Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 106.215.178.67 (talk) at 05:30, 20 February 2015 (→User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

Breda O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "per actual source - we would not wish to mislead readers, I trust" (repeats component of edit at 12:46)
2. 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ radio shows without transcripts do not meet WP:RS and the source you give says she supports civil unions - which should therefore be mentioned" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor, after it was restored by a third editor)
3. 08:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "first source says civil partnerships are ok, second lacks a transcript so is not much use at all" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor)
4. 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ and your specific source other than the fact she generally supports that Church?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)
5. 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Breda_O%27Brien#Radio_interview_reference (no participation from Collect)

Comments:

Am I missing something? It seems that Collect is 100% correct in applying WP:BLP. Do I detect a WP:Boomerang headed somewhere else? WCM_email 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh please -- no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR) -- and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Collect seems to have been correctly applying BLP policy and have come to consensus on the page. Removing an IP's innacurate material at a BLP does not constitute 3RR violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think it's "inaccurate" that O'Brien opposes gay marriage? You're wrong about that -- see the article and the source it gives. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, not as simple as that. Collect removed the IP's comment about opposing same-sex marriage, but that was then restored and sourced by two other editors (including a checkuser and oversighter!). He then switched to accepting that comment (so the IP was right) and adding other material to tone down the part he had to accept . Whilst I've no particular wish to see him blocked, this isn't a BLP issue in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- "unsourced" does not mean "well it was sourced later" -- WP:BLP requires removal of such unsourced material - and note that the actual claim substantiated by the source stated that she approves of civil partnerships. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying really, the first edit wasn't a problem but I think it's stretching BLP to say it's a requirement to add material to dampen a sourced criticism. But anyway, I don't think this is actionable on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree this isn't actionable. Someone please sentence this. WCM_email 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Last diff was a correction of a hit-and-run IP edit made to the lead with an unsourced claim. As such, it was removable. Same with the 15 Feb edit - unsourced IP edit of a BLP. made a specific claim which was unsourced. Again unsourced claims in a BLP are not protected last I looked.

Claims made in a BLP which are actually totally unsourced are removable, as the OP here knows. Bastun and I reached an accord on adding "and supports civil unions" as being what the source provided states. Which is how editing is supposed to occur on BLPs - not drive-by claims with not even a fig-leaf of a source provided.

Two of the edits were reverts or modifications of IP edits which were unsourced or poorly sourced. Three were in the proper goal of reaching proper claims properly supported. The OP did not post to my UT page until he made the complaint here, else I would have explained that WP:BLP requires removal of unsourced claims in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Only the first edit removes something added by an IP (something which in any event was eminently verifiable, as per a source subsequently added). The others either remove a source (with a bogus rationale) or add your own material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the first was specifically required by policy. The last did not remove anything - it added what the source said - I find it amazing that you seem to appear on a great many articles I have edited. Failure to accurately use a source for a claim is, IMO, pernicious. By the way, you appear to think a source which is a radio program sans transcript is a valid source for a contentious claim. I demur, and saying my position is "bogus" ill suits you here. Collect (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Only two of these can be called BLP support in any conceivable way. The rest are adding uncited material or removing obviously reliable sources (the RTÉ interview is doubly reliable as it's an interview with the person used in their bio, from a source that's also reputable in itself). Collect has been told time and again that "BLP" is not a catch-all for any edit he wishes to make. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no transcript. It is a problematic source. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What policy says that? It's policy that reliable sources that not all users can access (eg. paywalled) are still reliable. If a user can't or doesn't want to listen to the interview, the source is not disqualified - and I say this as someone who hates using audio or video sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect acted appropriately. The problem is with the OP who has demonstrated an inability to fully grasp the meaning of strict adherence as it relates to WP:BLP. Atsme☯ 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Even if one discounts the first revert, there is still a violation of 3RR here. Removing a source is not correction of a BLP violation. Nor is adding the text (in reverts 4 and 5) correction of a BLP violation -- even if one considers inclusion of that text desirable, there was no need for Collect to edit-war it into the article. The correct action here was for Collect to make his case on the talk page and gain consensus from other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement for a transcript, Roscelese - what WP:RS actually states is: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

Nor does BLP arise here. What is contentious, in any way, about a well-known Roman Catholic columnist being opposed to same-sex marriage? Collect does not refer to BLP at all in the 2015 removals, and admits in edit summary: "we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" It's actually quite ironic; O'Brien complains (in that radio interview and elsewhere) that being opposed to same-sex marriage is a perfectly reasonable view to hold and promote, but that anyone espousing that view is instead now branded as a homophobe; then Collect - who seems to feel the need to "defend" O'Brien's good name from what they're perceiving as an attack - removes the statement that O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage...

All of that said - minor 3RR violation, no longer ongoing. A warning would be sufficient. Bastun 12:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not "defend" anything except WP:BLP and I suggest you look at my Johann Hari edits and try to reconcile that with your implicit accusation of bias on my part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not familiar with that article, or the issue it addresses, and I fail to see how your editing of an entirely different article relates to this one. This is an entirely different topic, where you seem to be claiming that it is somehow a breach of BLP and/or contentious for an article on a noted Catholic columnist to state that she is opposed to same-sex marriage. Bastun 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not edit any BLP on the basis of any POV about who they are. Period. That you seem to wish to assert bias where none exists is very sad. O'Brien is on record as supporting civil partnerships - and why anyone would wish to elide that clear statement I find odd. What is odd also is that the following commenter is upset that I follow WP:BLP o on Sam Harris (author) who is an atheist! I guess I am a Popish atheist? BTW, read WP:OIECE please. Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear and not negotiable. I would draw everyone's attention to Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC where I suggest you are in the minority -- not even deigning to defend your edit which you sought so diligently to place in that BLP. If I am "wikilawyering" there, I have four accomplices including Xenophrenic! Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And again, BLP does not apply to this case. You seem to not be capable of recognising that, or even of admitting you might possibly have erred. Finding it harder to justify my comment that a warning is sufficient... Bastun 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

When did O'Brien die? That is the only basis on which the claim "'BLP does not apply" could make sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For BLP to be involved, something contentious or untrue needs to have been stated. Stop wikilawyering. Bastun 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Also - you did not claim your recent edits were due to BLP, in any case. Bastun 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually any claim not properly supported by the source used is against WP:BLP thus "She opposes same-sex marriage" where the source then specifically states "O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples" and the second half is elided, then the source has been misused. Misuse of any source is violative of many policies including WP:BLP. Cheers (unless you wish to assert the quote is not found in in plain text? Collect (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing to wikilawyer. It was back in August of last year that you removed the reference to SSM with the explicit (but still erroneous) claim that it was contentious. None of your edits in 2015 - which led to this report - refer at all to BLP. As it stands, leaving aside SSM issue, the first sentence to be referenced in that article to be referenced is one about getting a diploma from a video school in Texas. By your argument, all of the preceding sentences should be removed as BLP violations. Bastun 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

NB: Collect maintains at the article and above that the subject of the article "supports civil partnership" and has added this to the article several times. In fact, the reference he is using for this says that she "does not oppose" civil partnership, and she has written to that effect in her Irish Times column, also. (Behind a paywall but quote available here. "Supporting" something is very different to "not opposing" something. Bastun 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bloom6132 reported by User:70.196.131.82 (Result: Semi, warnings)

Page: Khanjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloom6132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I tried to discuss this problem with User:Bloom6132 here and here and here but User:Bloom6132 reverted my talk page comments. I asked that the discussion be taken to the articles talk page but User:Bloom6132 did not do that. After User:Bloom6132 reverted my initial edits I added valid references but my edits were still reverted. User:Bloom6132 has frequently edited this article and I feel that there may be some ownership issue here. I just want the information that I added to the article using valid references to be included in the article so that people reading it will get accutate information, something that is not happening with the current article.70.196.131.82 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a complete pack of lies by this stuck–up IP. He reverted my edits here without even adding an edit summary explaining why, then reverts me again claiming that I "have a problem". When I try to compromise and incorporate his edits while removing the incorrect formatting of the lead and an unsourced section in the main article which he took from the original lead, he reverts me yet again, this time resorting to personal attacks, claiming that I "do not know what talking about". Furthermore, he reverted me on my own talk page, assumes bad faith by lecturing me about article ownership (I claim no such right and never have), and again attacks me personally with a confrontational "What is your problem exactly". Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bloom6132, editors do not claim ownership, they show it through their actions, I added references which you said were lacking, and you reverted again, the article is completely one sided, it totaly fails to mention the Indo-Persian forms of the dagger known as a khanjar, this is not what wikipedia is about, I added completely relevant information and when you mentioned that my information was not referenced I added two references, I could add more but you showed by your actions that you do not intend to allow ANY additional information to be added to this article. I tried to reach you through your talk page but you reverted that instead of engaging in some sort of conversation, I mentioned going to the articles talk page but you did not respond, I added a comment on the talk page and you still have not responded. You reverted the warring warning I put on your talk page along with the link to this discussion and you left a very uncivil comment (Reverting hypocritical bullshit warnings by 70.196.131.82.).. I did not removed referenced information from the article, I moved it further down the article to a more appropriate section. Your comments when reverting other editors edits are not appropriate>(Removing problematic additions. All info added is unsourced, and using the phrase "is a word used" is completely redundant – just state what it is.) (No reason given for unexplained and unjustified reversion. Stop edit warring.) (Fixing badly butchered lead. This article is a GA; writing style should reflect that.) (Removed unsourced section. There's only one main type of khanjar – the one from Oman. Any other supposed versions of it are minor and should be placed elsewhere in the GA.) (I'm bringing up legitimate points, while you lie and claim I'm WP:OWNing this article. I even compromised and allowed your edits to stand, but it looks like YOU have ownership issues by insisting that YOUR version is final. Grow up.) these are not the comments of someone who is open minded and capable of compromise.70.196.134.123 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected, both editors warned. Conducting a revert war with a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK. User:Bloom6132 broke 3RR and was risking a block. Neither party has so far used the talk page to discuss these issues. Consider opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Walter Sobchak0 reported by User:Altenmann (Result:2 weeks)

Page: Spanish profanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Sobchak0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user persists restoring text unreferenced since 2012. The article talk page already sontaind extensive discussion that wikipedia policies about referncing should not be violated, but this editor ignores it . -M.Altenmann >t 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. Go to the talk page and take your bipolar episodes somewhere else
3. Go to talk page and stop bickering

Also very interesting form of discussion: "I'll look for references for this in the future but I must say people like you are to Misplaced Pages what the Ebola virus is to the human immune system. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)" Please intervene. -M.Altenmann >t 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is I said "I'll look for references for this in the future " but this whining idiot felt the need to "report" me anyway rather than confront me in the talk page.

You can guess from my prose I don't mind being blocked, I'll survive the trauma. M.Altenmann is an idiot and should be treated as such. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask an uninvolved admin to enforce wikipedia policies and undo the restoration of a huge original research unreferenced since 2012. -M.Altenmann >t 17:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah let's not forget that head-on affront to the wiki Gestalt. This is important. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks only (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I already removed the additions again, as a non-admin. I noticed that the user had been blocked, but didn't find this discussion until after I'd restored and replied on Talk:Spanish profanity. --Closeapple (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: Article protected)

Page: Danish pastry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page is active and there are various threads on the issues.

Comments:

Note that all 4 reverts are clearly marked as reverts, and that the user chose to revert despite getting the 3RR warning. The "previous" version is not relevant here, since the article is fluid, but they represent edits that undid previous editors contributions.

Last comment from the user after i asked him to self-revert at reaching 4RR: : ":No, I'm not. Mostly because you simply keep making shit up and ignoring my arguments. Serge certainly is. Take it Serge's AN/I-thread if you don't like it."

Clear breach of bright-line rule, and not giving a damn!

Kim D. Petersen 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that these reverts are mostly of different content or merely partial reverts. Kim is also an involved party in an extremely prolonged and frustrating debate relating to Danish pastry. There have been incivilities and personal attacks, and now there's also an AN/I-thread filed by SergeWoodzing.

Peter 18:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter... 3RR is a bright-line rule. It doesn't matter if it is different content, what matters is that they are seperate reverts of other editors on the same article within 24 hours. Please read up upon WP:3RR. This wasn't my preferred route, but your comment clearly stated that you didn't give a damn. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

IF it is not the same content then it is not a revert. Separate reverts of different content doesnt count for 3rr purposes. If that were the case someone who reverts three different vandalistic edits by three different users would be editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days, multiple editors reverting each other. 3RR technically was violated (Maunus, it can technically be 3 different things, per some section of the WP:3RR page I can't bring myself to hunt down), but really quite innocuously (in 2 cases, very clear inarguable corrections of English usage, with no real change in meaning). Hopefully protection will calm the waters on both sides. I'd recommend not blocking, but after a couple of rouge page protections I'm probably considered "involved" by somebody so I won't close it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that is news to me, the policy must have been changed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Has been that way ever since my first edit on WP - which was sometime in 2006 iirc. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was the page protected? Despite the above 3RR violation, it doesn't really seem as if there is editwarring going on. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ie. was any other editor close to the bright-line? And what do you think that the "i don't give a damn!" attitude towards our 3RR rule merits? I wouldn't have put this up, if Peter hadn't stated that he didn't give a flying ... about editwarring and other editors. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And as an addendum: Why have you protected the talk page??? How are people supposed to resolve the disputes now? --Kim D. Petersen 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you put this up because you didn't feel you got enough respect, you're not exactly making your 3RR case stronger. The rule exists solely for the protection of articles, not to enforce respect between disputing parties.

Peter 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with "respect"? This isn't a game. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to the closing admin: Please unprotect the page, or at the very least the talk-page after examining this case. Despite the reverts the article is actually pretty stable, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It seems rather contrary to our WP:Page protection policy to do it this way. As far as i can tell, Peter is the only one who edit-warred in any serious consideration of the word, and not even that was very serious... it was the "i don't give a damn about editwarring" attitude that made me report this case. --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I must say that full protection was a bit drastic, but I'm actually starting to like it. If anything, it might cool down things and focus them on actual article improvement. Overall, discussion has been focused on how to accommodate the personal opinions of Kim, RhinoMind and Serge.

Peter 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its rather unfortunate to state this, but it seems that User:Peter Isotalo is treating this (and Misplaced Pages) as a game (see ). --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's called "fun", Kim. Try it some time.

Peter 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not "fun" when it results in disrupting wikipedia Peter. --Kim D. Petersen 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's some serious shit, this disruption business. You better report me right away. I'm sure AN/I will take note.

Peter 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter baiting is not civil... --Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen about a very cavalier attitude and would like to add that it only takes Peter about 3 seconds to revert things he doesn't like in an article he's guarding. Obviously that gives him no time to use talk pages before reverting. It can't give any normal human being, especially one who is conscientious about any kind of work, time even to think a bit before taking constructive action. It just gives one time to do exactly as one pleases. As far as I know, most of us are trying to create and maintain a reasonably respectable encyclopedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm not a normal human being. I'm a Misplaced Pages Terrorist.

Peter 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Could i ask you politely to stop having "fun", and take this issue seriously? --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can rest our case now and let other neutral people chime in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to add som diffs, though. Gonna be hard for them neutral folk to get a handle on this otherwise.

Peter 20:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:AGF Peter, and not assume that you are bragging about how good you are at disguising your behavior, as your comment would indicate. And instead assume that you simply couldn't desist baiting, because you are having "fun". Please don't. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen's talkpage is a moot issue. It's user talk space. Many users, and sometimes myself, use it to let off steam. No names are named, no accusations are made, but we sometimes make facetious comments about our activities as Wikipedians, including disputes we are involved with. If you can't see the comedy in a heated dispute about a type of pastry, you've developed an awfully high opinion of yourself.

And I'm not going to feel bad about making tart comments about anyone who calls me "terrorist", or anyone who takes advantage of such spiteful nonsense by accusing me of trolling. For crying out loud, I apologized to Rhino and even attempted an appeal that get back on track. Rhino's response to this was to engage in personal attacks and high-handed accusations against me in a section heading. A section heading, damnit! And then you call me a troll. You even openly accuse me in this thread of disruptive editing.

And after all that spite, you extending me the courtesy of saying you're doing all this in good faith. While griping about baiting of course. How do you expect me to respond? You're in chin flick territory by now.

Peter 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected three days by User:Floquenbeam. There was a related complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#High handed editing by Peter. Some very experienced people got surprisingly angry about this. I hope this doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:A862678110 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of countries and dependencies by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A862678110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff1 01:49, February 17, 2015
2. Diff2 17:37, February 17, 2015
3. Diff3 00:12, February 18, 2015
4. Diff4 00:53, February 18, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Based on their edit histories, A862678110 appears to be an SPA dedicated to replacing Taiwan with the term "Republic of China" on various articles on English-language Misplaced Pages (e.g. see also: List of countries and dependencies by area, where this same editor is also engaging in edit-warring), and it seems like a more severe action like a Block is the only thing that might get their attention on this.

(Sidenote – I believe there is a sockmaster account that shares this same M.O., but I can't remember the details on that, or I might have gone the WP:SPI route. If anyone knows the sockmaster account to which I'm referring, please comment here!...) --IJBall (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I warned the user about about edit warring on the users talk page but they again reverted on List of countries and dependencies by area again, but did at least go to the talk page and comment on the discussion I started. Consensus was not built and I warned against edit warring there as after talk page warning was ignored and then the user reverted yet again on List of countries and dependencies by area. XFEM Skier (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks like this one's just been blocked by Ymblanter. --IJBall (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebelrick123 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

History of WWE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rebelrick123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647620806 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
2. 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647501678 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
3. 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646126382 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop trolling */ new section"
2. 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Stop trolling */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was given ample opportunity to discuss the edits he was repeatedly making, even after making more than three reverts, but instead chose to continue to revert again and again and resorted to insulting me on both his and my talk pages. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. I blocked for the personal attack at User talk:RealDealBillMcNeal#Quit complaining and watch the product. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Germanbrother reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

Page: Major depressive disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Germanbrother (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:

• Additional concern is that some of the edits are kind of spammy. And then are making them across multiple articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring at Major depressive disorder; spamming at multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aspire987 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of historical reenactment groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aspire987 (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:

• by User:Meters
• by User:C.Fred

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
SPA edit warring to create Wirt Artna on a reenactment group (first one nominated for speedy as copyvio and promo, second one as no claim of notability, both deleted after author finally blanked article) and include poorly sourced promotional mention of the group in the list of reenactment groups. No response to edit summary comments, user talk page posts, or article talk page post. Meters (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: Protected)

Page: Gun show loophole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. - complete revision
2. - reinserted material removed in an earler edit
3. - removed my addition to the lede of who uses the term
4. - removed material added here
5. - self evident revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Lightbreather is on a bit of a rampage here. WP:ACDS apply to this article and considering how bad this behavior is, I am surprised no one has stepped in yet. WeldNeck (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am reviewing WN's diffs and will return after. Lightbreather (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:WeldNeck I have no opinion of whether the edits were or were not problematic so I am not endorsing your version of events here, however you may need this ] if you are asking for Discretionary Sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking for sanctions (wouldn't even know how to). I just assumed an article under this level of scrutiny would be policed harder. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW to any admin-types scrolling through: Voluntary Iban. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has been undergoing a major, collaborative revision since the beginning of the year. It started out as this pro-gun WP:POV mess. (Note that version's pro-gun editor is now indefinitely topic banned from gun control articles. Note "term-of-art" and "pejorative" in the lead, as well as not one, not two, but three "controversies" sections.) On January 15, I announced on the discussion page that I was going to try to get the article in shape for a GA nomination. It's been slow going, and heated at times, but the article is 10 times better now than it was at the beginning of the year. Although there has been some friction, we've all managed to stay civil with each other and more importantly, improved the article so much that I took the next step on the way toward GA and request a peer review on February 10.

Yesterday, however, two new pro-gun players showed up.

• One made two edits, without edit summaries, and one brief opinion statement on the talk page.
• WeldNeck made four edits: three (note reintroduction of "pejorative" and putting loophole in scare quotes) without edit summaries, and one with the edit summary "only hoplophobes use this phrase."

I warned another editor that she was being baited, but apparently fell for the tag-teaming myself. Therefore, I am self-imposing a 24-hour ban on gun control articles. If that is deemed insufficient and I am to be punished, I would like the opportunity to open one or two other 3RR cases related to this article. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont care if you are banned or blocked but when you revert an edit of mine and say "see talk page" there should kinda sort of be something on the talk page to go along with that. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to address that - your "attempt to resolve the dispute" was to add this remark:

Your edit summary says to look at the talk page and I am looking but aint seeing much. Does anyone aside from hoplophobes use the phrase "gun show loophole"?

to this discussion - - which was about another dispute. If you had simply done a search, you would have found a conversation about use of the word "pejorative" as a (undue) descriptor for "gun show loophole." As for whether or not "anyone aside from hoplophobes" use the term, the talk page and the article itself are chock full of all sides using the term.

Looking at your editing history and disregard for consensus building, I'd day you've been lucky dodging a block yourself. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

See Gun control. On 14 July 2014, Lightbreather was banned for six months from editing on the topic of gun control. And see Teahouse/Questions under Possible WP:UNCIVIL where today it was suggested to another Gun show loophole editor regarding complains about WeldNeck that she WP:DISENGAGE EChastain (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two days. User:WeldNeck gets a special mention for inserting partisan language into the article text. Please be aware that tendentious editing is one of the obvious reasons to use discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to continue talk page discussion, which seems to be going well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Taospark reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Covert United States foreign regime change actions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taospark (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: First warning by User:bobrayner Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Second warning by myself

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Taospark has been engaged in a prolonged slow motion edit war against multiple users for at least a month. Longer, if - as is quite possible - User:Crossswords is their sockpuppet (or vice versa). Recently this edit warring accelerated so that Taospark broke 3RR today. This was AFTER multiple warnings about it from several users. Specifically, Taospark was warned on the talk page about edit warring by myself, bobrayner, Staberinde and Vanamonde93. These warnings have been ignored and/or met with belligerence. In fact, even getting Taospark to the talk page was quite a task. And once there, they began accusing everyone who disagreed with them of "proxying" for each other. In other words, they took WP:CONSENSUS and decided it was a conspiracy. This is pretty much standard disruptive behavior.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User Volunteer Marek has been engaging in blanket deletions of this article for several months since before my involvement Current dispute is regarding 3 sections which are properly sourced and relevant to the article's subject matter for which I're requested mediation here - Taospark (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you've continued to edit war even after you filed the request for mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

marek stop your accusation of me being a sock puppet you have no proof whats so ever, just because i originally didnt agree on staberindes edits removing sourced text. I could also accusse you being a sockepuppet of bobbyrainer and staberinde and vis versa just because i see you agreeing on something, the editing history shows.--Crossswords (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I don't have time to pursue it anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would add that talkpage reasoning for my edits was provided already at 21 January and repeatedly referred to in edit summaries but Taospark has blatantly ignored it for a month.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to notice that Taospark has very few edits in the project and does nothing but reverts on this page during several last months. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. As one of the participants noted on Talk, Taospark has been "reverting multiple editors on a regular basis essentially without discussion". One of his talk comments was, "I've yet to see any proof this is a consensus and not a proxy edit war". Viewing his opponents as a conspiracy doesn't improve his credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rukn950 reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Rukn950 (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 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
   2. 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
   3. 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
2. 10:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
3. 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is removing well refrenced information along with citation , the user wants to remove well cited information that Burhanuddin did not declare any successor as late as 2011 which is clearly mentioned in the last line of the cited article:http://www.rediff.com/news/special/special-bohra-dissenters-challenge-oppressive-priesthood/20110304.htm , the user has a strong COI. The user was warned amply in the past and was blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and COI noticeboard. Summichum (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• The time when he managed to block me for suckpuppet. he himself was engaging in sockpuppetry and was blocked. please take time to study this guys behavior before getting to any conclusion.
• I have done no recent edit that shows any conflict of interest and POV which the Diff given by summichum is proof in itself. but That cannot be said about summichum.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• I have not done 3 revert as you can see.and my reverts I have explained. summichum is cherrypicking and misrepresenting facts to prove his POVRukn950 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• his argument for not appointing successor in 2011 is not relevant to this article and reference he is citing is overkill.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point , whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• This user summichum blames anyone but himself. your above statement proves you were indulged in sock puppet intentionally(sic).Rukn950 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

summichum (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 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
   2. 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
   3. 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
2. 10:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
3. 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647683012&oldid=647668188
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647825563&oldid=647823737
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647857524&oldid=647856609

Old case:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Warning:

User talk:Summichum# Mentioned

User talk:Summichum#POV

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive_35#Edit_war

Comments:

User user:Summichum has been persistent in establishing his POV,WP:POINT,reinserting with self publish report on personal website,where no press or media has reported it. Any attempt to reason with him has proved useless.

This user is blaming me for COI it when infact he is doing so himself,violating BLP. He is so hasty in bringing me to this edit war while I have been trying to resolve through talk page.

The user was also blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and Editwar.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have kept my revert 647857524 because it explains the misrepresentation of summichum.

The diffs presented above are just copy pasted from my edit war application above , these diffs only prove that this user has gone beyond 3RR.This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point , whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are copypaste true. but that is because summichum doesnt seem to understand that the edits were not POV but were poorly sourced and not relevant to this article. cherry picking and misrepresenting has become habit of summichum.Also Blowing out of proportion any negative information regarding the Mufaddal Saifuddin and related to Dawoodi Bohra, and blaming others for POV(sic)Rukn950 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This Summichum disruptive edits has been going on for too long and request editors to topic ban Summichum from all Dawoodi bohra Articles. I dont Mind if Admin Ban me too. At least the articles be neutral and other genuine editors would do justification.

This user have strong COI against the sect. Please ref his creation pages all are negative aimed at either deletion or complain. This fellow is in spree of removing historical information on the plea of third party sourcing. :This is not explainable why he chose DB article only amongst lacks of Wiki articles. Please analyze and desist this user using Wiki for partisan activities.

Rukn950(talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Redheylin reported by Roxy the dog (Result: )

Page: Vitalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redheylin (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 only other time I have initiated a report here, the reportee hadn't made 4 reverts, but I have hopefully learned to count since then. Redheylin is a very long term editor, with an excellent history (only one block) who should need no reminding not to edit war, but really needs an admonishment to stoppit. I shall now advise him of this on his Talk. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a pre-emptive complaint following some rather bad behaviour. I looked at a page that I had edited some time ago and found it had been categorised as "pseudo-science" by another editor, who makes many similar edits, and was immediately reverted when I reomved it. I looked at the history and found the same editor had very recently reverted another editor. The editor's comments were rude. I pointed out there was one editor reverting and more than one who objected. The editor said the other editor was "misguided" and I was "raising a red herring".

He then posted an alert on the "Fringe" page, and this brought two like-minded editors with no previous knowledge of the page, one of whom immediately issued an edit war warning to me. These two then began to edit the page. I engaged them on the talk page and explained the issues, along with two other editors who thought their editing was controversial. As far as I know, I offered a full explanation of the subject and the situation, and pointed out that WP:CAT controversial categorisations are to be avoided, but the two editors continued to make edits and did not respond adequately to the matter. Today I found that the complainant had made a mocking answer to my last, full explanation of the matter, and concluded that these editors aimed to get their way by working in a pack disruptively, without any attempt to respond to matters of policy. Hence I returned the categorisation to its former state. And so, since the complainant has no consensus and no interest in policy guidelines or the actualities of the case, but appears only to be pushing this shared "pseudo-skeptical" point of view at any cost, he has lodged the present complaint. Redheylin (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit warring complaint is legitimate. Redheylin has claimed ownership as the one who created the article, even though other editors have significantly edited it. His ownership behavior has been noted. The PS category has been there for a very long time because content and RS justify it, so it belongs there. Redheylin continues to attack a straw man by claiming that the historical aspects of the subject are being labeled as pseudoscientific. No, they are categorized as Obsolete scientific theories. The PS category applies to the current uses of vitalism as the basis for various New Age and alternative medicine practices. Our sources are clear about that. Therefore we use both categories.

We use categories as an aid for readers, and this subject contains significant elements which are covered by several categories. The objections to the use of the label pseudoscience are nothing more than the allergic reactions of believers in pseudoscience who feel struck. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Redheylin's edit warring must stop. Both categories apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I had not asked for a block above, but if Redheylin cannot see his own edit-warring behaviour, per his comments, then I may reconsider. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You both need something better to do. Redheylin (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BeyonderGod reported by User:65.126.152.254 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The above are more recent examples, but this user has been on-and-off edit-waring with User:David A for months. User talk:BeyonderGod#Notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Beyonder#Beyonder Is Omnipotent and two threads following that.

Comments:
I already debunked whatever David A stated and gave resources and SCANS i can surely give Admin many examples to where i have debunked whatever he has given and people around forums are even stating he shouldn't be editing as he IGNORES fact from his OWN opinion. 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyonderGod (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, Beyondergod seems to have trouble with understanding WP:TRUTH. In addition, his changes to the wording and capitalization make it much less understandable. He is at the fourth revert for the day. Origamite 15:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add, beyond that I have repeatedly tried to compromise according to his wishes as best that I can, and that I thought that we had agreed to leave this matter behind us and to leave each other alone, as I thought that he was satisfied with me allowing the Beyonder character to repeatedly be called omnipotent on the page, as this is the entire goal of his Misplaced Pages presence.

I do not remotely have the energy to deal with this user any more, as we have had a thankful two-month break in our previous 5-month conflict outside of Misplaced Pages, and do not wish to have any further confrontations, so if this matter is not dealt with by others, I will probably just give a big sigh and let him do whatever he wants with the page of his namesake. The grammar simply seems to be of inappropriate Misplaced Pages standard. David A (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bishonen | talk 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228 and User:Huldra reported by User:Brad Dyer (Result: )

Page: Heredia, Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 124.180.167.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: IP reverting to , other user reverting to

Diffs of the IP user's reverts:

Diffs of the Huldra's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As I was posting the 3RR notice on the users' talk pages, I noticed that (a) the IP was already warned by Huldra, and subsequently blocked, and that (b) Huldra waited until they were blocked and then proceeded to violate 3RR himself 2 minutes after the block, knowing they are now in a 'position to win' with their opponent blocked. To me, that's disgusting behavior that should not be condoned.

Comment by Huldra: I am pretty sure that (now blocked) IP was as I reported here, namely Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. His threath to me on his user-page sound very much like him: :Go fuck yourself you mother fucking cunt. == To Huldra == I sincerely hope you die. I note that Brad Dyer apparently does not find anything objectionable with the IP`s edits. Huldra (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course I find his edits objectionable, I reported him here. But he's already been blocked, and you seem to be taking advantage of that to continue your little edit war, and broke 3RR in the process. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I undid the edits of a vandal. So you object to that. Now I see you have reinstated the edit of the same vandal. Noted. And what you reinstated is factually wrong: Ariel (city) is not in Israel, not even the Israeli government claims that. It is on the occupied West Bank. Huldra (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no vandalism there - there was a content dispute between you and an IP editor. You both violated 3RR, and you both should be sanctioned. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that Ariel (city) is in Israel? That is a position that not a single authority inside or outside Israel supports. So you (and the vandal) inserts something into the article that no authority agrees with you on....and then you claim it is "a content dispute"? Huldra (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000. Huldra was clearly doing her best to minimise the damage caused by this IP lunatic in multiple articles. The fact that the IP was up to no good and would soon be blocked was obvious from its first edit, and confirmed by its 6 reverts in a row at 2015 Chapel Hill shooting (starting Feb 16, 5:05). After that it seems to be following Huldra around, blindly reverting even on admin pages. I'm 99% sure that this is the same user (permanently blocked under many names) that sent vicious death-threats by email to both Huldra and myself. In that case it comes under the rule "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." Zero 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Mthomas12 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: )

Page: Maryse Liburdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Mthomas12 (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:
Not 3RR, a slow-motion edit war. No reasons posted on the edits, no response to requests on user's talk page, article's talk page, and via edit summary. Warring at question is over the removal of the former name of the subject, which is vital to the article as all the references before her marriage are in her former name. Editor is an SPA, and the username suggests that editor may actually be the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:31.178.31.187 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Semi)

Page

Talk:MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 19:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Comments by ATinySliver

My thanks to EoRdE6 for the report. This is one of several IP edits attempting to restore a redirected article to its talk page; if my understanding of policy is correct, this is less a WP:3RR issue than a WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT issue, so someone please clarify for me. Also, I have a request in to protect the page which, as I type this, has received no response. (Edit: now protected.) —ATinySliver/ 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected the talk page, to keep an IP editor from restoring the original article there, contrary to common sense (since it's a talk page, not an article) and contrary to the result of the AfD, which wanted MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is to be merged to Max Kolonko. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: )

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andiar.rohnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: —could instruction please be added to clarify what should be put here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Contentious editing of the lead

Comments:

This is a clear-cut case of POV-pushing. Andiar.rohnds has repeatedly added the Muslim ethnicity of a victim of the shooting to the lead of the article, despite the fact that nowhere in the article is this detail made a relevant fact. The user has a history of such contentious edits, at one point deleting almost the entire lead with the edit comment "various minor corrections at lead section". Attempts to get him to find a consensus before making such efforts have resulted in comments such as this, laden with personal attacks such as "asinine", "vandalizing this article", "You actually have no clue", and implying I may be considering sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. His comments and edit comments in general have been aggressive or condescending, and he doesn't appear to be interested in even making the attempt to find a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Update

Andiar.rohnds contentious edit has since been reverted by WWGB, which Andiar.rohnds has followed up with further unexplained reverts: Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring