Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 1 June 2016

• 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:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.160.130 (Result:Boomerang block for warring )

Page: Ray Combs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sro23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

So just as the above paragraph of hidden text says, it takes 4 of these in a day to have broken 3RR, but this user is still warring against perfectly good improvements (the removal of stray hyphens, the forming of proper s-ending possessives, the removal of an obvious redundancy, improving some kludgy wording, and acknowledging that people have more than one spinal disc).

He/she seems to think he can WP:OWN that article even though all of my editions are valid improvements, as if he had written it (but I know he didn't) and believes it's "his property not to be changed," although that specifically breaks WP:own. For some odd reason he wants to maintain errors and poor wording, and I don't get it. Please instruct this user not to wp:own and block him or her for a while.

174.23.160.130 (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have nothing to say other than 174.23.160.130 is a highly likely ipsock of User:Who R U?, who was blocked for edit warring. We are allowed to revert edits made by blocked users and their puppets. Here is the investigation: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?. Their rangeblock has expired recently. Sro23 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article history suggests that the IP editor has been reverted by about four different editors. Is there any chance of WP:BOOMERANG.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sure, of course because you all have name accounts and are likely in some kind of clique, you should try to figure out any way you can to gang up against this "lowly IP-based editor" to make the report bounce off yourselves and stick to me, shouldn't you? Perfect example of being wp:uncivil. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not involved, but I am an admitted grammar...stickler. I would note that our possible IP sock friend is correct about the hyphens and possessives. I would do it myself if I didn't fear getting caught up in this dispute. I must ask what, precisely, is the benefit to the project of reverting on sight here? Pinging @Ebyabe:, since he too was involved. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an IP sock; my service is dynamic. You've never heard of that? I saw 2 editors reverting purely reasonable edits until just now when their apparent sock friend (or at least meat, probably because they have their little clique and called on him to come and form a funny little "consensus" against the IPer) came by to support their clique work.

174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of 174.23.160.130 or Who R U? but an interested observer. You are correct about Sro23. The irony of all this is Sro23 is likely a sock of a former user, and there is also a clique among certain editors who are actively protecting him. 175.101.8.46 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 175.... 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• 07:09, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Toddy1
• 06:42, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Sro23
• 05:51, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Ebyabe
• 21:24, 29 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.146 reverts Sro23
• 07:27, 28 May 2016 IP 174.23.107.42 reverts Favonian over word "Glendale" and adds new changes.
• 18:04, 26 May 2016 IP 174.23.173.58 reverts Sro23 over word "Glendale"
• 18:03, 26 May 2016 IP 174.23.173.58 reverts Sro23 over word "Glendale"
• 23:09, 25 May 2016 IP 75.162.213.245 reverts Ebyabe over word "Glendale"
• 21:30, 23 May 2016 Newname0002 reverts Toddst over word "Glendale"

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Uhuh. Apparently something is "wrong" with editing the redundancy "Glendale _____ in Glendale" out, right? Okay, haha, "good one"! 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for user conduct, not for content. Whether your edits are right or wrong should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. I notice that though your edits summaries demand that other users discuss your edits on the talk page, you have not posted anything on the article talk page.

IPs 174.23.160.146, 174.23.160.130, 174.23.173.58, 75.162.213.245 are all based in Utah (USA), and are probably the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand... you've never heard of dynamic IPs either, then?

This is only about conduct? Oh, okay, so you can see why I brought up sro's edit-warring conduct then, can't you? And if that's so, then why are you so concerned with what the edits say?

Of course, I asked that you take your little reversion to the talk page. You were the next guy in line from your little clique to make a ridiculous reversion, so why should I be the one to start the talk on the page instead of you? And then if the wording is your only issue, why are you reverting all the other work I did with it? 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You have made nine reverts over seven days; four of them within 24 hours. You have broken the three-revert rule.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:129.194.252.43 reported by User:331dot (Result:Blocked )

Page

SOAS, University of London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */ Stop reverting to prose!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on SOAS, University of London. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is attempting to duplicate at least part of List of School of Oriental and African Studies people at the main page, has been reverted by four different editors (me, @BabelStone:, @The Pancake of Heaven!: and @Aloneinthewild:, and has not brought the issue to the talk page despite warnings(page history provides a better picture) May also have edited under 46.253.189.247 which claimed to be "Official SOAS Comms Dept." here; another user 77.57.158.50 restored the edit as well, but does seem to be a different person. Has not brought the issue to the talk page despite my request here and my final warning. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Has also said "you'll get tired before me" indicating they will not stop here. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Another reversion just now. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Commonsenseyes reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked for socking, warring, legal threats )

Page

Piotr Nowak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Those are the true facts about Mr.Nowak."
2. 16:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "I will keep deleting "Chairman" section and others because is false. Mr.Nowak may seek a legal action if you will keep posting untrue informations they are detrimental to Mr.Nowak. I will strongly suggest to stop this immediately."
3. 14:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "I can read polish links you referred too and facts are that Mr.Nowak took Konin to Bydgoszcz in 2000 as KP Konin and as KP Bydgoszcz in 2001 finished playing in all competitions in 2002. Mr.Kasalik never worked for KP Konin or Mr.Nowak."
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC) to 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 14:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Again , Mr.Nowak wasn't Chairman of Gornik Konin ever !!! Please stop using Jerzy Kasalik as Coach for Konin. Mr.Nowak never hire or fire Jerzy Kasalik. It's just a lie!!"
   2. 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Making legal threats on Piotr Nowak. (TW)"
2. 16:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Piotr Nowak. (TW)"
3. 17:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Commonsenseyes continually reverts the removal of their edit that removed information they considered undesirable from the article; had also edited while logged out to do so(already reported). Has not made efforts to resolve the dispute; made slight legal threat as well. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reported at WP:ANI for legal threats. I expect that venue will move more quickly, but if the user hasn't been indeffed by the time an admin gets to this report, you may wish to head over there. ~ Rob 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've already blocked indef for the legal threat and two weeks for the socking and warring. Admin are encouraged to review my actions and modify as they see fit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Dennis's closure. I looked at a few of the references to see if Commonsenseyes had any backup for what they were saying in the edit summaries. But the broad outline of what the article is saying appears right, so there is no obvious BLP issue. Whether Piotr Novak ever hired or fired someone named Kasalik doesn't seem fundamental, so I hope that those who read Polish can comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2601:19B:4002:671B:1566:4172:B12C:E86F reported by User:Oshwah (Result: Protected)

Page

Hush (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:19B:4002:671B:1566:4172:B12C:E86F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) to 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
   2. 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 22:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
4. 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
5. 22:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "MEssage"
2. 23:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hush (2016 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Capitalization of "deaf" */ new section"

• Semi-protected for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Plugee reported by User:Ogress (Result: Warning)

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

Amalia (given name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722926183 by Ogress (talk)"
2. 23:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722924789 by Ogress (talk)"
3. 21:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Hebrew origin of Amal, coherence of text."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Amalia. (TW)"
2. 23:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* May 2016 */ personal attacks"
3. 23:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Amalia (given name). (TW)"
4. 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Amalia (given name). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Ogress; I start a discussion
2. Plugee
3. =Ogress
4. =Plugee
5. = Ogress
6. "Dealing with disruptive editors" = Plugee (personal attacks against Ogress); at this point, Plugee begins spamming reverts
7. 23:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Arabic, Greek */ reply"

Comments:

Plugee is engaging in personal attacks and using bad-faith edits. He cites works that do not support his position but rather the opposite and despite ongoing discussion on the talk page, he decided to claim I'm an islamophobe (I'm Muslim btw) and engage in edit warring without even using edit summaries.

User also added this passive-aggressive thing to my talk page today as well.

This is no way to edit an encyclopedia. Ogress 23:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I, Plugee, have added several edits to Amalia (given name) in order to give additional, well-cited information about the origins of the name. These also included several edits to bring the article up to the standards of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. Ogress has consistently removed my edits without providing any justifiable reasoning. I would like to remind Ogress that Misplaced Pages is built on knowledge and respect, and not on opinion and prejudice.

Respectfully,

Plugee (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I choose to be editor because I am passionate about what Misplaced Pages stands for. I have no interest in abusing or spamming this website. Plugee (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Plugee continues to edit the page without addressing the issue of the edit-warring. Ogress 19:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Plugee is warned they be blocked if they make any more personal attacks against Ogress, or revert again at Amalia (given name) without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Can the page please be rolled back to before the user's contested edits? Ogress 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not make a proposal on the talk page for the version you favor? The article could use some better sources. There is an Oxford work called A Dictionary of First Names that might have good information if anyone can get hold of it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Plugee (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All edits that I have since added have been well-cited, and they go beyond the origin of the name, also having to do with formatting in the article. These edits have no justification for being reverted. Plugee (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: This is literally the source of the edit conflict and Plugee is already indicating intransigence. Your edits, Plugee, are literally not well-sourced; your claimed sources DO NOT SAY what you claim they do, as I have repeatedly noted on the page you are engaging in bad-faith editing. Ogress 01:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, for example, request a WP:Third opinion. If you ask outsiders to look into it, one problem is that the talk page discussion is hard to understand. It would help if each side would spell out what sources they are using for their position. If you want, you can get advice on the usability of sources at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I've been in edit wars about content; this isn't you're typical one. Plugee gives a sample cite on the talk page. The cite does not say what he claims it says. How can I possibly expect a third position when he is literally lying about the sources, then when called on it, moves into personal attacks (for which he has not, I note, apologised). His additions to the page are in question and should not be added until we can find a source that supports his (rather radical) position? Ogress 02:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:50.32.163.124 reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result:Blocked)

Page

Family Chrgd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

50.32.163.124 (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 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) to 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Information on different articles that have to do with the same brand"
   2. 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Family Chrgd */"
   3. 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
2. 23:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Information on different articles that have to do with the same brand"
3. 23:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 23:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC) to 23:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Family Chrgd */"
   2. 23:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) "Something that had to do with the brand"
6. 22:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious sock of User:50.32.245.81 (or vice versa). Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure the relationship of the two IPs, my guess is meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry given the interleaving of edits, but I blocked this IP for 48 hours. Bbb23 might want to peak a little closer at them and determine if they are likely the same person and take appropriate action if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Georgie1995 reported by User:Georgie1995 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Georgie1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I am reporting myself for engaging in a revert war in 2 months, so I need to be blocked in advaance Comments:
Georgie1995 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a troll (technically WP:NOTHERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User Pizzaandchips11 reported by Weweremarshall (Result: Protected)

Page

Khalifa (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pizzaandchips11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Previous version reverted to

Comments:

User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored and have also informed that if this behavior continued he'd be reported for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Protected one week. There is currently no consensus on the talk page on whether this is a mixtape or an album. Is there a Misplaced Pages rule that nothing is an album unless physical media are sold? If that is a rule, where was it agreed to? Consider asking WT:WPMU for advice if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The page protection still doesn't change the fact that the user violated 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Only a time machine can fix that. Willondon (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts: One steady stream of reverts since May 28 with no discussion all doing the same thing

1. 28 May 2016 diff, reverted by User:Dennis Brown
2. 28 May 2016‎ diff reverted by User:Doc James in part then User:Johnbod for the rest
3. 28 May 2016‎ diff reverted by User:Neonorange
4. 28 May 2016‎ diff reverted by me
5. 28 May 2016‎ dif reverted by me
6. 28 May 2016‎ dif reverted by User:CFCF
7. 31 May 2016‎ dif reverted by me
8. 31 May 2016‎ diff reverted by Neonorange
9. 31 May 2016 diff where the article stands now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif and follow up

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

Comments:
Their Talk page is a string of complaints from other editors about random changes, test edits, not talking. If you look at their contribs and their edit history, they have never used a talk page. They just make disparaging edit notes as they continue to try to push their random, unsourced changes into articles. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. On Misplaced Pages, if your edits repeatedly contradict those of others on a controversial article, you are expected to participate in discussion. So far we have no discussion at all -- just an occasional edit summary. User is also marking most of his edits as minor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: No action, per discussion)

Page: Japanese idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moscowconnection (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 reported user continues to act uncooperatively regarding my concerns about the definition used in the article's introduction. I've offered several new versions on the talk page by now, and my last edit took all his previously mentioned concerns into account and was properly sourced, but he still reverted it without giving proper reasons for it. He himself hasn't offered a single new version taking my points of concern into consideration. It's almost as if he sees himself as the owner of the article and doesn't want anyone to change his definition.
The talk section has become a huge wall of text by now with several repetitions of arguments, but the comments starting with this post might give a sufficient idea of what's going on: MugiMafin (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MugiMafin. This report is a response to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually got the alert about your post when I had already been editing this report for about 10 minutes. Kind of a weird hivemind situation but understandable considering our exchange on the talk page of the article and your last revert. MugiMafin (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be User:MugiMafin, who has made repeated unsourced changes to Japanese idol. But it's unclear if a block of only one party could be justified from a review of the talk page. Another option is a really long period of full protection. That would imply that changes could only be made with consensus. If we had some kind of discretionary sanction for this topic area, it would be something to consider, but we don't. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The situation has changed since the reverting started though. We're at a point now where my changes get reverted even when they're properly sourced and explained in the talk page. See diff 5, 6 and 7. MugiMafin (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin is the only person who wants to change the definition. See this comment by Nihonjoe. (And also see Nihonjoe's comments on the "Japanese idol" talk page.)
And I'm just returning the definition to the previous version, the version that hasn't drastically changed since 2008 or so. MugiMafin, on the other hand, has already changed it in several different ways without asking anyone. I'm even afraid to look at it now. Cause anything can happen any moment and I will, yet again, have to do something about it. Some of his versions were completely different from each other. He just doesn't like the first sentence, that is the only thing he appears to care about in the whole article.
And look at this discussion:
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MugiMafin. Oshwah proposed to add another definition. I said okay, let's try, how can we do it? And this is what MugiMafin proposed: . This is something (in my honest opinion) almost incomprehensible and something that simply destroys the first sentence. Why the first sentence? Why again? I think this constitutes a failure or refusal to "get the point".
I support a really long period of full protection. (MugiMafin has already make the article worse a little bit, but okay... I just want to have some peace and do other things. I planned to be really busy in the Russian Misplaced Pages, but now I have to be here. I don't want to see this anymore. I don't want to have to come to the article to check if something terrible has happened. If MugiMafin wants, he can create a sandbox and rewrite the article here. Then we will look at his work and we will see what we can add and change and how. ) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:. It started to worry me that you called me a "party". Cause there's simply one user (MugiMafin) who comes to the article and makes non-consensual changes. That's all. No one else wants any changes to be made. I personally consider this a torture. (One user in the whole Misplaced Pages with enough energy to waste on attempting to change one sentence he doesn't like. And I think it's this one user who should stop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is really just one sentence it should be easy to use WP:DRN or open an WP:RFC for the sentence. Offer your version on Talk, MugiMafin can offer their version and then others can give opinions. Can you specify which sentence that is? EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That is the very first sentence of the article. I like the current version. MugiMafin has offered several versions, but the current version is better. There have been already a third opinion request and on 27 April I placed a notice on the WikiProject Japan talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

My different versions were attempts at eventually reaching consensus. I thought the more I offer, the more likely it is to find a compromise. But what makes finding a compromise so hard in this case is that Moscow Connection is unwilling to move away from his version and towards a compromise. For him it has to be his version, exactly the way it is at the moment. Anything else gets reverted, for reasons such as "I don't like the way your version sounded". In that other noticeboard discussion he linked above, I offered either just adding a simple "typically" to his definition to account for counter-examples, or using something along the lines of "This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use". He didn't accept either. MugiMafin (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At some point I thought we were getting somewhere, but you came and did this (changed the definition to something rather different). Then Nihonjoe came and as I can see he doesn't think that there's any reason to change the definition cause it is reliably sourced. I've still been waiting for you to come up with something, but all of your versions basically imply that idols aren't cute or aren't young and you add all these "ors", "buts", "typically" that make it hard to read.
"This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use" — You proposed this version just yesterday and it's just a bad idea, it won't work like this. You just added "but some people say" and repeated (or, rather, copy-pasted from the source) more or less the same thing all over again, but without the word "cute" and with expressions of doubt everywhere. It's confusing, unreadable. The more you try, the more I see that the current definition is good and there's no reason to change it. You're just making it worse. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At present, it seems correct to say that *only* MugiMafin supports his version of the opening sentence. If User:MugiMafin will agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by a talk page consensus, this report might be closed. Others have been active, including User:Oshwah and User:Nihonjoe and I don't see them supporting MugiMafin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sad to say, I'm finding both of them to be a little hard-headed in this situation. They seem to be talking past each other instead of cordially discussing the topic. What we need to see there is, "Here's what I propose as a change: <example>. What do you think?", and the other person responding to that. Instead, they seem to be focused on how the other editor is being inflexible and uncooperative, which never gets anyone anywhere. The walls of text from each of them certainly don't help, either. I think the sandbox idea someone mentioned is a good one, or just make brief proposals on the talk page, and make sure the proposals are backed up by reliable sources. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I agree with Nihonjoe. I will acknowledge the fact that they are discussing their grievances and disputes. As we see too often, editors quite commonly can't even accomplish that much without an administrator leashing them back. However, the manner in which they are discussing the issues isn't collaborative, it is argumentative as in "I like my way better and not yours because ", back and fourth and without realizing that both of them are defining their own researched versions of the same term, which is why I suggested that they list each aspect that both of them found ("idol" can be defined many different ways; people have different opinions on who or what they "idol"). It seems like a no-brainer.... However, I have not seen an effort to have this happen. Instead, their discussion still feels broken and not structured in a manner that supports reaching a consensus together. Are they being combative? I'd say no, but I feel like it will likely become so if the status quo continues. ~Oshwah~ 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, when I read your suggestion to include both definitions next to each other yesterday, I actually immediately agreed and said so in the other noticeboard discussion. Moscow Connection is the only one objecting to it. If we got Moscow Connection to accept the two-definitions solutions, then that would solve the whole problem. MugiMafin (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not true. I said "okay, let's try it". And you proposed a version that changes the opening sentence yet again.
If I were you, I would have already written a big paragraph that describes different types of idols. It could include different definitions, whatever. But you just return to the first sentence, why? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Oh, looks like I got you wrong then. I thought you were against having two definition next to each other in the first sentence in general, not just against my specific version. But if you're open to having two definitions next to each other in the first sentence, let's move the discussion about how to best implement that to the article's talk page. I'm going to start a new talk page section tomorrow and ping you. MugiMafin (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@MugiMafin: Yes, after looking at your version I am against having two definitions in the first sentence. And I don't think Oshwah ever suggested to do that. It's simply impossible to implement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just replying to his posts or his actions. Almost every time he returns, he changes the definition, so I have to write an explanation why I changed it back.
Yesterday morning he seemed to say he just wanted to add the word "typically" in front of "young" and I was't letting him to. Do you think it will make the definition better? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Correction. Oh, no , he basically said he wanted it to say "typically young", "typically manufactured", "typically cute". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

This is part of the problem: you both need to stop stating, "I'm just doing this" or "I'm doing this, but the other person is doing that". Stop focusing on what the other person is doing and instead focus on proposals. Make them very clear and concise, and don't comment on the other editor at all. Comment on why you like or don't like the proposal, and then offer any suggestions you have to move toward compromise. This may involve agreeing to something you don't entirely agree with in order to move things forward. That's okay. No one ever gets everything they want all the time. Focus only on improving the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: I know our talk page section has become a real mess, but if you read through it, you will see that I actually tried that several times. And I did it again in that other noticeboard post. But all of my proposals get shot down, often for illegitimate reasons. MugiMafin (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by consensus, but I don't see how that will help us solve our problem. My concerns with Moscow Connection's version are that it ignores counter-examples that are already listed in the article (in this section ). His concerns with my latest versions on the other hand are that they don't sound nice enough for his taste. I doubt that counts as a legitimate concern, and reverting sourced changes is only justified if the concerns are legitimate. MugiMafin (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MugiMafin - Thank you for understanding. For purposes of this edit warring notice board, this thread can be closed if no action is going to be taken for violating 3RR. ~Oshwah~ 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC

• Result: Closed with no action, per the discussion here and the recommendation of User:Nihonjoe. Any administrator may issue blocks if the reverting continues. The way to avoid this is to get consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jennyriarchi reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jennyriarchi (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:
Editor concerned has refused to engage in discussion on article talk page (), and has now described another editor as a "cunt" - (). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidRThomason reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Blocked)

Page: University of the Incarnate Word (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DavidRThomason (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: See

Comments:
Editor is ignoring advice about the need to demonstrate notability and continually reintroducing material without sufficient sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring continues. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a learning process, but thanks for the corrections. The difficulty here began with another user removing content simply because no Misplaced Pages article existed. I tried to add independent sources to back up the entry, however, others simply claim that these aren't independent sources. There is a problem of knowledge outside an editor's area of expertise and his or her subjective sense of quality vs. quantity of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRThomason (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see my replies at User talk:Vaparedes#Ignorant editors on Misplaced Pages, DavidRThomason. It is more about lack of significant coverage than the independence of the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked DavidRThomason as a  Confirmed sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:108.34.150.59 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi)

Page

American Sniper (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723121204 by Clpo13 (talk)Is anyone going to get consensus?"
2. 04:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723121075 by Vensco (talk) no consensus for addition. Go to talk page"
3. 04:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723120848 by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk)"
4. 04:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723120188 by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) take it to talk. Contentious material with no consensus. Also your the one inserting the info"
5. 03:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Removing VLP violation. Official records say otherwise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on American Sniper (book). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor insists that consensus is needed to insert some information into the article. While that may be the case, they have edit warred to remove that information despite multiple warnings. clpo13_(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also reported to WP:AIV due to obvious WP:VANDAL nature of edits (attempting to insert factually incorrect information). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So has prostentic.... But alas you only report the IP. If this was a BLP, what would you say then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit history (see this diff as an example) indicates the IP is either a sockpuppet, or a coached meatpuppet. Humorously, the information they are attempting is wrong even by the standards of Kyle's autobiographical claims - before the actual, authoritative military records were released Kyle had claimed 5 Bronze Stars, the authoritative military records show only 3, the IP is claiming SIX... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you pay attention to the discharge papers? Or are you incapable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP sockpuppet/meatpuppet: a DD214 is not authoritative, nor is Kyle's autobiography. Per Navy policy, "The Navy considers the individual service member’s official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards". Source: Lt. Jackie Pau, Navy spokeswoman. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

...The navy is investigating the discrepancy between public record and the discharge. One explanation given by other sources cited by the other editor show that those operations could have been in secret. I know you hate Chris, but seriously he is dead. Find some else to spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, this is all the sort of discussion that should be happening on the article talk page. clpo13_(talk) 04:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it's pretty obvious we have either a sockpuppet or a coached meatpuppet here. And the "sneaky vandalism" aspect, trying to change numbers to numbers that didn't even match Kyle's book (which would at least be in good faith, though still incorrect by the authoritative records), is really quite telling of what we are dealing with. That's on par with the vandals who go around randomly changing years and days in various dates on pages, hoping they'll slip a change through that won't get caught. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected the article three months. The talk page is open for anonymous editors to make their views known. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 reported by User:Barthateslisa

Page: Biryani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammad.511234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is persistently adding his POV on the mentioned page, he started it on 16th May, was reverted by others and started again on 29th May. The subject of the page is Biryani, and there is whole section devoted to its origin, but User:Hammad.511234 is keen on adding his POV as a sweeping statement about its origin in the intro para, I invited him on the talk page, told him about his error but the user is too confident about his own theories.

Here is the user first on 16th May and then again on 29th May.

Barthateslisa (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward and User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chris Kyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (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:

Content dispute. Both sides convinced they are right. Refusing to actually build consensus on talk page. Edit warring on namespace instead. Keri (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This posting is inappropriate. See two notices above, issue was and is outright vandalism by an IP editor. See User:108.34.150.59 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi) Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I have no violations. I am not edit warring. Please break out the diffs. These diffs are all from other editors, namely User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has reverted multiple editors, violated BRD and LEAD with a drive by edit that is not mentioned on talk or the article body. No one can discuss this until the chnage is proposed and they have refused to put it on talk. The editor in violation is argumentative anf incorectly characterizes content disputes as vandalism. A trout to Keri for not fleshing out the diffs.

None of these reverts involve me and there certainly is not a 3RR violation by me. I've made only 4 non-consecutive edits in 3 days which is not a violation by letter or spirit considering the below is within 1 day. Note that User:Keri has supported Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz edit warring with their own revert without a talk page comment. I have requested it be brought to talk as it's difficult to understand this lead violating edit with an unreliable source.

--DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by Lectonar. Katie 13:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: )

Page

Battle of Ia Drang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

Dino nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tnguyen4321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723046337 by Tnguyen4321 (talk) avoidance vandalism + deletion of WP:BLUE material (see talk page)"
2. 01:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 722859873 by Tnguyen4321 (talk) avoidance vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warning to Dino Nam
• Warning to Tnguyen4321

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 have been reverting the same, single {{or}} tag back and forth on the Battle of Ia Drang article since mid-May, despite both receiving warnings for it. (An earlier 3RR report from a couple of days into the edit war was never resolved.) Discussion seems to be ongoing on the talk page, but they're still reverting the article every day. McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also the articles at Battle of Lao Cai and Battle of Cao Bang histories are a littany of the same two editors going at each other with hammer and tongs. I tried to sort it out a while back, but it got too complex. I expect that's why it's happened for so long. Madness! _Muffled 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Sorry for this incident but I know nothing else to stop user:Tnguyen4321 conducting vandalism. His removal of OR tags on Battle of Ia Drang without any consensus or explanation on the talk page on the talk page clearly constitutes avoidant vandalism. About his editing on Battle of Lao Cai and Battle of Cao Bang, I have not many things to say. No explanation, no consensus, no RS, no basis from Misplaced Pages regulations, that is vandalism. If you have any suggestion for me to solve this, please say it. I've refered this on the OR noticeboard once but no one has intervened. Dino nam (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Beware: Dino nam is a wolf in sheep's clothing (sock puppetry: 113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It is fairly easy to sort things out by looking into history of my positive contributions versus Dino nam's negative contributions (taking into his initial disguise with multiple IPs). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the edits and the above statements, it looks to me that both parties should be blocked. Removing an OR tag is not 'vandalism.' There was previously a discussion at NORN but nobody commented except those two. (On that noticeboard, Dino Nam was using IPs). It is hard to summarize what they are disputing over. It seems to be subtle points about the battle. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Usual ethnocentricity.Looks like a fair few blocks have been dodged so far. _Muffled 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:223.197.66.178 reported by User:The Madras (Result: )

Page: Luke Woodland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.197.66.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722508546

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723176459
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723171601
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723116986
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722860222

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:223.197.66.178 under Luke Woodland

Comments:
Given 3 warnings of differing severity, no message left either by unregistered user either on my or their talk page.

The Madras (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )

Page: Tourism in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Comments:
The editor is very well aware of 1RR and editing in the ARBPIA area, having been topic banned for long periods before> I let him know he broke 1RR, he acknowledged my message but refused to undo the second revert.

User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: )

Page

Palace of the Shirvanshahs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "you need to stop this. We need the community to weigh in, and your comment is a childish banter. show some respect and engage in a conversation. trust me you will loose the debate. trust me"
2. 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "who are the judges? we'll await consensus, so far I have provided evidence, while History and Aragon have not. So provide evidence and stop bullying people"
3. 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723194571 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
4. 14:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Please stop ignoring. I have provided rationale for Azeri coming before Persian. Extensive debate doesn't make this right. We will have to see evidence of Persian being spoken by the Shirvanshahs of that period. Bullying of another user doesn't count."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palace of the Shirvanshahs. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This issue has been going for some time, though previously with a different user. Its regarding the inclusion of the Persian translation in the lede. Even though the initial user who was against it ("Interfase") failed to post any counter-sourcing to prove that the Persian translation for this Persian dynasty should be excluded, as of literally today, this "almost brand new user" ("Amamedli") started to hold an exactly similiar stance on the issue, disregarding the already held discussion on the talk page, as well as ignoring the sources listed there, apart from those that are present on the main page of the topic (Shirvanshah). The user in question shows absolutely no willingness to cease making these unsourced/WP:OR edits, and using his self-made pseudo-historical theories in this matter which is also, I sincerely believe, the very reason as for why he blatantly violated WP:3RR as of some moments ago. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

response from Amamedli:

"almost brand new" is true enough but I don't understand the relevance. The fact that another user has argued the same point and lost only means that they have failed to substantiate their points. I have been lead by two users LouisAragon and HistoryofIran to believe that the sources and arguments are to be posted on the talk page, which I have done. Three respectable sources directly demonstrate that Persian language was not the primary language in Shirvan in the 15th century. I am more than willing to debate these points, but users have offered no counterarguements, no explanations as to why they view my sources as unreliable. Yet they have instantly declared my edits as inadmissible. They point me to prior debate, which I have read and don't believe those sources refute my case. HistoryofIran's reference to Iranica article only shows that the Shahs were Persianized, however I am not debating their cultural affiliation. Seljuks and Timurids sustained varying degrees of Persianization as well, that does NOT mean they spoke Persian. Incidentally all I changed was the order, putting Azerbaijani transliteration of the title first and Persian second, instead of the other way around as above two users adamantly insist it should be

I also strongly object to the 'street talk'. It is absolutely unnecessary to dispense with accusations such as the ones made here (self-made pseudo-historical) as well as on the talk page. I have been advised by HistoryofIran to "go read a English dictionary". This is not only unnecessary but also shows absolute lack of good will and intent to improve the article. These comments demonstrate undue motivation to retain certain references which amounts to Anti-turkish sentiment that belongs in intra-Iranian politics, not on Misplaced Pages. This is unreasonable. I ask for an intervention. Amamedli (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:The Almightey Drill (Result: )

Page: Jamie Vardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Part (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:

'''tAD''' (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Imeldific reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Imeldific (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 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME, also her title is capitalized"
   2. 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Not yet a Marcos"
   3. 21:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   4. 21:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   5. 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ split paragraph"
   6. 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   7. 21:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   8. 21:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME"
   9. 21:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   10. 21:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "minor tweaks"
   11. 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:SAMESURNAME"
   12. 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ copy edit"
   2. 12:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "details, details"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "modify word order"
   2. 11:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "after punctuation"
   4. 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Wealth */ update on past net worth"
   5. 12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ Updates of play about her"
   6. 12:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */"
   7. 12:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */ Update of her election victory for her final term as congresswoman. This may be her last political office."
   8. 12:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION"
4. Consecutive edits made from 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) to 11:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Please discuss"
   2. 11:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 11:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) to 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "2nd revert WP:BRD"
   2. 11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "please se Talk:Imelda Marcos]"
   3. 11:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "Switched paragraphs per talk"
   4. 11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "copyedit"
6. Consecutive edits made from 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC) to 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ Here Lies Love, references from Playbill"
   2. 08:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
   3. 08:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Later years */ election update. She won this has to be listed"
   4. 08:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Wealth */"
   5. 09:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "WP:LEDE"
   6. 09:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "WP:BIO:"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without wa"
   7. 09:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
   8. 09:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ better order"
   9. 09:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her awards are moved to List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos page"
   10. 09:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her electoral offices are moved to Electoral history of Imelda Marcos page"
   11. 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "Incorporating controversial statements comproise, please do not revert this"
   12. 09:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   13. 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) "compromise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ Comment: re her name."

Comments:

This has been a somewhat slow-burning edit-war, and having moved from the article talk-page, to editors' talk-pages, is generally being ignored, with the repeated insertion of personal cruft. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS have been the chief victims. Unfortunately a general inabilty to talk pervades this editing. _Muffled 22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

response from Imeldific:

There was already consensus in parts of the disputed content in Talk:Imelda Marcos#User:Imeldific . The previous user involved in the content dispute, Spacecowboy420 have more or less come into terms with me . There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Imelda Marcos#Request for comment which I initiated. Proper Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution can be done there. Imeldific (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:Qed237 (Result: )

Page

Jamie Vardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723247182 by Qed237 (talk) Attention Admin - please comment and resolve"
2. 22:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723237237 by The Almightey Drill (talk) unclear removal of referenced information which adds"
3. 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723234231 by The Almightey Drill (talk) Please see David Beckham, his parents are listed, no. of children - why is this an issue here?"
4. 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "full name re-added along with more info (both referenced)"
5. 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723222704 by Mattythewhite (talk) infobox updated with more info (referenced info)"
6. 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "infobox update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jamie Vardy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear edit warring against multiple editors to their preferred version of infobox in BLP. Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring