Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:59, 13 July 2017

• 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:Joobo, User: Peter1170: reported by User:Nagle (Result: Both warned)

Page: Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Peter1170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before edit war:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

There are more; see history of Slovenia.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Ongoing edit war since 2017-07-05. About 30 edits on each side. Unclear over what. No discussions on talk by either party. At Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Slovakia admin suggested it was a 3RR violation, but it's a bit slow-motion for that. Both parties have left warning messages on the talk page of the other, which the other party has then deleted. Reported by uninvolved party; I have zero edits on article in question. (Was looking at this as a possible COI issue, but that seems unlikely. I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include. Suggest light application of clue stick. Thanks.) John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In case a 3d person, as you seem to be, is reporting something as an edit war he or she might get familiar, at least a little bit, with the matter concerned initially. Simply saying "No discussions on talk by either party" is somehow strange. Did you not checked the history? Clearly no deep and detailed discussion is needed with an editor who uses Misplaced Pages as some sort of promoting platform, with few idea of WP guidelines, MoS and also is personally attacking. "I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include"- Well, maybe because some editors care about the layout and style of articles and want to stick to basic WP edit guidelines. Just a suggestion from my humble side. Additionally, I like to get an explanation from you what "There are more; see history of Slovenia." is supposed to mean? Or did you really just confused "Slovenia" with "Slovakia";or what are you referring to? In the article Slovenia the red link editor was not even involved.--Joobo (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Joobo, you can say what you like, but this is an unexplained revert. That sort of thing is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Start talking, on the talk page, and stop reverting, or you will get blocked: I'm talking to the both of you. Thank you John. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If I am correct, the example you provided was not reverted three times. In addition to that, I reverted this edit back to my included images, not just because to me they were the better choice (one quality rated, the other one for improved contrast of seasons), but also as it appeared that the editor was/is merely focused on reverting anyways by any image changes that were made. So it was not about the images, but the fact that another user edited images in the article at all. The edit description is incoherent as images are not there for to promote anything, but to support the content/information of the articles; in this case the section of the nation's climate. PS: I guess if some editor writes this on your talkpage without signing it, you do not need to engage in any discussion do you? Joobo (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care: edit warring is more than just 3RR violations. I or any other admin could block both of you right now for your behavior. As for that message, don't confuse a collaborative project such as Misplaced Pages with a schoolyard after class. That the editor leaves you a shitty message doesn't mean you don't have to explain to everyone else what you're doing. These charges you made above, with this stuff about "promotional platform", none of them are proven. You want admins to side with you, start acting like an adult. And don't try to explain stuff here--explain it on the article talk page and in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I agree. Nevertheless it is hard to feel the urge to start a decent and detailed discussion with someone when he or she does not seem to follow the most basic guidelines of civility, is personally attacking you and threatening you as well as arbitrarily reverting everything you do. I hope it is also understandable from my side. In case there are any questions concerning image usage or selection I am of course open to any form of dialogue, if it is initiated in an appropriate manner.--Joobo (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If either User:Joobo or User:Peter1170 makes any further edits to the article that don't have prior consensus on the talk page, they may be blocked. There is no sense in letting both parties continue to revert after the closure of the ANI complaint. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:Zabboo reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Stale)

Page: Ringo (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zabboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the Zabboo's reverts:

Kellymoat's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to from Zabboo to Kellymoat:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from Kellymoat to Zabboo:

Comments:

I don't know if I'm supposed to comment or allowed to comment on this, but I'd like to make it clear that I didn't even know edit warring existed until this conflict with Kellymoat. I've been on Misplaced Pages for a while, but I've never had too many interactions with people and my edits have mostly been minor. As a result, I've sort of stayed ignorant to some of Misplaced Pages's rules like this one. This is a totally fair report, and I admit that I was involved in an edit war, but I didn't realize that wasn't allowed until the whole thing was already underway. I do apologize, and now that I know the rule it won't happen again. - Zabboo (talk) 5:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not strictly true because you warned Kellymoat about edit warring at 06:16 on 9 July and then continued your edit war till 22:50 on that day. Also interesting that Kellymoat has violated 3RR. You could both be blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I did continue the war, that's why I think this report is valid. However, I just figured Kellymoat was being rude and that his "edit warring" notification sent to me was based only out of contempt, which I still believe is true. However, I did knowingly continue the war, because by that point I was furious at Kellymoat's behavior. For that I apologize and promise it won't happen again. Zabboo (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue resolved itself 48 hours ago. There was no reason for the reporting editor to open this case, except for his repetitive trolling of my edits due to his personal issues with me. Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Still, I'd also like to point out that Kellymoat has been blocked for edit warring 3 times in the last 2 months, and this is the fourth time he's broken 3RR. This is completely unacceptable behvavior. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And if "stale" isn't good enough, I will gladly go into detail over the situation. But, since blocking is used to prevent, not to punish, the age of the issue should be enough. Kellymoat (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sergecross73: I'm aware of Kellymoat's recurring problem and have little sympathy for their attitude/conduct. However, in my view, their history doesn't justify a block when the battle ceased a couple of days ago. That said, if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to impose sanctions. To the extent you're "overriding" my finding, I assure you it doesn't bother me at all. Thanks for the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, your judgement is correct, I just wanted to pointing it out. We actually edit conflicted, and I hadn't noticed how stale it was. That being said, I'm going to give the user an absolute final warning on this, because there's no reason the community has to keep sorting through all these difs over Kellymoat knowingly breaking policy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:27.100.21.247 reported by User:Tornado chaser (Result: Semi)

Page

Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
2. 00:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
3. 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
4. 00:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 22:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Repeated requests to discus on talk were made using edit summeries

Comments:

has been warned, keeps making same large change. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. Last time around the semiprotection was set for six months. The challenge is to give a neutral statement of the lack of mainstream acceptance of this writer's views. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Eterror reported by User:Citobun (Result: Blocked)

Page

Junius Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 01:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems to be a WP:COI account intent on pushing an old promotional revision of this article. A discussion was opened at Talk:Junius Ho, which the user has not participated in. Has also been warned by others on his/her talk page, but has not responded in any way except to continue reverting the article. Citobun (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: warned)

Page

Jeff Horn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ohio girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Doesn't belong in lead"
3. 10:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
4. 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
5. 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
6. 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "context matters"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Misplaced Pages better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?

Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.

Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.

Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.

Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.

I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.

Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.

Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ohio girl: you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Can I/someone reopen this report, or should I file a new report?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Sock blocked)

I'm creating a new report, as despite the previous case being closed, User:Ohio girl has made more reverts after the closure.

Page

Jeff Horn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ohio girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Doesn't belong in lead"
3. 10:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
4. 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
5. 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
6. 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "context matters"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Misplaced Pages better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?

Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.

Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.

Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.

Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.

I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.

Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.

Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ohio girl: you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Those are not reverts. The first edit was a condensing of an overlong sentence and the second edit was an accidental deletion which I corrected in the very next edit. Keep in mind that both of Spacecowboy's edits used non-neutral language that would have warranted attention either way. Ohio girl (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing "official clarification that he was the rightful winner of the match" to "rescoring" is a revert. It removes someone's content.

"A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"

It wasn't a rewording, it was removal of content that was added by someone (me) - so yeah, it's totally a revert. (just after you were warned for making excessive reverts) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And what was the official clarification? Oh right, the rescoring was the official clarification. It was indeed a rewording, unless you are implying that there was more to your edit than a statement of fact, in which case you were being partisan and violating rules to begin with. Perhaps you should stop injecting your personal prejudices into what should be very simple statements of fact. Ohio girl (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What did the official clarification clarify? That Horn was the winner of the match. "rescoring" does not say who won the match. Therefore you removed meaning from the sentence. The fact that the rescoring confirmed that Horn won the fight, was supported by the sources, so it was in no way synthesis. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sock blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DoctorBiochemistry reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 4 days)

Page: Charlie Gard treatment controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DoctorBiochemistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This editor came off their block for edit warring, and immediately did this 08:18, 12 July 2017 and more as below, and edit warred to retain it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 09:05, 12 July 2017, restored edit above that was reverted
2. diff 11:41, 12 July 2017, restored content again and added further content along lines that they were trying to add in earlier round of edit warring
3. diff 15:10, 12 July 2017 restored content that had been removed
4. diff 15:59, 12 July 2017‎ , restored content, now with YELLING editing
5. diff 16:10, 12 July 2017, restored content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They were already aware of 3RR from their recent block, renotified in diff at 15:57, but they continued to edit war even after re-nofication (twice, technically, but once very blatantly)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page- they have still been in too much a hurry to use the article talk page, but see User_talk:DoctorBiochemistry#More_problems. (note, they finally just now found the article Talk page.

Comments:

This is a difficult topic on which to edit - high profile and lots of passion. This editor needs a much longer block to keep them away from this article until the heat is over - they do not seem capable of self-restraint, and they remain too passionate to understand the basics of editing WP content, instead continuing to make arguments that are invalid in Misplaced Pages, both for their behavior and for the content they wish to add. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

agree editor in question is not showing self-restraint--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, I just found there is a talk page about the article. I am willing to discuss any further changes there. The page is being edited with totally incorrect and unsourced statements in the medical section, for example that "MDDS progressively causes all cells to stop functioning". I am a qualified MD-PhD and active in research, and now that I am beginning to understand the policies I am doing my best to include appropiate secondary sources. I will discuss any further modifications with the other users before undoing changes. I agree the topic is very heated, but there are other users introducing biased and unsourced opinions there (for example, about the efficacy or not of the nucleoside therapy, textually: "had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy", this is totally unsourced and incorrect, it is being applied to children and adults). I have no COI as I stated before. Misplaced Pages should be really neutral and explain what this therapy is about without making any interested judgements. There are several reviews about mitochondrial diseases discussing this issue, and specifically this therapy, and they are being reomved from the page. But as I said, let's discuss that in the talk page DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Has just come off a 2-day block for edit warring, so I've now blocked for 4 days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:HXEG reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: blocked)

Page: Li Keqiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HXEG (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:

This user ignores warnings and actively revert-wars all over their edits in other articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Warned User had not received a 3RR warning before this report was filed. There have been no edits by the user since the warning. Will continue to engage with user. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours User continued in pattern after multiple warnings and attempts to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CoatbridgeChancellor and User:81.154.241.99 reported by User:Jd02022092 (Result: Resolved)

Page: St Johnstone F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• CoatbridgeChancellor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.154.241.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of CoatbridgeChancellor's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diffs of 81.154.241.99's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

Comments:

This war had been ongoing for a few days now. Before you are the diffs that violate 3RR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The situation has been partially resolved. CoatbridgeChancellor has agreed to stop reverting while the situation settles. The IP, however, has not replied. If they continue to revert, I will re-report. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Blevy97 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: )

Page: Sigma Tau Gamma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blevy97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff - not a revert, but a continuation of the same problematic edits
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

(They also blanked an old peer review request and blanked parts of the talk page; I'm not clear why. SigTau2015 may have been a sock or otherwise associated with this user, given the similarity of their edits, although that account is currently soft blocked for having a promotional username.)

Comments:
I've made this report because, based on the user's comments on my talk and the article's talk, it appears that Blevy97 intends to keep reverting in order to include promotional material. Blevy97 has stated that they are part of Sigma Tau Gamma's communications team, so I've also left a conflict of interest notice on their talk page.

For clarity: I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. Initially, my edits were reverts of Blevy97's edits for the reasons I detailed on the article's talk page (removed all references in the article, did not comply with the manual of style, removed peacock tag without changing the peacock language of the article). Blevy97 seems to have taken some of that on board (e.g. their further edits left the references in place), but the article remained hugely peacock so I did a general edit this morning to get rid of the puffery/peacock terms/promotion/other obviously non-encyclopaedic content. Blevy97 subsequently reverted my edit, leading to this report. Although not a revert, I recognise that my fourth edit may be considered as edit warring on my part, since it was my fourth within 24 hours; if so, I apologise and will accept whatever sanctions are deemed appropriate. Marianna251TALK 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I also note this diff in which he restored the creed after I removed it as being unencyclopedic. only (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86 reported by User:Zabboo (Result:No violation )

Page: Yeezus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Kellymoat's reverts:

2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86's reverts:

I hope I did this right - never reported anyone before. I know the reverts are minor here but the fact is Kellymoat in particular has been banned three times prior for this exact thing and just the other day was given an "absolute final warning". This seems like unacceptable behavior to me after something like that.

Sorry, but if this is par for the course, that's clearly vandalism and not a 3RR issue. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, should I file a separate report against the other guy for that? Don't want to let someone get away with vandalism Zabboo (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RRNO. Report the IP to me if you see any further vandalism, and I'll block it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

First, I am going to say --- ANOTHER TROLLER? Too funny. Almost as if the two are "in cohoots" (which is something I already suspected).

Anyhow - no, don't bother reporting or blocking the IP. First, the situation has been cleared via talk page. Secondly, the IP is not static. He probably already has a new one assigned to him. And lastly, if you look, I suspect that the 3 IP addresses that were used (in the course of 20 minutes) are all the same person. A block would be useless. Kellymoat (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If a block is useless because of an IP hopper, please report to WP:RFPP. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Zabboo, if there is a static, or persistent dynamic IP engaged in vandalism, please report to WP:AIV. It's pretty common. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )

Page: Battle of Mosul (2016–17) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of MonsterHunter32's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , also on editor's page

Comments:
First, it should be noted that the Battle of Mosul falls under the 1RR policy (no more than 1 revert per 24 hours) which is implemented on all ISIL-related articles. Now, editor MonsterHunter32 first made a partial revert of both editor LightandDark2000's and my edits . Then, after I myself reverted him, he made a full revert of me . I warned MonsterHunter32 at his talk page of the violation. His reply - he considered that since he removed only parts of the previous editors edits he wasn't making a revert. I then warned him, a second time , that per Misplaced Pages's revert policy, edits that undo other editors' actions even partially are considered reverts. But despite this, he still thought to be in the right . It should also be noted that attempts were made to discuss the issue at both the editor's talk page and in two sections of the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh please I already undid my own revert and presented it as ongoing and voided my revert. What I did was an edit and my edits weren't just linked to presenting battle as ongoing. Now agreed it might be partial reverts, but sometimes people may jump the gun and not realise, but that is no reason to start trying to be hard on them. Know this 1RR is a warning, that doesn't mean you should revert yourself even once without discussion being resolved. It wasn't intended as maliciously. EkoGraf is simply getting upset I removed his version. Seriously, people get agitated over even the smallest reasons. Since people start complaining, I'll take care not to even partially revert their edits in the future. Sorry, now let's move on. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: Its not a matter of me being upset. You canceled the edits of two editors (twice), violating 1RR. After, I politely asked you two times to cancel your 2nd revert (which you indicated at the time that you would not do). Its not a matter of agitation but following the rules. In the future you should know that even partial reverts are considered reverts and should not be made, not because people complain but because its Misplaced Pages's policy. Also, the issue was already being discussed for a full two days. In any case, thank you for reverting yourself and for the additional sources. I appreciate it and sorry if you thought I was being too hard. I withdraw my complaint against MonsterHunter32. The issue is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AffeL reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: )

Page: Rickon Stark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AffeL (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:

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