Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:16, 14 December 2014 view sourceMdann52 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,293 edits User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: ): cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 17:39, 14 December 2014 view source Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: ): pure harassment, obviously invalid, obviously not brought in good faith by a competent editorNext edit →
Line 619: Line 619:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


:'''This is absolute crap, and ] deserves to be sanctioned for bringing it'''. There is no doubt that the notability tags on these articles were inappropriately removed. Neither of these BLPs includes independent, reliable sourcing satisfying BLP/RS requirements. Neither includes a claim to notability under PORNBIO, the applicable SNG (the tinfoil trophies they claim for "scene" awards don't count toward notability per the express and eminently clear language of the SNG).

:And, of course, this notice is procedurally invalid. No attempt to discuss. No prior warning. And as is obvious to any competent, good faith editor, 2 reverts on two different articles don't amount to a 3RR violation. Just more trumped-up harassment. ] (]) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


<u>Comments:</u> <br />I'm uninvolved in all of this, so sanctions may be needed for the other party as well. --]]<small>]</small> 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC) <u>Comments:</u> <br />I'm uninvolved in all of this, so sanctions may be needed for the other party as well. --]]<small>]</small> 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 14 December 2014

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    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.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User:Ramiericson reported by User:Summichum (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ramiericson (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 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) to 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
      1. 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum don't add survey reports here. There is a main page for that."
      2. 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "reverting false and WP:POINT edits by User:summichum"
    2. 09:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum write all these content on your website. Don't distrupt wikipedia. Writing false content on wikipedia, will not make Khuzaima a Dai."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    the user also has COI, AND has been informed not to remove information Summichum (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

    • Comment EdJohnston I don't consider this closed. The complainant here has been tag-bombing multiple related articles with absurd tags such as autobiography for 11th century people. I think there is a real possibility of WP:POINT on both sides. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Addeditor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Jacob Bragg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Addeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      1. 15:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Read my message on the talk page."
    4. 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Please talk to me on talk page before you edit this. I think we should discuss this topic before we decide to anymore edits."
    5. 07:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "You continue to revert my edits even though i have referenced everything possible. The rest is of personal nature and you are currently displaying you aren't intelligent to understand this by reverting my edits multiply times even. Please read this."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jacob Bragg. (TW)"
    Comments:

    Communication established, but warning not heeded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Blocked 24 hours. Long-term warring since 1 December; adding badly sourced information to a BLP article. Though some of the data is scarcely defamatory (his height, and membership in the Italia Running Club) it can't be found in the cited sources. The following comment suggests unawareness of our BLP sourcing rules: "Stop reverting my edits, i have referenced everything possible however some information can not be referenced due to the only person in the world to know this information is me(the person and creator of this page". These issues have been explained at Talk:Jacob Bragg but the editor won't listen. User:Egghead06 is warned to limit himself to 3RR since WP:3RRNO may not apply. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Just dropping a quick note to say that I dropped the editor a warning on his talk page. There wasn't anything there that wasn't said at the talk page, but I did warn him about a potential block. Mostly I'm just writing this here for the record, so that if he does this again and we look back at this report, it'll show that he was warned on both his talk page and the article talk page and given warnings about a potential block, but kept edit warring. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: Warned)

    Page: Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hughey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version before change20:24, 17 November 2014‎

    First change by user: Revision as of 15:26, 26 November 2014

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:31, 26 November 2014‎
    2. 18:25, 5 December 2014‎
    3. 10:54, 6 December 2014‎
    4. 13:13, 9 December 2014‎
    5. 19:19, 9 December 2014‎

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Not a diff but a section:

    Comments:

    The edit history shows that from 11 September 2014‎ there have been 27 edits to the page 25 of those have involved user:Hughey of which only two have not been reverts of reverts made by four other editors' reverting Hughey's edits.

    user:Hughey behaviour does not seem to have altered one jot in response to the a previous block because of edit warring on this page. Since the block ended Hughey has made five reverts of three other editor revering Hughey's reverts. Discussion by Hughey on the talk page has been restricted to one comment "The definition of indenture is as contract, these people agreed to nothing. There must be an agreement on both sides to claim indenture, therefore no indenture is implied in this case" -- which contains no explanation based on policy or reliable sources for the reverts. -- PBS (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


    User:PBS is taking the edits on said page far too personally. I believe that user and at least one other (User:Pinkbeast)are claiming ownership in violation of WP:Owner (multiple editors) policy. If said users are to continue to block me from good faith edits I request that something be done. When any other Editor is involved I have not had issues.Hughey (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    diffs of other users reverts:
    1. 00:13, 10 December 2014 User:PBS
    2. 19:14, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
    3. 07:07, 9 December 2014 User:Pinkbeast
    4. 12:36, 27 November 2014 User:PBS
    5. 16:29, 26 November 2014 User:PBS
    • Hughey, your next logical block would be for one week. The last block was in mid-November for 31 hours by User:Bbb23 for long-term warring on this article, and this report shows you continuing the same pattern. You may be able to avoid a block if you will promise to wait for a clear consensus on the talk page before making any further change to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    (sorry, I didn't notice Ed had answered two minutes earlier. Not trying to over-rule or anything) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC) @Hughey:: I wouldn't be surprised if another admin saw this and just blocked you for 72 hours or something, but I'm curious and would rather ask a question instead: if two or three people feel one way about something, and one person feels another way, are we supposed to go with the lone person's opinion, because WP:OWN? You say your edit should stick because it was made in good faith; are you saying PBS and Pinkbeast (and at least one other editor whose name I've already forgotten) aren't? You're warning other people that they'll be blocked for edit warring if they revert your edit again; does our edit warring policy apply to them but not you? That seems to be what you're saying. Look, there's a disagreement. Therefore, instead of turning it into a test of will, or patience, you need to discuss it and come to some kind of consensus before changing it again. I'm not going to block you right now, but you should know that if you revert to your prefered version again, before getting consensus to do so, I'll block you for two months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    RE- User:Floquenbeam and User:EdJohnston suggestions - agreed. I will make no more changes to this article without consensus. Hughey (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    Last four edit made by Hughey

    • 19:07, 10 December 2014 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎
    • 19:25, 10 December 2014 User talk:Hughey ‎ (current)
    • 19:33, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Reverted 2 edits by PBS (talk) to last revision by Cydebot. (TW))
    • 19:34, 10 December 2014 Wotton House ‎ (Undid revision 637511892 by Hughey (talk)) (current)

    Wotton House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    It seems more than a coincidence that Hughey waits 20 minutes after commenting here, removes the notice of this section placed on user talk:Hughey by me, and less than 10 minutes later reverted an edit using Twinkle I had made to Wotton House. This was the last page I had edited and a page Hughey has never edited before. The revert edit made by Hughey was self reverted within a minute. However the chances are more than 4 million to one that this was not a case of stalking. I think is shows a worrying threatening battle ground mentality. I think that this behaviour ought to be taken into account here as I was the one who brought this charge of edit-warring and the hounding seems to be directly related to it. Luckily I am an old hand (and so I have seen worse), but for a less experienced editor this could be very threatening behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    PBS I am not stalking you. Yes, you are an old hand at this. I am considering your other edits in response to your now, incessant attacks on me. I did not have enough time to put an argument together before you reported me and forced me into this argument on this page. I think that it is you who is Wikihounding. There are at least two other editors who were coming to agree with my edits (User 64.134.224.227 & User:Jdorney).

    None of us have completely covered ourselves in glory, but Hughey's account of the situation is not totally accurate; they have also reverted Dhtwiki a few times, and turned up on my talk page to claim to be about to report me for edit warring, which seems to have a certain pot/kettle element. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Now we are getting somewhere. I turned up as you say, because it is the warning part for a report (required). I think looking back over the warring, that Pinkbeast and I could have worked this out, if PBS would have just reported and then backed off. I fat fingered the PBS page, while looking at their history, my bad Hughey (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    Result: Warned. In spite of his above assurances, it is still unclear whether User:Hughey perceives the problems with his edits. But if he continues to revert (prior to consensus) or continues to pursue other editors via their contribution history (as in reverting PBS's change at Wotton House), a block is sure to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:90.196.182.38 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi)

    Page
    The Hobbit (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    90.196.182.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"
    Comments:

    Multiple reverts in violation of 3RR despite warnings from multiple editors. DonIago (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Uniquark9 reported by User:Avono (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Mongol Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637612585 by Avono (talk)"
    2. 19:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637507136 by Laszlo Panaflex (talk)"
    3. 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634525868 by Sczc (talk)"
    4. 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637479016 by Sczc (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mongol Empire. (TW)"
    2. 11:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warning on Mongol Empire. Copy and Pastes another page without attribution. continues edit warning after having reached 3RR yesterday. Also possible sockpuppet doing the same. Avono (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Steverci reported by User:Masusimaru (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: first undoing of unproven statements

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. fake source added (no information about subject there)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:User never responded directly on why does he do this or what academic sources does he have. He just waits some time and then reverts all edits that are aimed to balance his unproven claims.

    Masusimaru (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Anasaitis reported by User:Lor (Result: Withdrawn)

    Request Withdrawn. I don't see a reason to continue with this with the editor being so new. better to Assume good faith anyway. Lor 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Page
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Anasaitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637823130 by Gregkaye (talk) I just checked the talk page, and your edits appear to be contrary to what the majority agree. Stop reverting my edit."
    2. 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637751297 by Gregkaye (talk) It is an unrecognized state. They have their own government, military, controlled territory, and are highly organized. They have been January 2014."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    2. 22:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "r"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has broken the 1RR Currently active on the page. Lor 22:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


    My sincerest apologies for breaking the 1RR on the article. I don't know what that is. I only joined Misplaced Pages recently, and I'm still getting the hang of how things role around here. I will try to work on this in the future. Anasaitis (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:70.50.33.167 reported by User:Darkmaster2004 (Result: 24h)

    Page
    McDonnell Douglas MD-12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    70.50.33.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Jesus, May and Joseph, I did exactly what I was told to do, add the text with proper references! Geez, it was jackass who took the info out, based solely upon his opinion. You wikipedia people can be real assholes!"
    2. 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637832100 by Darkmaster2004 (talk)"
    3. 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "read the category, it is the same era and use, good enuf for government work and wikipedia"
    4. 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "useful era comparison"
    5. 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637179941 by 74.74.134.29 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on McDonnell Douglas MD-12. (TW)"
    2. 22:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on McDonnell Douglas MD-12. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit Warring against User:Fnlayson who hasn't performed more than 2 reverts themselves before I myself arrived to warn the IP about edit warring. I have performed 2 reverts in this as of now and will perform no further. The user has reverted my 2nd reversion as well. Melody Concerto 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Salvidrim! reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Decline)

    Page: The Mentalist (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Salvidrim! (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:
    TV shows that have been made and produced by the country that made them should have the release dates, not from the country that first released regardless of Misplaced Pages rules and what Salvidrim! says.

    • I'll reply at length when I get home, but yes, I reverted multiple times in the face of a refusal to discuss on the talk page despite my attempts, as would be required by WP:BRD. I am more than happy to engage in dispute resolution if the reverter wishes to present a policy-anchored case for reversion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Declined. Salvidrim!, refusal to discuss changes per BRD is not a justification for edit warring. That said, the list of reverts by the filer is incorrect. Assuming the first change is a revert, Salvidrim! is at three and has not breached WP:3RR. BattleshipMan, Misplaced Pages rules are important. You can't just snub your nose at them because you don't like them. In any event, both editors are advised to return to the Talk page. If that doesn't resolve the dispute, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms available. Continued disruption to the article may be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I admit I may have acted less than ideally and apologize for it, if that helps. I agree that edit warring is not a constructive part of dispute resolution. Technically, I made the edit on Dec. 10th, reverted the removal a first time on Dec. 11th, then a second time on Dec. 12nd, so I guess that'd only be two reverts? But still, it's not about the count, it's about the behaviour, and reverting a revert is plainly never a good idea. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You're sort of right, and I'm wrong (not sorta). Your first revert, if one counts it, was on December 11. Your next revert was also on December 11. Your third revert was on December 12, and outside the 24-hour window of the first, so you were at two reverts for the purpose of WP:3RR. Perhaps you think it's December 10 because you're not using UTC?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, yea, got local time enabled (UTC-5). And I'm embarrassed to admit I've never quite had the occasion to figure our whether an edit that adds content for the first time is considered "a revert" for the purposes of 3RR anyways. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You're not alone on the first revert business. Technically, any change to the article constitutes a revert. The only thing that doesn't is when you add brand new material to an article. However, an admin has discretion as to whether to count an edit as revert, even if it's not the first. For example, if you correct a spelling, no one would count that as a revert despite the fact that it's a change. In your first edit, you changed the release dates and added sources. The source additions, by themselves, would not count as a revert. However, the release date change could if an admin chose to count it. Some editors want all of this spelled out in the policy, but that would be very difficult as the whole idea of discretion is to give admins leeway, and not every admin will agree (nothing new); nor will the parameters of the discretion be easy to explain. I hope that helps more than it muddies the waters, but it's a complicated issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    You and I both know some Misplaced Pages policies are never good or right at times. I do think that TV shows that are made and produced from certain countries should have episode airdates, rather than when it first aired from a different that doesn't really produce it. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how you know what I know. I may have a personal view as to a policy, but my role is to enforce policy whether I agree with it or not. Guidelines are a little different. Although there may be a presumption that a guideline should be followed, it may be overriden on a case-by-case basis if there's a clear consensus to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think there should be a consensus to have TV shows that are made and produced by a certain country to have their release dates, not from the earliest one from a different country because shows from the US, UK or Canada should have their own release dates. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    This isn't the place to have that discussion. --Onorem (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Where should I discuss it then? BattleshipMan (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Declined)

    Page: The Amazing Race 25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ryulong (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:
    Ryulong has consistently reverted edits that include "Sweden" in the leg four header of this article. His contention is that the show says 8 countries (which rules out Sweden being visited), however the consensus on the talk page has been to include it in the country county + put it in the header. This is a case of edit warring, not 3RR. He has not reverted against a majority/consensus on the talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    As per my edit summary (the 5th diff), tonight's broadcast explicitly stated something that we were waiting to be said to prove a point of contention on the talk page. Additionally, there is no 3RR violation as the first 4 diffs are from November 17/18, nearly 4 weeks ago, rather than evidence of ongoing disruptive editing of the article. This is a content dispute that Sportsfan 1234 has been pursuing for several months now since the ambiguity of this fact came up 2 months ago after a television broadcast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Declined Sportsfan, this board generally does not entertain proxy reports of edit warring, unless there is an evident issue of edit warring. In this case, there seems to be no such issue. Please do not file such reports unless there is visible disruption against consensus. Wifione 04:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:GLPeterson reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to:
    (The disputed material which was reverted was basically the entire contents of the "Electrical conduction" section.)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:05, December 12, 2014
    2. 06:19, December 12, 2014
    3. 15:59, December 11, 2014
    4. 06:12, December 11, 2014
    5. 22:52, December 9, 2014
    6. 20:09, November 17, 2014
    7. 20:21, October 30, 2014
    8. 16:27, October 30, 2014
    9. 07:49, October 20, 2014
    10. 06:15, October 20, 2014
    11. 06:41, October 11, 2014
    12. 20:13, October 9, 2014
    13. 13:31, October 9, 2014
    14. 06:58, September 23, 2014
    15. 14:35, September 22, 2014
    16. 09:46, September 22, 2014
    17. 08:23, September 20, 2014
    18. 15:02, September 8, 2014


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    Talk:Wireless power#Way too much Tesla--diff
    Talk:Wireless power#Timeline of Wireless Power, 2008 Entry No. 3--diff
    Talk:Wireless power#Electrical Conduction--diff

    3 editors reached out to him on his Talk page to try to discuss it with him but he refused, in several cases replying with a strange quote from Neil Armstrong: , , ,


    Comments:

    Between September 10 and December 8 Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I, with the help of Wtshymanski, rewrote the "Electrical conduction" section of the article which consisted of unsourced WP:FRINGE WP:OR theories relating to Nikola Tesla by editor GLPeterson ( GPeterson ), merging it into a History section, with constant reversions by GLPeterson. Repeated invitations to discuss it on the article Talk page and his personal Talk page were ignored, except for a conversation repeating quotes from the article. Instead he continually reverted our edits, and after the rewrite has repeatedly tried to reinsert the unsourced material against consensus of four editors: Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Chetvorno, Wtshymanski, and Roches. He seems to have a history of WP:OWNing the section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr lodged a ANI complaint against him which details similar disruptive editing and WP:POVPUSHing his unsourced Tesla material at several other articles, and there is also an WP:FTN complaint about his material. --Chetvorno 19:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    There are two sets of borderline 3RR violations. The second one in the list, (diff, 18:59 Dec 11) is followed by four reverts, the last at diff, 19:05 Dec 12, or 24 hours 6 minutes after.
    The content is sourced mostly to primary sources written by Tesla and to 19th century publications, neither of which can be used without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It is written with non-standard terminology. There does not appear to be a good-faith desire to improve this content, for example by standardizing the terms used. Calling it a content dispute may not be quite accurate, because the content is indisputably inappropriate for a science and technology article. Roches (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:50.133.231.46 reported by User:HelloThereMinions (Result: Withdrawn by submitter)

    Note: Withdrawn due to lack of severity and good faith.

    Page
    Jason Mooney (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    50.133.231.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637936246 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
    2. 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637938738 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
    3. 18:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939066 by Discospinster (talk)"
    4. 18:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939516 by Discospinster (talk)"
    5. 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637939616 by Discospinster (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Discospinster. (TW)"
    2. 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "/* If an edit is contested by other editors, please discuss the situation at the article's talk page */"
    3. 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) "/* If an edit is contested by other editors, please discuss the situation at the article's talk page */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Thank you to (talk) for your honest message with heavy explanation into some of my confusion over this topic. I appreciate the detailed response regardless of any outcome as it can at least clear up my understanding greatly. Best, 50.133.231.46 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


    Comments:

    Edit warring, WP:3RR violation. Also told Discospinster to "get a life". HelloThereMinions 21:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you to (talk) for your honest message with heavy explanation into some of my confusion over this topic. I appreciate the detailed response regardless of any outcome as it can at least clear up my understanding greatly. Best, 50.133.231.46 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:CMLSislove reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indef)

    Page: Moscrop Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CMLSislove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link permitted

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Multiple editors have tried to work with CMLSislove. There are messages on his talk page, on the article talk page and on Meters talk page all telling him the policies of Misplaced Pages. VVikingTalkEdits 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    Blocked – Indef by User:5 albert square for having an inappropriate user name. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:50.189.199.52 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Semi)

    Page
    2014 MLS Cup Playoffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    50.189.199.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637974600 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Don't bother"
    2. 02:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637987274 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I really don't care."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on 2014 MLS Cup Playoffs. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The IP6 anon is the same editor and there's indication that the IP switched and was warned in the past. Either lock the article or block the IP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Anglicanus reported by User:Mabelina (Result:Malformed)

    Page: Martin Dudley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Anglicanus


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Martin_Dudley&oldid=638025154
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Martin_Dudley&diff=638026905&oldid=638025154

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Anglicanus
    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mabelina


    Comments:

    I should much like to co-operate with Anglicanus but his constant reversions (under the MOS banner) are making productive editing, ie the addition of extra relevant info, very difficult. Not being au fait with all correct terminology & styles is quite understandable - I should know not being infallible myself! Please advise how to resolve - many thanks Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. This report has one diff and has no link to an edit warring warning or exact links to discussion on the article talk page. only (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    User:Addeditor reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    User was banned for 24 hours on 10 December. Has edited again with the same edits for which he was banned

    User:Emphatik reported by User:Kheider (Result:Page protected)

    Like I said, we are done here. The decision to protect the page has been made to prevent the current edit war. If you disagree, see other admin input at WP:ANI. Otherwise, discuss at the article's talk page or seek resolution through the processes at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. only (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Page: Nibiru cataclysm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Emphatik (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:

    Talk:Nibiru_cataclysm#Updating_new_Planet_X_claim_from_Nancy_Lieder Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Emphatik is a new to Misplaced Pages and is obviously only here to disrupt Misplaced Pages and promote fringe topics. {{Inappropriate comment |action=remove |reason=WP:BLP violation |comment=He is trying to make the Nibiru promotor Nancy Lieder look sane. His actions need to be stopped. He should be banned from Misplaced Pages, but obviously the 1st step is a block for edit warring with multiple established editors. -- Kheider (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    I've removed your BLP violation regarding the subject of the dispute. Please do not label people with such terms again. Thank you, only (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. my post didn't save. Here it is again-
    I was removing libel in accordance with wiki's policy WP:ALIVE. Yet Kheider & serendipodous keep inserting it back. Wiki's policy says that anyone re-inderting libel should be blocked. Instead Kheider edit wars with me & then reports me. While I have been more than accommodating. Please see article's history page & talk page; as well as my talk page to show you they realize it doesn't meet wiki's policy on bio of living persons WP:ALIVE. Now they repeatedly re-insert libel, while saying that i'm edit warring. Isn't this cyber-bullying? Emphatik (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    P.s: And now Kheider has gone and inserted libel again. Emphatik (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Ironically you're both well in breach of 3RR by now. Fortuna 13:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, didnt know discussion was going on here. Fortuna, doesn't the 3 rr rule say taking libel off, in keeping with the "biography of living persons" is excused. (I explained why this is in the article's talk page). I just want to be clear. I had said in the talk page that Lieder claims that she has implants in the brain (impossible if you think of the scarring and healing required to recover) & that she said the world would end in 2003 (it's 2014/15 now). Clearly these things go miles to convey that she's untethered from reality. And so the point Kheider & Serendipodous wants to make is already very clear, anyways. why do character assassinations? cheers Emphatik (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Like Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi says, both sides are breaching here. I've locked this page for a week. Please settle this on the talk page and/or seek outside input over this next week before the page is unprotected. only (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have only made 3 reverts to the page and we have multiple sources that she killed her dog. I still request that Emphatik be blocked for edit warring. -- Kheider (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Regardless of how many reverts you made, both sides are still clearly edit warring. 3RR is not the hard and fast line; there's clear edit warring going on on both sides of this dispute. I've protected the page; no one is being blocked here because the page protection suffices to prevent further edit warring. only (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    You are not helping the Cosmophobia issues on the internet. I guess this just one of those days that I have to be ashamed to be an editor of Misplaced Pages. -- Kheider (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Well I'm sorry you feel "ashamed", but I am not trying to help either side here. I'm trying to prevent an edit war by utilizing the tools we have available through protection. Again, discuss and find consensus regarding this on the talk page. We're done here. only (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Then the fringe editor has won. Emphatik was unable to establish any consensus on the talk page and JonRichfield even called him a troll. Congratulations Misplaced Pages! -- Kheider (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    The point that Only was making is exactly that the TP, and DR, is the place for this. And I'm not sure calling editors troll is particularly helpful- WP:AGF, and all that. Fortuna 14:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    You obvious are not use to editing fringe topics on Misplaced Pages. This is not the first edit war that Emphatik has recently started. He is successfully gaming the system. -- Kheider (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hey, I wasn't aware of the rule the first time. And I explained the misunderstanding that took place to you in the talk page. This time, I explained in detail how you were not in keeping with WP:ALIVE. I don't know what else to do. Im tying to be as courteous as I can & de-escalate the situation. cheers Emphatik (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: )

    Page: Various articles, including Juelz Ventura, Renae Cruz and Sammie Rhodes


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Sammie Rhodes:
    Juelz Ventura
    There are more, I can find if needed.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    This is absolute crap, and User:Mdann52 deserves to be sanctioned for bringing it. There is no doubt that the notability tags on these articles were inappropriately removed. Neither of these BLPs includes independent, reliable sourcing satisfying BLP/RS requirements. Neither includes a claim to notability under PORNBIO, the applicable SNG (the tinfoil trophies they claim for "scene" awards don't count toward notability per the express and eminently clear language of the SNG).
    And, of course, this notice is procedurally invalid. No attempt to discuss. No prior warning. And as is obvious to any competent, good faith editor, 2 reverts on two different articles don't amount to a 3RR violation. Just more trumped-up harassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    Comments:
    I'm uninvolved in all of this, so sanctions may be needed for the other party as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

    I've just spotted Qed237 is involved in this as well, just as much as HW, so he should be considered as well as above. This may need escalating to ANI, due to the nubmer of people involved, but I'll leave it down to the reviewing admin's discretion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Categories: