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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:09, 30 March 2015 editSwarm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators32,772 edits →User:Haberstr reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Page protected)← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:54, 30 March 2015 edit undoPBS (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 editsm →User:Winkelvi reported by User:PBS (Result: Voluntary article restriction)Next edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 407:		Line 407:
	::I have no problem with this, {{U\|Bbb23}}, however, the characterization of my statements in this report are out of context. I'm not going to even bother to post diffs to put it into context, because it's clear to me that because an administrator brought this report here, I'm fighting a losing battle. In fact, I'll go you one better in regard to the article. I won't edit it for ''longer'' than 10 days, nor will I give a shit about what a piece of crap article it is. Why? Because {{U\|PBS}} won't allow anyone to do anything to it, anyway. Like I said, it's a piece of crap article -- obviously, he wants it to stay a piece of crap article, so if he is so set on ], I'll leave him to his ownership of it. But, it would be nice if next time someone reverts one of his edits using Twinkle, he realizes that the canned comments in the edit summary saying "Revert good faith edits..." are not actually telling him he edits in bad faith. Yeah, that actually happened. . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)		::I have no problem with this, {{U\|Bbb23}}, however, the characterization of my statements in this report are out of context. I'm not going to even bother to post diffs to put it into context, because it's clear to me that because an administrator brought this report here, I'm fighting a losing battle. In fact, I'll go you one better in regard to the article. I won't edit it for ''longer'' than 10 days, nor will I give a shit about what a piece of crap article it is. Why? Because {{U\|PBS}} won't allow anyone to do anything to it, anyway. Like I said, it's a piece of crap article -- obviously, he wants it to stay a piece of crap article, so if he is so set on ], I'll leave him to his ownership of it. But, it would be nice if next time someone reverts one of his edits using Twinkle, he realizes that the canned comments in the edit summary saying "Revert good faith edits..." are not actually telling him he edits in bad faith. Yeah, that actually happened. . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
	:::Not the most gracious of accepts, but it will have to do. If Winkelvi violates the terms of this agreement, anyone can report the violation either at this noticeboard (linking this report) or on my Talk page. I consider the matter closed.--] (]) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)		:::Not the most gracious of accepts, but it will have to do. If Winkelvi violates the terms of this agreement, anyone can report the violation either at this noticeboard (linking this report) or on my Talk page. I consider the matter closed.--] (]) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			As ] really seems to have no idea what constitutes reversion, there is a real danger of transfer of this behaviour to other articles.

			Winkelvi seems to be editing pages which were created by or edited by ] (currently blocked). For example Winkelvi put the article ] up for ]. Another page on 28 December 2014,‎ was ] this article has been edited by Winkelvi during the last 24 hours.

			Winkelvi's editing of ] between the opening of this report and ]'s first posting to this section, led ] to state on ] that "Edit warring on ] You are over 3RR on that article." (in fact I do not think Winkelvi was -- see below). However Winkelvi response was not to question the 3RR assertion, but to state "You keep putting incorrect content into a BLP. Do you realize the seriousness and possible liability to Misplaced Pages by doing so?" , eventually after further exchanges Winkelvi self reverted, but then negated that self revert by making another edit.

			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: white; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
			*Winkelvi Between 04:11 and 04:36, 29 March 2015‎ made a number of edits
			**] at 13:29, 29 March 2015 This series of edits was partially
			*(1)Wikielvi BoboMeowCat edit at 18:54, 29 March 2015‎
			**BoboMeowCat over a series of edits between 22:53 and 23:04, 29 March 2015‎
			*(2)Wikielvi at 23:51, 29 March 2015‎
			**Wikielvi made 2 more edits
			*Wikielvi at 00:38, 30 March 2015‎ back to the last edit by BoboMeowCat
			*(3) Wikielvi at 00:38, 30 March 2015 made the next edit to the page which deleted the content of the parents parameter in the Infobox, and this means that the two edits together were another revert of the first revert by BoboMeowCat.
			</div>

			In the last few days I have seen Wikielvi make a bold edit to several different pages which when reverted instead of following the advise on ] immediately reverts the revert (diffs can be supplied if Winkelvi disputes this). The better course of action would be not to make this revert of a revert to a bold edit, but to follow ] and discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, (and if consensus proves to be illusive to follow the ] process).

			I would suggest that Winkelvi, should agree that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit that is reverted, either fully or in part, that Winkelvi agrees not to revert the revert but agrees to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and follow the ] process.

			-- ] (]) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

Revision as of 11:54, 30 March 2015

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

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

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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

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: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that

Comments:

This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See ] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see . The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule ]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.

For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans. Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism. Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.

This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.

As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight rebootage here:

Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."

Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."

Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"

Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under ] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Stale Swarm 02:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:JasonNolan64 reported by User:88RRRR88 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=American_Ninja_Warrior&diff=653831083&oldid=653817332

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Try discussing the issue with this user. Swarm 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Filer was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet per a case a WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightning Sabre reported by User:Veggies (Result:blocked indef)

Page: United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lightning Sabre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Memorials */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned in the past about his behavior under the pain of an indef block. Veggies (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely No indication that the warnings against disruptive behavior have been taken seriously (i.e. leaving a block notice on OccultZone's talk page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

- Editors should also note that this disruptive user has also edited under IP: User:92.97.208.37, as well as another sockpuppet account - now blocked. They have also left block warning notices, when not authorised to do so. They have had multiple warnings and have taken no notice. I totally support an indef block. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the discussion and warnings, this user is still asking for the block to be reviewed again - with further promises that disruption will not happen again. Frankly this is nonsense, as they have taken absolutely no notice of requests and warnings previously. I would remind admins and editors of the following:

Deleting numerous warnings from many editors to stop vandalizing articles through March 2015.

Ignoring warnings regarding taking credit for, and downloading, copyright images on March 24 and March 28.

Removing legitimate Talk page comments on March 24 and March 28.

Creating sockpuppet accounts: User:Kind Dude and IP:92.97.208.37

Creating unauthorised "Block Warning" notices on March 28.

Account blocked on March 25 and again on March 28.

With this extremely poor history, I urge the community not to lift the latest block. Misplaced Pages can well do without this constant vandalism. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.217.48 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kepler's laws of planetary motion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.238.217.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Newton's law of gravitation */"
14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""
14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring - March 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be single purpose account spamming/soapboxing the same edit across multiple articles - Standard gravitational parameter, Orbital period, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Portal:Physics/Intro, Force, Mechanics. Also appears to be involved in an edit war at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Appears to be related to User:77.238.231.199 reported recently. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That IP is banned User:Sevvyan reinserted the same edits he got banned for. Most probably Omerbasic promoting himself in physics and with his trone pretension of Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours IP blocked, semi-protections underway. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Littleboyck reported by User:Vuttamarr (Result: reporter blocked)

User:Littleboyc is constantly warring on a number of articles and has now violated our wonderful 3RR policy right here on New York. See

Then after final warning,

he did fifth.

He is not willing to discuss his changes all of which go against consensus. --Vuttamarr (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those links are to an edit made in 2013 in which Littleboyck did no reversions. Proper evidence and differences of edit warring will be needed. Also, have you warned the user that you've reported them on here? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be simple trolling; the reporter has been blocked for other activities. Kuru (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h)

Page: Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653925283 by BethNaught (talk) stop it"
15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899799 by Dsimic (talk) if such consensus will affect the truth of information, then being against it is obligatory"
15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899270 by Dsimic (talk) Why you not stop first?"
15:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653757638 by Ahunt (talk) consensus shouldn't affect the truth of information"
14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653756540 by Ahunt (talk)"
13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is considered a kernel until someone else prove the opposite of that. if you have any thing against that just discuss it and prove it."
13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is just a piece of code, so prove me how it's an os."
12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653740382 by Haminoon (talk) explain why you did that revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is trying to put article into their preferred version despite standing talk page agreement and being reverted by several other editors. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:162.212.107.47 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Editor is edit warring and not talking. Likely a sock. See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Raben_Group and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richie1Thoa Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also requested page protection. I did this as the IP has exceeded 3RR now. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

note, an admin from pp came through, and has protected the page. thanks Swarm!

Page protected, as I saw the RFPP request first. By all means return to either board if future action is needed. Regards, Swarm 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:1.47.41.20 reported by User:DiscSquare (Result: Page protected)

Page: Evelin Banev
User being reported: User:1.47.41.20 User:1.47.166.103 User:101.99.43.253

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:
Using multiple IP addresses, this user repeatedly changes the summary of the page without confirmed sources - the edits by this unidentified user are disruptive, inaccurate and also biased - while this living person is under criminal investigation, he is NOT a convicted criminal since his trials are ongoing with multiple acquittals and reversals of convictions.

Page protected. Swarm 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone reported by 72.196.235.154 (Result: IP blocked)

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:

He keeps revet a topic I am bringing upo to delate. I tried to revert a couple times but he keep changing back with no comment and tries to call myself the vandal.

Any admin can read the recent WP:AIV report and consider blocking this sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've cleaned up the formatting here... but I'm pretty sure this should WP:BOOMERANG back on an IP who has a previous EW block, and who kept adding back in a non-existent AfD into the log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually its hard to make a prpper page when all the work kept getting delated. 72.196.235.154 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note. The IP was blocked for one week by Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome reported by User:194.187.250.204 (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to:

Manual removal by attemting to push POV, by assert the Source as Unreliable and the major Edit as "poor"

15:11, 29 March 2015

15:45, 29 March 2015 - tagging
15:47, 29 March 2015

User Irondome does not showing any good faith in his recent edits. He left me an unpleasant comment with the immediate demmand (talk page, 15:42) to remove and comment my revert. 3 Minutes after that, he used an very guileful tactic by calling: "No consensus talk attempted by IP", 15:45 as main reason, to push his own POV and to remove my add.

There's no way that we could have made any consensus or that I could express myself within 3 Minutes after the demmanding command on my talk page

User Irondome seems also involved in other reverts, 24 hrs:

Revision as of 00:07, 29 March 2015
Revision as of 00:25, 29 March 2015 failed attemp to revert
Revision as of 00:28 manual revert

Its seems that Irondome have made 6 reverts (3 manual) within 24 hours.

As a new User, I'm very alienated by such behavior. could somebody please take some actions? Thanks

Comments

You completed ignored my comments on your talk section, which were perfectly reasonable, and refused to discuss. Your "sources" were inferior which I have amply explained on the relevant Talk page. You now run to the boards without attempting to communicate in any way whatsoever. You appear to be extremely knowledgable about the mechanics of the drama boards. New user? I doubt it. It is a pity your obvious knowledge and experience of Wikilawyering does not extend to the Tiger I. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignored? You revert my add in less than 3 Minutes before I could comment upon your demmand. There's no way i could have convince you, that you're wrong! You dont have explained anything to me, you just making pure assumptions! The report clearly states "the vehicle's desgin for such a powerful gun is excellent accomplished" - written straigt on the entry of the Report. As next, the Lone Sentry article provides the press release of the "Aberdeen Trials", althought very controlled for such wartime publication it still elucidates how exceptionall well the internal mechanical system was made. Please stay on subject, and keep personal attacks aside. You getting nowhere with your pretentious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no "demmand", but a request to communicate. Only now are you interacting with me on content, here of all places. 3 mins was actually 24 minutes. You have had nearly 4 hrs to communicate with me, but you chose to come here. Now. Lets drop this crap and go to the talk page, where we can discuss the weakness of your sources and their context. Withdraw this, and go to the talk page. I take WP:BRD very seriously, (I left you the link on your talk page). Editors who refuse to discuss but merely revert are not a plus to the project. Now, withdraw and discuss at the Tiger I talk page. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I wont drop this 3RR warring report. Stop twisting it. You clearly demmanded on my talk page: "Please can you revert your most recent edit. Both your sources are unreliable in the context of being primary sources and Lone Sentry is shaky as a source. Please revert your edit and take it to the Tiger Talk Page" 15:42, 29 March 2015 . 3 Minutes later you did it by yourself, without giving myself the opportunity to convince you, that you're wrong! See edit on Tiger I page: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45 , 29 March 2015. You gave me no time to start any discussion on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk)

Your technical abilities are excellent for a "new user" also. Hmmm. You had 24 minutes between those reverts. NOT 3. Dropping off a 1 line message on my T/P would have taken 30 seconds. Your refusal to drop the stick, indicates a potentially problematic temperament. And your err, economy with the truth is not helping here. I would watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. Irondome (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave me 3 minutes (!) from the comment of my talk page to the revert on the Article. I was already writting a lengthy comment on my talk page before you interupted me again by calling me: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45. So i droped and searched for some possibilities to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your 6 reverts in 24 hours are still on subject. No WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm. Your interest in those is "interesting" too. Even though they have nothing to do with the case in hand, as I was dealing with a very similar situation. If I screwed up, I hold up my hand, but to the community, not to you certainly. Irondome (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. You have attempted no communication with me in over 4 hours, but "searched for some possibilities to report you". I think that speaks volumes. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why I should? You stigmatized me after 3 Minutes! You didn't let me to express myself on my talk page, before you took prejudicial reason No consensus talk attempted by IP to make the revert again. Of course I dont want to attempt any communication, with such behavior. You simply could wait more, I could have send you the report in pdf and you would have seen that you are simply wrong. But yeah, keep on twisting anythin in your favor with your biased POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.250.204 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a polite note on WP:BRD, you were not "stigmatised". In other words, you refused to communicate and you are using that as a rather weak hook. I have no POV on a piece of inanimate metal. I do have a POV on editors who refuse to communicate. It is the worst behaviour pattern on WP and causes the most stress, and directly leads to crap like this. Irondome (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected due to edit warring by IP-hopper from Manchester. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:PBS (Result: Voluntary article restriction)

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: diff

Comments:

See user:WordSeventeen exchange with User:Winkelvi at User talk:WordSeventeen#Biography MOS diff

After I read that, I placed advise in the section Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE with a list of the edits that had been made by different editors since 22:00 yesterday. In that list it was clear that User:Winkelvi had broken the 3RR on five or six occasions. As User:Winkelvi was blocked for 24 hours by user:Swarm on the 13 March for 24 hours for breach of the three-revert rule, I expected User:Winkelvi to show contrition and promise not to repeat the behaviour. I did not think it necessary to report it to this notice board at that time because the last edit by User:Winkelvi to the article had taken place at 02:44, 29 March 2015‎.

However User:Winkelvi reply to my posting shows that User:Winkelvi still has no idea what this rule means (diff):

"How is it possible an administrator doesn't know that reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring when it comes to 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide what to do with an editor who has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR who writes "reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring". -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Interesting how I have been discussing the disputed content on the talk page (here and here ) and have not edited the article in question for about 18 hours (the reporting party has edited there 6 times since my last edit there, and the latest just 6 hours ago - see here ) but I'm being reported for edit warring, at this time, almost a day later. I've even been trying to get opinions on this content dispute from other parties (see here ). The intent by the reporting party seems to the hope for punitive action rather than prevention as well as silencing me in the content dispute and keeping me from editing the article further. I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report. Pretty shameful behavior coming from an administrator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I appreciate that PBS took the time to make this report regarding Winklevi edit warring at the Robert Hastings Hunkins article. I was a bit shocked when Winklevi tried to tell me that all of my edits on that page (7 at the time) were reversions when I pointed out he had done four reversions in a very short period of time.

From here Please learn what 4 reversions in less than 24 hours (between 02:44, March 29, 2015 ‎and 22:54, March 28, 2015‎ means on the article Robert Hastings Hunkins. WordSeventeen (talk) 9:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Is that a threat? Because, if it is, I see seven reversions at that same article for you . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 9:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

While you are please trying to learn please read over the difference between an edit and a reversion. LOL WordSeventeen (talk) 10:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I posted a warning about edit warring on the talk page of Winklevi here but he quickly deleted the notice from his talk page. At that point Winklevi had been warned about edit warring by myself and the admin PBS. I would like to point out as illustrated n the chart listing of reverts at the article Winklevi had six reverts in a very short time like 4-6 hours. I did do a warning on the talk page on Winklevi hoping they would understand that their edit warring was wrong. I was not sure how to do a report here since I have never filled one out before. If I had known how to do the report I would have done one at the time. I really had no idea that Winklevi had a history of edit warring until I read the report above. The comment above by the user Winklevi that " I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report." is false the report was not dishonest at all. It was true and accurate. As for ownership issues, I believe they belong to Winklevi. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note. The violation of WP:3RR by Winkelvi is clear-cut. The user's apparent lack of insight into what constitutes an edit-warring exemption is surprising given his history. Finally, his reaction to this report evinces at best a lack of maturity, defensively attacking the filer when Winkelvi is in the wrong. That said, the user appears to be saying he will not continue edit-warring. Based only on that comment, I will not block Winkelvi if he will agree to not edit the article for any reason for the next 10 days. Frankly, this is a generous offer considering all the circumstances, but it's up to the user whether he wishes to accept it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, Bbb23, however, the characterization of my statements in this report are out of context. I'm not going to even bother to post diffs to put it into context, because it's clear to me that because an administrator brought this report here, I'm fighting a losing battle. In fact, I'll go you one better in regard to the article. I won't edit it for longer than 10 days, nor will I give a shit about what a piece of crap article it is. Why? Because PBS won't allow anyone to do anything to it, anyway. Like I said, it's a piece of crap article -- obviously, he wants it to stay a piece of crap article, so if he is so set on owning it, I'll leave him to his ownership of it. But, it would be nice if next time someone reverts one of his edits using Twinkle, he realizes that the canned comments in the edit summary saying "Revert good faith edits..." are not actually telling him he edits in bad faith. Yeah, that actually happened. . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not the most gracious of accepts, but it will have to do. If Winkelvi violates the terms of this agreement, anyone can report the violation either at this noticeboard (linking this report) or on my Talk page. I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As Winkelvi really seems to have no idea what constitutes reversion, there is a real danger of transfer of this behaviour to other articles.

Winkelvi seems to be editing pages which were created by or edited by user:Kbabej (currently blocked). For example Winkelvi put the article Benjamin Hunkins up for deletion on 6 March 2015. Another page created by Kbabej on 28 December 2014,‎ was Autumn Jackson this article has been edited by Winkelvi during the last 24 hours.

Winkelvi's editing of Benjamin Hunkins between the opening of this report and Bbb23's first posting to this section, led user:BoboMeowCat to state on user talk:Winkelvi that "Edit warring on Autumn Jackson You are over 3RR on that article."diff (in fact I do not think Winkelvi was -- see below). However Winkelvi response was not to question the 3RR assertion, but to state "You keep putting incorrect content into a BLP. Do you realize the seriousness and possible liability to Misplaced Pages by doing so?" diff, eventually after further exchanges Winkelvi self reverted, but then negated that self revert by making another edit.

Winkelvi Between 04:11 and 04:36, 29 March 2015‎ made a number of edits diff
- BoboMeowCat at 13:29, 29 March 2015 This series of edits was partially reverted
(1)Wikielvi reverted BoboMeowCat edit at 18:54, 29 March 2015‎
- BoboMeowCat partial revert over a series of edits between 22:53 and 23:04, 29 March 2015‎
(2)Wikielvi partial revert at 23:51, 29 March 2015‎
- Wikielvi made 2 more edits
Wikielvi self revert at 00:38, 30 March 2015‎ back to the last edit by BoboMeowCat
(3) Wikielvi diff at 00:38, 30 March 2015 made the next edit to the page which deleted the content of the parents parameter in the Infobox, and this means that the two edits together were another revert of the first revert by BoboMeowCat.

In the last few days I have seen Wikielvi make a bold edit to several different pages which when reverted instead of following the advise on WP:BRD immediately reverts the revert (diffs can be supplied if Winkelvi disputes this). The better course of action would be not to make this revert of a revert to a bold edit, but to follow WP:BRD and discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, (and if consensus proves to be illusive to follow the dispute resolution process).

I would suggest that Winkelvi, should agree that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit that is reverted, either fully or in part, that Winkelvi agrees not to revert the revert but agrees to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and follow the dispute resolution process.

-- PBS (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(further revert after this case was started)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (now removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Max Verstappen#Nationality of drivers

Comments:
Talk:Max Verstappen contains two sections where today I and other editors have attempted to explain why F1 driver Verstappen races under the Dutch flag, but Wester maintains that Verstappen is a Belgian national holding no Dutch passport, and has edit-warred persistently to that effect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, those were not simple reverts and NOT an edit war but a constant reworking of the text based on real sources. I have sources, Bretonbanquet has not. Also it's a bit bizar that Bretonbanquet makes this report now since the edits were from this after noon with no threat on escalation. --Wester (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistent, repeated reversion (both straight undo-style and more subtle alteration of text) to support their own poorly-supported claims regarding Verstappen's nationality despite overwhelming weight of evidence that Wester is incorrect. Highly disruptive, and reversions far in excess of 3RR. Pyrop e 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have clear sources. An interview by his mother and other factual sources such as the FIA rule book. For the interview: . You on the other hand have no sources and you dare to say that I am incorrect?! You don't even speak Dutch to READ the sources.

I even started a discussion on the talk page.

Also point out that in this edit Bretonbanquet even agrees. But wrongly since he implies that Verstappen has dual passport. That's not true. That's why I corrected it in the next edit. Than Bretonbanquet boldly reverted it based on absolutely nothing. Than I made the following edit that is no reversion but more a factual correction of the text based on sources. Also not that I tried to make a compromise: I for instance did not revert the Belgian flag in the infobox. So no, this is not a 3RR case and it's a bit pointless that Bretonbanquet made this request other than silence me to win the discussion based on force rather than arguments. --Wester (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly do not need to "silence" you because you lost that argument a long time ago. But you continue to edit war. You call refraining to make an utterly incorrect edit "a compromise", and you fail to understand that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (my bolding). You've disrupted this page, and arguably the talk page as well, all day. I turned a blind eye to 4RR but 5, 6 etc, forget it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1.There is no edit war since it's not a reversion but an evolution of the text. 2.I stopped editing that page long ago. 3. There is an ongoing discussion which I started on the talk page. So it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss. That did not withhold Pyrope to edit the page and making false and on-sourced statements. 4. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Three users against one does not mean you are right. --Wester (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:66.190.249.214 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.190.249.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) to 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
1. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086434 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086734 by BatteryIncluded (talk)"
21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086914 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088045 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088380 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088612 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088948 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089243 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
21:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089413 by Apokryltaros (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:: Two editors warring over the talk page. The ip was amply warned, and kept warring. Not really sure what to recommend be done, so I'm reporting here and to RfPP. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Misplaced Pages core content policies

Misplaced Pages was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable.66.190.249.214 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Users Apokryltaros and BatteryIncluded continually deleted a suggestion I made on the abiogenesis talk page regarding the statement of a simple, objective fact. Upon resorting to their respective talk pages for further discussion, they also chose to delete rather than discuss it there as well. Even going as far as to claim harrassment for me calling them out on their personal bias.66.190.249.214 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

The only scientific debate regarding abiogenesis is not "if" it happened, but how. While the proposed chemical mechanisms are hypothetical, it is not so for abiogenesis, as life is factual, an evident empirical phenomenon. The continuous demands to label abiogenesis a "hypothesis" are a chronic recurrence in this scientific WP article. Multiple and similar discussions have happened in the past years regarding the labeling of abiogenesis a "hypothesis": (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

All the dicussions listed above concluded to dismiss it, on the grounds of the cited scientific publications. Several of the requests of labeling it a 'hypothesis' had the ulterior motive of including religion/creationism as an alternate and equally valid scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but were dismissed by the WP community because such religious and philosophical arguments are best presented in non-scientific articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that since abiogenesis itself is a hypothetical processes like you just stated, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. The statement "abiogenesis is the natural processes..." is not a neutral point of view since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes in the first place. The statement "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process..." IS a neutral point of view AND a true statement, unlike the former, since no model of abiogenesis at this point in time has been empirically verified.66.190.249.214 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody knows how gravity and mass came to be; there are hypotheses, explaining the possible mechanisms, but they do not make gravity and mass hypothetical facts. Juggling semantics will not make it less real. I will not discuss science in this venue, besides your semantic arguments have not succeeded in academia or in the US Supreme Court. I don't expect you will produce a reliable reference that may supersede the hundreds of references now cited in the WP article, so I leave this matter in the hands of the administrators instead of entertaining WP:CHEESE. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference between mass & gravity and abiogenesis is that mass and gravity have been OBSERVED. Speculation and assumption are not science. Testable, observable hypothesis are. That's why we call it the big bang "theory" and the "theory" of evolution. Abiogenesis is no different, and for these reasons it is necessary to change the lead sentence of the article to reflect this fact. Since we are currently unable to explain or describe any natural processes by which living cells could emerge from non-living material, we cannot just assume there is one and call it science. There will be no double-standard in Misplaced Pages articles and since abiogenesis has yet to be empirically verified, it is merely hypothetical at this point in time.66.190.249.214 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Declined. Regardless of the scientific merits of the IP's argument, I don't particularly see any reason they weren't 100% within their rights to post that comment on the talk page. Apokryltaros's repeated deletion of their comment was inappropriate and clearly in violation of the talk page behavioral guidelines. I've unprotected the talk page, as this incident certainly doesn't warrant protection. Mann jess appropriately warned Apokryltaros to stop edit warring and they appear to have done so, thus I see no need for action on this front either. Let's take this opportunity to brush up on WP:TPO, WP:OWN, and WP:BITE. Best regards, Swarm 03:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:24.168.220.179 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Both blocked)

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: Anonymous IP user has been repeatedly asked over the past week to stop tendentiously editing this article without engaging in a discussion on article Talk page to attempt to gain consensus for an edit that does nothing to improve a previously stable article. This leads up to today's edit warring by anon IP in which further warnings were given to cease reversions of article without discussion. Anon IP finally engages on Talk page, but continues to revert, demonstrating no real effort to gain consensus for edits. Anon IP was informed about 3RR, and blatantly reverted afterwards, while still refusing to reasonably discuss on Talk page. Anon IP has also removed 3RR warning from their Talk page, demonstrating that the warning has been noticed, and apparently ignored. Temporary page protection may also be required, as it would appear we are dealing with a stubborn and combative anon IP user.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring, both of you decided not to discuss issues, and when I finally did start discussion, y'all argued about each other and did not bring up the manual of style, policies, or guidelines. The IP posted three times as often as you have in the thread I started, and you completely ignored a neutral third party's reasoning and failed to provide a policy-based reason for your content preference.

Were I an uninvolved admin, I would give both of you the same treatment, be it warning or block. Both of you have shown serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, and you may have shown WP:BITE problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP has posted NOTHING of relevance in the Talk thread, but comments about me, and "I know I'm right" statements about their tendentious edits. I have no inclination to waste my time dealing with an anon IP editor whose tone in those comments and in edit summaries thus far has been one of stubborn indifference to Wiki policies or any sort of compromise. But if you want to go to bat for this type of editor here, have at it. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mostly true (though this one at least directly responded to my third-party findings), and your single post on the talk page ignored my third-party MOS-based argument and made a vague WP:OR argument that football is more important without providing sources.

Technically, once I made an MOS based argument, and you failed to provide any policy, guideline, or source to support alternative arrangements, the consensus became alphabetical order. Both you and the IP were edit warring, both you and the IP used the talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of discussing things, and both you and the IP need to back away from the article and let people who have more level heads handle it because neither of you is capable of playing well with others on this topic. It does not matter that he is an IP and you have an account, both of you are in the wrong. As someone with an account, you should actually know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone with an account, and years of helping to maintain articles dealing with the University of South Carolina, I've seen far too much of this type of behavior from anonymous IP editors, and I've had my fill. Editing from an anonymous IP is no excuse for not approaching this project with an open, helpful approach, and learning the policies and procedures used here. This IP editor has done neither, and in fact, only chose to parrot back my attempts to elicit some sort of discussion. Like I said, if you want to bend over backwards for this type of all-too-common disruptive editor on Misplaced Pages, be my guest, but don't expect the rest of us to fall in line behind you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that both the IP and User:GarnetAndBlack should be blocked. They are both over WP:3RR and neither party appears willing to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that you are wrong. I was more than willing to discuss the edits in question here, but anon IP editor showed no inclination for a solid week to do so even when prompted. That's not the basis for me to assume good faith toward an IP that does nothing but revert and claim in edit summaries that their opinion is the only one that matters. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion either party could avoid a block if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Which I clearly did, after posting a 3RR warning on the anon IP's Talk page. What was the response of anon IP? Why to post the template to my Talk page in retaliation, and immediately revert the article. And here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you were edit warring without meaningful discussion.

(edit conflict × 2)GarnetAndBlack: If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have started discussion and left a message asking him to discuss it there. If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have made a response to third-party feedback that indicated you actually read said feedback. It is your duty to assume good faith from the IP if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site. Not "only if their edits were an obvious improvement," but "if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site." You have ignored everyone else's feedback in this, which is at least as tendentious as the IP's possibly-ignorant behavior.

(edit conflict × x3)GarnetAndBlack: The account isn't a badge, it's a responsibility. One of those responsibilities includes teaching IP editors how things work here if they don't know. Another responsibility is to pay attention to third-party feedback and gauge responses accordingly. Another is patience, instead of just lashing out with reverts.

Ed: Yeah, blocking both is starting to look necessary, because both of them seem convinced this as a zero-sum game and think that the other's misbehavior excuses their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haberstr reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 )
this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 )
this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25
- again

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

He came today and repeated his previous edit war conducted on the same page on March 25. This user was previously blocked for edit war and warned by User:Callanecc about EE discretionary sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protected by Nakon. User also warned about personal attacks. Swarm 03:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: