This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 2 May 2016 (Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive315) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:17, 2 May 2016 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive315) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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. |
Click here to create a new report
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
User talk:166.170.34.148 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Stale)
Page: Dangerous Woman (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.170.34.148 (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:
- Stale Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Factoidmactoid reported by User:Sekyaw (Result: )
Page: Dallon Weekes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factoidmactoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and
Comments:
The user reverts with the same reason despite my multiple attempts to resolve the issue on their talk page. The edits of mine are completely reasonable and have stated my reasons of the edits on his talk page, to no avail. The user seems they are the creator of the article and are only active due to the current edit war. Sekyaw (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Although no 3RR is applicable due to his reverts being at somewhat of a slow pace, I am not optimistic one bit that the user will stop the unreasonable reverts without communication. Sekyaw (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )
- Page
- San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "Why are the shooting tables do not match those from the other NOCs?"
- 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) to 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "consistency with the other NOC pages"
- 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) ""
- 03:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "STOP HARASSING MY EDIT. DON'T STRESSED ME OUT. DON'T ASSUME ME THAT I'M NOT HUMAN."
- 03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "The tables must be separated."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User clearly has ownership issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 3rd party commentIt should be noted that the reporting user Sportsfan 1234 has behaved very similarly and I have warned them both on this issue. Also that there is an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Olympics#WP:Olympics - Manual of Style attempting to resolve the issues these two users have.
At this stage I think a trouting may suffice as both have made some atempt to reach a consensus on the understanding that they re each on a last warning- Basement12 (T.C) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- You know what. I'm done editing the San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I created the page though, but because you won the case on the edit warring. I decided to move it to the sandbox. You create the page instead, and put the necessary contents. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- FFS. Can which every admin deals with this please ensure that the article is moved back from User:Raymarcbadz/San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics to it's proper place. I retract my previous comment on trouting, this has gone too far. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Basement12. We'll bring the contents back if someone besides myself should re-create the article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've already moved the page back, even without addressing the rest of the case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's too late. The page has been deleted. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is getting out of hand, Raymarcbadz has gotten the page deleted, and has now recreated it and restored it to their preferred version (which is against the MOS, and discussion!). When will this stop. There is only so much one editor can do (before it is considered edit warring, and believe me this is not the end goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why can't you create the article instead, and see if you can prove that it follows the MOS guidelines? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a case for WP:Boomerang to me. Sportsfan was not 1 little bit better with his behavoiour. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Raymarcbadz continues to edit against discussion on other pages as well and threatening to delete them! "Inconsistent with other sports; If you keep reverting my edits, I'll delete the page right now." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like a case for WP:Boomerang to me. Sportsfan was not 1 little bit better with his behavoiour. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why can't you create the article instead, and see if you can prove that it follows the MOS guidelines? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is getting out of hand, Raymarcbadz has gotten the page deleted, and has now recreated it and restored it to their preferred version (which is against the MOS, and discussion!). When will this stop. There is only so much one editor can do (before it is considered edit warring, and believe me this is not the end goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's too late. The page has been deleted. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've already moved the page back, even without addressing the rest of the case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Basement12. We'll bring the contents back if someone besides myself should re-create the article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pennyerrs reported by User:Velella (Result: Sock blocked)
- Page
- Lionel Messi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Pennyerrs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Yeah, how do you know that, Im not and you cant prove it."
- 12:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Only Marche, I added Porto Recanati, the town where his ancestor came from."
- 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) to 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Honours and achievements */"
- 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Lionel Messi . using TW"
- Pennyerrs Confirmed and indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page:
User being reported:
- AdamDeanHall (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:
- Clearly explaining that this is a content dispute and not vandalism that is being reverted on the article talk page
- Explanation on the talk page of the IP user that this editor keeps reverting
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 3 days — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked 48 hours, with warning)
- Page
- Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717935580 by Yobol (talk) Why don't you explain your objection in the talk page? My edit is in response to the request in the section "The lede is a mess""
- 15:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ re-added material that got "lost" in editing/reverting"
- 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "revert yobol lede edit. Nuffield has weight .I will elaborate in talk page"
- 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a report done by many expert in an authoritative organization. needs to have its due weight. (whether you like their conclusions or not)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
See this diff and the subsequent two more warnings on their talk page
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
See talk page of article
- Comments:
Numerous 3RR warnings on their talk page. Not even more reverts prior to this that do not fit within the past 24 hours. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Anna Frodesiak with a warning that future instances will result in an extended block. Mike V • Talk 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
User:86.154.101.95 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Semi)
- Page
- April 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 86.154.101.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "As requested by Rms125a, removed references and changed link to point reader towards those scholarly references. Rms125a please answer on Talk Page what you mean by "speculation" - your link below is dysfunctional."
- 14:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed external link as requested by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Hope everyone is satisfied now."
- 10:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "It is not one writer, but a scholarly survey of 100 (one hundred) writers. Read the reference."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on April 3. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Two warnings given. Amccann421 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Amccann421 accuses me of edit-warring, saying "Please do not add or change content, as you did at April 3, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."
However the other editors have pointed out today to me that in fact it is NOT permitted to cite references/sources in April 3 or in any other Date-of-Year pages. Hence I removed my references. Unfortunately, now Amccann421 has appeared on the scene and is criticising me for removing the refs and accusing me of edit warring. Please confirm, on the April 3 Talk page, that you have got it wrong. And please do not further disrupt the discussion and editing process unless you have a valid point to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.95 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Revert warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. A fluctuating IP from 86.254.* is being reverted by multiple others, so this needs a discussion. Some editors argue that any Biblical chronology that is speculative needs to have evidence presented in a separate article on the topic, not in the date-of-the-year article itself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Violetnese reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: )
- Page
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Violetnese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717993658 by Paul Erik (talk) Don't listen to him, I am them, there are too many Idols."
- 22:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717987271 by Bbb23 (talk) Come on, keep this one. Rumors/gossip not this!"
- 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717982508 by Bbb23 (talk)"
21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "He is known for his falsetto!"Not a revert.
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Here they warn an administrator about edit warring, suggesting they're well-aware of the penalties. Bbb23 responded with a warning, though (I assume) on the wrong user talk page. clpo13(talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Clpo13: When I post to Drmies's Talk page it is never a warning, except when it's about the unhealthy effects of eating bacon while watching college football. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bbb23, you know I greatly appreciate your words of advice and encouragement. Roll Tide, my friend. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Despite warnings about adding unsupported comments, this user has edit warred with two editors about Gordon-Levitt being a falsetto and/or countertenor. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm following https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Falsettos right now, don't take him off. violetnese 23:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know this board is about conduct, not content, but I can't resist. First, you can be a bass and sing in falsetto. Second, having a "high" tenor voice does not mean you're singing in falsetto. Third - and I'm not sure where countertenor came from in this silliness - a countertenor is not the same as a man singing in falsetto. Fourth, regardless of anything else, how on earth did this editor determine that this piece of trivia belongs in the lead? Frankly, WP:CIR is more applicable here than edit-warring (fwiw, she didn't breach 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ooh, you're right. I assumed this was a revert from the edit summary. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know this board is about conduct, not content, but I can't resist. First, you can be a bass and sing in falsetto. Second, having a "high" tenor voice does not mean you're singing in falsetto. Third - and I'm not sure where countertenor came from in this silliness - a countertenor is not the same as a man singing in falsetto. Fourth, regardless of anything else, how on earth did this editor determine that this piece of trivia belongs in the lead? Frankly, WP:CIR is more applicable here than edit-warring (fwiw, she didn't breach 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"Look what Ryan just saw on Misplaced Pages! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA. violetnese 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one! violetnese 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This is not only an edit war, it's a BLP-vio and also borderline vandalism. Not sure what this editor's deal is, but they've gotten three warnings for vandalism/disruptive editing in the past 6.5 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to know what the deal is with the Instagram links. clpo13(talk) 19:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
3primetime3 reported by User:70.124.133.228 (Result: )
Page: User talk:70.124.133.228 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3primetime3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #1: (the user being reported made 9 reversions after this warning)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2: (the user being reported made 5 reversions after this warning)
After this report was first posted and the user was notified, the user continued reverting my talk page:
70.124.133.228 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Report is for the reversion of warnings on the IP's talk page. While his edits were in violation of 3RR, our conversation on my talk page here seems to show that he didn't know that users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages. He understands this now, and hasn't made further reversions. I recommend siding with good faith and perhaps giving him a reminder about 3RR and talk page guidelines as opposed to blocking. ~Oshwah~ 01:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- He has stopped, which is a good outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Protected)
Page: Timothy Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (can't give diff as edit created page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started this RfC nearly a week ago, IP is reverting application of consensus and is aware of and involved in discussion.
Comments:
IP editor is reverting several changes:
- Keeps restoring category "Philosophers of mind" despite consensus against it.
- Keeps changing "stand-up philosopher" (sourced) to "performing philosopher" (unsourced)
- Keeps reverting implementation of RfC consensus.
Skyerise (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I second this. The IP has been disruptive in numerous different ways. It has repeatedly made edits without explanations or edit summaries, most recently here. This is behavior which unfortunately suggests an absence of interest in discussing issues or reaching consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What an enormous amount of hypocrisy and ignorance.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Skyrise appears to misstate several facts. There is no clear consensus on the philosophers of mind category. Rather, he and FKC have insisted on their position and several others have disagreed but tired of the WP:BATTLEFIELD. I personally think Leary does belong in this category but concede I have not yet found a source that states it clearly in one sentence. Re: the stand-up versus performing philosopher description, the editor that the IP reverted was me. But having searched for new sources, e.g., , I think he's right: Leary did call himself a "performing philosopher", not a "stand-up philoopher", the latter term apparently having been applied to him by others; this is why I didn't revert back. Re: the RfC "consensus", I concede the !votes to exclude outnumber those to include but the RfC has not been closed and proper procedure is for an uninvolved editor to do that. Skyrise announced he intended to close his own RfC. When informed this was completely inappropriate , his response was to insult all those who disagree with him as "uninformed", a clear and unambiguous personal attack. Msnicki (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- If there actually were an acceptable source calling Leary a philosopher of mind, such as a respected work of reference dealing with philosophy, I would probably not have any objection to the "philosophers of mind" category either. That does not alter the fact that there is no such source. You removed the category yourself at one stage, with the edit summary "rm Category:Philosophers of mind per talk page", and that does count toward consensus for keeping it out at least for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- As we all know, 3RR has nothing to do with the content and only to do with a count of reverts. The IP has crossed the bright line. I only listed the most recent four. Others could be added. Skyerise (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- If there actually were an acceptable source calling Leary a philosopher of mind, such as a respected work of reference dealing with philosophy, I would probably not have any objection to the "philosophers of mind" category either. That does not alter the fact that there is no such source. You removed the category yourself at one stage, with the edit summary "rm Category:Philosophers of mind per talk page", and that does count toward consensus for keeping it out at least for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Protected by KrakatoaKatie. Minima© (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Robertx123 reported by User:Clubjustin4 (Result: )
- Page
- Mahdi Al Tajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Robertx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718073836 by Edwardx (talk)"
- 09:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Life */"
- 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717709333 by Mervyn (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahdi Al Tajir. (TW)"
- 12:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User:120.151.160.158 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 120.151.160.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Added variety of reliable references"
- 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Move this warring to the article talk page please. This source is absolutely acceptable according to wikipedia rules. Undid revision 718088582 by David.moreno72 (talk)"
- 13:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write ... Bruce is both."
- 13:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Visit your talk page to mediate this instead of warring please. If you do not know Bruce, you should not be editing this page in the first place. Here's 260+ wiki other articles accepting him as reliable: site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ "Schneier, Bruce""
- 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Industries most widely accepted expert in this field is the most reliable source possible. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/Bruce_Schneier or his dozen+ books. Do not revert without again without citation to back up your opinion."
- 11:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "user offered their opinion, without any references as justification, for removing the reference to this industries most widely respected expert in this matter. multi-factor is not stopping breakins - pick up any IT newspaper."
- 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "reference effectiveness"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, but the IP continues to edit war about this adjective in the opening sentence. McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was asked to provide different sources. I did. Why are you calling this a war, and blaming me for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.160.158 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses the term "edit war" to refer to editors repeatedly overriding one another's edits. It's explained at WP:EDITWAR. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP was warned repeatedly and persisted. Katie 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Greg440 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: )
Page: UFC 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greg440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now
Diffs of the user's reverts: -First wave of reverts:
-Second wave of reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page
Comments:
The user keeps reverting edits as it was shown above. I approached him via edit summary and his talk page, but he was never open to communication. He had one argument at the beginning, backed by no source. When I kept pressuring him regarding his methods, he started deviating the conversation including what someone might see as xenophobia, as he argued that I don't understand stuff because English is not my first language and I should edit the Portuguese version of the Misplaced Pages, even though I have almost three years of experience with such articles. I even adjusted the article to a version that appeals to the similarity of other articles and is still correct, with sources to back it up. The funny thing is that even this user had a identical edit earlier as shown in the second link at the top of this report. Now he's just reverting the page, nothing else to argue from his part. I'd like to report this to avoid a bigger edit war. I've restrained myself from entering this thing and even waited a day to perform a different edit to try to resolve this issue, yet he keeps edit warring and flinging with the 3RR. I do not come here with the intention of seeing him blocked whatsoever. I just wanted to have administrators telling him how this is supposed to work. Specially because he says we have to be "professionals" here. He lost himself with that word and ends up contradicting exactly what he mentioned early in our discussion at this talk page. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:Greg440 (Result: )
Page: UFC 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now
Diffs of my reverts: -First wave of reverts:
-Second wave of reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page
Comments:
User keeps reverting my edits, starts personally insulting and insinuating me by calling me "xenophobic" over Misplaced Pages editing. User fails to acknowledge other articles that use proper lingo and instead has decided to throw a tantrum. Users first language isn't English and fails to recognize examples I've provided. Claims I'm edit warring when it takes more than one for there to be a war. After the first initial edit reversions he then proceeded to decide the term we were arguing over and how it should be presented wasn't even valid just to further complicate the situation and prolong the back and forth.Greg440 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe what I've said earlier here and in your talk page can speak for myself. Totally opposite to everything you mentioned here. You even copied my entire report... I'll refrain from further commentary on this section. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Totally opposite of everything I mentioned here? Everything I just stated was entirely factual. There's zero room for interpretation. Greg440 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Patrick1425 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Anti-Arabism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Patrick1425 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 22:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 22:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 21:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 21:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 21:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "definition of Arab https://en.wikipedia.org/Arabs"
- 21:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ media reports of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) to 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- 01:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ 2015 Chattanooga shootings prompted further expressions of anti Arabism in the media"
- 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Definition of Arab is a person whose native language is Arabic."
- 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ references to media reporting of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting and anti Arabism"
- 23:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
- 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "references to Arab American Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazziz in Chattanooga. His murder of five U.S. service members on July 16, 2015, generated media reporting."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Anti-Arabism. (TW)"
- 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anti-Arabism. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has repeatedly tried to add the Chatanooga, TN shootings to the article, despite being reverted by myself, Srich32977, 24.57.54.196, and Grayfell. This is the same material added by IP editors previously (e.g., see this revert by IronGargoyle). The material being added is COATRACK and OR (none of the sources given even mention the word "Arab" let alone "Anti-Arabism" or any synonym). This is long-term edit warring with block evasion (see 98.204.183.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- PS - please ping me in any replies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I started a SPI a while ago (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick1425) for what it's worth. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Haqiqat510 reported by User:Mona778 (Result: )
- Page
- Durand Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Haqiqat510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user is engaged in edit warring. Mona778 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Categories: