Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 11 June 2015

• 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:Skyerise reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Discretionary sanctions notification )

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Blocked 1 week )

Page: When contact changes minds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. , 11:43, 9 June 2015 ‎ "(Undid revision 666153534 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
2. , 23:36, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 666110351 by David Eppstein (talk))"
3. , 23:27, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 666052001 by David Eppstein (talk) Undo inappropriate and extremely rude edit."
4. , 12:23, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 665942660 by 23.242.207.48 (talk) Undo improper and rude removal of relevant, well-sourced content)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Article talk page section

Comments:
The edit summaries say it all: four instances of "Undid" in <24 hours. A block log with three previous blocks for edit-warring indicates more than adequate awareness of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by reported user; in content disputes it's customary to state a reason for removing material, and it's even more customary for that reason to be based on an identifiable content policy. Got to go to work, BBL. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm surprised Factchecker has been left free to edit; they're little more than a troll, and the saga around demanding that a certain editor be sanctioned for having a "bad" talk page comment, which went on far too long, showed that clearly. There are more than enough warnings on their talk page; time to prevent any more time being wasted on them, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is very plainly edit warring over a period of three days, crossing the bright line of 3RR within 24 hours, ignoring WP:BRD, and as Lukeno94 so aptly stated, I am surprised that FCAYS is allowed to continue to edit. The disruption, incivility, and inability to edit collaboratively are a constant theme with this editor.- MrX 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -- GB fan 13:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hope he wasn't late for work... _Fortuna 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now he's appealing the block on his talk page . —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: )

• Page: South Beach Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid the title says it all. Reverts without relevant discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The original title used by Anmccaff was "user:Jytdog and user:Alexbrn editwarring on South Beach Diet". All I did was fill in the normal report header. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff - You have removed the content four times, Alexbrn and Jytdog have both replaced it twice. None of you are exactly in the right, but the consensus is against you at the moment and you've made the most reverts. Please restart the conversation on the talk page if you wish to carry on arguing your point. SmartSE (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, there is a very small number of participants, two of whom have a habit of acting in concert. Speaking of "consensus" is a bit pretentious here. That's a side point, however. This is a medically related article, and it should conform to MEDRS, and it clearly does not. Consensus has no more to do with it than it would, for example, in a living person's biography. You don't keep preliminary evaluations a dozen years after they are published, and any open questions in them have been long since answered. You don't credit a minor textbook over a major research group. And you certainly don't call reviewing the literature "OR"; the only way to avoid undue POV is to see what points of view there are, or to plagiarize, or to trust in blind luck. (I don't recommend the latter two.) It is difficult to find recent cites for the article's position except by tendentious searching; it isn't a coincidence that both Jytdog and Alexbrn picked a source that shows on the first page of a google book search for "south Beach" "fad diet." They need to address this, rather than blindly revert, and they need to consider that plastering a user page with templates isn't a form of discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: There are multiple sources for this as well as the one used in the lede, and it has been discussed to death in Talk & at WT:MED to reach the current consensus. If you really wish to pursue this further please use WP:DR as others have said. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for this as well as the one used in the lede,

...most with the same issues, and, far more importantly, outnumbered by better sources that take no particular stand against lowered carbohydrate diets, or actively support them. You have cherrypicked a weak cite from the declining shallows, not the mainstream. The idea that lower-carbohydrate diets are medically dangerous largely died with the Nurses Study analysis, but, as always, some people cling to their old ideas.

it has been discussed to death...at WT:MED to reach the current consensus. That is, frankly, a lie. One editor requested discussion there twice; there was none there. None whatsoever.

it has been discussed to death in Talk Where is the question of unacceptably outdated sources addressed in talk?Anmccaff (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

boomerang

This is the second bogus 3RR case brought by Anmccaff. First one was here Am filing a boomerang case as he is the one slowmo edit warring:

1. 20 March 2015 diff
2. 3 April 2015 diff
3. 17 April 2015 diff
4. 27 May 2015 diff
5. 27 May 2015 diff
6. 9 June 2015 dif
7. 9 June 2015 dif

• edit war warning notices:
  • May 27 here
  • June 9 here

• effort to work out on talk page here starting back in march and continuing to subsequent sections. Smartse Anmcalff has been pushing to remove "fad" from article, and wants to add unsourced content like SBD is "no longer considered" a fad diet, which is just OR. I note that issue of "fad diet" has been extensively discussed on the Talk page, going back to last fall (see archives, starting here) when a paid editor was trying to get that term removed. So the issue had been extensively discussed prior to Anmcalff's arrival. The consensus on the page is not something lightly established. Instead of pursuing DR to change the consensus and change the well-sourced content, he has been slowmo edit warring. Please give a short-term block and urge anmcalff to use DR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (sorry for all the tweaking. done now. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike request to block Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC))

Personally, I don't see the need for a block at the moment and Anmcaff doesn't seem to understand what edit warring is very well. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt but am watching the article, so will take action if necessary. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That will do. Please do urge amccaalff to use DR. I have, to no avail. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"well sourced content?" It included a review of cheap wines. More like "well, soused." Anmccaff (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be explicitly clear, BTW, as I see it, the boomerang was thrown, so to speak, when you (plural) substituted an edit warring template for substantive discussion. If you do that, expect to come in here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

anmccaff we have discussed this issue to death, going back to last fall. either give up graciously or take up some kind WP:DR. but stop just edit warring. please. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it means anything, rules or not, ethics or not, by observation over months, I give my full support to Jytdog, any and all of his edits, for standing up against Alecbrn's "rule-justified" bigotry. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:149.129.32.89 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

Page: Altay (tank) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.129.32.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reverted User:ScrapIronIV "Do Not Change For Malaysian Army"
2. Reverted User:Bilcat "This is True,No Change it."
3. Reverted User:ScrapIronIV "True Is True.Now Stop Playing."
4. Reverted USer:Cassianto "Did you see +323.I was right"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User has taken the discussion to my user talk page. It has not been duplicated on the article talk page, yet.

Comments:

This is content which is inadequately sourced, and which was removed from previous versions of the article. This has been explained to the contributor. Multiple editors have weighed in on this issue, and the user refuses to contibute more than reversions and insistence that they are "right" and "true." This is not the only page where they are edit warring, and includes such edit sommaries as: "Undid Revision By Stupid Unknown Number.Do Not Change It Cause This Picture Are very Simple and Clear Picture.You can Change the Imformation but Can't Change The PICTURE!!!!.Last Warning!" "This Pictures Are not Very Nice and You Need To Stop or I Slap Your Mouth.That Currunt Picrure are sucks and Old Picture are more Nice."

Blocked – 48 hours. User is warring to add ungrammatical text to the article and is citing a questionable blog source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cebr1979 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Page protected)

Page

Katherine Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "Yes, they do need to be discussed. And, since the date was at September until Jester started edit warring the other day (it had been at September for months), that's the date it's going to stay at."
2. 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "Honestly... just because Jester didn't see the episode doesn't mean in didn't happen. Either that, or he did see it and is just senselessly reverting for the sake of owning the page. He's not giving a reason, he's just reverting. Even though the info i..."
3. 03:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "Those sources have great info about Jeanne Cooper's last airdate. Unfortunately, this is not Jeanne Cooper's page, it's Katherine Chancellor's and the character of Katherine Chancellor was last seen at her own funeral in September. We don't need a sour..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katherine Chancellor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "Final appearance"
2. 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Final appearance */"

Comments:

A discussion on the issue was also previously started at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Flashbacks. — TAnthony 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was putting consensus back. Why don't you report your buddy Jester who started edit warring, broke the 3RR, and was doing so without any explanations of his edits, he was just doing it over and over again for no reason.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I warned you both, you broke the rule first. There has been no consensus yet, that is why a discussion is required.— TAnthony 16:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

By consensus were you referring to the fact that you added the info in November 2014 and no one changed it until Jester66 reverted in January 2015? That is not consensus, that is a disagreement that needs to be discussed.— TAnthony 17:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the consensus policy please. That actually is a consensus until such time as a discussion has closed. You had no right to change it to May.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then you should have actually engaged in a discussion about it rather than edit war over it with inflammatory edit summaries.— TAnthony 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC

Or: then you should stop showing favouritism with your editing friend instead of just admitting when you were wrong. Also: that message you just left on Jester's talk page all about me is a complete joke and you should consider following your own advice: talk about edits not an editor. Hahaha... wow. You just keep on with whatever you want. I'm not talking to you again.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1. The idea of implicit consensus went out the window when a third editor (me) became involved in the back-and-forth between you and Jester66, as two editors were now challenging your addition.
2. You still reverted inappropriately, even though you feel you were restoring the article to the "correct" version pending discussion. That is not a thing.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by favoritism, I warned you both, and you violated 3RR of your own accord, apparently because you could not stand to leave Jester66's revert alone for 24 hours?
4. My public message to Jester66 was to inform him/her of my actions reporting you for this violation, as well as warning you regarding your personal attack on his/her talk page. My comment that you appear to be a volatile editor is supported by this violation as well as the edit summary diffs I provided here. My comment that I hope you will learn from this and we can all edit harmoniously in the future was genuine.— TAnthony 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Between the three of you, there was definitely an edit war going on here, but I don't think assigning blame here or blocking people is going to be productive. Cebr1979 (t c), I do want to caution you against sounding like you own an article. Comments like "and that's the way it's going to stay" are both counterproductive to a harmonious environment and likely to incite other editors to prove you wrong. —Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can accept that, Darkwind, however:

Let's just be realistic here: TAnthony and his 'holier-than-thou-I'm-a-saviour' attitude leaves something to be desired. I see through it, and I think you do too or you wouldn't have mentioned "the three of us..."

His edit when he changed the date to May was his way of baiting me and we all know it. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm using logic! His baiting is evidenced by him saying to me that I "couldn't wait 24 hours..."

Well... so... what's his reason for not "waiting 24 hours" himself? He made that change knowing it would push my buttons and... his "parenting" me on 4 different talk pages is the proof! "The more people that see me schooling Cebr1979, the more heroic I look!" is what was going through his mind.

There's not one single excuse in the history of excuses that can explain his edit to that page other than, "He'll react... and then I can be the hero!" I knew I was being baited and I gave him what he wanted.

Something will happen again someday, and I'll quote this conversation when it does.

Peace out for now. Cebr1979 (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RedJulianG40 reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Bantams Banter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RedJulianG40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: note:first insertion of spam link by RedJulian (not a revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (same as below) I'll notify him immediately

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

RedJulian said he'd revert me despite that being 4RR (which he did). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looked to me like a spam link, and it looks to me like 4RR. I'll leave it to the admins here to take care of it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. GiantSnowman (t c) also made 4 reverts, but self-reverted the last one, which goes a long way to demonstrating a willingness to work collaboratively. RedJulianG40 (t c), on the other hand, stated that he planned to continue reverting to his preferred version, which in addition to breaking 3RR demonstrates a lack of willingness to work collaboratively, and is the reason he has been blocked. —Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Darkwind: - as far as I can see I reverted the addition of the iTunes link 3 times and then self-reverted when I realised... GiantSnowman 09:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: Nope. Recalling that "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert," I counted one two three four and self-revert. Remember that the reverts do not have to be of the same material to count against 3RR. —Darkwind (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Darkwind: Yes, good point, apologies. GiantSnowman 09:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - A request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard while the deletion request for this article was in progress. It was declined because DRN does not accept cases where an issue is pending in another decision-making forum such as AFD. Now that the AFD has been closed to Keep the article, if the participants want moderated discussion of the text of the article (after one editor comes off block), a new request can be filed at DRN, but DRN is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Khestwol (Result: No violation; Report renewed after recent revert)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

6. (new revert after this report was first submitted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of WP:3RR. Debresser seems to be repeatedly pushing a certain POV while disruptively edit-warring in the article, as well as other similar articles on topics about monotheistic religions and the Middle East. The history of the Ramadan article shows he has been reverting multiple users persistently. Within a period of 5 minutes, Debresser made 5 reverts, including 3 times reverting me and 2 times reverting Scientus. I strongly recommend that the article needs protection, and he needs a temporary block so that other related articles about Islam, monotheistic religions, and the Middle East are also temporarily protected from Debresser's disruption. Khestwol (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I quote the 3RR policy: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. He did two undos, you did one, he did three, and you did one. For 3RR purposes, that's two reverts, and the page history doesn't give reason for a more generic edit-warring block. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nyttend though, why do you say: Two reverts? No, he did two full reverts just on me (, ), not one. Both these edits have added the very same content to the article. But as linked above, he also did at least 1 full revert (if you consider , as a single) where he is undoing Scientus. That means, at least 3 full reverts by him, consisting of 5 partial reverts. Khestwol (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a pair of edits, one by someone else, and then a series of three edits. For 3RR purposes, we don't care how many edits someone makes: we don't care if these changes took one edit or three. Finally, if you insist on me considering this to be three reverts, because it undid three other edits, let me remind you that this edit undid two of his, and this puts you at the brink of 3RR and liable to be blocked for edit-warring too. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This has still not stopped. Even while on Talk:Ramadan#Name in the lede sentence it was shown to Debresser that his edits were wrong, he is still reverting (his recent revert: ). Hence I am renewing this report because his violation of 3RR was repeated although less than 13 hours had passed since his first revert. Khestwol (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. This is still not a violation, as the edit at 14:44 (PDT) was only his third sequence of edits on this page in these 24 hours. His next revert, if any, would be a violation of WP:3RR. In my opinion, this has not reached the level of an edit war, at least not yet. (Ping Nyttend for completeness' sake.) —Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

However, Darkwind, I think an admin should tell Debresser to self-revert after consensus at Talk:Ramadan#Name in the lede sentence is clearly against his favor, with he being the only one making changes that are against what Fauzan and me are saying. I have reverted Debresser twice already. He is on the wrong but I do not want edit-wars on the page. Khestwol (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:87.97.198.163 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Maybe not a violation, but blocked on other grounds)

Page

Medieval Bulgarian army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Conflicts */"
2. 10:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Conflicts */"
3. 10:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Conflicts */"
4. 09:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Conflicts */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Medieval Bulgarian army. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting 6~7K+ bytes worth of unsourced WP:OR, regarding medieval battles. _Fortuna 11:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This kind of page history was confusing enough that I ignored the 3RR issue. Remember that {{uw-unsor4}} is typical final warning that you're about to get blocked — persistent addition of unsourced content is a valid reason for blocking, and this guy was persistent. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gal lilos reported by User:Huldra (Result: 24h)

Page: Tomb of Lazarus (al-Eizariya) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gal lilos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff, 01:01, 10 June 2015: change Palestine into Israel
2. diff 12:49, 10 June 2015: change Palestine into Israel

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: link

Comments:
Article is under 1RR, pr ARBIA

Comments:
He writes here on his user page, that "but this is not true. there is no Palestine county. its inside Israel lines. very simple". However, the place has never been officially claimed or annexed by Israel, it is, both by Israeli and International law, part of the occupied Palestinian West Bank. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. In general, the common interpretation of revert rules generally requires that the material being undone has to have been added recently. Since this page had not been edited in several months prior to Gal lilos (t c)' first edit, the first diff is not a revert per se, and so the second diff is actually his first revert.

However, his assertion on his talk page regarding the "truth" of his edits is concerning as it implies a lack of understanding of edit warring and consensus, so I will leave a message on his talk page as well. —Darkwind (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by ItsZippy (t c) who came to a slightly different conclusion on the implications of Gal lilos (t c)' comments regarding his views on the existence of Palestine. Discussion here. —Darkwind (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I ended up overlapping with Darwind (blame my slow internet connection) and blocked this user for 24 hours while he was writing this response. See here. ItsZippy 23:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Habatchii (Result: No violation)

Page

.codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AndyTheGrump (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The Misplaced Pages user AndyTheGrump apparently has a history of making edit wars without considering courtesy. The page .codes was recently tagged for deletion after nomination for good article was suggested on one of the pages (Electronic harassment (talk)) he was watching/editing. This is a clear case of retaliation and should not be endorsed publicly by Misplaced Pages.

Please investigate these issues, you will see that the user has a history of similar complaints and barring. Habatchii (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation AndyTheGrump has made 0 edits to this page; please only report editors here who are edit warring. ItsZippy 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ummm... User:AndyTheGrump isn't the one who nominated the article for deletion. And this is the noticeboard for edit warring, but there doesn't appear to be any, you know, edit warring going on. Unless I'm missing something, this should be closed, with a note to the filer to be more careful in what he claims. (after e/c:) agree with ItsZippy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This user is an asset to WP, and has always edited/ posted here in honesty and in good faith, to the best of my knowledge. (Not that he in any way needed my comment here.) Scott P. (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Americans for Prosperity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DaltonCastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:22, 10 June 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:48, 10 June 2015
2. 21:14, 10 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:43, 10 June 2015

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:22, 23 May 2015
2. 19:11, 23 May 2015
3. 00:16, 24 May 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on reported editor's user talk page:

1. 01:39, 23 May 2015

Comments:

Back 10 days from block, continuation of edit war from report of 21:59, 28 May 2015, please see User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked). Resume behavior, repeated deletion of the same content and reference as the 28 May report, a succinct statement of a highly significant, widely held point of view on the subject of the article WP:YESPOV, a paraphrase from a highly noteworthy source, the editorial board of The Washington Post, with clear in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Content and reference originally added 12:15, 1 May 2015. Hugh (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is drivel. Hugh is trying to take over control of the article in question and be the sole authority on edits. The block he is referencing (which I believe was made in error and I intend to appeal to the appropriate noticeboard to have removed from my record) was on his talkpage when he continually removed notices of his involvement in edit wars. I hate to take this tone but this editor continues to lash out at me and make disruptive edits to push their POV on the page despite community consensus. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify - I was not blocked for any activity on the AFP page. I was blocked because of activity on HughD's talk page. This user accused me of edit-warring, and I subsequently accused him right back since he was reverting all my edits. I placed an edit-war warning on his talk page. He cleverly removed during his submission on this noticeboard. I determined that he should not be allowed to remove this warning from his talk page while he was involved in the war as well. I was in error in violating the 3rr on his talk page alone (although I believe it was with very good intentions). The block had nothing to do with the AFP article. This user is, once again, attempting to retain complete control over the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. You are both edit warring on this article, and you both should know better, having each been blocked for edit warring in the past. It is noted for the record that neither one of you technically broke 3RR in this instance, but the behavior is still very clear. —Darkwind (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Roshan08.08 reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

Page: Ujjain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roshan08.08 (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: User_talk:Roshan08.08#Ujjain

Comments:

ARBPIA 1R and a non-notifiable editor

Some one with this type of signature User: 2600:1010:b042:9567:262:2640:1b30:e347 roams around usually reverting or adding pointing phrases (e.g. here). Today he broke the 1R rule at Gilad Shalit

• 1st diff 21:43, 10 June 2015‎
• 2nd diff ‎ 15:06, 11 June 2015

He has no talk page, so I can't notify him. The edit summaries are evasive.

Could someone handle this? Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: As this is a dynamic IP address, blocking the user will ineffective. You seem to suggest that this goes beyond the two edits which you've cited; I can't find any because his IP keeps changing. If there are a large quantity of problematic edits, it would be useful if you could post them here. ItsZippy 17:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring