Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Murry1975 (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 20 April 2014 (rm as per WP:NPA, correct me if I am wrong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:37.192.250.101 reported by User:Prosfilaes (Result: 1 month)

Page: Translations of The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.192.250.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ... going back months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Strongly_verifiable_claims_about_Esperanto_translations and almost everything below that.

Comments:
This has been going on a long time; there's a number of editors reverting him, and someone from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard left an opinion against him. As far as I can tell, no other editors support his case and certainly no non-IPs.Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. This editor has removed the section about an Esperanto translation 14 times in the last six months. An IP who could well be the same person was 178.49.18.203 (talk · contribs), but he has not been active since September 2013. If this were a registered account an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:67.242.113.32 reported by User:331dot (Result: 1 month)

Page

Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around! (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC) "←Created page with '==Characters== ===Main Characters=== * Eliza Jane (performed by Kathryn Mullen) - the main protagonist * The Cat in the Hat - (performed by...'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around!. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)"

Comments:

This user continually creates what I assume are meant to be articles, but does so in the talk namespace only, and not in the main namespace. They have done so with several pages; Talk:Carmen (film) is another example. The pages in question have been deleted several times, and a prior block did not alter their behavior. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I reported this once before (resulting in the prior block). 331dot (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – One month for disruptive editing. Misuse of article talk space in the effort to create articles of his own design. Admins will have to keep doing G8 speedy deletions if the user can't get with the program. Is it possible they are just confused? Unlikely. This user has received plenty of advice at User talk:67.242.113.32 since 15 March, but they have never responded. This block can be lifted by any admin if the editor will agree to follow Misplaced Pages policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Knisfo reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:Same-sex unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knisfo (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:

May well be a reasonable edit, but it involves interpretation of a law that differs from what 2ary sources report. We should at least come to consensus on the talk page that an amateur reading of the law is acceptable in this case. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time, see Talk:Same-sex union legislation#Wallis and Futuna - flag, where if the edits by 46.114.56.53 (talk) and 46.114.8.119 (talk) are included, 3RR was breached as follows: (1st revert) (2nd revert) (3rd revert) (4th revert). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: Persistent POV pushing, he was asked multiple times to provide sources and multiple users told him he's wrong, but keeps reverting.--Liongrande (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one month. Please use this time to reach consensus on the talk page. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:CouchTomato reported by User:Strfornawuks (Result: Strfornawuks blocked)

Page

International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CouchTomato (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:

Please block User:CouchTomato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for his disruptive edits in the International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis page. He began his disruptive edits by reverte moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category. I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category" recognized states" category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid CouchTomato revision, again stated why it was wrong and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Misplaced Pages, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. Strfornawuks (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See also an April 17th report of the same dispute at WP:ANI#Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits. This article has sections both for states and for partially recognized states. Strfornawuks wants Israel to be grouped with partially recognized states in this article. The dispute has been going on since March 27 but so far neither party has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This guy pretty much just took my comment from WP:ANI#Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits and changed the wording around. Note that I kept my justifications within the revision comments and not the talk page because arguing over groupings is not discussion about the article itself, nor has any relevance to it. He states "common standards in Misplaced Pages," but everywhere else, Israel is listed in states. "Partially recognized states" always includes states that are recognized by very few, often 0-2 countries and are not UN members. This was pointed to WP:ARBEURO, but frankly, over something so small like this, it's not even a matter of debate; there is no gray zone, as Israel has always been listed with other countries in all of Misplaced Pages. How can he be calling my reverts "vandalism" when all I'm doing is keeping the article in line with the rest of Misplaced Pages? Please note that I have absolutely no political agenda here. I do not care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all and just made the edits because I stumbled upon and thought it was silly and wrong for it to be like that. CouchTomato (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Strfornawuks for 48 hours for disruptive editing, POV-pushing and edit warring. CouchTomato should have started a thread on the issue at the article talk page, but they did try to address it at ANI, and the edits by and attitude of Strfornawuks are disruptive. The status quo was with Israel in the recognized states list, and moving it to partially recognized makes no sense. The only reason there was a break in the edit war was because there was a break in Strfornawuks's contribution history. Strfornawuks has also removed two chunks of material from the article, one already mentioned at ANI, and another concerning Nicaragua. No one has reverted those changes, but the article has relatively few watchers. As for whether these edits fall under WP:ARBPIA, my view is no because it concerns Israel alone. Perhaps I'm missing something there. In any event, my block is not an ArbCom enforcement block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:83.237.233.255 reported by User:Petr Matas (Result: 48 hours, Semi 1 year)

Page: Crimean status referendum, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.237.233.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/604725726

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/604753374
2. Special:Diff/604762896
3. Special:Diff/604766696
4. Special:Diff/604776152
5. Special:Diff/604903182 (different, but similar IP address, outside 24h period)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/604772191

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/604810744

Comments:

• The user keeps reinserting the sentence and does not discuss or provide edit summaries. It has been decided in the talk, that the sentence should be removed. May I treat it as vandalism and revert it repeatedly? — Petr Matas 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The IP should use the talk page to get consensus for their change. The question of how to describe the role of the observers has been extensively discussed on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another IP address:
  1. Special:Diff/604977215
  2. Special:Diff/604981577
  3. Special:Diff/604982555

— Petr Matas 06:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• And another one:
  1. Special:Diff/604995333

Please semi-protect the article. — Petr Matas 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Callanecc for 1 year. — Petr Matas 10:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredin323 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Blocked)

Page

California State University, Fresno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fredin323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604663666 by Contributor321 (talk)"
2. 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "incomplete data, does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, postgrad populations, 9.7% "Unknown" is not a race, race-conscious and therefore racist. it will not stay on this page."
3. 22:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, and postgrad populations, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages university pages DO NOT include race-based statistics"
4. 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Bahooka, please stop the edit warring, you are in violation of Misplaced Pages regulations and could have your editing privileges revoked. If you have a problem with the fact that most pages do not include race-based statistics, then change that. Not this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus on talk page. Has been warned many times for awhile yet continues. Now has crossed 3RR bright line. Bahooka (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1, Relisted (Result: Declined; stale)

Page

2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "read the sources - ALL of them"
2. 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "and the other source literally states that they have been accepted - and it comes from the man who controls the agreement the team would need to sign to compete"
3. 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "but they *have* been confirmed by Ecclestone, who controls the Concorde, and thus would be in a pisition to comment - hence the footnote"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Forza Rossa - the new Sirotkin */ reply"

Comments:

Another in an ever increasing list of edit wars by this user. Although this one is not a direct violation of WP:3RR, it is still an edit war. The user reverted twice before going to the article's talk page and a third time later on despite having been explained by two users at that point that the reversions were unjustified.

A list of the edit wars the user has been involved in during the last twelve months: -June 2013 -August 2013 -5 January 2014 -12 January 2014 -13 January 2014 -30 March 2014

I would like to suggest that at the very least this user is subjected to 1RR in a bid to stop the repetitive behavior. Tvx1 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything Tvx1 has said about me could reasonably be said about him. He frequently edit-wars, operating under the mistaken belief that if he thinks he is right, then he is permitted to do so. He regularly posts 3RR warning templates on the talk pages of editors he is warring against, and eventually refers them here, which I believe is little more than an attempt to try and intimidate others into backing down and accepting his preferred version of edits. If he had taken the time to check the article in question, he would have seen that it has since stabilised, and that it stabilised once someone made an actual argument in favour of the changes he was pushing for. Furthermore, there is an open case at DRN which he started, and in which he clearly misrepresents the situation. Considering this, I believe that it is quite clear that Tvx1 has developed the alarming habit of calling the administrators down on anyone he disagrees with in an attempt to force though his preferred version of an article, as he is frequently in the minority when it comes to a consensus. As evidenced here, he edit-warred, even after being shown evidence that he should have considered; then came here at the first opportunity - even after the issue was resolved. If I am guilty of 3RR, then so too is he, and I implore any administrator reviewing this case to consider Tvx1's history of calling on admins to try and bully his preferred edits into an article. He is, for want of a better word, compromised by this behaviour and his own role in the disputes he brings to the attention of admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an unfounded personal attack and violation of WP:AGF. If it is necessary for the reviewing administrator to check my editing history. Be my guest. You'll find no such proof of frequent edit warring. In fact I strongly doubt you will find any violation of WP:3RR at all. I am not operating under the mistaken belief that if I think I'm right, then I'm permitted to edit-war by any means. I bloody well know that edit-warring is prohibited by policy even if one thinks one is right. I never make more than two reversions after which I will solely concentrate my efforts on the talk page of the article in question and if that fails I'll search for other solutions to resolve the matter like fore instance Dispute Resolution. If i report anyone here I do that under the belief that the user in question has broken one of the policies this noticeboard governs and administrator action is warranted. Regarding this particular article, I made one reversion, ONE, after Prisonermonkeys reverted my original edit. I don't know why I'm even remotely accused of having broken WP:3RR here. Tvx1 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very, very difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a pattern to your behaviour. Given your tactics in other discussions - like the way you misrepresented the situation at DRN, like the way you have ignored a clear consensus in the past, like the way you stall at every opportunity - I am left wondering at this one. If it is your only intent to resolve issues diplomatically, why am I left feeling as if you are trying to force through your preferred edits every single time you do it? You take a minority position - in this case, you were in the majority, but only once someone did your job for you and made an actual argument - and edit-war just enough to keep your nose clean, and then threaten administrator action against any other party. And lo and behold, you get your way; the article is written the way you think it should be written, regardless of what a consensus might say. So I find it very difficult to assume good faith when you stand to gain so much from it. You know perfectly well that the DRN is coming up for review, and you know perfectly well that we argue opposing points of view in it. If any sort of admin action was taken against me, it would limit my ability to take part in that DRN, and the side opposed to you loses one of its biggest supporters. And here you are, twelve hours after an unrelated situation has been resolved - and you had to know it was resolved to get those edit differences - lobbying for admin action against me.

Like I said, if your only intention is to resolve a situation diplomatically, why am I left feeling like you are trying to force through the resolution you prefer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing one of the diffs in the report to an unrelated one (03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)) won't help your cause either.

I post from an old mobile device. Sometimes when I make a spelling error - and especially if the section I am editing is lengthy - the auto-correct software inserts the correct word at a random point in the text window, often over-writing existing text. When that happens, the best I can do is guess at what the original text read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to lash out on me like this. You're the one who edit-warred and if the administrators consider it warranted to take action you only have yourself to blame for that. It took 6 editors, three of whom had to revert your additions to the article, to make you realize that you're edits were premature. So I don't see why you claim it is I who tried to force their preferred edits through. And I don't understand the claim that "someone else did my job for me" either. I brought the majority of the talk page input and the five of us who brought arguments against you wrote more or less the same: The content you were trying to add hasn't been confirmed yet, WP is not a news site so we can take the time to verify this, you misinterpreted Bernie's comments. Bretonbanquet added to that we should wait until we have FIA and FOM confirmation, something you had actually mentioned yourself earlier on. This report is entirely independent from the Dispute Resulotion on an unrelated issue we are currently taking part in. It's not even remotely my intent to try to prevent you from taking part in that, why else would I have suggested 1RR restriction in the first place you think, and I have never claimed that I would only accept the Dispute Resoultion outcome if it's my favor. The only reason why I have reported you hear is to make you finally realize that Edit-Warring is not a solution to resolve disputes. Again, these accusations you throw at me are entirely unjustified. Tvx1 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in another edit war on the same article.

Once again, you dodge the question. Why is it that every time you report someone for 3RR, I am left unable to shake the feeling that there is something in it for you - something more than stabilising the page or resolving a dispute?

You claim, for instance, that you will limit yourself to two reverts before moving to the talk page. But do you know what I see? Someone who edit-wars just enough to avoid getting in trouble, relying on the other party to continue edit-warring, and then posting templates on their talk page or coming here to intimidate them into standing down and/or accepting the edits you want. You claim you do nothing wrong, and yet here we are, having this discussion. The idea did not simply appear in my mind one day - there is a pattern here.

And, predictably, you sit on that article, watching that content, for the first sign of trouble. As I expected you would, and so edited accordingly. It is quite clear to me now that you are compromised. You claim to be acting in the interests of the article, but always get something out of it. You want me to be put on a 1RR; fine. In that case, I suggest Tvx1 be prevented from referring cases to ANI or posting warnings on talk pages until he learns that they are not a platform for him to try and manipulate content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and Dr.kolles. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relisted because no attention was given to the original reporting. Tvx1 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Declined

• Stale. Tvx1, don't relist reports just because they didn't go the way you wanted them to. PM has not violated 3RR, and although I haven't checked whether the April 13 sequence is a violation, even if it were, it's stale. If you have a problem with a pattern of conduct by PM, take it to another board.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article List of job scheduler software (Result: Blocks and semi-protection)

Page

List of job scheduler software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users

• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reporting this mess - looking for help
• SQM03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New SPA
• RevSoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New SPA with coi-username violation
• 165.228.54.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New SPA
• 101.165.196.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SPA

Spamming an entry for their software into List of job scheduler software, which has been going on since at least February (I may be overlooking an ip).

I'm assuming these SQM03, RevSoft, 165.228.54.71, and 101.165.196.165 are all one person. I'm concerned that there is a language problem here, or at least extremely poor understanding that Misplaced Pages is not to be used for promotional purposes. I've self-reverted and am going to wait to see what others say on the situation.

Discussions at User talk:SQM03, User_talk:RevSoft, User talk:165.228.54.71, and User_talk:Ronz#List_of_Job_Scheduling_software.

Also, I tend to avoid reverting in such cases, but this has been going on since at least February, so I've treated it as spamming for promotional purposes. Turns out it is for self-promotion, but I'd like suggestions on how to handle it better next time around. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Request page protection in this case. Lugnuts 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I blocked SQM03 indefinitely for sock puppetry and the master, RevSoft, for one month for the same. I semi-protected the article for a week against the IPs. I removed the promotional material from the article because of Ronz's discomfort at doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Next time I'll be quicker to seek out help. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Last stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2014-04-18T20:10:08
2. 2014-04-18T20:19:05
3. 2014-04-18T22:03:20
4. 2014-04-19T00:40:40
5. 2014-04-19T12:55:56
6. 2014-04-19T20:50:56
7. 2014-04-19T21:37:13 - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. my warning
   • editor removed the warning and an early attempt at resolving
2. The Rambling Man's warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:FC Barcelona#Mascherano' position
• Also a discussion on the editor's talk page removed as described above.

Comments:

The editor is not a native English speaker and so communicating with the editor is not easy, however the editor has complaints on the editor's mentor's talk page: User talk:Always Learning and the editor has been blocked for edit warring on these exact pages before.

User:JeffLB reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

Page

Barbara Lerner Spectre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604336212 by Lizzy B52 (talk)"
2. 02:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604820942 by Lizzy B52 (talk)"
3. 03:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604827772 by JeffLB (talk) Please see my reply to your comments in the talk section."
4. 23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604887534 by Iselilja (talk) I cited a secondary source, an article by a tenured professor at Cal State -LB, and offered to name more. Please see my notes in Talk.and reply."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Barbara Lerner Spectre. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion: Talk:Barbara_Lerner_Spectre#Her_Jewish_Supremacism_and_Racism NeilN 23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:BoboMeowCat reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Becky Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages)
User being reported: BoboMeowCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 17 April 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:47, 18 April 2014
2. 18:01, 19 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified of 1RR on 19:43, 18 April 2014, prior to both reverts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion

Comments:
I think this is a straightforward 1RR violation, despite prior warning. MastCell  03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see talk:Becky Bell. Serious concerns regarding violations of NPOV were reason for initial revert.

WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Reverted version also deleted significant amount of text referenced by reliable sources. My revert was reverted, so this version currently stands.

Second revert (which involved content not changed in first revert, so not an edit warring situation) was to delete lengthy quote from a dead link attributed to a non-neutral source involving allegations of attempted murder. As I said in edit comment, are there any neutral sources for this such as police report?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for WP:1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Yardley of London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aimperator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (June 2012)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (August 2012)
2. (September)
3. (September)
4. (March 2013)
5. (April)
6. (December)
7. (April 2014)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been repeatedly adding in unsourced claims relating to the age of the company for nearly two years now, despite being reverted by several independent and unconnected editors, despite explanations on the talk page and despite repeated requests to cease their activity at their talk page. The reason this has gone on for so long is because the low frequency of the edits (ten edits in a 20 month span) is easy to control, but if the editor isn't going to respond to reason then some sort of punitive action is going to have to be considered. At the very least the editor should refrain from making any such edits until there is a consensus for them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Davidoeoples reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: )

Page

Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Davidoeoples (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 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC) to 08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 08:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 08:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder). (TW)"
2. 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Additional material also appears to be copyvio Murry1975 (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you're aware that consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be a single edit, for purposes of 3RR reports, right?  the panda  ₯’ 10:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And continues.

@Dangerous Panda, sorry I taught that I had to include all parts of the revert/undo. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:72.199.145.35 reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: )

Page

Skyhook (structure) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.199.145.35 (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:

3RR. User also seems to be a puppet of Skyhook1 - same edit pattern. andy (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring