned not to test the limits of the BLP exception, which technically doesn't apply here. That exception is intended for the urgent removal of bad material, which this is not. The reverting has stopped for now, and the general issue about how to identify a transgender subject is being discussed at WP:VPP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: or anyone else, sorry to bug you, but Skyerise has resumed edit-warring even while the topic is under discussion (a discussion to which they have contributed), as shown by their recent contributions. ¡Bozzio! 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop violating MOS:IDENTITY which you have been informed of. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we use the transgender subject's chosen name everywhere on Misplaced Pages. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to admins (and sorry Ed, disregard the above): a discussion has now been opened at ANI. I'd prefer if we keep this to one place, and ANI seems like the best venue. ¡Bozzio! 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )

Page

Manchester United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665226347 by SLBedit (talk) this is unnecessary"
2. 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "no, it's just unnecessary whitespace"
3. 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "loans are all as good as over now that the season is over"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */ new section"
2. 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
3. 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
4. 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
5. 22:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
6. 23:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

PeeJay2K3 is ignoring MOS:HEADINGS. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

SLBedit is making unnecessary edits. Why would you even go into an article's code just to add two lines of whitespace that isn't even required by the Misplaced Pages software? It's recommended to help editors, but it's not mandatory. – PeeJay 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you admit the minor edits were helpful (to help editors). It's not mandatory to revert other people just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just childish. No offence has occurred here. Not to suggest that edit warring only occurs when more than three reverts have occurred, but there are only three reverts here, and one of them was by accident; I started making my edit about the end of the loans before SLBedit re-reverted me, so when I saved it, it went back to a version before his re-revert. – PeeJay 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If you say so but I think it was not an accident. You are against two blank lines just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work assuming good faith there... – PeeJay 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If it was in good faith or an accident, why didn't you add the blank lines back? You can. Or do you want me to violate 3RR? SLBedit (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: SLBedit (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Palma.palash.yandex. reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: 24h)

Page: Buk missile system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Palma.palash.yandex. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: _{Subscript text} Here user introduced unclear language to article (also apparent WP:NPOV): ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ,
2. ,
3. ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments:The article has a pattern of such edit warring, from IPs with similar geolocation and from newly registered accounts such as this. Best solution is to semi-protect the article again - whenever PP expires, this pattern of behavior re-emerges.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 02:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Israeli legislative election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Narbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (this diff in itself was a violation of 3RR (other 3 are here: ), but the report here at WP:3RRN was not responded to quickly, and was later marked stale)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. (another one since this report was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:Narbit#Israeli legislative election, 2015, where there is an escalating series of requests to stop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue has been discussed at Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2015#Zionist Union leader (further participation in this debate was sought via the notice posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel#Israeli legislative election, 2015).

Comments:
Narbit was edit warring on this article on 19 May, but avoided being blocked for violating 3RR as the report was not responded to promptly. Subsequent discussion on the talk page showed no support for Narbit's position, so I restored the version prior to the original outbreak, which was supported by the other three discussion participants (one of which was myself). Narbit has now reappeared after not editing for a week, solely to start edit warring again. Although Narbit has not yet broken 3RR again, he has stated on the talk page that he is "not moving on this", so I have no reason to doubt that he will not continue to revert endlessly unless action is taken, and I do not want to continue reverting him until he reaches 3RR again. Number 57 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Narbit is also now trying to insert text into my comments above (). Number 57 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to defend myself because you are mischaracterizing the events that have occurred to suit your false narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just restored the article (again?). I will add: I tried to mediate a period to allow possible interested parties to address the subject, and the consensus was in opposition to Narbit's preference. I also gave Narbit a very appropriate remedy within the article: address the question in the body text of the article. I don't think anyone here would have argued with the idea of including Narbit's main idea—characterization of the leadership of the Zionist Union party as a dual leadership—within the body of the article in the right place. It was a material issue in the election, and entirely appropriate to address in the text. Narbit is edit-warring over the contents of the infobox, as if that is the whole article.

Speaking personally, I wonder how much Narbit cares about the rules here. After all this time, he has not figured out how to do something as simple as signing his posts on talk pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: This was archived without action. However, since then Narbit has started reverting again. Can someone actually do something about this? Number 57 08:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also pertinent that Narbit has also been edit warring over this on other Wikipedias (see the page histories of the Hebrew and Spanish versions). Number 57 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are substantial discussions about this on both the article talk page and on the reported user's talk page.

I would add that this has taken large amounts of time and energy from several editors here. Narbit stopped reverting for a time so as not to run afoul of the 3RR rule technically. However, he has explicitly said more than once that he will not rest until this is changed to his satisfaction, notwithstanding consensus of other editors to the contrary. I would humbly but strongly request administrators to be fair to the rest of us and put a stop to this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We have two more reverts today, so far:

• (this mentioned above by Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• (this just now)

How much longer do we need to do this? Or does he win consensus by bullying? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week --slakr 03:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Okurogluselo reported by User:Taivo (Result: Warned)

Page: Language isolate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Okurogluselo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rather than discussing on Talk Page, Okurogluselo has reverted again, even after being warned again here:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and

Comments:
User:Okurogluselo is pushing a WP:FRINGE edit that violates WP:WEIGHT. His editing is disruptive and tendentious. While he made a brief attempt to discuss the issue on my own Talk Page, he ignored the issues I raised. While he has not violated WP:3RR there, his disruptive editing also affects Sumerian language. --Taivo (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: I gave notice to the user. With using the tool. Also I expressed about his talk page , to invite you to consider his/her general manners. The user of conflict simply erases everyting added to the article instantly, by me or by others. Furthermore the user never listens opinions of others. These are obviously "revert" literally. See below, please.Okurogluselo 22:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

You did not notify me of the following. Show me on my Talk Page where I was notified. --Taivo (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Okurogluselo: right now, you are in violation of our policy against edit warring and are disruptive editing. Several editors have reverted your changes to the page in question, and there is clear consensus against them that is developing not only in the page's edit history but also on its talk page. The only reason you're not blocked right now is that 1.) You're a new editor and might not be aware of these policies (and weren't properly warned using one of our user-warning templates *cough, cough User:TaivoLinguist*; I've taken the liberty of posting a proper one to your talk page) and 2.) I noticed you stopped making edits to the page and started making them to talk pages—which is the right thing you should be doing. If, however, you continue attempting to make those same edits to Language isolate without clear consensus of the other editors on the article's talk page, and if you repeatedly do the same on Sumerian language (or really any other page), you will be blocked from editing. Consider this your only warning, and seek dispute resolution instead of repeatedly reverting other editors. --slakr 03:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: (Also, I sent a message to you. Hope you will find time to read)

Agree. I will abide to your decision, I am respectful to any real concensus. I will prefer talk pages first, even I think that my recent attempt of conflict to edit article was minor in fact. However, I am afraid it was considered as an attempt to change the status quo, by the member of conflict. Really, it was not so.

Again I like to say, my main problem with the articles of Sumerian Language and the Language Isolate is about the language and style. The editors I mentioned above, think like me. The sytyle of the article (like many articles in linguistics) are determinative and assertive, even dogmatic more than scientific.

Nothing can be considered to stay permanent forever, the theories are subject of change, with the help of new studies. Otherwise it would be religion, not science. So, we should mention in wiki pages, about the possibility of changing in recent situation with the help of new development in any areas. Of course with giving reliable references.

Still, the article Language Isolate needs reliable references. Also I think, the editor TaivoLinguist should devote some of his energy to this problem. If he still consider real quality of the articles in wiki.

A reference is reliable in case of its being monitored in respectable indexes or published by serious publishers. Here we should not argue about dignity of such publications, but just we should give a change to wiki readers to learn about them. That is all about my intensions, no more.

Thanks to everbody to spend time for the case. Okurogluselo 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:Okurogluselo (Result: declined)

Page: Language isolate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Talk:Language isolate. Thank you.

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 about the article Language IsolateTalk:Language_isolate

and

Versions of this page and

have done because of an another user, who barely speaks english. The editor User:Vsmith knows this issue nad send a message to the user. Okurogluselo 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
(Everbody please forgive me, because I cannot write shortly. Bad attitude.)Okurogluselo 21:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo 22:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)The violations committed by the userTaivolinguist WP:GOODFAITH WP:DIS WP:ETIQ WP:DONTBITE WP:STRUCTURE WP:UNDUE WP:BALASPS WP:IMPARTIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

First, thanks to CorinneSD wrote about the issue 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC). As I wrote him, I am glad that impartial approach will be applied to the article. Also, you may look at the answers of TavioLinguist to other members about similar issues. I only think that roots of languages like Summerian can be still explored and now, some politically abused theories of past now can be useful with a new point of view, fortunately we have saved from the political campaigns of 20th century. Now, we can study about the problems peacefuly. Whay dont we give a change to new ideas? Anyway, I am respectful to your decisions, about the articles and about this unfortunate case.

Patiently, I tried to help development of an article and I trired to be respectful even in case of the member's offenses against my personal rights, as human and wiki member.

Until yesterday (tuesday), the article had a warning title above, expressing its orphanage, i.e. all the information was written without any references. Not at all.

I am the first one who added references to the article. However, the user TaivoLinguist, assumes himself only one who has got the right to write and edit the article. In minutes, he/she reverts anyting and any refernces about the issue. This behaviour is completely offensive and not only excluding recent studies about the issue but also excluding and harressing the member who love wiki and who love to contribute. Before my addings, the manner of speech, which TavioLinguist made dominant through the article, was deterministic and completely subjective. Just I changed some modals like "must" and "do" with "can". I gave a change to the other members, to know about new scientific considerations and competing theories. Most of my editions consists giving references from Zolyomi (1996) and Bomhard (2008) . Supported with these references, just I proposed that being categorized of an extinct language as Language Isolate is disputable and can be a temporary situtaion in case of lack of necessary proofs. Anyway, the references I added shows that nothing can be unvariable or dogmatic. Always studies continue, and will continue forever. But the user is extremely biased against some theories about Sumerian Language, yet he is very closed to listen anyone about Language Isolates.

Another unfortunate dispute continued about the Sumerian Language, connected to this. I have politely ask him the cause of his insistence about keep articles stable or permanent, closed to all new references or contributions, via sending a talk message to him at 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC).

" This term is (can be) controversial. Mostly signes a temporary situtation caused by insufficient research. In fact, any human languages could not be isolated. Other way of thinking gives way to idea of isolated languages, races and, racism. It is obvious, because you cannot give any references for your (subjective) ideas. However, I supply the article with reliable references. You may do the same, or you should not any more editions. We dont argue about the political side-effects of Ural-Altaic theories but, still we may learn about linguistic studies. There are tangible proofs about the roots of Sumerian language. And you cannot hide these from the wiki members.The article is lack of references and a caution message is above it. Why dont you try to fix it, if you really concern wiki and knowledge of humanity? Otherwise, I dont even want to think about your intentions. Please abide the principles of wiki. Or just take a look at them in policy pages, if you havent done yet."

In case of politeness, he accused me with not reading or incapable of understanding. Seems he is the only one who can understand. TavioLinguist wrote me at 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC):

"You don't understand what it actually means. An "language isolate" is a language that has had enough research conducted on it to prove that it isn't related to anything else. You are thinking of an "unclassified language". You need to get your terms straight. Your claims about Sumerian have been utterly rejected by virtually every reputable scholar and there are plenty of references on the pages in question if you only bothered to read them"

Still I insist, there is nothing suh as "enough research" or a final end in science. Despite his manner, I was trying to be polite and even I thanked to him. At 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I wrote:

"I understand it well, you can be sure, "unclassified" is another issue. Consequently, there are a serious lack of references in the article about "isolated language". Researches can never be considered as "enough" if a problem exists. This is science, or we should live in stone ages harmony still. I propose it should be the term for a temporary reconciliation about unsolved issue, i.e. roots of language, just means, further research are needed,or there are no sufficient proofs until now. There are many theories about the relatives of Sumerian, and Ural-Altaic approach is only one of these. Once, it was dominant theory, now it is not. But it doesnt mean it is completely useless, anymore. Still the theory survives, because it is relased from the political campaigns in 19th and 20th centuries. So it is worth to be expressed in the pages. Anyway, I like your some contributions to the article, you have done really well. I will not use the term "controversial". Thank you."

Again he wrote in a rude and accusing manner at 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

"There is no controversy. The Ural-Altaic material violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It is universally rejected by historical linguists and therefore is not "controversial". The article is quite adequately referenced. You are the only editor who thinks otherwise and the only reason you think that is because you want to create room for your rejected Ural-Altaic nonsense".

The user should give support and evidences for his opinions. People perceive all others, in the way that they perceive about themselves. I didnt see any references supporting the article, before I added. Despite his subjective anti-Ural-Altaic opinions, I dont favor any theory above others. I am not a fanatic and I dont want to create room for any one. Just I think, the issue 'Language Isolates' need to be studied more and a revived theory is worth to be expressed.

Then he signed my editions with WR:Fringe. A revived and currenntly studied theory cannot be fringe. The opinion of the user obsolutely subjective and nothing here conforms with the explanation of fringe, in the wiki policy page. I read twice. Violation of WR:WEIGHT claim, is also an other offence from him. However, İt is obvious that the manners of the member and the editions he constructed are violations of many principles, I listed above. The former situation of the article and the mber's offensive sentences are evidences.

Just take a look Taivolinguist's other correpondences with wiki members about the issue. You may see the same manner again. Okurogluselo 16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Gábor Zólyomi (1996). Genitive Constructions in Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol. 48, pp. 31-47 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Article DOI: 10.2307/1359768 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359768
2. Bomhard, Allan R. (2008). Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary, 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-16853-4

There is no WP:3RR violation here in any of this. Okurogluselo still refuses to discuss the matter on the article Talk Page and has reverted a fifth time as well, despite being warned again by an uninvolved user (see 3RR report above this one). --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are five more reverts against my proposals. I have been discussing the matter about the issue for hours, politely with supplying realibale new references about my point. However Taivo refuses to give any references supporting his ideas. Meanwhile I have to tolarate his rude and ofensive manners against personality and against any opinion different from his ones. --Okurogluselo 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

Apparently Okurogluselo doesn't understand what a revert is. I have made no violation of WP:3RR. He is simply counting others' reverts as mine. In addition, he failed to properly file this since he gave no notice on my Talk Page. I found out about it simply because I was checking on the properly-filed complaint I made above. Okurogluselo simply refuses to admit that he has no case for placing this fringe information about Sumerian on the Language isolate page. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: Still I see offensive manner against my personality, yet I can discuss in civil manner. In fact this is an insulting and threatening manner, against who like to contribute to wiki in the future. Such manners, should be cleaned.

Every one reads this page can see who doesnt understand the issue. I am not sure that the user even knows what we discuss about here. Anyway, people know their incapability of understanding, surely accuse others with imcopetence in understanding.

If the user tried to perceive what I like to do, he/she could be more polite and considering all opinions.

First; I have never make, but never, changed the article Language Isolates in a serious or devastating manner, never I have attempted to revert the basic structure. In fact I seriously make benefits to save the original article and general structure. In fact, I have slightly revised the language or the discourse dominant in the article. For a scientific fashion, I subrogated the assertive modals with more mediatory and comprehensive modals such as "can". This much more suitable for a scientific and unbiased language. This is general approach of essays in English.

Second, I have only added proper references, which had never been added by any users, including Taivolinguist especially. Then about the issue extinct isolates, I gave the references above, just to mention about the other opinions. Because, always other opinions must exist if we will be human beings. The points we have reached cannot be dead ends. However, the user of conflict applauses the dead ends, in a religious manner.

Third; I have never promoted the Ural-Altaic languages in the article pages over other theories. The user of conflict carried the dispute to the space of the discussion about Ural-Altaic languages. Obviously, this is his personal rage against the theory, and against any different ideas as well.

I think personally, the theory Ural-Altaic may be useful in the future, but I only express this here. In contrast, I demonstrated the weakness of the theory in the article, with saying that just an alternative opinon, however, it is active and can be useful in the future. Moreover, within a completely different approach, and in a completely different language family, one will be able to find the relatives of Sumerian.

One day, maybe. But nobody could say "never will be found. It is forbidden". I dont think, anyone is a prophet here, seeing the future. So any category such language isolate, can be abondoned and replaced by a new situtation. Nothing can be stable forever.

Connected to Sumerian, the best example for the temporariness is the situtation of Ural-Altaic itself. Once it was widely accepted and dominant theory, now it is rarely supported. Only one of the opinions in the area. Of course it is worth to be mentioned, but no more. However, hostility and antogonism against a mere theory, is much worse than to accept it as the only rule for political campaigns. In fact the user Taivolinguist is the only one who operates a self-reliant campaingn, abusing wiki pages. Okurogluselo 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

By the way I gave notice to the user. With using the tool. Also I expressed about his talk page above, to invite you to consider his/her general manners, at the beginning of this page. The user of conflict simply erases everyting added to the article instantly, by me or by others. Furthermore the user never listens opinions of others. These are obviously "revert" literally.Okurogluselo 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs) Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

1) You did not notify me. Show me the diff from my Talk Page where you notified me.

2) You claimed that I reverted your edits after I filed this, but you are mistaken. Two other editors have reverted your edits, not me.

3) Since you are the only editor pushing a fringe theory and trying to give it undue weight on a page where it is irrelevant, I have made no "comments" concerning other editors.

You are simply pushing a rejected theory propounded by fringe linguists. I have provided appropriate references, you just choose to ignore them. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: I have already answered about all these allegations.

Again I say. I havent done a major change in the article's section, only I corrected the assertive language with using proper modals. This sounds more scientific. And I added the citations, which nobody has done before, just to show that further researches are possible to emerge. That is all.And where did I push any fringe theories in article pages? Just I gave necessary (and reliable) references and these offers a new approach, for both Sumerian Language and for Ural-Altaic theory.

Do the members of wiki have right to know about these studies? Can people only know the things you allow, in linguistics? And you are the person, transformed the issue to a frame about Ural-Altaic dispute, deliberately. Then just I have to object against your harsh manner about a revived theory, in talk pages and in my explanations.

Other members who reverted my editions even dont speak English. The exception was User talk:Vsmith, which reverted it, to save the last position of conflict. And User talk:CorinneSD thankfully consider the quality of the article, with whom you argued rudely for the same issue. The one who pushes something or press on the others is not me in the talk page. In fact, I released the pressure applying by the fashion and discourse in the article. As you wrote me about the issue in the talk page of Language Isolates once, you will never allow anyone who is not linguist, or who is not considered as linguist by you, to be able to use the right of speech, and to use the freedom of making contributions to wiki project. By the way, I know I am a linguist, even nobody needs to be a linguist, however you may consider again your own situation.Okurogluselo 01:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

• Declined — not only is it not a three-revert rule violation, literally all of the other editors on the page are in support of reverts made by TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs). --slakr 03:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Objection of Okurogluselo

Okurogluselo: As I declared, I agree and I am respectful to your decision on my side. However the decision of decline about the other side means, some editors is permitted to violate the three-revert rule and they can erase the conrtributions of others, without listening them and with insulting them. You should consider that TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) must consult the issue with other editors first. However, as obviously you declared, he gained support after his action. In an opposite order. Even other editors agree with his actions,TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs), it doesnt mean that he violated three revert rule. Moreover, he obviously violate the principles of civility WP:CIV and good faith WP:GF against me personally and againsy my good efforts. The case is a whole. The editors in charge must consider these violations of TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) in parallel with his reverts on my edits. This must be accounted and then the side of TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) must be warned, for an impartial sentence. Okurogluselo 16:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 16:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:212.178.255.32 reported by User:IJA (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.178.255.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Evidence of Warning the IP User

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

This IP user keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. It is worth noting that the IP address is located in Belgrade, Serbia therefore it is likely that they are sensitive to this article's subject content. I warned the IP user on their talk page but they instantly blanked their talk page. This user doesn't appear to want to talk and is just reverting my reverts. It is likely that this IP is also a sock. I have also contemplated requesting the article for semi-protection, but I don't think that is necessary just yet. Kind regards IJA (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin --slakr 03:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Horkers reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h)

Page

Ian Freeman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "false accusations"
2. 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "false accusations"
3. 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "charity work"
4. 20:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Convictions */ false accusations"
5. 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Convictions */ this is a lie and a false statement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:SPA. Note I have vetted the BLP content. NeilN 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (involved editor) I too have checked the BLP-content. It's covered by multiple sources in the article and even just a quick google search shows there are -many- other sources stating the same, many of them reliable. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 03:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:176.239.107.149 reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )

Page: Soghomon Tehlirian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 176.239.107.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP has been involved in several edit-wars and does not seem to stop. The IP has reverted three different users in a matter of several hours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:74.62.254.50 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: warned)

Page: London Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.62.254.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
That user has been repeatably removing the name of the writer Christian Gudegast from London Has Fallen and this is the source right here about that writer as you see it on that site. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned — feel free to update if user continues. --slakr 04:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Vrraybadboy2929 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: already blocked)

Page: Game Boy line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vrraybadboy2929 (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:

Repeated vandalism by page blanking, edit warring.:

• Already blocked — @RoadWarrior445: page blanking is just clear and obvious vandalism; no need to report here, and no need to worry about violating the WP:3RR when reverting it. WP:AIV will get much speedier results so long as you add a vandalism warning each time you revert. 3 reverts of obvious vandalism is usually enough to report on, but by the 4th vandal edit, pretty much any admin will block. --slakr 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RemoteControl97 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RemoteControl97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , ,

Comments:

User has no other edits on Misplaced Pages except to add this information. At least 4 other editors have removed the material. Editor has reverted twice since the warning. He has started to take part in the discussion, while reverting. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring between June 3 and June 6. RemoteControl97's claim of consensus is unpersuasive, since he's the only one adding this material at Sean Hannity (seven times altogether) and now it's been removed by four different people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned)

Page Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z07x10 (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: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale

Comments:
User:Z07x10 has been edit warring and then most recently accuses me of socking. User has engaged in edit warring on this page before and has also tried to put forward OR Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

History shows that Mzourist broke the 3RR rule first. Without this breach, my breach would never have happened. He made 2 revert edits before Fnlayson's edit and 4 thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=663826790 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=664455130 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=664729303 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665459770 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665460607 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665478874&oldid=665460648

There are also these two unsigned edits, which appear to edit the same parts and look genuinely suspicious and also use a horribly biased source, as you can see, with multiple inaccuracies disproven by existing sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665446315 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665445476

Basically he's been reverting the same thing twice in 24 hours and then waiting a bit and making the same reverts twice again. In principle that's still a 3RR breach and personally I think any unsigned edits should be reverted without any explanation. If an editor is genuine, they should sign their edits. The 29th of May represented a point of agreement, no edits should have been made beyond that point wrt that section without discussing it in the associated section on the Talk page, which was opened in February.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&action=history Note - (cur | prev) 13:19, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (Changed back to version agreed with Finlayson, please discuss on Talk page if you wish to change.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:53, 4 June 2015‎ HLGallon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,591 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 665461845 by Z07x10 (talk) manufacturer's puffery not a reliable source) (undo | thank) 6. (cur | prev) 12:25, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Composites having lower RCS than metals is not OR, it's scientific fact.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (167,591 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo | thank) 5. (cur | prev) 12:13, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,597 bytes) (-252)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Z07x10 stop blaming me for edits I didn't do and stop adding your OR!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:10, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Undone further bad faith non-agreed changes of Mzourist.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 4. (cur | prev) 12:04, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,705 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tag and removed OR; Z07x10 I didn't make and bad faith changes IP 86.69.13.240 did make changes while you keep trying to put in your OR, stop it!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:58, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,963 bytes) (+51)‎ . . (Removed bad faith changes of Mzourist - biased source with grossly inaccurate information. Returned to changes previously agreed.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:30, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,912 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) ??? (cur | prev) 09:20, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,890 bytes) (+147)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) ??? 3. (cur | prev) 16:57, 30 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,743 bytes) (-220)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tags and removed OR based on percentages of composite usage) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:04, 30 May 2015‎ HLGallon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,963 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: removed duplicated sentence and reference) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:39, 29 May 2015‎ Fnlayson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (168,087 bytes) (-179)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: remove repeated ref) (undo | thank) Agreement (cur | prev) 13:33, 29 May 2015‎ Fnlayson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,266 bytes) (+180)‎ . . (Adjust or trim text to match what the sources truly support, restore reference) (undo | thank) Agreement (cur | prev) 13:05, 29 May 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,086 bytes) (+342)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) 2. (cur | prev) 18:59, 28 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,744 bytes) (-345)‎ . . (Undid revision 664390477 by Z07x10 (talk)you haven't given sources just comparisons of composite percentages and your own OR) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:01, 28 May 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,089 bytes) (+345)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Sources added, wrt composite material usage on surface area to reduce RCS.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 1. (cur | prev) 17:47, 24 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,744 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (Undid revision 663801391 by Z07x10 (talk)no source added, you just removed the tags) (undo | thank)

There is currently a DRN out on the OR matter, it is not OR in my opinion. I simply stated that the Typhoon used composite materials to reduce RCS and gave percentage composite usage for the Typhoon and Rafale as supplied by Eurofighter GmbH and Dassault. This is all I added: The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite. Everything in that sentence is supported by the links without OR.Z07x10 (talk)

Z07x10 has frequently edit-warred and tried OR on Eurofighter Typhoon as the Talk Pages show. I opened the original Talk Page discussion on RCS back in February. Earlier today an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. Z07x10 continues to accuse me of socking. Mztourist (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I left a message at Z07x10's talk page suggest he promise to make no further edits at Eurofighter Typhoon unless they are supported by a talk page consensus. Lacking such a promise, I think a block is justified. He was involved in a 2013 edit war about the same article (about the Mach number of the aircraft) in which he pushed his POV with great tenacity. In both disputes he accused his opponent of socking with no evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the evidence clearly shows Mzourist to have edit warred and breached the 3RR rule in principle twice over. Changes to text agreed between myself and User:Fnlayson on 29th may were changed without talk page discussion and he has been unable to support his false claims of OR on the talk page, which is why he resorted to edit warring. The text I added does not contain anything other than what is in the links provided, there is no OR whatsover, it is simply a statement of % composite usage in two aircraft as stated by the manufacturers of those two aircraft. User Fnlayson has since re-added the % composite usage. Frankly if we didn't allowed unsigned edits it would take away some allegations about sock puppeting. It's also next to impossible to prove sock puppetry unless you're the NSA. Home PC, work PC, laptop, mobile device, proxy servers etc. Frankly the 3RR rule is a farce and easily loopholed by waiting 24 hours, which is exactly what Mzourist did to avoid a flag but under the rules it's still a 3RR breach https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule:

"Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.... 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."

Mzourist personally reverted a change agreed by myself and Fnlayson 4 times by himself post agreement and twice prior, as very clearly shown above. He has also been a protagonist in previous edit wars despite coming off as the innocent party, I recommend that he is blocked as he's been a persistent nuisance on that thread, with incorrect allegations of OR and primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't fully agree with your edit, which is why I reworded the article text to remove/reduce the OR/uncited text. Time to stop the accusations unless you provide supporting proof. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I realised that, and I thanked you for it circa 29th May, as I understand how my original edit did seem a little ORish, even if someone had requested verification of the preceding comment with other sources. As of 29th May we were agreed. I agreed with your edit stated here:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665481514&oldid=664561440, which User:Mzourist then reverted 4 times between 30th May and 4th June as shown in the history.https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665481514&oldid=664561440. I don't feel I'm the guilty party here and the revert has since been undone and partially redone by yourself. I also have a DRN out, so I seem to be the one following the rules, Mzourist made no attempt to begin a DRN, which is what policy advises.https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_RafaleZ07x10 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the change I was reverting to was User:Fnlayson's, not my own! I currently have a DRN out and haven't made any further edits, waiting for the DRN to be answered. It's a shame Mzourist didn't follow policy in this way when he changed Fnlayson's edit made on the 29th May.Z07x10 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Z07x10 is warned for edit warring at Eurofighter Typhoon and for making unsupported charges of sockpuppetry about his adversaries. He is also reminded that this dispute resembles one at Eurofighter Typhoon in 2013. At that time, several editors at ANI voted for his account to be indefinitely blocked, and there is a risk his luck will run out if this kind of behavior continues. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PavelStaykov reported by User:Crovata (Result: Blocked; semi-protection)

Page: Dulo clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: June 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. June 4 (As I said Turkic kindergarten is not here)
2. June 4
3. June 4 (The kindergarten is not here.)
4. June 4 (new source is added)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. May 19
2. May 19-May 27

Comments:
The user was warned for his activity on Bulgars and Dulo clan on his talk page since March (March 13-14, March 13-14, April 23-27, April 24 3RR, May 7, May 14), as well the issues about article edits discussed ("Dulo clan" and "Bulgars discussion").

His activity previously influenced also the Bulgars article (and Huns talk page), as such unconstructive and harmful edits became vandalism, and was reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour on May 14, but was archived without resolution. In his activity he ignores and denies of any inclusion the reliable academic scholars consideration (which calls junk), personally admits the violence of NPOV principles, and added OR of personal POV unrelated to the topic. His behaviour is symptomatic, as on several times like May 31 wrote "You came to my article my friend, I haven't invited you". I tried bring to reason but without success.--Crovata (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've also semi-protected the article for one week because of edit-warring by different IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Joesmith12345 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lee Zeldin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joesmith12345 (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: No point in discussing these kinds of edits.

Comments: The SPA's edits are at best disruptive but more realistically vandalism. He's been reverted by several editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Huon.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Declined)

Page: Systemic reverts across multiple articles in violation of MOS:IDENTITY, Wikistalking
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• MOS:IDENTITY requires that we use the chosen name for transgender subjects across Misplaced Pages. Subject opposes this for unknown reasons. It's easy enough to add a footnote with a citation for the gender transition and name change. Skyerise (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• The links provided do not show edit warring. It shows Bold edits by Skyerise on 9 different articles and one revert by Drmargi on each of those articles. -- GB fan 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's edit warring, which is a broader topic than the bright-line 3RR. Wikistalking to revert changes required by MOS:IDENTITY, intentionally depriving a transgender individual of their right to be credited for all their past accomplishments under their new chosen name, which is part of the intent of MOS:IDENTITY gender-change specific wording is not only edit warring, it displays a possible transphobic motivation. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess we see this differently. I do not see edit warring based on the diffs above and you do. -- GB fan 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You have already been advised by User:EdJohnston as a result of a previous discussion here, that your editing on that point does not qualify for the edit warring exemptions. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm observing that warning by editing only. I've not reverted any of these inappropriate reverts. On each article you will find I made a single edit only. Skyerise (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Between the garbage on my talk page this morning, and now this, Skyerise has abused process more than once in some well-meaning but misguided attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Now she demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of both edit warring and wiki-stalking. This has gone from aggressive nuisance behavior to behavior bordering on harassment. It has to stop, and she has to recognize that the use of Caitlyn Jenner's name in various articles is still being worked out. --Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. If you'd look into the matter, you'd find that the very same discussions have occurred multiple times, every time a notable transgender person comes out. Most recently this includes Lana Wachowski and Chelsea Manning. None of these discussion resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed, which is the current guidelines backed by WP:BLP which has the force of policy. Essentially the arguments supporting stripping the accomplishment of a transgender individual from their chosen name. Currently, MOS:IDENTITY is in effect and I am doing nothing wrong by editing to it. You, on the other hand, are editing to a potential future decision which has not been made and most likely never will be. I think there's a difference here. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. If this report belongs anywhere, it's not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GreenEarth Cleaning and User:Ajnewport reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: already blocked)

Page: GreenEarth Cleaning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GreenEarth Cleaning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ajnewport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: GreenEarth Cleaning:

2. ,

Ajnewport:

1. ,
2. , , ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The 2 accounts are obvious sock/meatpuppetry accounts, as they are doing exactly the same thing- between them they have violated WP:3RR. I've given them multiple warnings, including . See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GreenEarth Cleaning. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here they've admitted to being the same person, so have therefore broken WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked by others --slakr 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: protected)

Page

Astor Place Riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665541500 by Ibadibam (talk) too bad"
2. 22:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665530392 by Ibadibam (talk) No, per BRD, we'll leave it in the status quo ante while its being discussed. Please don't revert again."
3. 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665512316 by Ibadibam (talk) Per WP:MOS IS NOT GOD. The other is easier to read. Let's serve our readers, please not our bureaucracy"
4. 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665510854 by Ibadibam (talk) More readable before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Blank lines in lists */ new section"
2. 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Blank lines in lists */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Beyond My Ken "/* Blank lines in lists */"

Comments:

Dispute concerning conformity to MOS:LISTGAP. Mutual efforts at direct resolution have unfortunately failed. Ibadibam (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Any "edit warring" resulted from Ibadibam's refusal to leave the article in the state it was in before the dispute began. There was discussion on my talk page, but Ibadibam rejected any solution which was not his preferred choice. At least one of my edits was labelled "this fixes it" (which I don't see in the diffs above), which introduced a new formatting (actually my original formatting, which had sufficed since 2010) and which Ibadibam reverted as well.I should not be sanctioned for the unwillingness of my editing partner to follow WP:BRD's instruction to leave the aricle in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, nor for his intransigence in accepting only one specific solution to a problem which clearly has multiple possible fixes.{Stand-by, the anti-BMK crew should be here soon to swear that I'm the spawn of the devil, and should be sanctioned with the largest possible rock dropped from the top of a very tall a-frame ladder, squarely on my balding head. BMK (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protected — @Ibadibam:, @Beyond My Ken: You're both candidates for becoming new editions to Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, because you're both edit warring here. First, WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR are policies; WP:BRD is an essay and is therefore neither a policy nor a guideline. It is, obviously, good practice to go talk about something on the article's talk page—especially when a pattern like this develops—but neither of you did so, though to his credit, one did at least contact the other. As far as dispute resolution goes, however, the better place is on the article's talk page, because then you can more easily bring in a third opinion from an uninvolved party or start an WP:RFC. I suggest you pick one and go with it now, because if either of you continue the edit war without doing so, the next step are blocks, regardless of the current or future state of the page. Consider yourselves warned. Also, @Beyond My Ken: edit summaries like this don't help, and given your prior block log for edit warring (that I regret forgetting to check for until I had already protected the page), I very strongly recommend that you voluntarily self-adhere to one-revert rule, because this isn't going to fly in the future—regardless of who you're involved in an edit war with, why, or the severity of either party's involvement. --slakr 03:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, @Slakr:. I acknowledge my complicity in this edit war and regret that I contributed to its escalation. I did not respond on the article talk page because the issue does not appear to be particular to that article, but rather Beyond My Ken's objection to the guideline in question. I would request a 3O on the discussion at BMK's talk page, but I would like to respect his wish not to continue the discussion there. I could start an RfC on the guideline itself...but I am unsure whether BMK would accept its outcome, as his contributions to this discussion indicate that he does not care what is in the guidelines in the first place. The best possible solution to this would be a software change. This has been an open issue for years without action and I don't expect a resolution anytime soon. Taking all that into account, do you have a suggestion as to how to proceed? Ibadibam (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To put gaps between list elements without breaking the list use the wonderful {{Break}} template EG:

1. Lorum ipsum
   
   
2. Notrum respot
   
   
   
3. Offenmod

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

Hey, that's great! @Beyond My Ken:, does that work for you? Ibadibam (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Z07x10 (Result: Declined)

Page Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665559709&oldid=664561440

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

He also removed a factual statement about % composite usage earlier twice, which has since been re-added by User:Fnlayson. He seems desperate not to include this factual statement about % composite usage for some unknown reason. He has removed it 6 times in total. Very bad faith behaviour.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: These words agreed by myself and Fnlayson were removed repeatedly by Mzourist: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale

Comments:
Mzourist has adopted the policy of waiting 24 hours before repeating the same reverts twice. This is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the 3RR rule but still does so in principle. As of the 29th May, no edits should have been made on that section without discussion or raising a DRN. User:Mztourist did not follow policy in this regard. He has also made deliberate bad faith inaccurate allegations of OR for this completely sourced comment: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

He has been previously warned about edit warring on other topics several times and had other arguments.

Z07x10 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 this is the edit warring I raised above Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned) for which you have been warned. You also raised a DRN minutes after I told you I was reporting you for edit warring and accusing me of socking. Now you have raised this hoping for a different outome. Your forum-shopping, as occurred previously in relation to Eurofighter Typhoon max speed is tiresome, personally I think you be indefinitely banned from editing the page. Its time for you to WP:DTS. Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This specific warning covers your evasive and extremely annoying habit of deliberately waiting more than 24 hours before making the exact same revert and clearly states that it is still edit warring!: :: # It also explains why he has slipped under the radar for so long despite multiple edit wars and also frustrated many other users into breaking the 3RR rule. And he has been involved in other incidents:

#

The most annoying thing about him is his false and groundless OR accusations, as highlighted here:

He is yet to point out the OR in the following comment to me or anyone else!:

"The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

He should either explain where the OR is, or withdraw his false allegations.

He should also explain how he just happened to be involved in the other edit war with myself on the Typhoon page, where he changed an edit agreed by myself and another user once again:

He has demonstrated persistently frustrating behaviour with his edit warring and seems geared towards getting genuine editors blocked with false allegations of OR or similar and 24 hour intermissions before his 3rd and 4th edits. I realise that I have been in trouble before but I believe Mztourist knows the rules and therefore knows how to loophole them and has therefore succeeded in getting relatively new users like myself in trouble. He needs to be warned that his tactic of simply sticking in a 24 hour wait between his 3rd and 4th reversion edits is still edit warring and is unacceptable! This is now the second incident where he has loop-holed the 24 hour 3RR rule in the last 6 months, the last warning on his talk page is dated December 2014.Z07x10 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at your talk page will answer the issues you have tried to raise above. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at your talk page will show this is the second time you have evasively side-stepped the 24 hour 3RR rule by waiting 24 hours between the 3rd and 4th reversion edits in only the last 6 months

1. .

That is foul play. Twice noted in only 6 months. It has been over 2 years since my last issue and surprise surprise, that was also with you!Z07x10 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue wasn't just with me, but also a number of other users all of whom disagreed with you. Please stop harassing me on my talk page: User talk:Mztourist#Edit Warring Allegation made when this is the forum you have chosen to pursue or I will raiase a claim for harassment. Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have also found other evidence of Mztourist edit-warring within the last 6 months.

Again we see this familiar pattern of waiting 24 hours between the 3rd and 4th edit, this time making a total of 5 reversion edits:

I merely left a little note on your talk page so that other users will know you have been involved in three incidents of this nature to date, for traceability purposes so you don't get to make 3RR claims about others while pretending you have a clean sheet next time round.Z07x10 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Very little has changed since the last time this issue was reviewed by EdJohnston.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
2. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
3. http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
4. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/
5. http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft
6. http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/

User:Humanparaquat reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)

Page: Emily Morse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humanparaquat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - adds "unaccredited" to description of degree (no edit summary)
2. - removes all mention of the degree (no edit summary)
3. - same removal repeated (no edit summary)
4. - same removal repeated (no edit summary)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: invited to discussion at article talk page on editor's talk page. A discussion on the article talk page is already open at Talk:Emily Morse#PhD.

• No violation. The first diff listed above is from September 2014, the second May 27, 2015, the third May 28, 2015, and the last on June 4, 2015. Obviously no breach of 3RR, just very sporadic reverts by an apparent SPA account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:94.252.23.156 reported by User:Bosstopher (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665627548 by Mandruss (talk)"
2. 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665628478 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
3. 15:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665628873 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
4. 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665629512 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
5. 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "There is no BLP violation. It is sourced, published by herself, and clearly related to the topic at hand. Undid revision 665629806 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
6. 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665630662 by Mandruss (talk) You wouldn't let this be included in the article even if it was the headline of the NYT tomorrow and you know it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Can't resolve anything because the talk page is semi'd Bosstopher (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note. The article has been semi-protected by another administrator. As an aside, the semi-protection on the Talk page has been lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Semi-protecting only a talk page is problematic since it means IPs can edit the article but can't discuss disputed edits. I don't know that any of the IPs involved here would observe WP:BRD anyway, but it might be a mitigating factor here. Since I'm the one who requested the TP protection, I feel partly responsible for the chaos that has occurred over the past half day or so. Apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:24.56.60.87 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Tanda (association) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665636590 by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)"
7. 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665587306 by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)"
8. 05:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tanda (association)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This ip editor is closely connected with the entity they are attempting to promote in this article, as stated by the ip HERE. Regardless of the several explanations on that talk page, as well as in the edit summaries, this ip insists on promoting his company. Onel5969 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — MusikAnimal 18:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mnnlaxer reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This is a violation of 1RR restriction for the page . The user is well aware that she/he violated the restriction, but decided to do it on purpose, i.e. to battle/"make the problem bigger" , which is also a violation of WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR and will accept any penalty for that transgression. However, it was not to battle. My response to the notice was "No. The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. I could have waited a couple hours to avoid it. But that wouldn't be right. I would rather take @Volunteer Marek:'s suggestion and go to WP:AE rather than a technical 1RR complaint. And I prefer for someone else to do the filing. I would love to see someone actually argue against the points I have made on the talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)" Full discussion at User talk:Mnnlaxer#1RR

I have since learned that WP:AE is for conduct disputes, not content. So after this is closes, I will file a WP:Mediation request to get to the content dispute, unless someone has a better idea. I really would like to see a formal argument against my points on the talk page. If it takes a Mediation to get there, fine. I would have preferred to gain consensus on the talk page, but only one other editor was willing to engage in a compromise. Several other editors simple asserted WP. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by other users

Yes, the 2 reverts are within a 24 hour period. But at least one of them (this one) is in response to vandalism. Several editors were in the middle of a discussion on the talk page when this "My very best wishes" user showed up and deleted the whole Motivation chapter. An administrator should look very closely at this. It is not Mnnlaxer that is edit warring here. Yes, Mnnlaxer reverts, but he is working to improve the article, and he is open to discuss his changes. In this incident he responded to an intentional provocation done by this "My very best wishes" figure. I strongly believe this was deliberately vandalism of the page, with the aim to block/scare or silence an editor they don't like. Even if he didn't blank the whole page, he blanked the whole Motivation chapter we were working to improve. According to the Edit warring policy that does not count as reverts for the purposes of 3RR/1RR. It is obvious vandalism, or at least very close to obvious vandalism. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer still did not self-revert on this page as was suggested at their talk page by Kudzu1. My rationale for removing these materials as "undue" (this an outdated speculation about a political conspiracy theory) was explained a couple of times on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah right, the whole motivation chapter was a conspiracy theory, so you blanked it in your very first edit on the page. Or was it? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this whole chapter was discussion of outdated speculations. This low importance, but highly contentious material should be removed because the article is already too long. I commented several times on the article talk page, looked at opinions by participants (they happened to strongly disagree with each other rather than with my arguments), and made my edit to improve this page. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time and therefore mostly remove irrelevant or poorly sourced materials on various pages (as one can conclude after looking at my recent edit history), but I think this is all within the policy. However I am not sure this is relevant to my request here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer says: "I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR ". This is not true. The "unwittingly" part. On their talk page clearly indicates that they knowingly - not "unwittingly" - violated 1RR because, quote, "The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. ". Translation: I'm a battleground warrior and it was more important to win the battle than to adhere to the editing restriction on the article. This pretty much exemplifies Mnnlaxer's mentality on this topic area.

Bottom line is that the article is under 1RR restriction. Mnnlaxer has been tip toeing around the 1RR restriction (claiming that they're only reverting "vandalism" or waiting just the right amount of time to revert again) - i.e. WP:GAME - for some time now. Here they admit on the talk page they purposefully violated the rule but then show up to this notice board and try to play innocent. A block is long overdue.

Erlbaeko's statement above - in support of a POV ally - is also blatantly false. This was NOT "in response to vandalism". The edit being reverted is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Erlbaeko knows this too. They're just making up bullshit excuses for a fellow battleground warrior. No, these kinds of reverts are NOT exempt from the 1RR or the 3RR restriction. Enough of this nonsense already. There is a reason why 1RR was put in place on these articles in the first place and that's exactly to deal with disruptive behavior such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On 5 June 2015‎, Mnnlaxer made this revert in response to this revert, where "My very best wishes" blanked the whole Motivation section despite of ongoing discussion on the talk page. I call that vandalism. On 4 June 2015‎, the part of the Motivation section that was agreed to remove was removed by me with this revert. My edit also removed the recently inserted "Gywn Winfield" statement that failed to get consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Unwittingly at the time of the revert. I thought that would be obvious but Volunteer Marek thinks that is some kind of revelation he has discovered. Once pointed out, yes, I admitted it and said lets go to the real thing, the content dispute, and if this is the trigger to get it started, fine. The idea I've been tip-toe-ing around the 24 hour 1RR is laughable. In fact, my revert within 24 hours shows that is false. Marek has constantly projected his own behavior onto me. IDIDNTHEARTHAT, GAME, POV, misrepresenting a source, and more. All of his behaviors somehow are transferred to me when I disagree with him. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You've broken the 1RR rule. You've been reported for breaking it before, although in the past you've managed to wiggle out of a block by WP:WIKILAWYERING about whether something was a revert or not. You're trying the same thing here by calling an edit that clearly wasn't vandalism "vandalism" (probably the most over-used lame excuse for edit warring on Misplaced Pages).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you can't tell me from Erlbaeko. I've never been reported for anything that I can recall. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. You two act and talk much the same way though. And you've both broken 1RR on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, I have never been reported for anything neither, except for one incident in late May 2015, when Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 reported me twice, for the same incident. Both was rejected. Ref. AE request and EW report. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There's an obvious content dispute here that is probably overdue for mediation. But there are just a few rules on Misplaced Pages, and one of them is against edit-warring. Mnnlaxer broke 1RR, I notified him that he broke 1RR and asked him to self-revert, and he declined to do so. And so now we're here and an administrator should deal with the edit-warring as he or she sees fit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that several previous violations I reported here were left without action, despite being obvious violations, just as that one. Maybe this is a hint that I should not report anything on administrative noticeboards? That's fine. I have no problems with this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Both users blocked for 24 hours. )

Page: National Rifle Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Six reversions within the last day, five in the last 24 hours, reverting multiple editors. Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User is fully cognizant of such behaviours, as seen in their block log and edit history.

Additionally, as the user has informed me on my talk page, this page is under discretionary sanctions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is my first day editing this article, and I have been met with challenges, and interrogation after my very first edit there. This user's history is apparent to all, and newer editors should not be subjected to such behavior. Scr★pIron 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mike V • Talk 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:71.201.93.25 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Henry Paulson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Freddie Mac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Fannie Mae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Federal Housing Finance Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Richard Shelby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring on half a dozen articles to get clearly POV material regarding the 2008 bailout into articles (too many edits to take separately, a quick look at the page history of these articles ought to be enough). They've been given both a level-4 warning for non-NPOV edits and a 3RR warning. Thomas.W 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you specify the page(s) at the top of this report, Thomas.W?

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, copyright infringement, and agenda-driven edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page

American Ninja Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

3. 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 03:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "/* American Ninja Warrior */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and despite clear warnings that their additions were inappropriate, they continued to add them. I warned them about WP:3RR, which they also ignored. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like previous block was for adding pointless tables of information against consensus to, see . Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to revert, even though they been notified of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Soybean Car‎

Five reverts in about an hour. 01:17 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665695727 by Vsmith (talk) look at all the fixes i did) . Was warned of WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. 118.93.95.49 Says "I am edit warring" on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

my version is much better then what you reverted to 118.93.95.49 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

He violated WP:3RR. So we are clear, I did not revert more than three times. 118.93.95.49 reverted User: Vsmith the last time. Makes five times in under an hour. 118.93.95.49 Says "I am edit warring" on his talk page. Lest there be any confusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is #6, which occurred after I filed this complaint and give him notice of it. Soybean Car‎; 02:05 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665702100 by Skyerise (talk). it is repetition.) 02:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is #7. Soybean Car‎; 02:10 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665702417 by Andrewgprout (talk). If you car to lokk all of the ones I remove are still there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: 118.93.95.49 seems to be confusing User:7&6=thirteen with any other editor who reverts them. User:7&6=thirteen only reverted 3 times today and did not cross the "bright line". 118.93.95.49 has revert 7 times and should be blocked. "My version is better" never excuses edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. -- GB fan 02:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion 118.93.69.238. Same stuff and behavior with a different identity. See Soybean Car. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article and blocked the new IP. -- GB fan 02:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes #8 and #9. Slow learner. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:76.24.185.107 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: Declined)

Page: Marriage Boot Camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.24.185.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edit warring on Marriage Boot Camp via disruptive removal of content by simply claiming it's "incorrect", without discussing the matter on the talk page.RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Only three reverts. None after you warned them. And you didn't notify the IP of this report as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Astral Prince reported by User:TopGun (Result: )

Page: Battle of Phillora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Astral Prince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Battle of Phillora; diffs/reverts:
2. Kargil war; diffs/reverts:
3. Battle of Chawinda; diffs/reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multiple users have tried to communicate to the user and warned him to stop his editwar but he hasn't paid heed. Due to the similarities in disruption and other facts, I have also filed an SPI on this user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86‎ but in the meantime he's on an all out editwar on 3 articles. He has been reverted by around 3-4 users each on each article (including cluebot). Furthermore, he's resorting to blatant canvassing and personal attacks . No signs of stopping. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather disingenuous 'attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page' as that links to the editor's TP, not that of the article; and even that was not so much an attempt to discuss the issue, but rather to bombard him with templates. And notifications of AN/I and SPI do not an attempt to talk make!!! I note also that you were very much on the cusp of WP:3RR yourself. "lol" _Fortuna 10:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're well-acquainted with the situation here. Have you reviewed the edits made by the user concerned? Many of them are indeed disruptive. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that a lower burden of proof is not justified just because of what another editor does. I'm not suggesting there's nothing wrong with Astral Prince's edits; merely that they don't absolve Top Gun of adhering to the procedure- specifically, not pretending to discuss it when that discussion has clearly not taken place. _Fortuna

I have not made more than two reverts on any of the pages to Astral Prince. So no, you're wrong.... and that's not it. Many others have reverted him again and again while he refuses to discuss at all. Before I suspected him as a sock and filed the SPI, I dropped him numerous warnings in order to get him to discuss - he instead chose to go ahead with NPA vios and editwar. In any case, other editors have tried to discuss (not template) him as well on his talkpage... so please do check before you accuse. That did not stop him from edit warring either. Even if this user was discussing, such behaviour and repetitive reverts are plain out disruptive. So no, I do not have to put up with the disruption as many of the edits are against consensus and even RFC established consensus including plain out vandalism like this where he is totally changing the war outcome inspite of RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86#05 June 2015. Unless User:Astral Prince responds here and agrees to stop the war a lengthy block seems appropriate. He is extremely confident that India scored a decisive victory at Battle of Phillora but has never posted on the article talk page to give his reasoning (though TopGun didn't post on article talk either). He also canvassed another editor to help him revert there, asking "Do visit Battle of Phillora few dumb Pakistanis like TopGun And Mar4d are creating Vandalism WP:VAN." EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well EdJohnston, i agree it's my fault that i didn't posted this on article talk page, Let me clarify your few doubts, You said I'm involve in an edit war since middle of may, well just see the history of Battle of Phillora you can see i just reverted edits done by pakistani editors, for ex:- few days ago an Anonymous editor erased the causality2 section and it's references and he added imaginary claims there like most of the Pakistanis do, I just reverted there edits and no Other editor has complaint about that, and you can also see the conversation between me and User:Winner 42 he reverted my edits because I didn't mentioned what I have edited but later he agreed that I'm just trying to solve those problems.

now talk about User:TopGun , just ask him why do he is erasing the word " decisive " from Indian Victory on the Battle of Phillora while I wrote every time that mentioned references support " Decisive Indian Victory " and do read them before reverting my edits.

Is he feel shamed that his country has faring miserably in all wars.

and ya I'm confident that India won the Battle of Phillora " Decisively.

How do you define victory in an Battle??

• You captured enemy territory ( India captured Phillora )

• You thwart enemy offensive/infiltration with teeth ( achieved in Battle of Phillora

• the enemy retreats from his territory ( Pakistan ran away from Phillora )

• you took more casualty on enemy ( India - 6 tanks damaged , Pakistan - 66 tanks destroyed ).

Conclusion - India Won the Battle of Phillora " DECISIVELY.

you all can read Battle of Phillora and match my stats.

and now talk about those 5 reference mentioned on Result section.

like for ex :- reference no.1 on article " do read page 84.

it is written " In the Sialkot sector, the tank battle continued for fifteen days and on September 11, in a decisive battle fought at Phillora, the Indian troops destroyed 66 enemy tanks on that single day. " Battle of Phillora Indian casualty were only ( 6 tanks damaged ).

and do read remaining 4 reference to, they all supports " Decisive " Indian Victory. Astral Prince (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Snackbag reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)

Page

David Beckham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "he was resident in miami during those years"
2. 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Miami was his residence and home from pre season training and games in January until season end in November - that's 11 months of the year !1"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Miami resident"
   2. 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "USA"
   3. 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "since 2014"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "He was in Miami 11 months of the year as is very apparent from the article ! If you opposing evidence explain it on the talk page."
   2. 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Resident in Madrid 2003-2007"
   3. 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "2012 not 2014"
5. 14:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Correction - Los Angeles NOT MIami. The article clearly states hew as with LA Galaxy during these years. Pre season training and games start in January and matches end in November. That is 11 months of the year resident in Los Angeles"
6. 14:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665763745 by Lukeno94 (talk) In the same column, under senior career, it states that he was playing for Los Angeles Galaxy during these years. What more evidence can be needed ???"
7. 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Go to the talk page and provide your explanation as to how, during that perios, he can play for Los Angeles Galaxy for 11 months of the year where he had and still has his home and not be resident there !!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR not yet violated today, but this user has been edit-warring for a while (which is what the previous reverts are for) and has a previous block for violating 3RR. Snackbag is essentially an SPA at this point, as almost all of their edits have been to add in unsourced changes into a BLP without gaining consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the editor was blocked for edit warring on the same article previously and has obviously not learnt from that block. Qed237 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• And, just as I say that, here comes revert number 4. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The editing on North American Soccer League on 4 June shows signs of edit war also. Qed237 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Very true, and given the timings, I bet that IP belongs to Snackbag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You are being very deceitful. You have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your ludicrous and obsessive claim that David Beckham trained and played and lived in LA for 11 months of the year and somehow got the bus from Hertfordshire every day. Unable to reconcile your deceit with the facts you have been trying to distract attention from the facts by all possible means. --Snackbag (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Which is not the claim anyone has been made, and you know that full well. I've even pointed out exactly what that field is for on the talk page, which is something you've failed to acknowledge or even notice. And the fact still stands that what you're really trying to do is remove the mention of Beckingham Palace, and anything else is just a cover. Your previous edits spoke for themselves on that front. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I want to remove Bec Palace, because he wasn't living there during those years you fool ! He spent 11 months a year living in LA. If you claim he's a Martian (and it wouldn't surprise me if you did) I would want to remove that as well. --Snackbag (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC) All you come up with is deceitfull attempts to distract attention from the facts, which do not support you at all. You've made a fool of yourself. Get over it instead of lying all the time. --Snackbag (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Where was he living for during that period for 11 months of the year - Los Angeles or Hertforshire ? Stop dodging the question with deceit and distractions. --Snackbag (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of this is a justification for removing it altogether. Why? Because he started living there in 1999, which was a long time before he moved to LA Galaxy. You would have a possible justification for changing the dates, but removing it altogether has become vandalism at this point, because you are doing so over and over. Secondly, the Beckham family still owned the property at that point, and that field isn't just for primary places of residence, as I've already pointed out (and you're still carefully avoiding acknowledging that, I see). Thirdly, the evidence is still pretty clear that, for the longest time, you were removing the entry entirely based on your claim of him spending 11 months a year in Miami, and at that point, you weren't even specifying anything beyond that - the edit history doesn't lie. Fourthly, as has already been explained to you multiple times, just playing for a club in location X does not automatically mean he lived there. I have never said that he did not live there, I have said that you have provided no evidence to say that he actually lived in LA - which, again, is correct; you haven't. Long story short; you've become a vandal at this point because you're deliberately removing information that is accurate because you don't like it, and you've replaced it with unsourced changes that are based on your own whims and original research. If he did live in LA, which is entirely possible and probable, then the correct thing to do would be to add that in as an addition, with a source - not to remove Beckingham Palace. Also, don't accuse other people of being deceitful and throwing up distractions when that is what you have been doing for months now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:119.235.2.125 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

Page: Chitral Somapala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 119.235.2.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User keeps adding a duplicate entry on Chitral_Somapala with incorrect formatting and bad linking, and has been reverted several times by multiple editors. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours  —SMALLJIM  18:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:46.7.60.246 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

Page

David Irving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Attempt to end an edit war."
2. 17:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665785670 by Doug Weller (talk)"
3. 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665784300 by RR420 (talk)"
4. 17:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on David Irving. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly a pov warrior, see and which reinstated this, possibly same editor. Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Try to keep an eye on the named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Baseballguy87.5 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet)

Page: Superstition (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baseballguy87.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 02:23, April 9, 2015 by Baseballman93.100. "This song is one of the biggest early disco songs."
• 01:27, May 24, 2015 by Baseballguy87.5

1. 23:52, June 5, 2015
2. 17:56, June 6, 2015
3. 19:24, June 6, 2015
4. 19:33, June 6, 2015
5. 19:48, June 6, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:

This is a sockpuppet case as well as an edit-warring case.

Baseballman93.100 was blocked in April 2015 for disruption, including his insistence that Stevie Wonder wrote disco songs. Baseballguy87.5 then appeared in late May 2015 to say that Stevie Wonder's songs "Superstition" and "I Wish" were disco songs, the same as Baseballman93.100. He revisited this (preposterous) idea in early June. He's repeatedly edit warring to put the genre of "disco" into Stevie Wonder's biography and his songs. Since there is nothing in the literature about Stevie Wonder writing disco songs, it's difficult to take Baseballguy87.5 seriously, which is why I have not started a discussion with him. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Apart from the edit-warring, this is a totally blatant sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Truth200 reported by User:Mentelucida (Result: Declined)

Page: Velliscig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truth200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 6 June 2015
2. 3 June 2015
3. 3 June 2015
4. 31 May 2015
5. 1 June 2015
6. 1 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Frustrating. maybe he/she have problem with Slavic people... Mentelucida (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Two users, both with few edits, involved in a slow-burning edit war. It's true that Mentelucida tried to reach out to Truth200, but their English is not very good and one comment was odd, and the other awkward. Truth200 doesn't talk, which is a problem, but the edits are so sporadic it's hard to justify sanctioning either one of them or even locking down the page, which doesn't seem to interest hardly anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EDC0:7700:E92A:8A9:2661:C95D reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2605:6000:EDC0:7700:E92A:8A9:2661:C95D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "alma mater is a place someone graduates from - he only graduated from high school - to put a college he attended is misleading"
2. 01:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665828306 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665828477 by RoadWarrior445 (talk)"
4. 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. "/* Edit warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:edc0:7700:e92a:8a9:2661:c95d reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:6000:edc0:7700:e92a:8a9:2661:c95d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This IP editor keeps adding dubious info in Scott Walker's alma mater box, claiming that since he never graduated from college, the university can't be considered his alma mater, and is adding his high school instead. It's been explained to him that this is not what alma mater means, but he started edit warring, and then I warned him on his talk page, and now he has made four reverts in 24 hours. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:98.246.208.42 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Cleaned up sensationalist editorialization"
2. 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Clarified SPLC mission"
3. 04:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "cleaned"
4. 04:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "clean"
5. 05:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "clean"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
2. 04:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
3. 04:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
4. 04:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

First edit shows what IP is here for. NeilN 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:Sfarney (Result: Declined)

Page: E-meter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scottperry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: though the comments in the reversion claim to have reverted it to December 27, 2007

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not forced this to an edit war. Two reversions of the same 8 year old material is sufficient.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Within the last few days, Scottperry (talk · contribs) began discussion on the Talk:E-meter#Article_no_longer_compliant_with_WP:Due.2F_Undue page, arguing that E-meter was no longer neutral according to WP policy. Scottperry suggested he would be reverting it to some version of months ago. I answered him that the current page was fully supported by peer-reviewed references and he should read them. He said the history was all wrong with "such nonsensical claims as its supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims." Again I referred him to the journal references. Instead of addressing the sources, Scottperry reverted the page prior to my reconstruction of months ago (his page comment states he is reverting to a 2007 edition). I reverted his change and requested him to (1) study the sources and (2) address the issues on the talk page. Scottperry reverted the page a second time and has now opened an improper RFC that is highly prejudicial and misrepresents the history of the discussion as a "consensus." I have enumerated my objections to that RfC in the responsive body. This is much more than a content dispute. Scottperry's conduct is not within the spirit of the Misplaced Pages and cooperative editing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This has already been raised at WP:ANI, and doesn't need duplicating here, in my opinion - it is confusing enough already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this complaint has already been cross-posted in a reworded version of this same complaint at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section). Please refer to the earlier cross-posted complaint. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The cross-posting was an error. I had thought I had deleted it from the other board. Andythegrump, please select the most appropriate board. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't my decision (I'm not an admin), but I think that ANI is probably the better location - this isn't a simple edit-warring issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is doing this posting, SFarney, Grammar's Little Helper, or who? Are you two acting as one, one acting as two, or what exactly? Scott P. (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Same person - SFarney is Grammar's Little Helper - the first is a Misplaced Pages user name, while the second is a signature. Confusing, I know, but permitted, and actually quite common (And of course, your User name 'Scottperry' isn't identical to your signature 'Scott P.' either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this guy sometimes signs as Slade Farney, sometimes signs as Grammar's Little Helper, and sometimes comes up as Sfarney, and it's all legal. Amazing.... Whatever's legal I suppose, but if I were writing that policy, I'd say that it should require only names that are not likely to confuse, as this seems to be prone to do. But that's just me. Thanks for that. Scott P. (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Already at ANI. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mondiad reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Blocked)

Page:Përmet
User being reported: Mondiad

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:
Mondiad operates under a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is also noticable in his edit summaries. After a clear breach of 3rr (4 rvs in ca. 19hours), per above diffs, I adviced him to self-revert and participate to the correspodent talkpage]. The explanation for editting in such a way wasn't appropriate, using aggresive tone ], thus refusing to participate in the discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Maticsg1 reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wayward Pines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maticsg1 (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:

Edit warring. User continues to add improperly sourced information--or should I say, the authenticity of the source is being challenged, and editor keeps adding it anyway. Two different editors have challenged his source. Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qYK0BhcgwaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9788170998907&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ATN0VfCyAYTpmQXQjYGICQ&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Phillora%20&f=false

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring