Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utsill (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 8 December 2017 (→User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn): r). 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:Chernobog95 reported by User:SamaranEmerald (Result: Blocked)

Page: Hwasong-15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chernobog95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12/2
2. 12/2
3. 12/2
4. 12/2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by Python Dan, seems to be accusing another user of inserting misleading information and lying.

Comments:
Is attempting to revert several edits made by numerous users in an attempt to defend a citation he or she has inserted, often times providing harassment or aggression in his or her edit summaries. When confronted about these edits, he or she becomes notabilty hostile, accusing these users and previous ones of vandalizing, censoring, or lying. I don't know why exactly this user is so defensive of this citation or what exactly stirred up this behavior of his or hers, but what is known is that he or she is hell-bent on protecting this citation. This user has previously, been reported before under the same circumstances a little over a month ago , which ended up getting him/herself blocked for 1 week . There is some pattern with this user tending to revert a number of pages of North Korean-related topics, which should also be noted. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's another revert I just caught him/her making. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I just got a message about this in my message box, afterwards I found this

. Python Dan (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here’s a third one, I’m starting to think this user may be resorting to do anything he/she can just to protect this source . Python Dan (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He or she did it once more, this time Kirliator caught him or her reverting their edits back . SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m also noticing that Chernobog95 is beginning to combine the source with others on the page as though they are suggesting they are falsely related. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I didn’t realize that Chernobog95 was reported for edit warring until now. I would’ve done it personally, but I appreciate the reporting ahead of time, thanks SamaranEmerald. Anyways, here’s one of the reverts Chernobog95 just made: Kirliator (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here’s yet another revert I’ve noticed, this time directed to an anonymous IP, claiming it was “vandalism”: Kirliator (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

He or she is still continuing to show bad faith and is continuing to mock the users who revert his/her edits, here’s yet another link . Python Dan (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And here’s another two reverts, both within four minutes of each other, Chernobog95 is starting to use the words users say against them: , Kirliator (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I found yet another two reverts made by this user, , . SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And here’s yet another one , it seems this user has crossed the point of no return well too long ago. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is another revert , if I’ve counted the number of reverts above correctly, this should be the 17th time he/she has reverted on the provided page (or 17RR), like I said, this person is very persistent. SamaranEmerald (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that if you look at Chernobog95’s contributions within the past, it shows signs of not being here to build an encyclopedia, most notably the rules of treating articles as battlegrounds (via his or her hostile behavior shown above) and virtually no interest in working collaboratively. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to respond? SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 2 weeks. Long-term edit warring at Hwasong-15 and personal attacks against others, as seen by his recent comments at Talk:Hwasong-15. "You can lie or admit you people made mistake and apologize for your lack of effort of checking for facts." The user was previously blocked one week by User:Ymblanter for edit warring on a different article about North Korea. In a previous dispute I tried to persuade the user to compromise to avoid a block, but got nowhere. The user's knowledge of English doesn't equip him well to deal with subtleties and his arguments are often hard to understand. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2.87.53.178 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Template:2017 AFC standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 18:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Template:2017 AFC standings. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• IP refuses to discuss.

Comments:

IP continues to edit war their preferred version of an NFL ranking against WikiProject NFL's procedures. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Request withdrawn Anon has been quiet since the incident. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Roy Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (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:
{{subst:void|OPTIONAL: User:Signedzzz reverted a consensus edit of "dated older teenagers" by removing "older". I reverted his edit and left a message on his talk page to please not revert without discussing on the talk page, because a consensus had been reached to use "dated older teenagers". (See [[Talk:Roy Moore/Archive 5#"Sexual Advances" should not be used for asking for a date BLP). He then reverted it two more times, and each time I reverted, asking him again on his talk page to please discuss in Talk:Roy Moore. His last revert had the edit comment "fuck off". Since I was warned of 1RR, I reverted my last revert, leaving the text as the non-consensus version Signedzz wants.}}

After the first diff, with the summary "unclear", the filer reverted claiming consensus, although there was no consensus for using the word. So I repeated the edit with a better explanation " "older" is unclear (and unsourced), useful only as WEASEL". This edit was not ideal, arguably, however it was not a 1RR violation. The filer, on the other hand, did in fact violate 1RR: 05:54, 3 December 2017‎ + 18:00, 3 December 2017 zzz (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. There was no 1RR violation by either party. zzz removed the word "older" twice but the edits were separated by more than 24 hours. The nominator self-reverted his second edit. The only outcome I can see would be to remind zzz to be more civil. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he removed the text three times. The first was on Dec 1. I reverted it and asked him on his talk page to please discuss in talk, because there was a consensus to use "older" rather than "above the age of consent". (See the archive, linked above.) Then he reverted on 2 Dec. I reverted again, on 3 Dec. Then he reverted again, on 3 Dec, and I reverted again, again asking him to please discuss in talk before making changes. He then erased my request on his talk page with the note "fuck you". If this is acceptable behavior, then I will stop editing on Misplaced Pages. Txantimedia (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

But there were more than 24 hours between each time he made the change so it doesn't violate 1RR. I agree that he should be more civil as I said, but it is actually you who would have violated 1RR had you not self-reverted. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Also but, I never made any edit on the page on December 1, and in total I removed the word twice, not three times. Are you positive you want to dispute that, Txantimedia?

The article is subject to sanctions so it is ONE revert, not three, in any 24-hour period. 1RR, not 3RR. You don't seem to understand this. You made two edits, and only saved yourself by self-reverting.

zzz only reverted once in any 24 hour period. Do you understand? 04:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ask the admins. What is this? Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you think it is? zzz (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to participate is this childish back and forth. Let the admins decide. I'm done commenting on this. The admins will decide what to do. I would ask you to please be more civil in your dealings with other editors. Txantimedia (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, I hope you enjoyed your "childish back and forth". zzz (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I’d just like to mention that this article is subject to more than a 1RR restriction: “All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).” Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment as an involved editor: IMO Signedzzz did not violate 1RR. I have advised Txantimedia to withdraw this report, but he prefers to let it run its course. It is also true that Signedzzz twice removed a word which was in the article as a result of talk page discussion, and removed it the second time even as his first removal was being challenged on the talk page. This may have been a violation of the consensus requirement (personally I think it is improper to insert one's own preferred version into the article in the middle of an active talk page discussion, regardless of whether DS apply to that article or not) but I don't know if violations of the consensus requirement are handled at this Edit Warring board. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On the advice of MelanieN and Lard Almighty, I am withdrawing this complaint. I sincerely feel that his actions were a violation, and his incivility was inexcusable, but apparently there's nothing that can be done about that. Txantimedia (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Marked as withdrawn, due to the submitter's comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:Firebrace (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:01, 4 December 2017
2. 21:03, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit
3. 16:24, 4 December 2017
4. 15:57, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)
5. 15:50, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)
6. 13:47, 4 December 2017 (undid this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various discussions are being held on the talk page for disputed content.

Comments:

Surtsicna has become a little trigger-happy and forgotten the 3RR. I have not included any reverts of violations of BLP policy. Firebrace (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It is difficult to describe my surprise at this report, but the extent of it will be clear to anyone who takes a look at the diffs or the article history. For example, under #2 it is plain and obvious that it was not me who reworded the lead sentence, and this is obviously BLP-sensitive (and I backed down despite the claim that they are life partners, i.e. living together, being entirely unsourced).
What should be noted, however, is that a) I was warned about supposedly breaking the 3RR a minute before being reported, b) all the edits (except for those marked as orthography and spelling) are the result of achieving and changing consensus at Talk:Meghan Markle#opening sentence, c) Firebrace has not taken any part in that discussion on the talk page.
I have had no interaction with Firebrace before, which led me to her/his user page and the diffs linked there; and then it became clear. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few points:

• Harry and Meghan are partners; the "partner" attribute did not violate BLP policy, it simply went against one of the infobox guidelines (which is not a policy).
• When submitting this report, I was instructed to "Warn the user if you have not already done so". In any case, you had already been asked on your talk page to stop edit warring and discuss on the article talk page.
• There is no exemption under 3RR policy for enforcing talk page consensus (if indeed there is a consensus).
• I made one neutral comment on the talk page and have refrained from getting involved in the other petty and tedious arguments.

Firebrace (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not been warned by anyone to "stop edit warring". That much is, pardon my bluntness, a blatant lie. Had you thought otherwise, you would not have left an actual warning on my talk page a minute before submitting the report.
The point of 3RR is not to point fingers in the hopes of seeing a random user reprimanded. The point is to prevent or stop edit-warring. There is no edit-warring when the edits represent the result of a talk page consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no talk page discussion about #1; no clear consensus for #2; nothing on the talk page about #3 (spelling and grammar), no discussion about #4 (partner attribute), no discussion about #5 or #6 (spelling and grammar). EDIT: There actually is consensus on orthography between User:Surtsicna and User:Nine-and-fifty swans, but it all happened after the edit warring, by which time it was too late. Firebrace (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly #1 is vandalism, as obvious from this and the bizarre talk page rant that you somehow missed. You want users to discuss spelling and grammar before addressing the issue in a frequently visited article? And it was too late for what? You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the 3RR and this noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just noticed this and find it rather disturbing; please compare to Firebrace's user page. This report might not be so random after all. Surtsicna (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be obvious that my user page is sarcasm, and I take Misplaced Pages very seriously; those who treat it like a game spoil it. Firebrace (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Stale – Even if this was a 3RR violation (which is not easy to determine) the last edit by Surtsicna was more than 24 hours ago. I suggest opening an RfC on the talk page for anything still in dispute. The recent history includes at least one poorly-considered edit by User:Srbernadette but the heavy attention that the article is currently getting seems likely to fix any obvious mistakes quickly. It would be a nice gesture if User:Firebrace were to remove the commentary about another editor from his talk page, which dates from 2016. It is inevitable that people get into disputes but it's unwise to cherish the memory of the old ones. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, but in April they were found to be a sock puppet and blocked, so I hope you'll understand why I'm not going to perform that nice gesture. Firebrace (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked)

Page

Moonis Elahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 12:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This SPA is continuously engaging in disruptive editing. I first reported him on WP:AN for adding unsourced and promotional material to a BLP after which he was warned by admin. he continued with his disruptive editing behaviour against warnings which led me to file a new report on AN and this time he was temporarily blocked for copyvio. In retaliation, he went on to file reports against me twice which was declined. he is continously repeatedly doing promotional edits by citing unreliable sources to illustrate a point on a particular BLP despite i told him not to do so on my talk pageUser_talk:Saqib#Moonis_Elahi. Saqib (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is just slow-motion edit warring and that there are BLP concerns. I'd like to see if Mr. Godric's rewrite of the addition an acceptable compromise or if he just starts to edit war with different material. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Long-term edit warring and promotional editing on an BLP article. Previously blocked regarding the same article by User:Vanamonde93. On November 18 I had warned the editor they could be blocked if they reverted the article again without getting consensus, but the pattern still continues. It appears the editor has no other goal on Misplaced Pages than to force this article to the version he prefers. They have given a rationale for their behavior elsewhere on this board which I don't find persuasive, since it doesn't address the charge of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kuru: I am fine with edits made by User:Winged Blades of Godric. --Saqib (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Saqib reported by User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (Result: No action )

Page

Moonis Elahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
2. 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
3. 12:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
4. 05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
5. 06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
6. 06:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
7. 06:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
8. 15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user for no rhyme or reason is "continuously repeatedly" obstructing my right to contribute credible & authentic information in the public domain. All my contributions on the said User Page conform to the Misplaced Pages policies & guidelines aimed at ensuring relevance, value & non-disruption to the community. I fail to understand the User's intent in deleting these contributions and simultaneously building a negative case against me. While fully acknowledging his right to provide information based on reliable sources, the edits he has referred to as promotional are by all means factual and have been obtained from credible sources. These sources have also been cited with the said edits. A discussion with the user is going on User_talk:Saqib#Moonis_Elahi. I have asked to him many times to idicate which cition is not from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (talk • contribs)

I was expecting this report against me in retaliation. The problem is you're not adding credible and authentic information but OR based on unreliable sources which violates BLP policies. It is not only me who have issues with your questionable edits to Moonis Elahi. User:Winged Blades of Godric has also reverted your version and re-wrote it . --Saqib (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. This is a retaliatory report; see report above. Even if it was not, Saqib's position is pretty sound. That was a very poorly written addition to a BLP; see Mr. Godric's re-write for a better approach. Kuru (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Renekm (Result: No violation)

Page: Dolno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Czarnkowo, Bytów County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Objezierze, Bytów County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kruszka, Pomeranian Voivodeship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Dolno
2. 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Czarnkowo
3. 05:37, 5 December 2017 article name Objezierze
4. 05:38, 5 December 2017 article name Bachorze
5. 05:38, 5 December 2017 article name Kruszka, Pomeranian Voivodeship

An overview of the big amounf of unexplained revisions:

1. Special:Contributions/Volunteer_Marek

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I received a notification of 99+ revisions on my page on Village pages which had a reliable source on their former German names, revisions done without explanation. Sometimes the pages had a Kashubian name, but without any source. That's why they were removed because when I started here, mine were removed as well without any source (What is totally understandable). I dont say he is no reliable User, which contributions are not good, yet it is seen that it was not the first report on revisions made. The amount of MORE THAN 99 revisions on ONE DAY (5th of December) WITHOUT ANY EPXLANATION and revisions done within SECONDS is the reason for this report. It is hard to change those all again. Renekm (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is User:Kaiser von Europa, who was indefinetly banned in 2013 by the Arbitrator Salvio giuliano. They were banned for doing the exact same thing - inserting German, including Nazi-era, names into articles on small, obscure Polish villages in the Pomerania and Masuria regions (his particular obsession). Oh, and for harassment and making violent threats. Another indication it's the same user is the source he's using - it's an obscure genealogy website which was also used by Kaiser, iirc. He's been coming back intermittently since 2013, usually getting his new accounts blocked, or at least his edits reverted. This time he's using an automated tool to do it to hundreds, if not thousands of articles. I would appreciate a quick block here since it's a total time sink to have to revert these automated edits manually. Volunteer Marek  15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:Volunteer Marek, please provide a few details/diffs for proper ID. Renekm, there is good reason to believe you are indeed that user; if you are not, I am sure you will cooperate by not making those edits (or reverts) for the time being. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Volunteer Marek, I see that they edited Czersk, but again, I need something more precise if you want me to block and revert. Perhaps there are other admins and editors who know about this editor and can weigh in? Is Molobo still around? Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

An unproved quick block maybe should be done to this User which reverts so many pages without any explanation. I do not see any reason why I should be this user. I would love to see any prove that I am doing thos edits with an automatic tool. I did them all manually so its a bit surreal to hear from this User that I do them by any automatic tool. I was not only using this page if you clearly look at my edits and my introduction page and my sources. That means the user did not even look at all my sources. Second if you see my contribution page, I do not edit every day. Theres a huge gap between those days I edit. I do not see any Problem about adding a sourced Information on village pages. I will cooperate of course but not if he continues to reverse those pages without any prove that i use "automatic tools". It was hard work to add those edits Renekm (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you because 1) you're a sock puppet of an indef banned user (who was banned for this exact thing + harassment and violent threats), 2) your edits are disruptive and have no consensus, 3) you're using automated tools to make thousands of them, so as to purposefully make them difficult to undo. Volunteer Marek  16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, this user (or the sock master) is also banned from German Misplaced Pages and possibly several other Wikipedias. Volunteer Marek  16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said I have nothing to do with this history. I am not banned from German Misplaced Pages nor am I any sock master or however you call me. Show any prove before you do such assumptions. Here is my current IP "188.98.227.243". I have never been to any other[REDACTED] than the German and English one. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Borowo,_Kartuzy_County&oldid=prev&diff=813775443 Here is an example of my edit. I was using no automatic tool. They are not hard to undo. Second I am using different sources. Renekm (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Even your edit summaries are automated. And yes, when you make thousands of these edits (made within less than a second of each other), you're 1) clearly using a bot, 2) making them hard to undo. You might be running two or three scripts each with a slightly different source but no one makes that many edits in so short a period of time without a bot. Stop the BS. Volunteer Marek  16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, that IP you gave does in fact match up generally with KvE's (they used IP sock puppets), though I'm sure that account itself is stale. Volunteer Marek  16:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And seriously, the fact that you're KvE is obvious. For example, a lot of your automated edits concern small, obscure, villages in Chojnice County, which have like 14 people in them. How many people are the on Misplaced Pages that give a damn about Chojnice freakin' county? Two. Kaiser Von Europa and you. Volunteer Marek  16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(and presumably you're using some version of Kotbot to make these edits). Volunteer Marek  16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Another set of villages that KvE obsessed about was the ones in Braniewo County. Same thing for Renekm . If I remember correctly it was Chojnice, Braniewo and... Pieniezno, was it? Oh and Bytow. Again, these are obscure villages and you're doing the same thing Kaiser was doing. Volunteer Marek  16:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You still did not give any IP from this User plus I am from Germany. " here is an example of my edits : (Template:Lang-de)<ref name="Former Territory of Germany">"Former Territory of Germany" (in German). 2017-12-05."

I am copying the link like seen here and past it to other pages but i am looking in different pages for a reliable source related to this article and change it automatically.

Second I am using an overview like this : "http://gov.genealogy.net/item/show/object_1073444" and there I see the names the is related to each source.

I am copying this link and i change the source of each village exactly to the given source. I am not using any bot. Your niveau of language is a bit questionable. You should change your "bullshit" language. Your assumptions of me being any other users or using any bot is still not visable. Show any prove of this - Renekm (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plus you should change your language, its disrespectful to use such a "bullshit" language - Renekm (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Renekm, you made only one more edit after I warned you (a second time); I appreciate that you stopped. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No violation WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page... within a 24-hour period". Renekm has shown evidence of Volunteer Marek making single reverts on five different pages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Toddy, Renek could argue that this is edit warring; we shouldn't just look at 3R. But the strong suspicion that this is socking is already good enough for me to decline any action against Marek. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I will stop editing no because it seems its a crime to bring information into wikipedia. Second a suspicion is no evidence, which is still not given. and third decline a mistake just because another user did a mistake (if they were true) is showing no real justice Renekm (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition: he continues reversing pages while matter is not settled and gives me deeper feel to argue that this is edit warring. I am not editing anymore until is this settled so I wish that the user is not reversing any article related to his assumption till the matter is solved.Renekm (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you open a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poland. So far the only talk pages this has been discussed on are User talk:Volunteer Marek and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion taken, yet I still wish to see on on edit warring. "https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=K%C4%99trzyno&oldid=prev&diff=813864108" As seen in the link the user continues reversing pages while it is not solved yet. Renekm (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This indeed seems to be sock of the User:Kaiser von Europa, note that the user just like KvE uses Nazi publications and actually misleads by stating that he adds "German names" while in fact he adds names given to locations by Nazi regime. See for example here an edit has added a name given to location by Nazis in 1938-1945(they led a campaign to Germanize Slavic sounding location names in Germany) not the actual old German name that was used in the past(if you go into the link used to provide the name you will see it). Also the edit adds a link naming it in capital letters "Former Territory of Germany" although the source itself isn't named as such. On users main wikispace he states that his sources include "Gemeindeverzeichnis, Groß Deutsches Reich 1939" which after a quick search turns out to be a Nazi publication printed by Nazi Germany in 1941.Kaiser von Europa was obsessed about using Nazi sources for Polish cities. This is just a brief look on this user edits, I am sure that if I would look more, I would find further examples.Even if not KvE, using Nazi publications as source for Polish history, presenting Nazi names falsely as traditional German names and tagging Polish locations as "Former Territory of Germany" seems very disruptive--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and, as a result, I have indeffed Renekm. Salvio 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• MyMoloboaccount, Salvio, thank you both--yes, that is the kind of specificity that those who are not that familiar with the subject matter need. Volunteer Marek, better safe than sorry: you may think I was too slow or too reluctant to pull the trigger, but this account had been here for a long time and CU revealed I could do anything with. I know it is frustrating to deal with a sock when you know exactly what's going on (I've had that situation before, and Timmyshin is in that situation now) but the others don't see it--help them see it. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Marek et alia: I dropped a page with information on the CU wiki; next time this comes up, you can ask a CU to have a look at that. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Erik reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No violation)

Page: Spider-Man: Homecoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: DIff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Comments:
On 15 Nov, 2017, I removed the See also section as too tangential, trivial and SYN for inclusion. Today (20 days later), after weeks of no argument with the removal, Erik chose to reinstate the material. So far, no problem, right? So I revert it back and suggest that his Bold removal suggests the next step for him is discussion. Except, Erik doesn't initiate discussion until after he's already come right up to the electric fence, 3R-speaking. While I am sure that he didn't realize that his revert was the B in the BRD, I offered him the opportunity to self-revert and use discussion to sort out the problem. So far, he seems unapologetic, which I find strange; Erik has a rep for pretty conscientious editing practices.
I'm using this forum, because my request of Erik to self-revert went unanswered, and this forum seems a pretty good way of getting a point across when other means fail. As far as edit-warring goes, its annoying, but not severe; a self-revert by Erik and move to discussion might be the best answer here, as opposed to a block. This isn't a 4R (though I have no doubt that Erik would have blown past the electric fence had i reverted him again); it's simple edit-warring by Erik.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , and promptly ignored and removed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:initated discussion

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack decided to file this report after discussion started at Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming#See also bits. (We almost simultaneously posted discussion threads there.) WT:FILM has also been notified of the discussion. Can others please weigh in on what should be done? I can't help but feel that Jack Sebastian, who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI, is trying to weaponize this process against me. If someone else thinks I should self-revert until discussion pans out, then I will. Not sure why Jack himself is so intent on excluding non-detrimental content. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me, but "who appears to have a long history of problems at ANI" seems like quite a bit of passive-aggressive bullshit, Erik. In point of fact,my last visit with ANI was over two years ago. I find your attempt at trying to make my past the source of your current misbehavior disconcerting.

I was polite in my condemnation of your edit-warring, suggesting that your behavior was atypical. I think that, in the interest of AGF, you dispense with the personal attacks. We aren't talking about my behavior, which has been professional in this matter. Act like a grown-up, please.

And while we're on the subject of Asssuming Good Faith, I'm fairly certain that suggesting that I am trying to "weaponize this process" - ie. reporting a problematic behavior by an edit-warring user is more of a personal attack than good faith. Its that sort of presumption that makes collaborative editing more difficult.

Lastly, if Erik is "not sure" why I am editing the way I am editing, the clear move is to initiate discussion, not edit-war. That Erik has decided to attack me is worrisome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that another editor weighed in about the matter, and I've removed the content pending a fuller discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I submitted the report because Erik had chosen to edit-war about the inclusion of info and - dare I say - "weaponizing" BRD as an excuse to do so. As the long-time user clearly has no intention of admitting he was edit-warring or apologizing for the passive aggressive assholery, I will take his reconsidered self-revert and participation in discussion. I wish it had occurred to him to seek additional input before revert-warring, though. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: Hey, does going to a Wikiproject page and inviting defenders to contribute here and ) constitute canvassing? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not canvassing. The message text is intentionally neutral like other notifications seen on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) 20:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat the same question I posed to you on the Wikproject talk page: how does a user conduct complaint have anything to do with a discussion about content? Come on, man; you were canvassing, and this half-assed excuse is just insulting to all of us. You're better than this. Stop compounding the problem, Erik. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassing. Someone followed up as a result and did not think the links belonged, and I removed the "See also" section pending a fuller discussion. That's all I was looking for -- a third opinion. (I disagree wholeheartedly with the fourth editor restoring the section.) The third opinion's not sufficient to me for concluding the matter, of course, but it set a new local consensus for the time being, separating the matter from this animosity between you and me. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Saw this report mentioned at the Film project (for the sake of disclosure). Erik has indeed reverted four times but his last revert was actually a self-revert of his previous revert. If he had not self-reverted he would not have violated 3RR, so a block for a self-revert would be pretty harsh IMO. There is now a discussion progressing on the talk page. IMO this report does not need to be actioned unless trouble starts up again. If either editor gets taken out for 24 hours it just delays the talk page discussion by 24 hours at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A small point, but not all reverts count as strikes for 3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." So a self-revert doesn't count at all, and a series of consecutive reverts counts as a single strike. Rebbing 22:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As I noted earlier, i wasn't complaining that Erik had pushed past the 'electric fence'; I was arguing that he was pointedly edit-warring to the limits of not getting reported. While all 3rr issues are edit-warring, not all edit-warring are 3rr. The problem is that Erik was on the Bold side of BRD, and instead of initiating discussion, he simply reverted precisly three times and when his version was safely in, only then did he initiate discussion. That's newbie, tendentious behavior, and Erik is experienced enough to know that his behavior here was problematic. And then he compounds it by seeking defenders in the Wikifilm talk age for his complaint here. That's not acceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't even once suggested that Erik be blocked. The action I was seeking - namely, self-reverting and engaging in discussion - he did (only after someone else disagreed with his assessment). He then compounded the problem by letting folk know of the complaint against his actions here. I don't think canvassing has a better description: asking for third opinions on matters of content is fine; seeking defenders to your cause from a group you regularly work with is not. It's really that simple.

There isn't any animosity between Erik and I; I had a ton of respect for Erik's behavior. He's just acted sloppily here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. 15:48 reverts a 11/15 edit by Jack. 18:56 is a direct revert. 19:04 is a direct revert, but is reversed in his edit at 20:05. Kuru (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SeminoleNation reported by User:Lithopsian (Result: warned)

Page: FSU (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SeminoleNation (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: Talk:FSU (disambiguation)

Comments:

I have raised this against User:SeminoleNation, although User:Bkonrad could equally be said to be edit-warring. It takes two. I don't take a position on which version of the article (disambiguation page) is correct, only that it cannot be resolved this way. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

These are not differing versions, but a matter of not unilaterally implementing an undiscussed page move by cutting and pasting the content. RM discussion has begun Talk:FSU#Requested move 5 December 2017 and previously at Talk:FSU (disambiguation) and User talk:SeminoleNation#FSU. older ≠ wiser 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Saoirse Ronan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Torah28 (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 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "/* 2015–present */"
   2. 22:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813909747 by 83.220.237.152 (talk) The parents careers already feature in section"
   3. 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813909477 by 83.220.237.152 (talk)It's not relevant information-Ronan no longer lives there"
   4. 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813909116 by 83.220.237.152 (talk) Yes, her wiki page is to highlight her work not add info deemed controversial by some"
2. 22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813908346 by 109.252.28.12 (talk) Removal of parental information. This page is about Ronan-not her mom & dad"
3. 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813906884 by Davey2010 (talk) Reverting back SNL piece to Saoirse Ronan guest hosted SNL with musical guest U2"
4. 21:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "/* 2015–present */ This page is to *highlight* Ronan's work-only"
5. 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813860895 by 83.220.238.177 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
2. 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is constantly reverting on the article and they don't seem all that willing to discuss it, Thanks –Davey2010 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few more diffs are available since this filing and quite a few from weeks and months before. I do think it might be time for a very limited in scope TBAN for Saoirse Ronan, not to include talk page, so if he decides to use the talk page people can get his input. Sir Joseph 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Full or partial reverts at 14:35, 21:39, 21:40, 21:46, 21:56, 22:00, 22:10, 22:15, 22:21, 22:29, 22:35. Previously warned about 3RR. Kuru (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Harry-Oscar 1812 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

For Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=&oldid=814024627&title=For_Britain

1. 13:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814024627 by 331dot (talk)"
2. 13:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814024627 by Chris troutman (talk)"
3. 23:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813920989 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
4. 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision, user keeps removing sourced policy from party page, wiki articles use these official pages for policy so is perfectly valid."
5. 23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813916360 by 331dot (talk)"
6. 22:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813879248 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on For Britain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Here user invited to post to talk page

Comments:

• Harry-Oscar 1812 has reverted twice today: here and here. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• They are basically a SPA for all things For Britain-related, and this edit-war has been going on since 5 Dece,ber at least. Serial Number54129 14:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Warned I have issued a very blunt Final Warning. If they continue with their disruptive editing ping me and I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sirenofthesea reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)

Page: Smile (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sirenofthesea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 118.143.40.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (initial edit)
2. (logged out)
3. (logged in)
4. (logged in)
5. (logged in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Smile (Doctor Who)#Reverting

Comments:

The editor has violated 3RR with their edits, which they have performed while both logged in and out (noted that they're the same editor because the IP started the discussion while talking about their reverts while logged in), with the reverts against both myself and another editor on the page, who recommended that they take it to the talk page. They appear to have refused to either of my 3RR template warns, or my further message. -- Alex 06:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am astonished to see that under "attempt to resolve dispute", this guy has linked to what I put on the talk page, to which he did not sensibly respond. At no point has he tried to explain his actions, except perhaps in one incoherent edit summary. I do not believe there is a dispute here. I do not think the editor is acting in good faith and trying to improve the article. I regard their undoing of my straightforward edit without coherent explanation as some strange kind of vandalism. Sirenofthesea (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. 'Undoing a straightforward edit without coherent explanation' is not one of the exceptions listed in WP:3RRNO. When disagreement exists, you are expected to wait for consensus instead of continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:HenosA reported by User:Neil S Walker (Result: Blocked)

Page

Tedros Adhanom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Mugabe Goodwill Ambassador controversy */ Removed content because of its little importance"
2. 09:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Tenure */ . The coverage of Mugabe's nomination as good will is unnecessary as the decision was reversed within 24 hours. There are many news positive happening regarding Tedros Adhanom but are not necessarily reflected in the Wikipidia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Tedros Adhanom. (TW)"
2. 09:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Tedros Adhanom */ new section"
3. 09:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tedros Adhanom. (TW)"
4. 09:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* BLP */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is a SPA who has been repeatedly removing a section about the WHO DG's appointment of Robert Mugabe as WHO goodwill ambassador. First removal was 27 October here, and the same day here. First edit warring notice was issued here. Editor has again removed the section twice today, despite my message here explaining that the event was significant, received global coverage and condemnation, and asking that they use the article talk page to discuss its removal. This is a 2-in-24 hr revert situation right now, however their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion, and clearly constitutes edit warring without 3RR being breached. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The user has engaged in long term edit warring to remove mention of the award given to Robert Mugabe. Their account was created on 27 October. Their sole interest on Misplaced Pages is this article but they continue to revert without ever posting on the article talk page. They never respond to the messages left on their own talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:70.112.229.80 reported by User:Kb.au (Result: Page protected)

Page

Me Too (hashtag) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814076854 by Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) Please see talk page."
2. 19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "The existence of this section has already been vetted by two high-level administrators."
3. 18:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814067888 by Exmak (talk) Again, the People of the Year are The Silence Breakers, not MeToo"
4. 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814066849 by Closeapple (talk) undid vandalism; each name has a source"
5. 18:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814064363 by Primefac (talk) See talk page; undid further vandalism"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC) to 16:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814039187 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Undid vandalism"
   2. 16:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814038605 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) MeToo is NOT Time's Person of the Year."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
2. 16:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* List of accused */"
3. 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* List of accused */ c/e"
4. 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Time Person of the Year */"
5. 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Aftermath list is not accurate */"
6. 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* RfC on list of public figures mentioned */"
7. 19:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Discussion */ c/e"

Comments:

IP keeps reverting edits that multiple editors believe are BLP violations. Kb.au (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I request that the page be locked from any more editing, especially mass deletions of information that is the result of numerous hours of hard work by multiple contributors. There is no consensus as Kb.au seems to imply.70.112.229.80 (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently up to 5 reverts of 4 different editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request that SarekOfVulcan be prevented from further editing and commenting on the page. He has made egregious factual and judgment errors. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This user isn't getting better after a month, and has pretty much said that they won't stop doing this, and that all the long-term, experienced editors should be stopped instead. I guess 70.112.229.80's own response above about SarekOfVulcan is its own evidence, but here is some more background: This editor was already warned about 3RR at User talk:70.112.229.80#November 2017. 70.112.229.80 showed up on November 2 and keeps adding, and re-adding, to Me Too (hashtag), a WP:BLP-related list of everyone who's said by any fourth-rate gossip magazine, up to first-rate sources, to have had anything whispered about them, without making any distinction between the level of conduct, or the level of evidence, let alone whether it was related to the #MeToo hashtag. The IP continues to revert experienced editors, including admins, and describing it as "undid vandalism", despite being warned, in at least 6 different article talk page headings, from experienced editors, that it's against Misplaced Pages policy per WP:BLP. Here are some of the places where this IP acknowleged that they saw the BLP warnings, but thinks that their own flexible interpretation of BLP is smarter than everyone else's:

• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Names in "Aftermath" section (2017-10-30 to 2017-11-16)
• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#"Aftermath" (2017-11-04 to 2017-11-30)
• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Shortly after accused BLP concern (2017-11-14 to 2017-11-17)
• The intro to Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Discussion re: specific individuals (2017-11-16 to 2017-11-17)
• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Aftermath list is not accurate (2017-11-27 to now)
• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#List of accused (today): Did the triggering 3RR revert on the article while I was posting to the article talk page to try to remind this IP of 3RR again, and that removal of BLP violations doesn't count as 3RR, but addition does.
• Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#RfC on list of public figures mentioned (today)

For 70.112.229.80's attitude towards experienced editors, WP:PROVEIT, and consensus, compare Talk:Weinstein effect#Proposal to merge to #MeToo article (2017-11-26 to 2017-12-04), and Talk:Me Too (hashtag)#Merging Weinstein effect article to this article? (2017-12-03 to 2017-12-04), which presumes consensus, and contains the following line: There's a lot of handwringing over "accuracy", but guess what? If you do any amount of digging, a good 80%-plus of the people listed have been Suspended, Fired, or Arrested. --Closeapple (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Closeapple wants either a table or only "rapists" to be mentioned, never mind the idea that MeToo is about sexual misconduct and gender discrimination en totale, not just rape. Either way, both Samsara and Cullen328 had no problems with the list back in November. Furthermore, RSs have already proven SarekOfVulcan wrong when he mistakenly edited the page to announce that Time Magazine had named MeToo as the 2017 Person of the Year.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the people above - something probably must be done with that user. He completely removed a well-sourced statement about Trump from the introduction of the article about #me too. The part he removed was actually a quote from a reputable british newspaper the Telegraph. He stated his reasoning in the edit summary, but it's basically some original research. Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess you didn't comprehend my explanation for that reversion, which was that the furor over Trump took place in 2016 before he was sworn in as POTUS in January 2017. MeToo started in October 2017. If there was a trigger incident, it was the Harvey Weinstein situation, NOT Trump.70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected by Primefac. Katie 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is now trying to protect a self-admitted paid editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Me_Too_(hashtag)&action=history 70.112.229.80 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ScienceDrummer1 reported by User:SkyWarrior (Result: blocked 1 day, quickly upgraded to indef)

Page

2015 Baltimore protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ScienceDrummer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814085873 by SkyWarrior (talk) Protesting is showing a distaste of an injustice. Rioting is destroying shit because you have nothing better to do in your life. Fuck off."
2. 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814083297 by Rockypedia (talk) Go ahead bro. I'm only changing a word out. I'm not doing any harm but making it more truthful to what actually happened. Go cry some more."
3. 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814078985 by Rockypedia (talk) Nice try. Stop trying to normalize rioting by calling it a protest."
4. 20:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813337512 by Rockypedia (talk) Destroying stuff is not protesting. Knock it off. This is clear rioting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Except for that one revert, I am uninvolved in this matter. SkyWarrior 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also be aware that the user removed this report once made aware of it. SkyWarrior 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 1 day for clear edit warring, after a couple of 3RR warnings; then started using homophobic slurs while complaining (which is not normal venting) and so reblocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:86.170.121.152 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi)

Page: Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.170.121.152 (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:
An (apparently) brand new IP user has made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. They're comments on talk or edit summaries haven't been exactly constructive (" in the hope of shaming him", "do your homework" , " your expertise is clearly not fine" etc). There is also a fundamental problem of WP:COMPETENCE here as the user simply has failed to understand the underlying source and its methodology - which is fine, since this is economics and sort of technical, but they've managed to convince themselves that it's everyone else that's wrong. So they're edit warring to insert text based on the source that is simply factually wrong (not in like "wrong opinion" wrong, but as in "2+2=5" wrong). I've asked them to self-revert several times. Instead they seem more interested in playing some "gotcha" games on talk and keep finding new ways to misunderstand the same material. Volunteer Marek  23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected six months. This continues to be a hotly disputed topic; see the length of the protection log. IPs can continue to propose changes on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Jaydogg1994 reported by User:Jonathan Williams (Result: Protected)

Page: Joy-Ann Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaydogg1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (multiple; this editor is reverting various revisions)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor clearly understand 3RR because they attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute.

The only BLP violation on this page is the section that was being removed by Jaydogg. Buggie111 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because it was a unnecessary section that violated WP:NPOV and was only there to attack the subject, also the sources were unreliable and opinion pieces that violated WP:BLP, I didn't break any rules, The other editors agreed that the section should be removed :https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters, It's a lie that I "attempted to report other users for 3RR violations in this dispute"' I told user KalHolmann that he was violating rules and that he already was warned by 1) by Dyrnych and 2) by My very best wishes for edit warring on other topics and I forgot to mention that he was warned by Jim1138 for edit warring on the Joy-Ann Reid article :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=813185756. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected re: 3RR report. The BLP exemption you are claiming is a stretch as there was no clear editorial consensus on the article's talk page. Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you take a minute to read WP:Assume good faith with respect to your talk page comments and revision log messages. (e.g. "I don't have to explain anything to you, You are obviously biased against the subject…", "This is part of a targeted smear campaign trying to get her fired, It dosen't belong on wikipedia.") Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to read WP:Crying "BLP!" and in the future, draw attention to a specific BLP issue you believe to be at stake instead of just reverting. Jonathan Williams (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mntzr reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Bajrang Dal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mntzr (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 19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC) to 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
   1. 19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased view point. The org does not describe itself as extremist or militant. Such opinion belong in criticism, not introduction."
   2. 19:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Origin */"
   3. 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Origin */"
   4. 20:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "Reference added."
   5. 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC) "The allegation already mentioned in criticism section."
4. 19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk:Kautilya3

Comments:

This is a gem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 19:38 (revert back to 11/21), 17:28, 18:27, 19:12. Was previously warned about 3RR. Kuru (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is a case of pretty clear NOTHERE.Winged Blades 04:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bijanii reported by User:UA3 (Result: Both warned)

Page

Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814177531 by UA3 (talk) This is how the article was; you're edit warring. Take it to the talk page before undoing."
2. 08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814176094 by UA3 (talk) It's in the name itself. See your talk page and stop edit warring."
3. 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "The name is indicative of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Arab Gulf Cup Football Federation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Member countries in the federation description */ new section"
2. 08:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Member countries in the federation description */"

Comments:

• I'd make the case that it's UA3 who is edit warring by changing the original content of the page and undoing my edits even after I've discussed on the talk page. I'd prefer to leave it be and not edit war.--Bijanii (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If either User:Bijanii or User:UA3 reverts again without a prior consensus on the talk page, they are risking a block. This dispute is hard to understand: if you just give the names of all the countries included in the league, isn't that what matters? If you want the exact nuances of how those countries got together, that might require more sources than anybody would have the patience for. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Try this?"
2. 12:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814189515 by Darkness Shines (talk) Introduces both spelling errors and pushes a POV. Stop it, Darkness"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Either it's 1RR or remove the restriction Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the later edit is a revert of anything except the "citation needed" tag, and the edit's reconstruction of the sentence is, IMO, a good-faith effort at addressing the tag by rewording in accordance with the source. I mean, I guess they could have left the tag in and added a "citation no longer needed?" tag, but that seems like needless bureaucracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The point is, there ain't consensus for the change, just like tbe fuest revert, it's either 1RR or not. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit wouldn't have been a revert without removing the "citation needed" tag, though - it simply would have been an edit. Is fixing something that someone has tagged, but not removing the tag because removing the tag would be reverting, what we want to incentivize here? Seems counterproductive to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

He changed the content, thats a rv Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

My bad, didn't think this would be a problem. I've now self reverted. Utsill, if you thought my addressing of the citation problem (removing the uncited material) was helpful, feel free to revert my selfrevert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The current page looks good to me! Utsill (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

He has self reverted so close please Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the self-revert was correct, but I also think the suggestion is worth a try. So I reverted. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:70.30.250.40 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page

The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "You are an idiot user!"
2. 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Ha! I don't want serie fianles, you foolish editor!"
3. 22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "No! Netflix will confiremed Seasons 5 and 6 of TMPASS"
4. 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "I AM VERY ANGRY OF YOU! yYOU HAVE RESTORED YOUR STUPID EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO DO NOT RE-EDIT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
5. 22:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "I hate You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
6. 20:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been repeatedly changing content to claim that Netflix has said that the show is continuing despite not providing a link. Also is using personal attacks in their edit summaries. Sakura Cartelet 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This was also reported on RfPP and the IP is blocked 24 hrs. Samsara 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At the time of the report I (somehow) missed the report that was made at RPP. Anyway the anon has been blocked so I guess the report can be closed? Sakura Cartelet 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24h SQL 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:YenWitch reported by User:Vathlu (Result: )

Page: Star (football badge) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YenWitch (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:

This user has a very biased point of view and keeps removing whatever he simply doesn't like on both Persian and English Misplaced Pages, all my previous attempts to resolve the problem seems to be useless, so I simply ask to ban this user specially since he has been banned once before, for 24 hours. vathlu (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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