Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 9 September 2016 (→User:Tiny Dancer 48 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

@Laser brain: 3RR is a bright line rule (as in: it is 'a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation'). Do you believe that the edits reverted, which referred to a magazine, were reverts of 'libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material' regarding a living person? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As I noted both at an ArbCom event where that page came up and on the talk page itself after pinged by Zaostao, the claims that the webzine that is managed by this person is associated with white supremacy, a claim that neither this person nor the webzine makes, is being used as a coatrack to negatively connect this person to white supremacy in a factual manner, which is a BLP issue and reversion falls under 3RRBLP. It's fine in the latter part of the lede to put in the documented attributed criticism about their views of which appear to be part of his notability, but not in the subtle coatracking manner that Zaostao was removing. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Do you believe describing the magazine in this way is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the magazine itself does not call itself a work dealing with white supremacy, and instead is what other sources (even highly reliable ones) claim it is about, yes, it's libelous and biased, at least prior to fully introducing the topic. This is completely appropriate once you start getting into criticism about the person/magazine, but not before that point, which is where this contentious statement was being used. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not accept the argument that it is fine to edit war and violate 3RR because something was not correctly ordered in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring: . No, this is not a BLP violation because it's well sourced. Indeed, it's pretty much what makes this person notable. I have no idea how this is suppose to be a "coatrack" since that applies to articles, not a couple of words. Lastly, to say that this is "libelous" because the magazine doesn't describe itself as such is ridiculous. We don't go by what something calls itself. We go by what reliable sources call it. And reliable sources say it's "associated with white supremacy" (again, this is pretty much what Taylor is notable for). The "decline" above needs to be reviewed, as this is a pretty clear case of edit warring (including breaking a 3RR rule, and then edit warring even more AFTER the report was filed) as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"We don't go by what something calls itself. We go by what reliable sources call it." No, BLP says otherwise, and it appears that Taylor actively denies claims he is a white suprmacist or other language now presently in the lede. The coatracking comes in because American Renaissance is not a common household name and so there is a need to provide context (a coatrack), but editors have opted to describe it with a contentious label used neither by Taylor or the webzine. That he is widely regarded in the mainstream press as a white supremacist (with appropriate attribution) is something to include in the lede after neutrally stating the basic facts and his own views which BLP says takes priority. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Masem, I am honestly puzzled by your assertion that "BLP says otherwise." It seems pretty clear cut to me that the reliable sources are the main thing. To quote from WP:BLP: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." I have to agree with PeterTheFourth that it's hard to buy a statement as libelous based on its position within the article. Also, as Volunteer Marek has noted, it seems like the 'accusations' are most of what make the article subject notable. I have no dog in this fight, other than the fact that I see a lot of "we have to balance the RSes with what this subject says of themselves" in various articles, and I think it's a move in the wrong direction. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Describing someone as being associated with white supremacy is not a non-partisan statement - that tries to classify his POV into a specific political ideology and thus a partisan statement. Atop that, it appears he has stated he does not have white supremacy views, and BLP emphasizes what a subject says about themselves over what anyone else might claim. (Further, that's just standard human decency to put the subject's own words on their bio page above what others say about him, as long we are talking about subjective aspects like political views). It is complete fair that later, one can note that despite his claim he does not associate with white supremacy, that the mainstream media consider him to be aligned with those views (which is necessary to establish his notability), but that is later after going through an unbiased account of who he is. Even if what makes a person notable are negative aspects and subjective views that cast the person in a negative light, documenting what makes that person notable doesn't have to lead off the lede, as that affects the overall tone of the article - it needs to be in the lede at some point, but after neutrally establishing who that person is as to stay neutral and within BLP. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're applying "non-partisan" incorrectly. That is, the sampling of RSes should be non-partisan. Not that what the RSes say should be non-partisan (they're allowed to say whatever they like!). And this concept that 'BLP emphasizes what the subject says' is precisely why I am worried. Things like WP:BLPSELFPUB tends to cut against the grain of that, to my mind. We certainly have to be very careful about BLP. But where a claim is strongly sourced (even if partisan), then it should be included and given due weight no matter what the article subject says--especially when said claim is a prime cause for the subject's notability. Self-definition is a wonderful thing, but as far as I can see, it shouldn't override Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discounting due weight. In the body of the article, there's presently a "Views" section, and here's the right place to drop the majority opinion that his views are considered racist and align with white supremacy. And mentioning this as secondary aspects in the lede thus makes sense to accurately summarize the article. But to start off an article with claims not made by himself as a living person that assigns a contentious label to him is not appropriate per BLP or NPOV. It establishes a tone that the article topic should be considered in the negative in WP's voice because it leads off with that. (Also it doesn't appear his claims are SELFPUB, they are statements made to reliable sources.) --MASEM (t) 16:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, to avoid this going into BLP policy too much, I opened up a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jared Taylor. I will say this that continued attempts by Zaostao after this case opened with the above concerns is edging on disruption, and there might need to be a re-review of the actions there. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, that strikes me as the right move. That way I can prattle on somewhere it is marginally more relevant! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And another revert . He's not stopping. This "Decline" really needs to be reviewed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Comment Not a WP:3RR violation but Torah28's lack of communication is not good. Waiting for their response. NeilN 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• Warned Torah28 has been editing but hasn't responded. I'm going to close this edit warring report and have warned Torah28, indicating further undiscussed changes to the lead will probably result in a block. --NeilN 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) NeilN 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "We often count the initial introduction of the text as a 'revert'." No we don't. We count that as a "Bold edit". We sometimes count an initial removal of text as a revert, which may be what you're thinking of. Whatever other problems the user is having, diff 5 is not a revert as far as I can tell. ~Awilley (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

This is not a revert?

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

But this is not a revert?

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

But again, this is not a revert?

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

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

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

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

• Please note that this seems to have bled over into ANI some, where I'm monitoring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: And the editor's talk page! _Muffled 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:175.141.71.139 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked 31 hours, protected 1 week)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) Dollah Salleh, Khairul Fahmi Che Mat, Malaysia national football team, Ong Kim Swee Page protected 1 week Linguist 111 Moi. 07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

This is BYOD Xicano.

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

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

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

Since BYOD Xicano has chosen to engage in discussion on the article talk page I think no further action need be taken on this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Smallbones (Result: No action)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

• and following

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously? Fish for both of you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. I see no reason to accept intimidation from a user who has been blocked for similar problems during the last year. If he wants to play out the string of reverts, he needs to learn how to count first. If he wants to warn me for edit warring, he should make sure that he hasn't reverted me more than I've reverted him. If he wants to cite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, he needs to read them first. If he wants to tell me that I can report him here but that I'll be blocked too, then let him accept his block for 4RR. I just am not willing to accept this type of intimidation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Things seem stable now so I'm closing this with no action. Jytdog should not have edit warred, but neither should have Smallbones. The fact that you made 3 reverts while Jytdog made 4 hardly makes his actions much worse than your own, and stinks of gaming the system. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Blocked – 48 hours. User:Tiny Dancer 48 seems to be here on a mission. Diffs 2-9 show them always restoring the word 'ancestry' or 'biological' to the lead of the article. If they need to keep making all these reverts it suggests they don't have consensus. If this continues, the next step could be a topic ban under WP:ARBR&I. A summary of the findings of that arbitration case is at the head of Talk:Race (human categorization). EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:69.138.49.229 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Semi)

Page

Christmas in Tahoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on California 37 (album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3 ip users have been making the same edits on different Train-related pages (and only pages related to the band Train). I have reverted. Binksternet has reverted and warned. I later warned. Kellymoat (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Multiple IPs are reverting, all from Tennessee. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:98.224.25.240 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Nirvana (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738264515 by Muboshgu (talk) i provided a video of Kurt Cobain himself saying he wanted Pat in as a full member, yet apparently that isn't good enough. This is ridiculous."
2. 22:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738263053 by Mlpearc (talk) http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march-1994.php http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march25-1994.php"
3. 22:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738262332 by Muboshgu (talk) http://www.nirvanaclub.com/get.php?section=info/nfcinterviews&file=pat_smear.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJtm9HomKdE&feature=youtu.be&t=34m25s"
4. 22:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738260933 by Muboshgu (talk) Provide any source that says he wasn't and I'll agree with you."
5. 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Readded Pat Smear, he was a full member. Quit changing it, you add nothing to the history of this group by leaving out an important person regarding the band."
6. 21:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 738252687 by Mlpearc (talk)"
7. 20:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Pat was a full member. Plenty of sources including Kurt Cobain himself verify that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nirvana (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Pat Smear as a full member. */"
2. 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Pat Smear as a full member. */"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN 23:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Llcoolj89 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

Page

IPhone 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Llcoolj89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC) "Finally, done with the re-organizing, editing and removing of unsolicited citation links. I'll be watching over this one."
2. 06:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC) "Trying to re-organize it again"
3. 06:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC) "Someone tried to re-edit this page after I have organized and edit it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC) "General note: Ownership of articles. (TW)"
2. 07:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on iPhone 7. (TW)"

Summaries and responses imply ownership. ViperSnake151  Talk  07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Vanden12elve reported by User:Yoshiman6464 (Result: )

Page: Denuvo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vanden12elve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Denuvo&oldid=prev&diff=737560945
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Denuvo&diff=738342962&oldid=738341639
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Denuvo&diff=738351451&oldid=738351121
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Denuvo&diff=738352715&oldid=738352582

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:66.38.71.69 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result: )

Page: Adam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.38.71.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: , , &

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The IP was removing sourced content. Finally after the 3rd warning, the IP messages me the reason why for the removal of the sourced content. I responded back telling the IP to take this matter to the article's talk page to resolve this, instead, the IP reverted twice and moved on editing to another article. Though the IP only did 3 reverts, I feel that he/she will not actually discuss and is just going to revert again if I revert back. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:‎WikiEditor668 reported by User:AlexanderLevian (Result: )

Page: {{Democratic Party (United States)}}
User being reported: ‎WikiEditor668 (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:
The user repeatedly removes Debbie Wasserman Schultz from being mentioned as a member of the New Democrat Coalition in spite of the source . He began a discussion on my talk page but hasn't addressed my points. He continuously removes the sourced material without explanation. I'm no longer reverting until I can find some consensus and/or resolution from other editors. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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