Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 30 September 2015 (OneClickArchiver archived User:Elduderino reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hours for BLP violations) to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295#User:Elduderino reported by User...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Sigehelmus reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: no action / stale )

Page

Guatemalan Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "adding npov, ref, fixing grammar, etc"
2. 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "changed a word, added a synonym, removed a needless replacement term, added a reference. That's it....what exactly is wrong here?"
3. 00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "You seem to imply that changing one half of a sentence was worth a multiple-day discussion for an entire NPOV label. You should start the discussion the next time, I'm standing by my changes. This violates nothing!"
4. 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "added back in democratic, I see the issue; I don't count this as a revert, pls correct me tho if wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* September 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV */ will you please discuss this?"

Comments:

Continued and pointed refusal to discuss these edits, despite multiple invitations to do so, and multiple warnings about edit-warring. Despite this, I invited the editor to self-revert, which they have declined to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You know the only reason I didn't report you first for your insistence on red tape and refusal o cooperate or WP:COMPROMISE was out of the Christian kindness in my heart. Why can't you be more like that Australian guy? Chill out.--Sιgε |д･) 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: User has self-reverted; as of now no action is necessary. It was late in coming, but WP:ROPE might be appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice how you're the only one who cares and is riding off bureaucratic red tape abuse, whilst the nice Australian fellow actually cared about improving the community. You're the one hanging yourself.--Sιgε |д･) 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No action taken for now. Was also considering a block for the personal attack in the edit summary. Sigehelmus is to treat this as a warning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Huldra (Result: blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:27, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"
2. 20:59, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see: User_talk:Debresser#1RR

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

Comments:

Article is under 1RR, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaction by Debresser

I have know Huldra for a while already. He makes very good edits in general, but he also has a clear POV, and that is fine with me, as long as he doesn't disturb this project with his POV. The problem is, that he is also a belligerent editor, who has taken to pick on me, and because a few other editors with the same POV regarding the PI conflict work together, he thinks he can get away with it. I would like a clear message to be sent to Huldra, that the community will not stand for ignoring talkpage consensus and disruptive behavior, and will not allow him to "take over" a whole bunch of article.

My second edit was at best a very partial revert, which came to restore a consensus version. I would like to point out to the admins here that the question whether that header should say "occupation" or "control" was discussed at considerable length at Talk:Sur Baher#Occupied, and that Huldra himself took an active part in that discussion. Coming back after half a year and disturb that consensus is a blatant disruptive edit, and per the clean hands doctrine Huldra should not even be able to report me here. The least I propose is a WP:BOOMERANG warning to Huldra to this effect.

Please also see User_talk:Debresser#1RR where Huldra posted an a friendly (unknown to me) talkpage stalker replied to him that I do have a point, and that Huldra should continue discussing this. To which Huldra's only reply was that he doesn't believe in discussion with me, with the explicitly stated reason that he is been unable in the past to convince me!! The fact is that Huldra has on many occasions been able to convince me, but not always, i.e. when he is wrong. It is not me who refuses to discuss with him, but he with me (see first line in this edit, for example).

I ask to view my edit in light of the above, that Huldra knowingly ignored a consensus, and displays blatant disruptive behavior, including a refusal to discuss with me, and warn Huldra accordingly. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a 1RR in place across the topic area. All of us have to abide by it, including you. You could still self-revert and there would be no problem. And you are misrepresenting a consensus on the issue. nableezy - 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your point of view is as usual, and your support for Huldra as well. Which per Huldra's argument at WP:ANI means your opinion doesn;t count. :)

The consensus on the issue is clear, see my latest post on the article talkpage: Talk:Sur Baher#Occupied again.

An editor who willfully ignores consensus is a disruptive editor, and not much better than a vandal. Why would Huldra be allowed to do this, and I am not allowed to revert one word of a whole edit? If I am to be punished for changing one word (and I do find it hard to call that a "revert"), then I insist Huldra be punished for willfully making a disruptive edit in blatant disregard of consensus that she herself (I remembered the gender just in time, after I already started to write "he himself") was part of establishing. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I am the "friendly talk page stalker" (unknown to you because we have never extensively interacted) referred to above. I have been on the sidelines for years, and am known to a few well-respected editors in I/P, on either POV. Dovid, please self-revert. Let us get back to doing real substantive work and get off this wretched board. I think you made some interesting comments, some quite persuasive and should be discussed further away from here. This is not a game of tennis, no one is winning "points". Please show some grace here. It would go a long way. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks to be a 1RR violation, based on the two diffs submitted above. I propose a 48-hour block if the editor won't self-revert. If Debresser considers changing 'occupation' to 'control' to not be a revert then he is an optimist. For him to perceive a consensus on Talk for the word 'control' in that heading then he is even more optimistic. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, this

• A) is a clear 1 RR-violation
• B) Debresser has made it absolutely that they have no intention to self-revert, even when asked to do so by multiple editors (Irondome, Nishidani (on my talk-page), myself and Nableezy)
• C) If he is not blocked for this, then that means that the 1 RR rule is not valid for Debresser, and that he can "impose" a consensus", by breaking the rules and edit-warring.
• (Besides the above, I also note that Debresser also here insists on calling me "male", even after being told not to do so here,) --Huldra (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the fact is that "control" was the word that stuck after that long discussion. Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word after half a year is a deliberate disruption. Why do you ignore that?

EdJohnston, I undid one word from a whole edit . Is that worth all the talk about a 1RR violation?

I think that all this talk about a block is out of proportion in view of the deliberate disruptiveness of Huldra's edit, and that my revert to the previous consensus version regarding this heading, was the best call. In addition, it is already after 24 hours, so if you want, please consider as though I undid my edit and then re-did it after 24 hours. If anybody wants me to waste Wikimedia resources and do that, I am willing to do so. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dovid. This is becoming a cognitive/behavior problem. This is the 4th time I can remember you breaking 1R with impunity, because editors like myself you regard as part of a 'cabal' (see above) have refrained from reporting you

My last notice was here concerning this blatant violation of 1R a week earlier. I waited a full week because of Rosh HaShanah, then the Sabbath. You refused in the end to budge. Here again, the prelude to this report was advice away from admin eyes, on personal pages, quietly telling you just to revert. No threats. Again, for the second time this month, you just ignored this collegial informal courtesy.

I told Simon I wouldn't comment here, but given this stubbornness in the face of advice from all sides, done in a quiet collegial spirit of nudging, for a practice of violating 1R repeatedly, I'm breaking my undertaking because you appear to think this is about bluffing, and not a matter of simply sticking to rules the rest of us stick to. You might have not noticed but, in part due to Simon's good offices, editors here have been trying recently to lower the temperature and rid this area of the WP:Battleground repute it has long, unfortunately, had.

I'd remind you that being right is no excuse. in an identical case, at AE, most admins were minded to hand out a week sanction to me. I stubbornly refused to revert. I considered it a matter of honour since, unlike this case, I would have been obliged to restore a falsehood. Correctly Seraphimblade imposed a 1 month sanction. Truth is not the issue, but rule-adherence.

You may think Ed's mulling of a 48 hour sanction neither here nor there, and 'wearable' on a point of honour. But you are making even that more complicated. --Floquenbeam told you yesterday re your persistence in calling Huldra a man, that I'll take a whack at the low hanging fruit. Yes, you'll be blocked for this "minor WP:CIVIL violation" if it continues. What's your answer this morning? To write defiantly:'Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word. . .' In refusing to revert, and persisting in an uncompromising defiance of friendly warnings, you give all the appearance of wanting to call someone's bluff. This piddling matter could have been buried quietly, and you insist on drama. So, for tetragrammaton's sake, either wake up, and do the proper thing as you have been advised to do unanimously, or bullheadedly declare that you don't give a stuff for collegial practice.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. Debresser has plenty of opportunity to revert per the suggestions here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for *finally* blocking. User:Nishidani: I understand yours, and User:Irondome wish to make the I/P area less contentious/posonous. Just let me say this: giving in to the bullies, is not a good way to start. Please report every 1RR from Debresser (or anyone else!) from now on, (after they are given a chance to revert, of course.] But if he continues to edit like normal, after being told to self-revert: please don´t hesitate a minute to report him ...and block him. Seriously, haven´t we wasted far too much time on this? Huldra (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Simpleabd reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "ok. we add good source already."
2. 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "we add good source."
3. 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
4. 09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
5. 08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first . Instead, he keeps edit warring. -AsceticRosé 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring on multiple article with multiple editors. NeilN 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Tounsimentounes reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Semi, Warnings)

Page: Demographics of Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tounsimentounes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. (This last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and on the user's talk page under

Comments:

I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on Moroccan genetics - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.

If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.

Like last time I was here, for all I know Tounsimentounes is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. User:Tounsimentounes and User:Pinkbeast are both at three reverts and are warned not to continue. Tounsimentounes stated on Talk: "We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pages" This doesn't excuse you from persuading editors here that your changes are an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AdrianGamer reported by User:131.123.122.231 (Result: Page protected)

Page: EA Sports UFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AdrianGamer (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 have tried to communicate with all the involved editors twice and I heard no response from them. Adding WP:GAMECRUFT is definitely not acceptable. What I did is to simply revert them, as adding GAMECRUFT can be considered as vandalism. I did not break the 3RR Rule. I revert you within a 48-hour period. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is not a valid reason to remove content. Removing valid content is vandalism. --131.123.122.231 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that you were reverted by at least three editors for adding content that adds nothing to the article and which can be considered WP:GAMECRUFT so you are the one going against policy. And anyone who looks at the article history can see that you are the one edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not valid content. It's inappropriate per guidelines that are already established. If you want to re-add it then you need to open a discussion about why this case is exempt from the guidelines. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected There's a few IP's that sound the same at the article... NeilN 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hawljo reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: The Naked Communist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawljo (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: Also this warning, for a separate article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - not article Talk page, but mine, where I recommended taking this persistent edit to the article Talk page

Comments:
Newly created account, edit warring on at least two articles, no engagement on any Talk page, persisting beyond warnings. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also at or beyond 3RR at Sexual orientation and Miscarriage. JohnInDC (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've indefinitely blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hal2k1 reported by User:Cartesian5712 (Result: no action)

Page: Uniformitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hal2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Uniformitarianism is the assumption that ..."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:14, 26 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is claimed to be an assumption that ..."
2. 23:36, 26 September 2015 "Uniformitarianism is the principle, claimed by some to be an assumption, that ..."
3. 10:23, 27 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."
4. 11:06, 27 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hal2k1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Uniformitarianism#HELP.21.21.21.21_Page_has_been_sabotaged_-_Once_again.2C_.22Uniformitarianism.22_is_not_an_assumption

Comments:

Please be advised that this account was created with the sole purpose of using the 3RR noticeboard and hopefully settling this dispute. I have been posting as the IP in the attempt at dispute resolution linked above. I'm unsure whether or not this would count as a 3RR violation (the warning was issued after the final edit, and I am also at the third revert, meaning that I am also at least due a warning, if not more) but there is quite a lengthy dispute surrounding it for which I have asked administrator intervention.

Since around March of this year, Hal2k1, first under an IP, then with a registered account, began attempting to add original research (stating conclusions from sources that are not stated by the sources themselves) to the article that directly contradict the reliable sources. Though corrected several times by other editors since then, he continuously re-introduces his edits, insisting that the reliable sources are "wrong" and refuses to acknowledge that his edits constitute original research despite explanations and warnings from at least two other editors.

The diffs listed above have been part of an attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the opening sentence, which describes uniformitarianism as an "assumption" in accordance with the reliable source underpinning it. Hal2k1 believes that this contradicts his original research and should be removed from the article. Cartesian5712 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've semi-protected the article for one month to at a minimum reduce the disruption from accounts who are not logging in. Another administrator is free to take more focused action against a particular editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. Your semi-protected notice, I think it should be clarified that I have been posting and editing under the 217.x IP. It is a dynamic public IP which I have no control over, so not an attempt at sockpuppetry.Cartesian5712 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Stale The report was stale even at the time of posting. I see the editor has now taken to writing huge walls of text so hopefully the edit warring is now over. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Heimdallr of Æsir reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked then unblocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "(I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Adding the original link, which is given as the source of this map in Wikimedia Commons: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg"
   2. 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "I checked out the Talk page and there is obviously no consensus at all. Unlike the situation in Iraq and Iran, there is no regional district or subdivision named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. Also, the map is from 1992 and therefore obsolete."
3. 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Those are two different, separate sources. The precise definition in the original CIA map is "Kurdish-inhabited area". Changing this definition amounts to "POV", while combining separate sources to reach a new result amounts to "original research"."
4. 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what the original CIA source says. Stop POV pushing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"
5. 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "The CIA map says "Kurdish-inhabited areas", not "Kurdish-majority areas": https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious sock of Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Will not stop relentless edit-warring. Edit-warring MO identical to other socks. Has been blocked for edit-warring recently. Δρ.Κ.  14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that there's actually a two-week-old SPI on this user still active at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was blocked then unblocked by Black Kite. This is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a_ user who was recently blocked for it. Suggest we close this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Calidum (Result: blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683508500 by Calidum (talk)"it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews". this version contains the same reviews - explain"
2. 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507906 by Calidum (talk)dont be ridiculous. you made 1 cmt so far, that the reviews are all negative, which you yourself dont even believe"
3. 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507133 by Calidum (talk)no consensus - or discussion - for your change"
4. 18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */ per talk"
5. 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683213820 by Antinate (talk)justify your edit on talk"
6. 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683212909 by Antinate (talk)no, re-adding the source of the contradiction, and splitting RT section in 2 is clearly not an improvement. please justify this on talk"
7. 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683211591 by Antinate (talk)youve replaced the "positive reviews" self contradiction, moved RT because it's not "positive" enough, not an improvement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Narcos. (TW)"
2. 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Narcos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ongoing discussion at talk:Narcos.

Comments:

Signedzzz has been edit warring with myself and another user for the last couple days (there are likely more than the seven reverts provided above, but four in 20 minutes should be enough to prove the edit warring exists). There is a discussion on the talk page but I'm not honestly sure what his objection is, other than there being "no consenus" for said changes (despite the fact that two other users find the changes to be improvements). The user in question has also been blocked thrice since last November for edit warring. Calidum 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has made 2 comments on talk:

• one in which he agrees with the other user that the reviews are all negative (and therefore the section needs rewriting) - which he doesn't believe, since his preferred version contains precisely the same reviews
• and today, he claims to have added a positive review, which is simply untrue

Reverting his reverts seems to be the only way to get him to engage on article talk. Unfortunately his 2 comments there indicate that, so far at least, he is unwilling or unable to make any honest or useful comments. zzz (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why I feel the version you keep reverting from is better . You haven't explained why you keep reverting to that version. Calidum 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You say you've explained. Which of your two comments contained the explanation, the first one or the second one?
• My comment explained very clearly why I prefer the old, stable version. zzz (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Did you read it? What is "The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section" if it's not an explanation? Why do you claim that a) the reviews were all negative and b) that you have added a positive review? These are both completely false claims. zzz (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Now you are using a comment you only just added after filing this report, to cover up for the fact that you never attempted to explain your reverts before. zzz (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it's hard to take seriously any comment that opens by dismissing concerns raised by two users with the phrase "which no one believes." You should also see how other articles handle critical reception: it's not the way you think it should be. Finally, your little comment does not justify reverting four times in 20 minutes. That's the issue here and I'm done responding to your pointless queries. If you'd like to consider improving the article, great; that discussion goes on the talk page. Calidum 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• And by the way, I already mentioned, and answered, your only explanation "putting the negative review separately is better", before your belated comment just now confirming that. I shouldn't have to guess what your argument actually is, you should just state it to begin with. zzz (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. Calidum: it takes two to edit war and you are not blameless here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RajanMarwaha reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

Page

Poppy straw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Opium Poppy straw can be one of several different things: ## What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for tr"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   2. 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   3. 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   4. 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
3. 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Decorative Dried Flower producer/growers and wholesalers ( such as UK FLOWER POWER) based in Europe, hand pick the decorative mature seeded pods/heads with or without the stalks for use as floral decorations for visual gratification in arrangements, these"
4. 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
5. 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
6. 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Editing requested"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Well past 3RR Amortias (T)(C) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've just given the user advice to discuss desired changes on the article talk page and to go in smaller chunks, requesting specific changes. We'll see what the user does based on that advice. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User: Lord Laitinen reported by User:Funkatastic (Result: )

Page

Hell in a Cell (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lord Laitinen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683523276&oldid=683523111 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525106&oldid=683524649 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525934&oldid=683525476 User has clearly broken the 3RR, he's claiming that the content can't be added because it hasn't been officially announced but WP:Spoiler says otherwise. Also claiming that the source isn't reliable by his standards. I could easily get 5 more references that say the same exact thing, but the problem is when he undoes these edits he's also re-adding unreferenced material I removed from the page.

Additionally, this was left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFunkatastic&type=revision&diff=683526014&oldid=683524744 Claiming I've been adding unsourced material, even though as you clearly can see from the sources above that I was adding sourced content and removing unsourced and inaccurate content. And he was reverting said edits meaning he was doing otherwise.Funkatastic (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Would also like to refer to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=681980048 where roughly two weeks ago I reported countless users/IP's as the page Night of Champions (2015) was under intense vandalism on the day of the event. I think it's possible one of the users that owned one/multiple of these IP's/usernames could possibly be attempting some sort of "revenge/retribution" as I reported a large amount of users. Normally I wouldn't assume this but seeing as this user is edit warring on another wrestling page I felt necessary to point it out. I've discontinued editing this page until this report is reviewed as the user showed no signs of stopping.Funkatastic (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment My main complaint against this user was their clear violations of Misplaced Pages:Crystal, though their source, which contained naught but speculation and events expected, but not assured to happen, was a secondary concern of mine. In summary, I am simply trying to make sure that this user does not pass off speculated events and announcements which have not yet happened as facts. I also wish to note that this edit war started with a blatant insult by User:Funkatastic against my editing skills in the comment section of his first revert of my correction. Thank you. Lord Laitinen (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User keeps claiming WP:Crystal was violated, despite sources all over the internet saying the same exact thing. This is clearly a spoiler and not speculation (Show is taped Tuesday and airs Thursday) WP:Spoiler clearly overrides WP:Crystal. As for the user in question as you can see by the three edits I linked above, he reverted three of my edits (technically four because the first edit reverted two edits I made) based on his own interpretation of the guidelines and not the actual guidelines in place. Funkatastic (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/another-bout-announced-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-spoiler/
2. http://www.pwmania.com/spoilers-wwe-smackdown-taping-results-for-10115
3. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2573757-wwe-smackdown-spoilers-complete-results-and-analysis-for-october-1
4. http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-spoiler-big-match-added-to-hell-in-a-cell.php
5. http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0929/602170/spoiler-another-main-event-revealed-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-pay/
6. http://www.24wrestling.com/spoiler-another-hell-in-a-cell-match-announced/
7. http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-News-New-Hell-in-a-Cell-match-announced-Smackdown-spoiler-44233
8. http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/625069-new-match-added-to-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-ppv-spoilers
9. http://www.inquisitr.com/2458973/on-upcoming-smackdown-wwe-to-announce-roman-reigns-match-for-hell-in-a-cell-card/

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring