Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:59, 29 December 2012

• 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:Copycat2012 reported by User:Splorksplorksplorksplork (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Jordan Belfort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Copycat2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has ignored comments by both myself and editor Daniel J Leivick that "former white collar criminal" is poor grammar. This appears to be part of a campaign to downplay Belfort's criminal history, given a number of hagiographic edits. User Copycat2012, and their previous ID Reaction93, have made no edits to any other pages and will not sign their posts.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This is a content dispute that's more about how to describe the subject than it is about grammar. There was no breach of 3RR. The edit-warring is stale (4 days ago). I would simply close the report except for the fact that Copycat is a new account created by the same person who created Reaction93. Although Copycat admits they are the same, they have not complied with WP:DG, and they were blocked in the past as Reaction93 related to this article. At this point, I'd like to hear from Copycat before making any final decision. That said, any other admin is free to do whatever they want without waiting for me or consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's only stale because I have been trying to engage Copycat2012 in constructive dialogue rather than simply reverting again. However they seem unwilling to discuss the issue in rational terms. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. I have indefinitely blocked Copycat2012 for making a legal threat. Copycat also reverted on the article. Rather than revert back, I (reluctantly) edited the article to eliminate the "former" characterization as an issue. Hopefully my edit will put that issue to rest. That said, I don't intend to get involved in a dispute about it. If it's not satisfactory to other editors, they can work it out themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:N-HH reported by User:Spshu (Result: page protected)

Page: Duchy of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link He already warred me of edit warring so he knew it could come up "(cur | prev) 19:03, 26 December 2012‎ N-HH (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,840 bytes) (-6,458)‎ . . (It says "country" infobox, but regardless it's not a territory either - pls read the article. Your change was reverted, with good reason, so you now need to go to talk, not edit war"

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

Comments:

HIs response is to basically insult me, claim superiority and general indicated that all he will do is edit war. Then makes another edit that he knows is patronising. Spshu (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, your bid to add a country infobox, including details of its "government", to a page about a portfolio of royal estates scattered across the UK is bizarre and totally incorrect. Once I reverted your addition you should have discussed it on the talk page if you were really convinced you had a point. Although you have now posted there a couple of times, you have offered absolutely zero evidence to support your contention that the duchy is a country or territorial unit of the UK (here's a clue: you won't find any) or even that you know what you are talking about when it comes to UK administrative or political affairs. Yes, I have questioned your knowledge in that area, with legitimate reason, and am doing it again now; you have now elected to explicitly call me a "maniac", so I suggest you descend from your high horse. While we both might be edit-warring, it's rather obvious I would guess to most observers who is trying to maintain the accuracy and integrity of info on Misplaced Pages here. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you prove my point in "so I suggest you descend from your high horse." No it is not clear who is "trying to maintain the accuracy and intergrity of info on Misplaced Pages here." No, it is you on the high horse with your condesending position. Just because I try not proliferate additional infoboxes by not creating new ones for one offs and use existing infoboxes does not mean that effects the "accuracy and integerity of info on Misplaced Pages here." The infoboxes are total background stuff that no reader need deal with. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. One of the reverts listed above is your revert; there is no 3RR violation here. Since you both are flipping back and forth, I've protected the page for a few days to allow the conversation on the article's talk page to progress. Please do not perform further reverts until the discussion comes to a consensus. Kuru (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Still he did three reverts thus violated 3RR. And indicated that is an edit warring mode. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Three reverts does not violate WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:213.195.215.190 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bavaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.195.215.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Marginal with respect to 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I protest!, 1)some Saddhiyama deleted "Rv nazi crap". 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Saddhiyama does not anwer me! 3) Favonian is vandal!! PS) Is "Saddhiyama" the same person as "Favonian"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.215.190 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mehrajmir13 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Protected)

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I removed the content as it is pure WP:OR I have explained this on the article talk page, that not a single one of the refs used speak of human rights violations by the Mugal Empire against the Kashmiri people. Mehrajmir13 has admited this himsel;f on the talk page, but continues to restore the junk OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Also a great deal of that content has been copied and pasted from other[REDACTED] articles without attribution and as such is a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I had removed the content again per WP:COPYVIO. It has again been restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I‘m late, what I was supposed to do, my fellow user has already done that by listing all the diffs here. Now comming to the point; the article is not Misplaced Pages:OR every statement is backed by a reliable sources. It may be checked though whether the text pertains to the article or not and the diffs be verified that who started reverting the edits and what has been provided in the edit summaries and the talk page also. This user is framing the wrong information as right. He may be stopped from reverting again and again. Thank you.  MehrajMir (Talk) 16:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.201.4 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.201.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Came across this IP after he edited the NA article, I went to his talk page and noticed he had been given a warning for personal attacks and looked at his contributions, then saw he was editwarring and changing sourced information. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP user also made a personal attack here: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Or even more blatantly, here (dec 12): Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yworo reported by User:Doncsecz (Result: Declined)

User:Yworo in sequence unalterable the article László Kovács (writer) with false informatioan that Kovács is Hungarian writer, but do not write anything in Hungarian only in Slovene (Prekmurian). Only his citizenship is Hungarian, himself declare a Slovene. Imre Kertész also lived in Germany, but Hungarian writer, in Hungarian wrote his works. Doncsecz 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OPENPARA. Biographical subjects are described using the country of which they are a citizen, not by their ethnicity. If the are a writer who writes in a specific language, then we also describe that. Yworo (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yworo is correct. Doncecz, if you continue to edit against en:Misplaced Pages policy, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie 18:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked László Kovács, namely was my teacher: László Kovács calls for the use of Slovene and not Hungarian, since he is Slovene writer, author of the Slovene literature and not the Hungarian. The Hungarian laws recognized 13 minoritys in Hungarian with fundamental rights, therefore despite the citizenship its definition is not Hungarian. Doncsecz 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is English Misplaced Pages, and it is our policy to make clear the citizenship of the subject first thing in the lead sentence. If he doesn't like to be Hungarian, why is he still a Hungarian citizen? Yworo (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

But the English[REDACTED] obviously respects fundamental rights: the Slovene intellectuals of Hungary wish the Slovene denomination. Doncsecz 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. This is a malformed report. Putting that aside, it's a content dispute subject to guidelines, not policy. There's been no breach of 3RR, although Yworo has come close. This should be worked out on the article talk page, and Doncsecz, you need to be more civil in your comments. Finally, for such a short article, it is remarkably poorly written.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Zimapr reported by User:Mhym

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.

• Zimapr (talk · contribs)

User Zimapr has repeated pushed copyrighted and POV content on Boise Kimber. Anon 99.156.67.118 has fought with Zimapr, reported him on Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I cannot fight anymore to avoid 3RR. Please help. Mhym (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Support this report. The article may yet find a balance between sourced negative content and the piece Zimapr is intent on putting up, which features copyright violations and has its share of puffery. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MalesAlwaysBest reported by User:RolandR (Result: 60 hours)

Page: Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September 2012 - December 2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MalesAlwaysBest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's difficult to see where to start with this, but I think I see 12 reverts within 36 hours. The editor is clearly edit warring against multiple others. It's possible that other editors may also have been edit-warring, but not as blatantly as this, and without the aggressive edit summaries. RolandR (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of sixty hours -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Zimapr reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Got to this article from the BLP board, there are BLP violations & copyvio violations in the content being reverted in. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• anyone home? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently not. Might take this to AIV and page protection boards. 99.156.67.118 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- KTC (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Itch Eye Bear (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 23:34, 27 December 2012 Reverts this edit by AgadaUrbanit, while removing well sourced content in the process
• 2nd revert: 14:42, 28 December 2012 reverts these 2 edits by Mor2:

This page is under a 1RR limitation. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Darkness Shines, and asked to revert: Warned by Mor2: Removes warnings, and claims “IAR”: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – accuses “zionist editors distorting reality]

Comments:
Has been blocked before, just last month, for a 1RR violation on this very article:

• Note. @Itch, your report has merit, but I find your history curious. You have made 7 edits to Misplaced Pages as this account, 5 of which were on March 30, 2012 (the account was created one day earlier) to P-I articles (not this one), and the last 2 today, one here, and one notifying Sepsis of this discussion. Who are you?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion Since this is a ARBPIA issue and arrising from the ARBPIA remedies, might it be a good idea to refer this discussion to WP:AE Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours; this is the user's second 1RR block on this article. Referring this to WP:AE is a bit unnecessary given this is a very straightforward violation of the 1RR on the article. While the reporting user is suspect, the reverts were not to his/her edits, so that's irrelevant to Sepsis II's action. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Thargor Orlando reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

Comments:
This is an issue that was solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring against that consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty hard to say something is resolved when numerous attempts to discuss were outright ignored, but such is the way of these things. There's no issue here if CartoonDiablo actually decides to engage on the talk page or discussions, which he has chosen not to do for nearly two months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're the only editor engaged precisely because you're the only one that finds fault with it. The issue isn't a dispute, it's you editing warring against the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And that consensus is where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion for single-payer between me, you and Scjessey. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus is that? Do I get to include North8000 in my camp? Does the inaccurate viewpoint of one of the polls being a "push poll" assist either side in our viewpoints? Why didn't you bother making this argument at any point in time between the NPOV noticeboard and the talk pages in the last two months? Who's doing the "edit warring" without discussion, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000 was not in the single-payer discussion and virtually no one participated in the NPOV noticeboard because it seemed self-evident the only person that had a problem with it was you. The point is, this board is about user behavior not content disputes (of which we went through ad nausem). You've had your say and now we're discussing your edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion is across multiple articles, I'd argue he is. That you chose - willingly - not to involve yourself in the discussions should tell us something. Do we want to talk about conduct? How about your blanket reverts without discussion? The entire issue is the content dispute that you refuse to resolve, so... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that I was (marginally) involved and about as involved as everyone else? Are we then to assume everyone was in a conspiracy to "willingly" sabotage the discussion? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. @CartoonDiablo, you mentioned in your edit summary a discussion at ANI; can you please provide a link?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops my bad I meant AN3 which is the discussion here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thargor and CartoonDiablo have also appeared on opposite sides of discussions at DRN and NPOVN recently:

• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 51#Single-payer/healthcare polls (ended October 18)
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Health care articles (ended December 1)

Perhaps CartoonDiablo can explain his comment above: "solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring.." The most obvious interpretation is that both the DRN and the NPOVN were inconclusive. The second discussion certainly indicates that consensus was not reached in the first one. Where is the venue where consensus with Scjessey was said to have been reached? Is it too much to expect an actual WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? -EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue with typical dispute resolution processes w/CD because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand how they work. There was a separate dispute with him (also still unresolved, but I had to detach for a time and I haven't had an opportunity to revisit with this new, more important issue) where he assumed that a DRN suggestion was binding. Disputes for CD appear to be a means to an end - a war of attrition rushed to dispute resolution in an attempt to get sanctions on those who disagree with him, making consensus building incredibly difficult. This should have been resolved six months ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was over whether the polls are measuring for single-payer. Me and Scjessey came to the consensus that it did and Thargor tried to take it to NPOV noticeboard where almost no one participated because it was obvious he was the only person that had a problem with it. Earlier in the discussion he accused me of "willingly" not participating which I suppose applies to everyone else as well (except for Thargor)?

At this point we have:

• Reverting consensus
• Accusing everyone else of "willingly" trying to sabotage attempts at resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Ed. I see no consensus. I also see no breach of 3RR, and to the extent there is edit-warring, it is equally distributed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Both in the page discussion and the NPOV dispute Scjessey said that the polls were measuring single-payer, that was the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And both myself, North8000, and now two people here say there clearly is not. Does this mean you'll cease trying to force your edits? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, North was not in the single-payer discussion he was in the failed NPOV discussion and the two people here are talking about whether or not the consensus exists, not the content of what it's about.

The fact of the matter is Thargor's explicit reason for reverting it was no one responded and no one responded because the consensus for it was solved. We've gone through this before and if nothing is done Thargor will keep reverting it and we will keep coming back to this noticeboard over and over again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you can continue/finish the discussion at the talk page as opposed to explicitly avoiding it. Since there's no consensus, maybe that's your best move. Otherwise, the assumption will be that there are no further protests to changing it back. As the NPOV discussion was about these articles, North is absolutely "part" of any discussion about consensus, which at least four people now note doesn't exist as opposed to your novel claim that it does. So I suggest coming back to the talk page and supporting your claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I chose to withdraw from activity on articles frequented by Thargor because of the editor's behavior. Several attempts at dispute resolution have been made (it was my attempt to mediate one of these that drew me into editing at the article in question), but Thargor has ignored them, waited for interest to wane and then returned to revert any edits that were made under whatever consensus had been reached. CartoonDiablo should be commended for "defending Misplaced Pages's honor in the face of ideological editing" or something, but I'm afraid I can no longer work with Thargor constructively. A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Rachesnut reported by User:Thelmadatter (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I think we have passed the edit warring bar, but if we havent we are really close. I dont think User:Rachesnut will listen to "non-experts" on anything here.

Thelmadatter seems to think she owns the Santa Muerte article and as such has deleted several of my contributions without any rhyme or reason. Moreover she is asserting that as a published author on the topic I shouldn't cite my own book, and is also demanding that I send pages of my book to her as "proof" of the veracity of my contributions. Her dictatorial attitude is absolutely unacceptable and violates the spirit of Misplaced Pages.purepecha (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MervinVillarreal reported by User:Grapple X (Result: 24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. My involvement here ceased after my first revert as, at that time, the contentious part of the edit (misuse of non-free files) had been resolved. This has now become an edit war based on the insertion of a tangential free image with a POV caption, and given the user's previous inability to comprehend common sense I'm not wading into a pointless discussion again. User has already been made well aware that 3RR exists, as they have previously been advised to stop in light of an earlier edit war that I did not bring here (diff of that warning). GRAPPLE X 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KTC (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Likewise for User:TheClown90 for the same. KTC (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Although not directly relating to this page, it should be noticed that this user on two different talk pages I am aware of (Talk:World War Z (film) and Talk:Rockstar Games) is constantly trying to impose his views on editors/article page without thought for previously established consensus or evidence/reasons provided by other editors. On this version of his talk page it specifically says that he is on English Misplaced Pages to "Change nationality" MisterShiney ✉ 22:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you; it's not really relevant. Mostly what I get out of the user's comments is that his English is very poor, making it hard to interpret just about anything he says.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just wanting admins to be aware of his disruptive editing. MisterShiney ✉ 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JGVR reported by User:Almost-instinct (Result: )

Page: Van Rensselaer (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JGVR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
JGVR is absolutely refusing to allow an inline reference, on the grounds that the reference belongs in a different article. Here is a quote from what the very experienced editor User:Voceditenore wrote on the talk page: "JCVR once again removed the image caption and the reference. The reference is however valuable for referencing and expanding the entire article. I re-added as an inline citation in the text. He's removed it from there as well with the edit summary: "he has gobs of links in his article they will see it when you add it to his article" which is frankly absurd. This article currently lacks a single reference for the text portion. The referenced book isn't simply about a single member of the family. It is about the entire family with valuable information on the origin of the name and the early history of the family. No doubt, JCVR will continue to edit war to remove it. Thus, I am giving up on any further attempts to improve this article. He has made it quite clear that he has no understanding of collegiate editing, no understanding of Misplaced Pages's requirements in terms of style, content, and referencing, and no intention to let anyone touch "his" article" See the talk page for many examples of Voceditenore attempting to reason with JCVR, who never addresses head on the points VdT makes. IMO the time has come for an admin to explain to JGVR what VdT has failed to make JGVR, despite many polite and well reasoned efforts. Maybe there is a COI connection between the user and the warred-over page, which might explain the problems taking an objective view on this. almost-instinct 09:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Only one problem remains... those of us that were involved have come to terms and have had this resolved over 1/2 a day ago

JGVR (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true, JCVR. As I said at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname), I am and another editor are in complete disagreement with you about your refusal to "allow" a highly pertinent and necessary inline citation to an unreferenced article, but you have made it clear that you will continue edit warring to remove it and for entirely spurious reasons. Thus, I have decided not to touch that article again. That is not "coming to terms" or "resolved" at all. Do you plan to revert the next editor who tries to add it? Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee reported by User:EdChem (Result: Not blocked)

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

Note: Tony Greig died earlier today, so the article has seen a lot of editing.

• 1st revert: at 15:48, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530248705 by 121.218.80.238 (talk) per WP:DATE
• 2nd revert: at 16:26, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530251937 by 124.169.52.52 (talk) A reliable and verifiable source needed. Word of mouth is not a source
• 3rd revert: at 17:04, 29 December 2012, edit summary: →‎Lung cancer and death: We have enough sources
• 4th revert: at 17:14, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530255947 by EdChem (talk) There is enough sources, also do not use the US date format
• 5th revert: at 18:22, 29 December 2012, edit summary: Undid revision 530260443 by Kennvido (talk) Like to explain why you replaced them? Also breaking the linking of one cite

These five edits occurred over less than three hours. Four of the five reverts were achieved by pressing the 'undo' link, the other was a manual removal of a reference; all were done without any discussion beyond the edit summary. Note that the second revert incorrectly changed the cause of death, the third revert removed a source because there were too many, and the fourth removed a source that I was only adding in the technical sense, in that the reference was in the article when I started my edit and disappeared only during an edit conflict.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (which was reverted within one minute)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I posted a message about reverting my edit on Bidgee's user talk page; it was removed four minutes later with the summary "How about look at your own actions before questioning others?"

Comments:

I realise that these reversions do not all relate to the same text and that, followiung the death of Greig, there are many editors making changes to the article. My main concern is not the technical 3RR violation but rather with Bidgee's attitude to other editors. My edit removed a duplicate reference from the article, altered a cite web reference to cite news for a newspaper article, and added a cross-ref to the lede, plus some minor copy editing. I added no reference, just keeping those that were in the article when I began my edit (one disappeared during my editing in an edit conflict). It was reverted because of a US date format, re-adding to the article an incorrect spelling of Greig. Bidgee's response to my comment on his or her talk page indicated a lack of willingness to discuss any concern. This led me to investigate Bidgee's edit history, where I found:

• by my count, 34 of Bidgee's previous 50 edits were reverts of some sort, and looking further back Bidgee appears to have a habit of reverting entire edits rather than editing a part with which she or he disagrees
• Bidgee's block log includes blocks in 2012 for 3RR violations June 29) and edit warring (November 5) - the second block was undone after review
• A block in December 2010 was for "Disruptive editing: warned regarding use of reverts, continued to do so"

I conclude that Bidgee has a history of reverting too readily, and I am hoping that an administrator might try to engage with her or him to act in a more collegial manner. The revert of my talk page post (which I admit might have been more elegantly expressed) indicates that an approach from me would likely be counter-productive. I do not ask for a block, though I believe 3RR has been broken, but for Bidgee to be less quick to hit undo and more willing to discuss. Of course, I am open to comments / criticisms of my own actions. EdChem (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked Bidgee technically violated 3RR, but this isn't the kind of problem that the rule or the prohibition of edit-warring was designed to prevent. I've been on the receiving end of someone who reverts an entire edit when they only have a problem with one part, but these are some minor manifestations of that issue that are more carelessness than intentional disregard. You don't exactly help your case either when you include in your report fairly uncontestable reverts, like putting the date format in line with our manual of style. So, in short, has he been doing a lot of reverting? Yes. Has he been reverting too broadly? Probably. Is this disruptive? Probably not. Should he be blocked? No. -- tariqabjotu 15:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Protected for one week)

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

User DemirBajraktarevic is constantly removing refs as he don't likes this info. He called my editing "lying" (see talk page). Also, I wrote this article months ago, and I added that Brkić (the guy in the article) is an atheist, thoguh I removed this info as I have no proper source (I assumed his an atheist since he was a communist, but it is said that for religon one needs to have a source to add it in an infobox). Bajraktarevic once again reverted me for no good reason. Now, he was reverting my edits on this page for days (see history). I reported him few times and I was myself blocked as well (since I made two revers also previously). Now, I won't revert him, but insted I expect from him to revert himself, as there is no good reason for him to remove sourced info (there are 4 refs for this info). --Wüstenfuchs 12:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Did you two tried to talk, for example? Some of his reverts are well founded, you cannot add this without sources, that is obvious. You MUST use sources for this, or you both may be blocked (again) for edit warring in ARBMAC area. I urge you to start talking, and stop writing on AN/I... --WhiteWriter 12:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WW, that's completely other article. I only forgot to source it, I later did so. Let's keep discussion on this issue only. --Wüstenfuchs 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Both of you were blocked (by me) for one week for edit-warring on this article, among other things. Now you (Wustenfuchs) come back first and make two consecutive edits, essentially restoring the article to the way you wanted it (not to mention the evasion during the block). Demir reverts you, not twice but only once in two consecutive edits, just as you did. And now you come here because you expect Demir to revert himself? And where is the lying comment? Putting aside the fact that you've included no diffs for this report, at least provide a diff when you accuse another editor of calling you a liar. I've protected the article for one week. There's virtually no activity on the article except the two of you. Think of it as protecting you from yourselves. If you can't work out your differences, I suggest that both of you walk away from the article and let others improve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Aminul802 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aminul802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Relevant discussions may be found here and here . Darkness Shines and myself also have a history. The last time, it was I who complained that he had been edit warring . The resolution was that we'd both exhibited such behavior, which I accepted. This time, there is a discussion context. I look forward to your advice on how i should conduct myself in such situations in the future. Thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring