Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 11 December 2014 (→User:Turan22 reported by User:Merlinme (Result: Blocked): 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:The Transhumanist reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Move protected)

Page: Intellectual property rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Intellectual property (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have never seen anything like this.

• Transhumanist moved the page "Intellectual property" to "Intellectual property rights"
• He then created a stub over the redirect at "Intellectual Property"
• I reverted back to the plain redirect on the "Intellectual property" page
  • and I requested discussion on the "Intellectual property Rights" page
• Transhumanist restored the stub he had created at "Intellectual property"
• I again restored the redirect at "Intellectual property" with an edit note "you are doing a huge re-arrangement WITHOUT DISCUSSION. please stop and discuss. thank you"
  • I placed a 3RR template on his Talk page in this dif
  • I again attempted to engage on Talk on the Intellectual property rights page in this dif
• Transhumanist again restored the stub
  • Transhumanist made two declarations on the Talk page of his new Intellectual property article Talk:Intellectual_property saying that his new article has to go through AfD
  • Transhumanist finally replied on the Intellectual property rights Talk page here - again very declarative. No discussion.

Comments:

I appreciate boldness, but this goes beyond Bold, to non-consensus-oriented arrogance. Please restore things to how they were and block Transhumanist for a few days to teach him to work toward consensus. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog is overreacting and extremely impatient. I've already told him I'll be happy to delete the changes myself if I can't make an article he's happy with. You can't get more cooperative than that. Basically, there are 2 distinct topics, intellectual property and intellectual property rights. Both are notable subjects worthy of an article. I'm working on the intellectual property article. It should have some substantial content very soon. I could build a decent article in a day or two, but we should be able to tell if there is enough good material in a few hours. If he doesn't like it at that time, I'll be happy to arrange to have it speedied (per creator). The Transhumanist 04:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right that there are two separate topics and therefore the need for two separate articles, but your move was undiscussed, and therefore there was no consensus for you to make the move. As a disputed move, you should restore the status quo ante and work on your stub in your user space until it is ready for prime time, and then open a discussion and get consensus for there to be two articles on the topic(s). BMK (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a content issue, it is a behavior issue. It is complete violation of WP:MOVE and well as edit warring. yes. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BMK, thank you for the clarification and suggestion. There is consensus to leave the article in place on talk:Intellectual property rights, as someone else besides me has commented there. But, since Jytdog very much wants to talk it out first, we should at least see what he has to say. I've moved the page to draft space, and have placed a speedy tag there to make way for the move reversion. The Transhumanist 07:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Transhumanist has undone everything, but still does not seem to understand WP:MOVE. Hopefully there will be no more need for trips to drama boards. Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, what are you referring to? Please point out the specific action (diff link) that completely violated WP:MOVE. I wish to understand exactly what you are talking about. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is closed. I'll discuss it on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Intellectual property has been move protected until such time as consensus is reached to move the page. Transhumanist self-reverted his move so no further action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ramiericson reported by User:Summichum (Result: Warned)

Page

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) to 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum don't add survey reports here. There is a main page for that."
   2. 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "reverting false and WP:POINT edits by User:summichum"
2. 09:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum write all these content on your website. Don't distrupt wikipedia. Writing false content on wikipedia, will not make Khuzaima a Dai."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

the user also has COI, AND has been informed not to remove information Summichum (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for long-term edit warring. User:Ramiericson appears to be a supporter of the cause of Mufaddal Saifuddin. There is a succession controversy which is documented in an entire article at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Revert warring to declare your guy to be the winner is POV-pushing and disruptive editing. The next time Ramiericson makes a unilateral edit in favor of Mufaddai Saifuddin, without getting consensus first, he may be blocked without further notice. Since Ramiericson is already alerted under WP:ARBIPA he may be banned from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra by any administrator if he shows himself unable to edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:107.15.41.141 (Result: Submitter blocked)

Page: Five Nights at Freddy's 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: multiple instances

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. (reverting a revert of previous revert)
6. (which is a partial revert of this change)
7. (partial revert of this page)
8. Edit: 3 more reverts since filing this report:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page is protected, put warning on article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Suggestion in comment

Comments:
Edit warring

--107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to tons and tons and tons of fan speculation. I've also been gamed into this by a banned user trying to get me blocked. Also of note is that this IP left me a threat that had to be oversighted. This should be shut down and the article semi-protected (as I have requested multiple times to end the vandalism and unsourced edits) so established editors can work on it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

First edit is a revert, this is reverting a banned user which is an exemption to 3RR, part of this is also reverting a banned user which is exempt from 3RR, a revert, a revert, this is not a revert at all but a rewrite, this is also not a revert at all but another rewrite, another exemption from 3RR, partial self-revert to reinclude content that was removed in prior edit that is not a revert anyway, probably a revert but I went to the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve on the article talk page" as the edit brought up is an edit summary made by a banned user's sockpuppet so this whole thing should be thrown out. 107.15.41.141 is an IP operated by a Gamergate troll who is trying to get me banned through any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First, a minor point. The IP's edits were rev/del'd, not oversighted. Second, who is the banned user?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, revdel. The Israeli IPs (the 31 ones) I believe belong to user:Wiki-star/User:Dragonron who just reverts me for the sake of reverting me rather than any actual interest in the topic seeing as he reverted me on completely unrelated pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I've reported the IPs because of the reverts to items that were not Five Nights at Freddy's 2 but checkuser isn't going to solve anything with that new evidence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe he's referencing this sockpuppet investigation. He's concluded the investigation on his own apparently, allowing him to exceed 3RR. Even discounting the reverts of the alleged banned user, I believe he's still exceeded 3RR. Ryulong, can you please clarify what you mean by "probably a revert but I went to the talk page" -- I see don't see recent contributions by you to the talk page. And please keep your comments civil. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I went to the user talk page of Spidervenom123 to leave him a message telling him that his edits are unwarranted because I left him an identical message 5 months ago regarding the other game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Now he's apparently followed me to unrelated pages to revert my comments in a discussion he was not involved in?? 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That was trolling on your half, plain and simple, just as you've done across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see the point in continuing this conversation beyond argument for argument sake; admins (or whoever reviews these requests) you have my evidence, if you have further questions I will attempt to address them. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How is this attempt at being a strawman "SJW" not trolling?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Recommend review of IP's contributons. There's very few 'main space' edits & mostly drama. WP:NOTHERE, might be considered. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, because no one in good faith notifies every editor I've reverted in the past 24 hours of this thread , (there are others but the IP made the pages new so there's no diff).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with procedure in these proceedings, I was not involved in the edit war so I thought it relevant to notify the involved editors. Ryulong went to each of these user's pages and removed my notification. He appears to be "following" me around wikipedia and reverting my edits, is this permitted? Please advise. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to notify anyone else about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not often participate in discussions on this board but I have two observations. Ryulong is being baited and Ryulong should know how to not take the bait. Chillum 03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum, I agree 100%. The question is, what are we going to do? Block for edit warring which seems to have happened? (But I'll want Bbb23 to confirm.) Block the IP for dramah mongering even though they've made a few valid article edits? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Well then get rid of the fisherman because he keeps blowing up my notifications when he restores his invalid messages across the project. I'm obviously being baited but I have to respond to this shit so I don't get blocked for being baited in the first place. Half of the edits hes pointed out are not reverts. Then others are exempt from 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Admins, can you please advise on this issue: Ryulong has reverted my notification on these users' talk pages multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of his "instructions" from my own talk page. Is this permitted? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Every time you do it I get notified because you've linked to my talk page and I asked you to stop but you clearly haven't. You are the definition of WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Everyone doesn't have to be notified - only the user being reported. Further, his removal of any "warnings" and such on his talk page is an acknowledgement that he's gotten the message and he has the right to remove them. Dusti 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand, he removed the notifications I placed on OTHER users' talk pages, multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of HIS notification on MY talk page. I hope that clarifies. Is this permitted? -- 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, that was foolish. I have blocked you for three hours on the minor matter of edit warring on the IP's talk page (a clear-cut case, where you disregarded their request you stay the hell away) and the notifications. That there may be no requirement that they notify other involved parties doesn't mean that they can't--frankly, I'm surprised that you'd make such a big deal out of something like that, but that's what EW is often about. Chillum, Bbb23, your advice on the larger matter is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me restoring these notices and reverting my talk page? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I have blocked this IP. The recent contributions from this IP show a bad faith and successful attempt at disruption and little to no effort to create an encyclopedia. As always my talk page is open for discussion. Chillum 03:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, another admin beat me to it: yes, after the latest edits I was going over there for a NOTHERE block. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Given recent history I think it is a rotating IP who is reoccurring as such I used a short block. I am watching the IP though and if the same person resumes I will increase the next block. Chillum 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, but I was busy doing bad things, you know like eating dinner, watching a movie, terrible things like that. Looks like you sorted it all out. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter blocked 72 hours by User:Chillum, per "anon IP engaging in disruptive baiting, not here to write an encyclopedia". EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Volunteer Marek reported by User:Antonioptg (Result: Declined; filer warned)

User:Moonsell reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5
6. diff6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Warning diff

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Link

Comments:
Moonsell is edit warring with 2 editors. Moonsell has serious ownership issues with this article going back a long time. This is problematic, since this user does not understand proper sourcing at all. In the first diff, you can see he replaced an academic book with these 2 websites: Link 1 and Link 2. Also this user continually proclaims his personal knowledge as correct. Thus there are WP:VNT issues as well. Lastly, he does not understand WP:BRD.VictoriaGrayson 04:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. And the editor is inserting what appears to be personal OR and it is incomprehensible. I recommend protecting this version of the article until the sourcing and WP:OR issues can be addressed. Montanabw 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this in the light of the contribution histories of the people involved and in the light of the breakdown of collaboration over recent months on the talk page. Moonsell (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE is required. These edits are unsourced or fringe sourced, constitute WP:OR and are, as noted above, read like gibberish. And he is at 6RR. Montanabw 04:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:HarrisonBotani (Result: sock blocked)

Page

List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637027191 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
2. 14:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637026252 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
3. 14:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637025626 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
4. 14:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637022133 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

no matter the reason. An edit waring is an edit waring. HarrisonBotani (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Obvious Wiki-senetor sock. Reporting reverter to edit-warning board is also a Wiki-senetor mo. Is WP:NOT3RR except. Avono (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Avono Of course and per Misplaced Pages:NOT3RR you can also edit war over the violation of biography of living person and copyrights, these edits of HarrisonBotani/Wiki-senetor violates both. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Transparent sock blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:94.197.46.68 (Result: Submitter blocked)

• User being reported: AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Page: Sangram Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is edit-warring on Sangram Singh and has now violated WP:3RR on suspicion that he is reverting copyright violations, I see it as mere content dispute, the information being removed which I personally favour. He claims it is copy-pasted from the source but the source is reliable and the info can easily be rewritten and redacted, not a legitimate excuse for blanking.

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

94.197.46.68 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just in the process of reporting this IP at WP:ANI for repeated violations of copyright. If the IP wants to rewrite the content, he/she can - but we DO NOT include copyright-violating content in artices, ever.

It should be noted that this IP appears to have followed me from the Vivek Murthy article, where I had reverted the addition of an image clearly copied without attribution, and in violation of copyright, from the Washington Times. ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

For closing admin: bottom line: 3RR has been violated and at the time of my post, the defendant has not self-reverted and this is compelling evidence of edit-warring in that the accused has no intention of standing back. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP clearly posted here to harass Andy and cares little about copyright violations. --NeilN 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Two things, if the witness testifying for the accused has any proof of the allegation then may he take it to the appropriate project page, otherwise if he has evidence that 3RR has not been violated then may he present that here. Thank you. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fact: the material in the Sangram Singh article was copy-pasted from the sources cited, in violation of copyright. Fact: removals of copyright violations are exempt from WP:3RR. Fact: repeated violations of copyright aren't exempt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

All right then, where is the evidence that it is a copyvio? 94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you actually checked the links, you'd see that text was copied from linked pages. --NeilN 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP has continued to insert the image into the Vivek Murthy article, despite the warning template on the image page (both on Misplaced Pages and Commons ) Since it seems apparent that this IP has no intention of complying with policy, I suggest a substantial block is called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Submitter blocked 5 days for copyright violations. The photo of Vivek Murthy was published in the Washington Times and there is no evidence that it has been made free for our use. Regarding the IP's statement, "the info can easily be rewritten and redacted". That is not how copyright is handled here. The material should not even go into the edit history if it's copyrighted text. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lmmnhn and User:UU reported by User:George Ho (Result: No action)

Page: Template:Umbrella Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lmmnhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UU (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:
I was just uninvolved. I warned them about violating the rule. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The warning came well after the edit war. However, in addition to the reported article, they both also violated WP:3RR at Template:Hong Kong political parties. Actually, I think the only reason it stopped is because Lmmnhn did the last reverts at both templates and UU hasn't edited anything since that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vwjr reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked)

Page

Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636479616 by MastCell (talk)"
2. 17:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637188906 by Yobol (talk) Simple edits like this make the page look more objective. Nobody like smoking and second smoke, but this page look like a rant and not scientific."
3. 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637190657 by Yobol (talk) you mean the seriously skewered talk page with the group mentality? I am helping you make your page look more rational. I do not smoke and I do not endorse it."
4. 17:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637191233 by Zad68 (talk) I am responding to criticisms of this page and am trying to lesson the lack of objectiveness. I can do this all day."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Most recent edit comment says they "could do this all day" Yobol (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor has reverted twice more since this report filed. Yobol (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:177.221.167.122 reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: semi)

Page

Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Sockpuppet of Gringoladomenega Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the same Ip of 187.5.175.206 115ash 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

• Page protected — It looks like that blocked user is editing via the ips (and no other ips are making edits on the page anyway). --slakr 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Joseatienza reported by User:AngusWOOF (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Hi-5 (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseatienza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

In my previous complaint, anonymous IPs were reverting the Hi-5 section "reasons for leaving", which the RFC discussion had agreed to remove and incorporate into the History section since the former section was unsourced and not appropriate for the band members section. Since then the article was submitted for RPP and protected for some days.

A contributor has been actively working with the new section, however, today, decided that they wanted the original "reasons for leaving" section back and has restored the article to that state.

I have attempted to remove the section again but the user has reverted multiple times and I have reached my limit on how to enforce this.

EDIT #1:

my responses:

EDIT #2:

my response and talk page warning:

EDIT #3:

my response and final warning:

EDIT #4 (user decides to tell me not to delete this information and that it is correct):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: but he has since erased this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Thanks for your time. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours De728631 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:66.87.121.63 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: sockblock)

Page: Talk:Vani Hari (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.121.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff placing personal attack on Talk page
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of NPA warning: dif

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

Comments:

User is making personal attacks on Talk pages and edit warring to keep them in. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User Jytdog is harassing and misconstruing policy per C.Fred at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team_.2F_organized_abuse_by_User:Elaqueate_and_User:Guerillero_to_WP:OWN_Vani_Hari, the discussion is appropriate to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) =

Note IP was blocked for socking. See this dif. Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarnhall reported by User:journalist_astronomist (Result: Protected)

Page: The Danse Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarnhall (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:

As a long time fan, having seen the band dying in the 80s and following the last 4 years of hard team work to reclaim a good reputation, seeing such a lack of respect for a team for a lonely ex band member in this way, I am frankly appalled. Since Misplaced Pages has always been a point of reference for everyone, I believe that if Mr Tarnhall has got something to say this should not mean deleting 4 years of history for his personal revenge and changes of mind. People are interested in The Danse Society and not in his personal ventures, I believe. I hope this explains the reasons for my report. ps: I apologise for struggling with the structure of this report. Thank you. Kind regards Journalist astronomist (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)journalist astronomist

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: - An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the sourced and more neutral version of the article from before the whole clusterfuck (removing the non-WP:RS FB site), and started an area on the talk page for the users involved to discuss changes, pointing out that Misplaced Pages doesn't care which band is teh gratist!!1!, but what reliable sources verify. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Anon126
2. https://alternativebarnsley.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/danse-society-reincarnated-paul-gilmartin-interview/

• Result: Protected five days. If the war continues when protection expires a number of single-purpose accounts may need to be blocked. The edits suggest continuation of a real-world dispute here on Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:66.87.120.162 (Result: Submitter blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has both committed 3RR and repeatedly made incivil comments and threats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note - this is related to report above. Seems to be another SOCK. I have done nothing uncivil; i have removed personal attacks per WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note - filer of this action has been blocked as a sock - see here. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: The submitter has been blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Addeditor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jacob Bragg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 14:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Read my message on the talk page."
4. 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Please talk to me on talk page before you edit this. I think we should discuss this topic before we decide to anymore edits."
5. 07:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "You continue to revert my edits even though i have referenced everything possible. The rest is of personal nature and you are currently displaying you aren't intelligent to understand this by reverting my edits multiply times even. Please read this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"

Comments:

Communication established, but warning not heeded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, Egghead06 (talk · contribs) is almost as guilty here -- there's no plausible BLP exception there. That editor hasn't exceeded 3RR, but there's no reason to get to 3R. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Long-term warring since 1 December; adding badly sourced information to a BLP article. Though some of the data is scarcely defamatory (his height, and membership in the Italia Running Club) it can't be found in the cited sources. The following comment suggests unawareness of our BLP sourcing rules: "Stop reverting my edits, i have referenced everything possible however some information can not be referenced due to the only person in the world to know this information is me(the person and creator of this page". These issues have been explained at Talk:Jacob Bragg but the editor won't listen. User:Egghead06 is warned to limit himself to 3RR since WP:3RRNO may not apply. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Nyttend (Result: Article protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: not applicable, since none of the reverts are going all the way back

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reverts my edit here
2. reverts my edit here
3. reverts my edit here (I added a cleanup tag, and it was removed six minutes later, before I had time to explain it)
4. reverts my edit here (I forgot that I'd removed the same thing earlier)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no warning given in this incident, but Jytdog was just warned yesterday for edit-warring somewhere else.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here. I've not re-reverted anything, except for the unintentional one in my fourth pair of diffs above.

Comments:

Uncalled for, we are discussing things on the Talk page. Nyytend has been going through and making lots of changes, some fine, some not. I had zero intention of bringing him here and am surprised by this. The edit warring notice elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion. So no warning. Nyytend please withdraw this or we are both liable to be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Difs by Nyytend:

• removes sourced content that was valid per WP:PSCI
• dif removing established, sourced content
• again remove sourced, to the point content
• removes content again
• there is more but that is plenty. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a major difference between simply removing content and actively reverting someone. 3RR applies to situations when you hit the undo button or actively restore something someone else removed; that happened five times here, and only one of them (Jytdog's final diff) was done by me. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog's been doing this quite actively, and has been trolling discussions trying to get users who question his edits banned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I learned of this incident from a report at WP:ANI (section "Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari") by an IP who was clearly the same person as this IP. Time for a rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

note - user above is a sock that has now been blocked here - was writing personal attacks at Talk:Vani Hari that I was removing per WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems that both User:Jytdog and User:Nyttend may be edit warring. My proposal is that both Jytdog and Nyttend make a voluntary agreement to not edit the article again for five days. That would save 3RR admins the effort to scrutinize all these diffs and apply the exact letter of the law as to whether 3RR has been violated. There seems to be an active discussion on Talk. The IP comments just above appear to be from a sock from the 66.87.* range who has just been dealt with at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How have I been edit-warring? I've done a lot of rearranging, including cutting some bits as linked above, but they were there before I came along; I would have done them all at once if I'd felt like it. Significantly different from repeatedly hitting the "undo" button. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that Jytdog made reverts at 15:00, 15:02, 15:04, 15:29, 15:49, 15:51 and 17:25. Nyttend, you are the only other person editing during this time period. Do you believe that *he* is reverting while all you are doing are normal edits? Per WP:EW, "a revert means undoing the actions of other editors", and isn't limited only to the Undo button. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. Imagine that you find an article, and you go around making edits to it. Someone else comes along and hits the "undo" button to revert a bunch of the edits you've made: if that happens enough times, the other guy has broken the three-revert rule, regardless of whether you have. Note that my first diff wasn't the Undo button ("add deleted criticism where it belongs"), but it was a revert anyway. I could give you a much more detailed explanation if requested, but a simple check of the page history will demonstrate that I wasn't going around removing his additions, restoring his removals, or putting back his modifications. I would appreciate knowing precisely which edits involve actual reversion: you have the one re-removing the surgeon, and this because I thought he accidentally removed more than intended in a previous edit (as far as I can tell, Jytdog didn't disagree), but that's all. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned there is a certain "ick" factor for me to getting hauled to 3RR without warning, and in my view Nyttend and I were having a reasonably good and civil communication going on both Talk and in edit notes. I was not unhappy with Nyttend's editing and only provided diffs for leverage in this discussion, to be frank. I am sorry that Nyttend found my behavior to violate the spirit and letter of EDITWAR. I am not emotionally invested in it in terms of the work I do here, and have my hands full with articles I care about (not to mention the haters in peanut gallery sandwiching this discussion.) I would be happy to walk away from the Vani Hari article and unwatch it, and accept any warning given. Would be happier to keep my hand in but the last thing I need is another admin's ire. Acceptable? Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Jytdog has been edit-warring on multiple pages including Oseltamivir and Vani Hari. He is trying to add links to self-published blogs and it's time for an administrator to take action against Jytdog's advocacy for these pseudoscientific publications -A1candidate (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Nyttend's bulk deletions here are far from consensus (see the extensive talk: coverage) Jytdog is merely the editor who got to them first. This is far from the sort of edit-warring deserving sanction (even on Nyttend's part). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The Vani Hari article has been protected 24 hours by User:Fluffernutter. If anyone thinks that Jytdog's edits on the Oseltamivir article amount to edit warring, file a regular 3RR report on that article and supply diffs. If a new war breaks out at Vani Hari when protection expires the next admin might decide that blocks are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: )

Page: Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hughey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before change20:24, 17 November 2014‎

First change by user: Revision as of 15:26, 26 November 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:31, 26 November 2014‎
2. 18:25, 5 December 2014‎
3. 10:54, 6 December 2014‎
4. 13:13, 9 December 2014‎
5. 19:19, 9 December 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive262#User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: Blocked) Same page different dispute,(the last revert of the last dispute is listed above as Revision 20:24, 17 November 2014 -- the last edit before Hughey's first change in this dispute ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Not a diff but a section:

• Talk:Cromwellian conquest of Ireland#Technically not as sold as slaves but as indentured labourers

Comments:

The edit history shows that from 11 September 2014‎ there have been 27 edits to the page 25 of those have involved user:Hughey of which only two have not been reverts of reverts made by four other editors' reverting Hughey's edits.

user:Hughey behaviour does not seem to have altered one jot in response to the a previous block because of edit warring on this page. Since the block ended Hughey has made five reverts of three other editor revering Hughey's reverts. Discussion by Hughey on the talk page has been restricted to one comment "The definition of indenture is as contract, these people agreed to nothing. There must be an agreement on both sides to claim indenture, therefore no indenture is implied in this case" -- which contains no explanation based on policy or reliable sources for the reverts. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:PBS is taking the edits on said page far too personally. I believe that user and at least one other (User:Pinkbeast)are claiming ownership in violation of WP:Owner (multiple editors) policy. If said users are to continue to block me from good faith edits I request that something be done. When any other Editor is involved I have not had issues.Hughey (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

diffs of other users reverts:

1. 00:13, 10 December 2014 User:PBS
2. 19:14, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
3. 07:07, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
4. 12:36, 27 November 2014 User:PBS
5. 16:29, 26 November 2014 User:PBS

• Hughey, your next logical block would be for one week. The last block was in mid-November for 31 hours by User:Bbb23 for long-term warring on this article, and this report shows you continuing the same pattern. You may be able to avoid a block if you will promise to wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any further change to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(sorry, I didn't notice Ed had answered two minutes earlier. Not trying to over-rule or anything) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @Hughey:: I wouldn't be surprised if another admin saw this and just blocked you for 72 hours or something, but I'm curious and would rather ask a question instead: if two or three people feel one way about something, and one person feels another way, are we supposed to go with the lone person's opinion, because WP:OWN? You say your edit should stick because it was made in good faith; are you saying PBS and Pinkbeast (and at least one other editor whose name I've already forgotten) aren't? You're warning other people that they'll be blocked for edit warring if they revert your edit again; does our edit warring policy apply to them but not you? That seems to be what you're saying. Look, there's a disagreement. Therefore, instead of turning it into a test of will, or patience, you need to discuss it and come to some kind of consensus before changing it again. I'm not going to block you right now, but you should know that if you revert to your prefered version again, before getting consensus to do so, I'll block you for two months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RE- User:Floquenbeam and User:EdJohnston suggestions - agreed. I will make no more changes to this article without consensus. Hughey (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Last four edit made by Hughey

• 19:07, 10 December 2014 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎
• 19:25, 10 December 2014 User talk:Hughey ‎ (current)
• 19:33, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Reverted 2 edits by PBS (talk) to last revision by Cydebot. (TW))
• 19:34, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Undid revision 637511892 by Hughey (talk)) (current)

Wotton House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems more than a coincidence that Hughey waits 20 minutes after commenting here, removes the notice of this section placed on user talk:Hughey by me, and less than 10 minutes later reverted an edit using Twinkle I had made to Wotton House. This was the last page I had edited and a page Hughey has never edited before. The revert edit made by Hughey was self reverted within a minute. However the chances are more than 4 million to one that this was not a case of stalking. I think is shows a worrying threatening battle ground mentality. I think that this behaviour ought to be taken into account here as I was the one who brought this charge of edit-warring and the hounding seems to be directly related to it. Luckily I am an old hand (and so I have seen worse), but for a less experienced editor this could be very threatening behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PBS I am not stalking you. Yes, you are an old hand at this. I am considering your other edits in response to your now, incessant attacks on me. I did not have enough time to put an argument together before you reported me and forced me into this argument on this page. I think that it is you who is Wikihounding. There are at least two other editors who were coming to agree with my edits (User 64.134.224.227 & User:Jdorney).

None of us have completely covered ourselves in glory, but Hughey's account of the situation is not totally accurate; they have also reverted Dhtwiki a few times, and turned up on my talk page to claim to be about to report me for edit warring, which seems to have a certain pot/kettle element. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I turned up as you say, because it is the warning part for a report (required). I think looking back over the warring, that Pinkbeast and I could have worked this out, if PBS would have just reported and then backed off. I fat fingered the PBS page, while looking at their history, my bad Hughey (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:72.178.86.254 reported by User:Soccersalvatore (Result:No violation; both users warned re: civility)

Page: Template:New York Giants roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.178.86.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637246703

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637261822
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086480
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086657
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637410376

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Soccersalvatore (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Continually changes information with wrong, unsourced information.

• No violation I see one revert from the IP and that's it. I see no warning. This report is also malformed. I'm placing warnings on both your pages for civility. only (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas reported by User:108.91.175.42 (Result: )

Page: Peak oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gravuritas (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 is an on-going problem:

Edit warring on same page in October 2013:

Edit warring on same page in June 2014:

Edit warring on same page September 2014: 108.91.175.42 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Benjamin au reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Protection)

Page

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Benjamin au (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Zeitgeist Movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Zeitgeist Movement. (TW)"

Comments:

User has been warned multiple times that their edits are inapropriate, and they must gain consensus on the article's talk page should they want content reinstated. —MelbourneStar☆ 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(This is Benjamin) The TZM page needs to be fully protected please. The Zeitgeist Movement exists of many ideas completly unrelated to the films and this must be respected. Please refer to many other political movements) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin au (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: I have indefinitely protected the redirect from The Zeitgeist Movement to Zeitgeist (film series). People keep re-creating a separate article on the movement, contrary to the RfC at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Request for comment on reception section. Anyone who believes that the Zeitgeist movement deserves an article of its own and that the movement is not adequately covered in Zeitgeist (film series) should get new consensus to allow re-creation of a separate article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikifixerrr reported by User:Wbm1058 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. special:diff/637429670
2. special:diff/637354557
3. special:diff/637293477
4. special:diff/637288896
5. special:diff/637188217

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has 190 edits but has never left a message on a talk page. They kept on editing after the notice of the 3RR complaint but made no response. If they are truly not listening at all a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cynlouise reported by User:Pishcal (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Austin Police Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209263 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   2. 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209203 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   3. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208948 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   4. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208849 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
   5. 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208770 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)no police misconduct. just one angry person who didn't like the way he was treated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both Cynlouise and ArizonaComebacks have been engaged in an edit war on this page since September 5th. Both have violated 3RR multiple times, and there seems to be a lot of POV pushing. Both parties involved have been warned, but neither seemed to pay any attention. Pishcal (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User:Cynlouise and User:ArizonaComebacks).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:90.196.182.38 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )

Page

The Hobbit (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"

Comments:

Multiple reverts in violation of 3RR despite warnings from multiple editors. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw reported by User:Alvesgaspar (Result: Both warned)

Page: Lusitano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Montanabw (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:

•  Comment: I am a photographer and my contributions to Misplaced Pages consist mainly in finding good pictures for the articles; that is precisely what I tried to do here, without success. I see no quick solution for this case, as the editor acts like he owns the article and has apparently loosed his temper. Not only his arguments about the quality of the images are particularly desingenious but his attitude was arrogant and rude, e.g. in eliminating my comments from his talk page. Can you please help? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close:This individual is apparently interested in putting up his own work and is upset that the quality of his photo is questioned.. Per WP:BURDEN, WP:3RR and other policies, this individual had the affirmative obligation to support his views and the affirmative obligation to leave the status quo in place until the situation was resolved. I told this individual to discuss at talk, instead he reverted and edit-warred over his own image. I took the issue to the talk page of that article and instead he reports the situation here instead of discussing. This is a GA-class article, so changes have a higher level of scrutiny. As I explained there, first he inserts two images of the same horse, then he reinserts the first, for the lead image, but that animal is poorly-posed, fat, standing "butt-high" (which could either be a bad stance or a serious conformation flaw) and, had he chosen to discuss instead of going here, I would have also explained that images, when possible, need to be looking "into" the article. The reality of nice lighting and photographic resolution does not take away from the problem that the quality of the animal is not an improvement over what was there. (Frankly, looking at the Commons cat, there are no "good" images for the lead, to find a left-facing, properly posed, full-body, representative image is not easy. Montanabw 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: I am putting up the two images in question. The current image (dark gray) is not great, but it's a side shot, shows basic breed conformation (strong, arched neck, powerful hindquarters, convex profile), facing "into" the article, and the horse has been groomed. The image of Alvesgaspar's (the light gray) is an ill-groomed animal (dirty feet, unkempt mane and tail) shot from behind, which causes some distortion, the horse looks like it has weak hindquarters, the characteristic arched neck is not evident, the horse is too fat (I initially thought it was pregnant, but there appear to be genitals visible, so I guess it's not a mare, after all), it has more leg conformation flaws than the dark gray, and so on. The point, though, is that this is a talk page discussion per WP:BRD, and not one for this drama board, except per this, the other user seems to have no interest in discussing. So here we are. Montanabw 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dirty feet, unkempt mane and tail ? Can you please look better, this time opening the image in full resolution? The animal had just been combed (in the mane and tail) and his feet cleaned! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Manure stains all over his body, mane is ragged and uneven, there are dreadlocks in his tail, and clearly with moisture about halfway up the hooves (and his toes are a bit too long, the angles are off). Maybe someone knocked off the chunks, but this horse is very dirty. Montanabw 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: Eliminating comments from your talk page is completely acceptable as per WP:OWNTALK. Discussion regarding whether or not your picture was suitable for the article belongs on the talk page. You refused to gain consensus and demanded "a better justification" without providing a counterarguement. Pishcal (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Eliminating comments from your talk page (with a "go away") after someone has just written a message is rude and hardly accepted among educated editors (I would rather say among educated people). My counter argument for Montanabw comment about the one fat poorly-posed image (what the hell does this mean?) was the superior image quality of the new leading image, as I have more than once argued. Now I understand that he is probably referring to a fat horse, not a fat image, but this happens after he has reverted my edit three times. Nowhere in his comments I see the will to engage in a civilized discussion. On the contrary, he apparently was acting as if he were the owner of the artcile. By the way, why can't a article about the Lusitano horse depict a overweighted animal or a horse head? Just because an editor says so? Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please remember to remain civil and refrain from any personal attacks. You claim that Alvesgaspar does not have the intention of engaging in a civilized discussion, but it is you who ignored his requests to discuss the matter on the talk page, instead deciding to go straight to AN3. Pishcal (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you please point to where I engaged in personall attacks? The correct thing for Montanabw to do, if he really wanted to discuss the subject, would be to go straight to the talk page before he first reverted my edit. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• IN this case WP:BRD governs. The person attempting to insert new material ALWAYS (unless copyvio or BLP vio) has the burden of justifying its inclusion. @Pishcal:, you have not looked at the proper sequence:

1. On December 8, Alvesgaspar inserts this horrifying image of a thin, muddy, neglected animal with the edit summary, "better picture." It's not.
2. Two edits later, Alvesgaspar inserts two of his own photos, arguably slightly better ones, into a GA-class article that is already a touch image-heavy, both apparently of the same animal, the head shot in such a fashion as to sandwich text (and in the wrong place for a head shot, plus the photo is not very appealing for a number of reasons). The body shot replaces the thin horse with a fat one.
3. On December 9, I do a "good faith" AGF revert, (1x) with edit summary "Don't need two photos of the same horse, and lead photo not much of an improvement over the other."
4. Alvesgaspar restores his photo on December 10, early in the day (about 2am my time) with discussion to make his case continuing via edit summary.
5. Alvesgaspar goes to my talk AFTER he edit-wars to restore his image!
6. I told Alvesgaspar to take it to article talk. (11:42 my time)
7. Then I restore the status quo image about 10 minutes later. (2x) (11:55 my time) I open the talk page window to discuss, and get distracted by some RL work, not returning until my lunch break.
8. Alvesgaspar reverts four minutes later at 11:59 my time with a snotty "you take it to talk page" comment.
9. 12:12 my time I see the revert realize I hadn't saved my ARTICLE talk comment and do so. (
10. simultaneously to that edit at article talk, Alvesgaspar tells me it's MY job to go to talk, failing to understand that per WP:BRD, he carries the burden, particularly for a GA-class article. He threatens me with 3RR (when it's the 4th edit that triggers the block)
11. I revert him again a minute later, (3x) telling HIM to stop edit-warring.
12. I am also frustrated that this individual refuses to go to article talk, and ask him to leave my talk page.
13. he reports me to ANI at 12:46 my time, not even seeing the post at article talk and refusing to discuss.
14. then posts at article talk at 12:51, saying a rude "too late" to me.
15. and posts to my talk about the same time.

Therefore, my position is as follows:

1. This is a GA-class article.
2. Per BRD, he was bold, I reverted AGF
3. He edit-wars to restore image and then asks me to explain
4. I restored status quo, again AGF explaining via edit summary the problems with the image, and request he take the issue to article talk.
5. He continues to edit-war to restore his image, and we have a discussion via edit summaries
6. I get the issue to the article talk (even though it is not my job to initiate discussion per BRD)
7. At the same time, he starts threatening me on my talk and then reports me to ANI
8. It is common that unless there is a BLP or copyvio concern, the status quo is maintained until the person seeking to change the article meets their burden to justify it.
9. Therefore, particularly as this IS a GA, it was Alvesgaspar's duty to not edit-war and to accept the status quo until the issue was resolved. Montanabw 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors (Alvesgaspar and Montanabw) reverted three times over the image. Both editors are warned that nothing they've said here would justify edit warring and that they may be blocked without notice if they persist in disrupting the article. BTW, this is not the place for extended discussion of the content dispute, and, @Alvesgaspar, Montanabw is entitled to remove your comments from his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Bbb23, that is not true: I reverted two times, not three. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nope, when you changed the image on December 9, that was a revert. You didn't add a new image to the article. You replaced one image with another. That is a revert per the policy definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ Bbb23 -- Noppe, I inserted two pictures in the text, one of them replacing the leading picture. That is my usual activity in Misplaced Pages :). By the way, can you please revert the article to the point before the reverts began? A discussion has been started in the talk page. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• You miss the point. You inserted an image into the body of the article. That was not a revert. You replaced the picture in the infobox. That was a revert. And to answer your question, no, I'm not restoring the article back to your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ Bbb23 -- Sorry but you make no sense to me. To revert means to return, to restore or to put back to an earlier state. That is certainly not what I did. Following your interpretation, any change in an article (a paragraph, a phrase, a word, a picture) is a revert, which is irrational. This is an important point in the present discussion and should be fully clarified in the name of fairness (maybe asking the opinion of another admin?) Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• What the word "revert" means in the English sense is immaterial. Per WP:3RR, a revert is defined as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Your edit removed an image from the article, which obviously undid some other editor's action (the one who put it there). If you're going to edit tendentiously as here, you should familiarize yourself more with the applicable policies. All that said, most changes to articles are not reported. They are just part of content building. However, when an initial revert becomes a battle, you'd better count that first change.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @ Bbb23 Thanks for your explanations. I believe that your interpretation is the normal practise here, but that is not what is written in WP:3RR. The first time, I did not undo what other editors have done: I have just changed by replacing one picture and adding another one. Thus I confess myself defeated (by your bit, not your arguments) but not convinced, and suggest that the text in WP:3RR is changed as to reflect the usual practise. It would be also a sensitive and elegant gesture to ask the opinion of other admins on this. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scott101100 reported by User:Iselilja (Result:Blocked as a sock)

Page

Race and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scott101100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is also under sockpuppet investigation and I basically consider them a vandal. One of their POV they try to edit into the Race and health article is that " all white people are intellectually disabled in some form or another, due to their abnormalities in chromosome 15 affecting the pituitary gland and possibly the brain, as well as their limited vision." Iselilja (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet now. Iselilja (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nutrition.and.Health reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Locked)

Page: Eating disorder not otherwise specified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nutrition.and.Health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:03 Dec 9

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:14 Dec 9
2. 4:17 Dec 10
3. 17:07 Dec 10
4. 18:35 Dec 10
5. 18:37 Dec 10
6. 20:17 Dec 10

and now, 21:33 Dec 10, removing tags.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:56 Dec 10 18:40 Dec 10 and 20:35 Dec 10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has not engaged either user talk or article talk, even with four different editors attempting communication with him or her. Continues to edit with no responses on any talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Update And again, 22.44 dec 10 and still no response on user or article talk, even after more prompting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Four hours later, no action, an admin at the Education Noticeboard protected the article: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) by Xaosflux for one week. Apparently, the reported user is a student on assignment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MaronitePride reported by User:Softlavender (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Times are in my local time, not UTC)

1. 15:00, 9 December 2014
2. 15:50, 9 December 2014
3. 07:51, 10 December 2014
4. 11:17, 10 December 2014

(Times are in my local time, not UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User attempting to alter standard infobox practices (and also the standard link to Kurdish people in the body text) without consensus and despite repeated Talk page requests to confirm infobox practices on that infobox template's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I sounds like User:MaronitePride has conceded the point at Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya#Infobox, but his version is still the latest one on the article itself. If the editor is in fact willing to accept the consensus about infobox parameters, maybe he can go ahead and undo his last revert at Hamdi Ulukaya. If he does so that might allow this report to be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sincere310 reported by User:98.221.118.184 (Result: )

Page: Diem Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sincere310 (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: edit summaries, ongoing pleas amongst editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [== age/b-date lie ==

So I added a link to the people article and wrote about the age lie in the personal section of the article. Can people please stop changing the correct info.? I do have doubts about when exactly she began lying about her age as some commentors have pointed-out that she may have done it early in her career because she would have been ineligible for her MTV show as they allegedly had an age limit of 25, but the statement from the sister implies that her cancer was most of the reason although she did mention "show biz"-so if anyone wants to add that or more valid refs about it they may. There are other valid ref articles available, but none really confirm when she started the lie98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)]

Comments:
This minor celebrity who recently died was found to have been lying about her age. Random editors keep trying to change back to the wrong age after reliable refs have been posted to the article about the age being wrong and the lie.98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Withdrawn)

‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (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 Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Common_sense

Comments: User eventually opened the talk discussion, but only after ignoring my first invitation and reverting. They then claimed an agreement that did not exist and reverted again on that basis. That is the current state of the article.

This is my first trip to this board, and I apologize for any presentation shortcomings. I hope I don't do this enough to become good at it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely believed we had come to an agreement, per discussion, since 1) it was agreed that "suburb" did not need linking, and 2) there was no reply to my observation that Ferguson, Missouri cannot be overlinking (ie, drawing attention away from the text), since it looks identical to Ferguson, Missouri which was in the article previously.

I did not do more than 3 reverts. The 3rd was after the talk page discussion appeared, in my understanding, and in the absence of a reply, to have reached agreement. If you had reverted, of course, that would have indicated otherwise (to my astonishment), and I would not have reverted again, obviously, since that would go over 3RR.

You say "ignoring my first invitation". I did not "ignore" your invitation: I thought it would be equally productive, and more efficient, to offer a better explanation in my edit summary. Specifically, "some of us don't know where Missouri is; everyone knows what a suburb is" (my 2nd edit summary) rather than simply "better linking" (my 1st ES, which I had initially assumed would be sufficient). The more complete explanation was my preferred method of reaching consensus, in the first instance, rather than opening a talk page discussion about this minor edit. When the full explanation was not sufficient, I did open the discussion.

In what sense had we not come to an agreement? You admitted that you had not checked my edit before reverting. Now that you have, I would really like you to explain how Ferguson, Missouri is worse than Ferguson, Missouri? As I mentioned, the benefit of Ferguson, Missouri is that not everyone knows where Missouri is. Barely anyone outside the US does (I assume). zzz (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page. I'm not going to do it again here. Be advised, you can't claim failure to respond as an agreement. If you could, things would get very complicated if one of the parties had to leave for some reason. I agree when I say I agree. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(As I said, I have not gone over 3RR.) The only part of the edit I can imagine anyone disagreeing with was my unlinking of "suburb"; but you agreed to this, after admitting you had not previously checked my edit (despite reverting it twice). After this had been established, I stated "It seems we are in agreement" (and there was no reply when I returned to the page, after editing on other pages). I would not have assumed anything from this normally, but in this case it is logically impossible to object to Ferguson, Missouri as opposed to Ferguson, Missouri - which is so self-evident, that it did not occur to me that you might still object. I repeat, please tell me, what is your objection? zzz (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes. That is what article talk pages are for. If you will self-revert and agree to leave the article in that state until there is consensus for the change, I will be happy to withdraw this complaint and continue the content discussion where it belongs. The discussion is still quite new, but it's not currently going your way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You said "I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page". Well, you did mention "overlinking"; I explained, in terms of policy, how this cannot be the case. Since we are in fact now discussing this at enormous length, please state your objection. zzz (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For the third and final time, this is not the place to resolve content disputes and I will not abuse this space because you insist that I do. I am requesting some kind of intervention here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn after user's self-revert. Judging by the editsum they have given up on the content question. Sorry for the waste of page space. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:220.76.25.116 reported by User:331dot (Result: See below report)

Page

T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606046 by Al Khazar (talk) I DID SEE THE TALK PAGE, AND THE REF I BROUGHT ARE ON IT. USE YOUR EYES. You know nothing about the armored vehicle, don't you? LOL"
2. 10:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606654 by Al Khazar (talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6M_3vz3CDw#t=138 WATCH THIS. USE YOUR EARS."
3. 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606920 by Al Khazar (talk) It was Taken in Expo Arms 2011, and this video was taken by the officials. Stop whining and accept the FACT."
4. 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607146 by Al Khazar (talk) AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW IS NEGLECTING THE FACT."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on T-90. (TW)"
2. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on T-90. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

May also have registered a sock at User:M60a3tts. Attempts were made to discuss the issue in edit summaries 331dot (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days as per below report. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:M60a3tts reported by User:331dot (Result: 7 days)

Page

T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

M60a3tts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607339 by Al Khazar (talk)"
2. 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607528 by Al Khazar (talk) So what. Accept the fact."
3. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607804 by 331dot (talk) bunch of noobs."
4. 10:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "i surrender, noobs."
5. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608154 by Al Khazar (talk) I did used the reliable source THAT YOU WERE TALKING. WHY CHANGE?"
6. 10:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608293 by 331dot (talk) NOW YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS VANDALING. DON'T YOU HAVE ANY EYES?"
7. 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608436 by 331dot (talk) SERIOUSLY. Now You Two are the one who is vandaling. You guys told me to bring the reliable one, so I DID."
8. 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608702 by Al Khazar (talk) You know what? BTVT.NAROD.RU is a personal site, full of russian exaggerated figures. It is not credible at all."
9. 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608916 by Al Khazar (talk) kept the ref except NAROD."
10. 10:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609171 by Al Khazar (talk) Stop vandalling. For example, narod claimed that the protection of M1A1 was under 400mm, and in reality it's 600mm(Zaloga). IT IS NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL."
11. 11:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609486 by 331dot (talk) I gave Khazar a reference, and HE DELEATED THE TALK PAGE."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on T-90. (TW)"
2. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 10:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on T-90. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same as the IP user reported above. Brief attempt to discuss the issue on another user's talk page (User talk:Al Khazar). When they became dissatisfied with the direction of that discussion they resumed reverting. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days. Will semi-protect the article as well due to IP socking. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Turan22 reported by User:Merlinme (Result: Indef)

Page: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

That is only three reverts, but they were made after I specifically warned the editor for edit warring on Avicenna, with another three undos in 24 hours here:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• Blocked – Indef for disruption. I'm also indef blocking Bilga07 (talk · contribs) as not here to help the encyclopedia. This is an account which was newly created on 9 December to participate in the same ethnic edit warring, and has no edits which are not Undos. The chance that Bilga07 could be a sock of Turan22 did cross my mind. Neither account has ever left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Portugal Editor Exploration reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Portugal Editor Exploration and Qwerty3594 blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Portugal Editor Exploration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors"
2. 13:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors PLEASE. Undid revision 637601863 by Qwerty3594 (talk)"
3. 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "AVOID VANDALISM PLEASE"
4. 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Goa was invaded and annexed in 1961 defined by the UN. It rejoined the REPUBLIC OF INDIA in 1974/75 after a sovreignity treaty with the UN by PORTUGAL & India. So, please do NOT VANDALISE."
5. 14:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 14:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Please reference your claim from UN Charter DOCUMENTS."
7. 14:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Reference: http://www.colaco.net/1/treaty.htm ; Let FACTS be on WIKIPEDIA for Knowledge contribution only not VANDALISM or manipulations. Any further issues, write on my talk page and refrain from changing."
8. 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Signed : March 14, 1975 ; courtesy: United Nations Treaty series 1975: Vol: 982, pg: 159"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Goa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that Qwerty3594 (talk · contribs) has also been similarly edit-warring (not filing separate report for paucity of time). User has also been warned about edit-warring at my talk-page, at the India project page etc, but with no effect. Finally note that User:Portugal Editor Exploration has been blocked twice previously for edit-warring at the same page. Editing restrictions under WP:ARBIND should be considered. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note Also, User:Portugal Editor Exploration removed this report against him here.. _Fortuna 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Update The edit warring has continued even after the filing and notification of this report. See Goa article history for the more recent activity. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On a lighter note, he has just awarded himself the Platinum editor star!!! Bizarre. _Fortuna 15:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Portugal Editor Exploration for one week based on current, previous block (there's only one), and removal of report, and User:Qwerty3594 for 48 hours (first block).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 reported by User:Avono (Result: )

Page

Mongol Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637612585 by Avono (talk)"
2. 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637507136 by Laszlo Panaflex (talk)"
3. 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634525868 by Sczc (talk)"
4. 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637479016 by Sczc (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mongol Empire. (TW)"
2. 11:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warning on Mongol Empire. Copy and Pastes another page without attribution. continues edit warning after having reached 3RR yesterday. Also possible sockpuppet doing the same. Avono (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring