Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MilesMoney (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 20 September 2013 (→User:MilesMoney reported by User:Srich32977 (Result:Warning)). 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:JTBX reported by User:Capitalismojo (Result: )

Page

Smedley Butler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 18:16, 18 September 2013
2. Revision as of 18:11, 18 September 2013
3. Revision as of 17:54, 18 September 2013
4. Revision as of 17:46, 18 September 2013
5. Revision as of 16:35, 18 September 2013
6. Revision as of 07:04, 18 September 2013

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

, .

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Thread at

Comments:

User has been asked a few times to participate in the talk page discussion. He hasn't, although he dropped in to my talk page to threaten sanctions my of edit. The two editors who have discussed this material on the article's talk page have mostly agreed about the recent lede changes. The user (JTBX) has not engaged in discussion at talk and has taken an aggressive and dismissive tone in the edit summaries of his mass reverts. I note that this is an editor has had very similar problems at other articles this year.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted both Rjensen and Capitalismojo's (CM's) edits and changes to my minor fix up for the lead because if anyone with a clear conscience looks through them, beginning with his edit here for example , it is obvious they are engaging in censorship of views hostile to them. Information regarding the Business plot which happens to confirm some of the events as true is removed and changed and there were several times that words like "purported, supposedly" were used in sentences which made it almost laughable to read through. I tried to present a more neutral POV. CM also stated that the business plot was mentioned twice in the lead, yet his own addition added it twice

In addition to all of this, there is no mention of Smedley Butler sharing left-wing or socialist views in the article, yet under the guise of Rjensen and Capitalismojo both have added or readded words such as "Butler was a Socialist, left-wing speaker" simply because he happens to share some views, and a minority unknown historian's book who labelled him as such was dug up by Capitalismojo and reinstated by Rjensen in the lead using an amazon link as a reference, which coming from an apparent student of Yale that Rjsensen claims to be, is amazing. I pointed out to CM on his page that refs shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved elsewhere below, let alone the fact that the opinion is of little use. I believe CM and to a lesser extent Rjensen are engaging in slander by putting these labels in the lead without proper referencing and mentions throughout the article. For example, if "right-wing" is used in the lede for Hitler, it makes more sense than using the same descriptive for George Bush, who we know shares some views but wouldn't look proper in his lede. I believe it is they who are edit warring and this is just complete hypocrisy if you look the page history. I beleieve Misplaced Pages has plenty of editors like this and I do not mean it in an insulting manner, with political POVs pushing agendas whether they even know it or not (RE good faith) and I have dealt with this before, but not to this extent. I do not know what CM is referring to when he says I have had problems with other users this year. --JTBX (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I should add that I have only realized there was a discussion at the talk of Smedley Butler now, if I was even contacted regarding this discussion then maybe we could have had a break through, but Rjensen and CM didn't contact me in anyway.--JTBX (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that theory, the diffs that prove that wrong are above. I posted edit summary requests that you acknowledged and dismissed. I posted at your talk page, my talk page, and the article talk page. Your edits speak for themselves. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the first part of your sentence is about, but in regards to contacting, no you did not, you only posted on my talk when you reported me. And since I was editing the article and you came along and began these changes with Rjensen, which I had to revert, it is you who should have come to me to talk about your changes, instead I had to write to you when you would not stop your actions on the article and that is partly why I made a warning when I wrote to you regarding that. --JTBX (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true as the time stamp and the diffs show. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

More to the point. What is the reason for your rash of edit warring? I took my proposed changes to talk (which jensen responded to), you dismissed the idea of talking and went on a rash of reverting another editor. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:1scruffy1 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: No action)

Page

Remington Model 870 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1scruffy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 09:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "small edition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Remington Model 870. (TW)"
2. 21:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Remington 870. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly trying to add text about murders where the Remington 870 is said to have been used, in spite of warnings. And the user obviously has no intention of stopping, see communication with the user on User talk:Thomas.W#Remington 870 where s/he claims that the article is just "an outrageous attempt to sell more firearms". Thomas.W 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The account is new. You warned them after three reverts. They haven't reverted since that warning, so they haven't breached WP:3RR. They talked to you on your talk page, and you responded. Come back if they persist, but I don't believe a block is warranted now.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The account is not new, it was created in 2009 and has been used fairly regularly since then even though they haven't accumulated many edits. They have also been regularly warned for other edits so they ought to have some clue about what's acceptable and what's not. So they don't deserve extra leeway for being newcomers. Thomas.W 08:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Declined The user stopped edit warring after being warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: no action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I notified Esoglou on his talkpage Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

With Esoglou adding Roman Catholic POV comments directly into Misplaced Pages articles like this one.

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil.

How is this appropriate? How can this comment not be POV pushing which is very much a part of what is called edit warring here? Esoglou has added a very long section in the article theoria of his own speculations and interpretations of the works of the Orthodox theologian John S. Romanides. It has been noted to Esoglou even recently that this term thoeria and its concept is not academically connected the Roman Catholic church (since the Roman Catholic church embraces scholasticism instead) and Esoglou rather than listen has went forward with fabricating from various sources his own attack on John S. Romanides and continues to do so now. Esoglou has edited the article to the point of sections of it becoming an attack piece on John S. Romanides and any Orthodox theologian that Esoglou's interpretation of Orthodox theology does not agree with. Here is an example. As I can find no valid source that would tie this comment to Romanides that Esoglou added into the article.

• "And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God."

So far Esoglou has engaged in copyright violation by posting directly into the body of the article a very long section of one of Romanides books and then attacking it at the end of the section by stringing together his own opinion and sourcing his opinion by sourcing that make no mention of Orthodoxy theology and or John S. Romanides or the subject of the article or that section of the article. .

Esoglou has along history of posting about Eastern Orthodox subjects in various Misplaced Pages articles making all kinds of speculations without actually acknowledging what sources he has read that inform him of his opinion about Eastern Orthodox subjects, he for a time was put under topic editing restrictions. LoveMonkey 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Though I prefer not to close this report myself, I'd like to draw attention to Esoglou's restriction in WP:RESTRICT which says "Esoglou will not make article edits... regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice." Now John S. Romanides (1928-2001) was an Orthodox priest. Perhaps Esoglou can explain how this edit of 19 September, where he moves around and reorganizes the text of Romanides' comments, conforms to his restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston has asked me to reply here. I didn't think it necessary. The accusation, as LoveMonkey stated also on my Talk page, is of edit-warring. I have difficulty in seeing what basis there is for this accusation. See also this comment. Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the above before reading what EdJohnston wrote here. (I did note what he wrote on my Talk page, but did not realize that it was here also.) That is another accusation, that perhaps deserves a more profound reply, but I had better give a quick answer first, lest it be thought that I chose to ignore it. All I can say in brief is that I did not consider that, in bringing up from footnotes to text the views of Romanides, I was making an edit about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. If I was mistaken, I plead guilty to this new accusation. Of course, LoveMonkey more clearly violated his restriction, editing information in the section on heaven and hell information not only of Westerners writing on theological questions but teaching of the Catholic Church itself, and altering the section headed "Roman Catholic Church". Esoglou (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey I am all for being restricted from editing theological articles if the same applied to Esoglou. Ban us both. There is no excuse for Esoglou yet again violating his restrictions since I did a revert and refuse to edit on Misplaced Pages because of Esoglou's horrible behavior I will accept a ban for both us since Esoglou states that he should be allowed to attack John Romanides and somehow blame me. Ban us both. LoveMonkey 18:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a particularly generous offer by one who has declared himself retired and until today has for months done little or no editing. But never mind. There's more to life than Misplaced Pages. Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some it's ok for Esoglou to just continue YET again. For another said amount of time and just keep on edit warring and hijacking articles and reverting, deleting and rewriting other editor's contributions. Its OK because Esoglou is all about getting other people in trouble and running them off from wikipedia however Esoglou should never be held accountable for what Esoglou does. LoveMonkey 19:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know on top of what is being stated how it is OK and NOT, POV pushing for Esoglou to write into a Misplaced Pages article an attack on Romanides like this sentence............

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil.

And that not being POV pushing which is also a form of edit warring Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. I mean it's just Esoglou again doing what he was told not to do in the first place. LoveMonkey 18:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see at most two reverts by Esoglou and one by LoveMonkey so this is not a 3RR violation. The closing admin will probably have to decide (a) whether this is edit warring, or (b) whether Esoglou violated his restriction by making edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Declined To block for edit warring. Whether he violated his restriction is a difficult question probably better suited for WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Soundofair reported by User:Insulam Simia (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Clare Bowen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

173.226.109.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same user, logged out)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573673336 by Alrofficial (talk) Removed improper citation, false information by user Alrofficial."
   2. 17:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */ Removed unofficial, inaccurate "resume" cited by Alrofficial. This is not an official document, is totally inaccurate and unauthorized, and cannot be used as a source."
2. 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573673080 by Alrofficial (talk)Fixed unexplained reversion."
3. 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573672947 by Alrofficial (talk) These are NOT reliable sources. Reverted, once again."
4. 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573671676 by MusikAnimal (talk)I have removed inaccurate, improperly-sourced content."
5. 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573671143 by Alrofficial (talk) Fixed vandalism by Alrofficial."
6. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573644954 by Alrofficial (talk) Removed improperly sourced, false material from Misplaced Pages. User Alrofficial is vandalizing this page by posting false information."
   2. 17:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573670858 by Soundofair (talk)"
   3. 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */ Removed improperly-sourced, false information. User Alrofficial is vandalizing this entry with incorrect information."
7. 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "Removed redundant citation."
8. Consecutive edits made from 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC) to 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */ Removed information cited from inappropriate, unofficial sources (Tumblr, blogs, etc.) All inaccurate information from said sources removed."
   2. 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC) "Fixed birthday - 5/12/89 is the only date given by reliable sources. Other dates inaccurate / from unreliable sources."
9. Consecutive edits made from 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC) to 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ""
10. Consecutive edits made from 17:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC) to 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No discussion has taken place on the talk page. — MusikAnimal 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  I advised the user to take the issue to WP:RSN, but they aren't exactly listening. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Aoidh reported by User:Kevjonesin (Result: Warning Issued )

Pages: Chakra (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chakra (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aoidh (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:
An admin's attention and consideration would be greatly appreciated in dealing with Aoidh. I'm pretty much at my wits end.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Warned The warning diff is supposed to be a diff of the Edit warring warning issued to the Reported Editor, the editor has not been recently warned, and the notification about your report here does not count. Monty₈₄₅ 04:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all there is no WP:3RR violation at any point. Secondly, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and the diffs from the AfD are from moving Kevjonesin's newer comment to the bottom per WP:TOPPOST and then discussing it with him on his talk page, in keeping with WP:BRD. This diff isn't a revert of any kind, so this just looks like flinging mud and hoping something sticks. While I didn't notice I had reverted at Chakra (operating system) four times, those four edits were from 13 September through today, and the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" given given above was placed right before opening this report, and the last diff given was about 3 1/2 hours prior. Kevjonesin, the point of the spot for the warning is that you're supposed to show that you've notified the editor that they were edit warring, and that they continued to do so after the fact, which obviously wasn't the case here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

By my count, you added the notability tag, and then restored it 4 times. You are correct that you have not violated the 3rr rule, but a violation of the 3rr rule is not required to conclude that you were edit warring. Repeatedly adding the tag, regardless of the state of the discussion on the talk page, does constitute edit warring. As you were not warned, I warned you, and as long as you don't add it again (if anyone removes it), there shouldn't be any further action. Monty₈₄₅ 04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I had already acknowledged the number of reverts in the comment you responded to just now, and see your talk page concerning the warning, but you are right regarding edit-warring, I was just clarifying that the edits weren't WP:3RR, when Kevjonesin specifically referred to it as such, that's all. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Srich32977 (Result:Warning)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com
User being reported: User:MilesMoney

Previous version: Version prior to reverts by MilesMoney.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. MilesMoney hatted section of discussion (no hat summary or edit summary comment, but did add discussion commentary)
2. User:Binksternet unhatted, with edit summary
3. MilesMoney re-hatted, no edit summary but did add hat comment
4. User:srich32977 (OP) unhatted table with edit summary about refactoring other editor talk page comments
5. MilesMoney removed the table with the edit comment "do not misquote editors"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Message left on MilesMoney talk page about disruptive removal of material.
2. MilesMoney removed talkpage message with edit summary WP:BOOMERANG

Comments:
When the table was originally posted on the RSN editors were invited to post concerns about changes needed. (The table endeavors to summarize editor comments in the RSN.) MilesMoney did post some comments, and changes were made by me. When the changes were made, I again asked for comments about needed changes. At that stage MilesMoney did the removal of the table. – S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored the table a few minutes ago, then I noticed the existence of this 3RR discussion. It appears to me that MilesMoney did not like the table because it showed all too plainly that his position was in the minority. Of course, the purpose of the table was to show that a clear majority had been reached. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the blow-by-blow action, I've listed the relevant versions. But then I hatted it, because I realized that it's a distraction from the bottom line, which is that I haven't violated WP:3RR and Rich's initial report is full of errors. This is where WP:BOOMERANG comes in. MilesMoney (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I posted this AN3 after MilesMoney did the "hat — re-hat — removal" of the table. My alternatives were to restore and/or post a WP:ANI. Given the fact that Miles' "blow by blow", seeks to argue the RSN by claiming rudeness, dirty-hands, inaccuracy, false accusation, intimidation, mis-quotations, etc., I am more inclined to go with an ANI based on WP:TE. Please feel free to close this AN3 with no action. – S. Rich (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User Srich has been tendentiously pursuing various minor issues on several articles recently. After having requested guidance on/removal of certain blog-sourced content on RSN, Srich declined to respond to various dissents and requests for clarification from other editors, including MilesMoney. Srich then abruptly posted a request for closure at AN and posted the disputed table on the RSN thread. The table misrepresents the views of editors who disagree with Srich in violation of WP policy not to misrepresent other editors. The RSN thread itself is long, convoluted unfocused and inconclusive. The timing and content of Srich's posting of this table has the unfortunate appearance of a tactic to unduly influence the decision of the closing Admin toward Srich's point of view in this matter. I pointed this out and asked Srich to strike through the table, but he declined to do so -- instead, he responded as if I had asked him to correct his misstatement of my view. At that point, I realized he would not cooperate and walked away. Shortly thereafter, editor MilesMoney also objected to the table and hatted it. The series of reverts followed. This sequence was precipitated by Srich's violation of WP policy and his failure to respond constructively when his lapse was explained to him. If anyone needs a warning/block in this situation it would appear to be Srich, an experienced editor of whom we expect much better. His needs to stop his recent tendentious behavior, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right on the money, no pun intended. I like to think the best of people, but the fact that Rich is shopping around for someplace else to report me makes it hard to believe his heart is in the right place. If he really cared about the issues, he'd at least try to debate them (and not just by repeating stuff that we all know is wrong). So, yeah, he's being a tendentious editor in a big way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Warned @MilesMoney: Please be very careful about editing the comments of other editors (including hatting). If someone reverts your editing/hatting of others' comments, do not revert them. If two different editors revert you, absolutely do not revert again. Please consider this a warning about disruptive editing. And for heaven's sake, use edit summaries. (No opinion on whether the table was accurate or on the underlying dispute.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've learned not to be baited into reverting when SRich and Blinkersnet double-team me and try to trick me into violating WP:3RR. I hatted because he was misquoting me, which I believe is also against the rules and deserving of at least a warning. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Zabranos reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: )

Page

Abu Bakr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573718451 by AsceticRose There are sections are blatantly Sunni influenced and you cant quote a work without giving the source or reference. Therefore it sould be under a sub section called Sunni View. Like the shia view subsection."
2. 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573688148 by Wiqi55 (talk)All of it does not come from one source"
3. 19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573686666 by Wiqi55 (talk)made the correction"
4. 07:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Reign as a Caliph */ added new sub section called Abu Bakr Ruling"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning issued by User:Wiqi55

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Involved in edit-war in a couple of articles (see Fatima for example; reverts: and ) without community consensus. The problem is he is moving unilaterally, and making controversial changes without waiting for community response. AsceticRosé 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:109.158.164.49 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Angellica Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Evertatops (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:

Details that the IP didn't mention.

• The editor has been warned multiple times not to edit war (see User talk:Evertatops).
• They are edit warring to include trivia from a tabloid in an article covered by WP:BLP despite having been reverted and without any attempt to discuss the issue.
• They have made a total of 147 edits since registering their account without making a single edit on an article talk page.
• They also appear to be edit warring at another BLP, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring is still continuing at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge even after being notified of this ANEW case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Already blocked for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:LogX (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573798223 by LogX (talk)"
2. 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573797127 by Dodger67 (talk)"
3. 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573792862 by DrKiernan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Now the user is moving on to another article Maurice Roche, 4th Baron Fermoy. This user must be stopped. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) And another - Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy. The user is showing absolutely no sign of heeding multiple warnings or even the notifications of this process here and the one above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring