Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 13 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:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Eric Holder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Way to go, my friend. "Bad page!" 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Bbb23 protection of the page, it was for the best. Your a static IP and blocking you won't do us any good since you can just reappear as another IP. This is exactly what you did when your router pushed you into a fresh IP that had yet to be used on Misplaced Pages. That being said, protecting it squashes all of your IPs in move. AcidSnow (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: No action)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Torga (talk): Unsourced and undiscussed changes. (TW)"
2. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page when they are challenged with a revert. (TW)"
3. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192207 by Torga (talk)"
4. 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "this is a ref that NorthBySouthBaranof mistakenly doubled that was then removed from the article text but not from the references list; note that this ref is identical to the one IDed as "OTMGrant""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This will be the third time I have reported Ryulong here. The first time was the 15RR report which was marked Stale 15 hours later, 2nd time was an amicable solution of remaining and urging himself to 3RR, and this time, fragrantly breaking 3RR in that same promise. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the attempt to resolve the dispute? Or the warning to the user? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixing someone else's mistake in reverting something wrong should not be considered a revert here. I'm not at 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc reverted Torga. Torga reverted back. You reverted Torga. Additionally, Ryulong is an ex administrator. Ryulong has been on this site for years and has 200k edits. I have to assume by now that they are competent enough to monitor their own reverts. Tutelary (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Torga three times, made an unrelated edit, and saw that Tarc and Torga were now edit warring over that unrelated edit rather than what Torga was originally trying to put onto the article. That re-correction should not count as a revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like Ryulong is correct in his analysis, but I'd like to hear from Tarc.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two cents Ryulong's repeated presence on this board is neither coincidental or innocuous. At some point somebody with the tools required should take into account the broad ramifications of his continued battle ground mentality on the small slice of this project which manages to engender so much anger. At some point the possessive, yet technically permissible, agitation needs to stop. It's rare that an editor so vulgar and aggressive is given a pass, so many times. GraniteSand (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It has to do with your endless presence here because you're combative and rude. But, I'd imagine you knew that. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors taking potshots at participants from the sidelines is not helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, there was a bit of confusion within that specific time frame. Torga, a single-purpose account who has done little but edit-war against consensus and post continuous screeds about same on the talk page, was up to the usual. During the attempts to restore the neutral and supported-by-sources text, Ryulong and I appeared to overlap, as when I thought I was removing Torga's junk, it was in fact accidentally restoring an unused ref. Ryulong's edit to fix this was a revert in the technical sense, but it was to fix my error. It should not be counted towards anything. The filer needs to be reminded that in the future, it'd be a good idea if he actually investigated first rather than simply making 1, 2, 3, 4 tic marks on a tally sheet. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Thanks, Tarc. Based on the unusual sequence of events, I'm not taking any action against Ryulong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's intolerable. It used to be that if you could not use the site without breaking the rules every day you'd be warned not to 3RR, even if you thought you had an excuse, and that would be the end of it, or else there would be another end to it. It's not intolerable that Ryulong would behave in such a way because humans are humans, but it is untolerable that they are praised for it regularly and that most of the editors they encounter are new and take or are blamed for sock puppetry. why are there not so many sock puppets on the contested articles where people do not behave like Ryulong? But who cares. This site is about making a laugh and a name for yourself isn't it? Isn't that why we all use our real names? Ryulong is brought to this page many times per week and even 15rr does not illicit an admin intervention. Culturing a hostile environment. ~ R.T.G 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please tell me I'm seeing things. The subject of an ANI removes a negative comment about them and gets nothing but a friendly revert? Hello? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, the negative comment was a procedural error because the ANI was closed. I got it. I still would have preferred the late comment be removed by an "uninvolved" party. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Choor monster (Result: Restrictions lifted)

Page: Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous report, now archived, of me by Winkelvi: That concluded with: "Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston" The edit diff'ed above removed "obscurely" (my text), without attempting to use the Talk page first, as per EdJohnston's instructions. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. Further, this report seems petty to me and not in the best interest of the article. I wasn't trying to edit war or cause disruption. There was a cite needed tag there for weeks, nothing was produced cite-wise to prove the book was published "obscurely". To me, the use of "obscurely" seems/seemed POV and unencyclopedic -- especially without any kind of reference to support it. I was perusing the article recently, saw the tag had been untouched and nothing referenced applied, so I simply removed the word. I honestly didn't even remember that it was a bone of contention prior to that. No edit warring intended. If he has something to add reference-wise to support use of "obscurely", I certainly see no reason then why the adjective can't be put back in. But to accuse me of edit warring in what appears to be an obvious move toward retribution is looking for punitive action, not something that will keep disruption from occurring at the article. Indeed, this report smells quite disruptive to me. There was no attempt from Choor Monster to discuss on the talk page further after the last post I put up there nearly a month ago (see here:). In fact, four days after I last posted on the article talk page, Choor Monster put a barnstar on my talk page that stated "A barnstar for fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer" (see here:). To say I'm completely confused by this report in light of all this is an understatement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like one of the bones of contention in early October was over the material you just changed (removing the word obscurely). The only issue for me is whether after a bit over a month from EdJohnston's warning, you should be blocked. Although it has nothing to do with conduct, the word "obscurely" is supported in the cite to the NYT obituary, although I might have worded the material in the article slightly differently. My weak inclination is to block you (self-reverting might help, btw), but I'm punting this to Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Bbb23, I am not in any way trying to be disruptive. I have no problem self-reverting, but do wish other wording would be used. Reading "obscurely" in the obituary doesn't convince me that it's really the case. In fact, if anything, it seems that some too-close paraphrasing has occurred by lifting the term directly from the obituary. Moreover, I now remember noting the too-close paraphrasing of sources back in October, this just further solidifies it. Especially without a better source than the obituary to support that the book was "obscurely" publiished. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a complete revert, but you did restore the word "obscurely". Choor monster, are you okay with closing this with no action based on Winkelvi's good faith revert? BTW, Winkelvi, the NYT obituary is a perfectly reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that obituaries are considered reliable sources for factual information such as family names, dates, and the like. That said, celebrity obituaries in the NYT are frequently written by writers who choose to use prose and embellished language in tribute rather than just reporting the facts about an individual. "Obscurely" is used, but why is it used? There is no explanation as to why the author of the obituary believes Ohio University Press published the novel in obscurity. We wouldn't accept such vagueness in an article (it wouldn't pass GA or FA without explanation) so why are we accepting it as it is just because it was included in the obituary? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your take on the obit, but, no matter. It's a content issue and, as such, you can go the usual route of seeking a consensus on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with User:Winkelvi's self-revert which restores 'obscurely'. But why isn't it possible to clarify the wording? The obituary explains (a) only a few hundred copies were sold by Ohio State University Press, (b) they didn't normally publish novels (Per the Edwin McDowell article in the NYT). So the point of 'obscurely' is that the novel didn't come to general attention. The original 'obscure' publication is intended to contrast with the 'real' publication by G. P. Putnam's Sons a few years later. If we keep only the word 'obscurely' in our summary it loses the meaning of the original. It doesn't need any further citation since the facts come from the obituary and the other NYT article. It just needs the context to be explained better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering your response further, Ed, it seems the appropriate thing would be for Choor monster to make that change, unless he indicates here he would be fine with me making the change. Whatever the case, I'm now wondering how long it will be before we are free to freely edit the article and if the no reverts mandate is interminable. Further clarification would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Any evidence of cooperation between the two of you would be enough reason to lift the mandate. It would be a good idea for User:Choor monster to respond to the list of proposals you put on the talk page on October 11. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ed, you are reading the Talk page incorrectly. WV made a short list on 10/7, I gave a long detailed response the same day of how WV was incorrect on several of those issues, and on 10/11, WV gave a one-line unindented WP:IDHT. I believe the lack of indentation is fooling you. I think you meant to say it would be of interest for WV to respond to my list: for example, actually explaining his reasons for standing by the misreading of a source I pinpointed.
• As for the slipshod status the article is in, refs and all. Well, no kidding. I was in the middle of editing the article in bits and pieces, slowly assimilating all the WP:RS I'd found on Santmyer, when WV comes in and without bothering to even discuss things, elevates this to the noticeboard. That, to me, is blatant bad faith, especially after his previous "nyeah nyeah nyeah" on his talk page that he plans to continue to Template my talk page, and lo and behold, this edit-war he set up happens one week later. With Ed's mandate and WV's WP:IDHT, it seemed obvious there was nothing doable.
• As I said in my 10/7 response, I agree there is a lot of work needed. As an experiment, I am willing to go ahead and start editing the article again with the understanding that Ed's mandate is suspended. My first edit will be to remove the refs-needed tag at the top (but not the section cites-needed tag). My second edit will be a cite to a source—one of the "Hollywood people", actually—saying " sold approximately 200 copies and probably would have experienced a short, obscure literary life if not for an extraordinary, fortuitous series of events." (emphasis mine) The next round of edits will mostly be to implement the changes supported by my 10/7 list and to which WV never actually replied. If for one week things look good with interested parties watching, excellent. If not, rollback the article and unsuspend the mandate.
• Note that my time is generally tight this semester, so I sometimes take a day or two to actually respond. Choor monster (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: OK, back to normal editing and there are no more restrictions on either of you. If a new edit war breaks out the usual rules apply. And, if either party makes a new 3RR report without evidence of trying any WP:Dispute resolution the results may not be good. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

Page

Myles Munroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mcgyver2k (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 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
   2. 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   2. 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
   3. 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
3. 18:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633267882 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
8. 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
9. 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
10. Consecutive edits made from 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
11. 04:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
12. 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Myles Munroe. (TW)"
2. 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ customize"
3. 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
4. 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
5. 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ +"
6. 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ cmt"
7. 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ fix"
8. 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ resp"
2. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ indent"
3. 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Con artist is dead */ rem defamatory comments per wp:blp as blp standards apply for up to two years after article subject's death"
4. 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver2k"
5. 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp"
6. 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
7. 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ add sinebot sig"
8. 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
9. 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
10. 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"

Comments:

Issue over this content is still in discussion at the resolution noticeboard, but Mcgyver2k refuses to stop edit warring over this content. Yes, I have also reverted him several times, but only in the interest of keeping the article as it is with the referenced content. I have attempted several times to explain that a reliable source gives credence to keeping the OBE title in the article, Mcgyver2k refuses to listen. He insists on edit warring. I was more than willing to go through the resolution process he started, but have met with hostility and a brick wall with him there, as well. The edit warring over this needs to stop - but, more importantly, I think that the editor needs to understand that referenced content meets the threshold of inclusion. A separate matter, but playing heavily into his actions is a misunderstanding of verifiability policy. Not looking for punishment, just a stop to the disruption and combative nature of Mcgyver's editing at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I used her own source to discredit her so she is all upset now. My source is the most definitive one available. I poste a list of ALL recipients for the year in question and Myles Munroe is not one of them. Should be case closed.voiceofreason 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

• Note. Seems like both of you have been edit warring for the last couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The article was just semi-protected. It's been quite active with vandalism and IP edits because of the death yesterday of the article subject, his wife, and daughter in a plane crash. Mcgyver2k went to dispute resolution, I participated, he refused to wait for the process to work, started reverting again even though we were still in the midst of discusssion there. Myself and another editor tried to discuss with him at the article talk page, the edit warring from Mcgyver2k continued. My most recent reverts of Mcgyver's removal of content were because discussion was still in process and change in content/consensus/agreement had not yet happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. According to the report at WP:DRN, both parties have agreed to leave the OBE out of the article until discussions are concluded. This agreement was said to have happened about 22:00 on 11 November and I see no reverts since then, so it appears to be holding. I'll remind User:Mcgyver2k that believing you are correct is not a defence to WP:3RR. Also there is a problem with Mcgyver2k's signature that I'll explain on that editor's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:PBS (Result: Resolved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report but a request to stop an editor edit-warring on a talk page in the Misplaced Pages name space.

Version before reverts:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• diff, Initial talk page edit by user:PBS Revision as of 12:43, 11 November 2014 -- edit comment: "Problems with the consensus and problems with the wording"
• diff, Revert by user:RGloucester, Revision as of 14:01, 11 November -- "Go away, and restate your opinion for the millionth time elsewhere."

Interlude on User talk:RGloucester (diff)

== You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission ==

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPOC).

You do not have permission to delete my comments as you did here. I am going to revert your delete. If you revert my revert then I will take it to AN/I. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll follow the more subtle approach of ignoring everything you write, going forward, and collapsing all remarks by you that are disruptive. Thank you for your time. I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• diff, revert by PBS, 19:47, 11 November 2014 -- "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"
• diff, collapse template used by RGloucester 19:48, 11 November 2014 -- collapse disruptive forum-shopping

Given the last sentence of RGloucester's talk page comment "I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath." I decided to bring the issue here rather than comment again on RGloucester's talk page.

The use of template {{collapse top}} in this situation is a breach of the lead in WP:Refactoring, the advise in the documentation of {{collapse top}} and WP:TALK:

• "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
• "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Misplaced Pages:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."
• "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}}... —these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

Comments:
I (PBS) object to the refactoring of my comments with the use of the template {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} by an RGloucester who is an involved editor.

Desired outcome by PBS

I do not want this to escalate into more of an edit war (so I brought it here) rather than revert RGloucester collapse, and I do not want any administrative action taken against RGloucester, instead could someone get RGloucester to either revert the collapse or allow me to without any further edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not actually involved in this, but surely there is a threshold beyond which one as gone too far? Regardless of the outcome here, such a comment as that by RGloucester may be deemed as threatening (in some manner, depending on interpretation and other things which I will not go into at the moment), and even if he was completely non-serious, still should not be reasonably allowable. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Monsieur le PBS seems to have been quite cursory in his examination of the situation, given that I decided to remove the collapsing half-an-hour before he filed this report. I decided that I would let his absurdity stand, for all to see, much like a tired old man whinging whilst bound in the village stocks. He may have briefly broken out of said stocks to ramble over to this forum, but he is whinging all the same. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:98.234.107.204 reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Declined)

Page: Spyro (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.107.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Repeatedly adds in false detail about cancelled Legend of Spyro movie being "confirmed", that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the source provided.

Comments Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Since March 2014, User:98.234.107.204 has also been adding the same false information on the cancelled The Legend of Spyro 3D movie many many times for months on movie release date articles without providing any official sources whatsoever that shows evidence of the Legend of Spyro movie being made (it was confirmed to have been cancelled back in 2009). He just recently started adding the false info again on the Spyro (series) article, and shows no signs of stopping. -- Aura24 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. The IP has been warned of the unsourced change only twice (both times this month). Not even enough warnings to justify a block for vandalism. The edits have been few and far between for the most part. You or someone else reverts them each time. You've never warned the IP for edit warring, although given the nature of the "war", that's understandable. You didn't even notify the IP of this report. I see no reason to take action on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Both warned)

Page: Assassin's Creed Rogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (In short, the user keeps deleting the "Ties with Unity" section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of 06:39, 11 November 2014
2. Diff of 19:58, 11 November 2014
3. Diff of 22:37, 11 November 2014
4. Diff of 06:18, 12 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user has started an edit war on this page. They keep removing this section on the technicality that the whole game synopsis has not been written yet. When this game was released it was strongly noted by Ubisoft that the game would have a clear tie to Assassin's Creed Unity, which came out on the same day. That information needs to be on the page. This user keeps removing that section for no policy-based reasons. If you think a section is incomplete, you either fix the problem or put an incomplete notice on it, not remove it. Actions need to be taken against this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also to be clear, the only reason that I did not revert the third or fourth revert (which is still active) is because I would rather not accumulate three reverts in 24 hours myself. I am waiting for someone else to fix the problem or for my reverts in 24 hours to drop to 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly outlined on the talk page, the information does not need to be on the page. It is "information" that is presented without any kind of context whatsoever, which is what my issue with it was. There may not be a specific Misplaced Pages policy that applies here, but when did we need a policy for common sense? Given that Thegreyanomaly has admitted he waited for editing to continue, I consider his actions here to be an attack on myself, demanding admin action to try and silence an editor who he does not agree with. He has made no effort to resolve the issue, instead accusing me of trying to introduce censorship into the article on the grounds that I don't want the article to contain spoilers. At every step, he has been aggressive and under-handed, trying to force edits through with no discussion or attempt at resolving the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless whether your edit is justified or not, you cannot unilaterally revert a page four times in 24 hours. I am not the only user to revert you. I have made efforts to resolve the issue, you didn't show up at the talk page until right before your third revert. Reporting a user for edit-warring is not attacking. If the section lacks context, you note that the section is incomplete or complete it, but you do not remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't made any efforts. You showed up, posted what amounted to "NOPE" and ignored WP:AGF. You decided what you wanted the article to say before you considered the arguments. Then you arbitrarily ruled on the best direction for the article to take, despite the way you're involved in a content dispute. The fact is, you're using 3RR and SPOLIERS to try and shut editors who disagree with you up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not make any rulings. I just noted you have no policy to back you up. "Editors" is a little much, as you are the only one deleting the section. My 24 hours since my first revert is up. I have re-added the section and partly expanded it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I showed up to the talk page rightfully saying nope, because before you changed your story, your edit summary was "The game hasn't been released yet, so this is completely unverifiable," which complete nonsense as people had the game and live footage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why I should heed any of that when you have taken up edit-warring yourself? You might be outside the 24 hour window, but your most recent edits to the page, push your preferred version. That's edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You told me the section was incomplete, I contributed towards completing it and cited a reliable IGN source in my claims. Two reverts in 24 hours from a user without a history of edit-warring is not edit-warring. You are the only one who wants your version, it's more like I am pushing against your preferred version of which only you prefer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both Thegreyanomaly and Prisonermonkeys that any more reverts of any kind in this article may be met with blocks without notice. Prisonermonkeys clearly breached 3RR. Thegreyanomaly reverted three times in 24 hours, not two, as a third revert was without being logged in (admitted). Although their third revert was outside the 24-hour window, it was ill-advised to revert after filing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: You are miscounting Revision as of 21:45, 11 November 2014 = 1 (me logged out) Revision as of 21:26, 12 November 2014 = 2. Two in 24 hours. The "zeroth" revert was before 21:26, 11 November 2014, it was 18:14. You are miscounting, and I had made it clear in the report that I would revert when my count fell. Also, you are letting a user with a clear cut history of edit-warring go unscathed. That is highly problematic. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, you are correct; I miscounted. You reverted twice in a 24-hour window. I've struck the language in my warning above and reworded the last sentence. My warning still stands, despite the difference in the number of reverts. Your announcement here doesn't let you off the hook. That said, if another administrator wants to take a different action, I have no objection. I will also give the matter some more thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLees1975 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Akrotiri and Dhekelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GeorgeLees1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633548015 by Thomas.W (talk) Undoing repeated revision made without talk or explaination"
2. 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633546448 by Dr.K. (talk) Revision made by Dr.K has made while refusing to talk. Please comment on the talk page before deleting sections of useful sources thanks"
3. 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633544409 by Thomas.W (talk) Dr K and Watts seem to be the same person and do not explain their removal of useful information except to claim I am someone I am not."
4. 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633543522 by Dr.K. (talk)"
5. 16:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631928400 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Akrotiri and Dhekelia. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion on talk

Comments:

Brand new account, probable sock. Very first edit of account to undo my reversal of the OR edit by CU blocked sock Gasmonitor. He is rapid-fire edit-waring, reinstating an edit by Gasmonitor: diff while adding the SYNTH map of indeffed Alexyflemming which has been rejected on the talkpage. Δρ.Κ.  17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The sock is edit-warring even as this report is active. Δρ.Κ.  18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" I think the information you have removed is relevant, interesting and well sourced and discussed (one sided as nobody resopnded to me before repeatedly reverting my edits but still). I can not help thinking there is a modicum of bias in this removal of information Kind regars (George Lees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLees1975 (talk • contribs)

• It is, pr WP:DUCK, a very clear case of socking: same edits as indefinitely blocked Alexyflemming, with same style edit summaries and on the same article, edit-warring to get the same OR image, a self-made map, into Akrotiri and Dhekelia. As for Gasmonitor I have no comment, since I'm not familiar with that editor, but I have no doubts about the connection between GeorgeLees1975 and Alexyflemming. Thomas.W 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of him - just because I think his references on the Cypriot sea are useful does not make me the same person! Can you discuss the actual issue - it seems to me to be well soursed from original texts George Lees

We did previously discuss the 'actual' issue at quite some length, and I've replied to you on the article's talk page as well. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment He's now moved on to throwing personal attacks. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• He just announced his purpose on Misplaced Pages. Δρ.Κ.  18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of Alexyflemming by HJ Mitchell. Thomas.W 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: )

Page: Care Net (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (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: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

  Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. ). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell  22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.

Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:50.51.38.150 reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Well established fact?" He was listed in the special thanks of Depression Quest! Contact was made, but the nature of the contact is in question (no claim can be made regarding it, positive or negative)."
2. 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Clarification is our friend."
3. 00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "No, I've seen you "discuss." You're more interested with pushing bull**** then using whatever wiki law you can to excuse yourself than you are with making a good article. Really, who added the Salon citation?"
4. 00:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Nobody ever argued" Then why even note it?"
5. 00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Holy crap, the mental gymnastics are just amazing. Thezoepost did not claim that a review happened. YOU need to cite the claim. Do you not know how the burden of proof works?"
6. 00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ""Eron never made the claim" is too hard for you? Really, now you're just avoiding discussion. Is Salon even an acceptable source?"
7. 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633597093 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The claim itself is unsourced. thezoepost doesn't make that claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obviously over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

Video game journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "As per the reliable sources which have reported on this matter. Take it to the talk page."
2. 01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Conflicts of interest and pressure from game publishers */ This is well-established and discussed in reliable sources."
3. 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 50.51.38.150 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
4. 00:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Please discuss your issues on the talk page and stop writing an ungrammatical and nonsensical sentence."
5. 00:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Nobody ever argued that Gjoni wrote about Quinn or Depression Quest, so why are you writing a sentence which states that?"
6. 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "It doesn't make sense to say "Gjoni didn't review Depression Quest" because nobody's claimed that. If it needs to be clear that those accusations were by others, then write that."
7. 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced and the sentence doesn't make sense. Discuss your proposal on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ new section"
2. 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ sign"
3. 01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ c"
4. 01:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Over 3RR */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is over 3RR on the article with what appears to be a good faithed IP. As a result, I am reporting them both. North has not claimed an exemption within edit summaries and neither has the IP. Tutelary (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring