Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiWikiWayne (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 9 October 2015 (→User:Checkingfax reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ): repair numbering). 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:Stefan2 reported by User:CFCF (Result: both trouted)

Page: File:08klemperer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:08klemperer.jpg&oldid=684143704

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Resolution is available in edits on talk page and in edit summaries. With each revert a new additional explanation was given as well as discussion that adding the template was incorrect. See User talk:Stefan2. CFCF 💌 📧 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Seeking discussion at WP:FFD is not edit warring. Are you honestly suggesting that I should list a file for deletion without tagging the file as such? Enforcing WP:NFCC is not edit warring per WP:3RRNO §5. Also, you are not to delete file deletion tags from file information pages. That is to be done by an admin when the tag is evaluated after the timeframe specified in the template has expired, see {{uw-idt1}}. That's why we have templates such as {{hangon}} and {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the {{non-free reduce}} template is unrelated to the first two edits as it is about a different part of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You should simply not be listing the file for deletion when you have no rationale and it is disputed, and should especially not reintroduce those templates. Your edits amount to edit-warring despite my efforts to introduce clarifying text you simply reinserted the template without so much as specifying any reason why it should belong. Deletion tags can be deleted as per WP:SNOW and do not need to be closed by admins as on commons. Neither does edit-warring require the exact same reverts, it specifies reverts in general. This is clear disruptive behavior and amounts to WP:POINTY, and the fact that the first three diffs are rotations of the same template makes no difference.

Each of my edits added content or specific rationale despite being clearly infer-able from the description text. I tried to improve the text and add information on why this page would be inapplicable for deletion. This is despite policy dictating that it isn't to use the specific template for rationale. Neither is it needed to specifically state that a new image of a dead author can not be taken, that can be inferred and was included in the description and clarified with each subsequent edit. CFCF 💌 📧 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The addition of {{non-free reduce}} has nothing to do with the other edits as it has nothing to do with the points at WP:NFCC which were addressed in the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. WP:SNOW only applies in the event of obviously erroneous deletion tags. The snowball clause is normally only to be used if a lot of users disagree with the nominator and few agree with the nominator, but there were only two editors who made any statements about the file's compliance with WP:NFCC – you and me. Hardly the kind of 'mass agreement' that you'd expect in snowball cases. In this case, you just need to check WP:FUR#Necessary components and WP:NFCC#10c and you will immediately spot the errors in the original revision:

1. WP:NFCC#10c states 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item' but the page says 'his article' without specifying any article title. The page does not even specify who 'he' is (although the person's last name appears in the file name).
2. WP:NFCC#10c states that there should be 'a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item' but the page states that the file is to be used 'to illustrate his article' without telling why the image is supposed to illustrate the article or on what rationale it should illustrate the article.
3. WP:FUR#Necessary components states 'What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?' i.e. the FUR should explain why the image is thought to comply with WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3 but there is no information whatsoever about this. See for example WP:NFC#UUI §7 which addresses some images which do not satisfy WP:NFCC#2. The image is sourced to a newspaper, and newspapers contain many images of the kind which are deemed unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI §7. How can I tell if this is one of those kinds of images when there is no information about this on the file information page?
4. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original?' but there is no statement about WP:NFCC#3b anywhere on the page. The article uses a significantly smaller thumbnail, so why do we need this larger image on the file information page?
5. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'What purpose does the image serve in the article?' The file information page only says 'to illustrate his article' but the purpose of an image is always to 'illustrate' an article. It is obvious that you need to be more specific, as you see from reading the four indented bullet points below this bullet point.
6. Next non-indented bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.' The file information page states 'Dead in 2012'. WP:NFCC#1 states 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created'. That he is dead shows that no content can be created, but is there any free content which already exists? It seems that he worked for several years in the United States, and United States copyright law is a bit 'special' in that photos first published in the United States may be in the public domain in the United States because it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 or without a copyright renewal before 1964. Why are there for example thought not to be any such photos? The copyright notice & renewal rules can't be applied to photographs first published outside the United States, though – such photos normally remain copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{non-free reduce}} was added twice and in addition to being WP:POINTY it does not fall under

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Also 3RR-violation is unrelated to reason for the reverts, specifically:

An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

There key here is unquestionable, and with rationale specified in the exact manner allowed by you even you concede the image is allowed-that doesn't sound like a unquestionable violation.

What we are getting at is that in each edit I made it full clear how and that I was trying to answer your specific concerns and you ignored and chose not to engage-simply readding the templates.CFCF 💌 📧 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, I have only added {{non-free reduce}} once to the page. After this, another user added the template to the page, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is a TROUT to both. To CFCF, you should not remove FFD tags; they should only be removed by SNOW if it is clear at FFD that the discussion is in favor of keeping the image. Additionally, Stefan is right about the non-free reduce aspect - that image is larger than it needs to be here. To Stefan2, a quick check shows that this seems like a valid image to be used (the infobox image for a deceased person) and while the NFCC rationale criteria needed to be fixed up, tagging for deletion is absolutely not the right way to go about it; it is a fixable problem that did need to be fixed to meet policy, but not with a heavy hand and edit warring to make it. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that CFCF insisted that the WP:NFCC violations mustn't be corrected. Per WP:NFCC, files which do not satisfy WP:NFCC are to be deleted – and since CFCF goes against any attempt to fix the file, the only other outcome is deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No that is not the problem, each and every edit I made opted to clarify. Also instead of tagging the file as being needed to improve or actually filling out the rationale as per your liking yourself you started out with deletion. The text included the entire rational, it does not need to be spelt out in your preferred machine-readable format, that is policy (WP:NFCC). The problem is that readding frivolous deletion tags when the rationale is clearly specified in text is WP:POINTY in addition to here a violation of WP:3RR. CFCF 💌 📧 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the so-called 'rationale' didn't contain any of the elements needed in a rationale, and without knowing anything about the origin of the image, it is not possible to write a fair use rationale which properly addresses WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

2. & 4. The rationale linked those from the start ()! It specifies the NYTIMES obituary where the image was from and it specified that it was to be used in the article on Klemens von Klemperer only - so that proposition is patently false.
Also that is not the issue at hand here. The fact is that you violated 3RR despite my best attempts to in each edit to clarify, discuss, explain and to comply to your preferred format for showing the rationale (despite not needing to). CFCF 💌 📧 00:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For 2, you need to know if it is an image of the kind mentioned in WP:NFC#UUI §7 or not. I am not able to tell whether this is the case from that source alone. The fact that the image comes from a newspaper could suggest this. About 4, sorry, I must have mixed this up with another image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Stefan2 has reached but not exceeded 3RR (two of the diffs provided were not reverts). He/she should avoid this in future by seeking outside assistance instead of warring with the tag. CFCF has 5 reverts within 24 hours, and I suggest a 24 hour block for a first offence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is entirely incorrect, and without any supportive evidence. Both has Stefan2 violated 3RR, and I have not. Each edit I made opted to answer Stefan2's concerns and did so. Despite my attempts to discuss and improve the rationale to exact spefication requested by a single user (and not supported by policy) templates were simply reintroduced. The fact that the templates differed in minor extent does not exempt from 3RR, they are all the same type of revert and calling it anything else is WP:Gaming the system. They are either simple redirects or very close alternatives.CFCF 💌 📧 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit that this was in error, . I don't know how it happened and it must have been a miss-click from the watchlist page on my phone. Being one of the lasts edits of the night I was unable to see that it was accidental before this morning (I have since reverted it and will make sure to disable the rollback option on my phone (those links are less than 0,5mm high). CFCF 💌 📧 10:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept your explanation, but that was your fifth revert in 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, seeking outside assistance was precisely the intention of listing the file at WP:FFD – that's one of the places where you can find outside assistance about files. It might have been better to list the file at WP:NFCR instead, but it was late and I guess I was tired and that I didn't think as clearly as I should have. Sorry about that. Still, inserting the {{ffd}} template was not a reversion, nor was inserting the {{non-free reduce}} template a reversion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserting {{Ffd}} is a very clear example of a revert, even though it was not the exact same template merely an alternative with ever so slightly different wording and formatting. As for {{Non-free reduce}} it is at least considered WP:POINTY to add it just after the prolonged issues with adhering to exact specifications of an arbitrary non-required template. CFCF 💌 📧 11:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserting FFd was not a revert. That is a different template with a different purpose (deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion). I'm not interested in analysing this further and presenting the diffs - the history of the page is sufficient evidence to any administrator of your violation of 3RR. I would also prefer not to sully your clean block log. What I am looking for at this stage is some kind of acceptance of your actions and reassurance that it will not reoccur. Your combative attitude is not really helping. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I will agree I have acted rashly in this case and have potentially overstepped my bounds. I did not consider removing the template once rationale had been filled out as a revert, but take it to heart. That said I am gladdened and hopeful that in the future we can use WP:NFCR in lieu of deletion nominations. As was clear there was a rationale for this image and if it were that the original uploader was not able to comment upon a deletion nomination within the specified time-period there is risk it may occur in error without sufficient review. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case I second Masem's suggestion above. Consider yourselves trouted and let's move on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb reported by User:Logom (Result: blocked)

Page: Aziz Sancar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559249 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559564 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684560203 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684561138

Blocked 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Logom's actions need looking at too, but don't have time now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Logom was reported by User:Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb at AIV. While not vandalism, it's clear they were also edit warring. Blocked 24 hours. --NeilN 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:2.98.38.127 reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Blocked 31 Hours )

Page: Scottish Parliament election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.98.38.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

1. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this. I am mewrely trying to defend a consensus that was previously established by a large number of wikipedia editors. On a number of occassions I have tried to point User:Jmorrison230582 and others in the direction of where this consensus was established. I have also engaged on the Talk page and User:Jmorrison230582 has not. Instead the argum,ent has been misrepressented (I suspect because no one has bothered to go and check what consensus was established). I have been trying to engage in dialogue on various talk pages, the same can't be said for others. When I revert an edit, I give good reason why, others have just done so. I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this and has also started going through my edit history to start unding other constructive edits I have made, again User:Jmorrison230582 fails to say why or engage properly on the talk page. I am trying to act in good faith. It is ashame I am not met with the sameapproach. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been warned about your edit warring, yet you continue to do it! You have not pointed out where this supposed consensus was reached. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GB fan beat me to it. Blocked for 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ofthepeace reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: blocked)

Page: Book of Isaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ofthepeace (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: I have informed the user of basic requirements for editing Misplaced Pages at .

Comments:

The reported user is a fundamentalist POV-pusher who does not recognize WP:RNPOV, WP:VER and WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Adon12 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: blocked)

Page

Bongbong Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Adon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684597428 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism per WP:BLPSOURCES"
2. 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684583988 by Non-dropframe (talk) Suggest discussing this on talk page WP:BLP"
3. 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "source is not reliable"
4. 15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bongbong Marcos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted three different editors. These are this user's only contributions, subsequent to two identical reverts by IP 180.191.158.132 Scr★pIron 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:MarkDennehy (Result: Comments)

Page: User talk:MarkDennehy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AOverview_of_gun_laws_by_nation&type=revision&diff=684428707&oldid=684407207

Comments:

This user is constantly adding passive-aggressive text naming me as an individual on both the talk page of the subject and on my user talk page, to the point where they are in effect harassing me. This is not an edit war over a data point or an article any longer for them; it's now personalised trolling of some sort. Compromise isn't even possible to approach because the edit is just a personal attack. MarkDennehy (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation#To the knowledge of User:MarkDennehy.E2.80.8E: ammunition aquisition of Swiss militia guns. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG here. MarkDennehy had little cause to remove ZH8000's article talk page post. --NeilN 23:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ZH8000's reply illustrates the problem here - "To the knowledge of User:MarkDennehy" was the title of his edit. Not "Ammunition acquisition for Swiss militia guns", but specifically naming an individual; the actual topic was not the main concern for this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDennehy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note I'm not taking any action against either party. Neither acquitted themselves well. MarkDennehy should not have removed ZH8000's post at the article Talk page. ZH8000 could have made his post in a different way. His choice was at best odd. Neither party had any basis for edit-warring. Someone should have stopped earlier and reported it. Finally, ZH8000 posted three warnings to MarkDennehy's Talk page. The first one (refactoring) was fine. The second (refactoring) was not, as the first had already been removed by MarkDennehy. ZH8000 had no basis for insisting. The third (edit-warring) was fine because it was a new warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kurzon's edit warring (Mafia)

I added yesterday the Italian pronounciation of the word "Mafia" in the same page, as it was already been done for similar pages (Pizza). But a registered user, who was already blocked twice for edit warring, has started an edit war reverting all I do, even when I wrote clearly "Italian pronunciation:" and when I added also British and American pronounciations too. I tried talking to him, asking why my edits were incorrect and had made the article worse. He answered just that theye were useless because everyone know how it is pronounced and most people cannot read IPA. I wonder why he does not says the same for "Pizza" and similar words. Now I am asking you administrators: am I wrong or is he? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.11.124 (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Both blocked. IP, you need to respect the WP:BRD principle. If you are reverted, don't try to reapply the same edit again but take it to talk. Kurzon has violated 3RR on the article and has been blocked accordingly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:207.161.234.95 reported by User:Ferret (Result:blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Far Cry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.161.234.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP editor in violation of 3RR and refusing to follow BOLD... Two dissenting editors who have provided multiple reliable secondary sources that refer to a new game in the Far Cry series as a "spin off", as opposed to a part of the main sequence.

IP's original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684521743&oldid=684521116 This was reverted by AdrianGamer with source: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684567707&oldid=684566599

IP editor reverted AdrianGamer again and further sources were provided in article and on the IP's talk page. A total of 7 reverts from the IP now.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684724932&oldid=684712001
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684726954&oldid=684726410
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684729168&oldid=684728582
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730241&oldid=684729948
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730670&oldid=684730418
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684731509&oldid=684731218

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&curid=12311762&diff=684730418&oldid=684730241
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A207.161.234.95&type=revision&diff=684730522&oldid=684729805

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Far_Cry&diff=684730272&oldid=637431743

Comments:

-- ferret (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This may be a moot report. I didn't think ARV would handle this IP because it's not clear vandalism just edit warring, but the user is now vandalizing user pages of involved editors and attempting to revert this report. -- ferret (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked on the basis of this report, as the edit warring is clear. While they were not primary reasons for the block, the IP's vandalism of others' user pages and disruption of this noticeboard were also unacceptable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:LeuCeaMia reported by User:Nenzza (Result: Page protected)

Page: RPG-29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LeuCeaMia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:LeuCeaMia is unwilling to take part on a civil dialogue and keep making false accusation and personal attacks; on mine and the article's talk page. Also, User:LeuCeaMia is running an edit war with disruptive edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684531415&oldid=681606039
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684716088&oldid=684558323
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684723153&oldid=684722161
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:RPG-29&diff=684726405&oldid=684723008

Comments:

After my response on the article talk page, another revert was immediately done. Nenzza (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You've both reached 3 reverts within 24 hours. I strongly suggest it stops now otherwise blocks will be issued to both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made two reverts, the first, was in good faith with the renew of the url and to expand the references for further clarification, see diff: 1. User:LeuCeaMia on the contrary, vandalized my user and talk page with some awkward accusation after I left him/her a message. Furthermore, even at the article's talk page, User:LeuCeaMia keep arguing with an abusive language, and after I proposed a solution, the User went straight to revert the article once more, see diff: 2. The aforementioned User have reached four reverts in 24 hours not only three. Thanks Nenzza (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Swarm ♠ 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporter is probable sock-pocket with no edits aside from the adding back of false outdated information, which was originally added by another probable sock-puppet. The source is not only self published but has already been said as unverified and a likely hoax by its author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeuCeaMia (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:87.6.116.237's disruptive edit warring

User:87.6.116.237 here is keeping making an uncorrect edit (the IPA is corrupted because of uncorrect syntax) and here is keeping reverting my text where I had already explained what he wants to say but he wants to be the one who says it (moreover, the problem which we were talking about in the talk page had already been solved in the article, and the source he now is keeping adding has already been added in the article by another user, which makes this edit-war totally needless).
Obviously, I won't edit anything until an administrator decides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.81.64 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Courtier1978 (talk) reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn

Keeps edit warring List of wars involving Cyprus with obvious nationalist motives (making claims that openly contradict information in main articles, removing academic sources without any explanation while doing so), and is impossible to communicate with. Approaches have been either met with personal attacks or ignored. Given there was a similar case in March, I strongly suspect this is another sock puppet of User:GiorgosY. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No edit war rules were violated, since no more than three reverts were made in 24 hours. You can see from the history who is edit warring in the article, and who has being blocked for it and that is not me, but User:Mikrobølgeovn. User:Mikrobølgeovn has being engaged in edit warring, in the same article, and is keep deleting the victories of the one side, for months now, which is a sign of POV and disruptive editing. In addition it has engaged in team work in pushing POV with other users, which is a sign of a meat puppet.Ron1978 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Reverting three times or less on a regular basis, while throwing in the same one-liners and personal attacks whilst refusing to discuss, is also edit warring. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion from my part in the talk page of the article, while there is none from User talk:Mikrobølgeovn who also keeps deleting all the victories of the one side, with out previous discussions on what so ever. The non-reliability of User talk:Mikrobølgeovn in what he is saying, including the false personal attacks, is obvious here, in each case. He is the one that calls nationalists the ones that are adding the NPOV, including me, while he is keep deleting it and comes with false accusations and reports them each time. A look in the talk page, and in the history of the article proves what I am sayingRon1978 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

So how come you conveniently ignore the main articles? If you want to make changes, that's the place to start. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page

Brandon & Leah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Checkingfax (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 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Winkelvi: //en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner&oldid=681428873#Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_.28policy.29.2FArchive_121.23MOS:IDENTITY_clarification_close. (TW)"
   2. 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Brandon Jenner */ retired"
      1. Comment - This is a bonifide edit not a revert Checkingfax (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
2. 03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Winkelvi (talk): See ] (gender) and Village Pump (archive). (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, however, article is connected to Caitlyn Jenner, which has discretionary sanctions attached to it. DS warning placed on editor's talk page here -- editor chose to revert again in spite of warning. Page protection requested here prior to reversion by editor being reported. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have placed a dialogue request at Usertalk:Winkelvi to work this out like Wikipedians but there has been no response. Winkelvi has reverted Brandon & Leah 4-times in less than 24-hours. I have done 2 reversions in good faith to uphold the MOS:IDENTITY policy. The Caitlyn Jenner article is 1RR AFAIK. Brandon & Leah is 3RR AFAIK. I rely on my interpretion of MOS:IDENTITY coupled with the discussion here at the Village Pump. Please advise. IMHO, Winkelvi is illinformed, and therefore his/her good faith reverts are in fact the only disruption to the page, and he/she should be slapped with a trout before things escalate. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bandstandmike reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: )

Page

Timi Yuro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bandstandmike (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 05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   2. 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   2. 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
   3. 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"
4. 06:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Influence */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"
2. 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Timi Yuro. (TW)"
3. 05:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Timi Yuro. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There appears to be a conflict of interest here. Editor claims to control the subject's estate but is adding in information which is entirely unsourced which reads like an advert while boosting their own part in the subject's career. Egghead06 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest...I'm curious as to what egghead06 interest is, since this info has been on the page for quite sometime. I legally control her estate, and included links in the ref section to the CD releases which I speak of. I do run her official fan page, and it's letting fans know where they can come for information. I also control her music, and am just posting about current releases, and included links for the official press releases of both.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandstandmike (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring