Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 4 February 2014 (→User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours): Closing). 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

Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: No action)

Users involved:

• 139.164.160.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.203.97.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

The matter was previous brought up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonaut (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January, 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The second and third IPs appear to have stopped editing. I don't see any recent problems with the #1 IP. Report again if you see any abuse. This case was also discussed on Psychonaut's user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:The sun2013 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

The sun2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English, This page needs to be protected from the clowns that erases information or enter false data to generate controversy among the fans of the artists."
2. 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English"
3. 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593317551 by ViperSnake151 (talk) WTF WHO THE PEOPLE?"
4. 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vevo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Do not restore the "Certified" list. */ new section"

Comments:

Constantly restores content that was removed as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; editing pattern and conduct seems to imply "ownership" behaviour ViperSnake151  Talk  22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:The sun 2013 is warned not to again restore the 'certified list'] that was complained about on the talk page unless he obtains consensus first. Another admin has imposed semiprotection for a year and we'll see if that helps with the turbulence on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jackmcbarn reported by User:88.104.24.150 (Result: No violation)

Page: User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jackmcbarn (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:

For one, 3RR doesn't apply in your own userspace. Also, I made it clear that that was the wrong page to edit. Thirdly, the warning link was ME warning YOU. Finally, you started undoing my regen of the page, which is clearly blatantly unconstructive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, AND the first two reverts were by Technical 13, not me! Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• No violation WP:3RR indeed doesn't apply to a user's own userspace, and it also doesn't apply to reverting clearly disruptive edits, such as 88.104.24.150's removal of a name that belongs on that page per its inclusion criteria. Huon (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon,

Can you please educate me, and show me that specific policy?

And please note that the diff you showed was just me undoing this where Jackmcbarn undid the edit from Aircorn - not me. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aircorn never edited that page. I added his name to the list in . You undid my edit for no reason in . Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Read 3RR exemptions, it clearly states it. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AcidSnow already pointed out where the exceptions to WP:3RR can be found, and Jackmcbarn pointed out that he didn't revert thrice anyway. Regarding Aircorn, he supported proposal 1, which by the rules laid out at the top of Misplaced Pages talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Implicit oppose counts as an implicit oppose to proposal 4. Jackmcbarn added them to that column of his list; 88.104.24.150 removed them with an edit summary that rather clearly shows that 88.104 didn't understand what they were doing, and reverted a second time for good measure. Both the original report and 88.104's reply here contain so many falsehoods that it's almost comical. 88.104.24.150, you may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:88.104.24.150 reported by User:Technical 13 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Implicit opposes */ r"
2. 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593502212 by Technical 13 (talk) per and lack-of-response theirin"
3. 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593521016 by Jackmcbarn (talk) IP hate, meh"
4. 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "oops"
5. 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593522253 by Jackmcbarn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose. (TW)"
2. 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC_implicit_oppose. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring "Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234) (bot"

Comments:

My first revert of this user's post was a full WP:AGF assuming it was just a misplaced or test edit. The IP, told me it was not a test and reverted my undo of their edit. This quickly escalated into a full out edit war between this IP and another user which resulted in protection of the page being edited. Reviewing the contributions of the IP will show that it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such. Thank you. / Technical 13 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such"

Obviously.

Even though I've 'vandalised' nothing.

Meh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi'd indefinitely as a user request in own userspace). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593570058 by Faizan (talk) it was not supported by consensus Do not edit war, take it to talk page"
2. 11:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593542650 by Brewcrewer (talk) no consensus"
3. 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "undo trivial edit by Mikrobølgeovn"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"
2. 11:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR rule within 24 hours. Spotted this violation earlier too, warned the user several times, but still another case of edit-warring. The diffs have been provided, the user is edit-warring with several experienced editors, as evident from the article's history. He did three reverts in 24 hours. Faizan 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not supported by consensus

We've had this discussion it was not supported by consensus--Ersroitasent (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's an exception to edit-warring? In addition, 3 separate people seem to be "against" your edit - that looks like better consensus that you think DP 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ersroitasent Blocked – for a period of 1 day. Faizan take care, you were only 3 hours outside 24 hours yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure Callanecc, thanks. Faizan 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Faizan, being 3 hrs outside of 24 is usually considered gaming the system, and should also have led to a block DP 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda Whatsoever, it was not a 1RR violation. I don't have an active editing history in that article and I am not an edit-warrior. I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time, then how does it mean that I was gaming? Faizan 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:STSC (Result: Declined)

Page: Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:57, 1 February 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:56, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 592667818 by Mogism: The description of the source is unreliable. Besides, there's no mention on Japan in the source. Please provide RS with evidence like the source #37. . (TW)")
2. 06:32, 2 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by 54.199.150.33 (talk): Though it's cited, there are no evidence in them. (TW)")
3. 08:44, 2 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 54.199.161.4 (talk): The evidence is the photograph of the forein aircrafts and their identification. See talk page. (TW)")

Comments:
These are unjustifiable disruptive reverting purely for personal nationalistic reasons.

• Declined. STSC, don't make accusations without evidence. I don't even understand your involvement (or uninvolvement) in the dispute. The IP addresses, btw, all come from an Amazon corporate account. There's been no WP:3RR violation and the reported editor has opened a discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

Page

World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Capricornmanager1 (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 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   4. 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   4. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Anil Singh Pokhriyal reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593605262 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
4. 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using TW"
2. 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Ayurveda. using TW"
3. 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "pointer"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is adding quasi-spam to article. See User_talk:NeilN#Ayurveda NeilN 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Even though no discussion has taken place at article talk page, NeilN has been involved in a lengthy discussion at his own talk page (thread linked above) about verifiability and related policies. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also started one at the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy says "The person should be noticeable" and the author of the books is very significant person in India then how can others mark it as spam without verifying that. All the books are original and written by Rajiv Dixit himself based on Ashtang Hridyam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you have a content dispute with other editor(s) and need to resolve that at the article talk page. Edit warring is not an acceptable means to resolve the disupte. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User made yet another revert to the Ayurveda article, in spite of all the advice above and requests to discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: )

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Warned)

Page: Philip Seymour Hoffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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:

Winkelvi has been attempting to scrub any mention of the syringe found in Hoffman's arm from the article, reverting 3 different editors' attempts to insert the mention based on the NY Times article, offering only the excuse that "newspapers say a lot of things." Msnicki (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scrub" is an unfounded and simply untrue accusation. My feeling? Msnicki is seeking punitive rather than preventive action and is ticked because I objected to his un-encyclopedic edits. I started the talk page discussion on the disagreement in content, explained why I felt what he was adding didn't belong, and he didn't like what I had to say. It was then and only then he placed a 3RR notice on my talk page, and then threatened filing this report on the article talk page. I admit I was probably too over-zealous in protecting the article, but I never had any intention of edit warring, and I still don't see how Mcnicki thinks adding unproven and speculative content is appropriate. My comments at the article talk page regarding his inclusion of certain content are thus: "Who were these "investigators"? Newspaper people? NYPD detectives? The Medical Examiner? "Investigators" is pretty vague. As far as what the NYT says: newspapers say a lot of things. Just because it's said doesn't make it fact, even if it is from what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source. There is no deadline in Misplaced Pages and we are not newspaper reporters trying to "scoop" one another. We are supposed to be supporting the writing of content in an encyclopedia. Hypodermic needles, envelopes, and the like reported by unnamed "investigators" just isn't encyclopedic. We can do better than that". I still believe we can do better than the content Msnicki was putting in. For me, it's not personal, it's about the content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Winkelvi, you violated WP:3RR and there's no exemption for your reverts based on, for example, a WP:BLP violation. However, I'm willing to accept that you acted in good faith and that a block at this point would be punitive. However, I strongly urge you to leave the article alone for a while lest any edit you make, even if it's about different subject matter, constitutes a revert. There are a lot of people editing the article, and I'm sure it will get along just fine without you. Also the stuff about Msnicki doesn't seem to be supported by any real evidence, particularly as you reverted several users. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to any discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Point(s) taken, Bbb23 and will do. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:50.67.92.94 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Seaquam Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.67.92.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Seaquam_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=592276842

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP has been reverting content to his preferred version without responding to the concerns raised on the edit summaries and his user page. He has also took to WP:STALKING my edits to revert them, such as here and here on my userpage

_dk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for disruptive editing. Two different IPs are revert warring to add WP:PEACOCK language to Seaquam Secondary School so I've applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:113.52.17.67 reported by User:Sekicho (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Kazuma Ieiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.52.17.67 (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:

Comments: Anonymous user keeps butchering this article about a current Japanese political candidate (Tokyo gubernatorial election, 2014). Did the same edit for a fourth time after being warned of 3RR. Not sure why they are so obsessed with this guy in particular...

Sekicho (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Removing sourced content with no explanation. It doesn't make much sense to add a notability tag after you've removed the sources that show notability, while giving no reason for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: يوسف حسين (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 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
2. Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
3. Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
4. Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue (, , ). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also reported at this noticeboard for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. no plan of discussion with "Africans"--Inayity (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary here: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )

Page: Sodastream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sodastream#CS_Monitor

Comments:This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page

French fries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wester (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 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "back to original version"
   2. 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Belgium */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */ please stop"
2. 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"

Comments:

I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.

In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is character assassination. I am active on Misplaced Pages since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.

Wester has never been blocked on the English Misplaced Pages, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.

As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious. Oreo Priest 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium. Citations are everywhere ES&L 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article. Repeatedly. Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says). (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: )

Page: Easter Rising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.11.192.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.11.202.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:16, 2 February 2014
2. 16:03, 2 February 2014
3. 20:24, 2 February 2014
4. 14:56, 3 February 2014
5. 18:35, 3 February 2014

No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
3. 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
4. 20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
5. 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Karl Marx. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
2. 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
3. 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
4. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turkey. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"

Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey#Recent_expansion_of_the_article where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring