Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wifione (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 8 September 2014 (→User:Scotthoughauthor reported by User:Dusti (Result: ): *{{AN3|not}} ~~~~). 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:DonEladio reported by User:Yobol (Result: Protected)

Page

Vaccine controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "/* MMR vaccine */ MEDRS has no bearing on news stories. Removed the Blaze and inserted CNN in its place and added additional information"
2. 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624171393 by Yobol (talk) undoing whitewashing. See talk page on THIS article"
3. 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624175067 by Dawn Bard (talk)consensus? I'm not part of your consensus."
4. 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624177448 by Yobol (talk) Count zero editors willing to respond on this article's talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I'm trying. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one week. Use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any particular reason why DonEladio didn't receive a block? Their refusal to listen to advice and continue to repeat contested edits constitutes very aggressive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DonEliado was only one of the three editors who broke 3RR, and his reverts were stale. If he resumes you can file a new report. Protection is sometimes better than multiple blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Damián80 reported by User:Dswq78 (Result: Semi)

Page: La impostora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
En otra piel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between 2 revisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswq78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello! I need an administrator. Damián80 is taking information from page and when someone is trying to stop him then he undoes edits. Also he is warring in page En otra piel for same information too. Please stop him. I am just witness there. But please help! Dswq78 (talk)

I also add here a page, where you can see how much that user eliminates information, section:Elimination of information

Aug 14, 16:19. A vida da gente. -3,948

Aug 14, 00:35. Quererte así. -1,059

Aug 14, 00:01, Libre para amarte. -10,061

Aug 13, 23:56, La impostora. -1,531

Aug 12, 23:21, Los rey. -15,955

Aug 12, 22:51. Vivir a destiempo. -20,955

Aug 12, 18:52. La que no podía amar. -3,875

Aug 12, 14:00. Lo que la vida me robó. -7,223

Aug 12, 01:07. Santa diabla. -3,672 and much more.Dswq78 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I have nothing to say, obviously it is Sky0000 again. Who created a new puppet. I ordered a verification of accounts. I recommend you read what it says here.--Damián 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That person's behavior is incredible. Sky0000 account creation was blocked, how he could do a new account?. And in En otra piel there is a section about United States Broadcast. That broadcast is allowed and other countrys' are not? Also what that sockpuppet investigation matters here? I was not warring there. That person has to see a psychiatrist immediately. Dswq78 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Just to let you know, the personal attack is inappropriate. Do not cast aspersions about another editor's mental health. LazyBastardGuy 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP socks. The submitter of this report, Dswq78, has been reported by User:Damián80 at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000, which seems logical. Whoever closes the SPI can decide if Dswq78 is part of the gang. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622032889 by Charlesdrakew (talk) see Talk, stop deleting sources, your opinion is neither "consensus" nor a source"
2. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624436808 by Charlesdrakew (talk) no, it isn't stop lying"
3. 17:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624437638 by Alexandru.demian (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Borodino. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of previous edit war over this issue. Talk page consensus is very clearly against the change being made. Charles (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term warring. The editor has reverted the outcome of the battle six times since mid-August, and shows no inclination to listen to anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:184.16.64.8 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Semi)

Page: Sailor Moon Super S: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.16.64.8 (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 the same one who cause disruption to the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article (which was merged) by using an IP (both IPs are located in Indiana and Fireball24fire (talk · contribs) () and it was protected for a week as a result. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. If these IPs are causing trouble elsewhere, consider an SPI. The geolocation is distinctive. Are you sure that User:Fireball24fire is the same person? Their edits seem better. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:172.2.66.148 reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Template:New Orleans Saints roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:New Orleans Saints roster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted two editors (twice each), no edit summaries or explanations. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: protected 1 week)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Well, no. We don't use POV terms unchallenged. Find a way to write it so it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice."
2. 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""Social justice warrior" is not NPOV."
3. 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "We don't republish claims that someone is a "social justice warrior." It's a pejorative label."
4. 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ This is entirely separate from the Quinn issue. Also, you realize that "social representation and cultural meaning" *are part of the content of games*? Cultural meaning is not a "social issue.""
5. 15:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Um, no, First of all, we cannot describe someone as a "social justice warrior" - that is a pejorative, non-self-applied term. Second of all, the accusations have been laid by many others than just feminists."
6. 15:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Responses */ Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person. Doesn't matter that Al Jazeera put his tweet in a list."
7. 15:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ Add sourced statement from Kain."
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "There's nothing in the source about "left-wing ideology." Include Kotaku's refutation of this claim."
   2. 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ write to source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on GamerGate. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ r"
3. 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user seems bent on restoring his own preferred version and doesn't see fit that he follow the WP:3RR. Even after I warned him, he went ahead and reverted anyways, and has been reverting more than 3RR for the entire day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The removal of material sourced to Breitbart which makes derogatory claims about a living person is self-explanatory - that source blatantly violates BLP as an unreliable source.

We cannot describe people as "a social justice warrior." That is a pejorative, non-self-applied epithet, and Tutelary has been repeatedly attempting to revert into the article the uncontested statement that people are "social justice warriors" without qualifying the statement as an derogatory, pejorative epithet.

The fact is, nobody else wants to try and maintain this horrifyingly-BLP-issue-filled article that involves multiple ill-founded and outright-disproved claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing was -not- cited to breitbart, it was cited to The Guardian. Also, that does not give you cause to revert more than 3 times in a single day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person." That revert is self-explanatory in the edit summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't explain any of your other reverts and it wasn't sourced to Breitbart, it was sourced to Aljezera, who is a RS. Tutelary (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "sourced" to Al-Jazeera - it was nothing more than a tweet linked in an unsigned aggregation. There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and how do you know that? Because it doesn't fit the viewpoint that you have on the subject? Did you actually ask them, or are you just assuming? Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are free to read the thing for yourself. There is no byline and we don't whitewash sources. Al-Jazeera isn't reporting it; they're reporting that some other obviously-unreliable source said it. That doesn't convert it into a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When an un RS source is picked up by a RS, that means we can attribute the RS since they did fact checking and sorts on the un RS. To add, There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability., please tell me how you know this is not the case. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we can't attribute anything from Breitbart, and the RS has not "picked it up" at all - that is, Al-Jazeera is not reporting in its own words that something is the case. Instead, what we have is a game of telephone, in which Al-Jazeera is simply uncritically repeating that "some Breitbart writer has said X." That doesn't make X reliable or acceptable, because all we have is the fact that some Breitbart writer said something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reporting user is ignoring the "social justice warrior" issue, in which he has repeatedly attempted to reinsert unchallenged claims that certain people are "social justice warriors," which we simply may not do. That's how he became involved - trying to enforce in Misplaced Pages the use of a term which is clearly unacceptable unless noted that it is someone's opinion and that it is a pejorative epithet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not my saying, the editor before me was adding in the content from The Guardian, which you too are basing your own content, but are conveniently omitting the negative bits. Also, a single source saying some word is bad does not make the word bad. Tutelary (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the phrase is not pejorative? Please provide any reliable source which states that the term is not pejorative.

You and the other editor literally ignored the key wording in your own quote - "writers they refer to as social justice warriors." The Guardian writer is stating that some people think that those people are "social justice warriors," not that someone is a "social justice warrior."

We can make the statement that some people are pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors - we cannot, as you attempted to enforce through reverting make the unchallenged statement that supporters of left-wing ideology (are) called "Social Justice Warriors". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this 'pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors ' that you like to phrase a lot? I'm not seeing it in -any- sources at all. It seems you like to claim the word is offensive without any sourcing, and a Magazine is not sufficient enough as a source. If it was offensive, The Guardian would have stated such. And do take note of WP:PRESERVE, where you're to fix problems, not outright remove content. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. You say it's poorly presented, and make no effort to fix it even though that's what you're obligated to do per WP:PRESERVE. In any case, you are grossly over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"A magazine is not sufficient enough as a source" - are you kidding? But hey, how about an academic blog supported by the National Science Foundation?

I did rewrite the passage, once given space to adequately describe the claim and counterclaim. The current version is acceptable as it describes the term as pejorative and counters the use of the word with reliably-sourced criticism of the phrase.

Your claim that the phrase is not pejorative is disingenuous and self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary reliable source for the use of "pejoratively" and you were clearly edit warring to remove the Guardian cite. They you know a word is pejorative is not, alas, a defence here. Nor is the term applied AFAICT to specific living persons as opposed to a large set of game developers -- thus I suggest involving WP:BLP for such a large set of people may not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty clear that it's a pejorative. This article is even clearer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result:

I've protected the page for one week due to the edit warring and possible BLP issues. All parties should work out the issues on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a shame you didn't just block the edit-warring editors, I was going to add to the article this evening to include Jenn Frank's response and her subsequent disengagement with video game writing. The bulk of GamerGate is already past tense, I'm not sure freezing the article for a week is of any real benefit. - hahnchen 18:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously going to claim that I was edit warring, when North is about 9 reverts? The only reason he isn't blocked yet is because this is a touchy topic. Tutelary (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care about the article history. I just know the actions here mean I can't edit the article. The article needs editing. - hahnchen 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You - and others - tried to insert the "social justice warriors" stuff sourced to an opinion piece in the Guardian (the paragraph even begins "For me..."). Now that the Zoe Quinn article has been pretty much purged of the inappropriate material, moving to this article really isn't a good idea. And that's why he hasn't been blocked. (and also because the article is at AfD, let's get that out of the way first). Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think that The Guardian isn't reliable, then don't use it, but purge the entire page of it, you can't like one instance of 'The Guardian' and not another. The blogs are under their distinct editorial control as well, like any content that goes on the site. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardian journalism is completely reliable; opinion pieces in it are not (or, at least, they need to be prefaced with "X, writing in the Guardian, expressed the opinion that..."). That's fairly standard for all RS newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocking everyone wasn't really a feasible preventative solution here, not least because North's reverts were motivated by a concern to remove possible BLP violations. Hahnchen, I sympathize, but everyone can still hammer out wording and make suggested improvements on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Viriditas blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624619637 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the phrase "The...was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" previously found in revision 624619408)

2. 00:04, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624600103 by 50.184.178.162 (Drmies restored the word "direct" previously found in revision 624569523)

3. 03:06, 7 September 2014‎

   Drmies undid revision 624493355 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "German camps" previously found in revision 624492613)

4. 02:55, 7 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624491979 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "combined with his apparently non-Jewish appearance" previously found in revision 624488041)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:08, 7 September 2014

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

Comments:

• Note, edits by 50.184.178.162 (talk · contribs) were made in response to comments/recommendations I made about the content on ANI and on the article talk page. Drmies' reversion of the IP is particularly actionable considering that I had previously warned him about edit warring at 03:08, 7 September (see link above) and he chose to continue. Please note that Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for simply reverting an IP. For the record, I have not engaged in any reverts or any edit warring on this page. Although there have been subsequent reverts by Drmies, they were part of the post-03:25 revert spree, so I have not included them as they count as a single revert. Additionally, there is a related ANI. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is already an AN/I discussion about this - and it appears to be a big'un - then this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Let'em deal with it there. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's also up at WP:RSN, Marek. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The RSN is discussing problematic sources, and the ANI discussion is discussing problematic editing concerning NPOV, not the edit warring in particular. Further, the most recent edit warring listed in this report occurred a day after the ANI report was filed, so this is an ongoing case independent of the ANI concerns and focuses on continuing edit warring. The ANI case is focusing on other behavior issues. In other words, there is no forum shopping here. And to quote administrator PhilKnight (talk · contribs) in regards to the Görlitz case listed above, "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." It doesn't matter if you're an admin or an IP, the same rules apply. As far as I can tell, Drmies believes that he is free to edit war against anyone, whether they are an IP or an editor. I filed this report in response. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should just drop it, as this tenacious pursuit of yours does not reflect well on you. Sooner or later someone will get annoyed enough to slap a block on. WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND... all them things. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And this grudge you've been harboring against me from 2009 due to my participation in the WP:EEML case against you, and the resulting arbcom decision against you, makes you look very petty and stalkerish. Perhaps you should stop following me around? This has been going on for years now. Stop it. I testified against you in the EEML case and you were appropriately sanctioned. You did your time, and now it's time for you to get over it. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ay ay ay. The fact that you bring up some long forgotten nonsense from five+ years ago (and have the chutzpah to accuse *me* of being petty!) just illustrates the level of your vindictive tenacity. I guess if you haven't been able to drop five year old stuff, you're unlikely to drop five day old stuff. Volunteer Marek  05:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009, trying to take your revenge on every noticeboard where I show up. I haven't followed you anywhere, and I barely notice your existence. You need to check yourself, my friend. It's pretty obvious what you're doing. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009 - diffs or you're full of shit. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. I do not want to have anything to do with you. Yet, since 2009, you've been following me around, trying to get my attention. Enough already. All the diffs you need are in the arbcom case. It's already been established that you target users and stalk them. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're full of shit. Or to be more precise, you think it's okay for you to make false and insulting accusations with no evidence to back them up, and when you get called on the fact that you're behaving dishonestly and abhorrently you whine about "don't hijack the thread, I get to slander you, you don't get to to defend yourself". Par for the course. Why are you not indefinitely blocked?

(and FFS, how can diffs from a 2009 arbcom case prove that I've been supposedly stalking you *since* that case. You're not even trying to make your lies coherent)  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned, I am responding. I was initially blocked for two days for the edit warring and the block was extended for a month with conflicting explanations. I don't support edit warring, but I don't want to misrepresent my block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You were edit warring against an IP just like Drmies. However, let's see if the same rules apply when it's an admin who is the subject of the report. It is my experience that admins are officially exempt from all rules. Hopefully this report will show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see what Walter's case has to do with anything. I'm not edit warring against an IP--my last revert was a correction of an obvious misreading of the source, at the very least (explained on talk page). Besides, Viriditas is not an IP: Viriditas is someone who has devoted all but two of their last 82 edits on me--one might consider that hounding, on my talk page, on the article talk page, on ANI, on RSN, and now here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Walter was recently blocked for edit warring against an IP. You recently edit warred against an IP. Your denial of this fact is troubling, and your reasoning is questionable. It doesn't matter if you think the IP or anyone else misread the source (they didn't, IMO). What matter is that you were given a warning about edit warring before you decided to revert the IP. And you continued to revert again after that. Do you think you are exempt from our policy on edit warring because you are an admin? Admin PhilKnight recently addressed this in Walter's case: "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." Admins are not exempt from edit warring. Please note, I made a sincere effort to communicate with you on the aritcle talk page and on your user talk page, and instead of communicating with me, you threatened me and made accusations. Please also note, that I specifically addressed the contributions and stayed away from addressing contributors. But that wasn't good enough for you, and you continued to revert me without any discussion. Meanwhile, I did not revert, and I did not edit war. What should be done? My one demand is that the rules should be applied fairly and equitably. I maintain that they are not; because you are an admin, you believe you are above the rules, which are intended for the "little people". If it is true that the rules don't apply to admins like yourself, then we should change the policies to say that. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Since when is reverting one single IP edit "edit warring"? The IP was wrong: it wasn't the "claimed impetus", it was the impetus. The IP seems to have thought that "impetus" means "valid and fully justified reason" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• What happened to good old BRD here: Drmies put down a text, Viriditas started a discussion and Boldly changed the text. That got Reverted. Now we should be at that Discussion about the perceived problems on the talkpage of the page. Not an edit-war pushing the edit without getting to a consensus first (and if that fails, escalate it through the normal processes). Also, there is no urgency, we are not talking a BLP here. Maybe it is time for some cool-down block for those who fail to discuss before the change is implemented (or even chose to escalate before that discussion has come to consensus). --Dirk Beetstra 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

* No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. John (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• • John is deeply involved in the related WP:ANI thread where he is defending Drmies and calling for my sanctions, so this is a bad closure. I request that this report be re-opened and re-evaluated by an uninvolved admin. As such an uninvolved admin would know, according to the policy, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". That is what this report is about. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• 8I have blocked Viriditas for 72 hours for disruption. The final straw was the striking of John's post. Spartaz 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Spartaz's block. Thanks for (hopefully) putting this to bed. OhNoitsJamie 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not to pile on here, as I don't think Dmries deserved this, but Viridatias makes a fair point. Above John states that there must be at least four reverts to cross 3RR. Every time I've seen someone elaborate on 3RR they mention a "bright line", but 4 reverts isn't required. Surely John knows this. It does speak to Viridatias argument that admins get different treatment than non admins.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:)

He's breaching WP:Consensus and edit-warring at the article Scientific Development Concept. He's removing useful content and replacing it with WP:FRINGE content. Also, he's pressing on the view that the CPC is non-ideological, a view which is not in the majority. What China is, and is not, ideologically is still debated (for instance, around the Mao's birth anniversary people wrote about Mao's influence on Xi Jinping, and on the anniversary of Deng's birth, writers wrote about Deng's influence on Xi). At last, there are some who claim the party is non-ideological, pragmatist or simply capitalists. These views should all be allowed in the article, properly sourced. For some reason for supporting such a position Dark Liberty claims I have a conflict of interest in the article, which I don't understand. My point is; he is edit-warring and adding (and removing) information which is deemed controversial, which is in breach of consensus. While I don't want him blocked, he should at least get a warning. --TIAYN (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:50.53.37.13 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: )

Page: Taylor DuPriest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.53.37.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Just look at the history, they reverted many times. I just did it again. They replace content with something totally unrelated to the article. Just a vandalism only account, they having no other edits. Two people posted warnings on their talk page, but they still keep edit warring.

Warnings on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:50.53.37.13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Sabazius01 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648155 by Dougweller (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by (talk) This section is historically relevant"
2. 09:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648009 by Dougweller (talk) according to the published citation Plutarch asserted that Zoroaster lived prior to 6000 BCE"
3. 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624604601 by PhilKnight (talk) Improper use of source material: does not correlate with the discourse that precedes the citation."
4. 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624532361 by PhilKnight (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by PhilKnight"
5. 12:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624531069 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
6. 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624530471 by JaconaFrere (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned at 12:35, 7 September 2014‎. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV SPA, and some of the changes contradict the sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet another revert.. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Scotthoughauthor reported by User:Dusti (Result: No action right now)

Page

Kirkland Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624673824 by Dusti (talk) Feel that Nadine Atoniazzi is indeed noteworthy, due her untimely death and its relation to the shares of her husband's company Opawica Explorations."
2. 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624624162 by Magnolia677 (talk) I disagree. I feel she is the most notable person in Kirkland Lake in the past ten years."
3. 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ I am attempting to add this entry using reliable sources. Have done so. Three independent sources included, unreliable source removed. Apologies, it is not my intent to self-promote."
4. 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ Added entry Nadine Antoniazzi with references."
5. 22:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Nadine Antoniazzi died of a reported suicide in 2008. Some feel her death is suspicious and may be connected to the IPO of her husband's company, Opawica Expl., shortly after her death. The shares have lost more than 95% of their value since the IPO."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (TW)"
2. 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kirkland Lake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Granted some of the communication was taking place in edit summaries - he was warned by @Magnolia677: and myself - and continued to try and push the individual in. I gave a soft warning on his talk page, and he's continued to try push the content in. I'm not going any further than my two reverts to avoid hitting 3RR like he has Dusti 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this report. The user has responded to my talk page and I think with a little more effort I can help him understand a little more about our policies. I've never seen a case withdrawn here before, so I don't know if I can do so, hence this comment. Dusti 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked per Dusti's request. Wifione 17:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Eyewitness44 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked )

Page

Talk:Muhammad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624679244 by DeCausa (talk)"
4. 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624680057 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 15:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* The article is generally biased against Muslims and to a large extent unreliable. */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings: NeilN 15:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User has been reverted by four editors, asked repeatedly to discuss issues instead of editors. Almost nothing useful contributed to the site, the initial attack and edit warring to restore the attack make up half their edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That plus the "Do not disturb" sign put on the talk page immediately on creation of the account suggests a trolling/disruption-only account and WP:NOTHERE. Probably shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs) 60 hours for the combination of disruptive editing and edit warring. Ks0stm 16:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring