Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 24 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: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)

So a pre-RfC? OK, I'll wait for Ken to man-up and start the ball rolling. Lugnuts 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it's not needed at all with multiple editors agreeing that Ken's edits are superfluous. Lugnuts 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ken, we're all waiting for your excellent input. Oh, wait... Lugnuts 07:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry to be delayed in responding to your suggestion. Sunday I did my part and marched for action on climate change, and Monday and today I've been under the weather and haven't felt much like editing (nothing to do with the march), and have only been picking at low-hanging fruit on my watchlist. I hope (please!!) to feel better by tomorrow, but as soon as I'm back to full speed, I'll see you on your talk page to discuss my concerns about how a neutrally-worded RfC should be set up. BMK (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I just removed your talkback from my talk page and called you a troll. It's our own fault by not creating a new section. Anyway, the edit summary was directed at the IP; sorry about that. Responding to your comment, no worries, just feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

• Krzyhorse22, you appear to be on an anti-StanTheMan crusade. You say that the account was created only last month. So was yours. You have made a grand total of 127 edits (not counting deleted edits), of which only 32 are to article space. The majority of your edits, 50, are to Misplaced Pages pages. Indeed, your first edits were to create a report at WP:ANI about StanTheMan. You're not even involved in the edit war you're reporting. StanTheMan reverted three times. However, so did User:Maxforwind, whom you did not report. And Max's account was created only two days ago. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here, and, frankly, I'm not about to sort it out, but for the moment, I'm taking no action, although I'll leave the report open in case another administrator wants to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My first edit was nominating an image for deletion, the image was deleted and StanTheMan87 re-uploaded it and in the process my first edit was deleted. You cannot see that deleted edit of mine. That's when I began reporting StanTheMan87. I have no relations to Maxforwind (talk · contribs), I was going to report him/her but got busy. I expected admins to block that person also by reporting one. I'm making constructive edits, if anyone is against this they can report me but this report is about StanTheMan87 who violated 3rr and is attacking me. If you want to allow him to violate 3rr that's a different issue. Next you're going to tell me not to report anyone who violates Misplaced Pages policy. I'm a very serious person, I don't come here to play games.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's already been established that Krzyhorse22 is indeed insane and has a deep-seated obsession over me though I do not know why. Again, this is not just my opinion, DocumentError can attest to this rather awkward behavior exhibited by Krzyhorse22, . Those images that I have uploaded, I did with forewarning Krzyhorse22, and he never stated that it would be a violation then, instead simply providing pathetic excuses that the images were not legit without providing any sources to support his claims, see , , , . Note that the images uploaded have nothing to do with the one Krzyhorse22 is ranting about . I am not going to type ten paragraphs proving my innocence and wasting my time and admins time in reading the material, in yet another trumped up charge filed by this moron, see , . The violation of WP:3RR on my part was justified, as there was no explanation given at all for the reverts, besides "Irrelevant to article" . I suspect Krzyhorse22 is now just making accounts to hassle me on Misplaced Pages, removing the content I have uploaded through puppets e.g User:Maxforwind, as Krzyhorse22 has relentlessly attempted to remove the images in the past though I cannot prove they are both socks as this is just an assumption. For someone claiming to be "a very serious person", and "I don't come here to play games", Krzyhorse22 seems to have no qualms over claiming to call CIA director John O. Brennan in order to support his POV then writing it off as "it was a joke" . I just can't help but feel so sorry for those that have had to read the same nascent bullsh*t from Krzyhorse22 over and over again. If it is determined that really, I am in fact the problem here, then ban my IP from Misplaced Pages for 12+ months becuase these constant accusations are just really starting to irritate me. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic (I know this is a WP:CIVIL no-no but the guy has previously claimed he was consulting with the director of the CIA on the copyright status of images, so I'm not sure how else to describe him). I'm not going to retype his whole, sordid history, because I have to do this every 5-6 days, like clockwork. If anyone would like to read it, I've posted it on DeltaQuad's Talk page (please see here ). All of KH22's edits are essentially vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply as per WP:3RRNO. DocumentError (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one month. StanTheMan has not breached WP:3RR. Therefore, I'm not blocking him, particularly with this rather muddled, messy history. Putting aside all the other accusations against Krzyhorse, I'm still absolutely baffled by his saying that he spoke to the director of the CIA. That's a rather absurd and "krazy" claim. I don't care that Krzyhorse says it's possible. It's a very long way from plausible or probable. However, at this point, I'm not prepared to block him, and this is not the appropriate venue for it, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, you're not only an unfair person but also abusing admin power. Secondly, I don't know why you, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError keep repeating the phone call to CIA everywhere. On the day I said it I told everyone it was only a joke. Why is that such a big deal now and why can't it just be not mentioned anymore? Is it a crime to say such thing? What does calling CIA has to do with nominating image of Mohmmad Omar for deletion? StanTheMan87 clearly violated WP:3RR on Mohammed Omar but you say he didn't and instead threatening to block me. I'm confused what's going on here? I wish you didn't get involved here but another admin.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Spidermedicine reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: )

Page

Ann Ree Colton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Ann Ree Colton. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Slow edit warring is still edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Although not over three and not within a single day, the editor has removed the same content three times in one month without discussion on talk and without appropriate edit summaries. diff, diff. The editor has also blanked a related article Niscience diff. I think a topic ban is in order. MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Two articles protected)

Page

R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wearypoet (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 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) to 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "BLP Vandalism"
   2. 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626533826 by Wearypoet (talk) I don't get why there's a "personal life" section when there's already a "life and career" section and why was the legal issues article deleted?"
   3. 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal issues= */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on R. Kelly. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* legal issues */"

Comments:

There are numerous edits in page history specifically dating back to about last month or so when I initially attempted to engage with the editor, at which point the disruptive editing became more agressive, and a number of similar edits prior; such as these from 2013 , , and so forth (some of the earliest edits are attempts at removal of this content). The editors talk page is littered with warnings about this behaviour.

Editor seems intent on unilaterally censoring material they WP:DONTLIKE using bogus rationales (or none at all). I've attempted numerous times to engage in meaningful discussion, yet, they're unwilling to reciprocate attempts at forming consensus. The disruptive editing has resulted in a content fork at R. Kelly Legal history and image which was previously deleted per WP:A10, and then recreated anyway. Sushuki12 has attempted to revert the edits but they do not engage in dialog either. They are now both edit warring it out. -- dsprc  13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no edit war and dsprc never made an attempt to engage with me in meaningful discussion. That's a lie. Instead they constantly feel the need to revert everything I edit even though what I edit is correct information.

My issue with Sushuki12 is that they don't know how to edit correctly nor do they cite with sources. And most of the things they include are unnecessary hence why I informed them to create a separate article which they did. I've contributed a lot to the R. Kelly page. So I don't understand all this confusion. His page was fine before all of this. Wearypoet (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm so disappointed that it has come to this. I've contributed a lot on Misplaced Pages and dsprc had the audacity to attack me on my talk page but lie on here and claim that they have tried to engage in a discussion which is far from the truth. My edits were mainly because people wanted a "Personal life" section when Kelly's life is integrated into his career which is titled "Life and career" so I didn't understand the reason behind a "Personal life" section so I removed it. Then Sushuki12 decided to create a poorly written article about Aaliyah on R. Kelly's page so I removed it and informed them to create a separate article about the relationship between Kelly and Aaliyah. After a number of back and forth reverse edits, they decided to create the article and post a redirect link so at this point, there's a separate article about Kelly's "legal issues" so I thought why not remove the entire section since it was basically copy and pasted into a separate article? So I posted a redirect link under his "Life and career" section and it was fine until dsprc decided to revert every single thing that was edited back and Kelly's page was a mess. There was two separate "life" sections and all the edits I done (which were in no way harmful) were erased. So I reverted it back and dsprc had the audacity to say that I was going to be blocked but on here they said he tried to engage in discussion? Again, that is false. They're not even a moderator but he felt the need to attack me and say I was going to be blocked for a "war". There was no "war", I was simply fixing Kelly's page which I've been doing for quite some time now. Of course people are going to disagree but I'm not doing any harm by fixing his page and keeping it up to date. I've contributed a lot. If Sushuki12 had an issue with my edits then they should've tried to discuss with me but they didn't.

Everything was fine until Sushuki12 decided to start editing Kelly's page and dsprc reversing everyone's edits back to the original state with no regard about what was fixed.

There's no reason to block me when I've contributed a lot to that page. Wearypoet (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: The articles on R. Kelly and R. Kelly Legal history and image are fully protected for two weeks. Thanks to User:Wearypoet for finally communicating, per his above statement. (He has never posted on the article talk page). We are still waiting to hear anything at all from User:Sushuki12, who doesn't use article talk pages. If the warring continues after protection expires, blocks are likely. If you think the articles are not correct you can propose changes on their talk pages using WP:Request edit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User:DMacks (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626599563 by Hoshie (talk) not really notable"
2. 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626637940 by DMacks (talk) The New York Times also reports lottery results"
3. 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626644720 by DMacks (talk) And you should know that WP:BRD applies here. When reverted, do not reinsert, but talk it out on Talk Page to build a consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I made an edit-summary "you should know better than to edit-war, especially once it's obvious that at least two other experienced editors disgree with you. I won't bother templating you.", to which editor made his next edit with edit-summary "And you should know that WP:BRD applies here."--dialog indicating having read my edit-summary (so I indeed did not follow up with a formal warning on his talkpage). Literal 3RR violation, and note that his third included the apparent recognition of having read my warning. It's a valid point to have a discussion, but it's a bizarre starting point to consider the New York Times as a default non-reliable source and to do so solely because it contains some trivial/unencyclopediac facts. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DMacks thinks that his edit summaries substitute for a discussion on the article Talk Page (which I initiated and he failed to participate in). He doesn't seem to know the the meaning of WP:BRD. He also doesn't seem to know that it takes four reverts to constitute a violation of WP:3RR. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did indeed participate. Maybe your noticing that is as {{ec}} as my moments-belated noticing you had started a discussion while I was writing my edit-summary. Give-and-take via edit-summary is a common starting-point for raising a simple point (I couldn't understand how a NYT cite wasn't plausibly "notable", and still cannot really, but now we are on talk-age about that), though now we obviously do need more extensive discussion which is when we go to talkpage. And "dammit, mis-counted" also during the rapid EC...sorry about that. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Perhaps you can request that this complaint be dropped as unnecessary. But "discussion through edit summary" is not the best practice in Misplaced Pages. Per WP:BRD, as soon as I reverted the initial insertion of the information, the discussion should have moved to the article Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin/clerk, feel free to close as withdrawn (and welcome to join us in the on-going discussion!) DMacks (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yheyma reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Warned)

Page

Non-standard cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Dichotomous cosmology */"
2. 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626535594 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
3. 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626544687 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
4. 04:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626569237 by AndyTheGrump (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated insertion of OR */ new section"

Comments:

Not a clear 3RR but clearly EW. Editor shows a lack of understanding of WP policy diff MrBill3 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned User:Yheyma. If they revert again to add the disputed section at Non-standard cosmology they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jobas reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Warned, protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 01:34, 22 September 2014
2. Revision as of 08:16, 22 September 2014
3. Revision as of 15:00, 22 September 2014
4. Latest revision as of 16:10, 22 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link to section

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

Comments:

User has broken 3RR and has made false accusations against me in his edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Jobas (talk · contribs) because he received no warning prior to this report being filed and because he has no prior blocks for edit warring. Page protected for five days to allow discussion of the disputed content on the talk page so that consensus on its inclusion may be reached. Ks0stm 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Madere reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "The "dispute" is with you, in any case, your you are the one that must go to the talk or stop disturbing the article."
2. 13:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "It is necessary to show to the human being in its natural state, like the animal that really it is. It is not necessary to go to the talk, there is no such a dispute."
3. 12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Such a consensus never existed, you can check in the discussion. Thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There is an attempt to resolve at talk, to no avail so far. 3RR warning left here last revert was after the warning. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Still reverting. --NeilN 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Alexf 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Red Slash reported by User:Widefox (Result: Warning, protection)

Page

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

User being reported

Red Slash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on ISIS. (TW)"
2. 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ well, you're at your 1RR, so you need to be aware of it..."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on ISIS redirect. Reverted by 3 editors. 1RR limit reached on hatnote on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant . Previous disruption on ISIL redirect and related. Ask for admin to notify Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement as these redirects are related. Setting ISIS and ISIL unilateral WP:PRIMARYTOPIC without due discussion. Widefox; talk 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, after nine years of editing and some 10,000 edits (roughly), getting reported to WP:AN is a first. I have not violated either the spirit or the letter of 3RR, which requires three reverts in a 24-hour period. And I have no idea what on earth my alleged infringing upon a "1RR limit" is supposed to refer to; I changed a hatnote on the main article to make it one line instead of two (The horror!), and I can't see how that's a revert (I did "undo" a previous editor's edit to make that happen, and maybe I should've just copy-pasted the template in instead).

As for the actual problem, which is the redirect at ISIS, I have not found WP:RFD to be amenable to efficient discussions (I recall Steve Austin taking so long that I unilaterally closed a discussion I was WP:INVOLVED in and begging anyone to revert me and make a decision to close the discussion--which nobody took me up on), so I'm not sure where a logical discussion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be held that would lead to a speedy result for that redirect. But the evidence is obvious. Pageviews for all capitalizations of ISIS (right now grok.se is down for me so I can't prove it) have skyrocketed over the past few months, and you get one guess as to why that is. To me, this is so obvious that I'm not entirely sure why anyone would disagree, but if someone wants to seriously suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant isn't the primary topic... I mean, sure, we can talk about it. But I'm in the business of getting readers to the articles that they want, and if you can see that 90+% of our readers are looking for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when they type in ISIS, you'll get why WP:IAR is pretty doggone valid here. Red Slash 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Talk:ISIS still redirects to Talk:Isis (disambiguation). Red Slash, whatever merge you did, you didn't even do it correctly. (And do scroll to the bottom here and see the previous discussions for which consensus was not reached for this WP:LAME edit war.) – Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(Update: I mean "retarget", sorry. Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

I did no merge. I moved ISIS (which was a disambiguation page) to a different location so that ISIS could redirect straight to the topic everyone wants to read about. And the discussion you linked to says nothing at all about where ISIS should point to. Red Slash 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I put an RfC up... Talk:ISIS Red Slash 03:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

@Widefox: This request is malformed. You have not provided the diffs of the edit warring (though I can see it in the talk page). Would you mind including those diffs above?

@Red Slash: You're right - after 10,000 edits this may be a first - and you've already been templated. After the second revert (or even the first) you should have taken it to the talk page. You're currently at 4RR - I would suggest stopping, lest you may find yourself blocked a little faster. Dusti 03:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, what are you referring to? Please help, I mean it sincerely. I have absolutely no idea what you might be referring to. 4RR? (And I've been templated a kajillion times--that part doesn't concern me.) Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR means that you've reverted someone (or others) four times within 24 hours, which is a blockable issue - as it's considered edit warring. I meant that you've already been templated as in - a warning about edit warring has already been placed on your talk page so I'm not going to place anther one... besides, I don't like templating the regulars. Dusti 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dusti, I don't understand. Four? What is this about? Red Slash 03:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)7

(edit conflict) I'm wrong - you've reverted twice within the last 24 hours. IIRC everything related to the Syrian Civil War is subject to a 1RR sanction - which means that you can only revert once within 24 hours or you may be blocked for edit warring. See WP:1RR. Dusti 03:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, Dusti, that explains that. I forgive you, with or without an apology. I am not an editor who fools around with 3RR and being accused of 4RR and getting threatened with a block concerned me, but I now see it was a mistake. If there is a 1RR rule applied to anything related to the Syrian Civil War (which does make sense, though it was news to me), I will not violate that again; indeed, I even apologize for having unwittingly done so. Thank you for clearing things up.

My apologies again. @EdJohnston: if you're willing - I think this could get closed as Warned? Dusti 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash, It would be helpful to whichever admin closes this if you would agree to refrain from any more unilateral changes concerning the name ISIS or any other names that may have something to do with the Islamic State. You have now redirected ISIS three times, which may possibly break the 1RR on everything related to the Syrian Civil War, and there is a long list of people who disagree with you. Continuing here with an indignant defence of your actions could make the closing admin think that a block is the only way to get your attention. I assume that's not the case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, can you help me please? I am so confused. I have reverted an edit on this twice in the last week (both today), which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near 3RR. I have no idea what rules, written or otherwise, I may have broken. I filed an RfC on Talk:ISIS, EdJohnston, and that'll have to do. Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You changed ISIS into a redirect to the Islamic State once on 14 September and then twice on 22 September (first one, second one). By doing so you joined in a long-running war that was begun by others. Each time your change was reverted by someone else. Your 22 September edits appear to break the 1RR on 'articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. EdJohnston, thank you. I had not been aware of any sanctions applying to ISIS, which was a disambiguation page when I found it. I was even less aware of any ongoing wars (except, sigh, for the actual ones). I will adapt my behavior. Red Slash 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Red Slash is warned for WP:1RR. The ISIS article (currently a redirect to ISIS (disambiguation)) is fully protected one month. The WP:Requested move process is available if anyone disagrees with how these articles are currently named. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, let's discuss on the talk page now like civilized people and unlike the people who are the subject of the Islamic State article. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:175.141.37.33 reported by User:Jase240 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.141.37.33 (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: (Second previous version before him continuing on the 20th.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Non warned, only asked.)
(Warned for edits.)
(Warned for talk page harassment.)

Comments: The user has been doing this for days, at first he was reverting with someone else with semi-valid information. After the first 2 cards released they stopped being reverted and I ensured the table was correct, he continued to add a 3rd unreleased card. This has been going on for days and the user is also harassing using edit comments and talk page edits. Also to note after he was warned, he blanked his talk page multiple times.

Other comments: I apologize if I did not follow the proper warning and reporting method in this case, I have tried to read through the rules to warn and report as much as possible and hope I did it right.

Jase240 (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Jase240, you didn't do it right. You're not supposed to list refs, and the pointers to the reverts in the article should be diffs, not links. Finally, as the instructions say at the top of this page, you are required to notify the other user of this report (I did it for you).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for fixing that, I'll remember to list diffs like so next time and I can't believe I forgot about the notifying after telling myself to notify him. Thanks for resolving this also! Jase240 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, he switched his IP and is now using the following: User:175.141.36.89

He immediately reverted the edit on the page again, I also warned the new IP for the edit. He also has already blanked his talk page from the warning: Jase240 (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625901068
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625916545
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=625981954
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626002121
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626044874
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626059447
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626111848
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626113667
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114310
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114487
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626114840
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115405
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115684
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115954
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116265
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116543
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116757
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626116929
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626115954
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626121553
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626127974
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626128360
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626128679
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626131517
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626132038
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626318334
27. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626504977
28. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units&oldid=626299502
29. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626318238
30. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626551856
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:175.141.37.33&oldid=626559601
32. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jase240&oldid=626615017
33. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jase240&oldid=626615063

User:Serialjoepsycho reported by User:Atsme (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I added the word "Foundation" to a section heading because it is part of the organization's correct legal name. He reverted it back to the common name. I also added more information to the section for accuracy, and he did revert that, too. I was not going to keep reverting him, or I'd be the one in trouble.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning - I warned him on his Talk page about his disruptive editing: ]

He responded by posting a warning to my Talk page:

I was forced to file an ANI against him a few days ago for his relentless disruptions, hounding and civility violations, and requested a topic ban. To date, there has not been a response from an admin. They left my previous ANI unresolved as well, which explains why he has become so emboldened.

Comments:

Please, I just want him to stop so I can do my job as an editor. He has made little to no edit contributions on any of the articles. I am the lead editor on the IPT article where he has also spitefully reverted my edits. He spends the majority of his time hawking talk pages, and hounding me. Atsme☯ 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to point to this page here This is the Sreven Emerson Revision history page. While above you will see that Atsme has linked 6 revisions. If you check the Revision history you will only find 4. of these followed a revision by myself. Unless I'm mistaken sequential edits count as one. That would be 2 reverts. If I am mistaken about sequential edits counting as one then you will find Atsme herself is in violation as she has 4 reverts with two being sequential as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to further add that Atsme has This on AfD and a merge proposal. It's very interesting seeking a consensus and removing material related to that consensus she is seeking. It's also interesting raising the same issue in multiple locations, ANI, AFD, and a merge proposal on a talk page linked to Misplaced Pages:Proposed_mergers. If she can't get it one way can she get it another way. Really seems like gaming the system and I do to question if this 3RR report might abuse of process as outlined by Misplaced Pages:Gaming_the_system#Abuse_of_process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Learn to count. Atsme☯ 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's count them shall we? Here again is the Steven Emerson revision history page. This is the first one. This and This is the second and third ones and they are sequential. This is the final one. Or where you not talking about my edits? We can count yours as well. Here's yours 1, 2, 3, and 4. Number 3 and 4 of yours are sequential.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC

Steven Emerson Revision history:

(cur | prev) 23:37, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626720711 by Atsme (talk) Reverting pov edit.)

(cur | prev) 23:29, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,647 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626719697 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Stop reverting correct information and replacing with incorrect information. You are edit warring.)

(cur | prev) 23:28, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Stop. You are edit warring. The correct name is The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION - an encyclopedia is not the place for commonality.)

(cur | prev) 23:15, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,692 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Partial revert)

(cur | prev) 23:00, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717804 by Atsme (talk) because it is a POV change)

(cur | prev) 22:48, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,605 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717270 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Leave it alone - the section is about the steps that led to the FOUNDATION, not about his dba, IPT)

(cur | prev) 22:41, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (→‎The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation)

^^^^Atsme=3, Serialjoepsycho=4. My edits were to improve the article. Your edits were vandalism. Read the rule: Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. You refuse to accept responsibility for your actions even when you are caught red handed. And the only thing "interesting" about my Afd, ANI, and raising the same issue is the fact that you refuse to stop despite my good faith attempts to stop you. You have no boundaries, or respect for policy. Atsme☯ 14:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You actually missed one. At 21:03, September 22, 2014‎ was your first revert. Here's a link to it again . As far as vandalism I'm not aware of any. What I am aware of is that you are trying to get a consensus in multiple locations for Investigative Project on Terrorism and you are removing any traces of it from the Steven Emerson page before you receive a consensus.You want to Delete the article at AFD, You want to merge the article with Steven Emerson on the talk page of Steven Emerson, and in the actual article of Steven Emerson you are trying to remove it. I think WP:FILIBUSTER applies with that particularly instance. Having this here, at ani, AFD, and ect seems a whole lot like forum shopping. You are really hedging your bets.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. That is not a revert. It was the first edit that YOU reverted. Your gaming strategy is not going to work here because the issue is clear, and accurately documented. Atsme☯ 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a revert. You did undo another editors work. That was the first of four in 24 hours. And BTW, The post I made on Atsme page, Check the next edit on her page .Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a revert. Since you don't edit or contribute prose to improve articles, you may not fully understand the process of editing to add, improve, and/or correct inaccuracies of factual, documented information. It has nothing do with POV. Review WP:MOS. My first edit was to ADD the word "Foundation" to correct the section title. YOU reverted my edit. Do you not understand what "revert" means? I also added prose which you also reverted, and by doing so created disruption to the project despite the warnings. YOU were not only disruptive, you violated the 3RR with your 4th revert. Please allow the admins to do their job, and form their own conclusions based on the documentation. Atsme☯ 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho and Atsme: you are both exhibiting an unwillingness to collaborate with each other. Neither of you have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material. Further, the items that you're adding are unreferenced, and especially with articles such as this more often than not you're going to need some sourcing. Joe - just because you haven't actually reached 3RR yet, you can still be blocked for attempting to game the system and exhibiting edit warring behaviors. You both need to stop and go to the talk page. Dusti 18:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a conversation going on. Multiple conversations going on. In Multiple locations about this subject. , Talk:Steven_Emerson, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_inaccurate_information_acceptable_for_inclusion_if_it_comes_from_a_self-published_source.3F, and probably a few other places. Her changes that I reverted go against any attempt at working towards a consensus. It is bad faith negotiating. In her first revert She removed the main page link to the investigative project on terrorism, she removed mention of it, and removed mention of it's 1995 start. All of which she is seeking a consensus for in one way or another in one of those 3 conversations. . I have no intention of gaming the system at all. I'm actually currently waiting for some of these discussions to close so that I can take this to ARBCOM without gaming the system.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be why there's so much confusion between the two of you. Disputed content should be discussed on the article's talk page, and these multiple conversations are likely to confuse any such person. Try consolidating this stuff to the talk page. From what I can see, neither of you have attempted to discuss this disputed content, but then again, I'm only looking for the most recent edits to the talk page. Dusti 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, his response was designed to purposely cause confusion, and it apparently worked. That's how he operates. I've had 7 months of his antics, and often wondered how I've been able to edit in spite of them. Please just look at the reverts - he has 4. In fact, look at the article's revision history for September 22, and you will quickly see he has violated the 3RR which begins with his revert directly following my first edit: . Thank you. Atsme☯ 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, there's one thing I forgot to add for clarification to what you said as follows: "Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material." Just so you'll know, I am the lead editor for the IPT article, and the section I edited in Steven Emerson was about his association with the IPTF. The version I removed was sourced using a self-published online blog Steven Emerson. My edit was made using a reliable secondary source . So yes, I improved the article by correcting the information using a reliable source. Atsme☯ 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's where the issues started Atsme. There's no such thing as a "lead editor". We certainly have individuals who have started articles, but we're all equal and we all collaborate together. See WP:OWN for further information. With just over 1,000 edits, I'm afraid you have a lot to learn. I suggest stepping back and trying to work with Serialjoepsycho on the talk page. Dusti 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ciller reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )

Page: KRBK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ciller (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: and

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report. User:Ciller is a single-purpose account who works at the station KRBK, and is persistently reinserting a list of non-notable names despite numerous explanations why they don't belong as well as links to discussions showing that yes, this is a consensus and not just an editor or two with a vendetta or, ironically, ownership of the article. The editor has made no attempt whatsoever to use the article talk page, despite numerous requests to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dantetheperuvian reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )

Page: Intercontinental Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: basically all article talk page.

Comments:

User:Dantetheperuvian was also reported in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for insulting me 3 times. SLBedit (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the "insults" a little too much to heart - though I have placed a note on their talk page along with a proper warning. Dusti 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the insults lightly but thanks for the warning. SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, if "troll" or "fuck" are the worst things you're called during your tenure at Misplaced Pages - you'll be fine. Dusti 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Predator2014 reported by User:Catlemur (Result: Reporting party blocked )

Page: Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Predator2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above mentioned user undone sourced material provided by me, accusing me of spreading rumors/fringe theories.The issue is about Turkish alleged involvement.Predator ignored my offer to discuss it with other editors, instead undoing my edit without proper explanation.Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed to discuss this issue (If you are talking about your offer at the Talk page). But I believe that questionable information should be deleted until the compromise found.Predator2014 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Catlemur (talk · contribs) Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. WP:BOOMERANG. Catlemur has reverted several users over the same edit the last three days and has violated the three-revert rule. No one other than Catlemur has more than three reverts total, so I've declined to block anyone else. Ks0stm 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've been informed this is a 1RR article...timeout while I review this. Ks0stm 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Catlemur (talk · contribs) and Predator2014 (talk · contribs) notified and notification logged of the 1RR restriction; Catlemur's block still for 3RR and not blocking Predator2014 due to his not having received notification of the sanctions. Ks0stm 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:93.173.134.213 reported by User:Luxure (Result: )

Page

Steve Cohen (Magician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "http://www.chambermagic.com/jewish-museum-houdini-private-dinner"
2. 02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Steve Cohen IS Jewish, raised in a Jewish family AND a member of Jewish organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname) It is in the news."
3. 02:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
4. 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
5. 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) to 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) "COHEN http://en.wikipedia.org/Cohen_(surname)"
   2. 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"
2. 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"
3. 02:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

warned and his edits were also reverted by User:Collect. Block him for 1month. His source isnt reliable Luxure (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring