Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 22 September 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:Hotwiki reported by User:Adamstom.97 (Result: Blocked)

Page: X-Men (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (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:

Unfortunately, the above diff is not from the article's talk page, because the other user decided to skip that phase and move straight to ANI, which, as pointed out there, should not have been done. I was willing to discuss all of the edits at the talk page, and still am, but unfortunately the other editor does not seem to want a discussion, and instead went ahead with the fourth revert(s). This is very frustrating, as I would rather just discuss this, but WP:EDITWAR advises that this here step be taken. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are questionable: putting unnecessary BR codes without a reason. Changing the text to small size when it comes to movie titles and character name without a reason. Stating that X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine were met with positive by highlighting their dark and realistic tones aren't backed up a source. You also reverted my edit which included an updated box-office gross and removing multiple sources which aren't needed since there was already 1 legit source.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to reply to these same allegations with the same reasoning, no matter where you post them (though I see you still haven't gone to the most logical starting point, i.e. the article's talk page). I have given you numerous examples of other pages with similar content that use that same formatting, which has been clearly found to work best, whereas your version is messy and less encyclopedic because of it. I have re-written the lead in response to your point about the reception, and I have already eplained that if you wish to add info in such a way as that i will not realize I am removing it, then why don't you just restore it? No need to start an edit war because of such a small mistake.- adamstom97 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that *both* Adamstom.97 and Hotwiki have been edit warring at X-Men (film series). To avoid needing to block both editors, I propose that each person agree not to make *any* X-Men related edits for seven days (neither article nor talk) and try to avoid one other for the same period. Any party who will make that agreement can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I find your terms fair, and will happily agree to them. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems Hotwiki has no intentions of halting his edits of the X-Men pages, and continues to re-revert and make the same changes. For now I will refrain from altering said pages, but I thought it should be noted here that the user is completely uninterested in resolving this matter or changing his ways. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Hotwiki is blocked 24 hours. Instead of responding here to take the deal (or at least comment on it) Hotwiki has returned to editing X-Men (film series), which is the article in dispute. User:Adamstom.97, in lieu of a block, has agreed not to edit any X-Men article or talk page until 15:10 on 26 September, and will try to avoid Hotwiki for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wazzabee7 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Block, semi)

Page: Aquiline nose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wazzabee7 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neil also mentioned it on the user's talk page

Comments: The last three diffs are of the reported named user. The other ones are of IPs who are fairly obviously the same person (notice the all caps in one of the IP's edit summaries and the all caps on the named accounts's talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am open to whatever investigation Misplaced Pages deems necessary. Visit my talk page where I describe my edits, and how I have repeatedly asked for reputable resources from this editor. He is trying to expose me as the vandal, when in fact his edits are without foundation. I have asked him repeatedly to show me sources, where the terms Aquiline Nose and Roman Nose are defined as the historically derogatory term "hooked-nose". The term hook-nose can be searched. I have suggested that instead an article be generated specifically around the term "Hook Nose" that explains what it tries to express, and its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzabee7 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what IP you are referring to I usually am logged in when I work with Misplaced Pages. I am criticizing these edits because it is a racial slur, period. This term has been used this way historically, it is almost unbelievable to me that this is being said by someone who has your privileges as an editor. My point is that the Misplaced Pages page is on the article "Aquiline Nose"/"Roman Nose" not "Hook-Nose" this is not the same it is not the definition of Aquiline Nose and it should not be placed as an alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzabee7 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is obvious edit warring, and it's clear that Wazzabee7 was editing logged out, same edits, same mention of citations/sources (although if the editor had checked the source for one of his deletions he/she would have have found it was there. I was planning to ask for semi-protection against an IP hopper but that's been overtaken. A content discussion isn't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The reasoning of Bbb23 persuades me that the user has also edited the article using IPs. Having checked the troubled history of the article, I have applied one year of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:173.65.21.238 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: semi protected )

Page: Haven (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.65.21.238 (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 in question has removed the request for ceasing the edit warring, and the notification of the previous report. The user has acknowledged the notice, and refuses to comply, due to them reverting the same edit done by other users after the notice.

AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Don't see much point blocking an ip when semi protection will prevent further edit warring from any ip. Lets try 3 days and see if they lose interest by the time it expires. Spartaz 08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:LuckyScience reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

LuckyScience (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 06:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Tracklist */"
   3. 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Soundtrack */"
2. 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 07:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kaththi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

When the film Kaththi's soundtrack has a separate article, he keeps copy-pasting information from that into the film article. Even after receiving a warning, he does not stop. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing by Materialscientist.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Tuntable (Result: Both warned)

Three reverts within 24 hours at Office 365.

More importantly, no real attempt to resolve issue in Talk. (Tuntable complied with Codename Lisa'a initial request for references.) Tuntable (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. In my defense there are a couple of points:

1. WP:3RR violation requires more than three revert within 24 hours. "Three" is not a violation. In addition, he did not send me any advance warning or even {{subst:an3-notice}}. (I feel very selfish for saying this first but this is the logical order. Sorry.)
2. The sentence "no real attempt to resolve issue in Talk" is ... I am very sorry to say ... a blatant lie. (He simply didn't wait long enough to see if I would post anything in the talk page.) Please see . He simply followed up his comment for clarification with this ANEW request, showing that he is not interested in seeing my answer. My last comment reads: "Very well. I guess now that you are in a discussion, it doesn't matter whose revision gets to stay."
3. As the editor interaction analyzer that is in admins disposal would tell, I and Tuntable did not have an encounter before. Yet, upon spotting my BRD revert on 19 September, Tuntable opened up our very first communication with "‎Please stop being a miserable delete artist". An edit summary in the article space also calls me a "deletion artist" by name. My response was this. (I was hoping it would be an ice breaker.)

Overall, Tuntable is combative, disrespectful of WP:REVERT and WP:BRD and most certainly unwilling to have a talk. I certainly have no wish to revert anymore because I have called for additional community input. Even if Tuntable's contribution gained consensus, I wouldn't be unhappy.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors have reverted three times. Both are warned that if they persist, they may be blocked without notice. @Tuntable: (1) prepare these reports properly with diffs; (2) notify the user of the report (required); and (3) stop the incivility ("delete artist").--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No blocks)

Page: Hit the Deck (1955 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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:

Note that there's been no response from the user.

Comments: I originally reported a similar issue a couple of months ago. I've tried to discuss this with the editor on their talkpage, but apparently I'm "banned" from that page and every attempt to enagage is met with a revert. On the article in question, admin Philg88 also reverted the change stating "Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Layout "Notes" should be used if there are any, but not for references". Phil has also raised this issue on BMK's talkpage, but with no repsonse. Phil also raised the issue of 4 different editor's posts being removed while trying to discuss issues with this editor. After consulting with Phil, I'm at a loss of what to do, hence bringing this here. Lugnuts 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts' basic position is that MOS does not allow the References/Notes formatting, and therefore he is justified in edit-warring to remove it from articles. In point of fact, MOS does not support any specific formatting: it describes several possibilities, and leaves the choice open to editors. I've pointed this out in various edit summaries, but this has not deterred Lugnuts from edit-warring on a number of articles in (erroneous) support of MOS, an action which ArbCom has specifically warned against in a number of decisions.

As for removing Lugnuts' posts form my web page, this is clearly within my purview. His contributions have not been welcome there for quite a while. For many years, I have found Lugnuts to be an aggressively obnoxious editor -- one can see why simply by looking at his user pages -- and do not wish to have his contributions on my talk page. His behavior has never been egregious enough to justify any attempt to have him sanctioned (Misplaced Pages is big enough to allow even aggresively obnoxious editors to participate), but he does make any interaction with him distinctly unpleasant, despite the excellent Eddie Haskell imitation he's doing in his comment above.

Concerning discussion of this specific issue, he and I have been through the discussion numerous times in the past - of which Lugnuts feigns lack of memory - so I did not, and do not, think it would be profitable to discuss it again, at least as long as he continues to labor under the incorrect premise that he is supporting MOS.

(I do not think this issue is worth the energy it would take to dig up specific diffs, but I will do so on request of an admin.) BMK (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And now when offered some friendly advice by Philg88, BMK reverts that too and removes the notice of this discussion. Beyond My Ken - now that Isaidnoway has also removed your edit on the article citing the MOS, are you going to revert him, without discussion, too? Comments in edit summaries? Please. You know how to discuss things like an adult via the talkpage(s) in question, so why have you not done so? Lugnuts 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Lugnuts really think it is appropriate to use this forum to attempt to litigate how I maintain my user page? And what, I wonder, does he think the purpose of an edit summary is, except to communicate with other users? BMK (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you've been offered advice by other users and you choose to ignore them. Lugnuts 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has reverted four times on 19 September at Hit the Deck (1955 film) beginning at 09:03 and these reverts are just one episode in a long-running dispute. One option is a block. BMK, will you make an offer to pursue dispute resolution to avoid a block? For example, agree to open an RfC and promise to accept the outcome? EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ed, of course I have no desire to be blocked, and would consider an RfC/U were it not for my long time observation that that vehicle is almost entirely ineffective, and is very often used for prosecuting old grievances rather than for a frank discussion between editors aimed at compromise and consensus. Also, how can I possibly promise to "accept the outcome" without knowing what the outcome is? These things can go every which way, as I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to commit myself to accepting what could become a run-away attempt at petty retribution. I would be willing to promise to take the outcome of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U seriously, though.

It also concerns me somewhat that you're addressing your comments only to me, without dealing with the equivalent "bright line violation" (as noted below) of Lugnuts. I'd be more inclined to agree to some sort of dispute resolution if I thought things were being dealt with even-handedly. BMK (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To say you'll accept the outcome of an RfC only if it says the right thing is like saying you won't accept it. (I asked for a content RfC, not an RFCU). I think admins should block *you* rather than Lugnuts because you have signalled you will keep up this battle indefinitely, while Lugnuts wants to pursue discussion (which you evade with every possible excuse). EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Bright line violation with edits after warning. BMK's comments avoid the 3RR issue and complain about Lugnut's EW (two to tango) or divert to talk page maintenance. Lugnuts is also a bright line violation of 3RR; Lugnuts gave the warning and continued to revert the article. BMK does have history of imposing particular style on articles and has been blocked for 3RR earlier this year on style EW; there's also an ownership flavor in the edit comment at No Other Woman (1933 film) here. Unknowingly, I crossed paths with BMK's similar format changes at Midway Atoll where BMK had reformatted sections. I reverted some of BMK's explicit character formatting to the previously existing heading styles. Glrx (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I can't speak for EdJohnston, but I think most admins are reluctant to block experienced editors with valuable contributions to the project (even though both of these editors have been blocked before). However, we pay a price when we attempt to avoid the block and come to a more reasoned resolution because many experienced editors are stubborn and reject potential solutions that they don't like or can't control. So, there's not much confusion here, but there's still a little (at least in my view). I want both editors to agree to an RfC (not an RfC/U as BMK talks about) on the reference/MOS issue (perhaps I missed it but I didn't see Lugnuts formally agree to an RfC). I will block the editor or editors who don't agree (someone has to do it). So, the ball is now in their courts: @Beyond My Ken: @Lugnuts: --Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This BMK/spacing dispute has been bubbling away for years: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive_Editing_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken_on_Reach_for_the_Sky, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Using_hidden_comments_to_make_a_space_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken. Many editors have objected to him installing white space at the bottom of the article (to insert a gap between text and footers) so it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Personally I agree it's a visual improvement, but it is really a typesetting issue, not an editorial one. If readability of text is improved by increasing the gap between text and footers then it should be initiated across all articles in a way that is uniform on all displays. BMK should take this to the village pump rather than edit-warring spaces into articles manually, and if he did I would support his proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Betty Logan, it has been "bubbling away" for years, and every time it has come up at AN or AN/I, the complaint against me has been rejected. Consistency is not a vital issue when it comes to formatting -- what's important is that our information be accurate and presented in a way that's effective for the reader to take in. That one article does it one way and another does it another way is really unimportant, and that is one reason why MOS is a guideline and not a mandatory policy.

    Concerning an RfC about the formatting issues that Bbb23 is calling for, I would be happy to participate in a centralized discussion about that, and would follow whatever policy-compliant consensus that was to come out of it. I hope that Lugnuts will agree to that as well.

    EdJohnston, my objection to accepting in advance the result of an RfC/U (and I did think that was what you were asking for, not an RfC) has nothing to do with whether it comes up with the "right" result, and everything to do with how it is framed and executed. I've said that I would take the result of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U very seriously, but I've seen much too much abuse of RfC/U's to do anything more than that. As for "signalling" that I would keep up the reverts forever, I don't see how you get that from the editing, but in any case - although you have no way of verifying this - I took the article off my watchlist yesterday and have no plans to return; this despite the fact that I have been expanding the article in substantive ways while Lugnuts has merely been edit warring to enforce his favored version of formatting. BMK (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Just in case I buried the lede in the above comment, it included my formal agreement with Bbb23's RfC proposal. BMK (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm going to hold you to your second statement, not to your first. In particular, you must accept the result of the RfC, even if in your view it's not "policy-compliant." As an aside, I thought the issue here was about the inclusion of "Notes" more than about spacing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It was. BMK (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
          • BTW, given this thread, can we book you and EdJohnston and a third admin of your choice to close the RfC? BMK (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's deal with the logistics after we get Lugnuts's input. I have a feeling I've gotten myself into quite an undertaking here. In any event, Lugnuts hasn't made any edits to Misplaced Pages since I pinged him. I can't imagine how he can ever stop editing given his edit count, but apparently he manages. I may not check in myself on this board until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleep is my only weakness. RfC sounds good to me. How to procede with that? After trying to engage Ken in discussion and his refusal to do so (as pointed out by several editors), then it seems the best way forward. Lugnuts 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, perhaps you can teach me how to sleep. Initially, let's move the logistics discussion to my talk page. That discussion must remain civil. I don't want to hear direct or indirect negative remarks about each other no matter what. As an aside, BMK's name is not Ken. You can call him by his full user name or by BMK for short.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of WP:RFC that states it has to be your talkpage? Surely it's the relevant MOS or article in question, so myself and Ken (and others) can participate? And seeing as it's only Ken that currently takes issue with the current MOS, then he should start it too? I'd drop a note on his talkpage to get the ball rolling, but, you know... Thanks. Lugnuts 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not reading my comments very carefully, Lugnuts. I didn't say the RfC was going to be held on my talk page (god forbid). I said we should discuss the logistics of the RfC on my talk page. And please stop calling him Ken.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Bewakoofian reported by User:Dusti (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "reverted to revision by pushpakan, please stop your nonsense, dont just add box office figures without proper source"
2. 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626248600 by Jordran (talk)"
3. 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626248444 by Jordran (talk) 3RR"
4. 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626247481 by Jordran (talk)"
5. 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Rv disruptive edits"
6. 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "rv POV pushing"
7. Consecutive edits made from 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "rv POV pushing"
   2. 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "pov pushing"
8. 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "reverting fan pov pushing and unexplained edits, and disruptive edits, 3RR"
9. 07:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Rv fan pov pushing and vandalism, deleting references"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aagadu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The page has been fully protected, but I don't think that this type of extreme edit warring should be ignored. I believe two blocks could have been made in lieu of the full protection. Dusti 12:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I am perplexed, why you are pulling me into this, I was the one requesting page protection from yesterday, and it took 24 hrs to protect. I am just not interested to edit war, how can I accept some ones edit full of vandalism and unreliable sources. Please block those users who have been including fake and unreliable sources and pov pushing. my area of interest article is not Aagadu. I only believe in reliable sources Bewakoofian (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Bewakoofian is warned not to resume edit warring on this page after the lock expires. Any more reverting may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Siddhaarthbhandari reported by User:Dusti (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Corrected wrong edits."
3. 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626243670 by Bewakoofian (talk)"
4. 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 18:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 07:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 04:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aagadu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another person edit warring at Aagadu like User:Bewakoofian. The page has been protected, but I think that blocks should have been done in lieu of protection. Dusti 12:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Siddhaarthbhandari is warned not to resume edit warring on this page after the lock expires. Any more reverting may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Brianmathe reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brianmathe (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 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "myth to legend"
   2. 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "incorrect facts"
   3. 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparative mythology */"
   4. 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
2. 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
   2. 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noah's Ark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content */ new section"

Comments:

We are dealing with a POV vandalism only account. Needs a good block. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: Blocked)

Page

South African Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626323531 by Dodger67 (talk)"
2. 20:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626229306 by Dodger67 (talk) Don't even start. It was more than that, and if you know what your talking about, you know this to be true."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) to 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   2. 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   3. 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on South African Republic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion at Talk:South African Republic#Maritz Rebellion

Comments:

The issue has been discussed at the article talk page yet the user persists against clear consensus. The user's talk page shows a history of contentious editing with another warning about a different article being posted more recently than the warning about the article concerned here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article affected by this issue is Maritz Rebellion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I'm not sure I'd call it a "clear consensus", but the user has been down this road more than once, and he was edit-warring against multiple editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Already Blocked)

Page

Umbrella (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626479191 by Chasewc91 (talk)"
2. 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Example */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Umbrella (song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was just blocked for 60 hours for edit warring at Umbrella (song) (see here). User's edits are focused on restoring an overly detailed music video section against consensus. A discussion was opened on the talk page; the user is aware of it and has posted to it, but insists on restoring the article to his/her preferred version. User has clearly not learned his/her lesson.

Civility/personal attacks are also an issue; the user was previously blocked for 48 hours for this reason (not shockingly, related to the "Umbrella" article). –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 1 week by Vsmith -- Dusti 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:StanTheMan87 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: )

Page: Mohammed Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StanTheMan87 (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:
StanTheMan87 was created last month. He keeps uploading images after they get deleted. Files that show unknown people he names them "Mohammed Omar" (wanted one-eyed spiritual leader of Taliban). See also . He uses images that he uploaded under fair use in multiple articles when they should only be used in one article. These images don't even qualify for Misplaced Pages because (1) they're uploaded without permission from author/owner and (2) there is no proof that the person is Mohammad Omar. It is only suggested that it may be him but that is not enough for encyclopedia purposes. People in the past have come forward to challenge the accuracy of the images. For example, Maulvi Hafizullah, a former protocol officer for the Taliban stated: "I looked at the photo and it was me. The CIA are blind and stupid." The support that Maulvi Hafizullah is telling the truth. The guy in that particular image is wearing a pakol hat, Mullah Omar is from southern Afghanistan and nobody ever wears pakol hats in that region. It's like a cowboy hat being worn in New York City.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring