Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 15 January 2016

• 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:Tenebrae reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Closed as stale)

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

• All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:40, 4 January 2016 "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited."
2. 02:08, 4 January 2016 "You can't just say that. You have to WP:CITE it. If you can't be bothered to properly footnote, you shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages."
3. 14:57, 4 January 2016 "per Template:Infobox television: "Reliable source required""
4. 15:41, 4 January 2016 "Don't threaten me on my talk page. You're violating the outcome of the RfC, and I quoted directly from what the ADMIN directed be put into the template. I'll ask that same admin to speak with you"

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, 4 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on:

1. article talk page: 15:53, 4 January 2016
2. my talk page: 15:48, 4 January 2016

Comments:
In March 2015 Tenebrae opened an RfC at WT:TV about runtimes (archived here). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by Tenebrae in the RfC question, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for {{Infobox television}}, so that it supported his position. Recently Tenebrae has been removing runtimes from multiple articles, edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes. At New Girl he reverted an IP who had changed the runtime from "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", by removing the content entirely. After he did this a second time I reverted him as he has been misrepresenting the RfC outcome. (see below for further comment) He reverted that, after which I left a 3RR warning on his talk page. He then made his 4th revert at New Girl 4 minutes later, and only then did he start to discuss. Regarding the RfC, Tenebrae's question was essentially "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves". The RfC close was This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. In a subsequent post as the result of questions, the RfC closer wrote The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time Unfortunately, Tenebrae refuses to accept this and insists that the outcome of the RfC was that citations are needed in the infobox in all cases. However, this is tangential to this report, which provides evidence that Tenebrae has reverted 4 times in 14 hours at New Girl, despite a warning, and that he has therefore violated WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As we know, 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of vandalism. Not abiding by an RfC is vandalism and deliberately inserting uncited OR in defiance of it is vandalism.

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

User:AussieLegend advocates for putting uncited running times and having us take his word for it. That's against Misplaced Pages policy, and between that and defying the RfC, he is committing vandalism.

He also deliberately misrepresents me. I never said running time has to be cited in the infobox; only that it has to be cited. I even stated this at Talk:New Girl here!: "Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox." So I have to question an editor who would deliberately tell an untruth that way.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that he himself has made the very edit I was requesting, giving a cite at . So he could have done this at any time, solving the issue between us — but instead chose to bait me? I think WP:BOOMERANG might be considered here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've already indicated on Tenebrae's talk page, per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Boldly editing, Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The RfC did not close with a consensus and RfCs are not binding. There is nothing in any of the multiple reversions of Tenebrae's edits by 3 different editors that identify them as vandalism. Therefore, Tenebrae can't claim to be reverting vandalism.

he himself has made the very edit I was requesting - I was too busy dealing with your edit-warring at multiple articles. As I indicated to you on my talk page, you could have just challenged the content with {{citation needed}} and left it at that, which would have simplified the situation. There was no need to edit war after I warned you.

I don't intend commenting further, except to note the incivility here when he berated the IP for not including a citation. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that "RfCs are not binding" seems an argument of truly last resort. The RfC ended with the consensus that you can't just guesstimate running time and have us take your word for it — as the closing admin said, the entire question was moot since we can't have original research, which you were advocating. The admin made very clear, in his own words, that "a reliable third party source is required." Choosing to deliberately ignore this cornerstone policy after being reminded of it isn't "bold" — editing against a cornerstone policy isn't "bold". It's the definition of vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And I am truly getting tired of User:AussieLegend's half-truths and misstatements. As for his claim of incivility, he notably fails to point out that the edit-summary came after this polite first one which the edit-warring anon-IP chose to ignore.

One additional note: He hypocritically doesn't seem to care, or to note here, when his friend is uncivil toward me. AussieLegend was involved in the discussion where user:Davey2010 said, "you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy" — in violation, I might add, of the dictum that the burden of citation falls on the editor who adds claims to an article. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just one observation - Me and AL have very rarely contributed together - Infact I can't remember the last time we even spoke so you can drop that card for a start! - I simply saw the runtime removal and disagreed with it, I stand 100% by that comment - AL never added the runtimes in the first place so you should've added a source instead of being lazy which could've prevented all of this mess!, All that aside you did edit war repeatedly, After AL reverted you you should've stopped and had a discussion but you instead edit warred repeatedly and I guarantee had I not reverted you would've carried on anyway .... –Davey2010 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In this seemingly never-ending array of picking and choosing which Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines some editors choose to follow, I must point out — for the third time, since this is one User talk:Davey2010 chooses to ignore — that WP:BURDEN says (boldface from the page itself): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So who is the "lazy" one, sir? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And incidentally, I was the one who did start a talk-page discussion, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Which you did only after you'd violated 3RR, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was never any outcome from the RfC that said runtimes must be cited. You said that yourself when you said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. The concern here is that Tenebrae is arbitrarily removing runtimes, sometimes even removing the entire parameter, without even giving editors the incentive to provide a citation by adding {{citation needed}}. More relevant to this discussion is that he has demonstrated that he is willing to edit-war instead of collaborating with other editors to provide an outcome that actually improves the encyclopaedia. You even suggested I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. Tenebrae never even did that, which would have solved the problem once and for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not an outcome from the RfC, that's canonical policy. WP:V. Runtimes, like everything else, must be verifiable by reference to reliable independent sources. That doesn't prejudge where it's sourced (you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body, referenced back to a source), but you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include challenged material, to justify and source its inclusion. That is absolutely core tot he whole ethos of Misplaced Pages. It's not specific to runtimes. I am not going to explain this again. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, film and television plots aren't usually referenced by anything verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That may very well be true, and if so, the figures should be removed per WP:V. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the plots should be removed? Because if you do, there are a fair few FAs that will need to be delisted... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:V requires that all content be attributable to reliable sources, it doesn't require that everything be cited. As I've explained below, the runtimes don't fall under "likely to be challenged", so there is no normal requirement to cite every one. If Tenebrae adds {{citation needed}} instead of deleting runtimes that encourages editors to add citations and eventually it will encourage them to add citations without prompting. However, it was explained at the RfC and prior to that at at Template talk:Infobox television why TV episode runtimes are difficult to cite. Runtimes can vary significantly throughout the history of a series, so the time in the infobox is only an approximation, usually a close one. Even reliable sources can be confusing on this. For example, this one shows episode lengths of 22 minutes for most episodes, but one is 24 minutes. Season 1 though had several 22 minute episodes and several 21 minute episodes. Other programs, like Top Gear can have episodes that vary in length from around 50-65 minutes. To cite Top Gear properly you'd need 22 citations, one for each series. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged - That's not correct at all. The only person challenging runtimes is Tenebrae. Runtimes don't seem to be challenged by anyone else so they don't fall under "likely to be challenged". Tenebrae's method of dealing with runtimes is counter-productive. He deletes the runtimes instead of challenging them with {{citation needed}} and, from what I've seen, does very little else in TV articles. In a few days, weeks or months somebody comes along, doesn't know the runtime has been deleted and adds it again, putting the article back to where it was before Tenebrae came along.

you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body - I guess you don't edit many TV articles. This is something that is almost never seen in TV articles. Generally, the only mention of runtimes is in the infobox. However, this is all tangential to the issue, which again is that Tenebrae, rather than editing collaboratively, violated 3RR at New Girl after he was warned. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:V:

All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.

It does not say how many people have to be likely to challenge it. You cannot possibly claim that you are unaware it is likely to be challenged. Now stop playing silly buggers and get on with adding properly sourced content. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How is runtime different from plot content? And those FAs also have uncited runtimes... So should we start tagging those? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Guy's argument everything on Misplaced Pages is likely to be challenged and therefore everything should be cited. {{Infobox television}} is used in over 36,500 articles and runtime is only ever challenged by Tenebrae in a handful of articles. On this occasion it was because he was following an IP who was making good faith edits, so he hit more articles than usual. Using a bit of common sense tells you that runtime is unlikely to be challenged. A single editor with an agenda doesn't make it likely. But again, this is supposed to be about Tenebrae's violation of 3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a precedent to be set here. If User:JzG is happy to overlook the 3RR based on a need to provide a verifiable source for the run time of a television episode, yet we have featured articles which don't even do this, and massive sections of FAs which have not one single verifiable secondary source for the plot section, there's a fundamental problem with JzG's "absolute" claim. I would like to see JzG comment back here with regard to the fact that he is clearly unaware that many FAs don't do what he expects, as a minimum, and therefore re-appraise this notice in that context. Or else I'd like to see Tenebrae doing the right thing and start tagging all those issues on all the FAs because, after all, those items appear on the main page from to time, so heaven forbid one does without a run time that is verified by a reliable secondary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, the closing admin of the RfC, isn't ignoring 3RR at all. Once again: 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Deliberately inserting a clearly disallowed, OR edit after being told that it violates both core policy and an RfC closing is both vandalism and pointy disruption.

Some articles don't cite running times? That doesn't set a precedent, as the editors in this discussion surely know and some choose to ignore. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes. I don't believe that is a viable or responsible argument. We can cite runtimes — even User:AussieLegend did so, albeit grudgingly. I don't know why anyone would spend so much time arguing not to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If run times now need a citation, like plots do (if that's what JzG is claiming) then we have a large issue that needs further discussion. It also renders this discussion somewhat moot until it's resolved. I'm not sure I understand why a whole plot section can go without a single citation (presumably because someone has watched the movie and written about it) yet the run time (which is trivial in comparison) suddenly needs a citation. It's utterly illogical and actually shows that some editors are more here to pursue inconsistent and pointed wiki-lawyering, and not to improve Misplaced Pages. Please be advised that if this report closes as JzG seems to wish it closed, we'll need to start addressing all the FAs and GAs that have entirely unreferenced plot sections, and I will be using this discussion as the precedent to do so. So let's get this right. (P.S. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes not just that, one of us is asking why plots can go citation-free and run times, according to you and JzG, can't.... Answer that please). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish the waters weren't being muddied, I hope not deliberately, by this tangential foray into film plots. The pertinent MOS at WP:FILMPLOT cites Misplaced Pages guidelines for writing about fiction and for use of primary sources to state clearly that a movie itself is used as the source for the plot. Alright?

A quantifiable measurement, like running time, is completely different. So let's not suggest that the sky is falling, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No-one is making such a suggestion, I wonder why you start acting so defensively? I am simply examining the claim made by JzG that everything should be verified and of course film plots have no such verifiable secondary sources. Of course, that is more absurd than getting highly strung about a runtime (which, of course, is as easily observable as a film plot). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am prepared to overlook AussieLegend's deliberate violation of WP:V, his wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like, and his transparent attempts to trap Tenebrae into a violation he could report. I'm even prepared - for now to hold off requesting a community sanction forbidding AussieLegend from adding unsourced runtimes. I'm prepared to overlook this because they are both behaving like children, and although blocking them both would be temporarily satisfying I am not convinced that it would be anything other than retaliatory by now. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Agree. But if you close this report, please try to do so in a final way that will keep the same dispute from showing up at other articles. Warning one or both editors that they might be blocked if they continue is one option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This has become absolutely ridiculous. I made no "deliberate violation of WP:V" as claimed by Guy. That's crap. To go back to evidence that I've already presented, because people are seemingly ignoring it:

• Tenebrae started an RfC asking effectively "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves".
• Guy closed the RfC stating Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. This caused confusion so he clarified that in a subsequent post.
• The clarification stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. Nowhere does the close say that citations have to be included. In fact Guy's clarification specifically states that his close only applies to the use of OR.
• The final sentence in the closer's clarification sums up the close well: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. In other words, nothing changed. The requirement to cite runtimes was not added.
• Despite what seems clear wording, Tenebrae was reverting changes by an IP saying in his edit summaries "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited". However, as indicated by Guy's clarification, the RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used, and the template documentation only says what it says because Tenebrae added it to the documentation. Well, actually it doesn't say that any more. The requirement to cite was removed later and the documentation now only says "Reliable source required", which Tenebrae clearly agrees with. Because somebody will no doubt fail to check the edit history I will point out that my edit immediately prior to his was a simple formatting change for consistency, which Tenebrae reverted in his edit.
• It was because of this clear misrepresentation of the stated outcome of the RfC that I reverted Tenebrae, not as a wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like. That claim by Guy is also rubbish. We have had lengthy discussions about this, resulting in this "compromise" series of changes to the documentation: That being the case Guy has no basis on which to claim that my actions were wilful.

I am not sure why I am being targeted by Guy here. I wasn't the only one to revert Tenebrae. There were at least two other editors who did so. It seems a bit of a vendetta, simply because I opened this report. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm loathe to respond to this litany, with its spectacularly annoying green typeface, I need to respond to claims that an admin and I both somehow misinterpreted the admin's own conclusion and that only this editor interprets it correctly. RE: "The RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used." First, WP:VERIFY applies to all circumstances of quantitative claims. A close doesn't have to tell us to follow a core policy. We just follow core policies. Second If OR is "not ... used", then ipso facto, one is citing one's claims: If one can't or won't say where a claim is coming from, then it's coming from oneself. That's OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So WP:V doesn't apply to qualitative claims all of a sudden? Where do you get that idea? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I said that?? We're talking about running times. Running time are quantitative. This reads as if you're trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters by bringing in tangential, unrelated topics. We are only talking about running times.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we're not, you are. Just above, JzG quotes from WP:V that "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." which is clearly untrue for film plots, episode plots etc. Run times can be determined as easily as plots. Watch the film/episode. You seem upset by the idea that it's important to consider your curious half-attempt to use WP:V in this context doesn't cut the mustard. After all, why aren't you worried about the swathes of text in the plot sections which can be challenged? I didn't see the part of WP:V that stated it applies to "all circumstances of quantitative claims". Can you point me to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Um ... no, we are only talking about running times. I think User:AussieLegend and I would agree on that.

All of WP:VERIFY itself supports that we cite quantitative claims. We can't just make numerical claims and say "take my word for it." That's so basic.

If you were familiar with WP:FILMPLOT, you'd know that movies themselves are allowed as the primary source for a plot, since a movie can be viewed for verification.

"Run times can be determined as easily as plots." How? With a stopwatch? As the closing admin noted, that's original research. We can't measure a TV show's running time any more than we're allowed to measure a car and give its length without citation. You're arguing against core Misplaced Pages policies. I'm not sure what the point of that is. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly misleading yourself, which is a little odd. Let's look at what you've just said: "a movie can be viewed for verification" yet it can't be viewed for run times? How inconsistent. You claim "All of WP:VERIFY itself supports that we cite quantitative claims" yet V doesn't mention the word "quantitative" once. How odd. I am commensurate with WP:FILMPLOT (as apparently you are not) but this flies in the face of the admin's claim that "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (per V). Since when did MOS guidelines supersede Misplaced Pages policy? You are clearly advocating that we argue against core Misplaced Pages policy. "I'm not sure what the point of that is ". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Stale. This discussion has wandered quite far from the topic of edit warring. The reported reverts occurred 11 days ago, and no further evidence of impropriety has been submitted. If participants would like to continue the fun, please do so elsewhere. larryv (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: I weep for the future of the project)

Page

List of classic rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699461283 by Legacypac (talk) It is disruptive to remove AfD templates while discussions are open. The discussion cannot be closed as speedy keep because an outstanding delete !vot"
2. 13:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Restored AfD template. Discussion still open at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs"
3. 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699364094 by Legacypac (talk) Article is at AfD, and the blanking removed the AfD template."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users on List of classic rock songs. (TW)"
2. 13:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Plus reverting my close of my own AfD as a withdraw. and harassment on my talk page. User appears to be annoyed at some of my other editing activity and is acting like a complete troll here. I see no reason they will not continue reverting indefinitely. Legacypac (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac (talk · contribs) continues to remove the AfD template from List of classic rock songs (diff, diff, diff) and has repeatedly closed the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs (diff, diff). Such closure is not allowed per WP:SK#1, because an outstanding delete !vote is present the discussion. The user also removed my comment from the deletion discussion in the second instance, which I had to add back. My actions have been entirely guideline-based. North America 13:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The withdraw was before the delete vote and my actions are entirely within SK#1. NorthAmerican is just harassing me because a pageant articles. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this notion is mistaken; there's no stipulation at WP:SK#1 that said closure is allowed if the nomination was withdrawn before anyone !voted. The exact wording in the header of WP:SK#1 is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." North America 13:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting and making my point. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because creation of this discussion has made me involved in matters regarding the deletion discussion, I will leave it to another administrator to re-open the AfD discussion if they deem this to be fit. North America 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know you can always withdraw your own nomination and perform a non-admin closure, regardless of outstanding votes. The Banner talk 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

From my experience, such withdrawals are not allowed when outstanding delete !votes are present. In this case, the closure disregards the delete !vote by another user in favor of their own view, which is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. The early closure resembles a speedy keep one, because the discussion was closed before the seven day period has occurred. North America 14:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you say people are prohibited to change their mind due to some essay? That sounds a bit strange... The Banner talk 14:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The close resembles a speedy one. See WP:SK and WP:SK#1. The essay link above is provided as advice. Essay's are not policies or guidelines, of course. North America 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:WITHDRAWN, part of the Misplaced Pages:Deletion process guideline page, where it states, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." (Bold emphasis not mine). North America 15:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• What a lame edit war. If Legacypac had closed the AFD instead of just putting the withdrawn statement we wouldn't be here but since he didn't we are going to invoke bureaucracy and say he can't close it. -- GB fan 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with GB fan and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG at the most/WP:TROUT at the least for Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)::Nice misunderstanding of GB fan's comment and why the heck are you deleting my comments  ? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Just my 2¢ - The nominator can't withdraw if there's a delete !vote present ... (I ended up at ANI over closing one of my AFDs as withdrawn as there was a delete !vote present and was told I shouldn't close if there's a delete !vote.... So we can't have one rule for one and one for another), All that aside I see alot of sourcing by NA1K and alot of removing and warring by LP .... WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. –Davey2010 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

the withdraw was before the delete vote in this case. NorthAmerican was reinserting unsourced junk until forced into providing sources. That got their tail in a knot I suspect. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never known that you could not withdraw your nomination and close it yourself after somebody had voted. I doubt that the warriors knew that upfront of this drama. The Banner talk 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another Support for boomerang following this revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't usually remove other user's comments as Wikielvi did here and then when an editor puts their own comment back call that a revert. Some competence is required to comment at 3RR. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that Legacypac has now taken to harassment on my talk page for commenting here and for reverting his removal of NorthAmerica's comments at the AfD. He's been told to stay off my talk page, yet, he keeps posting bogus warnings on my talk page. ; This is obvious retaliation; I can't support more strongly that a boomerang is appropriate here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikielvi is dead wrong. They removed my comments, and I restored my comments. Warning them for their inappropriate actions is appropriate, and if it continues I will take it further. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it furher? What like this example? Let me know when tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale. Lugnuts 19:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing Leave the AFD open, nobody reverts anybody any more, nobody reports anybody at AIV/AN3 anymore, nobody drops a template on anybody's talk page anymore, people participate in the AFD if they want to, and move on with their lives if they don't. In short, everybody pretends that they're all grown up, and that everyone around them is a grown up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Since this report was brought against me, it is fair to mention that this was a boomerang situation, whereby the creator of this discussion was blocked for edit warring in relation to this matter (diff). My edits were simply following proper procedure in re the AfD matters, as per WP:WITHDRAWN, and did not constitute edit warring. North America 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Actually it was edit warring and you are getting off easy. None of the edit warring exceptions are for being right. HighInBC 05:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Maunus (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kensington Runestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gunn Sinclair (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:

I get:

1. 02:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ RELIABLE changes made to show part of the message on the KRS is valid, making the stone itself valid, also."
2. 01:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Yes, verifiable provenance is continued."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC) to 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ KRS Inscription Verification"
   2. 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ This information is verifiable. I will file a complaint against you for needless tampering, if the situation warrants it."
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) to 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Vital information"
   2. 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ I include a PDF showing proof of locating the lake with 2 skerries. If it's good enough for the MN Historical Society, it is good enough for Wiki."
5. 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Valid information."
6. 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Change showing part of the message of the KRS is true. This is important to the issue."

There's also an ill-informed(wrong nationality for a start) attack on me at my talk page. Doug Weller talk 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gorin1245 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

Gorin1245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "It was wrong action who is targeted against the University of Toronto also (1). You need respect the victims of Communism instead very strange motivations."
2. 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "I think he was right when made the suggestion continue discussion here: User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ypu need respect the rules of English Misplaced Pages instead Marxism or Leon Trotsky."
3. 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Your possibility in many times more (vandalism and etc)"
4. 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "sockpuppet of Marx (RonaldR). VANDALISM and etc. And I can call friends. They wish know Jimbo Wales better"
5. 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "You can be blocked in any second (war of edits). And vandalism for the good of offender Trotsky. Bloody offender."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Suspected sock of editor already blocked for the same edit-warring. RolandR (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely by Barek as a sockpuppet of Jaccy Jaydy. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaccy Jaydy and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521/Archive. All these editors (possibly one person?) are concerned about the Russian Orthodox Church and have strong political beliefs which are hard to understand. According to this editor, we should remember that Misplaced Pages is not the fourth International under Leon Trotsky. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidTParchem, User:71.90.71.141, and User:75.135.78.126 (appears to be same user) reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: )

Page

TNA Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DavidTParchem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.90.71.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)
75.135.78.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016785 by 24.185.202.112"
2. 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016770 by 24.185.202.112"
3. 23:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682816419 by Wrestlinglover"
4. 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683103313 by Wrestlinglover"
5. 06:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684790608 by Wrestlinglover "
6. 23:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686230160 by Wrestlinglover"
7. 01:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575115 by Wrestlinglover"
8. 02:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687513683 by MONGO "
9. 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689196366 by Wrestlinglover"
10. 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691519652 by Wrestlinglover"
11. 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692503716 by Wrestlinglover"
12. 05:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696241216 by Wrestlinglover"
13. 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697395751 by Wrestlinglover"
14. 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by AngeloPerante to last revision by 71.90.71.141"
15. 08:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699104255 by AngeloPerante"
16. 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699116822 by World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted the article to include information on a non-existent 2015/2016 Genesis event without explanation or sources. When 2015 ended without such an event taking place, the user continued to revert the article to reflect an also non-existent 2016 Genesis event. The entire added "2015"/"2016" section had/has no sources because none exist. The user refuses to respond to several prompts to cite any of the unsourced additions . Both of the IPs that had been adding the section for the non-existent event can also be traced to Saulk County, Wisconsin, likely the same user. After one IP stopped, the second began making the same revisions, followed by the second IP stopping and DavidTParchem continuing the revisions. The second IP user was also warned on its talk page . World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: No action)

Page

Operation Hammer (1997) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Operation Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "This operation is sited as a stratigic turkish victory as they managed to kill many pkk members and also many of their camps/hide outs were destroyed. Not ling after this the pkk had beome less efective then they were before and declared later a ceas f..."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) to 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Once again, those operations are from the turkish perspective. They have been described as succesful operations by the TAF and thus has been resulted as a turkish victory."
   2. 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed decisive part of the victory. The operation had been done succesfully by the TAF and thus it is mentions as a turkish victory. The pkk on the other hand has not given any result about the attack/operation and thus it makes no sense to remove or..."

1. 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit-warring after previous blocks warnings on various subjects in this area (diffs to follow). Topic ban might be the solution here. Amortias (T)(C) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: .

Diff of edit-warring / 3RR warning: Simply look at his talk page. It's full of old and recent ones. Dat Guy_Contribs 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded - User has edit-warred a bunch, and lead to PC protections of multiple articles, and might even be puppeting. This is definitely some kind of puppetry on Turkish battle-related articles since there was recently an army of editors on First Anglo-Afghan War. Probably should start a small-scale investigation into it if anybody finds proof connecting accounts except for that fact. Dat Guy_Contribs 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The diffs provided here don't show a 3RR violation by User:Gala19000. If this is a complaint of long-term edit warring it's too vague. There've been a lot of IPs warring at First Anglo-Afghan War but I don't see a connection to Gala19000. In any case I've semiprotected that article. Unless more details can be given this report may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will, have already told the other editer of the article what the reason was for the edit (edit 'war'). Don't realy see how I violated Wiki with those edits as the other edit of the user was unsourced. By the way, I have nothing to do with that Anglo-Afghan war.Gala19000 (talk) 21:10, 13 January

• Result: No action. Some of the edits by User:Gala19000 do raise eyebrows, such as this and this one. They might appear to be POV pushing to make the Turkish side of these battles appear more successful. "For the Turkish side, it was a succesful operation (turkish claim)" appears to be saying that the operation should be reported as a Turkish victory just because the Turks considered it to be so. At the same time, he removes 'Citation needed.' Still, there isn't enough evidence here for an edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter K Burian reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: 3-day block for both)

Page: Canadian dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter K Burian (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: I have tried in vain to reason with the user. I have talked of the need to achieve consensus before making bold edits, and to stay away from making unsubstantiated claims based on the user's opinion. I have also attempted to caution the user about treating currency forecast opinions as fact. He has chosen to ignore my cautions and invitation to discuss meaningfully on the article's talk page. Please see my talk page and the relevant article's talk page for any other information needed. I don't want to revert the user's edits without first receiving guidance from a more experienced administrator. Thank you.

NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting of this report. SQL 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Peter K. Burian: The edit war consists of this: I add content, with reliable citations, and he Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible. He Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible.

Note: Prior to this complaint of an Edit War, I had started a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution re: Canadian dollar ... Filed by Peter K Burian on 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC). But that has been Closed because the Edit War Administrators' process is handling the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Canadian_dollar_discussion

Here is a copy of that item, including my comments, which should also be suitable as my Comments re: the Edit War: Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Misplaced Pages article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency.

Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in ]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. by Peter K Burian ... My REVERTS this afternoon were all after NorthernFactoid had deleted content that I had added to Canadian Dollar. I was merely undoing his deletions of my content/edits. And he certainly deleted my content often, at least three times this afternoon.

• Deleting my content) 21:18, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,676 bytes) (-481)‎
• (Deleting my content) 21:10, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,316 bytes) (-1,360)‎
• (Deleting my content) 20:50, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,300 bytes) (-502)‎

Amd these are the Reverts that I did, undoing his deletion of my content. He stopped deleting my content after Dispute Resolution began.

• 21:22, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (I do not accept your deleting content that I had added, fully citated, that is essential to this topic. Undid revision 699687528 by NorthernFactoid

• 21:15, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+1,360)‎ . . (Deleting fully cited content that I had added is unacceptable to me. Undid revision 699686418 by NorthernFactoid

• 21:12, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian ‎ . . (39,797 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (This is essential information to this topic, with a highly reliable citation, and has been deleted twice by NorthernFactoid. I have inserted it again and will start the Dispute Resolution process today.)

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Added by Peter K Burian ... once again NorthernFactoid deleted ALL of the content I had added. Needless to say, I did an UNDO to get my content back into the article. He refuses to acknowledge in the article that the value of the Canadian Dollar has plummeted in the past 18 months. Why? Good question.

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,286 bytes) (+2,706)‎ . . (refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715900 by NorthernFactoid

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,580 bytes) (+588)‎ . . (Refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715303 by NorthernFactoid

• 00:43, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,992 bytes) (-2,706)‎ . . (→‎Value: See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)

• 00:38, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,698 bytes) (-588)‎ . . (See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The user has continually made a number of unsubstantiated claims based on his opinion and the opinion of others (this is what I take great issue with). I have asked him numerous times to provide appropriate sourcing for his claims, and to try to work towards consensus before making bold edits that contradict relevant guidelines. He has either ignored or changes the subject. I apologize for the fractious nature of this debate, but the bulk of it can be seen on the user's talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page. NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Peter K Burian: Yes, we have been discussing it on my talk page. An example of a post by Nothern Factoid after we had discussed the topic extensively on the Canadian Dollar Talk page: Listen up, you twit! Achieve a consensus before making bold edits—I have asked you repeatedly! Understand this! See the talk page and engage there, amateur! NorthernFactoid 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

UDATE by Peter K Burian:: I have been adding fully substantiated, fully-cited factual information that is highly relevant to a discussion of the Canadian Dollar. I cannot understand how such content can be viewed as "opinions".

e.g. My current edit (if it has not been deleted by someone for the fourth time) includes the following: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid-2014 and was called “the perennial underperformer” by a Bank of America currency strategist in mid-January 2016. (Canadian dollar sinks below 70¢ as oil dips under $30 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/canadian-dollar-flirts-with-70-cent-mark/article28127395/ | Globe and Mail | Toronto)

AND Canada's economy is also based on manufacturing and a low dollar may help to stimulate exports to countries such as the U.S. with strong currencies, but there has not yet been much evidence of this potential benefit. An analysis in the Toronto Star indicates, "it’s unclear whether the low loonie will be able to stimulate the export sector as it has in the past. There has been a fundamental shift in the dynamics of that crucial industry due to the closure of 10,000 export-oriented businesses in the past decade alone." (The dollar closed at 69.71 cents U.S. Wednesday putting pressure on Ottawa to dig deep into its economic stimulus tool kit http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/13/loonie-closes-below-70-cents-us-for-first-time-in-nearly-13-years.html |Toronto Star)Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted (in vain, I fear) to restructure the thread of conversation. I apologize if it now misrepresents who replied to what; feel free to fix indentation as necessary. larryv (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it. larryv (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious WP:EDITWAR at Canadian dollar over the last four days. NorthernFactoid provided sufficient evidence against Peter K Burian but failed to mention their own transgressions:

1. 11 January, 13:06–21:27 UTC
2. 13 January, 10:43–11:32
3. 13 January, 20:50
4. 13 January, 21:10
5. 13 January, 21:18
6. 14 January, 00:38–00:43
7. 14 January, 01:36
8. 14 January, 01:42–01:43

From 13 January onwards, there are ${\displaystyle {\binom {7}{3}}=35}$ different ways to pick a WP:3RR violation out of this list.

WP:AN/3 isn't about who's right and who's wrong—it's about WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and you've both been extremely disruptive, despite having sufficient experience to know that reverting over and over and over and over is nearly always unacceptable. Both editors blocked – for a period of 3 days. Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked to, and when the block expires, go back to WP:DRN. larryv (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DudeImNotBobby reported by User:Widr (Result: Indef)

Page

The Mountain Goats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "These nice boys make good rocking tunes, have you ever listened to any of their music?"
2. 06:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "False positive by ClueBot, everyone in the band is nice and capable of playing good rock and roll music."
3. 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699620056 by 209.166.98.97 (talk)"
4. 19:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Cited information on their official twitter regarding their musical style and nature."
5. 07:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699755601 by Widr (talk) Verification needed on these nice boys not making the good rocking tunes. Reverting Widr's vandalism in the meantime."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
2. 07:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Apparently also editing while logged out. Widr (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 67.185.39.32 is my IP address, the edit you are referring to is from 104.34.188.177, ergo you are incorrect on the matter of logged out edits. DudeImNotBobby (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what you are saying on my talk page. Trolling perhaps? Widr (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP on your Talk page is my IPv6. This is my IPv4 address. You can feel free to WHOis search all the IPs and verify locations. You should refrain from accusing other users of "trolling" unless you have a valid backing to the claim.DudeImNotBobby (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• DudeImNotBobby has been indef'd, so this can be closed now. Widr (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely by Bongwarrior. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:77.57.145.121 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24-hour block)

Page: Duke University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.57.145.121 (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:
Yes, I know there are only three reverts listed above but the trajectory of these events is clear with the editor in question not engaging in any Talk discussions and edit warring with multiple (two) editors despite warnings, pleas, and a Talk page discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor in question recently reverted for the 4th time (which I added to the list above). Contributor321 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Four reverts in 28 hours is practically WP:3RR. larryv (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Truthtrue reported by User:Krystaleen (Result: blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 15:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699420029 by Krystaleen (talk)"
2. 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699776577 by Krystaleen (talk) we don't need to argue"
3. 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699790537 by Krystaleen (talk) The last pronouncement from Harada is the proof. It was discussed one thousand times, you're the only one who have problems about it."
4. 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699953314 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk)"
5. 15:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699965937 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) You reverted without reason, not me"
6. 15:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699966293 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) This article has not changed (for 2 weeks) since you came back creating chaos and YOU are reverting it."
7. 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699967275 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) Yes, we can discuss it, but please, don't revert it again, till a consensus is reached, ok?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has agreed to the edits back in September 2015 on the article's talk page Talk:Tekken 7#Beta game. So this very same issue has been discussed before. In addition, he has done a logged out revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tekken_7&diff=699814608&oldid=699814524 Krystaleen 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts as well. Your case for a breach hinges on the "logged-out" edit actually being the same IP as User:Truthtrue, and for that you need a Checkuser. Have you made a request for this? And why not just take it to talk and find a consensus? There must be more than the two of you with an interest in the subject. Edit-warring to the brink of 3RR is lame. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've done 3 reverts, that is not breaking any rule. He's done 4. I haven't made any checkuser request, it's pretty obvious it's him since he did it almost immediately, I mean if it quacks like a duck... and yes it does seem like we're the only 2 people interested in this, as evidenced by the talk page discussion. And that's the problem, we've reached consensus, back in September. Somehow between September and now he decided he didn't like the consensus.

Also, if you read the talk page discussion and his edit summaries, it's clear that this editor probably doesn't know how to read a diff, or if he does certainly he doesn't show it. For some reasons he always think I'm removing content, where the fact is I'm only moving it to the end of the paragraph (and making it more factual by putting "as of" instead of the ambiguous "currently"). This has happened over and over again it gets really old.--Krystaleen 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded: Truthtrue just reverted for a fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time, which I've added above. I strongly support that an administrator either fully protect the page or block Truthtrue until the current consensus is accepted. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've invited Truthtrue to self-revert and take the matter to the talk page. They've posted to the talk page, so far. If they self-revert and are willing to engage, they can continue full participation. If they revert beyond this point, then a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours User basically stated his intention to continue the edit war. I've blocked temporarily in the hopes that he'll return to constructive editing after the block. However, if the behaviour were to recur, then a longer-term or indefinite block would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snappy and User:Gob Lofa reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Paul Murphy (Irish politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

Snappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(Snappy's reverts)

1. 21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 699424709 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop edit warring. (TW)"
2. 06:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 699527847 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop edit warring. (TW)"
3. 06:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 699591009 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop vandalising. (TW)"

(Gob Lofa's reverts)

1. 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699424709 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
2. 23:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699527847 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
3. 21:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699591009 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
4. 18:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699751176 by Snappy (talk) Restore reliable reference (see talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Since at least 18 December. _Fortuna 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you leaving someone out? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No. _Fortuna 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow-running edit war beginning late last year and involving two editors reverting each other slowly enough to avoid an explicit breach of 3RR. Recommend a block for both: edit-warring is lame. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is actually a shocking edit war that is clearly out of control. Both editors are highly experienced and should know better. Both editors have also had plenty of time to take the initiative to stop edit warring and seek dispute resolution. Neither has done so. I will also note that this is not the only page this users have disrupted with edit warring. Blocks are clearly in order but will not be applied evenly: Snappy, with nearly 100k edits and 11 years of experience has only received two minor blocks for edit warring, none since 2013. Snappy is Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Gob Lofa on the other hand, has amassed a significant block log over the past two years, clearly has a history of serious disruption, and was blocked for edit warring as recently as last August. Gob Lofa, being on much thinner ice as far as disruption goes, really has no excuse as they have clearly been given more than enough rope up until now. Gob Lofa is Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Regards, Swarm ♠ 21:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Novoneiro reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

Page

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information that is related to the topic of the page and therefore is properly sourced."
   2. 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "grammar"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Parapsychological experiments with random event generators */"
   2. 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information related to the topic that is properly sourced and backed by rigorous scientific studies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:134.226.123.233 reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: )

Page: Normans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 134.226.123.233 (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:

We appear to have a member of the University of Dublin pushing a particular edit; they may be right, they may be wrong, but they're refusing to discuss the change. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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