Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 7 September 2016

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Opdire657 reported by User:Epson Salts (Result: Protected)

Page: Ahmad Shukeiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opdire657 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This page is part of the Arab-Israeli Conflict topic area, and thus subject to a 1RR restriction. Beyind the clear 1RR violation listed above, this editor has reverted the same material 6 times in the last six days (and a couple of other times earlier in the year), without a word of discussion on the talk page. He has been edit warring on this article since at least October 2015, and was warned about it by administrator @NeilN: -

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He has already been blocked before for edit warring, so is clearly aware of 3RR/1RR

You have also violated the 1 revert restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since you have fewer than 500 edits and with using sock puppets like Milkawke91 who created an account on 28 August and made only 2 edits then a user called Jahsnik bagan reverting my edit dating back to 1 February 2016, then another user called Epson Salts which is you began edit warring. There is clearly an exchange of roles between you three to avoid being blocked. You have ignored what the administrator @Zero0000: wrote on the talk page "Neither Lebanon nor Palestine were separate countries at the time of his birth. He was born an Ottoman citizen and became a Palestinian citizen during the Mandate period. It is much more sensible to class him as Palestinian than as Lebanese" so you are creating an edit war without any logical reason.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Please use the talk page. User:Opdire657, don't charge people with sockpuppetry without evidence. You have been previously warned by an admin for your behavior on this article. You are walking on thin ice. If people keep reverting about Shukeiri's ancestry we'll probably put the ARBPIA banner on it, since after all he was a chairman of the PLO. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Malerooster reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "rv nonsense of editor with obvioud political bias who shouldn't be allowed to edit this article"
2. 01:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Inheritance and further acquisitions */ still not notable, why single out this one sale out of 100s??"
3. 18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC) "rv non notable detail, maybe add to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* 1RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is subject to 1RR discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. Malerooster made three reverts. There is a notice at the top of the talk page and a prominent edit notice above the edit window. I also suggested that Malerooster self-revert. He ignored the request and continued editing. The edit warring and the summary on the third revert are exactly the kind of user behavior that ARBAPDS is intended to address. - MrX 13:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Waiting for Malerooster's response. --NeilN 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• This was my mistake. Once MrX posted on my talk page I stopped editing the article and went to the talk page. My edit was reverted. NeilN also posted a warning on my talk page which I appreciate and will comply with. --Malerooster (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Warned I think Malerooster understands another violation will most probably result in a block. NeilN 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sachamcd reported by User:Mk17b (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

| MK17b | (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sachamcd is reverting against the result of a formally closed RfC. If he won't concede the point, I recommend a block. But we should wait a minute to see if he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am removing material that in MAY 2016 was deemed completely irrelevant to the breadth of his political career and comments which were already disproven in the Canadian Jewish media.

MK17b has a history of editing jewish propaganda into a host of pages on wikipedia, look at his edit history and this will be evident. I suspect he might be operating under the Jewish Internet Defence force and it is he who should be banned for perpetuating his bias and obvious agenda. I am reenlisting the help of admin Oshwah who back in May 2016 helped reverse some edits made by MK17b. MK17b is trying to ban me because he knows this is the only way for him to get his libel to stick. Please help. Sachamcd (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Sachamcd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachamcd (talk • contribs)

Blocked – 24 hours. His only response was with an attack on another editor. If there is any disagreement about the wording and length of this material, someone should start a new discussion, as noted by User:Cunard, the RfC closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Yet Another User 2 reported by User:ScottCarmichael (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page: Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yet Another User 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=720998707

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737984109
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737983479
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737976419

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737985641

Comments:
Many sections have very poor sources (such as those funded by/work with NASA), improperly cited sources (such as referring to pages that don't even exist in Sky and Telescope magazine (11/69 issue), and very misleading info that only tells half of the situation and is not verifiable proof whatsoever. When user got mad that these edits were made, he called me a "Conspiracy Theorist" instead of actually looking at edited/removed content and sources. I could have changed much more. I didn't. If he feels those items are factually correct, he needs to correct the sources and/or find other sources that can legitimately say exactly what is presented. My recent edits are 100% accurate. It's not MY responsibility to prove the text he wants to keep that should have never been there to begin with. ScottCarmichael (talk)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Six reverts of at least three different editors in less than six hours. NeilN 08:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaostao reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been previously sanctioned for edit warring at Jared Taylor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Final revert was in response to this comment on the talk page which stated that the COATRACK veered into BLP territory. WP:3RRBLP. Reporting editor also previously reverted an edit which was the at the time the subject of an ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding 3RRBLP on this same article. Zaostao (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Declined - I don't think this is really a clear case of sanctionable edit warring, since BLP issues are at play, multiple people are warring, and discussion is ongoing. The BLP noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue to help hash out the dispute. Meanwhile, I will watch the page and consider protection if the edit war erupts again. Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:JDC808 reported by User:Weweremarshall (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page: WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: WWE SmackDown Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JDC808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship

WWE SmackDown Women's Championship

User violates 3RR TWICE in 24 hours on two different pages. He indeed was warned here: edit summary Weweremarshall (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Please see this report that Weweremarshall originally made. --JDC808 ♫ 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment:There seems to be little disputing that some serious edit warring was going on here. In a surreal twist, Weweremarshall reported himself for vandalism stemming from the edit war to WP:ANV.LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment:Yes this is true, though i did not violate 3RR on a specific page, I did commit it over multiple pages. I didn't know if this classifies as 3RR break so I asked for it to be reviewed, thanks to User:LM2000 as I forgot to mention this in the new report. Weweremarshall (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Weweremarshall, you break WP:3RR first on each article (strike one - I suggest you carefully note the definition of "revert"), try to get JDC808 blocked for vandalism (strike two - read WP:NOTVAND), and then file this report (strike three). Have I got this right? NeilN 00:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No you do not have this right. I haven't violated 3RR on a single page yet. And the only reason I reported it under vandalism was mistake I personally made (man enough to own up to that) and the moment I was made aware of this I filed the proper report on this page. Weweremarshall (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, you seem to really want to have me removed. --JDC808 ♫ 01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Weweremarshall, you are wrong. , , , --NeilN 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC) @Weweremarshall: --NeilN 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • User:NeilN The first link you posted isn't a revert....it's the initial edit? I believe this is where your confusion is stemming from. And yes, I want JDC808 gone the same way I want all rule breakers gone, Temp. ban 1st time and perm. ban if they still don't play by the rules. Weweremarshall (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Weweremarshall, this is why I told you to look up the definition of revert. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You were deleting "WWE" - counts as a revert. Temp. ban for you or can we assume that both of you will knock off the edit warring? --NeilN 01:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Ugh, another person trying to act like they know what they're talking about without looking into the subject >_< . The first edit wasn't a revert because nobody else was trying to add/remove "WWE" from the page's CONTENTS, they were trying to add/remove "WWE" from the TITLE! I stated multiple times that this was the case, so thank you (sarcasm) for causing the same amount of headache as JDC808. Weweremarshall (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Weweremarshall, at this point the only block I'm looking at is for you. Are you going to stop reverting until and if you get consensus for your change? --NeilN 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
              • First, JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban regardless. Second, I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible. Those WWE championships do not have the word "WWE" in their title, WP typically tends to add the promotion in front of the Championship title because it isn't solely a wrestling site (understandable). My edits, reflected the official title throughout the page which is the correct protocol, the discussion that is taking place is over whether or not WP should continue using the title with "WWE" added onto it or if they should use the official title. Regardless of what they decide, the official title is always reflected throughout the pages contents. But the fact you just stopped participating in the discussion and just outright threatened me instead makes me think nothing is going to be done about the vandalism. So I guess you can go ahead & ban me, nothing I can do about it anymore, you've made up your mind. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
                • The title of the article is also reflected in the body of the article. Yes, shorthand names can be used in the body of the article at times, but in the opening sentence of the lead and in the article's infobox, the article title is used, not the shorthand name (there are some exceptions to this). You were trying to change these to the shorthand name. If the ongoing discussions decide that "WWE" should not be in the article title, then what you were doing would be okay, but that consensus has not been met yet. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • Weweremarshall, I really don't want to block anyone here but if you continue to refer to JDC808's as vandalism, I will. --NeilN 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
                    • If Edit Warring isn't considered vandalism then I won't call it vandalism. But it doesn't change the fact that less than 20 minutes ago JDC808 has once again reflected that he does not understand that "WWE" isn't part of the championships title or the reason why it is used in the article title. Again, you can threaten me a million times, you can even go ahead and ban me that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban, these are the facts of the case. This war of opinions likely wouldn't have escalated to the point its currently at if the user had received his just ban and I wasn't falsely accused of violating 3RR. I understand you might feel like you have egg on your face, but it's not your fault as Professional Wrestling is a very complex subject matter that is very hard for people to understand at first glance (and shouldn't be expected to understand if they don't genuinely enjoy wrestling). I'd like to clarify I hold no hard feelings towards you for this, even if you do still find a reason to ban me. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours WP:3R and complete failure to get the point. JDC808, you're skating because your edits labelled vandalism clearly weren't but in the future, please be more careful. NeilN 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: )

Page: Saoirse Ronan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Torah28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Comment Not a WP:3RR violation but Torah28's lack of communication is not good. Waiting for their response. NeilN 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:87.220.186.82 reported by User:Connormah (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Don King (boxing promoter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.220.186.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP refuses to follow WP:BRD despite concerns of NPOV and UNDUE on a BLP. Connormah (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )

Page: Suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charlotte135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Added primary source
2. Revert 1 (09:44 6th Sept) Readded the primary source after not getting consensus on talk
3. changing the text so it does not reflect the sources
4. Revert 2 (04:31 7th Sept) changes the same text so it does not reflect the sources again
5. Revert 3 (4:43 7th Sept) added text not support by source
6. Revert 4 (4:52 7th Sept) added same text a second time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
How is this edit warring?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc James, just for clarity: Since Charlotte135's last edit on the article was at 08:26 this morning, why did you warn them and then report them in the space of one minute nearly three hours later, when there had been no edit-warring in between? _Muffled 12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They were previously warned by User:Bbb23. This is a long term issue. They have also removed concerns left on their talk page previously.

Yes, that certainly seems to make the question "How is this edit warring?" somewhat spurious to say the least. Cheers, _Muffled 12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• • Despite not getting consensus the user continues re adding the same content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: In that you made more than three reverts to the same aticle in one twenty-four hour period, is precisely how. Cheers, _Muffled 12:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this rule applied to the same edit? Does it? I'm confused. When was I warned by BB23?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: If you read WP:EW it says that a revert counts towards the 3RR limit "whether involving the same or different material". The warning from BB23 was last year, in October 2015 diff ~Awilley (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: I don't see how diff 5 (labeled Revert 3) counts as a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It was introducing the text. The second part was also word for word from the source "30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" so also a copyright issue. We often count the initial introduction of the text as a "revert". Charlotte appear to be under the impression they made zero reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Added primary source
2. Revert 1 (09:44 6th Sept) Readded the primary source after not getting consensus on talk

This is a different source? This is not a revert?

1. changing the text so it does not reflect the sources

This is not a revert?

1. Revert 2 (04:31 7th Sept) changes the same text so it does not reflect the sources again

But this is not a revert?

1. Revert 3 (4:43 7th Sept) added text not support by source

But again, this is not a revert?

1. Revert 4 (4:52 7th Sept) added same text a second time

The stats in this area are extremely confusing as Doc James knows. In fact, I am still waiting for Doc James to provide the source . So far Doc James has not produced the sentence in the reliable source which this is all over. This shows how confusing and how conflicting the stats are in this area. I had suggested we leave the stats out entirely. However, back to this notriceboard, if I kept reverting someone then yes, but I did not revert 4 times. I did not even revert once. That's a fact. So why am I here?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been catching up on this, and honestly your editing on talk pages strikes me as a bit tedentious, Charlotte135. For the diff you provided in particular, I see that Doc James responded to you, and rather than taking the time to look at his concern you immediately replied assuming bad faith (I believe your phrasing was that you were being "punished" by a revert and an explanation of that revert). The conversation continued, and that you are still "waiting" for an answer from Doc James even though he a.) pointed out that paraphrasing an article from Time while sourcing the WHO is disingenuous (and potentially dangerous on a medical article) and b.) pointed you to the WHO's actual press release for the report so you could see for yourself that Time has slightly misrepresented the report, you still ask for other editors to do your homework for you rather than continue to edit the encyclopedia in other, more productive ways.

This has been par for the course for Charlotte135. I use this example because she raised it on this board, but examination of the others reveals a systemic problem. Perhaps this is a hard case to make for 3RR, but honestly if I had spent as much time as other editors grappling with this on an important medical article, I'm sure it would seem like drawn out edit-warring to me as well. We must be bordering on something actionable at ANI if nothing else. Lizzius (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:175.141.71.139 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Khairul Fahmi Che Mat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 13:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 13:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 13:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 13:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
13. 13:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
14. 13:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
15. 13:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
16. 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
17. 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
18. 13:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""
19. 13:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Khairul Fahmi Che Mat. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This was not edit warring, but serial vandalism and block evasion. More eyes on the articles that are targeted, as they may need protection. JNW (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've also requested semi-protection of Dollah Salleh, Khairul Fahmi Che Mat, Malaysia national football team and Ong Kim Swee. Linguist 111 Moi. 15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:BYOD Xicano reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: )

Page

Carlos Santana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

BYOD Xicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Basic biographical information is being ignored. Usually not a contentious issue, but it appears that the use of falsified demographic terms is licensed by a species reading of wikipedia guidelines."
2. 14:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "By this reasoning, the musician would have to not be born in Mexico. Some link to the region has to be acknowledged."
3. 14:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "The reasoning behind designating a musician as American is flimsy: that would require that Santana adopt the nationality of every place from which he toured."
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) to 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738195576 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
   2. 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738195325 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) to 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "There is nothing wrong with being Mexican. Since when is it so polemical to describe someone based on their birthplace? This is basic biographical information."
   2. 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "He is not 'Latino', but Mexican. This is particularly relevant since page author is referencing a cultural dynamic that exists today: anti-Mexican sentiment in the media/music industry, but not doing so as accurately as the specific term 'Mexican' allows."
   3. 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "This requires a real citation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Rodriguez (singer-songwriter). (TW)"
2. 14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Carlos Santana. (TW)"
3. 14:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carlos Santana. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

General warning messages about continuing discussion on talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Requests to continue existing discussion on talk page in edit summaries I left. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Response to 'Edit Warring' Allegations for BYOD Xicano === RE: User:BYOD Xicano reported by User:Geraldo Perez

This is BYOD Xicano.

I will not submit Geraldo for dispute, but would like to point out the following odd behavior. First, Geraldo simply undid changes that included a citation to the musician in question's website. This also undid a series of changes that included more citations and a comment on a broken link that required server authentication. Thus, not only did Geraldo user undo changes pertinent to a more accurate biography of the musician, but also inadvertently undid changes that improved other sections of the article. Fine, but another issue was that for some non-technical reason, Geraldo also chose to go into a different unrelated page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodriguez_(singer-songwriter)&action=history and change the biographical information on the page too. Quite bizarre, since there was a legitimate citation from a Mexican newspaper acknowledging the musician's ethnic background. There is no need for contention especially when more sources are being added. The citation is not 'Poor' since that paper of record in the state of Guerrero is also notable for other coverage pertaining to other current events in the region. In other words, reputable sources should be evaluated throughout wiki pages and conclusions derived on the basis of that data. Biographical information should not be disputed in this way.

Finally, we believe that this usage of 'Latino' is fairly inaccurate for all the various problems elucidated elsewhere and there is no citation for its usage, though it is invoked to describe racial tension in the 1960's. Needless to say, most racial animosity references Mexicans directly and thus such a discussion should also reference the actual people affected by it.

BYOD Xicano (talk)BYOD Xicano —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Smallbones (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 7 September 2016‎ reverted my addition of completely new material
2. 01:49, 7 September 2016‎
3. 02:12, 7 September 2016‎
4. 02:47, 7 September 2016‎ All with 1 hour, 20 minutes!

Previous version reverted to: 01:58, 6 September 2016 as noted above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Note that this followed Jtydog putting an edit war notice on my talk page after he had reverted me three (3) times and I had reverted him twice (2). I found this particularly insulting as he prefaced it "Really sad, Smallbones. You tout your experience and you edit war like a newbie."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mylan#Content_about_investigation

• and following

Note that this followed Jytdog's nonsense on the talk page comparing my edit to John Stewart and Benghazi. Jytdog's words often just don't make any sense to me.

Comments:

3RR is a bright line rule in the sense that 4 reverts is automatically a violation. Jytdog clearly reverted 4 times in an hour and twenty minutes. I acknowledge that I reverted him 3 times as a result of his attempt at intimidation. Jytdog has a reputation for this type of intimidation and has been blocked by Arbcom twice in the last year for using similar tactics.

Gandydancer has addressed the issue of Jytdog's disrespect for other editors twice and

I have also attempted to resolve this at User_talk:Doc_James#Please_see_Mylan but the response seems to just be an attempt to redefine the word "revert"

Feel free to block me for participating in this edit war (but I only made 3 reverts) - I just don't react well when somebody tries to intimidate me. But Jytdog's 4 reverts qualifies as an automatic block IMHO.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Diif of notification of Jytdog about this discussion Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that Smallbones felt the need to file this. The Mylan and Epinephrine autoinjector (aka EpiPen) articles have been receiving a lot of attention due to the price hike scandal. People wanting to add pro-Mylan stuff, people wanting to add "Mylan is satan" stuff. Up til now it has been pretty reasonable. Smallbones apparently has issues with me (see here) and when I reverted "his" content (and it is very much is "his" content (see the message he added to his 3RR notice here and see his first remark after I (note "I") opened the Talk page discussion here which i will quote: "t's an anti-trust investigation by the State of New York about a company that has been called before Congress to investigate it's pricing policies. Please do not attempt to own this article. Get a consensus if you want to delete my work.That's all I have to say. ".)

Smallbones just blew off BRD and discussion, and yes, I followed them in edit warring.

After we finished our edit war, Gandy restored the edit and then Capeo reverted it again, and that is where things have stood since last night.

Importantly folks are leaving the article alone and discussion is proceeding at the Talk page to determine if this should stay out per NOTNEWS or come in, which is what should have happened after the first revert I made.

Smallbones does not seem OK with following our usual procedures for resolving content disputes.

I don't see any need for action here but admins may differ, of course. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

4 reverts in 1 hour and 20 minutes. That calls for action here. Accusing me of edit warring when I had made 2 reverts and you had made 3 - that calls for action IMHO. And now "I followed them in edit warring" - who are you trying to fool? You made the first revert, the third, the fifth, and the seventh. Who started the edit warring? Who continued it after their 3 revert, despite a notification? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is silly. Yes, both edit warred last night. It's over now. A bunch of editors are there and a consensus seems to be forming. Smallbones should have followed BRD. Their first response on the talk page "Please do not attempt to own this article. Get a consensus if you want to delete my work.That's all I have to say." is NOT how BRD works. You don't need a consensus to remove anyone's "work". The status quo is consensus until a new consensus is established. That first response sounds much more like OWN than BRD. That said Jytdog then proceeded to revert a bunch too. Point is it's over and I see no point in sanctioning either now. Capeo (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Not silly, and Capeo participated in the "edit war" such as it was, so he is hardly a detached observer. Edit warring is edit warring and Jytdog is over 3RR and should know better. He has a longstanding tendency to engage in that kind of conduct, and recently twice reverted an editor over posts at Talk:William L. Uanna, an article unrelated to this. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC)Jytdog's tactics of intimidation are the issue. 4 reverts in an hour and 20 minutes are the issue. WP:BRD is of course just an essay, and Jytdog used that as an excuse to just revert away to get his preferred version in. He did not discuss in any civilized way, rather he compared my edit to John Stewart and something about Benghazi - it looks to me like he was attempting to mock me. I took the time to try to resolve this. I don't think that the passage of this time, makes Jytdog's 4 reverts any more acceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 4 reverts automatically edit warring? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tiny Dancer 48 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page

Race (human categorization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tiny Dancer 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:16, 24 August 2016‎ (UTC) ""
2. 21:02, 24 August 2016‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 736046061 by Danielkueh (talk) please address points on talk page. Thanks"
3. 07:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736055700 by Danielkueh (talk) bold revert DISCUSS"
4. 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "" (part of a series of edits)
5. 12:32, 4 September 2016‎ (UTC) ""
6. 12:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 14:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737863664 by Maunus (talk)"
8. 15:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 737871636 by Maunus (talk) POV pushing after admitting no consensus"
9. 16:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Biological_Definitions
2. Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Poll:_is_there_a_consensus_that_race_is_a_social_construct_and_not_a_biological_concept.3F
3. Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Maunus_suggestion_for_a_new_Lead
4. 23:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Poll: is there a consensus that race is a social construct and not a biological concept? */"
5. 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Maunus suggestion for a new Lead */"

Comments:

Give me a moment to add more diffs... Twinkle didn't load them all EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Completed EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING from a WP:TAGTEAM to violate WP:NPOV. This team refuse to add one word in the face of clear sources supporting it, citing "consensus", and present an entire article rewrite (more biased) to change the subject. Multiple page visitors suggested the change, but this team is permanently resident. Article biased towards American sociology rather than international academia. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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