Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 31 July 2015

• 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:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: High society (social class) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff full rv
2. diff full rv
3. diff full rv
4. diff removal of added tags
5. diff full rv

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
continued after the 3RR notice Staszek Lem (talk)

accompanied with personal attacks Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined Close but BMK has raised the topic on the talk page. Perhaps it would be better to take the discussion there? --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• • STRONGLY DISAGREED Please reopen. BMK did not raise the topic in the talk page, I did. He shrugged it off and continued edit warring. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain your reasons. the editor is clearly disruptive and uncooperative for a protracted period. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: the filer is asking for further explanation, presumably wondering why you think it's "close" when it's an obvious 3RR violation, why you're telling them to go to the talk page when they're the one who has initiated discussion there, why you're suggesting BMK has "raised discussion" when it's clear they did not do so, and perhaps why an admin who has only visited this page twice in the past year would jump in on this report to quickly decline it, ignoring 4 older, open reports, without so much as passing warning to BMK for the blatant 3RR vio or the obvious personal attacks? This seems to be a reasonable request that I'm inclined to second. I like BMK too and I'm honestly not one to have a problem with other admins over giving some discretionary leeway (read: special treatment) to respected "power users" (read: vested contributors), but there's some obviously inappropriate behavior here that you have flagrantly chosen to ignore completely, without giving any reasonable explanation to the long-term editor in good standing who filed a perfectly legitimate report. Swarm 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Notice to @RegentsPark and Beyond My Ken: BMK has proceeded to make what appears to be either a thinly-veiled personal attack or an intentionally vague attempt at provocation or intimidation (still a vio of NPA). This is almost immediately after being completely pardoned for violating 3RR and making personal attacks. I will block BMK upon any further harassment of this editor or any further edit warring over this article. RP clearly chose to turn a blind eye to this incident but don't push it, BMK. Swarm 23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, the reverts are not clear violations (at least one spans more than one edit) and BMK had opened a talk page discussion to which Staszek had not responded. The diff you post is definitely concerning. Let me take a look. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's plain ridiculous. The numerous reverts are clear violations. A revert is a revert is a revert regardless how many my edits it spans. And now BMK is triumphantly frolicking in my user talk page. I have a sad feeling that I have to request a formal review of your actions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous things to consider Stanzek Lem. BMK is on the correct side of BRD. You boldly made an edit. They reverted.. You reverted. They initiated a talk page discussion to which you should have responded before posting your request here. I agree it is much easier to request a block than it is to discuss things but the encyclopedia always benefits more from discussion than it does from block requests. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And you have to consider one thing: you got it all wrong. Check the timing and check what was happening. At first I tried to cooperate and every time I did a different edit. And EVERY FREAKING TIME it was reverted. Your reading of BRD is "Strike Two" for your qualifications of an admin. Where have you seen a guideline to trump a policy? Just admit your wrong and stop digging the pit for yourself. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - This is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it? I won't go into the civility of the two editors, but I saw this and took a look at the article's history and was intrigued. First, the way I see this, is that this isn't about a single issue, but goes back and forth regarding 4 separate issues: #1 - "see also" stuff; #2 - "tags" at top of article; #3 - "trimming" article; and #4 - "LA Times" reference.

Regarding #1, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1
• SL #2

Regarding #2, you have the following reverts:

• BMK #1
• SL #1
• BMK #2 - It was at this point that BMK requested a discussion on talk page about the tags.
• SL #2 - without bringing it to the talk page
• BMK #3 - This would appear to be a 3RR violation.

Regarding #3, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1 - BMK then tags the article with a major edit tag, and begins to edit the article, including providing sources.

Regarding #4, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1 - It is at this point when SL opens a discussion on the talk page
• SL #2

Finally, you have this edit, where a cn tag to was added to what appears to be an already referenced paragraph by SL.

While I don't take a position on the disagreement between the two editors, the violation of the 3RR seems to have been corrected by the later addition of references by that editor. Overall, you have one editor making 7 reverts (total), and the other editor making 5 reverts (total). Anyway, it was very convoluted, so I thought it might help to have an uninvolved editor simply summarize the chronology. Onel5969 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How, many, more, times does BMK get brought here about edit warring and incivility? This makes (at least) five times in three months. User:The ed17 has asked him to stop edit warring. User:slakr said that "this isn't going to fly in the future". RegentsPark - do you have any further thoughts on this? Lugnuts 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

:(ping fix: @The ed17: and @Slakr:) Lugnuts 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no comment on BMK's history (which I am aware is checkered). But, I don't see this as a blockable issue. What I saw was a bold edit that was reverted and then not discussed by the reporting editor. That's not a good sign. The first diff posted above includes a revert that BMK did on an edit by the reporting editor that seems to have been done out of pique (). Had they tried to discuss it, that would be different. But asking for a block without participating in a discussion initiated by the other editor is not something that should be encouraged. Much of what I see above is also more combative than is strictly necessary. I see there is a discussion - of sorts :) - in progress on the talk page and that, imo, is a better outcome. The option to block for edit warring (or disruptive editing) doesn't go away when a block request is declined. --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HORSE, but here is my final remark: by ingenuous spitting edits you can prove that any edit history is nothing but a revert war. And it is disingenuous to equate a wholesale revert with attempts of article improvement. I will only comment on the above breakout.

• No. 4 - false interpretation as a "local" revert war:

1-st was normal edit. related to very old piece of code. It is ridiculous to count it as a revert. Suppose I edit article 4 times, each time deleting a WP:PEAKOCK word. Your interpretation will automatically make me a rever warrior.

2-nd single-click revert

3rd was NOT a revert even by your ridiculous judgement.

• No 3 - false interpretation as a revert war

1st edit was a normal edit in response of the opposite part refusal to allow {cn} tags: Some unreferenced text, which was an opinion, not a statement of verifiable fact, were removed, in perfect accordance with policies

2nd edit single-click revert

• No 2 - this is outright ridiculous. I added first two tags. Then I agreed with removal of another one, which I agreed was unnecessary, and may looked as overtagging, and moved my comment in the talk page, per opposite party request, but I saw "refimprove" tag is absolutely necessary. I even did not think that an issue of policy about WP:CITE may be a matter of contention. But when the O.P. removed it again, I felt it became a matter of principle for the O.P. I left this dead horse.
• no 1

1-st: Normal edit

2nd -single-click revert

3nd not a revert even in the stretched imagination: I replaced a random "see also" list of links with an expanded (not removed) content: a link to the category, with a detailed explanation what is found here. Even the O.P. did not object.

As I see it now, I am is but a nuisance for BMK in his noble job of writing wikipedia, since my detailed rants in the talk page are left without comment. So I guess it was just a matter of principle to BMK to enforce his vision of the article, however sloppy it is now. So good bye to you all no more horse flogging, and I am self-imposing an interaction ban with BMK and his buddies, since, as I see nothing but grievance it brings to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Sorry, RegentsPark, but I disagree. This particular incident was minor, but it comes as a much longer series of edit wars and a March 2015 block. 48 hours. Ed  18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Ed17, I have no objection to being second guessed (by you) but. if you note that this is a minor incident and that you're blocking BMK because of a pattern, then you should be blocking them for disruptive editing and not edit warring. Not only is this way overkill but it also rewards the other editor for calling for a block rather than joining the discussion. But no worries. Let's all just move on. --regentspark (comment) 20:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Please stop repeating blatant lies. In response to BMK's remark in edit summary I did start the discussion , explaining my usage of the "copyedit" tag. I did no comment of thecitation tag, because I cuold not imagine that a seasoned editor would object the most basic sikipedia policy, WP:CITE. And then I talked another one, in response to another revert. Look into the freaking talk page who is discussing and who is stonewalling. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about? Edit warring is one particular disruptive editing behavior and this block was specifically for edit warring, within the context of a larger, ongoing problem with edit warring. Not only is it not overkill, but it's pretty lenient for an editor who has multiple blocks for edit warring and totally on-par with what any regular editor would face. And why do you keep saying Staszek is in the wrong for not joining the discussion? As has been stated multiple times, and can be easily confirmed by glancing at the talk page, Staszek is the one who initiated the discussion and while BMK did participate in it, his participation included personal attacks. And, also, regarding the statement that BMK was on the "right side of BRD", that's utterly ridiculous in excusing an obvious 3RR vio (for the record, I do count 5 non-consecutive reverts), and it also goes against the overarching and universally-accepted principal that there is no "right side" in an edit war and thus being on the "right side" of anything does not excuse edit warring, with only pre-approved reasons being exempted. With nothing but respect, I would suggest that either you did not handle this report from an objective, policy-based perspective, or you simply need to brush up on edit warring policy if you're going to handle requests here. I don't say this because you used your discretion to decline to block, but because you declined to take any action whatsoever, your reasoning was out of line with both the reality of the situation, with policy, and with the common enforcement practices, you refer to this report as a misguided "block request" multiple times when it's a perfectly-valid edit war report that makes no request for a block, and you apparently didn't even investigate the situation because you're making claims that simply aren't true. Swarm 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:74.14.132.144 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24h)

Page

Poutine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) ""A long standing consensus"? of english people? What about to give credits to Québécois like the french wiki does? Stop the neocolonialism bullshit."
2. 01:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "First nation traditions are Canadian? Québec traditions are Canadian? Acadian traditions are Canadian? If you don't know what a culture is, at least, have some respect and don't make it yours."
3. 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "Poutine = Quebec dish now popular in Canada. Stop the cultural appropriation. Good to know that poutine is popular outside Quebec but Quebec gets the credits one that... like Texan cuisine or Louisiana get theirs. BTW Québec is a nation (2006 motion)."
4. 19:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Note that Bearcat made a comment there yesterday, after this edit warrior started up and was asked to come to the talk page, though it is an older thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Now attempting to engage on the IP users talk page, no luck yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Refuses to interact on talk page, edit warred after warning issued. There is an old discussion on the talk page that was added to yesterday after the warning was given, no dice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockypedia reported by User:Eclipsoid (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ the "applause" break isn't part of the quote; other than that, this is fine"
2. 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ reverting some pretty clear white-washing - they didn't dump Trump because he "made comments", they dumped him for these specific comments"
3. 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, over 40 words gets blockquoted"
4. 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "sorry, that quote is the direct reason, and cited as such, for the pageants being dropped from NBC and Univision. Revert again and it's going to an admin."
5. 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "revert edits by ThomasPaine1776 that are clearly intended to remove negative material and then bury those edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexican immigrants comments */ cmt"

Comments:

My edits are attempts to restore sourced material that was clearly notable; two users (Thomas Paine1776 and Eclipsoid) have been consistently removing any material from the Trump page that could be construed as negative or critical of the subject, the material was there long before I restored it; I regard this as white-washing. Thomas Paine1776 has already been topic-banned from the Trump page. Also possibility of sock-puppetry there between the two, see User:Eclipsoid for this. My interest in the page is to prevent whitewashing, nothing more. Rockypedia (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please also note the personal attack here: Eclipsoid (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought my note to you was quite civil, actually, considering that you posted an ominous-looking "edit-warring" notice on my talk page without signing it. You've never forgotten to sign any of your other posts with four ~'s, was it coincidence that a "warning" was designed to look like it wasn't from you on my talk page? Regardless, I'm still trying to keep it civil, and I don't appreciate you attempting to frame my comments here as a "personal attack", when it clearly wasn't. Rockypedia (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have funny ideas about civility. In your first contact with me, you accused me of trying to intimidate you; accused me of impersonating an admin; accused me of white-washing a biography; accused me of being a sockpuppet... then you pointedly told me to stop editing the article altogether. I'm not sure how any of this was supposed to be helpful. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, none of those things are true. Let's take it one-by-one: (1) Your posting of a warning without signing it could certainly be seen as an attempt to intimidate. If that was an honest mistake, fine, but you didn't forget to sign anything else that you've posted. (2) see #1. (3) Your whitewashing of the Trump bio isn't an accusation, it's a fact, easily discovered by anyone that looks at your edit history. (4) I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet; I mentioned that it's a possibility, given the similarity of tone and editing done by you and Thomas Paine1776. Others will make that call. (5) I never told you to stop editing the article; I said that I'd rather see NPOV edits than the whitewashing that's currently going on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Warned: Both of you are reminded that this article falls within the discretionary sanctions on American politics articles. The required alert has been posted to your talk pages.

@Rockypedia: If I count your reverts by strictly following the letter of 3RR, you have in fact broken that rule on Donald Trump. Even without considering this a 3RR violation, it is borderline edit warring. Furthermore, accusing someone of whitewashing, of admin impersonation, and of sockpuppetry, is an egregious breach of AGF. Given that you are not editing disruptively otherwise, I do not see a need to block you (especially since the 3RR violation is nitpicking somewhat). However, since this topic area is subject to sanctions to prevent widespread conflict, I urge you to remember to assume good faith in your actions with other editors, and to limit your reverts in this topic area to those absolutely necessary (perhaps even consider limiting yourself to only reverts that are 3RR exceptions). Further edit warring or failure to interact positively with other editors may result in a block or a page/topic ban. —Darkwind (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Mabelina has edit-warred in the past on this article and has been blocked for it before. Talk:David_Cameron#Problems contains some specific background. An admin gave Mabelina a 'last chance' on 21 July regarding his edits on this article, and specifically warned that Mabelina that Twitter was an unacceptable source . Although Mabelina hasn't gone over three reverts this is outright edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dear all, I have no wish to engage in Edit War (qv. User talk:Mabelina & User talk:This is Paul prior to this posting, and also at User talk:Anglicanus - I have no wish to drag anyone else into such any debate on Wiki matters, hence my earlier appeal for consensus on my Talk Page. I have now also posted messages on the David Cameron Talk Page and that of Brianann MacAmhlaidh in the hope of receiving an explanation as to the continued reversions of my edits (which I maintain are factual - and can prove accordingly - as opposed to Brianann's continuous unexplained and reactionary reversions. My view is simply that should Wiki wish to remain a reliable resource then it should be able to rely on authoritative sources. M Mabelina (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What I should like to know is how in the future to avert such constant reversions (without explanation) followed by the assertion that I am causing Edit War? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks – Continuation of the edit warring about noble ancestry of famous people that led to your last two blocks. You have managed to smuggle in your alleged coat of arms for David Cameron by putting it into linking to List of coats of arms of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom and then linking to it from Cameron's article, a page where another editor had previously added the contested coat of arms. You continue to lack consensus for the assertion that this is his real coat of arms. You were blocked for a month back in April. I think the next block should be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC

Fixed up my closure. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:91.9.122.67 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.9.122.67 (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:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This is Tobias Conradi, I've protected the page for a bit too. Let's see where the SPI takes us. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cynocyno reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result: Declined)

Page

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "His Original pic updated"
2. 12:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Recent Pic of Kalam"
3. 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673625363 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"
4. 13:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Uploaded better pic"
5. 13:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Recent Pic"
6. 13:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673633430 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Copyrights */ new section"
2. 13:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on A. P. J. Abdul Kalam‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been uploading webgrab images to commons and linking here, was told not to do it on his talk page, also been warned not to edit war, and has done two reverts since. —SpacemanSpiff 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The images have all been deleted from Commons and the edit warring for that purpose has stopped here, so unless new issues come up, I think this can be closed with no action.—SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not blocked per your request, but don't hesitate to reopen or re-report if necessary! Swarm 23:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Clinicallytested reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page

Talk:Electronic harassment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673653045 by SPECIFICO (talk) that's not a good reason - you need to put things in context on the talk page - I see bad faith"
2. 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673646199 by LuckyLouie (talk) then you should reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE"
3. 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673637942 by Dbrodbeck (talk) harassment is punishable by law - the prominent view of WP:RS is unalignment thus why it's part of the Crime project (since 2010 by the way)"
4. 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673616699 by Kolbasz (talk) the WP:RS revolve around a purpoted crime - did you read at least the first sentence of the page? - quit this ridiculous POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Crime project tag */ new section"

Comments:

User has edit warred at this topic before. Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on[REDACTED] yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". I suggested in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment as per its definition, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010) and has never been part of the Psychology project. You guys have been tagteaming in order to elude the three-revert rule which means you're WP:GAMING, and are continously pushing an unverified point of view, and all these mean you are being disruptive which is such a no-no. Kindly avoid loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia. Clinicallytested (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war (which I thought you would have learned by now ], and, take your content dispute elsewhere. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Clinicallytested is at 5RR now and no sign of stopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months by User:Kuru. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was pulled away right when I blocked. Obvious reverts, increased the length over the previous edit warring blocks. As this is now a long term recurring theme, I presume the next block will likely be of an undefined length. Kuru (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Declined)

Page: Crop circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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: Talk:Crop_circle#Recent_edits

Comments:

• This editor has a very long block history including many for edit warring. They know better than this, and aren't too likely to stop. Dream Focus 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• This user was unblocked per a community consensus in August 2013. With the exception of one 1.5 hour block that occurred over a year ago, jps not been blocked since then.
• A corresponding discussion is taking place on the talk page, which I have reviewed.
• jps has brought this dispute to the appropriate noticeboard. This is a correct attempt at dispute resolution and not remotely "canvassing".
• Per WP:LEDE, the lead section of the article should clearly summarize the content found in the body, and while it does not need to be sourced itself, its statements do need to be factual and supported by reliable sources in the article.
• The corresponding sections of the article appear to be well-sourced and verifiable.
• The edits being made by jps are appropriately reflected by and sourced in the article.
• The other claim being made is essentially "not all crop circles are proven to be made by humans". While this is an understandable claim to make and it may be true (I want to believe), a convincing, verifiable case to support that argument has simply not been made. The content of the article itself already establishes the case for non-human explanations for crop circles being unsupported and fringe. Therefore, accepting the argument that there are credible, non-fringe alternative theories, or that it remains a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon, would bring the entire standing premise of the article into question. It would require significant reliable sources and a rework of the body of the article, which is quite clear in opposing the premise of those arguing against the inclusion of "crop circles are man-made" in the lede entirely (although the wording could be modified).
• jps has violated 3RR. He is strongly advised not to violate it further as there are no applicable exemptions. However, given the context that his edits are clearly supported by reliable sources along with the manual of style, and that the opposing points of view are relying on unsubstantiated claims and fringe theories (despite these theories being popular and capturing the public's imagination), a block here would be nothing short of unjust bureaucracy. Edit war aside, he's clearly acting in line with policy here whereas the other parties are not. Declined. Swarm 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  So he can violate the edit warring rules if you agree with what he is saying? Reliable sources cover various natural explanations for some crop circles, they not all done by humans. Crop_circle#Alternate_explanations Dream Focus 01:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: Nonsense. It's not that I agree with what he's saying, it's that I have observed, in my capacity as an impartial administrator intervening in this dispute, that his edits are supported by community consensus as written in the MoS and policy, as I've explained above, as opposed to your attempted removal of his content based solely on unsubstantiated claims and fringe theories. Therefore I've chosen to warn rather than block him. Nowhere do I say he can violate edit warring rules, in fact I stated the complete opposite. However saying the same thing over and over again does not change the fact that you've provided no evidence to dispute the position posed by the article and the reliable sources found therein that "alternative explanations" are mostly unsubstantiated and that the general consensus is that crop circles are man-made. The fact that reliable sources cover alternative theories does not change this fact in any way whatsoever and you're not allowed to twist the facts however you want. All appearances indicate that you were opposed to the content due to a personal opinion that some crop circles might not be man-made rather than reliable sources, and that's perfectly fine, but when you're inserting that opinion into the lead section of the article when the body itself disagrees, that's nothing short of disruptive. Swarm 04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:XenoRasta reported by User:Keri (Result: 24h)

Page

Subway (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673712571 by Keri (talk)Are we here to post information or to protect Subway's bottom line?"
2. 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Advertising */"
3. 05:25, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
4. 22:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Subway (restaurant). (TW)"
2. 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ advice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ notnews"
2. 00:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ typo"
3. 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ re"

Comments:

Slow warring by XenoRasta to insert edit against/without consensus. Suspected continuation of edit war using 104.156.228.185. Behavior clearly indicates that XenoRasta intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Account and IP Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:210.186.250.45 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Windows RT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673639362 by Comp.arch (talk)"
2. 14:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673447932 by Comp.arch (talk)"
3. 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Even though Windows RT cannot be upgraded to Windows 10 Mobile, it is still the de facto successor of Windows RT"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Windows RT. (TW)"
2. 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After third edit, similar edit came from a different IP that I presume is connected. Source and statement failed verification. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. —Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Burridheut reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )

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

Comments:

A continuation of an archived ANI-thread. Diff 1 and Diff 2 of recent disruptive editing/edit-warring on Spiro Koleka. Burridheut (talk · contribs)'s edit comments include (Irrelevant, controversial and totally provocative comment. Propaganda will be removed from this article. Greece can be advertised on CNN (for tourism maybe), not here. Last warning to the vandals polluting this article!). User warned several times. Only contribution is to this article.--Zoupan 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a thread about me 10 minutes after I create one for you (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Spiro_Koleka#Edit_warring_and_propaganda_editors.2Fvandals) is a bit confusing for me! Could you not wait a bit? What is the hurry? You are undoing my edits again. Are you not aware of the rules here? You seem to be a seasoned user. Burridheut (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Administrators should exercise caution here regarding Burridheut and see the talk page in full, as the issue was still under discussion and editors (separate to Burridheut) have taken it upon themselves (who are pushing a view) to change or redo the article as they see fit.Resnjari (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DePiep reported by User:Alakzi (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Template:Infobox gridiron football person (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673859182 by Alakzi (talk) stop making idle edits."
2. 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673694457 by Alakzi (talk) rv vapour edit again (the editor knowing its idleness)."
3. 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673666894 by Alakzi (talk) ... nor idle edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

The editor has been here long enough to know about edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Infobox gridiron football person revert */ new section"

Comments:

DePiep reverts a minor improvement to a template repeatedly. The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities. Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

reply

Alakzi mentions multiple reverts (of idle edits). Quite simply, that could only be multiple because Alakzi re-did his multiple idle edit multiple times. (EOT) -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (Repharsed for clarity. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

The disposal of a superfluous escape character and underscore does not constitute an "idle edit" - no matter how you spin it. I don't know if it's because you can't stand being corrected, but this behaviour is both discourteous and counterproductive. And a time drain. Alakzi (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

a time drain, yes. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please find ways to waste your time that don't involve me. Alakzi (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This seems to stem from whether superfluous code in a template should stay or not. However, by the looks of this discussion initiated by Alakzi, DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay. The edit is likely a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but DePiep's block log has numerous items that are disruptive, and this behavior can only drive away productive editors.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Could this be reviewed please. The history of Template:Infobox gridiron football person shows that Alakzi's first edit was 13 July 2015 and DePiep's was 15 July 2015. There were no clashes. Then things went wrong:

• 17:44, 29 July 2015 DePiep added a maintenance category with a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary
• 17:55, 29 July 2015 Alakzi removed some of DePiep's edit
• 18:17, 29 July 2015 DePiep restored it
• 21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
• 23:49, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated
• 23:55, 30 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
• 23:57, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated

Then the mattter was brought here with the result that one side was blocked. DePiep did not discuss the matter in an ideal manner, but neither did Alakzi. Instead of raising the issue on the template talk (in the section pointed to by DePiep's edit summary), Alakzi posted at DePiep's talk: (18:20, 29 July 2015) with "Why would you revert this?". Posting on an editor's talk is what is done with vandals or disruptive editors—Alakzi did not offer a reason for why their edit was desirable. DePiep's response (18:25, 29 July 2015) of "As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial." was not particularly illuminating, but it was more helpful than Alakzi's comment. Both Alakzi and DePiep perform valuable work and both should be reminded that being right is insufficient in a collaborative encyclopedia, and in particular, edit warring at a template will result in blocks for both sides. The above comment refers to defiance, but I don't see one side being any less defiant than the other. Recently, a dispute over accessibility and colors was discussed at ANI on 24 July 2015 with the result that Alakzi's AWB access was removed and Alakzi was blocked. Both sides need cold water and my suggestion would be that DePiep be unblocked with a message to each that disagreements must be discussed on template talk pages. DePiep's edit at the infobox could be justified by saying that the template should not rely on Module:String's default setting for plain, but neither Alakzi's nor DePiep's version is obviously "correct"—the only objectively defensible wikitext would be |pattern=<small|plain=true. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for your concern. I agree that there are at least two contributors to every edit war, and it can always be argued that even if someone is "right", following WP:DR could often diffuse the situation before it escalates to AN3. But that did not happen, and here we are. My preference is always to assume that warnings can be teaching moments, and let otherwise productive editors such as DePiep and Alakzi move on to more valuable edits without the need for a timeout. Based on DePiep's block log, I did not think a warning alone would be effective. The other option is WP:BOOMERANG, and to block Alakzi as well. However, I decided against that based on their initiating a discussion. I am not aware of a guideline on when to post on user talk vs other talk pages, so that did not weight into my decision. The template talk page can get others involved per DR, but then one has to worry about the other party watching the page, looking at their notification, or having to place a user talk page notice directing them to the template talk page. We can debate that using the template talk page might have been more productive, but I don't think it was avoided for any malicious intent. Ultimately, I chose to address DePiep's longer-term trend of being WP:DISRUPTIVE. I have no doubt that they have performed valuable work, and will continue to do so after this, but we all need to be accountable for our behavior too. As always, any blocked editor can follow WP:GAB and personally request an unblock. Even without a formal unblock request, admins are typically free to reverse my and other admins actions. Hope that explains my decision.—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Based on the diff lists provided above, I'm wondering who first violated 3RR? Does Alakzi get a pass because his first revert was only a partial revert? Note that 3RR says "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—" (emphasis added). I think it is an open question as to who was most disruptive (least constructive?) here. Both editors seem to take the 'my way or the highway' attitude. YBG (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@YBG: Technically, neither of them violated 3RR, which looks for "more than three reverts on a single page ..." At any rate, the block was for a pattern of disruptive editing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirement that disagreements are discussed on the template talk page, specifically. As this was no issue with the template, but with the behaviour of the editor, I approached the editor directly. Though pattern matching is not required, and |plain=true would've been preferable, < is not a special character and does not need to be escaped. There's also nothing stopping anyone from improving on my edit; unlike DePiep, I'm not going to take it personally. The rest of your message is holier-than-thou nonsense that I need not waste any time on deconstructing. Alakzi (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave Souza reported by User:SuueDee (Result: No violation)

Page: Correspondence of Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dave Souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

repeated extraction of important and verifiably correct information about Patrick Matthew "author of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", however PM's name has at last been allowed on to this page. I have been threatened with blocking which I consider to be outrageous. Dave Souza, you are seriously overstepping your authority and I object to your being given the title of Administrator/Editor.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I am appalled at this treatment when supplying correct and verifiable information that Dave Souza does not agree with. He is a bully and overstepping his authority and knowledge bank.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have serious doubts about the integrity of Dave Souza and now FunkMonk (20/07) who has also extracted this vital information. I will listen to a reasonable argument for why this information about PM's book cannot be on this page at this location, what rule does it contravene. These two Dave Souza and FunkMonk are putting the whole of Misplaced Pages at risk of blind editing with intent to subvert or distort the edits of others. Misplaced Pages's reputation is at stake.

OPTIONAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SuueDee - your comments are objectionable. The link is valid and the red ink is also valid as Patrick Matthew's book is of extreme importance to the issue currently being discussed on his page and to which you extract nouns, adjectives and change verbs to alter the significance of what is being said. Stop it!

• (Non-administrator comment) - There are several issues with SuueDee's actions. First, they are attempting to add something to the article which doesn't belong, and creates a formatting error. Second, they are the ones who are in violation of the 3RR rule, since the other editors are simply trying to correct SuueDee's error. Third, the other editors should have explained it on the talk page, since SuueDee is clearly clueless as to why she keeps getting reverted. Fourth, SuueDee did not notificy Dave Souza about this report, as they are required to do. (I'll take care of that in a moment). SuueDee should look to the talk page for an explanation, which I will shortly put there. I suggest a speedy close to this. Onel5969 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• No violation SuueDee It would be a good idea to read the advice given to you. NeilN 20:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result:blocked)

Page: List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The kyle 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The kyle 3 is engaged in a pattern of unilateral deletion of sourced text without seeking consensus on an incredibly divisive and tragic subject. He displays contempt for the process and for fellow editors and is pushing a blatant POV campaign. He was blocked on 27 July 2015 for this kind of behavior. He has been notified on his talk page of this notice.

• 1)
• 2)
• 3)
• 4)
• 5)

Quis separabit? 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cry your crocodile tears somewhere else, Mr.ITIC. It's not "pushing a blatant POV campaign" to note the fact of the propagandistic nature and wholly subjective claims of such a group, which exists to blame Palestinians for their own deaths at the hands of the IDF, and exonerate the IDF no matter what it does. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 blocked for a week for disruptive editing, since the previous block was for 48h recently, and they consistently continue to demonstrate battleground behavior. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is not blocked, but it is unfortunately that they did not engage in the talk page discussion, even if the discussion was started less than constructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I advised The kyle 3 to seek consensus on the talk page before unilaterally deleting sourced text. He deleted the text and began a cursory, post-facto rant on the talk page. Quis separabit? 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Rivers