Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:58, 11 November 2014 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 98.145.197.31 - ""← Previous edit Revision as of 11:52, 11 November 2014 edit undo2602:306:bd61:e0f0:e835:ad18:9168:84ef (talk) →User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected): final answerNext edit →
Line 374: Line 374:
:::::: And again ] , I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. ] (]) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) :::::: And again ] , I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. ] (]) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You honestly must be joking I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, . Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an and a . So it's a clear case of ] to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see ]). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence (, , , , , and ) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms ( and ). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an and a after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or ] is blocked] So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain ]. ] (]) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC) :::::::You honestly must be joking I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, . Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an and a . So it's a clear case of ] to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see ]). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence (, , , , , and ) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms ( and ). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an and a after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or ] is blocked] So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain ]. ] (]) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Acid, pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. There is an old saying, attributed to Einstein, that: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity. By that definition, you must be certifiable. Because for what purpose do you continue this harangue? I suspect you're just one of those unpleasant little people who is taken with the sound of your own voice. While I won't give you the incessant platform you clearly crave I will address the nonsense that are your various claims this one final time.

But first, we have to establish foundation and you have to establish your standing in this discussion. So the obvious first question is: "Who the hell are you?" A review of your personal page is, perhaps fittingly, obtuse. says nothing. But even more telling than what it says, is what it doesn't. It doesn't say you're an admin. It doesn't say you've been entrusted with any particular rights or privileges by this community. But further review does say your account has only been around since 2013 - yet you spend an unusual and inordinate amount of time on messageboards; and pages so obscure that, over a year later, your last edit on them is still the most current. But how any of that qualifies you to insert yourself into this particular discussion has yet to explained. As you are personally powerless to impact this process. Nor have you established any direct relevance, if any, that you have to it.

But now having established that you failed to pass ] here, on even the most basic level, I'll nonetheless address (again) your various and specious claims.

If you had even the slightest concept of balance, you actually would have avoided my claim that you were blatantly cherry-picking the record to craft your attack at me. If you had any notion of balance you would have said "yes Malik did this, but so did you." Instead the best you could muster was this tripe: ''"I am well aware of what Malik stated but you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it."'' To use another of your favorite phrases: "You honestly must be joking." But then you doubled down on your own hypocrisy, by then feeling the need to "repeat" the same nonsense you posted originally. To quote you again: ''"there really was no point in repeating in."'' But yet, you did! I guess there are no mirrors in your world. So here again - and for the last time - are your answers. More than, frankly, you deserve. Because once again: "Who the hell are you?"

I correctly pointed out the section regarding , which you've referenced now twice. But where have you even once acknowledged Shabazz's original comments or condemned him for making them - which caused my mentioning that section in the first place? Nowhere. So that reduces your "condemnation" to that of a one-sided hack. Feel free to quote me, because, based upon your actions, the characterization is entirely accurate. You're like the clueless and incompetent ref who calls a personal foul for the retaliation and does nothing about the originating offense. Quote me there too. You - or Shabazz - insults me? I let you know what an insult feels like. That isn't uncivility. That's ]. This isn't a church and I don't "turn the other cheek." Besides, he - and now you - have made a false claim twice. That I edited "all weekend" when I edited one day. Second, you keep regurgitating ] while you are clearly oblivious to ] within it. Please read it so you'll actually understand the rules you're quoting. My report factually chronicled his edits. There's no way to falsify the edit log. It is what it is. Regarding your claim about what "matters" ] always matters. It is a policy here. I suggest you read that too. While you're at it, also read ] because, despite your failure to mention it, that is exactly what I did , and . And again, I was the one who warned Shabazz about 3RR and even noted his continued edit warring after that . So before you make claims, you would be wise to get your facts straight. Regarding the IP issue, already asked and answered. I worked on a current and newsworthy article. One that hundreds, if not thousands, of people read just this past weekend - because it was in the news. The fact that I also read the edit history, because I found something of concern in the article and saw that others had found the same thing, would be unspectacular to all but the most myopic conspiracy theorists, like you. The fact that my IP is also in a major city populated by a few million people would also be unremarkable to all - but the conspiracy theorists like you. They're not all me. In fact, you also ignored the fact that my very fist edit was to undo ! But maybe in your conspiracy world, I undid myself just to later, throw you off the scent. And FYI, other editors have addressed But in your conspiracy world, maybe we're all just the same person! Just wow. It would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Because you do make a truly ridiculous prosecutor. Which once again, begs the prevailing question: "Who the hell are you?"

Finally, here's the way it works, since you've also consistently , I'm really not feeling particularly constrained by your vacuous calls for "civility." Your entire attacks have been decidedly uncivil. So here's the bottomline: if you lie about me, my actions, or my intentions, then you're a liar. Plain and simple. I said Shabazz was a liar for no other reason than that he was. You've made the same claims, so you too are a liar. You've maligned me with no proof. That's called lying. If you find that uncivil, then the solution is simple: really, just stop being a liar. So, better luck next time to you, Acid. But in the end of all this I will encourage you in future, to a) get your facts straight before you go tilting at windmills and making asinine and unsubstantiated accusations; and b) stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Someone far less civil than myself, is very likely to take offense. And the response, which you will have entirely deserved, won't be nearly as measured as mine has been. And will likely and justifiably be decidedly more uncivil. Meanwhile, what I can't help but notice, loyal , is that even Shabazz, has had preciously little to say lately in his own defense. Likely because even he now knows he went too far. As an editor, but esp. as an admin. If he can't hold ''himself'' to a higher standard, then he's in no position to balk at anyone else. So while you've been yapping, all we've heard from him is crickets. But apparently, that's just the arrogance that comes with the knowledge that his fellow admins wouldn't block him, no matter how deserving or egregious his conduct is. Clearly that's how the game is played around here. I request a block for edit warring and instead the page gets blocked, but only for IPs. Funny what passes for a proper solution around here, isn't it. This, even after I've already said I'm done with that article. But no matter. In the caste system that is WP, IPs are the untouchables. Nevermind ]. Also, no need to wonder why having an account does not appeal to me in the least.

But the truly saddest part that you, and the actual admins on this board have consistently failed to address, is why we're here. Which is because I complained about an edit that was biased on a BLP and I tried - several times - to rewrite it neutrally. If you don't understand that, you can review everything from {{WP:BLP]] to {{WP:NPOV]] and everything in between. That's the real issue here and yet it's the one thing you consistently have avoided addressing because you wanted to talk about other crap. And you'll likely want to continue this too. But we're done here. I won't ever change your mind and you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong. And ultimately, it really doesn't matter what you think. Because for the final time: "Who the hell are you?" SO yup, we're done. Have the last word. But I won't bother to come back here to read it. I'm done . Whew, that was long! But in the words of Shabazz, it had to be done. The End. ] (]) 11:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} (semi) for one week.--] (]) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC) *{{AN3|p}} (semi) for one week.--] (]) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Revision as of 11:52, 11 November 2014

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    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

    User:FortLauderdale1911 reported by User:Elvey (Result: Locked)

    Page
    Jack Seiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    FortLauderdale1911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Offender was warned 4x today, 2x before the most recent revert. I see no way to "select edits where warned the offender. Elvey 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Page protected (full) for one week. The new user's motives may be suspect, but the material they were removing cannot remain in the article. First, there are copyright violations. Second, there are WP:BLP violations (one of the two sources is a dead link, and such controversial material cannot be sourced to a dead link). And why in the world is there a quote from Jesus in the article? Did anyone read the material? I've therefore locked the page, as too many editors believe the material belongs, and removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just a quick note that I'm off to eat dinner and won't be able to respond for a while if editors complain about my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    Cool. Some fair criticisms. Now lets separate the chaff from the wheat. I'll give it a shot. --Elvey 03:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    Good to hear. Two more criticisms. First, the dead link source is not reliable. It's a political rag. Their About Us says: "Firedoglake.com (FDL) is a leading progressive news site, online community, and action organization consistently ranked as one of the most influential political websites." () Second, the article is short, and that much material attacking the subject is clearly WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I've been interacting IRL... can't follow up, at least for a while. Encourage you to copy relevant bits of your comments on the article content to the talk page for other editors to see, or give me the OK to do so.--Elvey 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism (Result: No violation)

    Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism in order to erase an idea and a reference of a scientific work in the pages of Origins of Romanians.(https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians) and section: Georgescu's statement They censored an historian who have several citations in that pages. Personal points of view and original research are not admitted. Eurocentral (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

    The censored phrase is: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

    They acted together in order to censor a reference. It is not the first time they acted together trying to censor data. Eurocentral (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

    I have topic-banned User:Eurocentral from Hungary and Romania for six months per WP:ARBEE and logged it in the case. See his talk page for details. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Saadkhan12345 reported by User:Faizan (Result: )

    Page
    Operation Zarb-e-Azb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "i have removed afghan militants because it is the view of User:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth....according to rules ... discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. will hve to wait until the mattr is resolved on talk.Pg"
      2. 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632949361 by Saadkhan12345 (talk)"
      3. 13:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...User:TheSawTooth and User:Faizan view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first."
    2. 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "TTP is involved in cross border attacks...for reference TTP(infobox) and talk page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Operaation Zarb-e-Azb. (TW)"
    2. 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR at Operation Zarb-e-Azb */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Continuous edit-warring there at Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Made a 3RR violation between 7 and 8 November 2014 with 4 reverts. Faizan 08:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    Self-reversions don't count (and consecutive edits only count as 1). So the 3 edits between 12:37 and 13:01 only count as 1 revert, placing them at 2 reverts in 24 hours. Stickee (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Roscelese reported by User:Djcheburashka (Result: Fully protected)

    Page: False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:


    The reverts are of the POV template. When the editor refused to discuss POV issues in the article, and reverted changes, I opened discussion on the POV dispute resolution page and added the POV template. The editor has now, less than a day later, tried to remove the template three times.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user deleted the warning from her own talk page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Roscelese&oldid=633052627

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape See also the POV dispute resolution page.

    Comments:

    Same issue applies to David Lisak -- the editor refuses to discuss on the talk page, then reverts edits to the page, then when this is raised as a POV dispute continues to try to revert the template without consensus. I've also requested protection on the page.

    User:187.189.154.153 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: )

    Page
    2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    187.189.154.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    2. 08:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    3. 08:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    4. 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    5. 07:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    6. 07:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss their content changes. —MelbourneStar☆ 08:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Lake4455 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lake4455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of wars involving the United States. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:172.56.20.97 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    172.56.20.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of wars involving the United States. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours  Philg88  11:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:NasiKK reported by User:Avono (Result: Locked)

    Page
    Najib Razak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    NasiKK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633048377 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    2. 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633040514 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    3. 01:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632990305 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    4. 13:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632921288 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    5. 03:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632594004 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    removal sourced content as "vandalism" dosn't discus consensus in talk page Avono (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    It is transparent as glass that this is an undetected sock of Roman888. The exchange above, including the trademark use of the expression "serial vandaliser" are straight out of his play book. Block on sight. --Drmargi (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Caitlanowen2001 reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    The Passing Bells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Caitlanowen2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
    2. 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Added active account"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Passing Bells‎. (TW)"
    2. 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on t The Passing Bells‎. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    adds twitter handle https://twitter.com/BenMcG1 into The Passing Bells article even though I said thats unencyclopedic (twice). Only engages after final edit-war warning to insult me and do 4th revert. Avono (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    violation of WP:Twitter Avono (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Spotter 1 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

    Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Spotter 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Note that this *is* in fact a revert, of an edit from Nov 1 22:19 . Basically, with this revert, Spotter 1 is resuming an edit war that occurred on Nov 1.
    4. slightly different from the previous, but essentially the same. The slight difference in the tagging is a pretty transparent attempt to WP:GAME the system and circumvent the 3RR restriction.

    Previous edit warring on the article - note that these were not strictly speaking 3RR violations but rather tip-toeing right up to the line then backing off. Then coming back a few days later to resume it:

    3 Reverts in less than 2 hours on October 29:

    Depending on how you count it, either 3 or 4 reverts, over the same issue, on October 22:

    It very much also looks like Spotter 1 is either tag-teaming and coordinating with User:Kenfree or actually is that user. The pattern is the same: make 3 reverts in regard to the POV tag, and after being reverted by multiple editors, come back in a few days and repeat. It's also quite possible that these are socks of indef banned user User:LarryTheShark (same issue, same style). Users other account User:Spotter 11 (possibly created in good faith).

    By my count Spotter 1 has been reverted on this article by 5 or 6 different editors (including admins). So this isn't a two sided edit war, it's just one (actually two, if you include Kenfree) users who refuse to listen to others and are edit warring with a stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . User responds/posts walls of text, rants and soapboxing (these are just on the article talk page, he also posted similar to other venues, including other user's talk pages) or engages in some kind of "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation (exs. , , , ). Basically, rational discussion is impossible with this user.

    Comments:

    The edit warring today constitutes 4 reverts in less than one hour and 45 minutes. The edit warring on the two other days is 3 reverts in less than 2 hours, each.

    In the first place, user:Volunteer Marek is using this administrative space to cast aspersions against me. This is typical of his sneaky, backbiting style (with which he has populated the talk page of the RT TV Network), but my one protection against this is supposed to be that users are required to inform those users whose names are involved in incident reports. Volunteer Marek did not follow this policy. I only learned of this incident report when visiting the talk page of its victim (no exaggeration, see below), Spotter 1, this morning. I have an unblemished history of editing here are Wikpedia over several years, and if Volunteer Marek believes that I am engaged in any illicit practice, or have assumed alter-identities on Wikpedia, he has the responsibility to report it and have the problem openly addressed. He should not be at liberty to continue his incessant calumny against me here in this administrative area, and especially not without some notification, so that I might defend myself. This by itself should lead honest administrators to question his motives and integrity.
    As to his report of supposed "edit warring" and the subsequent, peremptory ban of Spotter 1 (before he has even been given an opportunity to defend himself -- it would appear from Spotter 1's talk page history that this user was banned by Bbb23 only 17 minutes after being notified of the "discussion" by user:Volunteer Marek, strongly suggesting collusion between the two ):
    "Edit warring" as Misplaced Pages officially defines it relates to content disputes, which is to say, to the content of Misplaced Pages articles themselves. But the reversions in this case were clearly attempts to restore, not content, but a tag, an NPOV/Secttion tag that fairly and accurately reflected not only the ongoing editorial dispute over this question in the RT TV Network talk page, but also in the recently initiated discussion on Misplaced Pages's Administrators' Neutral Point of View noticeboard. Thus, the tag SHOULD be automatic for that page. That Spotter 1 made these attempts to place it there is to his credit...it is not edit warring at all, but rather editorial responsibility. I am astounded that someone who has been assigned administrative responsibility, such as the administrator who banned this user for this responsible effort, chose to ban this user, instead of confronting those, like Volunteer Marek, who wish to keep Misplaced Pages readers in the dark about this editorial dispute by deleting the NPOV tag each time it is posted. Volunteer Marek's "report" on this page must be understood in context of the scrutiny his tendentious editing of the RT TV Network page has received on the NPOV noticeboard.
    I request an immediate review by a responsible administrator of this penalization of a responsible editor, a travesty that runs counter to both the letter and spirit of Misplaced Pages's policies, as above cited. Kenfree (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    References

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Spotter_1&action=history
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_.28TV_Network.29...neutral_feedback_desperately_needed.21

    User:McGeddon reported by User:Urammar (Result: Filer blocked)

    Page:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) Alien (creature in Alien franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: McGeddon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: This user is intentionally attempting to abuse the RFC system, resetting it under false pretense after it elapsed naturally, with an overwhelming majority for change of article, the user is continuing to block the majority approved change of article, restarting the edit war that got us here in the first place


    Urammar (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:NebY reported by User:Jackboston (Result: Filer indeffed)

    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    NebY: NebY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=632304135

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633124596
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633126190
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633125860

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer

    Comments:

    I've watched this page for some time before creating an account, and the above user is engaging in disruptive and frankly unnecessary behaviour on the above page which borders on some form of edits war/vandalism. The user has repeatedly edited the page to remove sourced material and has acted utterly arbitrarily in so doing. The user removes historical references in the "history" section of the page and seems incapable of understanding why this is in fact relevant when explaining the above firms "history." The user also considers him/herself so educated on the subject that they dismiss as irrelevant a book precisely about the above firm. The book is not as he/she states by the firm itself, but is written by the legal historian Judy Slinn http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-History-Freshfields-Slinn-Judy/dp/B002622CHO

    The user has also removed information from an interview with the firm's former managing partner which was clearly relevant and sourced - purely because the interview was reproduced online in a blog. While there may be a couple of Peacock words on the above page, following Misplaced Pages guidelines, this does not mean that the user should simply "gut" the page of all useful or relevant information. Nor does it explain why the user removed information regarding the firms legal work on the 2012 Olympics, or information about the location of Freshfields offices - which would be relevant to any user of the page.

    Information like this - historical and otherwise - is common on other international law firm pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

    The users behaviour is inexplicable to me, and is not at all consistent with Misplaced Pages editing guidelines.

    Should this page be protected?

    User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: Eric Holder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Outrageous, vulgar and disruptive behavior for any editor. Far worse for an ADMIN! What kind of example is this in how to calmly and rationally resolve disagreement and edit collaboratively toward an NPOV result? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    • I reverted three times, not four. The IP has been edit-warring all weekend (from various IPs), and the article has now been protected. I recommend the IP be given a strong warning about WP:BOOMERANG. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The editor just admitted he edit-warred. But his defense was that he "reverted three times, not four?" Interesting, since I don't believe it's called "4RR". But I actually listed five times. Also, the editor made absurd assertions he cannot support. Namely, who was I edit-warring with "all weekend" - and where is their 3RR complaint? And if it was "from various IPs" how in heaven does that point to me? Obviously, not all similar IPs are the same person. This editor just needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and stop finger-pointing, rationalizing and deflecting. He admitted here that he edit warred. Even before that, he dared me to report him. As though, because he's an admin, he is some entitled entity, above the rules. Perhaps he is. If he isn't blocked, like any other editor would be - and for a significant period, because of the totally unnecessary and vulgar tone he took from the beginning in the edit summaries - then I guess he's right. Also, the page certainly doesn't need IP protection. You'll notice that the last edit before protection wasn't from an IP. It was from him. But to semi-protect/block such a prominent page, over a single disagreement regarding a single word,(now addressed), is, I think, pretty excessive and unnecessarily extreme. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • May I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:Edit warring to see the definition of a revert and what a 3RR violation is? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I see. And just which part (that you seem to believe justifies your behavior) would you have me read? This part?: Which defines a revert as: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Or the part right below it: "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times?" Meanwhile, may I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:IMPARTIAL to see the definition of neutrality and what is meant by: "A neutral characterization." Or may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Did you really tell him to read WP:CIVIL even though you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar"? This is truly a WP:BOOMERANG. In fact and just like he said, two of the links you provided us (here and here) are actualy self-reverts which are not counted as "reverts" per WP:EDITWAR. No matter how much you would like to WP:WIKILAWYER, it does not change anything. Ironically, you reverted four times in the last 24 hours (here: ). You also reverted twice on November 8th as well (here: Once again, just as Malik said, you did consistently revert throughout this weekend. In the end of all of this, you will be the one blocked and not him. Better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    AcidSnow: My questions for you would be, did you really just ignore his posts that I "cut the bullshit... your head is in the sand" and his continued personal attack calling me a "wing-nut"? Not to mention my request that he "Save your editorializing for another project." and my efforts at "neutrality"? Plus, did you really just ignore the fact that it was me who attempted compromise by leaving this message on his talk page: "I have replaced it with a less inflammatory term - since you also had problems with the word "purported." Hopefully, this resolves the issue to your satisfaction."? Yes, apparently you did. Also, I hate to burst your bubble, Acid, but just because I read newsworthy articles and reviewed their edit logs, doesn't make me every other IP who did the same. I saw recent issues raised in the edit summaries and I agreed with some of those editors. So my edits reflected that WP:CONSENSUS. Or did that common sense reality never cross your mind while you were busy leaping to your false conclusions? In fact, my first edit was a revert of a similar "looking" IP here. So, sorry, but your obvious cherry-picking, make you a pretty bad, and a pretty transparent, attack dog. So you should try again, Acid. But next time, perhaps you should stop hurling ridiculous accusations of policy vios while at the same time accusing someone else of WP:WIKILAWYER. It makes you look hypocritical. But worse, you just come off looking like a troll.
    And again Bbb23 , I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    You honestly must be joking. I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, "may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is?". Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar". So it's a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see WP:EDITWAR). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence (, , , , , and ) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, this IP that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms (yours and pervious IP). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an "attack dog" and a "troll" after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or Malik is blocked. So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain WP:CIVIL. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Acid, pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. There is an old saying, attributed to Einstein, that: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity. By that definition, you must be certifiable. Because for what purpose do you continue this harangue? I suspect you're just one of those unpleasant little people who is taken with the sound of your own voice. While I won't give you the incessant platform you clearly crave I will address the nonsense that are your various claims this one final time.

    But first, we have to establish foundation and you have to establish your standing in this discussion. So the obvious first question is: "Who the hell are you?" A review of your personal page is, perhaps fittingly, obtuse. Hello, my name is AcidSnow...... says nothing. But even more telling than what it says, is what it doesn't. It doesn't say you're an admin. It doesn't say you've been entrusted with any particular rights or privileges by this community. But further review does say your account has only been around since 2013 - yet you spend an unusual and inordinate amount of time on messageboards; and pages so obscure that, over a year later, your last edit on them is still the most current. But how any of that qualifies you to insert yourself into this particular discussion has yet to explained. As you are personally powerless to impact this process. Nor have you established any direct relevance, if any, that you have to it.

    But now having established that you failed to pass voir dire here, on even the most basic level, I'll nonetheless address (again) your various and specious claims.

    If you had even the slightest concept of balance, you actually would have avoided my claim that you were blatantly cherry-picking the record to craft your attack at me. If you had any notion of balance you would have said "yes Malik did this, but so did you." Instead the best you could muster was this tripe: "I am well aware of what Malik stated but you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it." To use another of your favorite phrases: "You honestly must be joking." But then you doubled down on your own hypocrisy, by then feeling the need to "repeat" the same nonsense you posted originally. To quote you again: "there really was no point in repeating in." But yet, you did! I guess there are no mirrors in your world. So here again - and for the last time - are your answers. More than, frankly, you deserve. Because once again: "Who the hell are you?"

    I correctly pointed out the section regarding blocking for incivility, which you've referenced now twice. But where have you even once acknowledged Shabazz's original comments or condemned him for making them - which caused my mentioning that section in the first place? Nowhere. So that reduces your "condemnation" to that of a one-sided hack. Feel free to quote me, because, based upon your actions, the characterization is entirely accurate. You're like the clueless and incompetent ref who calls a personal foul for the retaliation and does nothing about the originating offense. Quote me there too. You - or Shabazz - insults me? I let you know what an insult feels like. That isn't uncivility. That's retributive justice. This isn't a church and I don't "turn the other cheek." Besides, he - and now you - have made a false claim twice. That I edited "all weekend" when I edited one day. Second, you keep regurgitating WP:EDITWAR while you are clearly oblivious to WP:3RR within it. Please read it so you'll actually understand the rules you're quoting. My report factually chronicled his edits. There's no way to falsify the edit log. It is what it is. Regarding your claim about what "matters" WP:CONSENSUS always matters. It is a policy here. I suggest you read that too. While you're at it, also read WP:TALKDONTREVERT because, despite your failure to mention it, that is exactly what I did here, here and here. And again, I was the one who warned Shabazz about 3RR here and even noted his continued edit warring after that here. So before you make claims, you would be wise to get your facts straight. Regarding the IP issue, already asked and answered. I worked on a current and newsworthy article. One that hundreds, if not thousands, of people read just this past weekend - because it was in the news. The fact that I also read the edit history, because I found something of concern in the article and saw that others had found the same thing, would be unspectacular to all but the most myopic conspiracy theorists, like you. The fact that my IP is also in a major city populated by a few million people would also be unremarkable to all - but the conspiracy theorists like you. They're not all me. In fact, you also ignored the fact that my very fist edit was to undo another similar IP from the same - wait for it - country, state and city (apparently)! But maybe in your conspiracy world, I undid myself just to later, throw you off the scent. And FYI, other editors have addressed the exact same issue I did, since we started here! But in your conspiracy world, maybe we're all just the same person! Just wow. It would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Because you do make a truly ridiculous prosecutor. Which once again, begs the prevailing question: "Who the hell are you?"

    Finally, here's the way it works, since you've also consistently failed to assume good faith, I'm really not feeling particularly constrained by your vacuous calls for "civility." Your entire attacks have been decidedly uncivil. So here's the bottomline: if you lie about me, my actions, or my intentions, then you're a liar. Plain and simple. I said Shabazz was a liar for no other reason than that he was. You've made the same claims, so you too are a liar. You've maligned me with no proof. That's called lying. If you find that uncivil, then the solution is simple: really, just stop being a liar. So, better luck next time to you, Acid. But in the end of all this I will encourage you in future, to a) get your facts straight before you go tilting at windmills and making asinine and unsubstantiated accusations; and b) stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Someone far less civil than myself, is very likely to take offense. And the response, which you will have entirely deserved, won't be nearly as measured as mine has been. And will likely and justifiably be decidedly more uncivil. Meanwhile, what I can't help but notice, loyal Sancho, is that even Shabazz, has had preciously little to say lately in his own defense. Likely because even he now knows he went too far. As an editor, but esp. as an admin. If he can't hold himself to a higher standard, then he's in no position to balk at anyone else. So while you've been yapping, all we've heard from him is crickets. But apparently, that's just the arrogance that comes with the knowledge that his fellow admins wouldn't block him, no matter how deserving or egregious his conduct is. Clearly that's how the game is played around here. I request a block for edit warring and instead the page gets blocked, but only for IPs. Funny what passes for a proper solution around here, isn't it. This, even after I've already said I'm done with that article. But no matter. In the caste system that is WP, IPs are the untouchables. Nevermind WP:URIP2. Also, no need to wonder why having an account does not appeal to me in the least.

    But the truly saddest part that you, and the actual admins on this board have consistently failed to address, is why we're here. Which is because I complained about an edit that was biased on a BLP and I tried - several times - to rewrite it neutrally. If you don't understand that, you can review everything from {{WP:BLP]] to {{WP:NPOV]] and everything in between. That's the real issue here and yet it's the one thing you consistently have avoided addressing because you wanted to talk about other crap. And you'll likely want to continue this too. But we're done here. I won't ever change your mind and you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong. And ultimately, it really doesn't matter what you think. Because for the final time: "Who the hell are you?" SO yup, we're done. Have the last word. But I won't bother to come back here to read it. I'm done feeding the troll. Whew, that was long! But in the words of Shabazz, "cut through this bullshit" it had to be done. The End. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Torga reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Torga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced claims that makes this article bias"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Making it little less biased"
      2. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633191953 by Ryulong (talk)"
    4. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192157 by Ryulong (talk)"
    5. 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192329 by Tarc (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
    2. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. (I'm not sure if this counts)
    Comments:

    Torga has made undiscussed and controversial changes to the lead paragraph. I reverted him once, informed him he should go to the talk page to seek consensus, and he has not. He has also repeatedly removed a larger personalized message I sent to him on his user talk regarding almost identical edit warring he did last week. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'd no idea that he had been edit warring, but just noticed that he has reverted a change of mine removing an ancient and outdated POV tag that was supposed to be removed several days ago. Perhaps the term should be "tendentious editing" rather than 3RR. --TS 12:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although I understand Ryulong's logic, which goes to motive, I've not blocked tendentious editors whose reverts were BLP-exempt, even though their motive was obviously biased. However, Torga had the chutzpah to revert yet again (Tony's edit), which put him over the top regardless. Reverting while a report here is pending and without commmenting here as to why is generally not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: No action)

    Page
    Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Torga (talk): Unsourced and undiscussed changes. (TW)"
    2. 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page when they are challenged with a revert. (TW)"
    3. 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633192207 by Torga (talk)"
    4. 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "this is a ref that NorthBySouthBaranof mistakenly doubled that was then removed from the article text but not from the references list; note that this ref is identical to the one IDed as "OTMGrant""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This will be the third time I have reported Ryulong here. The first time was the 15RR report which was marked Stale 15 hours later, 2nd time was an amicable solution of remaining and urging himself to 3RR, and this time, fragrantly breaking 3RR in that same promise. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Where is the attempt to resolve the dispute? Or the warning to the user? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Fixing someone else's mistake in reverting something wrong should not be considered a revert here. I'm not at 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Tarc reverted Torga. Torga reverted back. You reverted Torga. Additionally, Ryulong is an ex administrator. Ryulong has been on this site for years and has 200k edits. I have to assume by now that they are competent enough to monitor their own reverts. Tutelary (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    I reverted Torga three times, made an unrelated edit, and saw that Tarc and Torga were now edit warring over that unrelated edit rather than what Torga was originally trying to put onto the article. That re-correction should not count as a revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    Two cents Ryulong's repeated presence on this board is neither coincidental or innocuous. At some point somebody with the tools required should take into account the broad ramifications of his continued battle ground mentality on the small slice of this project which manages to engender so much anger. At some point the possessive, yet technically permissible, agitation needs to stop. It's rare that an editor so vulgar and aggressive is given a pass, so many times. GraniteSand (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    What does this have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    It has to do with your endless presence here because you're combative and rude. But, I'd imagine you knew that. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Uninvolved editors taking potshots at participants from the sidelines is not helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Bbb23, there was a bit of confusion within that specific time frame. Torga, a single-purpose account who has done little but edit-war against consensus and post continuous screeds about same on the talk page, was up to the usual. During the attempts to restore the neutral and supported-by-sources text, Ryulong and I appeared to overlap, as when I thought I was removing Torga's junk, it was in fact accidentally restoring an unused ref. Ryulong's edit to fix this was a revert in the technical sense, but it was to fix my error. It should not be counted towards anything. The filer needs to be reminded that in the future, it'd be a good idea if he actually investigated first rather than simply making 1, 2, 3, 4 tic marks on a tally sheet. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:190.99.0.119 reported by User:Mega-buses (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Disney Channel (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others (associated with Disney Channel)
    User being reported: 190.99.0.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Last revert

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18 (UTC), 5 November 2014‎
    2. 20:56 (UTC), 6 November 2014
    3. 17:31 (UTC), 7 November 2014
    4. 06:49 (UTC), 10 November 2014 (Last IP edition)
    5. 00:17 (UTC), 9 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Italy)
    6. 19:40 (UTC), 8 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Europe)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    This IP add several times the File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png in diferents articles (like Disney Channel (Latin America)). This image may only be placed on the article "Disney Channel". See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 57#File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png. Disney Channel (Latin America) was protected one day, but the next day, the IP restored the file again. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Winkelvi reported by User:Choor monster (Result: )

    Page: Helen Hooven Santmyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Comments:

    This is a continuation of a previous report, now archived, of me by Winkelvi: That concluded with: "Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston" The edit diff'ed above removed "obscurely" (my text), without attempting to use the Talk page first, as per EdJohnston's instructions. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm completely confused. Further, this report seems petty to me and not in the best interest of the article. I wasn't trying to edit war or cause disruption. There was a cite needed tag there for weeks, nothing was produced cite-wise to prove the book was published "obscurely". To me, the use of "obscurely" seems/seemed POV and unencyclopedic -- especially without any kind of reference to support it. I was perusing the article recently, saw the tag had been untouched and nothing referenced applied, so I simply removed the word. I honestly didn't even remember that it was a bone of contention prior to that. No edit warring intended. If he has something to add reference-wise to support use of "obscurely", I certainly see no reason then why the adjective can't be put back in. But to accuse me of edit warring in what appears to be an obvious move toward retribution is looking for punitive action, not something that will keep disruption from occurring at the article. Indeed, this report smells quite disruptive to me. There was no attempt from Choor Monster to discuss on the talk page further after the last post I put up there nearly a month ago (see here:). In fact, four days after I last posted on the article talk page, Choor Monster put a barnstar on my talk page that stated "A barnstar for fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer" (see here:). To say I'm completely confused by this report in light of all this is an understatement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Note. It looks to me like one of the bones of contention in early October was over the material you just changed (removing the word obscurely). The only issue for me is whether after a bit over a month from EdJohnston's warning, you should be blocked. Although it has nothing to do with conduct, the word "obscurely" is supported in the cite to the NYT obituary, although I might have worded the material in the article slightly differently. My weak inclination is to block you (self-reverting might help, btw), but I'm punting this to Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, Bbb23, I am not in any way trying to be disruptive. I have no problem self-reverting, but do wish other wording would be used. Reading "obscurely" in the obituary doesn't convince me that it's really the case. In fact, if anything, it seems that some too-close paraphrasing has occurred by lifting the term directly from the obituary. Moreover, I now remember noting the too-close paraphrasing of sources back in October, this just further solidifies it. Especially without a better source than the obituary to support that the book was "obscurely" publiished. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    It wasn't a complete revert, but you did restore the word "obscurely". Choor monster, are you okay with closing this with no action based on Winkelvi's good faith revert? BTW, Winkelvi, the NYT obituary is a perfectly reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I agree that obituaries are considered reliable sources for factual information such as family names, dates, and the like. That said, celebrity obituaries in the NYT are frequently written by writers who choose to use prose and embellished language in tribute rather than just reporting the facts about an individual. "Obscurely" is used, but why is it used? There is no explanation as to why the author of the obituary believes Ohio University Press published the novel in obscurity. We wouldn't accept such vagueness in an article (it wouldn't pass GA or FA without explanation) so why are we accepting it as it is just because it was included in the obituary? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure I agree with your take on the obit, but, no matter. It's a content issue and, as such, you can go the usual route of seeking a consensus on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm satisfied with User:Winkelvi's self-revert which restores 'obscurely'. But why isn't it possible to clarify the wording? The obituary explains (a) only a few hundred copies were sold by Ohio State University Press, (b) they didn't normally publish novels (Per the Edwin McDowell article in the NYT). So the point of 'obscurely' is that the novel didn't come to general attention. The original 'obscure' publication is intended to contrast with the 'real' publication by G. P. Putnam's Sons a few years later. If we keep only the word 'obscurely' in our summary it loses the meaning of the original. It doesn't need any further citation since the facts come from the obituary and the other NYT article. It just needs the context to be explained better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Considering your response further, Ed, it seems the appropriate thing would be for Choor monster to make that change, unless he indicates here he would be fine with me making the change. Whatever the case, I'm now wondering how long it will be before we are free to freely edit the article and if the no reverts mandate is interminable. Further clarification would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    Any evidence of cooperation between the two of you would be enough reason to lift the mandate. It would be a good idea for User:Choor monster to respond to the list of proposals you put on the talk page on October 11. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    User:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

    Page
    Myles Munroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mcgyver2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
      2. 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
      3. 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) to 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
      2. 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
      3. 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    3. 18:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633267882 by Winkelvi (talk)"
    7. 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    8. 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    9. 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    10. Consecutive edits made from 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) to 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    11. 04:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
    12. 04:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Myles Munroe. (TW)"
    2. 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ customize"
    3. 21:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
    4. 22:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ resp"
    5. 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ +"
    6. 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ cmt"
    7. 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */ fix"
    8. 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ resp"
    2. 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Good edits coming */ indent"
    3. 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Con artist is dead */ rem defamatory comments per wp:blp as blp standards apply for up to two years after article subject's death"
    4. 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver2k"
    5. 21:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp"
    6. 21:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
    7. 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ add sinebot sig"
    8. 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
    9. 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
    10. 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC) "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
    Comments:

    Issue over this content is still in discussion at the resolution noticeboard, but Mcgyver2k refuses to stop edit warring over this content. Yes, I have also reverted him several times, but only in the interest of keeping the article as it is with the referenced content. I have attempted several times to explain that a reliable source gives credence to keeping the OBE title in the article, Mcgyver2k refuses to listen. He insists on edit warring. I was more than willing to go through the resolution process he started, but have met with hostility and a brick wall with him there, as well. The edit warring over this needs to stop - but, more importantly, I think that the editor needs to understand that referenced content meets the threshold of inclusion. A separate matter, but playing heavily into his actions is a misunderstanding of verifiability policy. Not looking for punishment, just a stop to the disruption and combative nature of Mcgyver's editing at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    I used her own source to discredit her so she is all upset now. My source is the most definitive one available. I poste a list of ALL recipients for the year in question and Myles Munroe is not one of them. Should be case closed.voiceofreason 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)
    Not really. The article was just semi-protected. It's been quite active with vandalism and IP edits because of the death yesterday of the article subject, his wife, and daughter in a plane crash. Mcgyver2k went to dispute resolution, I participated, he refused to wait for the process to work, started reverting again even though we were still in the midst of discusssion there. Myself and another editor tried to discuss with him at the article talk page, the edit warring from Mcgyver2k continued. My most recent reverts of Mcgyver's removal of content were because discussion was still in process and change in content/consensus/agreement had not yet happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    I don't know how to do this correctly but Dmol, an editor I have seen repeatedly abuse people on this site, keeps removing Sally Estabrook from the list of people who have mysteriously disappeared. The statements are cited by numerous media outlets as the mysteriously disappeared woman is Dave Mustaine from eleven time Grammy Nominated Megadeth's mother in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.197.31 (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

    Categories: