Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 18 June 2014 (→User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (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

User:Mehmed the Conqueror reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mehmed the Conqueror (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:

Template:Cue There has been no discussion of the issue on the talk page (the diff above is repeat of the 3RR warning). Also, reporter has failed to notify reportee with {{an3-notice}}. No 3RR violation since only 3 reverts on 14 June and the others are from 12 June – edit warring though. Peaceworld111 has added the info as many times as Mehmed the Conqueror has removed it (but EtienneDolet only gave 3RR warning to Mehmed) – no other editors involved. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one day This is a clear case of edit warring after being warned to stop (warning followed by a revert) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Andreas11213 reported by Alans1977 (talk) (Result: Blocked)

Page: Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 00:55, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612831897 by Alans1977 (talk) They don't need to, it looks better just as the Liberal Party, if he is the PM of Australia it's obvious it's the Liberal Party of Australia")
2. 06:44, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612961206 by Timeshift9 (talk) Cool, I don't see any consensus for the change Alans1977 wants to make")
3. 06:47, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980006 by Timeshift9 (talk) What do you mean no thanks? I always have to gain consensus to make a change, so should Alans1977")
4. 06:55, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980399 by Timeshift9 (talk) You're the one trying to make a change, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs consensus")

—Alans1977 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ScotXW reported by User:Czarkoff (Result: Blocked)

Page

GNOME Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "do not worry; I am used to that"
2. 12:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612876817 by Czarkoff (talk) I am BOLD; I presented ARGUMENTs, which you did not"
3. 10:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC) "contrast to KDE Plasma Workspaces Aaron Seigo wrote quite extensively about the different approaches"

More, albeit at slower rate, can be found in article's history.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

I did not warn him, but Aoidh did.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "GNOME Shell#Diagrams"

Comments:

The discussion at Talk:GNOME Shell#Diagrams is lasting since October 2013, and ScotXW simply ignores everyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page seems to indicate a pretty clear consensus against ScotXW adding his images to the article, and has been slow edit-warring to include these images for a few months now. Diffs showing this are , and these aren't even counting the three diffs above Czarkoff gave above in the initial report, so that's at least seven reverts on this one article alone regarding these images. ScotXW has also started using inappropriate personal attacks ("and you are, obviously too stupid to present arguments...") in addition to the edit-warring shown in the diffs. - Aoidh (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 reported by Alans1977 (talk) (Result: No action)

Page: Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 02:08, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612955274 by Andreas11213 (talk) WP:BRD")
2. 06:45, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612979910 by Andreas11213 (talk) no thanks")
3. 06:52, 15 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 612980090 by Andreas11213 (talk) rubbish, you've been trying to change these for ages and have been reverted by multiple users. GET CONSENSUS.")

—Alans1977 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeshift accurately points out that the attempted edit has not gained consensus, nor has it even been mentioned on the talk page. This is not even a technical vio, and it is yet another attempt by Alans1977 to circumvent the BRD process. If Alans1977 continues to edit-war on this, I'm happy to stand by Timeshift in support of due wikiprocess. Those wishing to make a controversial edit should make their case on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not edit warring on this issue. I am pointing out that Timeshift has violated the three revert rule. Alans1977 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

4 reverts are required to break 3rr. Timeshift (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought that 3 reverts violated the rule. Withdraw my submission if that is the case. Alans1977 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling gammon on that. Just a couple of sections previously, you successfully reported User:Andreas11213 for a 3RR vio with four reverts. You know the procedure. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure as far as I am aware is 3 referts. I chose to put Timeshift up after I saw no action on him as well. Alans1977 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, may I draw the attention of any admin to this and this and this and this. Alans1977 is no stranger to 3RR procedure. --Pete (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So you attempt to excuse behavior because of edit changes made by other people?Alans1977 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Again I suggest you read and comprehend. You have multiple appearances on this noticeboard for 4 reverts or more. You have reported other editors for 4 reverts. Your claim that you don't know the rules is hard to accept, given your long and repetitious history here. --Pete (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, are you trying to excuse the behaviors of others on the past behaviors of people not under current conversation? For the record I thought that a violation of the 3RR is a the third revert not the 4th revert. Why are you trying to deflect behavior?Alans1977 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. As others have pointed out, four reverts are required to breach 3RR. On that basis, the reporter has "withdrawn" the report. I should add a couple of things. First, I agree with the other users that given the many reports Alans1977 has filed on this board, he should know the policy. If he doesn't, he shouldn't report here. Second, the article is now subject to a WP:1RR restriction, so editors should be careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by 2.28.240.160 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

Page: Pan-Arab colors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Omar-toons edit warring is characterised by a combination of complete reverts, complete reverts plus new contentious edits, complete rejection of previously existing text or any linguistic improvements to intro text.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

As Omar-toons' almost two dozen reverts demonstrate, he has adopted a very aggressive, bad faith and confrontational approach in an effort to force through his own edits in the absence of consensus. He rejects overtures to take the issues to Talk, and instead responds with false accusations of sock puppetry (without offering any evidence). After his edit warring was referred to as vandalism, he used that same term to refer to others who were attempting to conserve the existing text.

Page protection was requested yesterday (both for and against Omar-toons), however, Callanecc directed the issue to this noticeboard. The details for the page protection requests (which explain the substance of the problem) are below: 2.28.240.160 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Removed those details.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Omar-Toons's talk page. As I stated in my note, I'm inclined to semi-protect the page (too many different IPs to sanction) and block Omar-Toons for edit warring. I'd like to hear from him why he believes he should not be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you for your involvement, the substance of which I have noted. If you need any further information from me I will be happy to provide it. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your latest revert was unwelcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you but I have NOT performed ANY edits (reverts or otherwise) to Pan-Arab colors since yesterday. User 78.149.26.4 is NOT me. As mentioned in the page protection comments, a simple geographical confirmation of IP addresses will demonstrate this. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept that. All of the IPs geolocate to England. Some geolocate to different spots in England, but geolocate is not reliable enough to eliminate the possibility - in this case probability - that the same person is using different IP addresses to edit the article. The coincidence is too stark. You certainly have edited using the same range of IPs, e.g., 2.28.240.152. If you prefer me to think of you as a different individual, then you have no excuse for your edit warring and should be separately blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, the United Kingdom has a population of some 60 million, so the fact that numerous IP addresses within the UK are being used to contribute to the Pan-Arab colors page is not in any way suggestive of it being one and the same person. Moreover, you will find that most of the IP addresses active on the same day as each other from within the UK are separated by significant distances, sometimes even several hundred miles of one another, including the following localities: Sheffield, North East Derbyshire district, Chesterfield, Northampton and London. The last edit, for example, made by User 78.149.26.4, shows as being from London. My location (as confirmed by my IP address) is a minimum of three hours driving distance from London. I invite you to look at the time stamps of my contributions on Misplaced Pages today, and the time stamp of User 78.149.26.4, and determine whether it is possible for me to have driven to and from London within that time to make contributions from IP addresses in two wholly different parts of the UK hundreds of miles away.

I further invite you to consider what possible reason someone would have for acting in the manner that you suggest in this particular instance, as there have been no earlier edits today, so something like the 3RR is not a risk that would merit someone having to operate from a different IP address. I have never engaged in any element of sock puppetry, and as I stated in my comments yesterday, I view the use of sock puppets as a very serious breach of trust between that user and the rest of the Misplaced Pages community.2.28.240.160 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute! That's clearly a single user using different IPs to add persistently WP:OR content without using the talk page (I started two discussions to which he didn't, or refused to, participate), then aswering using the explaination that "since a fact isn't contradicted by the source, we could consider it true"... and I'm the one who is facing blocking? Thanks to manage this issue in order to protect what Misplaced Pages is: an encyclopedia, not a tribune for ethnic nationalism (ie: Pan-Arabism, in this case). --Omar-toons (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, this aggressive and confrontational response by Omar-toons is symptomatic of the approach that he takes to anyone who he disagrees with. Also, he's apparently now adding to his earlier baseless allegations with claims of "ethnic nationalism" (a very strange claim which has not been made earlier, and which he has offered no evidence for). As to the false claims of sock puppetry, as mentioned before, perhaps he would like to explain how a person can make an edit in central England and then within minutes make an edit in London (southern England). I ask again for Omar-toons to pull back from the route of edit warring and engage in measured, constructive discussion in Talk. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just reached out to Omar-toons directly on his Talk page to see if we can resolve these persistent issues together in a friendly and constructive manner. I await his response. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion started 2 weeks ago on article's talk page... too bad, you didn't paid attention, you just have undone each edit without answering or giving your opinion. Otherwise, for example, if you had take a look on article's talk page you could have seen that there's no consensus about adding Somaliland's flag and that no source is supporting its adding, but you chose to ignore the discussion. I let admins decide. :) --Omar-toons (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet further sad proof of Omar-toons' total unwillingness to engage with others and his insistence of forcing through his own edits no matter what. Very sad.

Contrary to his claims, I have followed all discussions. Rather it is he himself that has refused to seek consensus, refused to state his reasons for continual reverting, refused to state his objections to the longstanding intro text, refused to take a cooperative approach, and now even refused to discuss the matter at all.

I look forward to the decision of the admins. 2.28.240.160 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I don't like any of the comments, either by the IP(s) or by Omar-toons. I have therefore blocked Omar-toons for 72 hours and semi-protected the article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: For diff 1: For diff 2:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of official ARBIA sanction warning: Diff of previous warning for edit warring in violation of 1rr sanctions in ARBPIA related articles:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As documented above the editor has been officially notified of the ARBPIA sanctions and previously been warned about edit warring in violation of the 1rr restrictions in Isreal-Palestine related articles. The diffs above show two clear reverts of other editors within 24 hours. I gave the editor the option to self revert but he declined. In light of previous warnings, refusal to self revert and that in my view the editor's pattern of edits at the article in question is not consistent with WP:NPOV (promoting only one specific POV while deleting sourced material that document other significant published viewpoints) I think sanctions are appropriate. Dlv999 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No violation)

Page: Boy Meets Girl (1938 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff (half-restore of edit
5. diff (second half-restore of edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and reminder of WP:BRD: link

Comments: This user is continuing to make pointy edits on this article after being told not to do so on other articles on the Film Project talkpage before. He had to apologise to me previously for this behaviour too. He was blocked for 24hrs in January for similar edit-wars on No Other Woman (1933 film). Lugnuts 16:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologized to Lugnuts previously for my incivility, not for my edits, which are both within policy and acceptable according to MOS, which does not specify any preferred method for formatting reference sections. However, considering that Lugnuts is one of the ruder editors on Misplaced Pages himself, I shall not be apologizing for incivility again - and the edits remain a legitimate format. Please note that other editors -- MarnetteD, for instance - seem to have no problem with the formatting. BMK (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, as long as we're bringing up blocks, Lugnuts' block log shows three for edit warring and one for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. No breach of WP:3RR. You folk are experienced editors. Please work these things out without sniping at each other (I haven't checked who said what to whom and when).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll work this out. Lugnuts 19:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:95.199.198.59 reported by User:188.74.96.138 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Template:Fascism sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.199.198.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 95.199.198.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 95.199.221.179 (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: Template_talk:Fascism sidebar#width

Comments:
the edits by me after the last listed diff were self-reverted, since I realized that engaging in the same bahaviour was not a good idea. 188.74.96.138 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Faustian reported by User:COD T 3 (Result: )

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

Comments: User Faustian continues to add a disputed statement, which is currently being discussed on the article Talk Page, the editor has been notified in the past that per WP guidelines if a statement has been removed due to objections from another editor, a debate needs to take place first before the statement can be re-added. Unfortunately, Faustian continues to re-add the text despite the fact that the discussion about the statement has not been settled. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. First, learn how to file a report here. Those aren't diffs; they are revisions. Nor are they even in the proper order. Second, I don't see any recent breach of WP:3RR. As for edit warring, both of you have a history on this article and a history of being sanctioned on this article. I suggest you stick to the talk page, which is fairly contentious as it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Illythr reported by User:78.108.83.124 (Result: IP blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Blocked IP for 72 hours for vandalism. However, I don't get this edit by another user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been persistently trying to remove key information from several articles (Russians and Serbs), namely that they are a Slavic people. They appear to be unresponsive to dialogue and... ah, and have been taken care of as I was writing this comment.

I'm not sure if this was actually vandalism. The IP seems to be another incarnation of Chaosname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who took offense at the fact that the various Slavic people are, in fact, Slavs, and has used multiple sockpuppets to "fix" this in the past (see contribs of Lionenause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Shanesterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an example). They'll most likely be back.

The actual vandalism was that edit by the other user. --illythr (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ggggh12ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be a sleeper. --illythr (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the history. The edit by the other user seemed out of keeping with their other contributions, although I'm hardly an expert on any of this content-wise. The IP actually restored what the other editor inserted, although it's possible that they were't paying attention when they did it. The editing was disruptive, whether you call it vandalism or something else, and they operate from an unusual location. Although I know nothing about the Chaos SPI, the IPs listed as possible puppets don't geolocate to Russia, FWTW.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP made a blind revert there, I think. Hm, yes, I vaguely recall them saying something about living in Canada. Unless they had moved in the meantime, I guess it was someone else with a similar idea. They were certainly disruptive, so thanks for the quick reaction. --illythr (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Michael N Cooper reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Indeffed)

Page

User:Michael N Cooper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Michael N Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Leave it alone, this is an official warning"
2. 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Can you read? I said leave it alone. It is against the rules to edit other people's talk pages"
3. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Don't mess with people's user pages"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612822536 by RHaworth (talk). The categories on the user page are OK"
   2. 19:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"
2. 20:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "+comment"
3. 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"
2. 20:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "+comment"
3. 20:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Talk! */ +comment"

Comments:

I am hoping to drive the point home that User:Michael N Cooper is not a talk page. Launchballer 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. The user's problems go far beyond the edits to his user page. I've indefinitely blocked him for trolling and for WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Inhakito (Result: Warned)

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ¿¿¿???

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

Comments:

• Note. Diffs would have been helpful, Inhakito, especially for a page where everyone seems to be battling with each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Sorry... now I have edited it. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have warned both users of 3RR before this was filled, I have also submitted a page protection request. I am uninvolved in the war, I passed by it on recent changes. Retartist (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment:: Well, I first edited here 7 minutes before the warning, and then I got the notification of your message after saving a second edit. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note. Just to point out this user has nothing to do with me. Nice name though! Lugnuts 07:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The next revert of the article may lead to a block. The issue was also reported at RFPP, where User:Callanecc left a response, advising a complaint at AN3 while declining the request for protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That report was me :p Retartist (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Smhhalataei reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The 4th revert was by an IP. The edit summary and the fact that it's essentially the same edit indicates that the user simply logged out to make the revert. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Smhhalataei: I don't believe that there is any issue with my current edition of my contribution to Mahdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Please check that. I added the section : "Existence of Living Mahdi" to the page. The format of my text is exactly the same as several other sections in the text such as : "Anticipating the Advent of the Imam" , "The Beloved to the Prophet", "When Will the Time, of his appearance in Masjidi-ll-Ḥarâm in Makkah, Come?" , etc. The book that I referred to has been cited several times by other authors of the page. There is essentially no problem with that.

The only issue is that I added a variant of my paragraph and Edward321 kept deleting that. If you check his talk page you find that he does that all the time and many other users complained about that. Later on, DeCausa came along and for some reason backed Edward321.

I would like some higher authority resolve this issue since Edward321 doesn't let anyone to add anything to the page.Smhhalataei (talk)

The above post is confirmation that the IP from the 4th revert and Smhhalataei are the same user. (Also, the IP posted this "warning" on Edward321's talk page which includes the confirmation: "You deleted my creditable paragraph several times!".) DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I also blocked the IP for the same length of time. The block is for edit warring and for socking. Whether there were four reverts presents an interesting question. Normally, an intervening edit by a bot doesn't make the next edits by the same user "new". Here, the first diff above is a revert of an anti-vandalism bot. In this instance, the user restored the same material removed by ClueBot. I'm not sure what triggered ClueBot to label the material vandalism. I don't see anyone insisting here that the edits were vandalism. For that reason, I didn't count that first diff as a revert. This is all a technicality because the edit warring and other misconduct were sufficient to justify the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Henichi reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Tokyo-hot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613138244 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
2. 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613137897 by Fraggle81 (talk)"
3. 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 12:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 12:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 12:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Tokyo-hot. (TW)"
2. 12:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tokyo-hot. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC) "/* AFD template */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely by Smalljim for disruptive editing and removal of maintenance templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yarron reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Warned)

Page: Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yarron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are the editor's edits in the last 24 hours to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section of the article, which is within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions/restrictions.

The last edit is certainly a 1RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I informed the editor about 1RR here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This content is being discussed on the talk page. Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict_-_Line_lacks_credible_source

Comments:
The editor says they are a new editor. Their comments and edits are in my view consistent with those of someone who is here to advocate and will edit war to impose their views on the article unless they are informed that they cannot do that and are stopped when they do. Please make sure they understand that they cannot advocate and they cannot edit war. They also need an ARBPIA notification. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor, but this is not my primary defense. My understanding of rule 1RR is permitting One "Revert" or "Undo" of another editors message within 24 hours. I believe I conformed to this rule by applying a single Undo. If my understanding of this rule is incorrect please point out how I have overstepped it and I will accept any ramification of that overstepping. It should also be noted that another editor previously enforced this specific change I made so it's not an issue of advocating.

To the 2nd accusation of advocating an agenda: My compatriot that has reported me has informed me that rather than inform me of any breach of rules as a result of possible "newbie" error, since they see a "storm coming", they find it necessary to report me foreseeing an "advocate" so to speak. To this end I find myself in the uncomfortable position of needing to defend actions that are "foreseen" rather than in evidence. I can only ask the arbitrator to please review my changes and the talk page of the article in question and from a neutral perspective see if I have been unreasonable in my talks or advocating in my edits.

My aim coming on as an editor was to ensure neutrality, reduce loquaciousness and ensure proper grammar. Because I started off with a contentious issue, I do not see that as evidence for advocating an agenda.

Hoping to resolve this quickly. Yarron (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. They are not really pertinent to this report since this noticeboard is primarily for technical violations, but Yarron did ask...

• The probability that you are a genuinely new editor is probably less than 50%. The probability that you are a genuinely new editor who isn't here to engineer content to fit your preferred narrative is approximately 0%. Advocacy and dishonesty in the ARBPIA topic area are commonplace, almost the norm. Why ? I have no idea. That tells me nothing about you specifically except that I should assume nothing, so that is what I do.

Response: I am not sure how you reach these probabilities. I can only assume it is speculation based on anecdotal experience. As I stated earlier you seem to consistently put me in a position of defending myself based on your previous experience. Forcing me to prove a negative (such as me being new or not and my intentions) is particularly difficult if not impossible. I am taking exception to you doing it and putting you on notice to please refrain. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding "It should also be noted that another editor previously enforced this specific change I made so it's not an issue of advocating." Your conclusion is based on the premise that the other editor is a neutral party. The premise is false.

Response: I am not aware of the party being neutral or non-neutral. Nor is it necessarily relevant to my reasoning. I presented that argument as an indication that there was some consensus toward the line in dispute. And that the arbitrator should consider it. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you are interested in why I said "You need to read WP:NOTADVOCATE and comply with it" and that your "comments and edits are in my view consistent with those of someone who is here to advocate" I am happy to tell you. I don't normally do this because in the many years I have edited in the topic area, out of all the interactions with hundreds of editors who violated WP:NOTADVOCATE, there hasn't been a single instance I can think of where anything I said or any evidence presented to them changed their behavior.

Response: My interest in asking that was genuine. Again you are applying your anecdotal experience from others on me. I would expect as a matter of course that each issue is considered on a case by case basis rather than immediately forming a conclusion about my person based on your own preconceptions. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Your statement on the talk page that "One should therefore explore the possibility that it is a fabrication that got picked up along the way by various agenda based media outlets" is extraordinary. Perhaps if you imagine that the "it" in that statement referred to Israeli children killed by Palestinians rather than Palestinian children killed by Israelis you will see why. Thinking about that can tell you something useful about your preconceptions and the degree to which they could present a risk to the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. That was the first red flag.

Response: My personal experience researching the Arab-Israeli conflict has indicated many cases of fabrications that have squeezed through the cracks of less reputable news agencies. I did a lot of searching for that report and simply couldn't find it. I suggested to explore the possibility that it was a fabrication. Unfortunately my lack of Arabic precluded me from finding it. However once it was found, I dropped the issue and thanked you for your efforts. Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• • A second red flag was your apparent lack of knowledge about the level of violence in the conflict. That is why I provided an alternative source, an Israeli source, B'Tselem, whose statistics are arguably regarded as the most reliable of any source (although there are obviously always mismatches between sources when it comes to casualty stats for a host of reasons).

Response: My apparent lack of knowledge about the level of violence? I suppose my years of study in this field are worth nil. Again you are making assumptions now about my knowledge or lack of it. Rather than assuming maybe I was considering all angles (based on my own research experience), you instead chose to assume I made the statement out of a lack of knowledge. As a result of your assumption you chose to accuse me of poor form and reinforced this by citing additional material. Not being able to know what you assumed about me,I thereafter assumed you were doing so in order to advocate your own perspective since from my perspective it was unnecessary. I did however ask you to please tell me specifically where I was breaking any rules rather than broadly accusing me (I realize I am new here). This question went unanswered.

• • A third red flag was your reaction to that evidence, evidence presented for your benefit simply to assure you that there was nothing particularly surprising about the numbers. You said, "The B'tselem reports presented as a response to my concern seem to indicate your own non-compliance with WP:NOTADVOCATE under Soap-boxing. These reports are not relevant to the specific concern." and yet your stated concern was that someone had possibly fabricated statistics the killing of 1000+ Palestinian children covering a ~13 year period. The notion that presenting evidence from a high quality alternative source that is highly respected (outside of the right/far-right wing of Israeli politics) is "non-compliance with WP:NOTADVOCATE under Soap-boxing" was rather astonishing but consistent with what I have seen many times before from nationalist advocates. I almost walked away from the discussion right there.

Response: I believe again you misunderstood my intent with my accusation of you soap boxing. The Source is perfectly credible. I was not disputing that. Rather I saw your choice to reinforce with additional sources after accusing me as an indication of you soap-boxing.Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I could go on but there is probably little point. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Response: Again with an assumption. Contrary to your statement about making the decision to not form assumptions, this entire thread seems to be filled with them. And the results seem to be based largely on them. I am not interested in being accused based on your prior experiences for which I am not at fault. Personally I disagree that there is little point and have actually found this thread to an extent constructive. There seemed to be a large misunderstanding between us in the first accusation which is cleared up from this. You assumed I was Soap-boxing which based on your response led me to assume your were.

I came in realizing I would make mistakes with acceptable jargon, style and even rules. My requests to point out these errors is genuine, however obviously my assurances mean nothing since I seem to have to stand against your jaded history and your automatic belief that I am not new and an apparent 'advocate'. If I could prove against this I would. Since that cannot happen my only request is that if I should I make a faux pas notion, please inform me as to the specific issue rather than broadly applying reprimand that is non-constructive.

Once this ruling has been arbitrated, if I'm not banned, I will update my USER page to indicate that at this stage errors are more likely from an early learning curve rather than an agenda. Particularly since I do intend to remain involved even on contentious issues and don't want editors previous experiences to act as their guide for me.

Thank you for making your position clear. I only would rather you had made it clear earlier instead of during an arbitration.Yarron (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Yarron, as you know, even though you said you were aware of the rules, I've posted a notice of WP:ARBPIA on your talk page. Consider yourself warned that in the future, if you violate WP:1RR again, you will probably be blocked. I'm accepting your good faith but flawed interpretation of the policy. Read the policy to see how "revert" is defined. It is not just an "undo"; it is anything that undoes another editor's work. Think of it at its most simplistic as a change to the text, although some minor or non-substantive changes administrators have the discretion to ignore.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that Yarron successfully diverted the discussion from the question of being "newbie" or not, by suggesting that Sean.hoyland warned Yarron in advance to anticipate a "storm coming", and is speaking upon anecdotal experience and preconceptions.

Yarron emphasizes his ignorence and lack of knowledge. Yet, his behaviour is not "newbie"-like.

I also notice that his pretended interpretation of the 1RR rule is very similar to that of User:Brewcrewer, the "other" editor who reverted the edit here. Brewcrewer warned me here for edits where I reverted once Brewcrewer's revert of my edit: and . --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please inform me if the case is re-opened as a result of this additional allegation. Yarron (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Theironminer reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Quantum of Solace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theironminer (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:

A new user has been trying to force their preferred version of text onto the article. Numerous requests have been made to them to use the talk page to discuss (via edit summary, talk page messages (twice) and the user's talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The block is for edit warring and personal attacks. The user did not breach WP:3RR as there were not four reverts in a 24-hour window. SchroCat, in the future, please list the diffs in order oldest first; thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Theironminer (Result: No violation)

Page: Quantum of Solace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:SchroCat%7CSchroCat

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:
We all know that Misplaced Pages is free to edit, right? Well, I'm a person who looks up to Rotten Tomatoes and appreciates what they are doing. But this user doesn't seem to appreciate them. I have been new to Misplaced Pages for two days, and I have an enjoyment in editing the wrongs and doing the right thing. I say that the James Bond film Quantum of Solace received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, meaning that reviews start out mixed and then become more positive. For example, the article for Date Night states that it received mixed-to-positive reviews as well, due to its 67% on RT, like the 64% that QoS received. When I say THAT, the user changes it to the normal way it was. While I didn't understand all these claims and notifications you could get at the time, I switched it back, and the user wouldn't leave the article alone. The user then talked to me saying all this junk that there is no such thing as mixed-to-positive (he's from London, so what does he know?). I reply saying that there is and he still wouldn't believe in the m-t-p thing. Then, he goes to the very first thing I edited, which was the plot to the film Charlie Countryman and criticized my edit. I considered this an act of abuse or a way to get even, which he denied. I still considered this an offensive act since we were in the argument. Then I decide to try and end the argument requesting to give a list of what was wrong with my edit to CC and that I planned to solve the problem to the argument, but he didn't agree, bringing up a edit warring noticeboard discussion notice in my talk. Then he reported me for trying to stop the argument yet I still don't know about these notices. I want to edit in a positive environment, and if I can't edit in a positive environment when he's around, I'll keep thinking about the negative environment I'm already living in.

Revenge reporting, see Edit War report above this one. Without even looking at the merits of either argument your comment about his being from a certain location makes his statements invalid. To me that is enough to get you blocked as a personal attack on another editor.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are the editor's edits in the last 24 hours to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section of the article, which is within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions/restrictions.

The last edit is certainly a 1RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor is obviously aware of 1RR, as he has just commented today on the report that led to the warning of User:Yarron for breaching 1RR on this very same article. As part of that comment, he notes that he has been warned about 1RR before, and indeed, see this:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This content is being discussed on the talk page. Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict_-_Line_lacks_credible_source

Comments:

An administrator who reviewed the previous complaint against Yarron already noted this 1RR violation: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for violation of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule at Civilian casualty ratio. I did leave a message at User talk:Wickey-nl explaining his apparent 1RR violation but his only reply just blamed Yarron and Brewcrewer and didn't even deny the violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:CarRadovan reported by User:Seader (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CarRadovan (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:

This user is edit warring against several other users, against the consensus on the talk page for several days now (21 main reverts since the 10.th of June), not accepting any other version than the one which fits his own point of view. The shown difflinks are just a part of all the done reverts with 6 reverts only in the last 24 hours. Seader (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and please do not let the disruption carry on this long in the future. This person should have been warned and reported days ago. If he persists after the block, please let me know or file another report ASAP. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Snowmanradio reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. change the lead sentence again
2. again
3. re-added it and changed sentence on HPV
4. In this edit they added the main template.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• Advised user to self revert User declined
• User was just blocked for 48 hours with respect to harrassment pertaining to this article . Further details are here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense: see Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cervix/archive1. I am working with User:Casliber and others to improve the article. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per here again I advised that we should get consensus and allow someone else to make the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he changed the last one out of keenness not malice - I did not see that as malicious - note that a few alternatives had been thrown up. I often edit by changing things live and having a look as we have a record. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I stated very clearly when he asked it he should change it that he should not. That he should wait for consensus to form and allow someone else to change it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

James,the last one doesn't cover the sentence in question. Also, see my note on the other page. The issue with the block was/is more complex and is not encapsulated by the word "harassment" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the thing Cas, not all reverts need to pertain to the exact same sentence / issue in the article to count as a revert. One does not get to make three reverts to one aspect of the article and then three more reverts to the another aspect of the article and say "ah only make three reverts to this one sentence". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note that my edits to the cervix article had a tendency to improve the article. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of them such as this one however do not improve the article . Combat means to treat. There is no evidence that the HPV vaccine treats HPV infections. I requested a reliable source here and one was never provided. You then proceeded to edit war over this statement even though I had provided three reliable source to back up the prior wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note that two administrators did not agree with the action of administrator who blocked me back then. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • I see one did not agree with the block. User:Casliber comments were neither completely supportive nor completely negative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If we look at the discussion here I have provided three excellent sources to support that the HPV vaccine prevents HPV infection, the FDA, National Cancer Institute and Center For Disease Control. First he stated that they were not RS but crossed that out. Than he states "I think that you have not provided adequate RS to say that HPV vaccine can protect against all HPV strains" which was never the text we were trying to support. Rather than agreeing he brings up issues of breast cancer when the topic we are discussing is cervical cancer "The Cancer UK webpage goes on to say that "Doctors use various terms to describe DCIS, including pre invasive, non invasive, or intra ductal cancer." But these issues are probably best dealt with back at ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note. Jmh649's interpretation of policy is correct. I'm not happy with Snowmanradio's lack of understanding of the policy. At the same time, Snowman is a prolific editor and up until recently had a clean block log. I also think that his edits are not intended to be disruptive, although it would be better once one has been warned to restrict his contributions to the talk page. The issue of Nyttend's block and the disagreement among administrators demonstrate that this is a complex issue, and I'm disinclined to block for that and other reasons. However, Snowmanradio is warned that if he persists in reverting on the article, even with good intentions, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is active discussion going on talk page and all editors are offering suggestions. In fact, I've agreed mostly with Jmh649 and most of his issues stand. We are trying to move forward with two pairs of sentences now. As there is active disucssion a block would be punitive not preventative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Snowmanradio was still making active changes to the article without discussion or consensus the last time I looked. Yes we are discussing but if one party is still making changing in this manner it is difficult to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rafael-1993 reported by User:Jeremy112233 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Dan Bilzerian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafael-1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

The first of the five reverts is from a different SPI, and is here to show how the offending editor may also be involved in using multiple accounts. Jeremy112233 22:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Chromedomemalone reported by User:Montanabw (Result: )

Page:

User being reported: Chrome Dome

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

And not within 24 hours, but it started here:

2. and probably same editor logged out.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Simple edit-warring over removal of a tag, discussion, if any, is in edit summaries. I reverted once, another user restored the other examples. Montanabw 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Contributions suggest this is a possible sockpuppet account also. Montanabw 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring