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

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

Revision as of 13:45, 4 August 2017 editEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,210 edits →User:Baldassn reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: EC protection): Closing← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:37, 4 August 2017 edit undoCommotioCerebri (talk \| contribs)55 edits →Muhammad_Ismail_Agha: new sectionNext edit →
Line 332:		Line 332:
	:It was indeed a "clear violation", which is why I made the changes necessary to ensure that said violation was fixed. This was an open-and-shut case of information that demonstrably and quite clearly contradicted what the sources said in an article about a living person, hence the three-revert rule is not applicable (see ]; I'm quite familiar with the policy - are you?). As far as "disruptive editing" goes, in light of Mr. X's comments, I'll AGF that it was an honest misreading of the text, rather than deliberately disruptive. ] (]) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)		:It was indeed a "clear violation", which is why I made the changes necessary to ensure that said violation was fixed. This was an open-and-shut case of information that demonstrably and quite clearly contradicted what the sources said in an article about a living person, hence the three-revert rule is not applicable (see ]; I'm quite familiar with the policy - are you?). As far as "disruptive editing" goes, in light of Mr. X's comments, I'll AGF that it was an honest misreading of the text, rather than deliberately disruptive. ] (]) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
	*{{an3\|nv}} - The first glaringly-obvious thing I'm seeing when reviewing this is that Joe's actually ''correct'' in his most recent reverts and thus those edits are exempt from 3RR. The source says: "The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office." MrX added, to a BLP, ''in quotes'', the patently false statement that: 'Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."' That's a ''fabricated quote'', plain and simple. Look, obviously this was an honest mistake, but this level of sloppy editing is not acceptable on a contentious BLP. If someone's removing information for a specific reason, maybe you should double check to make sure they're not ''actually right'' before dragging them to a noticeboard with a bad 3RR accusation. Regarding the other issue it seems to be more of a gray area. Obviously the source is reporting on how Davis was unusually highly paid, which led to complaints, which led to a significant cut in the office's budget, and it's heavily implied that it would affect Davis. However Joe is again technically correct in stating that the specific claim that "she was paid more than others until the budget cut" is not actually made in the article, or the one relevant source regarding this issue. You can feel free to try to address the behavioral issues at ANI, but there's no way I can action this user for edit warring. There's not much wiggle room when it comes to what BLPs say. ] ] 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)		*{{an3\|nv}} - The first glaringly-obvious thing I'm seeing when reviewing this is that Joe's actually ''correct'' in his most recent reverts and thus those edits are exempt from 3RR. The source says: "The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office." MrX added, to a BLP, ''in quotes'', the patently false statement that: 'Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."' That's a ''fabricated quote'', plain and simple. Look, obviously this was an honest mistake, but this level of sloppy editing is not acceptable on a contentious BLP. If someone's removing information for a specific reason, maybe you should double check to make sure they're not ''actually right'' before dragging them to a noticeboard with a bad 3RR accusation. Regarding the other issue it seems to be more of a gray area. Obviously the source is reporting on how Davis was unusually highly paid, which led to complaints, which led to a significant cut in the office's budget, and it's heavily implied that it would affect Davis. However Joe is again technically correct in stating that the specific claim that "she was paid more than others until the budget cut" is not actually made in the article, or the one relevant source regarding this issue. You can feel free to try to address the behavioral issues at ANI, but there's no way I can action this user for edit warring. There's not much wiggle room when it comes to what BLPs say. ] ] 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

			== Muhammad_Ismail_Agha ==

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Muhammad_Ismail_Agha}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Geo_Swan}}



			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:

			<u>Comments:</u> Non-free image being re-added against policy or consensus. ] (]) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)<br />

Revision as of 16:37, 4 August 2017

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Baldassn reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: EC protection)

Page: Michael R. Caputo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baldassn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793279794 by Sagecandor (talk)"
15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "removed incorrect information that was not cited, added correct sourced info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 . DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 . Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters .

Please block both Baldassn and DwyerSP for WP:Disruptive editing by tag-teaming with sock accounts. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see and . This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This report should be read in conjunction with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. It's a good thing that User:Baldassn has made a proper COI declaration, but what is he going to do about User:DwyerSP? There is no obvious reason for Baldassn to remove this Mother Jones reference that claims Caputo served as a media consultant for Vladimir Putin. There is easily enough evidence in this AN3 complaint to justify WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. But if a checkuser were run on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn it might justify a long block of User:Baldassn. It appears that new accounts are actively being created in the last few days to make edits at Michael R. Caputo, for example User:716buffalosportgeek716 and User:Puppylover1967 (both accounts created July 31). But the two red-linked accounts have made so few edits that no conclusion can be made to connect them to Baldassn under WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, accounts still active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: Two months WP:ECP for Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby Sisters. Deferring any question of sock blocks to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:22, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,394)‎ . . (restore sourced info per multiple citations)
19:35, 31 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,613 bytes) (-1,840)‎ . . (edits appear to have removed multiple citations to reliable sources)
05:18, 29 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,770 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (removed unreliable source, exile.ru, per WP:RSN)
18:51, 28 July 2017‎ Sagecandor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,769 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (Unreliable source?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&oldid=793282779

Comments:
Comment: Please see where I myself have taken the initiative and reported this to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where "Exile.ru" is deemed to be an unreliable source: (please see report here). I acknowledge that I've made two (2) edits of restorations, and I pledge to make zero (0) more reverts on that page while we hopefully get this matter resolved: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Baldassn. Please note that accounts User:Baldassn and User:DwyerSP and User:Musicmaniac1107 are using many sock accounts to violate WP:Disruptive editing. Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 . DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 . Both accounts have edited exact same pages Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters . I myself will stop reverting these sock accounts while Misplaced Pages looks into this. But I hope using multiple accounts in order to sock at the same exact pages of Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters, will be dealt with soon. Sagecandor (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Note also I've made zero edits to the article, since the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" cited by the complainant. Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Page was protected, by admin Oshwah, with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: The likely sockmaster account has now revealed their main sock account was used to make previously undisclosed paid edits with a now declared conflict of interest see and . This is now socking to make paid edits with a conflict of interest. None of the other likely sock accounts have made any declaration. No declarations have been made by any of the accounts on any article talk pages. None of the accounts have self-reverted any of their sock conflict of interest edits. Sagecandor (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No violation – The dispute about the Michael R. Caputo article has also been mentioned in another report (still open as of this moment). EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B122:4918:94DD:B91E:BB84:4FA2 reported by User:Wani (Result: Semi-protected)

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:

A user within this IP range has been re-adding the same unsourced content for over two weeks now. Since they are a mobile user and have a dynamic IP address, warnings against disruptive editing and edit warring have not been effective. I would like to discuss with the IP about their edits, but communicating with them is extremely difficult because of these circumstances. Wani (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Also, to be fair, the IP has included references within their more recent edit summaries, such as here: . That said, they've still failed to include inline citations after repeated instruction. The problem I personally have with their additions is the use of the GameSpot article as a direct confirmation for the exclusion of playable X-Men characters; however, the interview only somewhat implies their exclusion. The producer even states, "The X-Men stuff, can't talk to." The IP then supplements their edits with their own original research, saying that this extends to other Fox-owned properties, such as the Fantastic Four (even though those characters aren't even mentioned in the source). Again, I'd like to discuss with them about their edits, but their constantly changing IP address doesn't allow me do so (at least to my knowledge), and their constant reverts have become disruptive. Wani (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Clear violation. Disruptive editing. It is also vandalism. Sagecandor (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected by Oshwah. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:181.208.243.242 reported by User:Elisfkc (Result: Blocked one month)

Previous version reverted to: 793417371

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on User Talk Page

Comments:
The claim that the user keeps adding that Innoventions (the subject) will be closing in 2018 to make way for a Tron simulator. They are adding this without sources. This "closing" was not ever rumored, let alone announced/confirmed. The user has been blocked 3 times before, just coming off their last block today. There were other reverts that both of us did, but that pertained to something else (so I did not count that). Elisfkc (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The user is also making the same claim on Tron (franchise), as well as other random claims on Journey into Imagination with Figment and CommuniCore. Elisfkc (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked one month for vandalism, by admin Alexf. Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

202.156.181.76 reported by User:Zhanzhao (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Claims Google Translate is proof for translation of a person's name
Claims mosque officials made a mistake in translating the subject's name
Disregards request for reliable source of change
Disregards request for talk discussion plus unsourced claim.
Continues to disregard talkpage request and reverts with, I quote No questions asked.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and 2 prior warning against disruption by another editor on the same topic.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: as well as attempts to direct him/her there via the edit summary as that seems to the the only thing he/she is paying attention to.

Comments:

Comment Per the editor's block log and removal of his block notification on another edit warring incident, its clear he/she knows waht is edit warring and just refusing to engage. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:171.78.169.174 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to: diff, before they started

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff 1st removal 23:10, 31 July 2017
diff 2nd removal 00:35, 1 August 2017
diff 3rd removal 11:39, 1 August 2017
diff 4th removal 15:08, 1 August 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Christian_terrorism#Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Comments:

As noted at the talk page, it is an emotional topic and this subtopic within that, is especially nuanced and difficult and has been discussed to death. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:HyperGaruda (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/790662175

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Wholesale revert
Wholesale revert
Wholesale revert
Adding back in a partial revert in the same section

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor with 8 years of "experience" and multiple blocks ought to know better than reverting multiple users to keep in his/her own addition, without even trying to start a discussion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Truth and honour reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Europe Business Assembly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truth and honour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC) ""
11:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "Expanded information about the Europe Business Assembly"
08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "additional reference"
Consecutive edits made from 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC) to 08:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "added reference"
2. 08:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "added content"
06:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "added a reference from the company house"
12:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "text change and added facts"
11:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "added content and references"
Consecutive edits made from 07:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC) to 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 07:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 07:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC) to 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 06:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "added content"
2. 06:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "added reference and content"
3. 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "added more content"
4. 07:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC) "added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Edit-warring notice
10:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC) "paid"

See also previous 3RR Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive347#User:93.76.208.161_reported_by_User:GreenC_.28Result:_Protected.29 -- GreenC 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Europe_Business_Assembly#COI_editing

Comments:

Repeated insertion of various spam / cruft for the purposes of whitewasing the company by a CoI editor, against many editors- Richard Keatinge, Bonadea, Philafrenzy, GreenC, etc. Many warnings- and / or advice on their own talk. There is a lack of communication indicating perhaps we have moved into WP:IDHT territory, and in any case is tying up the time and energey of too many editors, including two admins who have both laid on pending changes and protection, to no avail. — fortunavelut luna 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Momoji789 reported by User:85.220.68.38 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user has provided clear evidence from dramas' official page but the user in question willfully ignores the evidence and insists that one should follow the synopsis or standing position in the poster to determine the cast's orders instead.

Comments:

User:Sagecandor reported by User:Baldassn (second report) (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Sagecandor is a persistent disruptive editor. Sagecandor has accused me of being a sock account which is plainly false. Sagecandor has removed all of my edits from the wikipedia page Rigsby Sisters and removed reputable sources (such as U.S. Supreme Court cases/documents) from the page. Sagecandor replaces this accurate information with unsourced information that fits a certain narritive. Sagecandor has disruptively edited multiple pages I have tried to edit. Baldassn (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Baldassn has admitted to being a paid editor now on both articles Michael R. Caputo and on Rigsby sisters . Compare with account Musicmaniac1107 = edits to Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters . Compare with account DwyerSP = edits to articles Michael R. Caputo and Rigsby sisters . Accounts started on exact same day: Baldassn account started 3 February 2017 . DwyerSP account started 3 February 2017 . Baldassn has used both accounts Baldassn and DwyerSP now to disruptively edit on at least these two pages on Misplaced Pages. Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Also see this SPI report, which may be of relevance to this. SkyWarrior 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@SkyWarrior:Yes, thank you. Please note the first diff cited by the complainant is one (1) diff where I removed paid editing from the article with DIFF. That is NOT a revert. The 2nd edit cited by the complainant is where I added the {{COI}} tag to the article DIFF. That is also NOT a revert. Both edits are justified by account Baldassn declaring they have a paid editing conflict of interest with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The accounts appear to still be active with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No violation – Second report of the same thing (see above). EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Neutrality: NO, NO, NO!! Not at all what he said. Nothing like it. Not even close. That's not a "paraphrase", it's made-up bullshit, and it certainly does not "solve the problem". (TW)"
20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): Ok, you can't be serious - wow. (TW)"
16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MrX (talk): YOU are making the claim, by using the word "until"; holy shit, either learn WP:BLP or don't edit this article . (TW)"
16:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 793657900 by Station1: Nothing confirms that Davis' salary itself was reduced; saying she received said salary "until" the budget was cut is pure speculation; we've no idea what was cut & what wasn't . (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk:Kim Davis#Not improvements
20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Please explain this */ new section"

Comments:

This editor has also edit warred pretty aggressively on this article a few day prior to this. Their overtly hostile edit summaries and talk page comments are not conducive to resolving these very minor content disputes.- Mr X 20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

They are not "minor content disputes". There seems to be an attitude that, as Davis is an obnoxious homophobe, truth and accuracy are minor details in her biography. If it's not malice, then gross incompetence is the only plausible answer. Neither have any place at WP:BLP articles. All of my edits have been to remove statements that were demonstrably contrary to what the source says, and I invite the reviewing admin to verify that. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MrX. Clear violation. Examining the block log of Joefromrandb shows they are definitely aware of the Misplaced Pages site policy related to Disruptive editing, Edit warring, and Violation of the three revert rule. Sagecandor (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed a "clear violation", which is why I made the changes necessary to ensure that said violation was fixed. This was an open-and-shut case of information that demonstrably and quite clearly contradicted what the sources said in an article about a living person, hence the three-revert rule is not applicable (see WP:3RRNO; I'm quite familiar with the policy - are you?). As far as "disruptive editing" goes, in light of Mr. X's comments, I'll AGF that it was an honest misreading of the text, rather than deliberately disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No violation - The first glaringly-obvious thing I'm seeing when reviewing this is that Joe's actually correct in his most recent reverts and thus those edits are exempt from 3RR. The source says: "The governor added that he has no power to remove Davis from office." MrX added, to a BLP, in quotes, the patently false statement that: 'Beshear added that he "had no power to grant her release."' That's a fabricated quote, plain and simple. Look, obviously this was an honest mistake, but this level of sloppy editing is not acceptable on a contentious BLP. If someone's removing information for a specific reason, maybe you should double check to make sure they're not actually right before dragging them to a noticeboard with a bad 3RR accusation. Regarding the other issue it seems to be more of a gray area. Obviously the source is reporting on how Davis was unusually highly paid, which led to complaints, which led to a significant cut in the office's budget, and it's heavily implied that it would affect Davis. However Joe is again technically correct in stating that the specific claim that "she was paid more than others until the budget cut" is not actually made in the article, or the one relevant source regarding this issue. You can feel free to try to address the behavioral issues at ANI, but there's no way I can action this user for edit warring. There's not much wiggle room when it comes to what BLPs say. Swarm ♠ 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad_Ismail_Agha

User:Geo_Swan reported by User:CommotioCerebri (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Non-free image being re-added against policy or consensus. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories: