Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 4 November 2014

• 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:Margerypark reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Locked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user simply reverts my edits, without stating what is wrong, replacing my version with a resume-style, non MOS-conforming, highly inferior version (of her own). I reported this yesterday, however for both technical and subtantive reasons my report was rejected.

Now, however, she has violated WP:3RR by making FIVE reverts within the last 24 hours, despite my clear warning on her talk page to her, which I have no idea if she has even read. The warning was good will on my part as I presumed she is a newbie editor and I didn't want to bite her. She may not be a newbie, who knows? I have gone out of my way to be civil and collegial to Margerypark on her talkpage, asking, imploring her to work with me. She has never responded there or anywhere else, and I have no reason to think she even reads what is on her talk page. This apparent newbie editor believes she owns the article and possibly has some COI connection.

• NOTE: page may need protection. I know that's another ANI dept but since I am here already. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Just to clarify: I did not know another editor would be making an editwarring/3RR complaint about Margerypark, a few minutes after my own. I am leaving my own version, complementary to his, as it contains certain info which is not present in his, understandably as I am the one who initiated contact with Margerypark. The only reason my signature stamp reveals a later time, indicating that I filed this report after he did is because I worked piecemeal since I am on a library database/catalog computer (Misplaced Pages is accessible as part of the database) and there is no notepad accessory or even Microsoft Word access, so I made more than one trip here now, and re-signed, thus producing an apparently later time stamp, which, if true, would mean I had broken the sequence, which I would not do. Quis separabit? 20:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected (full) for one week by CambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Margerypark reported by User:Amortias (Result: Locked)

Page

Alzira Peirce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Margerypark (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 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) to 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Corrected numerous inaccurate amendments made to article."
   2. 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Rms125a@hotmail.com which deleted accurate sourced info with inaccuracies, notably identifying Alzira's grandfather as her father."
3. 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631642695 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
4. 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC) "As apparent from previous controversies Rms125a@hotmal.com appears to be a compulsive Misplaced Pages vandal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned by another user (diff to follow) though not 3RR definetly edit warring and is so close to the revert rule is quite possibly gaming the system. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week by CambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've also warned Margerypark about her disruptive edits and her personal attack against Rms125a@hotmail.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:112.208.77.48 reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: Semi)

Page: The Wolverine (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.208.77.48 (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:
TriiipleThreat (talk) first posted on this IP's Talk page and the article's Talk page. I followed up as necessary later today with the 3RR warning when the IP continued reverting without discussion. He then put in his version a fourth time. The page might be considered for auto-protection as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. See protection log for the past problems. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Urammar reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Page protected )

Page

Alien (creature in Alien franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 05:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to version 631571887 re talk page."
2. 11:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631873388 by McGeddon (talk) Policy revision: DRNC, along side failure to adhere to talk page."
3. 11:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Removing edit war based vandalism under edit war exempt wiki policy: "Do not revert for 'no consensus' ". User reported. Reminded to apply for dispute resolution per policy."
4. 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631877063 by Sturmgewehr88 (talk) Vandalism. User referred to talk page, informed of dispute resolution request filed by McGeddon, per breakdown of talk pg/be bold policy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting other editors */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) "RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"?"

Comments:

I have also attempted to report this user for the same offence on my talk page. I'm sorry im fairly new and I didn't realise there was a page for it, I just requested an administrator. Oops, sorry.

My initial revision was based on the be bold policy. Further revisions to counter McGeddon's out of policy 'edit war' reversions were done under the WP:DRNC, which is necessary, and exempt from edit war counts, along with multiple warnings in our discussion regarding the issue found on my talk page, in order to facilitate resolution of the dispute according to policy.

User User:McGeddon was clearly instructed and warned, many times, on both the talk page and our discussions that dispute resolution was necessary for progression of the issue, and ignored them on each count, contributing unnecessarily to an 'edit war'.

Thank you for your time

Urammar (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRNC is about how it's a bad idea to revert an out-of-the-blue edit with a gruff and unexplained "no consensus", it does not mean "if an edit summary uses the magic words 'no consensus', it's always vandalism". Even the most grumpily inappropriate revert of "no consensus" to restore an article's status quo would not meet the "obvious vandalism" exemption of WP:NOT3RR. --McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that DNRC is also not a policy, but a community essay, and is most certainly not a case for exemption from 3RR. Yunshui _水 13:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Hopefully Urammar now has a better understanding of what constitutes edit-warring. Please thrash out the RFC now on the talkpage and establish consensus for future changes. Yunshui _水 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Abhi (Result: Locked)

Article: Sana Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see revision history of the article.

I had given 3RR warning to reported user. Abhi (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
TRPoD looks to be in the right here. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we do not give undue weight to criminal allegations against living people, and unless a conviction is secured the information should be, at best, restricted to a passing mention. He's not "throwing policies randomly", he's providing you with links that explain why the content is unacceptable. If he is reverting the BLP violation which you keep re-adding, then his edits are exempted from the three-revert limit. Yunshui _水 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Some users use WP:BLPCRIME to censor articles. As per WP:WELLKNOWN we simply document whatever is covered by reliable sources. For example, see Narendra Modi who was never convicted in court of law, but riot allegations are covered in the article. There is no BLP violation regarding Sana Khan. Pls do not misinterpret BLPCRIME and encourage censorship on wikipedia. Abhi (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. Abhi, you're fortunate that I didn't block you for breaching 3RR and for BLP violations. And don't give me this nonsense about censorship. If you want to discuss the intersection of BLPCRIME and this article, go to WP:BLPN, but a "consensus" of two is hardly a consensus for this kind of material. Also, next time, file a report here properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't show me mercy if I am wrong. Those 4 sentences were added by user:Anupmehra as per WP:WELLKNOWN and they are well sourced and neutrally phrased. Don't use that magic word 'BLP violation'. 2 users are not consensus, but 1 user is 'consensus' to remove well-sourced contents, keep this weird logic with you. But it is useless to argue with some brainless admins. Abhi (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Nukefirestadium reported by User:Yngvadottir (Result: Blocked)

Page: Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Zentralstadion (1956) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nukefirestadium (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 has been removing AfD template. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:NazariyKaminski reported by User:MastCell (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:28, 30 October 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:27, 30 October 2014
2. 17:31, 31 October 2014
3. 19:01, 31 October 2014 (undoes this preceding edit)
4. 19:19, 31 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NazariyKaminski is well aware of the 3RR/edit-warring policies, having been blocked three times for edit-warring in the past few months.

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

Comments:
NazariyKaminski has been blocked 4 times this year, most recently for 1 month for edit-warring. He's doing it again. His contribution history consists of nothing but relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective, and it is unclear to me why he retains any editing privileges at all on this site. In any case, this is a clear 3RR violation (and clear edit-warring) from an editor with a long, recalcitrant history of the same. MastCell  20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are always problems where one editor appears to be trying to make contiguous edits and a tag is placed while the series of edits is ongoing. Probably the best course is to lock the article until the election is over at this point. Collect (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in the same time period User:Cwobeel made 4 reverts in 28:25 hours and that User:Somedifferentstuff made 4 reverts or partial reverts in 24:08 hours. Both of those users have also been blocked multiple times for the same reasons in the past, Cwobeel being blocked 3 times this year, though most recently only for 4 days. Juno (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Juno, if you're going to allege violations or near violations of 3RR, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 apologies, Cwobeel at 14:41, 20:35, 16:50, and 19:06, and SDS at 19:03, 18:55, and 18:57 and the respective block logs: 1, 2. Juno (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Juno, thanks. With respect to the 16:50 revert by Cwobeel, I'm not going to count that per the BLP exemption. He identified it as a BLP issue, and I've verified that the sources don't mention the two people he removed. As for SDS, you've only identified three reverts. Also, I might add that SDS's previous blocks are much older (2013 and 2011).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 Fair enough, just wanted everything out there. Juno (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Juno, it's always a pleasure to deal with thoughtful, civil editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My first edit today was an attempt to address NK’s concerns, offering a compromise version , after a long discussion in talk at Talk:Greg_Orman#Working_towards_consensus. Other edits today included adding dispute tags , and restoring the tags after these were deleted by NK. And this edit was to remove content that was unsourced per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Reallibertyforall reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)

Page: United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Reallibertyforall (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: The user is a single-issue account, pushing the campaign of Robert Sarvis in the aforementioned election. A poll of millenials only is the issue, and every editor but this one has found it to be irrelevant. There is a history of this user trying to push Sarvis on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013.

I am not a single-issue account. I have updated various other pages. I can reference these pages if you wish.

As for the poll, it was conducted by Christopher Newport University's Center for Public Policy (previous polls conducted by this university are listed under the polling header). Thus, the poll isn't unsuitable. Also, the poll is referenced by national, state and local news outlets for its implications. I have added references to these outlets and articles. Therefore, it's not an irrelevant poll and should be noted on the page.

Next, users Tiller54 and Moboshgu have teamed up and blanked other sections that run contrary to their opinions on other pages. One example would be: Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Just look at the page history and talk page.

Antarctica4Liberty 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthteller1008 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rebirthing-breathwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truthteller1008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: prior version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 15:41, 31 October 2014
2. diff 17:08, 31 October 2014
3. diff 19:29, 31 October 2014
4. diff 19:43, 31 October 2014
5. diff 19:52, 31 October 2014
6. diff 20:26, 31 October 2014

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

Obvious sock of another editor, per this. Behavior is probably vandalism but this seemed moderately more respectful. Please block for a week. User is completely out of control. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. I've endorsed a CU at the SPI, although after looking at the content added by the two accounts, it's probably not needed. Still, assuming a CU is performed, it will confirm the relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SonicJTT reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
2. 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
3. 21:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */Fixed vandalism"
4. 01:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */It has to say "Seasom premiere" and "Season finale" not " First aired" and "Last aired""
5. 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */It's not supposed to say "First Aired" "Last Aired"" added by AussieLegend

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Jessie episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Note. The user violated 3RR. However, their fourth revert came before they were warned. In addition, there's been no attempt to talk to the user about the content dispute. Finally, they are a relatively new account. That said, because of my concern that the user does not understand the policy, I've urged them to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Despite Bbb23's request on the editor's talk page, SonicJTT has chosen not to respond here, but instead has reverted yet again. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Thanks, AussieLegend.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like he has resumed as Instajosh (talk · contribs) - per this edit Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jfmisha reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)

Page

Clifford Chance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jfmisha (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 09:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) to 09:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "This is relevant information showing the firm's recent performance. It is referenced. Undid revision 631803127 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
   2. 09:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "The information is supported by the source. Undid revision 631802899 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
2. 12:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631875151 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
3. 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Because it's relevant to the firm's comparative performance. I'm watching this and will undo it if you keep deleting my sourced additUndid revision 631880466 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
4. 14:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "You clearly work for the firm. Stop undoing sources edits or I will report you. Undid revision 631893146 by Theroadislong (talk)"
5. 11:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "The information is referenced. If you keep deleting it I will report you. I have your IP. Undid revision 631994854 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
6. 12:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632003816 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned by User:Theroadislong 31 October 2014 15:00 UTC NebY (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A series of users, I suspect the same person operating under different user names, keep on deleting my updates to the above pages. These updates are referenced and sourced. They now appear to have reported me for attempting to stop them from deleting my contributions. Regards, Jfmisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfmisha (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had problems with Maxtrillian etc deleting referenced material from pages that I've edited. I suspect he works for the firm in question. Best wishes, Wptraineem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wptraineem (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for violating 3RR, making personal attacks (socking accusations), and removing this report. Maxitrillian LG, this is a formal warning that if you edit-war again, as you did in this article, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Chinmay.bhise reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Indeffed)

Page

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

User being reported

Chinmay.bhise (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 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632033153 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
   2. 17:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632032755 by 106.198.11.41 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632030829 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
   2. 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632030822 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
   3. 17:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632030722 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
   4. 17:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632030620 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
   5. 17:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   6. 17:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632030175 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
4. 16:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632029628 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
5. 16:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632029225 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""

• It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Belgaum."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Naming dispute, with constant changes back and forth between the city's name in the Marathi language (which is the majority language in the city) and the name in the Kannada language (which is the official language in the state that Belgaum currently belongs to, since it's involved in a territorial dispute between two Indian states...), SEE ALSO REPORT BELOW. Thomas.W 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie Thomas.W 18:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:BeingIndian593 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Indeffed)

Page

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

User being reported

BeingIndian593 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   2. 17:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   3. 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   4. 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
3. 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
4. 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
5. 16:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""

• It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Belgaum."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Naming dispute, with constant changes back and forth between the city's name in the Marathi language (which is the majority language in the city) and the name in the Kannada language (which is the official language in the state that Belgaum currently belongs to, since it's involved in a territorial dispute between two Indian states...), SEE ALSO REPORT ABOVE. Thomas.W 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie Thomas.W 18:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:FourthLineGoon reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: High 'n' Dry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FourthLineGoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 00:01, October 30. Added "heavy metal" – not a revert.

1. 17:45, October 30. Re-added "heavy metal".
2. 04:26, November 1. Re-added "heavy metal" but with three unreliable refs.
3. 17:12, November 1. Removed "hard rock" with ref and re-added "heavy metal" with no refs.
4. 17:25, November 1. Removed "hard rock" with ref and re-added "heavy metal" with no refs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:19, November 1.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:20, November 1.

Comments:
FourthLineGoon has been edit warring the genre "heavy metal" into the article, but without satisfactory referencing. FourthLineGoon has also been removing the respected Allmusic prose review. The four reverts shown here are spread over 48 hours, not 24. FourthLineGoon was invited to discuss the issue but did not, and he was warned of edit warring, but he chose to revert one more time after the warning. Technically 3RR was not violated but edit warring has been demonstrated. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note for those readers who are new to genre warring, which is a very troublesome issue and has been for years. The WikiProject Albums put together a guide for albums, songs and musical artists which says to avoid any genres listed in the sidebar of an otherwise reliable source. The guide says to use the prose review instead. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. Allmusic is listed as a reliable source. Discogs.com is mentioned as unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

defleppard.com citing a VH1 list seems reliable enough. Not sure how that's not reliable.

• Bulleted list item "Genre Warriors almost never provide sources beyond their own knowledge, blogs, YouTube and MySpace. Reliable sources and consensus are alien concepts to them."

This is very interesting because Binksternet's source specifically refers to On Through The Night which has always been cited as a NWOBHM album and isn't really an issue. That can easily be sourced...because it literally is in the review for On Through The Night. This review specifically refers to the genre as NWOBHM. It also specifically mentions similarities to both Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. http://www.allmusic.com/album/on-through-the-night-mw0000652946

My argument is that Binksternet has a bizarre agenda and Heavy metal and Hard rock should both be used for consistency, with allmusic as a source.--FourthLineGoon (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Twenty:20 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bangbang43 (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 12:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Music */"
   2. 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Music */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office */ poor source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Twenty:20 (film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continueing edit war, providing fake informations contradicting the source, removing highly reliable sources, promotionals. unlicensed image uploading. user has previously blocked. Wiki-senator 20:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The same disputants were blocked on 23 October per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend an extended block for both User:Wiki-senetor and User:Bangbang43. I have repeatedly warned both accounts, and gave them each a very stern warning (see here and here). Neither has made any attempt at communication on this point, either at the article's talk page or on their respective talk pages. Wiki-senetor continues to revert war over not just the image on the article, but the order of the stars in the film which Bangbang43 has changed and with the latest reversion on the article Wiki-senetor has once again reverted . This edit war has gone on long enough. It's ridiculous, petty, and needs to end. Neither editor seems to care about their role in the edit war, and both have been extensively warned and previously blocked for this edit war. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Also note that both editors have engaged in relentless edit warring at Mammootty filmography and at RajadhiRaja. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week by Mfield. --Stickee (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:William0004662 reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result: No action)

Page

Uninterruptible power supply (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

William0004662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "The French version of this article for Uninterruptible Power Supply contains a section for Manufacturers, and there is a list up there. Why not doing it with the English version also? I have added some manufacturers that I knew with a link to the website"
4. 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631941394 by Mean as custard (talk)"
5. 18:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Please help me add more manufacturers on this list. Thanks!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Uninterruptible power supply. (TW)"
2. 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Uninterruptible power supply. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

New user. AGF but not hearing. Go easy. Jojalozzo 00:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Reported user has apparently abandoned the battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwik One reported by User:Avono (Result: no vio)

Page

Freedom Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cwik One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "The deleted part is not an actual controversy. I earlier deleted the part that asserted FSP supported Mr. Purdy, impliedly as a convicted pimp and rapist. The content of the letter to the editor did not address his convictions."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) to 23:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ I deleted parts of the second sentence for accuracy and then moved what remained to what becomes the fourth sentence. When FSP publishes letters to the editor in the FS it does not necessarily support the authors or views in them."
   2. 23:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "The section went on about Mr. Purdy's convictions. His letter to the editor critiqued society. FSP could've been unaware of them and does not actively support him. FSP's political prisoner support is an unremarkable controversy to highlight by itself."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Freedom Socialist Party. (TW)"
2. 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

removes content without reaching a consensus in the article (has been reverted 3 times) Avono♂ (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr 16:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:109.22.125.90 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: )

Page: Windows Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.22.125.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (This is the disputed edit, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Talk:Windows Live formed a consensus against it.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. (A misfired revert that removed own edits instead of mine.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

109.22.125.90 made some bold edits. I found them problematic. Reverted per WP:BRD. Attempted discussion in talk page. A third party showed up and a consensus was formed. So far so good. Only 109.22.125.90 continued to counter-revert with offensive edit summaries and never showed up in the discussion. Now revision 632139121 is interesting. Hostile edit summary suggests he intended to counter-revert again. But what's get reverted is his own edits. How? Well, I do partial reverts. i.e. I only revert part that are against the consensus. The rest I recover. Seems to me that this person is so angry that doesn't care what he reverts; hitting the revert button and writing something biting is more important to him.

The nature of his contribution is important: Part of his contribution violates a previous WP:ArbCom ruling. Please see Talk:Windows Live for details.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Codename Lisa, first, you breached WP:3RR, whereas the IP did not. Second, the edits do not "violate" any ArbCom decisions. Those decisions are referred to in the guideline as a partial basis for the guideline, but that aspect of the ArbCom decisions is not enforceable and cannot be "violated". What you have (I don't know anything about the issue) is an alleged violation of the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I made three reverts to Windows Live on 2 November. A fourth is required for breach. I won't argue on the ArbCom ruling anymore. But I did discuss in talk page and IP user is adamant to participate.

Look, in the past, I've proven that the moment someone starts to discuss the matter, I treat them cordially. (I don't insist on the "correct" revision being in effect during the discussion.) But so far, this person has not even taken a single step; looks like he intends to force his revision at all cost. His talk page indicates he even has a history. I think at least a semi-protection is in order. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• You reverted four times: (1) two edits ending at 0:50; (2) two edits ending at 14:09; (3) 14:42; and (4) three edits ending at 15:32. And I disagree with FleetCommand. None of the reverts is exempt under the vandalism exemption.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: The edit at 0:50 is not a revert. It is an original. (Believe me, if I was a revert, it was a revert of my edit; I'd know it.) And ruining a page's grammar is vandalism; it is in WP:VANDTYPES. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• You really need to educate yourself about policy. I don't know what "original" means, but text was removed from the article. That constitutes a revert as defined by policy. I see nothing about ruining grammar, as you put it, in VANDTYPES, but it doesn't matter because that's not the kind of vandalism that is exempt. It has to be egregious vandalism, often called "poop" vandalism. Trying to exempt a revert because of vandalism is very rarely accepted because if the user is really vandalizing an article, you'd go to AIV, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• A revert is a deliberate act of undoing a certain edit either in part or whole. (That's why it is perceived as very personal.) Additions, removals and modifications that are part of the natural article evolution are not reverts; if your comment was the standard to judge edits, 68% of Wikipedians would have been violating 3RR every day. Furthermore, I don't see WP:3RRNO prose requiring intensity of vandalism; indeed, in practice, the only difference in treating non-serious vand. vs. serious vand. is in the use of {{uw-vand1}} instead of {{uw-vand3}}. Finally, you are being exceedingly generous towards one user and exceedingly stringent towards another. May I inquire why?

Now, the purpose of this board is to help deal with users who want to force their POV in Misplaced Pages and refuse to participate in any form of discussion. This certain IP user is that kind. I never have reported a regular because they are more than willing to have a dispute resolution. Sometimes, I don't even revert them the first time. What am I supposed to do with this editor? I'd like to reiterate that as soon as this editor enters discussion, all the he did before shall be forgotten and he shall receive a non-biased discussion.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I have a suggestion for you for the future. Let's assume you make an edit that is, in your view, part of the "natural article evolution". The probability is no one is going to count that as a revert, despite the fact that it technically qualifies as one per the 3RR definition, and, as you say, this happens all the time. But let's say that right after that there is an edit war in which you are involved. Regardless of whether the war is over your first edit, you should now be much more careful and count your reverts, including the first one. Now maybe another admin won't count that first one, but why take the risk? In addition, does it really matter if you make one less revert? If the material you're reverting deserves to be reverted, let someone else do it. Anyway, this is intended to be friendly advice, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Actually, you are making perfect sense. To look innocent is as important as being innocent. And you are advising me to do what I have always done: Involving others, and in doing so, establishing an audit trail. Except doing that brought down other accusations like team-tagging, sockpuppetry and being part of a "cable". (What's a cable anyway? Typo?) Very well.

But regardless of all this, the opposite of edit warring is discussion and it takes two to discuss. I can't make up for the second party's absence with anything, even invoking genuine external opinion. If you asked me, an editor who counter-reverts with an edit summary that reads "Unnecessary reversion for shifty reasons WP:ROWN, WP:BRD and WP:POINT) " has already made up his mind not to discuss.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Erm, tell me Bbb23, exactly why are you defending the an IP user that has WP:NOTHERE problems and makes edits that utterly fail WP:COMPETENCY? Four different editors have so far expressed their disagreement with this editor. Isn't it time he stopped? Perhaps you should voice your opinion in Talk:Windows Live? Fleet Command (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Bbb23 is not defending him. User:DennisBrown once explained for you what he is doing. But, if you'll excuse my being a bit frank, now I do understand the proportion of "my edit" in your message above. But of course, the question here is: What would a hypothetical super-collegial editor in my shoe whould have done? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Reverting this edit is exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO, #4, because it is clear vandalism made out of spite. Registered users can make edits like this by mistake through Twinkle. But IP users can't. It is deliberate. Fleet Command (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @FleetCommand: I hope I am not digressing too much but how would they do it through Twinkle? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure, but I assume selecting "last diff" and "revert good faith/revert vandalism" does it. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. "Last diff" is removed from watchlist in 2012. We only have "cur" and "prev" now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protect. This makes the IP user stop and come to talk page. Full protection stops CL too, but also anyone else. CL says she won't revert if the IP discusses. So, WP:ROPE. Fleet Command (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Killing Patton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632142141 by Thismightbezach (talk)author's self-promotion is not RS; identify any Wiki policy that supports this edit"
2. 06:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632069774 by Thismightbezach (talk)author's self-promotion not RS"
3. 21:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632057457 by Thismightbezach (talk)self-promotion by the author is not a RS"
4. 20:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Bill O'reilly's self-promotion on his own website not a RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Clearly edit-warring. Less aggressive edit summaries than his partner in crime, though (see next section). I don't see a recent warning. The user has been around since 2005, and had already been blocked, the last time in 2010. So he should be aware of the policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I recognized I was heading down the edit-warring path, which is why I stopped and reached out to admin user:Dougweller for assistance.--Jimintheatl

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Killing Patton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632142827 by Jimintheatl (talk) you're being ridiculous. get a life. authors can respond to criticism."
2. 14:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632110350 by Jimintheatl (talk) reverted partisan edit."
3. 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632058841 by Jimintheatl (talk) author can respond to criticism"
4. 00:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631949165 by Jimintheatl (talk)reverting vandalism by leftist partisan"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Clearly edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I don't see a recent warning. The user has been around since 2006 and had already been blocked in 2009 for edit warring, so he should be aware of the policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kube8 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of WTA number 1 ranked players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kube8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Weeks at No. 1 */ WTA has already declared Serena year end #1. Barring unlikely circumstance, this will be the case & can be post-dated for convenience. Players may remain on the rankings after retirement. Li Na is retired and still ranked."
2. 19:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632039088 by Fyunck(click) (talk) She has already been declared year end #1 by the WTA. Barring a bizarre circumstance she IS year end #1. No crystal ball needed."
3. 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632049866 by Wolbo (talk) Under whose authority? She IS year end #1. That is the certain outcome. The unlikely outcome she will not be. In this case, what will be is what it is."
4. 02:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632057669 by Fyunck(click) (talk) cite your guideline"
5. 03:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632095041 by Wolbo (talk) For general ranking updating, yes that's all it refers to. WTA already issued a news release on Oct 25th stating year end #1 statistics as fact. refer to source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Please be careful in ranking updates */ new section"
2. 05:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "/* 3-revert rule broken */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I asked and waited to give the guy a chance to self-revert and when he came online all he did was revert another article. So he reverted multiple editors, was warned, was asked to self-revert lest he be reported, and continues to revert other articles. Right or wrong he can't keep going against consensus and should bring it to article talk pages to change our minds. I think 5 reverts is going a bit too far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: No action)

Page: Iran at the 1972 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There are discussions here and here, He simply doesn't care about anybody's opinion. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do. And we're trying to reach a consensus at the Olympic project. I see you've reverted the sourced edit five times already. I'm happy to continue the discussion, to reach a compromise. I see you logged this sometime after the discussion was started on the Olympic project, that we are both involved in. Lugnuts 19:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I really tried to solve the problem and I thought you will hear other's opinion. after all, I thought it was very obvious and clear, I still can't believe we are arguing about this, I'm not sure if I did a mistake here or not but you did, that's for sure. I'm done arguing with you about this case, that's why I came here. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're trying to reach a consensus at the talkpage in question. It would be useful for you to input, rather than bringing it here mid-discussion. Lugnuts 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It looks like a discussion is continuing at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Olympics#Help. Let's hope there will be no further changes to the article until agreement is reached there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnnie Ray

Please visit Johnnie Ray article. Please read edit summaries from last several edits. Thanking you in advance. When you check Talk page, you find that one of the two editors consistently refuses to say anything there. The dispute is a borderline edit war -- not one yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:বব২৬ reported by User:Ogress (Result: both warned)

Page: Bengali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: বব২৬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial revert
2. Second revert
3. Not having any feedback, I tried a compromise: reverted
4. Reverted
5. Reverted.

Diff of edit warring with repeat revert warning: (reverted) Second, 3RR-specific warning: (reverted with comment: "m (reverted unconstructive edits, warning invalid)")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user appears to be acting as page "owner" and not only reverts changes I make, mass-reverts, despite me requesting he not revert the entirety of the editing I've done on the page but focus on the issue. The user also doesn't appear to have investigated the changes, as he claims (for example) that Bengali is a "script" not an "alphabet" and I therefore harmed the page, but the correct wikipage is in fact Bengali language. (Most of my editing is spelling, grammar and wikilink redirect fixing in the first place: wikignome.) He also doesn't actually *talk* on the talk page, as you can see. Ogress _smash! 05:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I warned the user as required but he reverted it:

Make the talk complete. Please study the article and do not make unconstructive edits. Thank you. বব২৬ (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not familiar with bengal language or culture, What I wanted to point out is don't call other edits as unconstructive if they are doing them in good faith. Always try to solve the dispute without harming others feelings. Everyone makes mistakes even বব২৬ made some mistakes before such as this one--Chamith (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I corrected it later. I mentioned The User's edit as "unconstructive" because The User edited without understanding it properly. Thank you ^__^ বব২৬ (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Warned — both @Ogress: and @বব২৬: warned for 3RR / edit warring. Take it to the talk page and seek dispute resolution. --slakr 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:96.248.19.203 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)

Page

Saving Mr. Banks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "reverting disruptive editing by Diego. moving Historical Accuracy from its original position under Plot is being discussed in Talk. please don't make any changes until a consensus has been reached"
2. 10:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632121565 by 2.136.177.224 (talk) Please read Talk before attempting to move Historical Accuracy. Consensus has never been reached."
3. 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "minor edits, added further information about the movie's premiere, and moved the section back to its original position under Plot"
4. 05:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632242653 by Favre1fan93 (talk) make sure you read Talk before you make major changes like moving a section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Slow moving edit war (so not necessarily 3RR violation, but still against WP:EW). Previously blocked 1 week for warring on the same page. Stickee (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Discospinster reported by User:Lost.wolf.10 (Result: reporter blocked)

Page: Michael Coleman (blues musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Discospinster (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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lost.wolf.10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am Michael Coleman's nephew. He went into cardiac arrest on Saturday morning during dialysis and could not be revived. There will be no news articles or other reliable sources as he was not a high profile celebrity. This needs to be edited for any who may not have been informed of his passing. My mother posted funeral arrangements on my uncle's Facebook page. Please read them for yourself or call the funeral home so you know that he is in fact deceased.

Lost.wolf.10 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're a single purpose account with a conflict of interest (if we assume you're who you say you are), who has repeatedly added unsourced claims to a biographical article that requires sources for any new information.

If you are really his nephew, I'm sorry for your loss, but you have to understand that we can no more verify your claims than you could verify my claims if I said I'm Bill Murray. That is why we need some sort of news source or else we have to assume he's still alive to avoid including any slanderous claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Lost.wolf.10 is the one edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment/clarification In no way endorsing what is going on or providing an opinion once an obituary is posted in a paper would this satisfy the Reliable source requirement?- McMatter /_(contrib) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Provided it established that it was indeed the blues musician and not just some guy named Michael Coleman, and no sources came up demonstrating that he's still alive, it probably would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And key would be establishing that it's this musician. I did a cursory search of Facebook and found two or three other Michael Colemans but not this one; I was hoping I could link from the subject's Facebook page to something published by the funeral home. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the name is kinda common. Nor does help that (judging from how often I saw this from customers "in a band" and listed performers at local festivals) there seems to be a trend among older musicians to use stage names that are easily confused with someone who's more notable, e.g. "Jamie Brown," "Ray Charlie," and "Steven Wonder." Not that that's the case here. I hope. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 17:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:110.168.229.30 reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: Semi)

Page

GQ Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:13, 3 November 2014 "Proposed merge with GQ Thailand: Just because it's GQ. The US edition got nothing to do with other edition. So that why other GQ should have their own page, for example GQ Australia, GQ India and etc. This apply to all other Vogue editions too."
3. 16:15, 2 November 2014 ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warning: Edit warring on GQ Thailand. (TW) (110.168.229.70)
2. Warning: Edit warring on GQ Thailand. (TW) (110.168.229.143)
3. 18:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Talk:GQ. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(see below)

Comments:

Don't know how well Twinkle handles this. A range of IPs, 110.168.229.xx(x), persistent low-level warring at GQ Thailand, now also at GQ and Talk:GQ. Attempts to initiate discussion here by Crow and here by Sphilbrick. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The article history indicates problems with spam and copyvio since September 1. Fifteen versions were rev-deleted due to copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user clearly believes that discussion is secondary to reverting, since he's right anyway. I've run out of reverts, so I'm forced to come here, unfortunatley. zzz (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) We have discussed the topic on my Talk page and the user believes his version of the referenced source is more viable than others ability to edit to improve said article. Anyone who reads the source will come to the same conclusion I have in that the section in question misrepresents the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsquid (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. It appears that two editors have been steadily reverting each other about the Iranian precedent since November 1. There are six or more edits by each party and most of them are reverts. Whoever makes the next revert in this series is likely to be blocked, unless you first get consensus on Talk. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section he objected to. I didn't much like it either. I've no idea what this warning refers to. But I guess it doesn't matter much in this case. zzz (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sy9045 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Sy9045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "once again, some editors are trying to bury information without any justification or attempts to reach a consensus"
2. 23:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632347436 by The Banner (talk) WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A DISCUSSION BEFORE REMOVING CONTENT"
3. 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632348512 by The Banner (talk) The_Banner is violating Misplaced Pages policies and burying widely sourced information without justifying reasons. Shameful behavior"
4. 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632348811 by The Banner (talk)"
5. 00:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632351381 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Misplaced Pages does not remove content based on your criteria. Please justify your reasons in the talk page"
6. 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632352575 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) You two are burying information without a justification. What Misplaced Pages policy justifies your removal of content?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on JournoList. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

2. 11:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Attempt for discussion */"
3. 23:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Editors are removing content without a discussion */"

Comments:

Restart of an earlier editwar about the same content that caused the article to be protected. A rewrite of a third party was bluntly reverted The Banner talk 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is getting into an edit war by removing content without a discussion. Please see the Talk page on JournoList. He is using ad hominem attacks against me, refuses to answer which multiple reliable sources he has issues with, refuses to answer why he thinks the page is not neutral even when cited by the same sources that employed the JournoList members in question, and constantly reverts changes without citing any Misplaced Pages policy for his reasons. Sy9045 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I did not break the 3-revert rule. All four reverts are entirely your own work because you did not accept a rewrite of your non-neutral version. The Banner talk 00:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are intentionally removing content without a discussion (widely sourced from various multiple reputable sources), other than ad hominem attacks against me. I have repeatedly asked you for your reasons for removal but you have resorted to insulting me instead.Sy9045 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This user is now up to 5 reverts. The multiple policy-related issues with Sy9045's version of the article are being discussed on the talk page, but contrary to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, they insist on edit-warring to their preferred version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrators, these two editors are removing content without having a discussion or justifying their reasons based on Misplaced Pages's content removal policies. They are refusing to answer my questions in the Talk page and continue to remove content without any good faith at a resolution. Please read the JournoList talk page to see what I'm talking about.Sy9045 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see the talk page where I have specifically explained the multiple policy-related issues with your massive rewrite of the article and requested that you discuss your proposed major changes and gain consensus, because they are not uncontroversial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And I responded to you. Did you not see that? Various multiple reputable sources cited what I added to the page. Why are you removing content from these citations? You instead removed the content without any further discussion.Sy9045 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you "responded" to my concerns does not mean that there is consensus for your version. We can continue the discussion, but your bold edits have been reverted and it's time for you to discuss your proposals and gain consensus that they are suitable for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User is now at six reverts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You reverted without any attempt at discussion.Sy9045 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

1. As is obvious, no, there's been attempts at discussion, you just refuse to acknowledge their validity. 2. You're bright-line edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT editor with a chip on their shoulder who won't drop the stick. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Reding tremk reported by User:Stesmo (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Reading Terminal Market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Reding tremk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632348452 by Stesmo (talk)"
2. 23:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632347949 by Stesmo (talk)"
3. 23:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632347429 by Stesmo (talk)"
4. 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632345158 by Eeekster (talk) this image helped every single of my friends, you troll!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Welcome & removed test notice"
2. 23:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism2 warning"
3. 23:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism3 and WP:3RR notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor Reding tremk has run afoul of the WP:3RR brightline by reverting the removal of their questionably useful photo in the article Reading Terminal Market. Editor's behavior on the article, other editor's Talk pages and WP:AVN lead me to believe the editor is WP:NOTHERE and will continue edit warring with anyone who removes the photo.

I'm bowing out from editing this article for now to avoid any 3RR violations, though I believe this falls under the 3RR exemption of "Reverting obvious vandalism". Stesmo (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• The reported user has reported the OP at WP:AIV, I've raised my concerns with their report there. Stesmo it's probably unnessecary to coment there. Amortias (T)(C) 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reding tremk is a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Tim Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlueboyLI (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:

Note that the editor was recently warned for edit warring on another article. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warring warning for Lee Zeldin:

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. thread with input from User:Champaign Supernova, User:ABarnes94, and User:CFredkin
2. The lead up thread to the above thread with input from User:ABarnes94 and User:Champaign Supernova, and one line from User:BlueboyLI.

Diffs of messages left on user's talk page asking user to join talk page discussion:

1. by User:Champaign Supernova
2. by User:Champaign Supernova
3. by User:Champaign Supernova
4. by User:ABarnes94
5. by User:CFredkin
6. by User:Shatterpoint05

Comments:
Note also a fifth identical revert to Tim Bishop in the same 24 hour time period by IP 104.207.136.83 after BlueboyLI was given the 3RR warning. BlueboyLI has also been edit warring on Lee Zeldin . A similar pattern of repeated edits by BlueboyLI on Lee Zeldin followed by BlueboyLI's edit being repeated by this same IP strongly suggest that this IP is BlueboyLI. Similar patterns of edit warring on these two articles by BlueboyLI followed by a continuation of the edit war by an IP can be seen in the page histories Meters (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Blueboy for four days and the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: )

Page: American Horror Story: Freak Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10-29 18:55, before talk page discussion began, removing Lily Rabe and other characters the user felt did not belong in the section
2. 10-29 20:29, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
3. 10-29 21:08, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
4. 10-29 23:03, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
5. 10-29 23:15, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
6. 10-30 01:00, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe and David Burtka again
7. 10-30 19:08, after the talk page conversation began, where I reminded the user of 3RR and he stated to me "I am well aware of the regulations of Misplaced Pages, including WP:3RR." - however this was his 7th revert in slightly over 24 hours
8. 11-03 03:44, has continued removing actors the user felt didn't belong (Matt Bomer this time)
9. 11-03 21:21, again removed Lily Rabe and Matt Bomer

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
LLArrow clearly believes that the few actors (specifically Lily Rabe) do not belong in the section they are listed in. The information has been added into this section over 10 times, by multiple different editors, but LLArrow reverts every time. Gloss 02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

] reported by User:59.188.252.159 (Result: )

Page: {Tareq Salahi}
User being reported: Template:76.6.214.108

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tareq_Salahi&diff=632336316&oldid=631503096 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tareq_Salahi&diff=627891098&oldid=627595676 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tareq_Salahi&diff=627563268&oldid=627133904

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

HCPUNXKID reported by My very best wishes (Result: )

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: These are three reverts made during 30 minutes, and separated from another revert by ~ 24 hours. Technically, this not a 3RR violation. I report this only because the user has been previously blocked with a note by admin: "plus stated intent to GAME the 1RR on that page", and this is exactly what he does right now on another page. Moreover, they currently edit war on other pages, for example here

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring