Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 16 March 2014 (→User:George1935 reported by User:David Gerard (Result: ): warned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Stemoc reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: this

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 (earliest today)
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4 (most recent today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:
Edit-warring with two other editors (myself, who made two edits today, and User:Nmasst, who made some more) to maintain the presence of an image there is no consensus to have on the page. Has additional reverts to maintain this image in the past, with additional editors (here with Over Hill Under Hill last month). Was warned then not to continue reverting, and again here before he made his final revert. Would also note several of his edit summaries are inaccurate; each of his edits involve adding the image against consensus. pbp 02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, the user in question, User:Nmasst has uploaded the same image 3 times, twice it was deleted on commons because it failed licensing right so he uploaded it a third time on enwiki and when he realised that admins would remove his edit to Nick Offerman's page, he removed his image and left the page blank, I restored it to the previous image which has been there before this user added his "copyright violation" image. The MAIN image currently used on the page is FREE and has been there for identification purpose since October 2013. I did not break any 3RR policy, I just reverted the users who kept removing the "FREE" image just because they "did not like the picture"....There is no consensus, its just 2 users and a vandal. I won't be surprised of Nmasst is one of the 3 ..--Stemoc (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did: you re-added the same image four times in the last 24 hours. That breaks 3RR. If there are three users (and it's four, counting Over Hill) and only one of you, then you don't have consensus on your side and we do. If you had consensus, how come YOU'RE the only person who's made an edit to add that image this calender year? pbp 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This was Nmasst's last edit after removing his picture, he left the page blank, but before he added the pic, the picture used on the page was the FREE one. That FREE picture has been there since February 18th when Lady Lotus changed it to the current picture. It doesn't matter how many times i re-add a picture, 3RR does not apply to vandalism. The user KNOWINGLY removed the picture as his copyright violation image kept getting deleted. If anything I request user Nmasst be BANNED and maybe even checkusered if need be...If an image is available, it will be used to identify the person and thats exactly what happened, you are digging graves here Purpleback, there is NOTHING wrong with the current picture, its the CORRECT depiction of the person in question.--Stemoc (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You just called me a vandal, which is completely inaccurate. My edits were not vandalism, nor were Nmasst's, as both of us believe (with good reason) that that picture shouldn't be on that page, and we had prior consensus (consensus that you alone have ignored). If four editors believe that a picture shouldn't be on a particular page, and only one user (you) believes that it should be kept on the page, that image is removed. That's not vandalism, that's consensus. You've violated consensus, and you've added an image where there was no image four separate times (not counting the warring you did with Nmasst on Saturday) in the last 24 hours, meaning you are not 3RR exempted and should be blocked. I have not committed vandalism, I have enforced consensus, and made only two reverts in a 24 hour period, so there's no rationale for me to be thrown in one of your graves. pbp 03:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe Nmasst or me should be blocked, I'm going to need some diffs. Requesting checkuser on Nmasst isn't done here (it's done at WP:RFCU) and he hasn't broken 3RR. Neither have I. The only person who's broken 3RR is...you pbp 03:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe, the picture in question is an ACCURATE depiction of Nick Offerman, we have already discussed this a month back on his talk page, why are you bringing it up again?, this is NOT for 3RR discussion unless you are being bias and using this as an excuse to REMOVE that picture from his page? This page is not for personal vendettas, its to discuss 3RR and I reiterate, I did not violate any 3RR rules, I reverted a vandal who removed the current picture because his own picture wasn't allowed and then i was reverted by you, I did not violate 3RR but you should read about the 3RR exceptions, i was REVERTING TO THE ORIGINAL edit before the user removed his "Non-Free image". how exactly is that a vandalism? you used my re-addition as an excuse to get the image removed. Please stop wasting my time. I'm an Image-reviewer on commons so I know a non free image when i see one and i was reverting back to the ORIGINAL FREE IMAGE. Nmasst is a vandal who is violating copyright images across 2 wikis..at this stage, Nmasst is a "vandalism -only account" as his only edits suggests.....Stay On-Topic please.--Stemoc (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

'Tis you who have gone off-topic, because accuracy matters not. Just because an image is perceived to be accurate doesn't mean it automatically gets a spot in an article; the images that go in the article are determined by consensus (there was no consensus in this case to have the image in the article). Likewise, perceiving oneself to be accurate is not an exception to 3RR (BTW, the image isn't accurate, it looks nothing like Offerman looks now or looked for all but about two weeks of his life). Removing the image was an acceptable action by Nmasst as numerous editors agreed with him that it shouldn't be there. That means your clock started the first time you reverted there being no image, and your clock is at 4 now. Therefore, you violated 3RR. I can't lay it out in any simpler terms, if you don't understand that, you really need to stop removing images until you get a little more clue. As for vendettas, again, you're the one with a vendetta, a vendetta to add in that ridiculous image no matter who disagrees with you. pbp 04:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus applies to those articles which have MULTIPLE images not which only has ONE. It doesn't matter if it looks nothing like Offerman to you, that is an "ACCURATE" picture of Nick Offerman, I have tried for months to get him another image, its not forthcoming, I did my part and since there is no other option, this will be the PREFERRED image of choice..Free images don't grow on trees, they are ridiculously hard to come by and/or acquire. We were lucky to get him an image for IDENTIFICATION purpose...and again, Nmasst removed the picture because his picture wasn't allowed, infact he added the same picture not once but , twice it was reverted by me, Nmasst is a VANDAL. I'm not in the habit of reporting users, even if they are vandal. he even lied on commons claiming he worked for Nick Offerman when he infact stole that image of someone's tumblr account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stemoc: A good-faith removal of a picture that at least two other editors (Purplebackpack89 and Over Hill and Under Hill) endorse is not vandalism, and if you continue to edit war over reinserting it without seeking consensus—regardless of violating the three-revert rule (which, I should clarify, your current reverts are not an exception to)—you will be blocked. Reverting an alleged copyright violation is one thing, but if editors are simply removing a picture because they don't think it fits or is accurate, which they have clearly expressed in both their edit summaries and on the article's talk page, then it is, again, not vandalism. I strongly recommend you take your dispute to the article's talk page and/or seek dispute resolution. --slakr 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If we allowed certain groups of users to remove every picture on[REDACTED] which they "didn't like", we would not have any pictures on anyone's articles...Over the last year I have added hundreds of pics to articles and the Nick Offerman picture took me that much time and its a really good and HIGH QUALITY image too and just because someone did not like the picture, we should remove it? Free High Quality images are IMPOSSIBLE to come by, remove that and there won't be a pic on his page for atleast 3 more years, well no free ones. If someone removes a "free" image from a page, that is vandalism, and that is what Purpleback did...what consensus are they talking about?, that was discussed in February, the image was REINSTATED and he decided to use Nmasst's vandalism as an excuse to remove it..There is no dispute here, if the picture was of a poor quality, i would have never reverted them in the first place, but its NOT. I even made an alternate copy yesterday from the same event and its still a high quality picture....there is another picture on his page taken from Sundance, i added that as well as a compromise even though its of very poor quality and they'd rather have that. I'm sorry but you are wrong, Nmasst even claims to be "working" for Nick Offerman, so now you are siding with liars?. Well done, now people would be removing images willy-nilly, "because they can"...--Stemoc (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. Use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. (You can ask for an admin to close the discussion if you want). User:Stemoc has stopped reverting the image but User:Lady Lotus and User:Purplebackpack89 have taken up the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I got involved because I find the arguments of PB not valid, all I've heard is "it's a terrible picture" "looks nothing like him" "i don't like it" just because he dyed his hair blonde. I knew of the actor but wasn't familiar with his name, so that picture was more than enough to recognize him. You have one guy who claims to be removing the picture on behalf of Offerman (wow) and then others who won't even have the image in the body of the article. They act like it's cursed and shouldn't be seen by anyone. And I was told by PB that if "if you and Stemoc don't like it, too bad". That's a valid argument? Since when. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, there is agreement on the talk page already. At the present time, I count six editors who want the image removed, and only Lady Lotus and Stemoc wanting it kept. That's a pretty clear consensus, but Lady Lotus seems to act like editors can't vote to remove an image from an article (they can). FWIW, Lady Lotus has now taking to canvassing other editors here and here. I am frankly appalled from the abuse she and Stemoc are giving to the majority of editors who want the image removed for perfectly legitimate reasons pbp 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing is the intention of influencing the outcome, I did no such thing. I asked one trusted colleague and another that I know works a lot with images their opinions, not knowing what their actual opinion is. I never said "hey, agree with me on this". And I don't consider just because he's blonde in the picture a default for it being a horrible picture. That's basically your only reason for not wanting it is because he's blonde when usually he's not. Look, if there were a better, free picture out there with him with his mustache and brown hair, of course we would use it. But that doesn't exist right now. And I've already said that if you have a legit reason for not wanting the picture up, then you could call it getting consensus but you're crying "I don't like it, they don't like it, so there!" It's childish how you're playing it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You, PB, are also incredibly unwilling to compromise. I've tried adding the pic along with the out of focus pic to give users a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. I tried adding it the body of the article just so users would get a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. There are only 2 free images of him available and because of this outcry, neither of them are used because you won't have it. It's not consensus if it's just "do as I say" and you have enough people to agree with it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A majority of editors want it gone from the article. From anywhere. Why should I bend to a small minority to have the pic in the article? You don't understand how things work around here. If a majority of people express an opinion of removing something, it gets removed. Your failure to understand this is at this point disruptive. pbp 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman reported by User:OAlexander (Result: No action)

GiantSnowman (administrator) is blocking any meaningful expansion of the article Seth Burkett. I have applied "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." as per WP:PRIMARY. The application of the source by me in the article is in no way suitable to exaggerate the work of the article subject, and therefore acceptable. The user has also failed to attempt to level with me in any way, but rather reverts without ado. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, matter has already been raised at WP:AN, see diff. GiantSnowman 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Forumshopping and Boomerang means: I request no administrative trickery will be applied against me. I see myself as content provider, not a specialist of, at least to me, esoteric rules. My complaint I maintain. In which place it will be resolved matters not to me. Just, in this way, to contribute with such annoyance for improving trifling articles, that is not definitely not worth my while. I have stopped contributing before. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. Per Talk:Seth Burkett it appears that User:OAlexander and User:GiantSnowman have agreed on a compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen150 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Citizen150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599275071 by Gaba p (talk) Reverted to approved and cited material previously discussed in talk page"
2. 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599483849 by NeilN (talk) Once again, reverting to content approved in the talk page. Need others to stop warring."
3. 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599484464 by NeilN (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"
2. 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"

Comments:

Editor has just come off a block for edit warring on same article and has not made any effort to continue discussion before reverting. BLP concerns too as outlined on talk. NeilN 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous 3RR complaint was here, at 12:27 on 12 March. Since this editor is ignoring the consensus against his changes and is likely to continue indefinitely I recommend a block of at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. --NeilN 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made a full post at ANI recommending a topic/community ban since they have explicitly said they do not intend to stop warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another revert https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Nugent&curid=10519138&diff=599626985&oldid=599501646 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Let's hope he gets it this time. → Call me Hahc21 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Milneg reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. Another revert - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Wallis Simpson#Edit warring; Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Wallis Simpson; User talk:86.154.204.73 and Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Wallis Simpson

Comments:
The IPs 81... and 86... are the same editor as Milneg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring as well as persistently linking to external sources labelled as copyright violations. → Call me Hahc21 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)

Page

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "consensus supports current version, see talk"
2. 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599543771 by AndyTheGrump (talk) see talk"
3. 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599545992 by Gamaliel (talk) JFK section deleted. take discussion to talk, and focus on single issue"
4. 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599578319 by Dbrodbeck (talk) edited those items, see talk"
5. 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599586413 by Ravensfire (talk) removed items that weren't implemented or are controversial, see talk"
6. 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599588258 by Ravensfire (talk) see talk, and pls allow time for changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring on Conspiracy theory */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"

Comments:

Agree to stop pushing for inclusion of proven conspiracy list, which was subject of all the warring.Csp0316 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Csp0316 is warned. If they make any further edits to the article which don't have consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. I take note that they have agreed not to push for inclusion of the list of proven conspiracies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us find a possible path around the problem. Hopefully this won't come back. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire: I am keeping an eye on this, however feel free to ping me if problems persist. → Call me Hahc21 19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do - thanks. I think they mean well, but are fairly new and don't get Misplaced Pages yet. I'm hoping they'll learn. Ravensfire (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I read this report and was willing to block if they persisted but I preferred to be a bit more cautious and wait too see if they changed their mind. Glad they did. → Call me Hahc21 19:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Ravensfire reported by User:Csp0316 (Result: No violation)

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

User reverted edits of long-standing material and remove an entire section, and when I tried to preserve the material he warned me for 3RR. User had some issue with section and major changes have been made since.

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:

Comment: see section above and note that (a) Csp0316 has been reverted by multiple editors, (b) that Csp0316 has been warned regarding WP:3RR, and (c) Csp0316 has had multiple editors explain what the problems with the disputed section are on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response - I've obviously not breached the 3RR limit. CSP0316 is trying to force an unsourced list that multiple editors objected to for various reasons. I have tried on the talk page and the user's talk page to point out the problems and how to handle it (ie, use the article talk page). CSP0316 has ignored all advice and warnings about 3RR. WP:IDHT is strong with this one. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No violation – Two reverts don't break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Chbarts reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Blink element (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chbarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 72.174.133.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.174.76.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 69.145.144.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This has gone on slowly on and off for the last year. The editor objects to the HTML <blink> tag. They removed the example from the Blink element article, and also removed the description of the CSS blink property, with a syntactically broken edit. I reverted this and they quickly repeated the deletion. On the talk page (complete version here) I gave my reason for this. They deleted it. They continue to delete this talk page comment (NB, not the article example) every time it's restored. They justify this, despite warnings for talk: page refactoring and now edit warring, under "removed personal attack", "WP:NOTAFORUM" and "Do not presume to practice medicine without a license".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Today:

1. 15 other blankings over the last year

Also warned (TPV) by Gyrobo here:

Disagreement is one thing (and in deference to their views, I haven't restored the example in the article), but blanking talk page comments is against our policy, as is edit warring.

Is there policy against blatantly insulting talk page entries, and in tendentiously restoring insults that also have apparently faulty medical advice in them? My point is that the talk page entry did nothing to improve the article, and was merely aimed at insulting me. I'm pretty sure WP:NOTAFORUM applies, if nothing else. —chbarts (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy. However, I fail to see why Andy's comments would fall within the remit of that policy. I left a warnign on your talk page. I'd advice you to stop reverting or a block will follow. → Call me Hahc21 14:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments say I'm an incompetent editor. That's pretty insulting. What's worse is that they do nothing to improve the page, which should mean they get removed on sight. Is there an actual reason they're not being removed? —chbarts (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ajaysabarish reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result:blocked indef for vandalism )

Page

Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
3. 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
4. 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unexplained section blanking past warnings to stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Materialscientist. → Call me Hahc21 14:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:99.229.246.140 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Declined)

Page: Psionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Parapsychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.229.246.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Psionics March 15th
2. Parapsychology March 10th
3. Parapsychology March 7th
4. Parapsychology February 17th
5. Psionics February 2nd
6. Psionics February 2nd
7. Psinoics February 2nd

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. March 10th
2. February 2nd

Comments:

Editor's only contributions since January have been to remove "pseudoscience" or change the link on parapsychology and psionics. I've given him two warnings for edit warring, but he hasn't responded or stopped. Page protection isn't appropriate since there isn't substantial problems outside of this editor. He's used at least one other ip. A temporary block for a few weeks (until he comes back next time) might encourage him to discuss the issue. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Not enough activity to block. If you reference another IP, please say which IP, and you should have notified the reported IP of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't provide enough of a good reason to block me, and while I defended my reasons for the edits, and left gaps between, you didn't. I even followed WP's policies, and when reverting my last edit, you had provided no reason why you did so. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that I used another IP; that is only speculation. You, need to get off my case, big brother. No admin other than you was so interested in me. Not only that, but it seems you yourself are biased. You're the only one to have reverted my edits the way you did, and even ignored or misinterpreted the neutrality police that I was following. You're probably just some new admin looking for someone to block, I presume. Get off my case. 99.229.246.140 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.246.140 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@99, I wouldn't get so aggressive about it. Jess is not the only editor to revert your edits, and there's no indication that he's on your case (whatever that means) or that he should stop patrolling the articles. Also, he is an experienced editor but not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @99, you should be aware that you did indeed violate policy. You might want to read WP:BRD - the basic concept is that if you make any edit and if it gets reverted, you're never permitted to re-add it until you have discussed it and obtained WP:CONSENSUS for it. The fact that you're reverting over weeks is still edit-warring, and still could lead to a block - you even admit above that you were formally gaming the system DP 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:41.132.179.212 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Both users warned)

Page: Whoniverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.132.179.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly attempted to modify Whoniverse to fit their belief of what the term means, despite multiple other editors disagreeing with them.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

G S Palmer (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This has all been explained at length on the article's discussion page. A discussion that User:G S Palmer has declined to be a productive part of. In short, the article contained long, essay-like paragraphs that were totally unsourced. After attempting to discuss improving it on the discussion page(and being with with people dismissing the suggestions out of hand), another user told me to . Again, I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response, i did what User:GraemeLeggett said. User:GraemeLeggett and I have since added proper WP:RS, reworded POV sentences, and removed large sections of unsourced OR text. The article was starting to improve. However, User:G S Palmer has decided to revert things back to the way they were, ignoring discussion, and even removing the WP;RS that were added by User:GraemeLeggett and me. I have asked another Admin to arbitrate the dispute. Now I see this report. It's all there in the article's edit history, and on the article's discussion page. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not "multiple other editors". There was User:Mezigue, whose entire argument seemed to be removing "citation needed" tags , and then only made "jokes" during the discussion. Also User:Deb started the discussion, but seems to have abandoned it, despite having made various Misplaced Pages edits since her last post on the discussion. And now, User:G S Palmer, who arrives, restores unsourced material after the discussion had seemingly ended , , and then says this . However, as noted, I am not the only one. Both Mezigue and Deb have left the discussion after I started making edits, yet both have made Misplaced Pages edits since then. And GraemeLeggett has been extremely helpful in restructuring the article. It's only after all of this that User:G S Palmer appeared, reinstating the unsourced material, ignoring the discussion, and actually deleting WP:RS that GraemeLeggett and I had added. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To 41.132.179.212: "I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response...". This means that there was no consensus in your favor. Therefore, your edits are the ones in the wrong.

Had you actually read the discussion page and/or my post here, you would have seen that this response was people refusing to even engage in the discussion, and making sarcastic comments. You still haven't explained why you keep reinstating material that is completely unsourced, why you refuse to engage in a proper discussion, and why you removed WP:RS that and I added to the article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To Administrators: This user appears similar to a user who tried to do something similar over at Master (Doctor Who). They employed many of the same tactics, such as creating gigantic paragraphs of "evidence" on the talk page and accusing other users of personal attacks and violations of Misplaced Pages policy. G S Palmer (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In fact the relevant part is that there I was explicitly told not to use WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:SYNTHESIS, all of which is using here. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No action taken. Both editors Warned and adviced to take a constructive approach towards improving the article. — Edokter (talk) — 20:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599757789 by Dbrodbeck (talk) it's either keep this or remove the other. the first is more out of context second is his actual view on subject"
2. 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599751102 by (talk) not out of context, not fringe. read the essay."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ restore author's primary thesis on CT"
   2. 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ replace purported 'crank' link with RS"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification, not fringe push"
   2. 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "unclear meaning in this context"
5. 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"
2. 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Clear bias by LuckyLouie and Mangoe */"
3. 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Inconsistencies between intro and body */"

Comments:

I believe this user was warned to stop edit warring yesterday, but has gotten back on the horse so to speak. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning is here, scroll up, or . Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jllproductions reported by User:AcidSnow (Results: Blocked)

Page

LGBT rights in Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and LGBT rights in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts (Has used two accounts):

1. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 22:43, 15 March 2014
2. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:08, 15 March 2014
3. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:11, 15 March 2014
4. LGBT rights in Somalia Latest revision as of 23:29, 15 March 2014
5. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:29, 15 March 2014
6. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:59, 15 March 2014
7. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 23:02, 15 March 2014

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. I had already told this user several times to go to the talk page, but he refused to do so. I had to make a section myself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. I had told him to stop in many of my edit summaries.

Comments:

This user has used multiple accounts to edit war on several pages; both actions are not allowed according to Misplaced Pages polices. I have constantly asked this user to stop and use the corresponding talk page numerous times in my edit summaries. He has instead, refused to do so and continued to edit war on several pages. He has also removed sourced content on the LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia page. In fact, he has even made several personal attacks against me on my talk page by saying I have an ego problem, that unable to admit that I am wrong, and need to deal with his edits! Yet, he tells me to stop giving him "a hard time". If any admin has time can you please look at this account also, as they both use the same edit styles, edit the same pages, and don't use edit summaries? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked both accounts (User:Jacobkennedy and User:Jllproductions) indefinitely--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Indiansociology reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h block and 1 year WP:CASTES ban)

Page: Ahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indiansociology (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 is just the most recent: they've had umpteen prior warnings and also a WP:GS/Caste notification.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ahir#Repeated_reinstatement_of_puffery

Comments:

This is a long-running slow edit war. It has in fact been going on for longer than indicated above and has involved either socks or meats from the Ontario area. I'm fed up of it and ideally I'd like to see WP:GS/Caste used here, not just a short block: a topic ban is in order. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiansociology is also fed up.Sitush is removing well referenced edits citing arbitrary reasons.Not waging in any edit war.Request administrators to have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Banned from all articles covered by WP:CASTES for one year. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:George1935 reported by User:David Gerard (Result: Warned)

Page: Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George1935 (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: - last two above were after this.

• Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Homeopathy#Is_it_an_anti_homeopathy_propaganda_piece_or_an_article_about_homeopathy.3F
• Warnings on talk page: User talk:George1935

Comments:

Apparent SPA: - querulous POV-notice placement on article under sanctions - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

David seems to be part of the team which regard abuse as a tool to resolve content disputes. I have been called names ,being reverted with the --excuse" there is no discussion " while there is discussion going on - his sensitivity is really selective. When I revert an edit " there is no discusion" - I think I revert borderline vandalism . Is this wrong --George1935 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. George1935, you have edit-warred in the article against multiple editors, and your contributions to the discussion on the talk page have not been optimal. The only reasons I haven't blocked you are (1) your account is relatively new, (2) all of your reverts took place before you were warned, and (3) you did not violate WP:3RR. However, you are now warned that any further reverts or disruption to the article may be met with a block with no further notice. (None of the other editors' edits is vandalism.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring