Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 17 December 2019

• 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:Morton Thiokol reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Stale)

Page: Mercedes-Benz OM601 engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Morton Thiokol (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:
Schrocat says: "I have given you details of two of the major style guides that support what I have said" Where? I see you insisting you are right, but no supporting documentation, only assertion. I, however, have provided supporting proof that a colon precedes an enumerated list. Where's your proof? Thanks! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I left details on your talk page some time ago. You have not referred to any external guides, just your assertions you are not in error. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed link to an external guide, right there in my Edit summary. Here it is yet again: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/colon.html I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. Where's your link to an external guide saying that it's acceptable to use a comma to precede a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; you don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Stale I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. Morton Thiokol, please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Style rules are debatable. But grammar rules are not. How noteworthy that you opt to defend a provably incorrect use of punctuation by a user who can't provide any support that his misuse is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

FFS, I am not sure just how you have not taken on board the fact that there is no single way of doing things in English: what was there before you began edit warring was grammatically correct, and it was consistent with the rest of the style in the article. Please get it into your head that your way is not necessarily the only or best way to do things. I suspect you'll be back at this noticeboard several times in what will hopefully be a short wiki-career. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Edit5001 reported by User:Triacylglyceride (Result: Alerted)

Page: Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&oldid=927403458

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930539977&oldid=930537483
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930487433&oldid=930426722
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930399741&oldid=930399364
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930383368&oldid=930379273

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Countries_to_list;_how_to_list_views

Comments:

Hi. First time making a report on another user. I believe this article is under 1RR because of it's relation to abortion; the user in question made three reversions in 24 hours. I want to confess that I've realized my own reversions have, on occasion, fallen just below 24 hours. I'm a casual Wikipedian, and check once a day or so. I'm open to criticism on that count. Normally I wouldn't escalate at this time, but I saw multiple related warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks for your time, and I apologize if I'm misusing this tool. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001 is coming off a recent block for 3RR violations at Abortion in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no editnotice at the article for a 1RR restriction. @NorthBySouthBaranof: Was Edit5001 given a DS alert related to this topic area? —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Answered my own question: yes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know the article was 1RR so I apologize if it is, I was following 3RR. There has been an issue here with Triacylglyceride failing to address my points/concerns (or the points/concerns of multiple others) on the Talk page, never offering any type of consensus we could agree on in the edits, and at times flat out stops responding even when politely pinged for a response. I suppose I should have asked for arbitration or something along those lines, but I really hoped we would've been able to resolve this through discussion or simply adjusting eachother's edits instead of having mine simply reverted. I've had many instances in the past where myself and other users worked on edits together, listened to eachother's points, and reached compromises where we disagreed. This person, after many days, has still been unable to do that. Edit5001 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001 and Triacylglyceride: I would like for you two to sort this matter out at the article's talk page, rather than edit war on the face of the article. I see promising signs that you two are doing that. The article is not currently under 1RR, and I would like to keep it that way—but if the edit warring continues, I reserve the right to place the article under that sanction. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. I had a wrong impression from the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Edit5001 has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions on abortion. It now appears that discussion is taking place. See especially the above comments by User:C.Fred. Both parties are reminded not to edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC on whether to include Poland and Malta if the two of you can't come to an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric reported by User:La_vérité_gagne (Result: No violation)

Page: Asaram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric

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:Winged_Blades_of_Godric is continuously trying to remove all the positive content and references from WP:BLP article Asaram. Gurukul death case is closed now, but his intent is to still keep majority of section filled with outdated info and he is removing the references or content which are factual. Also since 11 December 2019 onwards he has ade almost 25 edits on this page trying to page the entire page tone further negative. I tried to resolve the conflict on talk page but it seems he is using tools like twinkle in order to revert my edits. La vérité gagne (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I notified the user about this discussion here and before that also I tried to initiate discussion for resolving the issue. But he simply reverted instead of having a discussion: And I suppose this user has rollback rights. Please check if he is using the rights in the way supported by Wiki policies. La vérité gagne (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:103.59.38.34 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Semi)

Page

Equipment of the Bangladesh Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 05:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 05:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 05:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
   2. 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
4. 14:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 05:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 05:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 05:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
   2. 05:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Do not edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC) "/* About 300 New Type-59 Tanks */"

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. This appears to be number-changing vandalism from a variety of IPs. The talk page has no contributions from IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Agent.registry reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indef)

Page

Santali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Agent.registry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Edit war continues on 16 December 2019
   1. diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
   2. diff - 16 December 2019 Edit war continues
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 15:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Added multiple issues template."
   2. 15:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930741939 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930708898 by Austronesier (talk)"
   2. 13:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930709400 by Austronesier (talk)"
   3. 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930709273 by Austronesier (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) to 10:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 10:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930631112 by Austronesier (talk)"
   2. 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Morphology */corrected format type."
   3. 10:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Added update needed for the section as the content is not up-to-date."
   4. 10:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added not verified as it is misleading."
   2. 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "minor grammatical error."
   3. 18:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed noun as no content was added."
   4. 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed duplicate entry."
   5. 18:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added citation needed template."
   6. 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Added reliability template."
   7. 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Added multiple issues template."
6. Consecutive edits made from 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "added citation needed template."
   2. 18:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "grammatical error rectified."
   3. 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "removed contents as it was based on munda.As of my knowledge,santal language came to India from the north east region and this content talks about munda language.So some discussion is required.((talk

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Santali language. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. "Attempt to resolve"
2. "Second attempt to resolve"

Comments:

This person doesn't even know how the "Multiple issues" maintenance template works. Which has been explained by me and User:Austronesier in the edit summaries and their talk page more than once. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeps edit warring , . Doesn't respond in talkpage . Keeps unnecessarily warning me of 3RR instead only after my first revert and then edit wars in my talkpage too . This person obviously has WP:CIR issues if they do not know the usage of Template:Multiple issues which has been explained by me and other users many times. We have specifically told them not to use it to show their grievances with the article, which is not the intended purpose of the "Multiple issues" template. Instead they keep on adding their own POV on how the article is unreliable and stuff. Their exact wording in the template "Sources and demographic data are not up-to-date.Also,some citations are invalid or make no sense." as seen in this edit. To note, an update template has already been placed in the respective demographics section and an "unreliable sources" tag on the lead. That makes usage of the Multiple templae totally unjust, but the user seems adamant on it and keeps edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Also deleted my talk in the talk page here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I can confirm Fylindfotberserk's observations. This is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. –Austronesier (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Look at this recent comment by Agent.registry. The aweful usage of a template along with snark comments and usage of slangs in the comment makes a clear case of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Now blocked indef by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Launeaau reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)

Page

Tejasvi Surya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) to 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 01:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 23:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 10:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tejasvi Surya. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Abuse allegations section */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting "controversies" as section header, despite concerns raised at WP:BLPN. The user has not provided any edit summaries or responses. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Semi)

Page

Syrian Turkmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Comments:

This user making disruptive edits. Possible a sockpuppet and cursing me in Turkish " salakmisin lan sen? " (are you an idiot?) Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Beshogur, please try to notify this editor. (The link to their talk page is still red). If you don't manage to get a response, I am willing to try semiprotection. The alternative is a block of Special:Contributions/2a00:23c5:8405:fa00:b807:7259:2e2f:125a/64. This person appears to have some knowledge, but the personal attack isn't acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected 6 months due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. This might be the same person as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar400r/Archive. This editor was known for posting about Turkic minorities in various countries. They had over 50 named socks. One of the socks who edited this article was SyrioTurkicHuman last May. Page was also edited by a sock of Joohnny braavoo1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Applodion reported by User:DongFen (Result: No violation; DongFen indeffed as a sock)

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Applodion (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:

Despite 5 users, 2 IP's 3 accounts having consensus on the removal of the material at the talk page, and only 1 objection by Applodion. Himself and 2 others who are not participating in the discussion are restoring the said material. DongFen (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Good lord, could we at least try to resolve this peacefully without you accusing me? I have presented my arguments on the talk page, and offered to talk about soilutions, yet you ignored my position. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Five users oppose you yet you revert all the five. Admin intervention necessary. DongFen (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I and two other editors who held a similar opinion as myself. I have constantly taken part in the discussion on the talk page, presented my arguments, but you ignored them for the most part (though you did add texts to the descriptions instead of deleting the images which I positely acknowledge, though I still did not understood why the additional text should be neccessary). Applodion (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I just indefinitely blocked DongFen as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: No violation)

Page: Kurdistan Workers' Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SharabSalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I know it is not against the 3 revert rule, he only reverted 3 times. The other revert was made by someone else. But he refuses to read the UN sources I provide. He says it is original research or a primary source if one cites the UN to show that the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. His source saying the UN designates the PKK a terror organization is wrong. An other user in the discussion agrees with me too. What is the solution here? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You reported me because I refused to read the lengthy UN documents?. BTW, I have replied to you when I found the message on the talk page and I didnrt revert any further. I went and replied to your comment. I didnt want to revert the guy who reverted me and I dont know who that editor who reverted him. I don't even have that article in my watchlist. I cited the Euronews for the UN designation.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You included wrong info even after I informed you the info was wrong and you refused to read the UN source stating the UN does not list the PKK as a terror organization. And it is not the first time you don't read a source and just revert. See the discussion here. I just want to know where I can report this clearly wrongful editing, so we can get to a consensus. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

the OR was the part when you added that Switzerland only designates terrorist groups if they are designated by the UN and then cited a UN document saying it doesnt say that the PKK is designated and then saying in the lead section that Switzerland doesnt designates the PKK although the whole European Union designates it as a terrorist group. Notice what my comment says and what your reply is. I talked about using primary sources like UN documents which are hard-to-reach and using secondary sources like Euronews which explicitly says that the PKK has been designated as a terrorist group by the UN. Also the UN document doesnt say that the PKK is not listed. It just doesnt mention it and thats not the full list of designated terrorist groups by the UN. The PKK has been designated as a terrorist group since the 80s. --SharabSalam (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

you don't mention Switzerland in the edit. Nor do I in the whole talk. The topic of the main discussion is if the UN designates the PKK as a terror organization. A minor discussion currently resolved was the part of the EU. For your insistence to add the info that the PKK is a designated terror organization by the UN, and your refusal to read the UN source saying the opposite, I reported you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, in that "edit" or comment I didn't mention OR yet you said above and in the reply that I said original research. I was talking about this . And BTW, using primary sources does most of the time count as OR. The UN source does not support what you are saying. It doesn't say that the UN doesn't designate the PKK as a terrorist group. The UN document can't prove that the PKK is not designated as a terrorist group. It doesn't mention all terrorist groups that are designated by the UN and it doesn't mention the PKK. If a reliable secondary source says that the UN has designated the PKK as a terrorist group, then, of course, I am not going to search in the lengthy, hard-to-reach UN documents just to see if the UN has issued a statement saying that it designates the PKK as a terrorist group.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. Continuous edits only count as one revert, which in this case amounted to three reverts in total. El_C 14:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ferdeline reported by User:Wwwhatsup (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I think the situation here is fairly self-evident. User:Federline joined Misplaced Pages for the purpose of editing this article, the subject of which is currently the subject of a controversy. I deleted most of their edits as POV and, since it needed help, rewrote the article. User:Federline recognized me, and reverted based not on content but COI. I do have a close relationship to the subject, but am not an employee. I have done my best to stay within NPOV. I could unrevert again, which would be sure to get a response that would violate 3RR. I could appeal to other editors. I think it better to ask that an impartial admin step in. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Regardless of any WP:COI that may exist, there is a risk of WP:ADVOCACY. I hope that User:Ferdeline won't continue to cite his own tweets as a source. Either party should feel free to voluntarily divulge any personal connections they may have to the Internet Society or its chapters. But making such a revelation for another person risks WP:OUTING, which is blockable. Ferdeline is warned against personal attacks, such as 'deeply dishonest edits'. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston (talk), thanks for your comments. I am new to Misplaced Pages so my apologies if I am not meant to be responding here. I did not intend to personally attack Wwwhatsup. I just wanted to point out the conflict of interest. I do not think that someone who has been a long-term contractor/employee/vendor of an organization can be a neutral editor of its Wiki page. However, I would like to bring to your attention that Wwwhatsup has 'outed' me in a public Facebook group by my full legal name. I do not want to link to the post here as it will identify them by their name too. How should I send this to an admin? Thank you. Ferdeline (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If the person behind the User:Wwwhatsup account outed you on Facebook that is not a concern for us here. We only care about outing on Misplaced Pages. If you have some personal connection yourself to the Internet Society, it would be good to make that known. You do seem to have strong opinions about the sale of the Public Interest Registry by the Internet Society. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:122.170.21.91 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Warnings)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

2. 17:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931055550 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained rollback abuse"
3. 17:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931055088 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained rollback abuse"
4. 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "I provided reasonable explanations for all edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Chandala. (TW)"
2. 17:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
3. 17:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Chandala. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is OP a bot or something? Regardless of being unresponsive, this user is clearly abusing WP:ROLLBACK and this user-right should be taken away from him. He is re-adding this source which is not even supporting the information and also reinstating self-published source like Patridge publishing. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is IP a registered editor who is hiding because they're making controversial changes to an issue they're bonded to? (Not a real question, simply illustrating that it's nonconstructive to simply toss around labels.) At any rate, if you look closer, it's not rollback but TW. I simply patrol pages, looking for vandalisms such as the removal of referenced material without discussion on article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content, content unsupported by reference and removing self-published source does not constitute 'vandalism'. You need to slow down with your reverts. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. This dispute is heading toward blocks if people continue to make large changes without getting consensus first on the talk page. You could ask for opinions at WT:INDIA if you need wider participation. To an outsider, it is not really clear what the dispute is about. There is a claim of unsourced material but I don't know what part is unsourced. The IP is claiming rollback abuse but neither of Ifnord's changes is marked as a rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:173.176.159.21 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Page protected)

Page

Tim Pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931066524 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Noy true. BLP guidelines stipulate contentious stuff must be removed. Any addition requires consensus. No, your addition wasn't there about a month ago. please consult BLP guidelines and the talk page."
2. 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 931020584 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) You need consensus. Please consult the talk page, topic already covered there in great details and length. WP:BLP"
3. 09:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930948724 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) Talk page was crystal clear about adding either conspiracy theorist or right wing. get consent first for addition. please consult the talk page. subject already devlopped in length and a vote occured on this specificly"
4. 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "removed reference to unsubstanciated smear piece"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tim Pool. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Offered the opportunity to self-revert - they did, and then promptly undid their own self-revert. User was previously blocked 48h for disruptive editing on American politics pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 10 days by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:113.30.156.69 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Astrology and science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "added reference, as asked by a user."
2. 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Gauquelin asked the committee to remove athletes who didn't meet the criteria of "eminence" Link - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.7941&rep=rep1&type=pdf"
3. 07:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "https://www.skepsis.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/kurtz-etal.pdf - The original paper by Gauquelins opponents that says Gauquelin wanted some athletes on grounds of eminence. Anyone who reverts this edit, EXPLAIN."
4. 21:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC) "Gauquelin asked the committee to remove athletes who didn't meet the criteria of "eminence" Link - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.550.7941&rep=rep1&type=pdf"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Accusations of Removal of Subjects on grounds of Eminence */ exclude"
2. 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Accusations of Removal of Subjects on grounds of Eminence */ re"

Comments:

Notified: . VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The IP user has also been triggering the edit filter by removing sourced content from other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Cathytalledo reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )

Page

Miss Universe Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted; Unsourced information; Vandalism"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC) to 00:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 00:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Reorganize and added deleted information."
   2. 00:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Excess information"
3. 23:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC) "Useless information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Miss Universe Philippines. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Consistently deletes duly sourced information and insists on her own edit, calling other editor's edits vandalism when all contents supplied by editors are duly sourced, as could be seen here. This user has never tried to engage in dispute resolution, and instead has continuously blanked warnings on their talk page, as could be seen here, here, here, and here. They also copied and pasted a warning a placed on their wall, to my own wall, complete with my own signature, as could be seen here and here.

I have tried placing a warning on this user several times, hoping they would engage in edit and dispute resolution, but to no avail. This has already gone beyond my and other users' final warning. I hope you could look into this contributor and employ necessary action. Thanks so much. Migsmigss (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring