Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seicer (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 9 February 2015 (→User:108.6.38.122 reported by User:Gloss (Result: ): m). 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.

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

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)

• Result: 48 hours for 1RR violation on an article subject to WP:GS/SCW. The material that Hand snoojy was restoring was previously added to the article by User:Malam kanam 2003 on 25 January. That editor is now indef blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999. On 29 January Hand snoojy quickly made ten trivial edits to their own sandbox, presumably to get autoconfirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK of the other sock puppets. Same insertions, same whining on talk pages, same English language errors as the other versions of this editor. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy is back editing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He has made a series of edits that restore some of the same content (Special:Diff/645878331/645908644). EastTN (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See my new report below. Legacypac (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: blocked for other EW)

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)

• @RGloucester. Yes, Sayerslle has a short temper, just like you. However, I have seen him contributing positively on a number of pages - just like you. YMB29 is very different. I believe he is simply a POV-pushing SPA contributor with nationalistic agenda, someone described in the essay by Moreschi. I think he does not contribute positively at all, but engaged in WP:TE editing and slow-motion edit wars on multiple pages, just as on this page, and this is something I tried to tell with supporting diffs here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your last link is to an old version of the page that does not include my response.

You are just throwing baseless accusations. So I am a nationalistic SPA... Is that why you are keeping an eye on me and following me around?

I can understand why you are defending Sayerslle; you are both pushing the same POV together in many articles (like ). Given your history, I would not be surprised if you canvassed him to this article; he never edited the article until last Friday, which was when you complained about me "edit warring" but said that you don't want to get involved yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB 29 - that is not AGF. What I have a habit of doing YMB29 is sometimes clicking on the contribution histories of contributors that I have encountered , that is all, and that is why I looked at this article , and rootless cosmopolitanism. Sayerslle (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For the rootless cosmopolitan article, he openly canvassed you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

that looks like open talk page conversation to me - is that what made me look at that article -anyhow I do look at contribution histories and that is what ,as I recall anyhow , brought me to this page about 1945 - I don't know what shared 'pov' you think we might be pushing anyhow - evryones pov is shaped by a multitude of things really - the thing is , is to be self aware when editing Misplaced Pages, to be aware of any bias and always seek to edit for the best of the encyclopedia - you just use wp as a place to pursue your nationalist pov - that's my opinion. and its shaped by my reading of Orwell's Notes on Nationalism - the tell-tale signs of that kind of mind - my personal opinion, not the result of a canvassed campaign against your (pov) edits Sayerslle (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what your accusations are based on exactly, but a simple look at your user page will show that it is you who has an agenda here. -YMB29 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

a simple look at my user page reveals an open ness - a simple look at your user page - reveals - nothing. which in its way is revealing also. My user page reveals I am not a nihilistSayerslle (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile the reverting continues. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

good faith editing continues. i'm editing the discourse section , is that all right with the FSB? and your edit to the lead was POINT-y and pointless - you present a source and then challenge it yourself - twittish disruptive idiotic edits. and you whine about others canvassing and stalking you ffs, yet you carry on here a pathetic campaign monitoring others good faith edits - nauseating. - another editor observed of you 'you are doing almost nothing but reverts in a single article for the entire month' what are you here for really - you don't contribute to the encyclopedia except for a few articles where you edit war- hypocrite, you are 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)

It looks like the disruption is carrying over to other articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

its called editing - are you going to label 'disruption' any edit that doesn't endorse your world view. totally ridiculous. why do you keep running here with your whines anyhow ? why are you not discussing on the talk page differences of opinion? - you are just seeking to get people who don't agree with your pov blocked really on spurious grounds. I am editing - that is the whole bloody point of this place. - dégueulasse. Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You never edited the article until today. Again, you are there only to support "My very best wishes," who followed me there today to revert my old edit.

Plus comments like "she is Fringe ffs - its fucking obvious" don't belong on wiki. -YMB29 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

is it no swearing ever as well now, prig-ish nonsense, - one doesn't wish to swear but sometimes one is so exasperated by the kind of nonsense one encounters dontcha know - and is one not allowed to edit an article that YMB29 hasn't explicitly said one can edit? if you don't want your precious edits ever changed in any way you are told not to edit wp because that's exactly how it is on wp.Sayerslle (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior:

• 80.117.117.225 removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .

• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .

• YMB29 reverts
• MiGR25 removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Nug removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Volunteer Marek removes text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Iryna Harpy removes the text .
• Page protected.
• YMB29 reverts
• a series of minor edits
• My very best wishes removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle removes the text .
• YMB29 reverts
• Sayerslle and My very best wishes remove the text .

• So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus.

MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page. Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely true that YMB29 has been engaged in a slow motion edit war and regularly ignores input from others if they don't match their own POV. Sometimes s/he'll wait for a day or two, to avoid crossing 3RR, but they ALWAYS come back and revert. There's a good bit of stubbornness and, well, dedication here. Just not sure it's being used for good, rather than ye ol' regular POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not even come across you much. You are just repeating the same thing "My very best wishes" said. If I remember correctly you two were members of the WP:EEML (under your old names) that targeted and harassed users... -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you're resorting to making false accusations. I've never "targeted" nor "harassed" anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that you were not a member of that list? Anyway, your edits in the article and comments here were not exactly neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying what I just said. I've never "targeted" nor "harassed" anyone. Please stop, or better yet strike, your false accusations. And no, my edits in the article were perfectly neutral. Yours on the other hand... Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: Was the linking of other users an attempt by you to canvass them into coming here and saying how bad of an editor I am?
Also, you have to look at the reverts closely:

• For this revert - A whole paragraph was removed on the pretext that RT is not a reliable source, but the main citation was actually to a different source (RT was only cited to show that the person was a historian). I simply removed the RT citation and re-added the text.
• - Three whole paragraphs were removed on the pretext of "coat racking" criticism of Antony Beevor, when in reality, as I later demonstrated, only part of the text mentioned Beevor.
  
• - Sayerslle reverted text, demanding that I provide a translated quote, for which the translation is done by a RS. He does not trust my translation. This goes against what is said in WP:NOENG, where translations by wiki users are allowed.
• - It was agreed on the talk page that this should be put back, as it did not have anything to do with coat racking.

So simply saying that I reverted six users in a 3-4 month period does not mean much without examining in detail what went on. -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stickee, I am also curious why you skipped over in your summary this attempt by CurtisNaito to restore legitimate text and then the revert again by MiGR25? -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOENG 'In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - and you said this didn't mean 'in articles' - but it does say 'in articles' - and on such a controversial topic its important to be as open as possible with the sources and what one is doing with them- you asked 'why would they clutter the page?' or something, in response - well, how would I know I didn't write the rules , I was just saying what the rule suggests as good practice - so it wasn't me going against what NOENG says , it was you Sayerslle (talk)

No, posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed. I provided both, but you still remove the text, which shows that this was only a pretext for you to remove it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that all these comments make it hard for the admins to read this report, so here is a summary of the facts:

• Sayerslle was just short of breaching 3RR, by less than 20 minutes.
• He never edited the article until 30 January, which is when user "My very best wishes" complained about me "edit warring" there and said that he does not want to get involved himself.
• Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.
• He made edits that violated WP:BLP.
• He and "My very best wishes" have made reverts after this report was opened.
• As RGloucester pointed out, Sayerslle received lengthy blocks relatively recently for edit warring in the EE topic area.
• Sayerslle has made inappropriate comments here and on talk pages, such as calling my edits "twittish disruptive idiotic," calling me a hypocrite and a menace, using the F word, and complaining about Stalinist/Putinist/Russian nationalist POV, the FSB and NKVD...

-YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yes I do think your edits are disruptive - and your charge sheet against me is hypocritical , you are an edit warrior who has edit warred at the page over time -- you compile great vindictive dossiers but don't edit articles of the encyclopedia much except your hobby-horses. 'posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed' you say -yet the rule is clear that if a wikipedian is translating, the translation should be together with the original, - you just ignore that don't you - Sayerslle (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.": Mate, 6 other editors removed text, and you reverted every single one of them. Looks like there was a consensus for his edits, not yours. Stickee (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, six editors in over 3-4 months. Consensus is not built by reverting, especially by users who never or barely edited the article before and suddenly "became" interested. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this report. In fact, there is also a slow-motion edit war going on with article Lewis Carroll which Sayerslle is involved in (see edit history). This prompted me a few hours ago to fully protect the article for one week and inform people on the talk page that they should resolve the issues or go to dispute resolution. If not, I mentioned action that probably would be taken. I just add this for further information.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited that article in my life til I saw a BBc documentary last week and added one bloody sentence. That sentence was removed yesterday, and would have stayed removed. Consensus, however wrongheaded over the BBC , saying it was not respectable or some tosh, was clear, and I was not intending to edit that artcile again. I may say the admins decision to totally protect the article is absurd imo , over the top - I really am beginning to despise certain administrators who detect a 'pattern' of edits when what they see are brief moments in a contribution history that they are primed to seek out and destroy -you're discouraged DDStretch? well you are spreading discouragement also imo, - I edit articles o.k. - I added one sodding sentence at the lewis carroll article -it was not a big deal at all - -in the meantime perhaps this appeal of YMB29 for me to be blocked could be decided ? Sayerslle (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A clear look at the revision history shows that you are not telling the truth in what you write above: you have done far more than just add one sentence. You have removed material. Additionally, replying in the manner you have is something you have history at, and which has had action taken against you in the past. I recommend an uninvolved admin take the appropriate action now.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the lewis carroll article and deleted nothing . - I added one sentence from a BBc documentary - what material did I remove? vindictive admins! Sayerslle (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, you did not remove information, but you did repeatedly add the same infoermation. The personal attack on me is noted. Here are the editing events where you sometimes added the same material despite it being removed by others and subject to discussion on the talk page: Note all of them are much longer than the "one sentence" claimed.

2015-02-02

2015-02-04 added again with extra deleted information being re-added

2015-02-05 re-added

2015-02-06 re-added again

To summarize: I apologize, you did not remove material. However, you added far more than the "one sentence" you claimed, on 4 occasions, making that 3 re-addings. You also made a personal attack against me. I draw your attention to the relevant bit in the information about WP:3RR : "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". You have history of engaging in edit-warring and in the case of Lewis Carroll the question about whether that material should be included or not was already being discussed on the talk page, -and you took part in it, and yet you still engaged in the slow-motion edit-war, pacing the re-additions to avoid more than one in a 24 hour period. When this is pointed out, you do not tell the truth, but repeatedly say it was only one sentence, and then you accuse me of being vindictive for taking action to stop this disruption, though I do understand that you may have been slightly annoyed by my (now retracted) accusation that you had removed material. However, the fact remains that you have by-passed the 3RR rules and done so while you knew the dispute was being actively discussed. You should know better than this, given the block log that shows a number of blocks in the past for edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The personal attack on me is noted. Please, you just falsely accused the user of doing something they didn't do How about you quit whining about "personal attacks" when someone rightly calls you on your bullshit? God, how Misplaced Pages-typical. It's ok to lie about someone, but not ok to call that lie out, cuz that's a "personal attack".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you cared to read the complete reply, you would see that I withdrew and apologixed for that, but there was still a personal attack. I apologized, but no reciprocal apology has been issued, and I note that you call my comment "bullshit", which it certainly is not.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What you *should* have done is just said "I'm sorry, I was wrong". Instead you put in a "yes, but" and started accusing the user of "personal attacks" and threw a lot of "however"s in there. In other words, covering up your own mistake by attacking the user some more. If this was an apology it was a pretty damn insincere one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. One should simply quickly look and decide if a 3RR violation took place on one particular page. If in doubt, pleas close this thread without action. If anyone has other issues with other articles, please report them on other appropriate noticeboards, or make a new thread here about an alleged 3RR violation on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, MVBW. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. There is no paperwork to file, no departments to be shuffled between. If there is an issue, it can be dealt with on the spot. This is especially true when discretionary sanctions are in effect (WP:ARBEE). RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not bureaucracy, but efficiency. One should deal with only one specific question at a time. No one wants to read TL:DR walls of text, such as that one. That's why we have a number of different noticeboards for different purposes. Let's use them properly. In addition, a discussion by several admins on WP:AE (if there is a reason for such discussion - I am not sure) helps to find the best possible solution. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is not only about 3RR violations, but edit warring in general. I don't see why the fact that Sayerslle has a history of edit warring, and is still edit warring while this report is open, should not be brought up. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

....or the fact that you've been edit warring for six months against multiple users? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

how am I edit warring now, YMB29? - do you mean editing ? what are you on about? please , an admin, could a decision be reached soon about this as I feel like YMB 29 is just baiting me now really. Sayerslle (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See here and Ddstretch's comments above. -YMB29 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

oh right - - I've ruined both them articles for ever really - to the gulag then Sayerslle (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29, will you please STOP linking to some innocent edits or comments and pretending that they are some nefarious instances of disruption? You've been trying the same little ploy over at EdJohnston's page and it's transparently dishonest there too. What you seem to have the problem with is that Sayerslle is editing Misplaced Pages at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to revert while this report is still open is innocent editing? Your accusations against me here and the fact that you attacked an admin above (for reporting more edit warring by Sayerslle) leads one to think that your only purpose here is to defend Sayerslle no matter what he does. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the heart of this report, I'm going to call a spade a spade: YMB29 is a disruptive, WP:TE editor who's brought Sayerslle this board because the latter has been the biggest thorn in his/her side in bringing WP:FRINGE theories by POV sources into the Rape during the occupation of Germany article. Even bringing the matter to this board is, by design, a disruptive, tendentious and cynical piece of "One who accuses others of malice". Reading through the talk page of the article is like a Misplaced Pages tutorial on textbook behaviour for an exercise in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:REHASH by YMB29. Other than one editor who latched onto this because s/he wants to point out that Sayerslle is naughty, the other editors commenting here have had extensive interactions with him and, yes, Sayerslle is a bold editor who can get a little overenthusiastic but, no, by no means is he anything other than WP:HERE, and that's not to say that he and I haven't had disagreements regarding content. I'm embarrassed that an agenda-driven editor like YMB29 has managed to have their POINTy attempt at getting rid of editors standing in their way entertained on this board. Even if Sayerslle were guilty of edit warring, that does automatically mean that YMB29 is a good editor in any sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This post is a good example that the EEML tactics of sticking up for like-minded editors (no matter what they have done) and harassing others are still at work here. -YMB29 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy has really contributed nothing to the article except making endless accusations against me (similar to those above) on the talk page and also on my talk page.

When asked to contribute something constructive, she said that she does not have time and disappeared for over a month. -YMB29 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? 'Like-minded' editors? If I deemed it worth entertaining your WP:ASPERSIONS, I could pull up numerous instances of hearty disagreements over various articles between myself and Sayerslle and with My very best wishes alone. As for 'disappearing' for a month, I was caught up elsewhere and am under no obligation to work on the article because you've adopted it as one of your pet projects. I was, however, fully aware that the dispute was still going a month later and (as it is on my watchlist) interceded on behalf of ongoing consensus over your sourcing blatantly fringe historians... and the fact that you refuse to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Those "fringe" historians are recognized in reliable sources, but that does not matter to you, as you continue with your accusations and blind support for other users whose POV is close to yours.

So you had time to make reverts and personal attacks against me, but no time to contribute anything of value? -YMB29 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your sources have been discussed ad nauseum for months: Coat racking, Sources discussion, Senyavskaya in English. In fact, you've modified 'reliable source' to being 'recognised in reliable sources' because all you can find is a few tiny, attributed allusions to her, but within the context of other opinions or, in the only serious RS (being Geoffrey Roberts - her phrase the 'front-line generation') in the context of the Battle of Stalingrad. I don't like treating this as the RSN, but we've all grown weary of your cherry picking in order to insinuate someone who has been accused of forgery (Stalin's non-existant document)... but that's all on the talk page. Now, as wearing down the opponent hasn't worked, all you can come up with is trying to get rid of the opponent/s. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is not about content dispute, but... You mean falsely accused of forgery by someone in a blog. And you are the one complaining about cherry picking... Sources recognized and cited in reliable sources means that they are reliable. I think you need to review WP:RS.

Creating a report here is "trying to get rid" of someone? The "opponent" is edit warring across multiple pages and openly insults others, while you are supporting him here and accusing me. -YMB29 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh, YMB29 was recently warned that the article under dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions , yet he continues his disruptive edits even though a half a dozen editors continue to oppose them. --Nug (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You got the same "warning", which was not actually a warning, but a notification.

And yes, I do realize that it is me vs. a group of like-minded editors, who are "coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles..." You should be able to recognize this text... -YMB29 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to WP:PERSONAL attacks now. Nobody is coordinating anything, it is just that you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there is no consensus for your tendentious edits. --Nug (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you explain your presence here, and your presence at the last report I opened, where you were also accusing me and defending a user who obviously was edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a script set up that notifies me if I am ever mentioned on any notice board. --Nug (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I did not mention you here and this is not about you, but you still came here to accuse me, just like last time. -YMB29 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stickee mentioned me above. --Nug (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29. Will you stop edit warring on multiple pages when this thread is closed? My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence shows that it is Sayerslle who is edit warring, and you as well. -YMB29 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stickee has presented evidence that you have been edit warring against the consensus of six editors. Looks like WP:BOOMERANG applies here. --Nug (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You said the same thing last time in December when, as I mentioned above, you were defending another disruptive user. That is not really evidence when one looks at it in detail, as I explained above. -YMB29 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well of course you would only see everyone else as being disruptive, not yourself, but the common denominator is you. You have clashed with multiple unrelated editors over the same tendentious edits, but you only seem to see some kind of conspiracy against you. If you continue this behaviour you will likely be topic banned. --Nug (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes really unrelated... The common denominator is you and a few other users, who have a common history of edit warring and harassing other users together, coming here to accuse me and defend Sayerslle, who obvious is disruptive (and this is not only according to me, but others, including an admin, presented evidence above). -YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So Sayerslle, Iryna Harpy, MiGR25, My very best wishes and everyone else are conspiring against you? Nobody is harassing you, the issue has always been your inability to compromise and work with others to build consensus. Rape during the occupation of Germany was page locked just over a month ago during an earlier content dispute involving you and you were warned that the page is under discretionary sanction. No sooner had the page protection expired you are embroiled in another dispute with yet another editor over the exact same text. You accuse Sayerslle of reverting you, but you have alse been reverting Sayerslle. Your hands are not clean. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have bad memory? You yourself agreed that the text should be put back...

If you along with others were not harassing me, you would not be making comments like that, or even showing up here, as well as at the other report in December. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile Sayerslle is continuing to edit war in another EE topic area article:
That is 14 reverts in just over two hours... I don't know what else is needed to prove that he is very disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

already stale ymb 29 - the spa wore me out and I gave up trying to defend RS there against pov pushers - I've moved on pal - why don't you stop harassing me and stalking my edits - what a pathetic yawp you set up that you are being stalked by others but you are un self critical to a ludicrous degree - contemptible. Sayerslle (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

BLPs are exempted from 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. --Nug (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle was the one adding text... You should understand what is going on before rushing in to advocate for him. -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 months User was blocked for another EW. If anyone has any EW-related complaints against the users participating in this discussion, please file a new report and stick to the point. This one was overflowing of various accusations, RS discussions and generally completely off track. Bjelleklang - talk 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI)

Page: Equality Party (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. s1

1. s2

1. s3

1. s4

1. s5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

At Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party, same discussion

Comments: See for ANI reports at various articles, all removing references to socialist libertarianism, and edit warring to get their way at numerous articles. Obvious POV push. All listed at ANI.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Earlier diffs showing same behaviour again removing info box description and refs to article. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. [The claimed attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page, is merely a demand that he/she stop edit warring.

Of the five claimed reverts by Darkstar1st, only four of them were reverts. S2 was not a revert.

1. Genuine revert 22:53, 3 February 2015 Undid revision 645438023 by Finx (talk)English sources only plz.
2. Not a revert 22:46, 4 February 2015
3. Genuine revert 01:29, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645681542 by Mrjulesd (talk)plz discuss before removing tag. Libertarian Socialism is not mentioned in the source.
4. Genuine revert 01:29, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645681542 by Mrjulesd (talk)plz discuss before removing tag. Libertarian Socialism is not mentioned in the source.
5. Genuine revert 06:20, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645692112 by Mrjulesd (talk)i read and translated the ref, libertarian socialism in not mentioned . plz provide quote

Comment: Darkstar1st's demand for English sources only is against Misplaced Pages policy.

Reverts by User:Finx

1. 10:58, 3 February 2015
2. 14:59, 7 February 2015

Revert by User:Mrjulesd

1. 00:38, 5 February 2015
2. 01:48, 5 February 2015
3. 02:17, 5 February 2015

Users Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, and Finx have all been edit warring on this page, though none of them have broken the three revert-rule. None of them have made an effort to discuss the issues on this article's talk page.

Recommend that the article is protected for a month, with admin-only edits allowed, so that these people have to use the article talk page. If my suggestion is adopted, I recommend that Darkstar1st's quotation requested tag is restored. It will give them something to discuss on the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Are you honestly saying there has been no discussion? There is a huge discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 that you have completely ignored. What about the discussion at Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party over exactly the same issue? There has been no end to discussions about his edit warring and POV pushing on numerous articles. Same behaviour at Solidarity (UK), Concentration for the Liberation of Aruba, Equality and Democracy Party, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Freedom and Solidarity Party, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum). POV ON A MASSIVE SCALE! ALL REMOVING REFS TO SOCIALIST LIBERTARIANISM! Why do you completely ignore all this? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You posted a link purporting to be a discussion on this article's talk page, and there was no discussion there. It would have been better if you or Finx had started a discussion on the article talk page when you placed an edit-warring notice on User talk:Darkstar1st. The discussion should have addressed the issues. If he/she had refused to participate in the discussion this would have been clear evidence of edit-warring by him/her.

As for "massive POV", there are faults on both sides. In some articles he/she has wrongly deleted citations. In at least one article you restored a citation that did not support the statement it was provided for. In at least one other article, his/her actions have caused collaboration on the talk page between you, Finx and I to improve the citations; this is what the talk page is for, and is an excellent example of you and Finx doing good work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: There is no discussion there because guess what! He hasn't answered my note, but is continuing his edit warring and pov pushing. I'm waiting for a discussion on any of the talk pages, but no answer to my queries anywhere. How do you have a one-sided conversation? He writes "plz discuss" edit summaries but he doesn't bother.

I made no restorations I didn't check first. For example at Equality Party (Chile) the reference clearly states at on the above it clearly says "movimientos sociales chilenos" and "libertario". But I really don't think he cares, because he has ignored numerous other pieces of evidence. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diff for EvergreenFir reverting your restoration of a citation that EvergreenFir said did not explicitly support the statement. See also EvergreenFir's posting at 01:38, 4 February 2015 on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The accusation that Darkstar1st has not engaged in talk pages about these issues is not true, as highlighted by Rich Farmbrough's posting at 18:54, 4 February 2015 on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism".-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1:And I explained it here Talk:Kurdistan_Workers'_Party#Libertarians! --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined I will leave this one up to ANI. Bjelleklang - talk 21:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad and User:JHunterJ reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: No action)

Page: Aurora (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JHunterJ (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:
Slow moving edit war so avoiding 3RR but at 8 reverts between them already too much.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Edit summary here covers it: Maintain noun phrase descriptions, which is the point of repeating "song". No problem with WP:MOSDAB, so take it up on talk per WP:BRD. Which Bkonrad has failed to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• No more reverts and it seems to have moved to the talk page now.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: No action, since reverting has stopped. User:Bkonrad and User:JHunterJ are advised to wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Elblanco123 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: No action)

Page

Eve Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Elblanco123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "removed Category:1980s births using HotCat"
2. 16:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk) to last revision by Elblanco123. (TW)"
3. 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk): Wrong else? (TW)"
4. 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Eve Torres. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See user talk page for attempts at discussion. Also noticed previous EW notification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The last revert was on February 5. Whatever this dispute is, there is no mention of it on the article talk page. It is hard for others to judge who might be right if neither side is explaining their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Al Khazar reported by User:M60a3tts (Result: Blocked filer and IP)

Page: T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al Khazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user is trying to neglect the source which I stated on the page, "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery design practices:1945 to Present, which is written by military experts, for example, Steven J. Zaloga. And he is also removing the source and keep editing the protection value of the T-90 MBT. I gave him the photos I took from the book, to prove that my reference is credible, but his attitude does not change.

↓ These is a proof for his unchanging attitude.

I am sick of re-editing the T-90 page. Khazar don't you think this is reliable enough?M60a3tts (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You've already been blocked before. If you continue this, you will be blocked again. Learn to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Khazar (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This book is written by Andrew W. Hull, David R. Markov and Steven J. Zaloga, and they are all experts in this field. This was even adviced by Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and Christopher F. Foss, who is the editor of IHS Jane's. You are the one who believes that internet shit is much more credible than specialty publication.220.76.25.116 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Khazar http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=375286&page=1 These photos are all taken from the book I mentioned before. Yes, I was banned before, but does that doesn't matter at all. You are the one who doesn't know how to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Learn to read English, and use your eyes.M60a3tts (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed something very interesting about this user. That IP address not only shares the same style of incivility with the vandal above, but both appear to be from the same region. Khazar (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked M60a3tts and his IP sidekick for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User indeffed after a string of personal attacks and various disruptive edit summaries from IPs at the same article. Bjelleklang - talk 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:85.164.61.86 and User:80.212.4.12 reported by User:Ldvhl (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Free Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.164.61.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.212.4.12 (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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I believe both IPs are the same user. Note how 80.212.4.12 has a warning for using multiple IP addresses to vandalize Misplaced Pages.

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. Three different IPs, all from Norway, have made similar edits to the article. Edit warring by an IP-hopper violates WP:SOCK. The IPs assert continuity between some rebellious activity in present-day southern Ukraine and an anarchist experiment called the Free Territory that existed between 1918 and 1921. It is unclear if there are any reliable sources to support the thesis promoted by this IP-hopping editor. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I confirm the two IPs are same editor, changed due to power-outages - i.e. no "IP-hopping" or other deliberate change, and would've preferred the IP to remain the same. Don't get distracted by arcane WP-rules abused or claimed, but stay with the issue and facts, pls: The people in the region consider themselves heirs to Makhno's "Free territory". 85.164.61.86 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You still need reliable sources to include that information on Misplaced Pages. ldvhl (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sirtaki36 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Mikhail Tolstykh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sirtaki36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "offensive"
2. 20:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "offensive"
3. 16:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "o"
4. 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "offensive"
5. 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC) "offensive"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mikhail Tolstykh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note: 2015020610024486 related, for anyone with OTRS access. ~ Matthewrbowker 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ialiabbas reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Duplicate report)

Page: Husayn ibn Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ialiabbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:12, 31 January 2015
2. 13:37, 1 February 2015
3. 14:26, 5 February 2015
4. 16:29, 5 February 2015
5. 15:15, 6 February 2015
6. 15:29, 6 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:50, 5 February 2015

Links to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Husayn ibn Ali#Spelling of names, Peacock features, Overlinking

Other discussion: User talk:Edward321#Article: Husayn ibn Ali

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Thanks for your report. The issue has been addressed in another closure below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Visite fortuitement prolongée reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)

Page: No-go area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Full comparison diffs provided below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2015-02-02 22:22 1RR reverts
2. 2015-02-02 22:23 2RR reverts
3. 2015-02-02 22:49 3RR reverts
4. 2015-02-03 21:24 4RR reverts

In addition to the clear-cut 3RR above, he has reverted in the same article here.

1. 22:16, 24 January 2015
2. 22:29, 26 January 2015
3. 22:32, 27 January 2015
4. 22:09, 30 January 2015
5. 22:14, 4 February 2015
6. 22:52, 6 February 2015

The straw that broke the camel's back is this invitation that resulted in another editor's reversion of the same material.

1. 22:23, 2 February 2015 (VFP)
2. 22:08, 3 February 2015 (3rd party revert)

This invitation and resulting change was made without consultation to the ongoing talkpage discussion, obviously exacerbating an edit-war, thus compromis(ing) the normal consensus decision-making process.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:35, 4 February 2015‎
2. 00:23, 5 February 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:09, 31 January 2015. His only reply, a snarky two-word comment
2. 03:09, 3 February 2015

Comments:
I really didn't want to bring this to admins, but I have tried to negotiate in good faith with this person (I will abbreviate his username to VFP) through the talkpage, and to ask outside users for input in an RfC opened 27 January. I've invited VFP and other "anti"s to comment on sources before inclusion starting on 26 January here.

This is a contentious issue with passionate and ongoing arguments over sources. There have been many changes made, some of which are reversions, but only one of the editors has crossed the 3RR line. Other editors have started to engage productively on the talkpage, mostly since the beginning of February and an outline for making progress together was proposed just final to VFP's 6 February reversion.

VFP is apparently unable to work constructively with others and has continually reverted constructive, sourced changes as described in depth here and here. He has responded to another editor who has tried to set boundaries of cordial debate and de-escalate with him in this cynical retort. VFP's WP:OWNish behavior is repeated at other articles like Former Muslims United, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Islam in France, Eurabia, and Counterjihad where sourced material is unilaterally deleted, frequently without so much as an edit summary for justification. He did not respond to my pointing out his WP:ADVOCACY, WP:OWN and WP:SPA behavior on 31 January, and has continued on the same path. After the reversions noted above, VFP canvassed another editor (who is an admin but not involved as an admin) on 2 February , who subsequently reverted exactly the same material as VFP had been doing.

Finally, VFP is repeatedly accusing good-faith contributors to the talkpage of racism and using this as a pretext for pushing them off the talkpage, and, bizzarely, is accusing one or more of plagiarism for so much as citing sources he doesn't like.

Please note this editor has been involved in prior 3RR incidents on English Misplaced Pages, and has been given multiple lengthy blocks on French Misplaced Pages. In an arbitration case there it was found "De manière générale, VFP a donc un problème a collaborer avec les autres utilisateurs" ("In general, VFP therefore has a problem working with other users.").

Disclosure: I have reverted on No-go area here, here, here, here, here and here (one self-reverted change not shown), always in good faith, explaining my reasons and inviting discussion on the talkpage. There is one pair of edits within 24 hours of each other. — Brianhe (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know that the three-revert rule apply to "the same or different material each time". My bad. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

When Brianhe warned my on my talk page after 2015-02-02 and after 2015-02-03, was it advice or blackmail? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe's 645052941 comment avoid answering to my comment it follow, and its wording suggest that reply by me are unwanted. I did not reply to 645052941 by "a snarky two-word comment". I did not reply to 645052941 at all. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe are you saying that this revert by me on Islam in France is a mistake? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe do you want to expose the material similarity case here? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Based on the recent reverts I have protected the article. Bjelleklang - talk 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi and User:ATinySliver self-reported by User:ATinySliver (Result: declined)

Page: Bobbi Kristina Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ATinySliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of first user's reverts:

Diffs of second user's reverts:

1. (partial)
2. (full)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Section re attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bobbi Kristina Brown#Reverts

Comments:
If nothing else, request clarification on encyclopedic content. —ATinySliver/ 02:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

_{(Non-admin opinion)} Normal BLP policy is wait for multiple reliable sources before adding controversial or otherwise misleading details. TMZ in my opinion isn't, but let's see what others think. More importantly, while yes its edit warring, it doesn't appear serious or intentional, just trying to keep BLP's clean. EoRdE6 03:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a content dispute over keeping unencyclopedic content out of a sensitive BLP. Sensitive, because the article subject is currently in a medically induced coma and on life-support. The article subject was found face-down in a bathtub. No indication of foul play has been announced by law enforcement, only an announcement of an investigation - and this reported by TMZ (an unreliable source). User:ATinySliver is attempting to add content that talks of an investigation regarding "a possible altercation" prior to the individual was found. It is, from what I can see, trying to tie the two events together by synthesis at worst. At best, the content is unrelated gossip and trivia. It has nothing to do with anything as long it is in the investigation stage. It definitely serves no purpose in helping the reader better understand the article subject and simply doesn't belong in the article until there's more meat to it (if at all). I've already indicated in my last edit summary at the article that the second time I removed the disputed, tabloid-type content was the last time I was reverting it out. I have no intention of continuing to edit there for the time being. The editor opening this report started a discussion at the article talk page, I responded, they abandoned the discussion and are now forum shopping. They went to ANI first (a report that was immediately closed by an uninvolved editor) and now they have come here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: See here ("TMZ ... has received criticism ... but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies")

@Winkelvi: Sensitivity, with no disrespect toward the Brown and Houston families, is irrelevant within an encyclopedia. Regardless of "possible" or confirmed, it is an active police investigation and, therefore, germane. IMO.

—ATinySliver/ 03:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: And how on earth could you possibly know there is an active police investigation? You don't. Just some TMZ clickbait. EoRdE6 03:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, assessments by other editors of a source's reliability mean nothing to you. Meantime, please avoid argumentum ad hominem. —ATinySliver/ 03:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• If TMZ ever becomes a credible journalistic entity, I'll hand over my credentials and leave the profession. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to find the latest information, but the place to find reliable information that can be verified. If the information from the notoriously unreliable TMZ is backed up by other reliable sources, it can be used - but I don't see that happening right now. Thanks for self reporting but leave it be. seicer | talk | contribs 03:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"TMZ - has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies". I was a long-time print journalist; in my experience, though TMZ does tend toward the sensational, its sources rarely steer them wrong. See also Wikidiscussions here, here and here, to name a few. Meantime, to threaten me with an immediate block does not strike me as conducive to cooperation, which I am attempting herewith to maintain. —ATinySliver/ 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver:Would you quit pointing people to that silly essay. There is a reason it's an essay, its the opinion of a single editor and often nothing more. EoRdE6 05:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also: this, Talk:Bobbi_Kristina_Brown#Reverts, WP:ANI#Conduct unbecoming a sysop
• Declined See comment on the article talkpage. Bjelleklang - talk 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 reported by User:Ialiabbas (Result: no violation)

Page: Husayn ibn Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:44, 21 January 2015
2. 19:48, 5 February 2015
3. 23:15, 2 February 2015
4. 20:44, 21 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:33, 6 February 2015

Links to attempt to resolve dispute on the article's talk page: Talk:Husayn ibn Ali#Spelling of names, Peacock features, Overlinking (Thanks Toddy1 for creating the new sections.)

Other discussion: User talk:Own.Pak#Article: Husayn ibn Ali

Ialiabbas (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Keep in mind that you have been reverted by multiple editors, Toddy1 is just one of them. Please use the talkpage to discuss issues rather than blatantly reverting to your own preferred version. Bjelleklang - talk 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Seahawks65 reported by User:JustPlaneEditing (Result: blocked)

Page

List of Mayday episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seahawks65 (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. Consecutive edits made from 21:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 14 (2014) */"
   2. 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 14 (2014-15) */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Seahawks65&diff=645950914&oldid=645950728

Comments:

Has done this so many times. Resolution efforts have been in vain can someone just block this 'editor'. Again JustPlaneEditing and again (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Antigng reported by User:Starvisionstar (Result:No edit warring on going)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janagewen
User being reported: Antigng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FJanagewen&diff=646008845&oldid=645775583

I have no ideas to be reported and mistaken by. I just passed by talk of PAE, and found the block of user Janagewen and Najagewinnen there who involved in that discussion. So I feared to be blocked so I have already declared. I have to say once again, I am not Janagewen. And this is not IP evade. I just found that talk section interesting, and want to involve, at least I think I have that right. Because I am a new comer, from China mainland, I do not know how to do, so I start a section here. I am sorry Starvisionstar (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No violation Whatever is going on here is not edit warring. only (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:JoesphBarbaro reported by User:JustPlaneEditing (Result: Reporting user blocked for 72 hours, the other user warned)

Page

3 (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646031195 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
2. 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646031147 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
3. 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646031047 by JustPlaneEditing (talk) The sources are all right in your face."
4. 12:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646030836 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC) to 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646030432 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
   2. 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 12:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646016349 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "/* February 2015 */ Not 1 not 2 but 3"
2. 05:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by JoesphBarbaro (talk). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Won't give a WP:RS for his info. And infringed the WP:3RR rule... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and both stations are officially named Harlem -148th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street, though. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I told you a few minutes ago, I hope you were happy that I made those edits so that way, you'll finally shut the hell up. You're talking about me but look at you...Who's the pot calling the kettle black now? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, this matter is still ongoing. And no one gets your reference JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I count six reverts by JPE on the 7th alone. Do you have boomerangs where you live per chance? Lugnuts 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to the Admin, JPE tried to remove my comment, for no reason. Looking at the sources, it appears that JoesphBarbaro is indeed correct in his edits. Lugnuts 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow Lugnuts, why must you follow me. And By the way, look at the personal attacks JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you're gonna get blocked too, because of your constant trash-talking towards me. Those are also considered personal attacks as well. Again, pot calling the kettle black? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

So by saying that I'm going to get blocked too it means you're already resigned to the fact your getting blocked? Ouch JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pity. Looks like I'm seeing through your age already. This kid is so annoying since I met him. He really needs to drop it. This whole "issue" is worth nothing and won't get us anywhere. First, the constant trash-talking, then hypocrisy, and now he's sending me more annoying messages. Seriously kid, hop off my back and get on with your life. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The diff supplied of a supposed edit warring/3RR warning wasn't that, but a different kind of warning. JoesphBarbaro hasn't been warned about edit warring as far as I can see. Joesph, consider yourself warned now. If you edit war again, you will be blocked. Note that neither editor has behaved very well. There is not a single solitary word from them on article talk; instead they have been angry and aggressive on each other's pages. That's not acceptable from either of you. However. I have blocked JustPlaneEditing for edit warring (which they know all about and have been blocked for previously) as well as for this unacceptable removal of another's comment on this very noticeboard. Considering all that together, the block is for 72 hours. (I'm choosing not to block Joesph at this time, partly in consideration of their clean block log, but if another admin elects to block them for personal attacks and stubbornness, I won't object.) Bishonen | talk 14:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:M60a3tts reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: blocked)

Page: T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M60a3tts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This

Diffs of the user's reverts: Take a look at the page history. I don't need any evidence beyond that and sock puppetry is involved in this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already banned. His mutiple IP addresses are not.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not possible with multiple IPs.

Comments:

Khazar (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked User already blocked, article semiprotected. Bjelleklang - talk 22:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:User931 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: blocked)

Page

Windows 10 for phones and small tablets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

User931 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646090477 by ViperSnake151 (talk) What you are writing is history of W10, not development, therefore two paragraphs. Also you are deleting information."
2. 21:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646087552 by ViperSnake151. WHY are you deleting development paragraph? Why are you rephrasing the whole version history table? The explanation for universal is found under development which you deleted. Changed Youtube to MS official video"
3. 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646054425 by ViperSnake151 (talk) Of course it's a reliable reference when it's the Official Windows 10 event. Why have you rephrased the whole table?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring. */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is only the tip of the iceberg of issues we've had on this article, please note.

User insists on restoring information sourced solely to primary sources, and requiring the inclusion of a paragraph written with buzzwords that contains no sourcing at all, and a continued insistence that references to Windows 10's "universal apps" must state "all Windows 10 devices" (treating Windows 10 for phone and Windows 10 for PC as the same product, which has been another disputed subject), as opposed to "unified with their PC equivalents".ViperSnake151  Talk  21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Truthisnotrelativeyep reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Indeffed)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Referenced random anti religious book."
2. 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Atheist troll posted hateful and pointless thing. Please stop!"
3. 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Citing random book claiming their myths. No reason for this."
4. 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646108741 by Mann jess (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Talk pages"
2. 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Talk pages"
2. 24:12, February 8, 2015 (UTC) "Removing "atheist" content: new section"

Comments:

User is (so far) an SPA. As soon as he hit 4 reverts and this report was filed, another brand new user popped up to revert in his place here. Temporary semi protection may be helpful. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked the other account, Johhnywashburn, as an obvious sock/meatpuppet. I was going to let Truthisnotrelativeyep off with a warning, being so new, but I see User:Elockid has already blocked them. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Oh, and I see Elockid had already blocked the sock before I got there, too. I guess I took too long writing the block notice. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

User:BecciBexi reported by User:Random86 (Result: 48 hours )

Page

List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "back to the old format"
2. 20:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 22:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 00:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 00:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned by Dr.K., but continued to revert after warning. Random86 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I added revert number 5. This edit-warring account is most probably a throw-away sock account, an all too common fact in the K-pop area. Δρ.Κ.  00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bishonen | talk 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Degen Earthfast reported by User:Amortias (Result: Warned)

Page

Ministry of Defence Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Degen Earthfast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 00:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646101365 by Bellerophon (talk) The MoD Police are a Security Police force as opposed to a regular police as stated in the article. Their authority is generally limited to MoD"
3. 00:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646111989 by Bellerophon (talk)Still not a normal police force per the Special Police Act"
4. 01:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646117233 by Rob984 (talk)Still a Security Police force as it's primary duty is to Guard and Protect Mod Estates. Sheesh"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:37, 8 February 2015

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

1. Moved from WP:ANI. Amortias (T)(C) 02:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I considered the ANI page and almost left a response before noting that you'd come here. I don't think a block appropriate at the moment: after checking his contributions, I believe that he generally doesn't edit except around midnight UTC and early afternoon. Given the fact that his userpage mentions travelling in various parts of the USA, I suppose he's in that country, and asleep by now; as such, the edit war's definitely not happening at the moment, and it might not continue. However, should he return and immediately start reverting, a single such revert should bring an immediate unwarned block. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Warned John (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kitchener, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff1
2. Diff2
3. Diff3
4. Diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (subsequently deleted by user)

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

Comments:

Please note that this editor was previously blocked on January 23 diff for similar behavior, and does not seem to have learned from the experience, as editor is still engaged in edit warring, and has contentious discussions going with several other editors on several topics on their Talk page. --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

With this flag situation, there has been a proposal issued for a request to clarify the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. As it stands presently, it states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." This means on a page like Kitchener, there is no set rule where flags are not allowed, as we still need to hear from the result of the proposal. After the fourth edit I realized I was being stupid and should stop, which is why I have not added the flags back after they were most recently taken down. I really am sorry. I do not want to get a lengthy ban, I just got caught up in the moment. Thank you for your time. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the only instance of this user edit warring today. Take a look at Jordan Bachynski, where the user was warring over a WP:OVERLINK dispute with me. Rikster2 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

^This is irrelevant. I agreed with him and we came to terms to leave Calgary linked separately with Alberta not linked as it is a major geographic area and should not be linked. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1) it isn't irrelevant as it shows a pattern of this sort of behavior, and 2) don't confuse just getting tired of arguing with "coming to terms" Rikster2 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not confusing it. We came to terms, as my last edit was left current on that page as you obviously felt that it was a reasonable edit to leave it the way I put it, which is coming to terms. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I just wasn't going to engage in edit warring with you on this. It was fine how it was originally. But I'll let the admins decide about you. Obviously there is a pattern here. Good night. Rikster2 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Rikster2 went on to say how "no body cares about Alberta" (WP:IDL) and claimed ownership of this article because he created it so he decides what gets to be on it, this is a community, not just his article (WP:OWN) if you check my talk page. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Admins will decide about Vaseline's inappropriate edit warring, but for the record parsing a city wikilink into individual city and province/state wikilinks is not OVERLINK. In my lengthy time on here, I have never seen anyone claim that. I have only seen it claimed at the national level (removing links to countries). Rikster2 should be mindful about WP:BOOMERANG. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ive been around a long time too, and it is certainly an interpretation of OVERLINK and one that's been followed pretty consistently with basketball articles in my 7-8 years on WP. If you feel like you've got some grounds to bring me up on some WP charges, then please go ahead and do it. I've got a fine track record on this site, but by all means do what you need to do. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rikster2, no need for me to bring you up on charges. I've only witnessed one transgression and I AGF not only that this is a momentary lapse of emotions getting the better of you, but that you are also a solid editor. Is there a documented discussion somewhere in the basketball WP that confirms its overlink interpretation consensus? If so it would be helpful to point Vaseline to that. I edit mostly within the community, geography and hockey wikiprojects and have never witnessed such an overlink interpretation, but of course other wikiprojects may have different interpretations. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

multiple EC

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. They have already been blocked twice before. Even though they did reach an agreement on the one page, and Rikster2 appears to exhibit some ownership, they were edit warring. I'll unprotect the two pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Should be noted the editor has been to the "Incident Board" before on the same type of problem(s) IncidentArchive872-Two concerns about User:Vaselineeeeeeee. -- Moxy (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy reported by User:Legacypac (Result: indef. blocked)

Page

ISIL (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. 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 11:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "The material added is not copyrighted it is rather a summary of justifications given for sexual slavery by ISIL based on the koran.I don't think the koran is copyrighted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continued insertion and reinsertion of rejected POV content. See multiple discussions on Talk page about this issue. Breached 1RR (at 2 or 3RR today). See also . DUCK of two banned SOCK Masters (who I believe are the same person). Previously blocked for edit warring over same terrorist POV pushing material. See also EdJohnson's and other comments on the last 3RR report on this user top of the page. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You accused me of posting copyright material is false. The content is taken from This. The website is not copyright protected. All the other sources specified are to support the claim, the content is not derived from any of the other sources other than the ones provided. If you still wanna argue, the claims are repeated and echoed in all the sources, many of them aren't even copyright protected. Might wanna check all sources before reverting..Hand snoojy (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

One more revert. And all material you find on the Internet written during the past several decades is copyrighted unless there's an explicit disclaimer stating otherwise. --NeilN 14:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts relevant to the 1RR

• 15:25 6 February (mentioned on User_talk:PBS, not trying to forum shop)
• 02:30 7 February (mentioned on User_talk:PBS, not trying to forum shop)
• 11:14 8 Feb as mentioned above
• 11:41 8 Feb as mentioned above
• 14:20 8 Feb 1

We're all very sure this is a clear DUCK sock, and have been for a week now. Can we please do something? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hand snoojy has just reverted again here. Mostly likely a sock. Mbcap (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Germanobb reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

Reflection (Fifth Harmony album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Germanobb (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 00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC) to 00:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646105079 by Orduin (talk)"
   2. 00:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646116055 by Germanobb (talk)"
   3. 00:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
   4. 00:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
2. 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646101233 by Orduin (talk)"
3. 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "Those are not major reliable sources, you are disturbing the page. Look at any other major artist's album page, they aren't there. You're making it look like a 10 year-old edited this."
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC) to 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Weekly charts */"
   2. 23:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */"
   3. 01:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"
   4. 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. My warning to them
2. Orduin's warning of them

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Orduin's attempt to discuss on article's talkpage with user

Comments:

User continues to edit-war continuously over the past week's time, multiple times with other editors. One editor Orduin attempted to not only talk to them on their talk page, but also on the talk page of the page in question (Reflection); both requests for comment were blatantly ignored for their own preference. livelikemusic 14:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The user isn't seeming to give any input on this report along with their personal attack(s) and unexplained removal(s). So I think an indefinite block for Germanobbcould work. IPadPerson (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• And to Livelikemusic, if the edits become disruptive, just flag it on here instead of revert warring. This is just a warning but be careful. Cheers. seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 19:07, 8 February 2015
2. Revision as of 19:42, 8 February 2015

Comments:
Israel is placed under an absolute 1RR rule . A big warning sign is shown when editing the article, and the arbitration clearly states "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense". By reverting twice in less than an hour, Yossimgim violates the 1RR, and the warning in place when editing is sufficient, as per the arbitration decision. (His offensive remarks directed at me in the edit summary aren't inspiring good faith either.)Jeppiz (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have dated the edits to help make it clear. The User also claims that the image took place in Tel Aviv when doesn't even mention anything other than her name. AcidSnow (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I notified User:Yossimgim that he/she had violated 1RR and asked him/her to self-revert. Instead, Yossimgim has continued to make other changes to the article. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours This is frankly a silly thing to get blocked for, and as it's not related to the conflict the 1RR is in place for, I've made it a short block. Bjelleklang - talk 20:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:3140:69B2:C415:921C reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page

Bobbi Kristina Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:3140:69B2:C415:921C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "media citation of Marion "Pat" Houston as Whitney's executor is simply incorrect and is contradicted by Whitney's own will, to which I linked in footnote 5. I think the actual will trumps People Magazine!"
2. 06:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Adult life */ edit info about Bobbi Kristina's inheritance"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) to 06:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "previous edit was reverted for being too talkative - this provides the essential information in a shorter form."
   2. 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Marion is NOT executrix of Whitney's estate - why did you revert this incorrect entry? I provided a link to Whitney's will, which establishes that her mother is executrix."
   3. 06:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "inaccurate statement in top paragraph - Bobbi Kristina DID NOT inherit Whitney's estate in its entirety - she only inherits it if she lives to age 30."
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC) to 05:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "edit to correct statement that Bobbi Kristina inherited Whitney Houston's estate upon WH's death - she didn't. She inherits in stages; if she dies before she inherits, the remainder of WH's estate goes to others, not Bobbi's heirs or designees"
   2. 05:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Marion "Pat" Houston is not executrix of WH's estate. The 2003 addendum to WH will (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/Whitney%20Houston%20Will.pdf) names her mother as executrix, bro/sis-in-law as trustees"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bobbi Kristina Brown. (TW)"
2. 06:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bobbi Kristina Brown. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refuses to stop edit warring despite warnings and clear edit summary comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:108.6.38.122 reported by User:Gloss (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Survivor: Worlds Apart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.6.38.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - Jan 22, before the DRN discussion was opened
2. - Jan 22
3. - Feb 2, Another IP just opened a DRN discussion, but this IP decided to revert back to their preferred version for the time being
4. - Feb 2, DRN still open
5. - Feb 3, DRN quickly closed but talk page discussion quickly opened, 108 didn't comment there since
6. - Feb 4, talk page discussion still open, 3RR warning had been given already

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart#Names

Comments:
The issue was brought up on the talk page and the IP has not commented there since. They've continued reverting to their preferred version despite an edit warring/3RR warning. Gloss 17:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gloss: I actually did comment there and filed a WP:DRN. Look carefully. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You filed that DRN? That was filed by a different IP address than yours. - so you're admitting to having used two different addresses first of all. And secondly, you commented after making your fourth revert… after receiving an edit warring notice. The comment after the final revert doesn't make the final revert okay. Gloss 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There haven't been three reverts in 24 hours. The reverts have been in a longer period, so that the edit-warring doesn't cross the bright line. Also, since IP addresses change, the use of multiple IP addresses is not considered sock-puppetry. However, I do advise the IP to register an account, because the article is likely to be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard, no? Not the 3RR noticeboard, specifically? 24 hour time period or not, the IP was reverting to get their way throughout the discussion and after 3 reverts over Feb 2/3, a warning was given and an additional revert took place. If a block isn't issued for something like this, I don't see what this noticeboard is for. Gloss 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this back from the archives for an explanation of why it was archived without any action. If this was any other editor, they would be blocked for this edit warring. But since no admin saw this or wanted to comment in time for the bot, it gets archived and the IP editor gets off without any kind of block? Gloss 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted earlier, there was not 3 reverts within 24 hours. Blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive, so blocking the IP address then and now wouldn't have any effect. At any rate, the page was semi-protected so any further disruption should be averted. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:101.50.80.212 reported by User:Saqib (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Yasser Latif Hamdani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646319841 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 08:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646314508 by Saqib (talk)"
3. 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646309871 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yasser Latif Hamdani. (TW)"
2. 08:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Yasser Latif Hamdani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours seicer | talk | contribs 14:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alesgeriy reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Akdamar Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alesgeriy (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 just can't stop edit-warring and refuses to cooperate at ANI (see discussion here). The user is also quick to accuse other users of vandalism, even after being informed about WP:NOTVANDALISM. On my count, he has accused users of vandalism at least seven times (). Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

you Liar you vandalising my entry just because of your hypocrite political views. shame on you. you doing edit-warring and Vandalism Alesgeriy (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 73 hours seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring