Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 22 October 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:75.120.252.74 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Page protected)

Page

The Voice (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "THIS IS A CLUTTER FREE WAY OF SEEING WHICH COACHES COACHED WHAT SEASONS!"
2. 00:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745047563 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
3. 00:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Every other international version of the show has this table showing what judges judged which seasons, there is no reason why we shouldn't have one as well."
4. 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744905628 by Musicedit98 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User seems to not be here for constructive reasons, and instead, seems to be here to promote their own edits. User was warned on their user page, and still refuses to refrain from edit-warring on the topic. It was decided upon to not use the coaches' table, and instead, use a coaches' gallery. But this IP is refusing to accept this. Option was also discussed, previously, on page's talk page. livelikemusic talk! 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by CambridgeBayWeather. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Froglich reported by User:FNAS (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Dreams from My Real Father (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
How to Read Donald Duck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Froglich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Dreams from My Real Father:

Long history of vandalism at How to Read Donald Duck, which Froglich turned into a pamphlet for his own views on Chilean history:

4. (see also )

More generally, I believe this user has a problem with assessing the reliability of sources. See, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film (3rd nomination), where Froglich knows better than the "anencephalics who presently dictate academia" and his history of pushing climate change denial (see user talk page, under "Commie Chameleons").FNAS (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

When you accuse me of vandalism, you're either stupid or you're lying. Which is it?--Froglich (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not by me)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. Having read Froglich's talk page, I conclude that his standard response to anything he doesn't agree with is verbal abuse (e.g. ), not any constructive attempt at a resolution. An admin has already concluded that () that 'this user has had way, way too many "final warnings" already' for making personal attacks on other editors. FNAS (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What does your talk page look like, FNAS? --Froglich (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked; regardless of the actions by the user whom you consider an enemy (see WP:BATTLE, by the way), piling on attacks against him here is out of bounds. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I spent an hour looking through this and find the decision very surprising. Thanks FNAS, I didn't know / had forgotten about this book and was just reading Donald Duk on a recommendation from Ishmael Reed. It seemed like good election reading... I don't see why FNAS was blocked here. SashiRolls (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has crossed paths with neither of the two editors on or outside of Misplaced Pages and who does not understand the decision, I would like to add a courtesy ping to the administrator who reverted Froglisch's edits and who has apparently not been informed of this discussion. @Neutrality:

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Judist (Result: Page protected )

Page: Serbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Slavs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Balkans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Serbs:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not by me, it seemed nobody was going to respond there, I posted my view there)

Comments:Edit-warring throughout articles. Plus - a personal attack. I asked the editor to explain the edits and the only explanation is calling me a sock (see the edit summary of the fourth revert).Judist (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Judist and User:Idksir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clear socking going on, using a further IP Special:Contributions/130.204.82.204. All these accounts should be blocked. Removal of sourced information and replacement with a weaker one just beause fits their bias, tendentious editing plus edit warring, disrespect for WP:BRD. FkpCascais (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why hasn't the user been blocked? When I violate the 3rr, I am blocked. Are you alleging me for being a sockpuppet and removing any sourced information? When you fail to prove that, I suggest penalizing the accuser for a personal attack.Judist (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I see that Doug Weller has already protected the page. So go use the talk page. FkpCascais, have you made a sockpuppet report? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't, I was limited with time these days and also I hoped an user more active on those articles who also noteced evidence of socking on their behalve would do it. There is one aspect which is important to mention. The editor accusing me here is providing phalse accusations. I didn't removed any sourced information, he is the one having a weak source and missusing it to fit their bias. Look at the edit summaries and the edits themselves here. He edited, he was reverted, and he edit-warred. He was reverted because his soource says "...most probably don't exceed..." and using it as if the author says it as a fact ommiting the "most probably". Another nice trick they use is to claim "Western authors claim..." when he only has that "most probably"-source, and also there are clearly other Western authors clearly claimiing the opposite. The issue has extensively been discussed in a specific subsection ar article's talk-page created specially for that issue, here: Talk:Serbs/Total number. So basically they ignore all strong sources found there, and think their source (not even specialised in the subject and actually claiming "msot probably" is the holly gral of the matter. Their purpose is not to find balance over the subject but just to cherry-pick sources and force their bias. FkpCascais (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:101.175.47.5 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)

Page

James Comey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745326755 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
2. 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745324649 by GB fan (talk)"
3. 13:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745324421 by GB fan (talk)"
4. 13:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 13:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745322332 by GB fan (talk)"
6. 13:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745317509 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */ comment"
2. 13:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and disruptive partisanship. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User: ‎Lithopsian + User: Arianewiki1 reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Page protected)

Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ‎Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: ‎Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: See Too long to list.

Comments:
Please see article WR 31a regarding edit warring, and note the long history + Talk page . Editor User: ‎Lithopsian refuses to engage in Talk page and requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1 on own Talk page, continues to throw insults and perpetually reverts. Happy to suffer any consequences, but this clearly must end. Fed up. Help. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also. Evidence of "requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1" by User: ‎Lithopsian is here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected, Warned I could issue symmetric block against both of you for edit-warring, which both of you were clearly engaged in: but that would be a waste of time. Instead, I have protected the page; please come to a consensus on the talk. Also, @Arianewiki1 and Lithopsian: you are both warned that further edit-warring, on this page or other pages, with or without 3RR violations, may result in a block. You have escaped a block, but it is not because your activity was acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Question: This edit warring was certainly unacceptable, but this editor has point blank refused to engaged with the Talkpage process at all, as seen in this WR_31a talkage. What else could I do? All you have done is reward the perpetrator with their contentious edits. I even tried to engage other editors to resolve this conflict to no avail. When I ask for help, it is just ignored. When I request a fair resolution, it is ignored and replaced with a threat of sanction. Frankly pretending a threatened block against the clear evidence of having no willingness to discuss the issues to resolve this is just abysmal. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I have not "rewarded" anybody with anything: protection is not an endorsement of either version, but a tool to prevent disruption. You have several options available to you: you could ask for a third opinion, ask for dispute resolution, or open an WP:RFC. If your version is indeed the policy-compliant version, as you say, and the other editor is not willing to engage in this process, then your version will naturally win out over time: or more likely, a compromise of some sort will be reached. Please remember, there is deadline. Vanamonde (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Fair enough in your comments, but I have attempted this all before. The utter denial of interaction with me appears here with a third opinion by User:Coffee on article V399 Carinae I.e."Yes, I am refusing to engage with Arianewiki1. If I get in trouble for that, then so be it." I've been falsely accused of "After repeated previous attempts to resolve differences about content impersonally and calmly, I can no longer assume good faith." My response have been specific, and with the example of the Talk page WR 31a. I explain the problem with the edits with this response to me here. under ""My last word." I was then accused here. Each are a personal attacks, which this edit refuses to engage. I.e. No responses to the edits or queries were made ev en made to me. As for dispute resolution or open an WP:RFC, I tried this with WP:ANI in the V399 Carinae Talk page, as suggested by User:Coffee. (Read the Section "Non-Consensus and Deliberately Avoiding Good Faith") I got zero response.

Frankly, I'm so tired of trying compromising with this editor via the means you've suggested. So far I have for ages tried to avoid slipping into WP:3RR, and have tried to resolve this amicably. Also, this is why I posted to the ANI 3RR, to resolve this problem. Worst, half the battle is there few editors are capable of understanding the arguments, making "policy-compliant version" near impossible. Hence the 'missing' neutral editors. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Lithuanianlady reported by User:Zefr (Result: Both warned)

Page

Donald Gary Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745385539 by Zefr (talk) WP:3RR WP:SOCK"
2. 20:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745385539 by Zefr (talk)[REDACTED] allows publications to be listed on biographies"
3. 20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745384377 by Zefr (talk) they can also be listed on his bibliography as shown in the bibliography examples"
4. 19:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "adding published works, followed example Charles Darwin Biography and Bibliography for template, accepted form, and accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/Charles_Darwin_bibliography, https://en.wikipedia.org/Charles_Darwin#Works"
5. 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745352740 by Zefr (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Donald Gary Young. (TW)"
2. 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "WP:3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "removed book info as duplicate of subject's website"
2. 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Bibliography content in the article */ book is first entry on his personal website"

Comments:

User has made >10 disputed edits in one 24 hr period, despite warnings of WP:3RR and invitation to resolve on the Talk page. Zefr (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr, can you explain why you are filing this report while you appear to have easily broken WP:3RR on this article on October 20? The other party is certainly keeping up with you, but blocking both would be the simplest action. Do you think there is any exception to 3RR which applies to your edits? EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to reply. I followed the recommended anti-war process by 1) taking the edits to the Talk page, 2) advising and warning User:Lithuanianlady on her Talk page, 3) providing edit comments intended to be instructive and constructive for not one but several different edits, and 4) seeking another editor's input, now on the Talk:Donald Gary Young page. Simply, I was trying to work through this with an editor, User:Lithuanianlady, determined to have her way, apparently with a nearly singular focus on this one topic. I encourage her to edit other articles constructively. --Zefr (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

These good intentions don't exempt you from WP:3RR. If I am the closer, you can avoid a block if you will promise to make no more edits on this article without a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, of course, and a discussion at Talk:Donald Gary Young is underway. Same guidance should apply for User:Lithuanianlady. --Zefr (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Zefr and User:Lithuanianlady are warned. You may be blocked if you make any further edits at Donald Gary Young that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. User:Zefr has acknowledged this above, and Lithuanianlady has been notified. The article on Donald Gary Young has become controversial. He is the founder of a multi-level marketing business that sells essential oils. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thank you for your comments, and I acknowledge the reply and will not make further changes withouth prior consensus on the talk page. --Lithuanianlady (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Following the 3RR close, User:Lithuanianlady was blocked indef by a checkuser per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aulonocara. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:1Sire reported by User:Cheetoburrito (Result: Both blocked)

Page

T.I. discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1Sire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

I blocked both of them for 24 hours for edit warring. A bit of this, a bit of BOOMERANG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Elvey (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/744789969
2. Special:Diff/744793647

1. Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: ({{2016 US Election AE}})
2. Another edit warring / 1RR warning: advocacy
3. Diff of another edit warring / 3RR warning: and there are many more on the user's talk page.
4. Another edit warring warning:
5. Another edit warring warning:
6. etc: "edit war" appears on the user's talk page TWENTY-THREE times.
7. Addendum: I haven't looked through AE archives, but Per SR's comment below, I'm guessing there has been even more warning regarding 1RR there.

Talk page discussion: (Failed. No acknowledgment of or apology for the violation!)

Comments:

Looking at the user talk page, I see a pattern. The edit warring needs to be made to stop.

(i) I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR. I wouldn't have done it had I known. (ii) Anyway, the original revert was perfectly reasonable and the user who added the content originally and then restored the content is a loon who has been banned from editing on the Jill Stein page (note that many of the 'edit warring' warnings on my talk page come from this lunatic regarding my encounters with him/her on the Jill Stein page - this user was eventually topic-banned for repeated violations of[REDACTED] rules). Having been topic-banned from Jill Stein, the user is now going from Clinton article to Clinton article to add a bunch of nonsense, some of which I have reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, Elvey, I've tried to draw the user's behavior to admin's attention before, but the evidence always seemed to be too detailed, so it didn't get read. I cannot defend myself from the ad hominem attacks because of a gag-rule, so I'll just ask that Snooganssnoogans drop the stick and stop casting aspersions. I had planned to let consensus emerge from the talk page without reporting the incident after close consultation of WP:BULB and WP:WIKISPEAK, but it's certainly just as well that you brought it up here. SashiRolls (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I would ask that Snooganssnoogans be sanctioned for the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls, above, in addition to the bright line violation I've identified. We'll see if there's any retraction using strike or {{tl:rpa}} before that happens. WP:CIVIL isn't just a good idea. It's policy.--Elvey 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal: weekend block. I would ask that an admin carefully weigh the claim "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." against the evidence - 1)of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) of attitude when notified of it.

I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; it would be different if there wasn't A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above.

--Elvey 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• First, there's no doubting SashiRolls' off-kilter editing behavior (just read the proceedings that got the user topic-banned). I feel perfectly within my right to call the user a loon based on the user's record, which includes repeated harassment on my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Second, I do know that politicians' pages are 1RR (I edit extensively on several politicians' pages). I didn't know the same applied to the Clinton charity. I was under the impression that it would be under the same rules as any other non-profit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Third, the accusations of frequent edit warring are false. Most of those accusations stem from my interactions with SashiRolls on the Jill Stein page, a page that he/she eventually got a topic-ban on. After SashiRolls got booted off the Jill Stein, the page returned to normal, with normal editor interactions. My interactions with other editors have been perfectly normal. Interestingly, the only one initiating edit wars and removing long-standing content on the Jill Stein page for ridiculous reasons has been you for the last few days. I've mostly left it alone though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Fourth, the only edit warring I did was when I was new to politicians' pages (and new to highly active pages where it was necessary to revert content regularly): I wasn't aware of 3RR, which applied in May/June 2016. After being cautioned, I of course obliged by the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Fifth, I don't shy away from calling things what they are. Vaccine fear-mongering is a shitty position. SashiRolls following me from page to page to make bizarre edits on issues he/she knows nothing about (Icelandic politics), I do consider "sabotage". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Sixth, my account is definitely not dedicated to political edits. I started out editing to add academic content, and still do. It's just that news about the election gets published more rapidly than the studies that would make a worthwhile contribution to Misplaced Pages. If you were to actually check my history, you'd see that I've written almost whole pages and large sections from scratch (some that come to mind: coup d'etat, "immigration: economic effects", "human capital flight: advantages", "human capital flight: disadvantages", "immigration and crime", "resource curse"), with nearly all edits consisting of academic research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Seventh, Survey Monkey is a C- rated pollster on FiveThirtyEight. I'm frankly not the biggest fan but as it stands, it's one of few comprehensive polls we have about a recent event, which makes a totally worthwhile contribution to the page that I added it to. I added the tweet from a reliable journalist, because I was short on time and wanted to add it to the page before I forgot about it. Thankfully, because Misplaced Pages is full of great editors, some other editor added a full citation and provided a better source than the tweet for the same content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Eight, as the admins are reading this, I think they should be aware that there are forums on the Internet where conspiracy theorists and Jill Stein supporters talk about me, disparage my intentions and discuss getting me thrown of Misplaced Pages (SashiRolls posted on one such forum under the same username as one of his/her sockpuppet accounts - yes, SashiRolls also got temporarily blocked from Misplaced Pages for using sockpuppet accounts). I don't know Elvey's intentions, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that the user only started to edit on the Jill Stein page a few days ago, immediately tries to get me sanctioned for edits on unrelated pages, runs through my history, and recites the same claims that SashiRolls raised against me repeatedly (and frankly uses very similar language and editing styles). Elvey's edits on the Jill Stein page are also very similar to the types of edits that SashiRolls tended to do (disruptive edits, combative interactions with other editors, inability to back up claims, a tendency to speak in word salads). Those familiar with SashiRolls' editing behavior (those involved in his/her Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but also with specific experience of the editor's editing style) might want to chip in: @Neutrality: + @Timothyjosephwood: + @Clpo13:, @Tryptofish: . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest that admins look closely at whether the edit warring is, in effect, mutual. This dispute is probably ripe for WP:AE, as opposed to here. But Elvey has certainly been busy lately: see User talk:Tryptofish#Inappropriate talk page comment, edit summary & revert and incivility and Talk:Jill Stein#Warning. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC){Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tryptofish (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Then Tryptofish will note that it is not canvassing, because nobody is being misled. The pings are plainly visible here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You were canvassed; visibility doesn't make it not canvassing. Bugger off and stop making personal attacks; anyone is welcome to use {{rpa}} when attacked. --Elvey 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bugger off and stop making personal attacks": that's priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable (and indeed is common courtesy) to ping users who have previously been involved in or expressed interest in a topic or a dispute. This is certainly not "improper canvassing" and the guideline makes that very clear (WP:APPNOTE). These kind of spurious accusations against Snoogans seem designed to "nail him for everything and anything" and that's really not the type of behavior that should be encouraged. Neutrality 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

After some more looking around, I do see that the talk page for the Clinton Foundation has a very clear template right at the top, indicating the existence of ArbCom restrictions including 1RR, so I would think that anyone really ought to have been aware that 1RR applied to that page. Anyway, that really does fall under the purview of AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. Moving this to WP:AE would be forum shopping. Snooganssnoogans should also be sanctioned for canvassing those four users though. You have diffs to support your EW accusation? Snooganssnoogans launched a massive reputation attack without offering a single diff. Not cool. Still: B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above plus D) no retraction of the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls, --Elvey 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. Interesting that you did that. SashiRolls had a tendency to repeatedly edit other editor's comments, in particular, removing words that he/she took offense to. I had never seen that behavior before and I hadn't again, until you just did it now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks and I won't edit your comments to remove them, as I did. The user that you canvassed to this page has restored them, thereby makeing persona attack as well.

• Comment Uninvolved non-administrator input: it's obvious these editors have a history. While it does look like User:Snooganssnoogans made a bright line violation on 1RR, it could easily be accidental. User:SashiRolls could do better to WP:DGF but instead immediately reverted Snooganssnoogans' revert without any attempt to compromise or follow the D part of WP:BRD. In Snooganssnoogans' 1RR-violating edit summary, he asked to take the discussion to the talk page, which seems like reasonably civil behavior to me. I propose a warning to User:Snooganssnoogans to be more mindful of 1RR. AlexEng 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:AlexEng: Which editors have a history? The ones that were canvassed? True! Going how far back? How long have you been editing, by the way? You registered in 2007... and have just ~100 edits under your belt, and you ignore all the other violations I've noted, and the edit warring history. Curious. You think it's WP:CIVIL for an editor (say, Snooganssnoogans) to call fellow editors (say, you, a friend of yours, or someone for whom the description is fitting) a loon ... a lunatic who adds nonsense to articles ... describe their edits with the terms "nonsense", "shit", "sabotage", "ridiculous"? --Elvey 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC),

• Proposal: Block Snooganssnoogans for 72 hours. The claim "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." strains credulity to the breaking point given the evidence - of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) There's the attitude when notified of it. (I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; there was A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of, and incidents of the sanctionable behavior.)

--Elvey 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) Snooganssnoogans has said I have "sabotaged" an article on Icelandic politics. In fact, I rendered it more readable for a non-Icelandic speaking readership by adding a legend into the text added by the other editor. Nobody has complained about the way I left the article in question, not even Snooganssnoogans. (total interaction on the page in question: diff). Now s/he calls it sabotage without providing diffs... though in my view it is evidence of working "well" together to improve the readability of an article. 2) I agree with Elvey that the user should be strongly sanctioned for their continual personal attacks of multiple users. Likewise, observing WP:BRD ("Consider reverting only when necessary.") would mark a positive and radical change in this user's behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Having interacted with Snooganssnoogans and others in the past, I think anything more than a warning would be uncalled for and would be essentially punitive rather than protective (which is of course counter to our blocking policy). I agree with the considerations articulated by Snooganssnoogans, AlexEng, and Tryptofish:

• Snooganssnoogans made one revert that ran afoul of the rule, does not have a recent history of edit warring, and is an editor who abides by consensus and does careful work in difficult topic areas.
• The revert in question asked for discussion on the talk page, an edit summary was given, and the summary was polite and reasonable. It is also relevant that the article in question has been the subject of problematic editing in the past.
• Snooganssnoogans has acknowledged that he ran afoul of the rule and has said that he would not have done it had he known of the 1RR application on that particular page. There is no reason to doubt this. (We assume good faith.)
• A factor that should also be weighed in the analysis, as Tryptofish articulated, is that some of those who are pressing this complaint against Snoogans engaged in conduct that was similar and in some cases much worse (unclean hands).

In sum, this should be closed and everyone should move on and return to productive editing. Neutrality 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would indeed warn Snoogans that he should have seen and paid attention to the 1RR notice at the top of the talk page, rather than to guess whether or not 1RR applied. But I otherwise agree, and with the time that has passed (amid a wall of tl;dr nonsense), this has become a stale request, because there are no further reverts by Snoogans. I would also warn the two editors with "unclean hands" that a failure to resume productive editing, as opposed to making a battleground, will inevitably lead to a serious boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Snooganssnoogans is warned for breaking the 1RR. User:SashiRolls is reminded that consensus is needed before undoing someone else's revert on this article. SashiRolls apparently broke the restriction on October 17 which says "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." This consensus requirement is the same box on the talk page which announces the 1RR restriction. So SashiRolls was obliged to get consensus before undoing the preceding revert by Snooganssnoogans, but did not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Low level laser therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This follows on earlier report here - the result of which was page protection. Upon lifting of page protection, Valerius went right back to adding some of same content.

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; current one is here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk continued at the talk page following last dispute, here: Talk:Low_level_laser_therapy#Changes.3F.

Comments:

 Valerius was defiant/combative with respect to that four other editors were saying there, see specific comments here and here and here for example.  The intent to continue the edit war that led to PP without getting consensus is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zourich reported by User:Laveol (Result: Blocked)

Page: PFC CSKA Sofia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zourich (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:PFC_CSKA_Sofia#CSKA-Sofia_and_CSKA_Sofia. The user in question refuses to take part in any discussion.

Comments:
Although the user has not strictly violated 3RR, he has made a total of 6 reverts in two days. Further, he refuses to use the talkpage, and even claims there was no consensus over the article's version on the talkpage, defines others' edits as vandalism (as evident from the diffs above), etc. He even removed the 3RR warning from his talkpage. He is an experienced editor who has a habit of deleting warnings and has used multiple accounts in the past. This might be the case with his current account as it only became active after an absence of 4 years. He only re-appeared when another user with a similar behaviour needed someone to help him in edit-warring over the PFC CSKA Sofia article. --Laveol 18:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for a period of 36 hours. If the actions continue after that, a longer block may be applicable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: Both blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745556974 by StAnselm (talk) Disruptive editor over 3rr disputing sourced material"
2. 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745555216 by StAnselm (talk) It isn't my edit and you are over 3rr"
3. 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745409632 by StAnselm (talk) Anyone can edit WP, even when there are comments above a paragraph"
4. 20:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743251166 by StAnselm (talk) Well backed up with citations in the article and you don't WP:OWN the lede prose."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Islam in first paragraph, again */"

Comments:

Four reverts in a 26-hour period. User has been blocked for edit-warring twice this year, and, as his edit summaries show, is well aware of 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:StAnselm Also has 4 reverts on the material and has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring. This material is uncontentious and editor reverts good faith edits of others. I did not make the edit that was reverted originally. It was a 3rd party editor. I responded to the attempt to resolve before the noticeboard filing. An additional editor of the page has left the sourced material and modified the sentence to be more reflective of sources. There is no controversy. Lipsquid (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you mentioned 3RR in your edit summaries, but you obviously miscounted - I have made three reverts. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:CFCF (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646606 by CFCF (talk) You are REQUIRED to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Which part of this don't you understand?"
2. 11:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646373 by CFCF (talk) Stop creating edit wars and follow WP:STATUSQUO as you are required to do."
3. 11:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646070 by CFCF (talk) As per WP:STATUSQUO."
4. 11:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745643933 by CFCF (talk) POV. The term "naturopathic doctor" is in common use whether you approve of it or not."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */ new section"
2. 11:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
3. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
4. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See User talk:Afterwriting

Comments:

Lack of acceptable sources/any sources, no rationale. Quoting essay in order to obstruct actually basing the lede on the body of the text as well as the sources. Removing merge tags on Phytotherapy despite ongoing discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

These comments are risible. The other editor's changes were reverted with explanations but instead of following WP:STATUSQUO and properly seeking discussion and consensus initiated edit wars instead by insisting that the changes be accepted. Totally disingenuous. Afterwriting (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As an example of the other editor's disingenuousness on this issue he has now "archived" my own comments on his own talk page. First he initiates edit wars when reverted but then has the audacity to report me for this instead and also hides my comments on his talk page. This is extraordinarily strange behaviour by the other editor. Afterwriting (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

after having seen article, agree w/ CFCF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you agree with? This all started with CFCF's factually false claim that "there is no such thing as a naturopathic doctor" and his removal of the term from the article. It was perfectly acceptable and correct for this edit to be reverted and not acceptable or correct for the other editor to then restore it and to provoke an edit war. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowbite reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

Page: List of South Park episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowbite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to: 02:37, 22 October 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:01, 22 October 2016 "Table is redundant to page and takes up space. Also, I did some re-editing to the opening paragraphs"
2. 03:09, 22 October 2016 "Undid revision 745597793 by Sro23 (talk) I just explained my edit. There was nothing wrong"
3. 03:11, 22 October 2016 "I've explained my edits on why I did them"
4. 03:13, 22 October 2016 "Undid revision 745598230 by Sro23"
5. 04:51, 22 October 2016 "I re-edited the page and removed a table that is irrelevant to this page"
6. 18:10, 22 October 2016 "I've explained my edits; User:Donner60 agreed with my edits"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:53, 22 October 2016 by EvergreenFir

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None found

Comments:
I happened across this after Snowbite's most recent revert. Sro23's initial revert of Snowbite's edits indicate that Snowbite is a sock, so some action is required and Snowbite has clearly violated 3RR. He is also edit-warring at {{Disney XD Original Series}}, but has not yet made 4 reverts. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown. These socks are well known for edit warring in this topic area. Sro23 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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