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

Revision as of 03:29, 26 November 2016 editDrdpw (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users45,732 edits →User:Drdpw reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: ): signing comment from earlier today (19:30 hours)← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:43, 26 November 2016 edit undoEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,221 edits →User:ICarriere reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked): ClosingNext edit →
Line 330:		Line 330:
	IP has been as a sockpuppet of {{U\|Kingshowman}}. ] (]) 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)		IP has been as a sockpuppet of {{U\|Kingshowman}}. ] (]) 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Steve Bannon}}		;Page: {{pagelinks\|Steve Bannon}}
Line 353:		Line 353:
	Reverting appears to have stopped, content is back at the "alleged status quo", article is very group mind with teams of users, no need to block anyone unless reverting continues, it's at one revert but if you have multiple editors all ready to make one revert then your pov is a win win situation and apply to have anyone that steps in and doesn't understand the group play blocked. ] (]) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)		Reverting appears to have stopped, content is back at the "alleged status quo", article is very group mind with teams of users, no need to block anyone unless reverting continues, it's at one revert but if you have multiple editors all ready to make one revert then your pov is a win win situation and apply to have anyone that steps in and doesn't understand the group play blocked. ] (]) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Editors who ignore prominent 1RR notices and talk page warnings, and don't even bother to justify their edit warring here, should be blocked, otherwise there's no disincentive for continued disruption.- ]] 01:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)		:Editors who ignore prominent 1RR notices and talk page warnings, and don't even bother to justify their edit warring here, should be blocked, otherwise there's no disincentive for continued disruption.- ]] 01:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours for ] violation on ] on November 24. The user has also been marking large article reverts as minor edits. ] states "''A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.''" The user further confirms his misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy with his comments in ]. He is accusing others of editing with far-left bias. He considers his own edits so obviously correct that he is entitled to mark them as minor edits. User is already alerted under ]. ] (]) 04:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 72 hours) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 72 hours) ==

Revision as of 04:43, 26 November 2016

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, 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)
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)
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:‎Avaya1 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: roughly this version; with no section on Israel. (Other edits have happened in the meantime that are not the focus of any edit warring or dispute.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(initial addition of section)
20:01, 21 November 2016
00:15, 22 November 2016
09:32, 22 November 2016
20:19, 22 November 2016
08:36, 23 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page here and received no response.

Comments:
Avaya1 is involved in an edit-war to include a particular quote on the page Tulsi Gabbard supported only by a primary source. At least three editors have objected to the inclusion. The editor communicates via edit summaries in a clear but non-constructive way, and did not respond to my attempt to initiate discussion on their talk page. Usual wiki-jargon bs is evident, including edits to include a quote with primary source citing WP:primary (numbers 2, 3 above) followed by edits to remove a quote with primary source citing the same policy (number 5).

Possibly, I have violated 3RR in the course of this edit war (I have not counted carefully, but have certainly made a bunch of reverts). I contend that my contributions are less disruptive and supported by consensus, but am willing to sit out a block if it is deemed appropriate. A quick look at Avaya1's talk page suggests that this is not the only article in which the user is currently engaged in contentious behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to count again and you've mis-written the times above. I've made 3 reverts within the first 24 hours. The fourth revert was over 24 hours after the first revert. And the fifth revert was more than 24 hours after the first two reverts. There is no revert there that contravenes 3RR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&action=history Avaya1 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Avaya1 seems to think it's OK to edit war as ling as he doesn't breach 3RR. This edit warring over the same or substantially similar content is disruptive. For example, see - Mr X 14:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Right: the accusation is disruptive edit-warring, not violations of 3RR. And the evidence on this point is pretty unambiguous. --JBL (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Unknowncoolio reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Stale)

Page: Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknowncoolio (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

01:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW)"
01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "(Warning: Three-revert rule on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW))"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor claims to be related to the subject of the article and is reverting sourced material. User:C.Fred encouraged him to use consensus/talk page before reverting this via user's talk page, user continued to revert twice after this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User has been warned for many things so far, but not explicitly for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
User was subsequently warned about 3RR here and made the same revert again here with the edit summary "It is up to you" --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
User has been advised that he has now reverted a fourth time (diff of warning). —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Stale If I'd caught this early this morning, a block would have been necessary, but for now the reverting seems to have died down, so let's hope that's the end of it. Ritchie333 15:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:188.116.6.130 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 72 hours )

Page: User talk:Dane2007 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.116.6.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on User talk:Dane2007. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 188.116.6.130 (talk) to last revision by Dane2007. (TW)"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 15:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Generation_Snowflake#POV_edit_by_MaxBrowne

Comments:

This report is a follow on from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: No violation) above. I have limited the diffs to his edit warring of just one phrase, although they are edit warring over other aspects of the article, too. MaxBrowne is clearly gaming the system to continue edit warring at the article. Having evaded action for their edit warring last night, they then withdrew from the discussion in a huff. Finding today that their favoured version of the article had been reverted by another editor, who was engaging in discussion, they immediately reverted again. This is a blatant use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute, and stick 2 fingers up at the process. As I warned in the previous report, their behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, without meaningful discussion, and clearly intend to game the system in the process. Keri (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The intemperate language and assumptions of bad faith continue, and the accusation of gaming the system is getting into personal attack territory, as is the accusation that I left the discussion "in a huff". (A cursory reading will show that my language was actually calm and considered, and was simply an acknowledgement that attempts at discussion with the editor have proved unproductive). The aggressive and intemperate language continued even after I disengaged. User also claims to see inside my head and know what I'm thinking and know my intentions regarding reverts. And no I did not "immediately revert" User:DynaGirl's edits, in fact for the most part they are intact; she felt that the source I cited was given undue prominence and she's probably right. My subsequent edits were substantive, supported by sources and properly explained in editsums. User has consistently refused to assume good faith despite being admonished to do so by admins in the previous thread and has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality throughout. This user clearly has it in for me. So... was that technically a 3RR violation? Possibly. The WP:RS I cited (Collins Dictionary) in fact uses the stronger word "derogatory". If admins feel it is appropriate I will remove that word and engage in discussion but I don't think a description based on both WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:RS should really be a matter for controversy. I also think a warning to this user regarding continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and battleground mentality is appropriate. Do people ever get hit by WP:BOOMERANGs on this board? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: All that aside, it appears you have violated 3RR on the article. making at least 6 reverts in past 24 hrs. The 4 listed above and also and --DynaGirl (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Warned Since Maxbrowne has a clean block log, I'm going to give him a final warning for the minute. Ritchie333 15:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: MaxBrowne continues to edit war despite the warning. This edit here was reverted by MaxBrowne here. In another example of gaming the system, the editor "hid" the significant content change between 2 minor changes which he self-reverted with the summary "undoing totally correct edit because of 3RR crap" demonstrating that he was fully aware his actions were inappropriate. Again: Their behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, without meaningful discussion, and clearly intend to game the system in the process. This was entirely foreseeable, given Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive320#User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: Both warned) Keri (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it.

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I think MaxBrowne has gone right up to the line. Self-reverting is okay. Using a summary of "undoing totally correct edit because of 3RR crap" is not great, but it does mean he understands the policy and is consciously taking steps to respect it. However, the diffs you supplied clearly show a revert, and as good as my word I have blocked. Ritchie333 10:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Lalichii reported by User:185.20.165.182 (Result: )

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: I can't understand why does Misplaced Pages has two different information in two different pages about same subject. 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt page does not state any information about self-coup, however self-coup article and Template:Coup d'état template states the opposite. And when I tried to edit with standartization of information, above mentioned user reverted my edits, like he did to many other users in the past as you can see on the history of mentioned pages. This user seems to be biased. 185.20.165.182 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Verity345 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Sexual fantasy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verity345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Purposes */"
03:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Purposes */"
03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Purposes */"
21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Purposes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sexual fantasy. (TW)"
03:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sexual fantasy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be pushing an agenda on the page, and is not paying attention to warnings from multiple editors about their edits (marking them as minor, not using the Talk page for consensus, etc.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't revert the last changes per 3RR, can someone do the honors? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Paramdeeptung reported by User:Arjayay (Result: 24 hours )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page:

Comments:

Have also tried to discuss on my talk page, but later posts to my TP were reverted by another - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Arjayay's patient and pedagogical attempts to explain the MOS, three other people have tried to get the user to stop the edit warring. Unfortunately, the editor's stance is rather inflexible, it seems, and they don't appear to be willing to discuss or accept consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And of course, this behavior of the editor is continuing on other pages too; and now the reported editor has started sock puppet investigation against Mlpearc, claiming David Biddulph, Sro23 and Mlpearc themselves are socks of Mlpearc. Not to miss the report below filed by the editor against unnamed editors. Lourdes 01:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 11:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

] reported by User:Paramdeeptung (Result: )

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

ITRIED TALKING WITH EVERY USER WHO WAS POSTING AGAINST ME WITH RESPECT BUT NO ONE HEARD ME AND KEPT ON EDITING THE MAIN ARTICLE.

The entire issue is about my religion. According to me Guru never dies, he attains immortality. Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not have three wives but only two, for which I have quoted the right encyclopedia too. We in India use Ji for respect. People aking remarks have shallow knowledge about the topic they are deliberating on. Plus i DID COMMIT A FEW MISTAKES EARLIER BY REMOVING PICTURES. bUT AS SOON AS I realised I asked for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

This malformatted and confused report is presumably an attempt at a retaliation to the section above. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:188.66.89.124 reported by User:Paul W (Result: Page protected )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

{{subst:void|You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to reach consensus via User Talk and Article Talk, but the user has not responded (is there is a COI issue behind the user's changes?). This is the first time I have ever had to revert to this process in many years of Misplaced Pages editing, and I am conscious there may be BLP issues here, but for completeness and balance of sources, the user's edits appear to be masking reliably reported facts. Paul W (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Page protected Semi-protected for 3 days Ritchie333 11:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.194.13 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: )

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:
I am the one who started the dispute. I initially reverted because it was non-neutral and didn't belong on the article. The IP added the same thing onto a Trump Organization page, which I also removed. However, they were repeatedly adding the same content after being told to take it to the talk page. When they didn't, I opened a section, which they only responded after they reverted for I don't know how many times. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, the rules clearly state that the most important info must be in the lead. That includes WHY there are protests. You give an explanation if you don't like mine! But don't leave our readers to guess or revert to the worthless form the article was in before. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't represent the 7.1 billion people on this planet. Don't represent yourself as "our readers". This could had been solved if you had taken it to talk page in the first place. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't care what your intent was for those edits; you still disregarded MULTIPLE warnings and did not go to the talk page beforehand, and still edit-warred. This discussion is wholly warranted. Parsley Man (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User has also been reported to WP:ANI for related aggressive behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Kingshowman. Parsley Man (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751308468 by MrX (talk) There can be no consensus on the use of a pejorative term."
18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751295366 by FuriouslySerene (talk) Misplaced Pages should not be dictated by editors with a political agenda."
Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC) to 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 17:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Far-right is a pejorative word. The existence of references does not substantiate a pejorative. - ICarriere"
2. 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Breitbart News */ Removal of bias from article. Far-right is a pejorative word. The existence of references does not substantiate a pejorative. - ICarriere"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Steve Bannon. (TW)"
19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* November 2016 */"

Comments:

Article subject to 1RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting appears to have stopped, content is back at the "alleged status quo", article is very group mind with teams of users, no need to block anyone unless reverting continues, it's at one revert but if you have multiple editors all ready to make one revert then your pov is a win win situation and apply to have anyone that steps in and doesn't understand the group play blocked. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors who ignore prominent 1RR notices and talk page warnings, and don't even bother to justify their edit warring here, should be blocked, otherwise there's no disincentive for continued disruption.- Mr X 01:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation on Steve Bannon on November 24. The user has also been marking large article reverts as minor edits. WP:MINOR states "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." The user further confirms his misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy with his comments in Talk:Steve Bannon#Political bias masquerading as authoritative fact. He is accusing others of editing with far-left bias. He considers his own edits so obviously correct that he is entitled to mark them as minor edits. User is already alerted under WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:PantherBF3 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

Page: Fake news website (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PantherBF3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

24:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "There has been a clear indication that Politifact is allegedly a fact checking website. This in itself is not adhering to a neutral point of view."
24:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751334561 by Imminent77 (talk)"
24:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "So are you."
24:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Users are trolling the article without participating on the talk page."
23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Talk page for incorrect claim"
23:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "To be settled on talk page"
23:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Anonymous troll detected."
23:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undoing the revision of a clearly hysterical and paranoid troll. Ignore."
23:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Continued trolling of the article without sources will result in a blocking of your editorial capability."
23:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "You need a source for that claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Fake news website. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

PantherBF3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a VANDAL ONLY ACCOUNT. Please see block log. Please block indefinitely for vandal only account. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ponyo and GeneralizationsAreBad:Someone can probably close this report, for now, as the account was blocked 72 hours by Ponyo. Sagecandor (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked PantherBF3 for 72 hours. Given the content of their unblock request I imagine we will be back here in three days' time.--Jezebel's Ponyo 02:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:DataKnowledgeWisdom reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 hours)

Page: John A. McDougall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DataKnowledgeWisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* McDougall Plan criticism */"
07:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Rmv duplicate mention. Author to decide placement 1.Intro / 2. Criticism"
07:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751373036 by Alexbrn (talk) removed biased and baseless claim from competing author"
06:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 747210646 by Jytdog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John A. McDougall. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Was given two edit warnings (a friendly one and a less friendly one.) Decided to try to just add "There are no substantial evidence up to this date" after a sourced cite which... I guess is slightly better but the duck test says it's still edit warring, at least to me. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The edit summaries suggest the user has an axe to grind; I predict they'll either disappear or return and edit-war some more. Ritchie333 11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:175.136.182.147 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Chola dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.136.182.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) to 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
11:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
11:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
11:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
11:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 11:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC) to 11:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
1. 11:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "fixed typo"
2. 11:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "fixed typo"
3. 11:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "fixed typo"
4. 11:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* = */fixed typo"
5. 11:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Chola dynasty. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP repeatedly removing contents from the article without valid explanation. I've given final warning to that IP user, and it persisted. It has been later reported to WP:AIV. When i checked it's editing history, the IP has only edited this article, nothing else. – Stylez995 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Flipping heck, that's a lot of reverts. Blocked. Ritchie333 11:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:213.113.97.221 reported by User:Oddbodz (Result: blocked 24h)

Page: Operation Wrath of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.113.97.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ Dan Koehl you are repeatedly reposting false information, please stop, there were no reported firearm homicides of females in Holland during the time frame. the source used is not credible."
18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ whoever wants to leave factually incorrect information on the site please resign, i will keep removing this erroneous information whenever i am on the site."
17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ No female of this description was murdered in Holland during the time frame, keep putting it back in and prove that wikipedia does not fact check properly."
17:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ The second time i have had to edit this part, there was no female assassin, no female fitting the description of the assassin was murdered in Holland during that time, and there is no credible sources that detail this version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Operation Wrath of God. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hakan3400 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )

Page: Turkish military intervention in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hakan3400 (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 / 1RR warning

18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article (and his) talk page

Comments:

All Syrian- or ISIL-related articles are under a general 1RR sanction. The editor in question first canceled my update (based on a source) from 17 to 18 soldier deaths, claiming sources were only confirming 4 deaths in the last 48 hours, not 5. After User:Mr.User200 added a new source confirming 5 deaths in the last 48 hours, editor Hakan3400 cancelled his update as well. After I re-updated it to 18 based on available sources that 5 died in 48 hours he fully reverted me. Thus making a total of 3 cancellations in less than 6 hours. I attempted to discuss the issue with him at both his and the article's talk pages. I also warned him as I am obligated about the 1RR policy (at both talk pages) and that he should cancel his revert and continue discussing the issue. I asked him to cancel his revert 5 times. He continued to claim only 4 soldiers died because Turkey identified only 4 so far and claims the sources confirming 5 soldiers died are wrong based on his own opinion (Original Research violation). I pointed out his sources only point that Turkey identified 4 of 5 soldiers that were confirmed as killed (I even provided two links confirming 5 soldier deaths). He continued to claim those sources were wrong without providing verifiable evidence. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The death of 5 Turkish Soldiers in the last 28 hours; include 3 Maroon Berets killed in a alleged Syrian Airstrike, the death of a Turkish soldier by a ISIS attack at al-Bab and the death by wounds of a Turkish commando the same day. I still dont know the reason of the revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

PS Editor in question also resorted to violations of WP:CIVIL during discussion: calling me a liar, my actions stupid, and that I'm afraid. At this point three out of four editors who discussed the issue are in agreement/consensus (including me) except the editor who violated 1RR. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: )

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:
There is currently a debate going on as to whether the table at said article should be redesigned. I (along with YBG and the user-in-question) am in favour, but rather conditionally. Drdpw unfortunately has displayed a few traits of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over the article, reverting any minor tweak he isn't satisfied with while claiming that the layout is still under discussion. All I had done was tweak the alignment back to the way it was originally (when the redesign was first implemented), but I was reverted. So then I thought it would be better if I just reverted to the layout before all this hullabaloo started. I was reverted again. I am wits' end here. Two users (namely Earthscent and Marbe166) oppose or are cool to the redesign. Therefore reverting to the layout before this commotion would favour the wishes of the majority for the time being, while a consensus is built on the article talkpage.--Nevé –selbert 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This seems mostly to be a dispute over which version should remain in main space while a discussion is taking place. I think both Neve-selbert and Drdpw have been spending too much time and effort reverting and unreverting changes in main space, and I am sorely tempted to quote Shakespeare. I would hope that they would both devote themselves to the discussion I have been attempting to carry forward. I myself agree not to make any changes in main space without first announcing what I am about to do on the talk page and then waiting for a period of time and/or someone to tell me to go ahead. I think it would be good if these two editors would agree to this also. I am inspired to make this offer by this edit by Drdpw. YBG (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I should have let sleeping dogs lie, but I didn't, and here we are. So, to cut to the chase, I myself agree not to make any changes in main space unless consensus has clearly been reached for them, and to make them only after getting the green-light to do so. I hope that Neve-selbert will agree to this as well. Drdpw (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:SlitherioFan2016 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

This case is pursuant to this one: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries

Diffs of the user's reverts since RFC outcome:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Result of RFC on article talk page which went against SlitherioFan2016: Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?

Comments:
SlitherioFan2016 is an SPA whose sole agenda is changing the color scheme in the tables at four articles. At the original case SlitherioFan2016 agreed to not edit the article until the RFC was concluded. The RFC resulted in selecting the color scheme which offered better accessibility to color-blind users but SlitherioFan2016 refuse to accept the result and has changed the color scheme back on three occasions now. Within 24 hours of the original RFC closing he started a second RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we propose a new 8-color scheme in the comparison table? to overturn the result (which an admin advised him to withdraw) and then a third RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 8 colors in the comparison table? essentially with the same goal.

I found his actions to be immensely disruptive so requested a topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_topic_ban_for_SlitherioFan2016. He promised at that filing to not change the color scheme again but continued to change the color scheme. He is clearly edit-warring against the outcome of the RFC and this needs to be dealt with.

If he wishes to explore other solutions this needs to be done on the talk page, but the RFC outcome needs to enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If you had read my last edit summary, I said to not change the color scheme disruptiveIy again from that point on. Despite this, I'm still confused. Do you want me to change the color scheme or not? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbbshell reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page: Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbbshell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "seriously. you're not going to make me say this again, are you?"
21:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "As i said, if we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. This is untenable! If you make an exception for him, you can not make an exception for all other former members who wish to be identified here!"
20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "If i have to talk about Harvey Lester's change of party, then we also need to talk about a lot more than simply removing him from the discussion. Furthermore, if we accord him a place in this township'"
20:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Harvey Lester lost his re-election bid. He should not be on this page. He is no longer part of the council."
18:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Deleted reference to Lester, who is not on the Township committee"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* f we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. */ new section"

Comments:

Categories: