Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sayerslle (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 3 February 2015 (→User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: )). 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:Mistery Spectre reported by User:Lvivske

Page: Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1. full rollback changes at part of her criticism
• 2. Tribune and the substitution of the event, again a complete rollback without discussion
• 3. minor mischief in the presence of a section on the topic

Member with ill-concealed conflict of interest, deletes the view of one of the parties, at the same time placing the other charges as established fact. My attempts to explain the principles of neutrality party were ignored for general remarks and accusations.

The problem is that the participant perceives the article as a kind of place "fight for justice", where you can edit in any way to remove if it is in his version of a lie, or make as a fact, if it believes it Mistery Spectre (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was restoring content you were blanking (re: disruptive editing on your part). Also, my edits are like...3 in 4 days? Hardly worth an edit warring report. Calling out "ill concealed conflict of interest" is pure bad faith on your part. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand you correctly, by some rules I am not allowed for any reason to remove your text, while you can without any arguments to delete my? Even if it is only the opinion of one of the parties and have already indicated within the text? Original. And now you suddenly disappeared, but there was a friend of yours, well, just open that provokes me to kickbacks, yes. Judging by the lack of arguments in fact, as I understand it, you have nothing to say? P.S Something I did not see in my text, charged with violating the rules of the three edit cancellation, only your edits war under false pretenses, yes. Mistery Spectre (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, someone adding material bears the burden of providing citation of reliable sources. Just because something has a good source does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, but someone wishing to remove well-sourced material has the burden of explaining why (with reference to some policy, guideline, or logic, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT). If reliable sources disagree on the facts, an effort should be made to describe various viewpoints and who they are accepted by.

The area of your dispute is under discretionary sanctions, so if someone seems to not be here for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia, you can seek a remedy at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Rhoark (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the problem that the user can not understand why the opinion of one of the parties can not serve as a fact. I'm not even talking about trying to save his text for the text itself. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have good-faith difficulties understanding Misplaced Pages policy. I suggest you redirect your efforts to wiki projects in your native language. Rhoark (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:200.83.136.145 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked by Kww)

Page: The Mary Tyler Moore Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.83.136.145 (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:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:IP keeps removing brief quotes from lead of the article. He oddly claims that the use of the quotes is a copyright violation. Even in the discussion on my Talk page he on the one hand says it's impermissible and on the other hand seems to say that quotes are okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not odd at all. They are not quotes. They are non-free text being used in place of free text, masquerading as quotes, and thus in contravention of core policy. Quote are OK, non-free text instead of a free alternative is not OK. Not hard to understand, surely. I have explained this carefully; you reverted without giving a reason, which appeared to be purely disruptive. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll make one last effort at this and then leave it to others. If you're saying the language is "non-free text", that must mean it was copied from a copyrighted source. How can such text marked clearly with quotation marks be "masquerading as quotes"? What is the difference between these quotes and other quotes in articles that are, according to you, "OK"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So let's start Winston Churchill as follows:

"Sir Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (born Nov. 30, 1874, Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, Eng.—died Jan. 24, 1965, London), British statesman, orator, and author who as prime minister (1940–45, 1951–55) rallied the British people during World War II and led his country from the brink of defeat to victory."

It's in quotes so it's OK, even if it's copied from Britannica. Right? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Britannica

• 200.81.136.145 aka Best known for IP, how you could forgot about the 0 revert restriction that was imposed on you? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) This IP is supposed to be editing under a 0RR restriction, which was a condition of his unblocking . An admin unblocked him with that specific condition , which he agreed to . Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's who this is. That explains a lot. @Drmies:?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. Looking at all of this IPs edits from the second one on, the user pretty much does nothing but revert the edits of others, leave negative and cutting edit summaries with personal attack-like comments, and edit war. Certainly doesn't look like a new user, likely evading a block or sanction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Like I have highlighted in my previous comment, you can check Best known for IP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Bbb--thanks for the ping. Yes, this is the editor that some other editors have given a nickname and an LTV page. They weren't supposed to be reverting; Yngvadottir has the paperwork, somewhere. Eh...what shall I comment on? Winkelvi, don't shoot from the hip; this editor is certainly HERE, though they're here with an attitude, certainly. Their positive edits far outweigh the negative ones, and you of all people should be able to understand how they feel. That doesn't make them automatically right, of course.

  We're not here for content, I suppose, since this is the EW board; I do not agree with the restrictive, too-principled stand of the IP editor, but everyone knows (esp. Moonriddengirl) that I'm no expert.

  Anyway, if the editor broke the deal, then I suppose they're blockable. I won't be the one to do it, since I'm also babysitting this morning, plus, I don't feel like blocking anyone right now. (And I haven't looked at the diffs--but if Bbb says "it's edit warring", then I trust it was.) Can you hold on/off/out until Yngvadottir has seen this? I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• You don't feel like blocking anyone? Are you ill? I can't speak for other admins, but I can certainly wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to wait: the editor was unblocked on a 0RR restriction and has clearly violated it. That he could not be trusted to follow any restriction was obvious at the time that the arrangement was made. It was also unfortunately clear at the time that the administrators that were entering into the agreement were unenthusiastic about actually enforcing it. I've reinstated the block on the IP, and suggest that, as a project, we recognize that whatever we might think about the motives behind unblocking the IP in the first place, it's an experiment that failed.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I agree with your first sentence. What follows is unnecessary. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just got home from work ... and I'm afraid he/she is indeed in violation of the agreement. Bbb23 has shown at least 3 reverts above (I'm not sure about the first diff), and zero reverts was indeed the condition for unblocking him/her, as cited by OccultZone. I see the editor's point, but he/she had options other than reverting. Damn. I was just wondering where this person had got to. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article, which is undoing another editor or editors' work. But I'm more interested in your comment that you see the IP's point. I'd sincerely like to be illuminated on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article ... So the IP would be in breach of 0RR for removing any piece of text? Alakzi (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It would depend on the circumstances. 0RR is a difficult restriction, and in this instance, had I known/remembered about this IP's restriction, I would not have blocked them for the first edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Bbb23's belief that every removal of text is a reversion isn't widely embraced. Most reject it on the basis that, while it's hard to disprove with pure logic, it's an example of pure logic leading to an absurd result.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Far be it from me to state that I disagree with Bbb. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that it leads to an "absurd result", but this has been rehashed too many times for me to explain in detail why.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(ping didn't work) @Bbb23: As I understand it, the IP's point is that we are to minimize our use of quotations, since for works that are not copyright-free they are in effect a form of fair use. In this instance the passage can be reworded with little or no quotation, so it should be. This is distinct from the requirement to clearly indicate the source, which obtains for both paraphrase and quotation. (Copyright experts, how did I do?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Thanks. First, the IP didn't just say this would be better reworded. He claimed keeping it was a copyright violation, which is simply not true. Second, this quote and many other quotes would go out the window if one followed the IP's logic. Third, sometimes it's more eloquent to quote the source than it is to reword it. Did this ping work? If the first one didn't, you should report it at here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That one worked :-) Again, I'm a doctor not a copyright lawyer, but I believe that would be the fair use requirement that if we don't have to quote, we don't (which was the intended force of my "should"). The major limiting factor is whether an editor can think of a way to paraphrase or summarize with minimal quotation; that editor is extremely good at rewording, and so can undoubtedly see options where many others don't (I'm not sure he/she fully realizes that others likely just didn't see how to reword it). In this instance, an added factor is that it's in the lede: unless a quote is iconic, I can't see much justification for quotes in the lede. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair use is a mushy concept in the law and there's a lot of discretion by courts as to when something qualifies and when it doesn't. Nor are the decisions necessarily consistent. However, if it's fair use, it's not infringement. So, there's no "fair use requirement" per se. Additionally, copyight violations are predicated on substantial similarity, not necessarily verbatim copying, so you can reword it and still infringe. In this instance, I have trouble imagining a court finding that the quotes infringed. I do take your point about the lead, though. As for the rewording itself, the IP might have been able to accomplish their objective if they had approached the whole thing in a more cooperative fashion. Apparently, that's not one of their skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Enlightened editor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

Joan McAlpine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Enlightened editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645189876 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) These references directly link her to several controversies. Saying she has been involved in controversies is a neutral statement."
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC) to 11:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 11:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645107245 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) The introduction should reflect the contents of the article."
   2. 11:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 22:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "This change to the introduction purely summarisers what is in the rest of the article. It is not making a new claim."
4. 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645056360 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) See previous comments."
5. 22:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645037160 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) This is not a breach of NPOV. It factually reports that she has been involved in several controversies."
6. 20:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645036988 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) Daily Mail is middle market. It is not a tabloid newspaper. Further these tabloid sources are not being used alone."
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC) to 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "She is not being called controversial. Her involvement is several controversies is being noted. BBC, Herald etc provide information on this."
   2. 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645035390 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) Tabloids are not the only source."Material should not be added to an article when the *only* sourcing is tabloid journalism""
8. 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645034912 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) You shouldn't just remove a whole section without any debate."
9. 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645032760 by Jmorrison230582 (talk Half the article is about controversies she is involved in. Surely this should be reflected in the introduction."
10. 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC) "Added an extra clause to the introduction to better reflect the contents of the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Stern warning time for a clear newby. Or we could WP:BITE, I suppose. Collect (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note. As one can see from the diffs but is glaringly obvious when one looks at the complete history, Jmorrison230582 has also clearly breached 3RR under the (mistaken) impression that their reverts were exempt under WP:BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would personally consider anything sourced to the Daily Mail/Mirror/Sun to be a BLP violation, but then again, my opinions on those newspapers are pretty low. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly dispute your assertion that I "clearly breached 3RR". WP:3RR says "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." The material was clearly biased and poorly sourced (if it was sourced at all). I warned the other user that it was breaching 3RR. When it was clear it would not back down I asked for a second opinion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Joe.vike1987 reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)

Page

Portland Trail Blazers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joe.vike1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Made the owner up to date"
2. 02:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 02:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 02:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Portland Trail Blazers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No action)

Page: Ben Sokolowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
American Horror Story: Freak Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Katana (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Ben Sokolowski:

American Horror Story: Freak Show

Katana (comics):

The user was warned on his usertalk page by Gloss less than 24 hours ago that edit-warring can lead to a block even if the bright-line rule of three reverts isn't crossed. LLArrow almost immediately removed the warning. Recently, this user has come right up to the 3RR line on several articles, including Katana (comics) and American Horror Story: Freak Show (see Diffs above). As well, the user is a bit aggressive when his edits are questioned, characterizing opposing edits as "vandalism" and "reckless".

I am not sure a block is appropriate here, but LLArrow is clearly either unaware how his aggressiveness is being perceived, or simply doesn't care. He's fairly new and doesn't have a lot of edits under his/her belt. I think they mean well, despite the occasional ass-hattery, and might be best served by some advice from an uninvolved party. The user's behavior is pretty disruptive to the idea of collaborative editing, and I am certainly not the only person who has noticed this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (LLArrow quickly removed the warning from Gloss).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: American Horror Story: Freak Show (wherein Callanecc warned that subsequent edit-warring would result in blocks instead of page prot).

Katana (Comics)

Comments:
Like I said, I think counseling is going to be of more use than a block. The user needs to understand that (s)he isn't helping collaborative editing with his behavior or reverts. I've just met the user, and they've used up my AGF with their toolish behavior. LLArrow needs someone to help them be more civil and less OWN-y. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

His history of edit warring is pretty extensive, given his short time on Misplaced Pages. Also on American Horror Story: Freak Show:

• (, )
• (, , , , )
• (, , )
• (, , , , , )

- as you see, LLArrow has a VERY hard time accepting when his way is reverted. And although he'll often write on the talk page, he'll continue reverting the edits that go against his version in the mean time, very often against multiple editors with an opposite opinion from his. Gloss 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator(s), I realize some of my actions do not reflect that of a competent contributor to Misplaced Pages, and though I do have worthy explanations for each of them, I will not waist your time. For what it's worth, I tremendously enjoy being an editor on this encyclopedia, and will strive to perfect my means and interactions with other peers. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:LLArrow has not reverted again on any of the listed articles since 05:00 on 1 February. Also he has made a conciliatory statement above. Let's hope this means he'll wait for consensus on these articles. But if any of these wars resumes, an admin might consider a block without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by User:Luxure (Result: Already blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Nikolaserbboy1995 (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

continued after being warned after FPaS Luxure Σ 08:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Already blocked. Why are you reporting someone who has been blocked since 30 January? EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

Page

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hand snoojy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC) "Added new sub-section"
2. 05:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Added news, facts and some other content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */ new section"
2. 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article is on WP:1RR as prominently displayed on talk page. "New" editor is adding in content of a blocked sock. NeilN 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: )

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aergas (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 aergas, who was just banned for edit warring, has returned yet again to engage in another edit war. This is part of a long-lasting edit war in which he was banned before. However, immediately following his ban-lift he has returned to engage in an edit war, yet again. This dispute in question is for a long-settled matter from a DRN . The conclusion was to specifically allow the line of '7/8ths european descent' in question, yet he has decided to engage in an edit war to remove it as part of his continuous edit warring. Alon12 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The filing party is forum shopping, having also filed at WP:NORN. The filing party states that the conclusion at WP:DRN was to allow the line of "7/8 European descent". That is the old Spanish definition. The dispute resolution was inconclusive because, as volunteer mediator, I was unable to get the parties to make specific suggestions for improvement of the article. The reported editor has not violated 3RR since coming off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue I filed at WP:NORN is a separate issue, regarding a separate line in the article, which has nothing to do with what I posted here. With regards to the Spanish definition, the other party originally agreed to include it, and only decided to remove it recently. You can see his history of edit warring. So, if I add it back, since he removed it, the next thing that will happen, is that he will remove it again, and we will be back here again, so what changes? Talk page discussion has been completely unproductive with this member. But, what basis would there be to remove sourced data if I were to add it back? The line was originally proposed to be in the lede. The other user, aergas, has proven to lack credibility on many fronts, and has even been suggested of not meeting WP:CIR requirements as Robert even suggested of him. Alon12 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As the editor Robert McClenon stated above, Alon12 is forum shopping, he was blocked for two weeks for doing exactly this thing, he even managed to drag me on that chaos despite that I'm the only party that has been inclusive of other people's suggestion here and has been opened to discuss the issues, Alon12 comes and opens a case here and in another noticeboard after he was directly told to drop this issue . Another thing to note here is that Alon12 seems to be a single purpose account, thing that was pointed by an administrator (EdJohnston) before . Additionaly, despite being created only one month ago he has edit and argumentative skills that require years to develop, aswell as a specialized handling of sources and a full knowledge of Misplaced Pages's noticeboards (his eight edit ever was a DNR case and his fourtenth edit was a request for page protection ). In his time on Misplaced Pages he has only edited one article, 12 times, 9 of which were reverts. Aergas (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit war in particular is for another on-going dispute which started earlier as you can see in the diffs, and is unrelated to the last 3rr ban, which was reported on other content between aergas edit warring against a third party user. Aergas seems to just like starting edit warring for his own entertainment, as that edit for the line in question, wasn't disputed by him in all the discussions since the DRN, and he did not even remove it in intermediate edit wars, he has only started to remove that sourced data now. My separate discussion with Robert, was for the lack of credibility of Aergas over his WP:CIR violations, as documented here: , Robert was talking about another issue over aergas' credibility, which even he has claimed to be questionable. Alon12 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The WP:DRN thread did not result in consensus. It isn't possible edit against a non-existent consensus. It didn't result in consensus because the editors didn't propose specific changes in wording to improve the article. They mostly complained about each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Only one of the diffs listed in this report is recent. The rest are very stale. I suggest that this thread be closed as stale, but that both parties be warned about battlegrounds and bad blood. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: )

Page: UFC 168 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Undid revision 645315193 by Paulmcdonald (talk) Irrelevant. Only this non-mma editor insists in his opinion with something that doesn't belong in this article.
2. →‎See also: restored entire section removed without discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Gsfelipe94#blanking sections

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I attempted to resolve this issue on the article talk page and the editor's talk page but was met with hard opposition and refusal to discuss the issue. Disagreement has quickly become apparent, the editor refuses to work collaboratively, and does not move on to appropriate dispute resolution. Therefore, I have started this discussion.

Comments:
I believe the information in question about the broadcast of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in conflict with this match is worth mention. It had received coverage in third party sources. While I agree it is not a major part of this topic, it should be mentioned. It has been placed in the past at the bottom of the article. We could make an article about the "broadcast" or maybe the "controversy" but I think that would dilute the information and not concentrate it.

I have not restored the section that was blanked at this time--no need to respond with throwing fuel on the fire. Whatever the outcome, the removal of the information, refusal to discuss it, and the editors threat of edit warring are uncalled for. --Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I don't see any edit warring at all. There two reverts: one was completely normal as other editors (registered or IPs) also reverted it based on relevance to the article. The second was that you reverted mine and I went to the talk page of the article to show me opinion. I also replied to your message in my talk page. I see no threats at all in this situation. All I see is a user that has no updates whatsoever related to mixed martial arts articles that decided to add one info that has no place at all in such article. While I understand the good faith at the beginning, Paul McDonald found opposition on the article's talk page and still decided that his opinion was the consensus. I was another user that stated I'm against this update and I'm sure others that didn't see will feel the same. It shows me that you're making a big deal of something that is completely uncalled for. There's no edit war at all and if you reverted my second edit, I would just gather all the people that seem to be necessary for you to understand that people related to the MMA articles also disagree with that content. It honestly has no sense at all to be added in that article. And if other editors do see it, I'm certain they'll agree with the editors (including me) that felt it was a non-sense edit for the article. I'm open to discussion there as you can see on the article's talk page. Instead of taking a moment to see there was a majority of editors against his edit, he decided that we were approaching a 3RR situation - something incorrect. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It was User:Technical 13 that closed the discussion as "not done" on the talk page. I don't see any other discussion. That I haven't edited a lot of MMA articles has no bearing on this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning semi-protection whatsoever that was requested. I'm questioning a majority (at that moment and with another user now) saying that they do not agree with your update based on the relevance of that fact to the event. How many situations of a establishment supposed to show one thing and then showing other should be added to wikipedia? You had a good faith edit at first, but many people had the same questioning to it. That's why I said that we should spare time and realize that. If you reverted it once again (I wouldn't find it an edit warring as I would do what I said - "It will happen": I'd gather the people (like I had to now) to also voice their opinion. It's a group of editors I've seen frequently in mixed martial arts articles with a good possibility of giving a fair opinion to the situation. I do believe they'll agree (probably all of them) with what other editors said (including myself) and tell you that there's no relevance to the info added and the event's article. I wouldn't revert you as it would be 3RR violation and I would have to do what I'm doing now.

With that being said, I do not believe there was an edit warring (neither yours or mine). You wanted to prevent it, I give you props for that. It wasn't going to happen, but ended up as I said it could end and as you probably wanted to: a newer discussion. I say leave it as it is as let's wait for the other editors opinion on the matter. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully my last comment: I requested that the editor discuss the issue on your talk page at User talk:Gsfelipe94#Blanking sections. The response was to revert without discussion and then... well, the reviewers can read the details there. Less than 10 days ago, the editor had a 24-hour block and was given the advice to first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. Because it is so recent, I think it bears consideration again that this editor does not take these measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And the block was reverted right away as the administrator didn't check the entirety of the situation. I was blocked for a moment because I did break the 3RR rule. Wasn't my intention as I was constantly reminding the other user that we had a consensus about that situation. I don't see how that can relate to this, specially if you do check the entire situation instead of just seeing I was blocked and unblocked right after it. If you check my contributions page, you'll see from that day on how I have acted in other situations. You rushed a edit warring discussion here presuming I would do it. The discussion is on, yet you accuse me of canvassing - once again I bring here this word: funny. One of the editors I pinged to the discussion was the one involved in the situation one week ago. 1- You asked me to create a discussion on the talk page: I did it. I manifested my opinion there and there were already 3 opinions similar to mine while your remained alone till that moment. 2- Your denial of those opinions and removals gave me the impression of you wanting to defend your update at all costs until the end. Just like you said you have the impression I'm canvassing, this was my impression. 3- More info on the talk page. Please spare our time, I don't want to get more editors just to make it clear and obvious for you. It will happen. -> Here I confirm you that I gave my opinion there (as you asked me to) and then asked you to avoid a longer discussion (like this one actually) as you already had 4 users disagreeing with your update, while you were the only one defending it. If you didn't do that and reverted it again (or a situation like this happened - something I honestly didn't predict), I would get the editors to opine and I believed they would agree with the 4 people who already voiced their thoughts. Once again, this has nothing to do with a semi protection request by an IP user. I've said it on the article's talk page. We should focus on the situation: 3 editors against you in the past. I came up, found that out and I also disagreed with the update. Despite the 4x1 situation, you still thought there was room for the update. I just pinged some editors that are known to contribute to MMA articles (I asked you to bring people too) and let's see how it goes. If in the end there's a majority vote to keep your update, I would respect that. There's nothing complicated about that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: )

Page: Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Not in 24 hour period, but very close.

1. (19:35, 1 February 2015) - A series of edits that removed text, re-added links that were removed per WP:REDNOT, and re-added the revisionist label that violates WP:BLP.
2. (08:01, 2 February 2015) - Removal of text, claiming OR unless I provide a translation.
3. (15:07, 2 February 2015) - Removed the same text, and made other reverts that were not stated in the edit summary.
4. (19:54, 2 February 2015) - Same as above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user keeps removing text (which has been in the article for a long time), claiming that I need to provide a translation of the original text from the source first. This is by itself disruptive, since a simple quotation tag, instead of a revert, would have been enough.
I spend time on the translation and posted it on the talk page. However, he then claims that I need to provide a translation done by a reliable source, which goes against WP:NOENG.
He also constantly added text that violated WP:BLP, and made off-topic, heated and combative talk page comments.
His comments, especially the last two diffs, show that he is concerned with combating the "Russian POV" in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict articles and is bringing this fight to this article.
Also, over a month ago there was another user edit warring in the same article. The article was later protected. -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd argue that this user could do with a topic ban under WP:ARBEE (he is aware). Repeatedly edit-warring in EE articles over the course of a long period time (see block log) indicates that this user is not capable of handling the topic area. Blocking him again is not going to solve the problem. A topic ban is the solution. RGloucester — ☎ 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think Sayerslle made only two obvious reverts during last 24 hours. YMB29 also made at least two reverts. This is a complicated issue. If anyone wants this be considered at AE, that's fine. Please submit an official WP:AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between two reverts and four in almost a 24 hour period. Some reverting is allowed under WP:BRD. My last revert was to undo the previous revert by Sayerslle after I provided what he asked for in his revert summary. I thought that would settle it, but it did not... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

this is 'stale' in sense that I have become so revolted by YMB29's TE that I have told him I don't want anything further to do with the main article page. he didn't provide what I asked for - the original text , on the article page,('in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - he says, that doesn't mean on the article page, but it says what it says) -he studiously ignores everyone he disagrees with, -he kept removing RSourced material from the lead for no reason apparent to me, kept twisting the text in his favourite section, and so on. as for RGloucester's remarks i think that would be an over-reaction and I also notice that though I have edit-warred over 6 or 7 years, it is rare in the context of my overall editing ( this is an editor who put the MH-17 Malaysia airlines article up for deletion - he has his personal agenda and does things like that for a laugh apparently - and yet presumes to teach others about how to respect the encyclopedia ffs )-- i shant edit the article any more- do admins ever look at the substance of disputes btw - the lead was virtually 'these rapes, they've been nailed as part of an effort to portray Germans as victims, especially in the West -' - it was tendentious, it was odd, - and then YMB29 wants the views of marginal extreme Russian nationalist propagandists - everywhere, but if you try and add that a historian has been identified with a certain attitude to the history of Russia - and source it to the BBC - look out, you'll get called a violator of BLP, ( if you believe that take it to the appropriate venue - see what others think, that would be good), - you'll get your edits trashed - and then after the editor involved has edit warred with you, and others, but plays the game apparently against those who just care about the integrity of the text, well - he'll try and get those he basically hates politically taken out. Sayerslle (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is just to clarify what is happening (in chronological order):

1. YMB29 is engaged in sustained slow-motion edit war on this page ,,,,
2. EdJohnston blocked another user (and rightly so) for edit warring, protected this page for one month, and issued YM29 an EE warning, with a reference specifically to this page
3. YMB29 asks to revert protected page to "his" version. Others object
4. YMB29 resumes edit war immediately after expiration of protection
5. He now reports yet another user for edit warring. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would not defend YMB29's behaviour. However, Sayerslle has a long history in this ARBEE topic area, and of being in similar disputes. By now, it should be come apparent to him that his style of editing has not led to a productive result in this topic area. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a big threaded argument, but I just want to note that user "My very best wishes" is not a neutral observer here. He has been engaged in edit warring and harassment in the EE topic area for a long time. He also has a long history with me, including recent examples of clear wiki stalking. I can provide all the required diffs, but this is not the right place I think.

The user also commonly makes claims that are simply not true. This is not an EE warning, as it clearly says This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. And I did not edit war after the protection expired, as there was an agreement to re-add back some text. -YMB29 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You tell that you did not edit war after expiration of protection. How come? Here are last 50 edits on this page. They are made during last 48 hours. I can see three reverts made by Sayerslle and three reverts made by you (in addition to my diff above). In addition, it was you who brought this request here, asking to deal with an edit war between Sayerslle and who? My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that this is edit warring, which is false.

You also never explained your sneaky revert to remove text without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

there is no consensus as far as I can tell to add all the stuff you want to from dyukov and senyevskaya , two fringe historians, - you just ignore others -and if you think the 'revisionist 'tag is unjustified why not take it to a venue where that could be looked at - its you that just edit wars - Sayerslle (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, changes have to be restored to the previous state, per WP:NOCONSENSUS.

If this basic wiki principal was followed the first time, before the page protection, we would not be having this problem again now. -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant there was no consensus for your massive verbiage of extreme fringe pov historians to be quoted - it was only you fighting for all that pov verbiage as far as I could see- you writing 'this problem again' - what, you mean this has been a problem before? why do you think that is ? because its problematic ? ever thought of that? - and it was you that repeatedly removed sourced material for 'revisionist' - you that disruptively edited ad infinitum over that - why wont you take that source to a RFC or something - you prefer to edit war don't you , that's what you're like Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant that you are not the first one to edit war against consensus in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

you are the principal edit warrior at this article . full stop. you are the principal pov pusher. you ignore consensus and other editors opinions. I see at rootless cosmopolitanism you leave edit summaries like - ' It is a valid source. Your opinion does not matter here' - and impose your (invaraibly Stalinist/Putinist/extreme Russian Nationalist/xenophobic pov writer of choice . I like the way some opinions don't matter to you. your opinion matters to you, thats all. disgusting. why don't you take your challenge of 'revisionist' to a forum of some kind? why do you just edit war over that? -yu say I violated BLP and you kept edit warring - ask for another opinion. go on. Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations are usually removed right away. I was actually going to go to the BLP noticeboard about this, but then I saw that you keep reverting other parts of the article too. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

no, not 'other parts of the article' - just your verbiage from fringe historians for which you have no consensus whatever - you edit war over 'revisionist' and don't take it to a noticeboard becase you like to see people you disagree just blocked or tpic banned rather than have your edits scrupulously looked at no doubt - at 'rootless cosmopolitanism' one sees again the nature of your 'work' and editing 'style' ,- diverse, well sourced material is removed and huge blocs of text , the work of your favoured Stalinist/Russian nationalist/xenpophobic writers are put in their place - you denigrate other editors , 'your opinion doesn't matter' - you edit war - you accuse people of BLP violations but don't take it to a noticeboard, just edit war - awful. a menace. Sayerslle (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring