Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.166.187.154 (talk) at 03:15, 5 May 2015 (→User:Elindiord reported by User:Philip J Fry (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:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently ).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later:

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg ) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg ) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Misplaced Pages editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Misplaced Pages account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage in addition to my own talkpage as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that Hanswar32 has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory). Erpert 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 continues to edit war --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage . You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag . Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the Film Project, DRN, and NPOV. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a {{win}} or {{nom}}, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.

The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at Talk:Brandi_Love#AVN_has_a_conflict_of_interest where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question any of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the San Francisco Chronicle or the Boston Herald with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Clarifying and summarizing Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our dispute resolution approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round ( ) of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring . Hanswar32 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevengreggory reported by User:Aronzak (Result: no action)

Page

The Islamic Schools of Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "Format Edit and Refernencing"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659648480 by Karpes (talk)"
   2. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659615889 by Karpes (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Conspiracy theories */ new section"

Comments:

The principal of an Islamic school in Australia allegedly propagated the conspiracy theory that ISIL is funded by Israel. In response, a WP:NOTHERE single purpose editor is pushing POV statements into the article body, and adding conspiracy theory articles as references, with no talk page discussion despite warnings from three editors. The edits may fall afoul of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- Aronzak (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. There's really nothing actionable here. Two reverts over three days. Not previously warned for edit warring, and not notified of potential general sanctions. I'll add the page to my watch list as his edits are clearly poor; hopefully he'll join the discussion you just started. Kuru (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Response:

Hello,

I am sorry if I have posted anything out of line, however another person has been editing as well and the paragraphs have become distorted. Whilst I agree with removing certain aspects of my edit, and have no problem with removing sources such as the Isis link -which I posted to display articles written in retort to mainstream media. I find it useless in deleting all my well researched data on the school. For instance I have interviewed people and have gotten permission on the subject matter in order to edit this article. I did not accuse the Age of anything. I was merely pointing to the media prejudice fuelled culture that surrounds the school. As commonly known the media sensationalises many issues, I don't know how it is any less relevant due it being an Islamic school. However it is not wrong or irrelevant to the issue as it encompasses the ongoing community struggles. The paragraphs relating to xenophobia and ethnocentrism etc. were referring to issues raised within the community.

I would like to kindly ask the admins to revert majority of my changes as I have not posted anything against the Misplaced Pages rules of conduct or information. (I have referenced correctly with relevant links and sources ).

Thank you - --Stevengreggory--Stevengreggory (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page to discuss your position. Kuru (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Gouncbeatduke (Result: no violation)

Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Originally headed as: Plot Spoiler's continued edit warring in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area and violations of WP:1RR

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 04:53, 2 May 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Diff #1 at United Against Nuclear Iran (21:59 on 2 May)

• Diff #2 at United Against Nuclear Iran (14:12 on 2 May)

I also ask Plot Spoiler to self revert on his talk page with the message You have violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area, please self-revert., but he simply deleted the message.

See here:

Comments:

Obviously, there's not a 3RR problem, which is what you warned him for. What sanctions are you claiming are in place here? Are you refering to WP:ARBPIA? Kuru (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not a 3RR issue, but rather a 1RR problem. He states that Plot Spolier has "violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area". Though, I am unsure how this has anything to do with Iran. Neither Israel nor Palestine is mentioned anywhere in the article. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Gouncbeatduke didn't even do me the proper courtesy of informing me that he was filing a case involving me.
2. He is purposely misrepresenting the ARBPIA 1RR rules to somehow include Iran articles which have no connection to ARBPIA.
3. The user's limited activities are being used to WP:stalk my edits -- in just the past week, he's edited the following articles for the first time shortly after I made edits myself
4. Gouncbeatduke's reporting on these admin boards has already led to WP:boomerang blocks, based on his absurd personal attacks that users are engaged in some kind of "anti-Arab hatemongering" campaign . This situation is becoming intolerable. I have more constructive things to do than deal with this user's constant attempts to WP:GAME the system to his favor (Given his previous experience w/ this user, admin @Bishonen: may have something to add). Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to WP:ARBPIA. I should probably mention the reason I would like to add the NPOV tags is because the article keeps getting cleaned of any reference to Israel and the Israeli anti-Iranian lobby. I believe the article should include information like:

Salon reported a former Obama administration official who worked closely on Middle East policy stated UANI and its allies “play the politics for the short-term but they don’t offer anything in terms of answers for the long-term” and “You get the sense that … they’re not really interested in ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. Iran bashing for pro-Israel groups is very common, but I’m concerned that they don’t understand that failure to address this issue will ensure that Iran gets the bomb or we’re headed toward war. And a war in this region at this time will look more like World War III than a ‘cakewalk.’”

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's irrelevant to this filing because you just added that information... if that even qualifies as now falling under ARBPIA anyway. Just WP:gaming the system. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" was that in would include issues like Hamas and nuclear proliferation in Iran. I am not trying to game anything. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kuru:, how much more of this nonsense do I have to endure? Is some kind of interaction ban necessary? The deeper issue seems to be that Gouncbeatduke is simply unable to edit in a constructive, NPOV manner as a more or less single issue editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kuru:, and now Gouncbeatduke's implying that on the subject of Iran and nuclear proliferation, I'm engaged in "Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing". There has to be some kind of recourse for these gross personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led to @Bishonen: blocking him. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. While I realize that WP:ARBPIA is "broadly construed", that seems to be more than a little over the top and frankly disingenuous. There's no 1RR here. Kuru (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

1. CLIFTON, ELI. "Billionaire's sketchy Middle East gamble: Meet the man betting on war with Iran". www.salon.com. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

User:Empress Mathilda reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Empress Matilda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Empress Mathilda (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:

Comments: Apparently a new user, other users have tried unsuccessfully to engage here. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Gtadude00 reported by User:Snowager (Result: indef)

Page

Microsoft Publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gtadude00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Overview */"
2. 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
3. 08:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) to 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/*Mama alet la2a */"
   2. 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Mama 2let la2a */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC) to 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
   2. 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

An anon IP, 41.38.169.242, appears to be involved in edit warring as well. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/41.38.169.242 The Snowager-is awake 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Giano reported by User:BabelStone (Result:Blocked 48h)

Page: Grant Shapps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Giano (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: (see edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Giano repeatedly adds in poorly-sourced and not neutral commentary on the Grant Shapps Misplaced Pages editing case, despite two editors considering it inapproriate. BabelStone (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I blocked Giano, since they have clearly crossed 3RR and, being an experienced user, should have known better. I did not really care whether they attacked WMF or not, and would have blocked them for any five reverts anyway. None of the opponents crossed the 3RR line. However, I am concerned by the fact that none of them made an effort to properly discuss the issue and the credibility of sources, There were two sources in the disputed piece, one of them clearly a RS. Please after the block expires engage into discussion (continue at the talk page or start a new topic), since the block does not mean that the piece is not appropriate and should nt be in the article. It just means that a user failed to follow standard dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Anastan (Result: )

Page

Gračanica, Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660621833 by Anastan (talk) No concensus yet!"
2. 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660619347 by Zoupan (talk) No any concensus!"
3. 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660612708 by Zoupan (talk) As İ said dozens of times, its not a criteria."
4. 16:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "There is no any result or decision on WP:NPV!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• here

Comments:

User was already warned on his talkpage Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Flesier was previously known as User:Maurice07. Whoever closes this might also look at

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Maurice07
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148#Maurice07

There is also an entry for Maurice07 in WP:RESTRICT. If a block is the right course of action here, perhaps it should be indefinite, given the wording of the note at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's looking like a long (if not indefinite) block would be appropriate, but I'd like to see what Maurice says first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I know at least one instance where Maurice had been forgiven for making 4 reverts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Quantanew reported by User:GliderMaven (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User is putting unreliable WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation about the results of research into the article. The research is backed only by non peer-reviewed primary source research; but according to the user's edits we will be flying to Jupiter, any day now. I tried to prune it back a bit, but he revert warred past the 4RR limit. The user is not engaging in OR, but is putting non reliably sourced material into Misplaced Pages, persistently, and exceeded the 3RR limit, even after being made aware of it.GliderMaven (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The user User:GliderMaven doesn't allow for consensus to be reached the discussion is been made on the talk page. This is my first experience with this issue and I'm a long contributor to wikipedia.Quantanew (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm quite happy to discuss it on the talk page, or elsewhere, but Quantanew has deliberately gone 4RR to defend his non reliably source contributions.GliderMaven (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The user claims my sources are unreliable but the whole article has the same types of sources. This user can not be picky to choose what he doesn't like.

This article is already in the category of fringe physics and hypothetical technology and with that in mind I just enumerate the potential applications of the technology, all of this cited by the current team a NASA JSC Eagleworks working on the device.

And the user Glidermaven is incurring in three reverts right now on the same rule.Quantanew (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I've established the same article state 3 times, while you have done this 4 times. You are over the bright line. And I repeatedly explained why in the subject lines and on your talk page, my talk page, the article talk page, and now on the physics talk page. I also asked you to self revert, after having pointed you to the relevant 3RR rule before you went to 4 reverts, and you still didn't listen. We're only really here because of your behavior.

And your edits include: "If WarpStar-I concept vehicle or a similar vehicle were equipped with an EM Drive, it could enable travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon within four hours carrying two to six passengers and luggage," when the device hasn't even flown, not even a millimetre. That's classic WP:CRYSTAL. If you had had reliable sources, fair enough, but you didn't have them, and you still don't; and they don't exist.GliderMaven (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again the whole article is based on your unreliables resources. We are here because your behavior of choosing not to like the editions I added. It you were so true to your unreliable sources you has to judge the whole article as such, not just the pieces that you don't like.Quantanew (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

70.74.238.17/Harari234 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Indeffed/ blocked 48 hours two weeks)

Page:Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Sultanate of Harar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Sultanate of Ifat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harari234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 70.74.238.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Preferred versions for Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad, the Adal Sultanate, the Sultanate of Harar, and the Sultanate of Ifat

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad:

1. Revision as of 00:22, 3 May 2015
2. Revision as of 00:34, 3 May 2015
3. Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
4. Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

On the Adal Sultanate:

1. Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
2. Revision as of 00:30, 3 May 2015
3. Revision as of 05:32, 3 May 2015
4. Latest revision as of 17:32, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Harar:

1. Revision as of 00:27, 3 May 2015
2. Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
3. Revision as of 17:35, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Ifat:

1. Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
2. Revision as of 00:31, 3 May 2015
3. Revision as of 05:33, 3 May 2015
4. Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning (for the main account, see here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion

Comments:

Even after I gave him an addition warning he still chose to deliberately break 3RR. Not only has this individual been editing warring on multiple pages (as shown above) they are also a sock of Harari234. The sock and master account not only edit the same exact pages (see here and here) the IP has constantly been editing the comments of the master account (see here for an example). The sock has even foolishly signed using the master accounts signature (see here: ). When I requested that the IP/Master to stop, they replied with this: You clearly have a problem Acidsnow, so live this page alone. Making PERSONALATTACKs didn't help his case even the slightest. Though I am not sure as to why they have chosen to sock. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the master account has already been blocked twice for the same exact disruptive behavior? AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obvious sock is obvious. Harari234 indeffed, the IP blocked for 48 hours, Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, while the IP is dynamic, it has obviously been used by one individual for several months, so it can be blocked for longer. Blocked for two weeks.. Ping User:AcidSnow. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

Ok. AcidSnow (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GoPurpleNGold24 reported by User:nfitz (Result:Page protected)

Page: 2015 CONCACAF Champions League Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoPurpleNGold24 (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:

Comments: Pretty straight forward. User has deleted the same reference 4 times in 14 hours. After the second time, I added numerous other references that said the same, that also proved the original reference was reliable. I should have raised it on talk after the 3rd time, however left questions (that are unanswered) in the edit history.
Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What rule am I breaking again? Because I believe I only reverted twice. The first one this user is claiming, I did not revert anything, unless removing something is considered reverting. I did revert in the second and fourth one and I reverted my own edit in the third one. The User also never asked me to discuss it on the talk page. Instead of reverting my edit the third time why couldn't it have left me a message to discuss it. Instead the user wrote it on the Edit Summary knowing I possibly was going to revert it a fourth time (in the user's count). GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It?!?! Can someone clarify how deleting the exact same reference 4 times isn't a 3RR violation? (and another reference 4 times that I didn't document ...) Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Seems to be an edit war going on and no discussion has been had outside of the edit summaries. Please discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and come to consensus before the expiration expires. only (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• That seems like overkill for such a trivial reference. I'm not so much worried that the reference is deleted, as it's now redundant. But the simple assumption that tweets from major news organizations carrying factual information aren't reliable, rather than evaluating the content of the tweet itself I find questionable. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:184.145.137.152 reported by User:Agtx (Result: )

Page

Megatrend University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Beginning the article with an personal negative opinion of a single journalist is highly biased. The controversy section is riddled with the authors prejudices which have no sources. Attempts to provide a more balanced sourced opinion have beed deleted"
2. 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "The introduction is a clearly biased and imbalance and the previous author keeps deleting additional information. It's clearly someone who has an agenda against the university and is writing a hit piece."
3. 02:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"
2. 02:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"
3. 02:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As I told the anonymous user, I don't have an axe to grind here, but removing whole sections isn't appropriate. Agtx (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Krull The Eternal reported by User:Stickee (Result: )

Page: Economy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krull The Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:23, 28 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:41, 2 May 2015
2. 09:22, 3 May 2015‎
3. 17:26, 4 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Blocked 48hrs

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:53, 3 May 2015

Comments:

Was blocked 5 days ago for warring on this article. Immediately resumed warring upon expiration of block. Request made under WP:EW, not WP:3RR. Stickee (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hernando1620 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

Page

Neurocrine Biosciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hernando1620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company. Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
2. 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company. Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
3. 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "this page was updated to reflect the current as of 2015. Both the CEO / CFO and Chairman of the Board are updated as well as the description of the company. The previous information was outdated (2005) and doesn't reflect the current state of company."
4. 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
2. 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
3. 23:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is replacing sourced content with unsourced, promotional text, despite multiple warnings. Whilst some of the information is probably factual (but unsourced), the actual main text is clearly promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Elindiord reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

Page

Jencarlos Canela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk): If there is a reason for revert all Jencarlos Canela's template. (TW)"
2. 01:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk). (TW)"
3. 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Jencarlos Canela */ new section"
2. 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Jencarlos Canela */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user reverted my edit without giving me a good explanation of the because it does, I have clearly explained it, but you don't want to get any agreement it seems. Philip J Fry • (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This User also reverted my edits on the voice actors that have been involved in Anime and reverted them for no apparent reason.--73.166.187.154 (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Getoverpops (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: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at Talk:Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute. See also Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute.

Comments:
The editor is engaging in Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring