Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 13 September 2017

• 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:81.156.137.36 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

Page

Burn After Reading (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799918760 by TheOldJacobite (talk) Will you give up?"
2. 16:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799918522 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
3. 16:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799916654 by PlyrStar93 (talk) Do we really need the categories?"
4. 16:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799916300 by TwoTwoHello (talk)"
5. 15:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799901298 by FlightTime (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Vietnam War in film. (Using Twinkle"
2. 18:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vietnam War in film. (Using Twinkle"
3. 18:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September 2017 */ You're going to get yourself blocked"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Vietnam War in film - FlightTime (open channel) 18:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:There'sNoTime. The same IP is mentioned in a report just above. This IP seems to be be removing labels that identify a film as British, or part British. It is hard to tell if any of these concerns about national origin are justified though edit warring is not likely to be the best solution. It is possible this is the same user as 86.132.168.137 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:108.26.188.202 reported by User:173.2.255.128 (Result: Semi)

Page: R46 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.188.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected three days by User:Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, by Ymblanter (talk · contribs), but the effect is the same. :) --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:24.3.138.27 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)

Page: Candace Gingrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.3.138.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is attempting to replace the subject's preferred pronoun, which is a BLP issue. Editor has created no edit summaries nor responded to any comment. Editor's one other edit under this IP was also problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tr56tr reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Blocked)

Page: Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tr56tr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:14, 11 September 2017‎ User's edit summary: "No consensus"
2. 13:48, 11 September 2017‎
3. 12:48, 11 September 2017‎ "Can I ask the paper of nternational politics scholarsi?About Incorporation.I have serious questions about the reliability of I.Have any research?"
4. 11:40, 11 September 2017‎ "Can't know the reason in those edit.Popularity？No source? Not chinese?"
5. 00:02, 11 September 2017‎ "Can't see source or google?Is this a matter of popularity?Need to teach you how to read a newspaper?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . Older discussion on similar topics at .

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamJoshua reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result:Blocked 1 week)

Page: Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJoshua (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:
In addition to Edit Warning - Editor was warned about copyright violations here --VViking_TalkEdits 16:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User was blocked by Deor for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Weckkrum reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Reddy dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Final warning..... This seema some castiest edit war is going on here.... Sources are clearly mentioned"
2. 16:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Page contains sufficient sources as provided by previous editor Masioq"
3. 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "U will be reported under vandalism"
4. 13:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Yes M. Somasekhara sharma did mention reddies of kondaveedu are vassals to Musunuri Nayaks. Musunuri Nayaks ruled entire Andhra Pradesh and Telangana so definitely they r vassals. Sharma is a rock solid source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues to edit war the page above, his edits are clearly quite controversial. not (talk/contribs) 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The other involved editor, who knows what he is talking about, is Foodie 377. not (talk/contribs) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:The TV Boy reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Semi, Warning)

Page

Eternal derby of Bulgarian football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The TV Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800143688 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
2. 19:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800143372 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
3. 19:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800143153 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
4. 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800143033 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
5. 19:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800142752 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
6. 19:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800142299 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
7. 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800140868 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
8. 18:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800139886 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
9. 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800137594 by 188.225.39.181 (talk)"
10. 18:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800130365 by 188.225.39.218 (talk)"
11. 17:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800117163 by 162.254.207.69 (talk)"
12. 14:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 800067542 by BG89 (talk)"
13. 08:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799974432 by Mcochev (talk)"
14. 19:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799949716 by Mcochev (talk) - there is no such thing as "original" CSKA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Uhh...don't need to say much here. not (talk/contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As you can clearly see the anonymous user and User:Mcochev are clearly one and the same, re-entering false information and deleting referenced one. After being warned not to do that user kept getting more and more aggressive with reverts.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:CambridgeBayWeather. I have warned User:The TV Boy for edit warring. If you notice any registered accounts continuing the fight, consider making a new report here. The question of whether the meaning of 'CSKA' changed over time sounds like a content issue that you could discuss on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:64.183.42.25 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: )

Page

Janis Joplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "See bottom of Talk page -- We can skip Bernstein's words, but all previous edits of "Sexuality and relationships" had errors including a reference to 6:00 pm as "Tuesday night" -- Please leave that section alone. I have Going Down With Janis next to me."
2. 21:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Sexuality and relationships */ OK, skip Carl Bernstein's words in the section about Kozmic Blues, but "Sexuality and relationships" must correct errors from previous edits"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) to 20:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
4. 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Sexuality and relationships */ Reviewing Going Down With Janis on page 32 of the hardback edition, I notice this detail that should be included in our article."
5. 20:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Sexuality and relationships */ Reviewing pages 30 and 31 of the hardback edition of Going Down With Janis, I notice these details that our article should include."
6. 20:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "add Carl Bernstein's very words about Joplin's concert -- mentioning his review without any of his words seems remiss -- Consider his reputation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Janis Joplin. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:The Human Trumpet Solo, User:MShabazz and others reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

Page: Definitions of whiteness in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Human Trumpet Solo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MShabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:59, 23 July 2017‎ (oldest)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 08:48, 16 August 2017 Rjensen removed big chunk
2. diff 07:06, 17 August 2017 reverted by The Human Trumpet Solo (HTS from now on)
3. diff 04:42, 19 August 2017 reverted by Rjensen
4. diff 06:56, 19 August 2017 reverted by HTS
5. diff 16:19, 19 August 2017 reverted by MShabazz
6. diff 22:49, 28 August 2017 new foray by HTS
7. diff 04:08, 29 August 2017 reverted by Malik Shabazz (is now clear that really disputed sentence is " Today, the overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white"
8. diff 18:19, 31 August 2017 reverted by HTS
9. diff 20:31, 4 September 2017 old revision by Malik Shabazz reverted by Dsprc - restored content was sourced to ""Proceedings of the Asiatic Exclusion League"
10. diff 20:35, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
11. diff 20:35, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Dsprc
12. diff 20:36, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
13. diff 20:37, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Dsprc
14. diff 20:39, 4 September 2017 that last diff reverted by Malik Shabazz
15. diff 10:42, 8 September 2017 new foray about "ambivalence" by HTS
16. diff 02:38, 9 September 2017 new foray reverted by Malik Shabazz (note
17. diff 03:50, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by HTS
18. diff 04:01, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by Rjensen
19. diff 04:11, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by Jeffgr9
20. diff 11:55, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by MShabazz
21. diff 13:38, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by HTS
22. diff 13:54, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by MShabazz
23. diff 22:11, 9 September 2017 ambivalence content restored by PA Math Prof
24. diff 02:57, 10 September 2017 ambivalence content removed by Malik Shabazz
25. diff 06:28, 11 September 2017 new foray by HTS - Singerman and Goldstein refs including content about "proposed bill" from 90 years ago
26. diff 06:29, 11 September 2017 content removed by HTS about Jews self-identification
27. diff 07:02, 11 September 2017 COPYVIO removed by Jytdog
28. diff 07:23, 11 September 2017 content about bill restored, more paraphrased, by HTS
29. diff 07:25, 11 September 2017 content about bill that never became removed by Jytdog
30. diff 11:14, 11 September 2017 content about bill restored by HTS along with new content
31. diff 11:27, 11 September 2017 content about Jews self-identification restored by MShabazz
32. diff 11:36, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by IP 2601:84:4502:61ea:f9e5:b36f:b829:a4a9 (who is acknowledged to be HTS, per this diff)
33. diff 11:39, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by MShabazz
34. diff 11:44, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by HTS
35. diff 11:39, 11:45, 11 September 2017 last edit reverted by MShabazz
36. diff 21:16, 11 September 2017 laste edit reverted by Jeffgr9
37. diff 22:29, 11 September 2017 cleared content about Jews - Jytdog
38. diff 22:32, 11 September 2017 that was reverted by Coretheapple
39. diff 22:34, 11 September 2017 reverted by Jytdog

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Everybody is well aware.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page has been little used except for insult.

Comments:

Edit war over how to describe race of Jews in America stretching back a month. In my view the two named parties should each be blocked, and the article should be locked down until consensus content is worked out on the Talk page. Do as you will with blocking but please lock the article Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog modestly underplays his own edit-warring, which includes removing the NPOV tag that I added on WEIGHT grounds, a removal that was contrary to WP:WTRMT. Neither of the editors mentioned warrants blocking, and I don't believe there are grounds for full protection either. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We haven't even gotten to THE POPE stuff yet. Coretheapple is here for the dramah, per usual. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree about "dramuh" - in the sense that this report is pure "dramuh" and is not warranted. The discussion is heated, surprise surprise, but there is no basis for anyone to be blocked or the article to be "locked down" As for the pope, Jytdog needs to explain that as the pontiff is not referenced in the article in question. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• What would be appropriate given the remarkable history of edit warring laid out above, would be to lock down the article until consensus can be reached on the talk page. That is how we handle this kind of protracted content dispute and what Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Content_disputes is for. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Please note that The Human Trumpet Solo acknowledged that he was the IP editor. Yes, please protect the article. And look at the history of American Jews. And Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent. We have the same small group of POV-pushers who insist that European Jews, despite what they themselves think, are not white. They insist they're not antisemites, but they're willing to use any piece-of-shit source to "prove" it, even if it means citing the early 20th century equivalent of the KKK as if it were a RS or misquoting a respected author to make it appear he said the opposite of what he actually said. Once upon a time, the use of quality sources was important, and lying about what sources say was considered one of the most serious offenses an editor could make. Today, anything is fair game so long as you have a sufficient number of SPAs willing to tag-team on your behalf. Please block us all, the productive editors and the SPAs. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I made one edit under IP because my computer logged me out of Misplaced Pages and I didn't notice it. It was an accident, and I will be more careful about it in the future. As for Malik, it is clear from his editing patterns (and his emotionally charged, accusatory response above) that he is invested in pushing his own POV that Jews are objectively as-a-matter-of-fact white. He has over-emphasized sources that agree with this view (which I complained about before, see WP:POINTy), and mitigated (and in some cases even outright erased) sources that did not. This has been his pattern for years, and I think - at this point - he needs to be topic banned.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Try to reach agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:UN Cynthia reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ulysse Nardin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UN Cynthia (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:

--VViking_TalkEdits 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Pretty clear case of a user trying to use Misplaced Pages for WP:SPAM. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:VQuakr reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page

User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC) "VQuakr moved page Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League to User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League over redirect: Proposed move is contested. Feel free to start a move discussion."
2. 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC) "VQuakr moved page Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League to User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League over redirect: Per consensus MfD. Start a move discussion to seek a new consensus."
3. severaldays back.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

they templated me while carrying on with edit warring themselves.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC) "←Created page with 'This page was kept at MfD so it needs to be in Draft space to give interested editors the opportunity to explore the notability of the topic and decide if they w...'"

Comments:

This involves a page that was the single controbution of an account 5 years ago. Since it was kept at MfD the logical thing to do is to move the topic into Draft space for discovery by other interested editors who may wish to work on this topic. This user insists on returning the pagee to the stale userspace of a one shot wonder editor. Such a move is pointy and disruptive.

This user has accused me of edit warring on my talk page but has actually moved the page 3 times themselves and appears to not want to stop. If I'm seeing this correctly, they are misusing pagemove rights to delete redirects. There are other behavior issues here including Harassment and Personal Attacks (which I've warned them against) but I'll go with the edit warring to start with here. Please warn them and if applicable instruct this user that abusing page mover tools can result in loss of such tools. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked the correct process for requesting a contested move on the talk page. I haven't used any special permissions. Personal attack noted re the unsupported accusation of harassment. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither party has page mover rights, so no special tools were abused. Is this whole thing a disagreement about the meaning of WP:STALEDRAFT #4? If so, are the two of you discussing this? Move warring still counts as edit warring, even if no special tools were used. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: yes, there is discussion at User talk:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League to Draft:Calgary & District Cricket League, which followed the unanimous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andving/Calgary & District Cricket League. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So does anyone object to starting a move discussion there? The MfD only agreed to blanking the page, I'm not aware that it decided anything else. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I accidently submitted the page to AfD while trying to add an AfD comment. I then declined it so the comment would go back to the userspace page and create a trail in the unlikely event the creator came back (the evident assumption at MfD that the creator was coming back). EdJohnston's reading is quite correct - yet VQuakr claims MfD prevents me from moving the title It is pointy disruption to move war over a page from 5 year old non-contributor userspace. This user is well down a dangerous path of making moves and votes purely to disrupt cleanup and efforts to bring pages forward for community attention. Worse they are increasingly making it quite personal. I will not be exercising much more patience with this nonsense given recent ANi experiences.

I suppose we could have a move discussion, but who exactly is going to participate in a MOVE discussion over this title? I've seen no effort by VQuakr to improve the page toward mainspace they just want to obstruct me and edit war to be pointy. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: this

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Removing edit-warring notices from a talk page other than his/her own, which is roundly discouraged per WP:TPG. Note that User:Drmargi and User:Brojam ARE engaged in an edit-war at Ten Days in the Valley, so any claims that an EW warning was inappropriate or harassment are inaccurate. pbp 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to report BOTH MarnetteD and Purplebackpack89. As you can see by the history , both have exceeded 3RR on that page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD's clearly the one in the wrong here. It's a violation of TPG for her to do what she's doing, especially since the user who was being warned DID make TWO reverts to the page. Not that the number of reverts particularly matters, as, per WP:EDITWAR, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". There was clearly intent to edit war on both Drmargi and Brojam's part; Drmargi violated BRD by not discussing her revert at Talk:Ten Days in the Valley. Not that the appropriateness of the template matters, MarnetteD was NOT entitled to remove it under any circumstance. pbp 23:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the notice was being placed on Drmargi's talk page after she had made only one revert on the article in question. The placing of the template is a clear case of WP:HARASSMENT and was removed as such. This talk page thread may be why the harassment is occurring. Purplebackpack89 has been blocked for harassment before but seemss to have learned nothing from that. Yes I have been blocked for edit warring before but I am disgusted by this harassment and will accept the assessment of any and all admins who look into this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Well, I consider it to be edit-warring, there's no hard-and-fast rule for what is or isn't. Again, if you want me to assume good-faith about Drmargi, why didn't she discuss her revert someplace?
2. It's not harassment to accuse somebody of edit-warring when they're edit-warring
3. HARASSMENT is not the germane policy here. The germane policy is TPG. TPG does NOT make an exception, even for harassment, which, again, this isn't. Marnette's removal of the warning is in CLEAR violation of TPG
4. By the way, while we're on the subject of Drmargi, she is a FREQUENT edit-warrior who often REFUSES to participate in discussions about her edits. She herself is guilty of plenty of harassment herself...look at her actions toward User talk:Robberey1705. She had been name-calling Hzh earlier (after, yes, edit-warring with him) and I found that unacceptable. Then she went off and edit-warred with somebody else. Why is MarnetteD complaining about my actions while giving Drmargi a free pass to edit-war without explain and name-call hither and yon? pbp 00:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

On a further note P was not editing Ten Days in the Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). P also did not place a 3rr template on the talk page of the editor who made this edit so they were not concerned about what was happening with the article in question. IMO this indicates possibly stalking as well as harassment. MarnetteD|Talk 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, MarnetteD, I warned Brojam right there. And, since I didn't edit Ten Days in the Valley, that means I didn't edit-war at it either. Now stop throwing around words like "stalking" and "harassment". Your removal of the template was unsupported by policy and you should be blocked for it. pbp 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if we're going to bring up prior connections, you've collaborated with DrMargi on the British Bake Off article, the one where Hzh takes issue with Drmargi's edits. Are you using this whole thing to punish Hzh and people like me who agree with him, at least with the part that Drmargi shouldn't be name-calling him? pbp 00:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

While I have to apologize for missing the warning I have to point out again that it was totally inappropriate. We don't issue 3rr warnings for one revert edit. Next, when did I collaborate with anyone on the GBBO article. Lastly, since this report was filed about me what is all this stuff about Dm's editing. With all the accusations unaccompanied by proof IMO WP:ASPERSIONS should now be added to P's motives. MarnetteD|Talk 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time Purplebackback has engaged in a series of aggressive posts on my talk page in service of his own agenda, and a grudge. All of this started because an RfC on the LA's 2024 Olympic bid didn't go his way, and he can't get past it. That time, he tried to play the page ownership card to win (see the sequence of edits beginning here. As he did this time, he tried the same nonsense with two other editors who were removing repetitive/harassing posts from my talk page. Also at that time, I told him the two editors in question were free to remove anything he posted from my talk page and the same it true of User:MarnetteD.

This time, it's edit warring he's using to push his grudge. Nice to know he's psychic, but I'd logged off and gone back to something else I was doing some while before he decided to use one revert as his latest means to give me a bad time. His intentions aren't to see policy observed. His intentions are to harass, and poor old Brojam, who did nothing to bother anyone got sucked into it so PBP could create the illusion he is being balanced. The discussion on Hzh's talk page, linked above, is all the evidence of that needed. I would be sorry to see MarnetteD given a block for attempting to curtail his behavior, but do hope the admin reviewing this will block PBP for both edit warring and harassment. PBP's behavior this afternoon is inexcusable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Most of what DrMargi has said is inaccurate, particularly the part about not caring about policy, and also the timing of the 2024 Olympics edits, but while she's here, she's got some 'splaining to do for her edits. For starters, why'd you make reverts to Ten Days in the Valley without discussing them on the talk page? How is your behavior towards User:Robberey1705 acceptable in the slightest? Why do you keep name-calling User:Hzh while refusing to explain your edit-warring with him at the Bake Off article? Why DO you own the LA 2024 bid article, reverting just about anybody else who makes an edit? You, DrMargi, are a disruptive editor who repeatedly engages in name-calling and edit-warring, and you try to villainize me for pointing it out. "Harassment"? Please! If you discount the comments I had to post multiple times because third-parties inappropriately removed them, the number of talk page posts I've made to your page I can count on my fingers and the number of reverts I've made to you in mainspace is fewer. DrMargi, you have such an IDHT attitude that you claim any comment I or Hzh or anybody else is bullying or harrassment or some other inappropriate loaded word. So I urge the closing admin to adopt the following:

1. It's inappropriate for DrMargi to edit-war, name-call and OWN article
2. It's still OK to tell somebody they're edit-warring
3. It's OK to express concerns with DrMargi's editing

pbp 00:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmargi's edit-wars

Note: Some of these break 3RR, some don't. Some are within a 24-hour period, some are her reverting the same edits over a period of days. In most cases, Drmargi discussed her edits only grudgingly or not at all.

• at Ten Days in the Valley with User:Brojam
• At Designated Survivor (TV series) with User:58.7.148.11, whom she called insane in an edit summary
• at Designated Survivor (season 1). Note the edit summary...and then note that Drmargi herself has not explained her edits on the talk page
• at The Great British Bake Off with User:Hzh, whom she called names
• at California State University with User:AlaskanNativeRU
• at 2017–18 United States network television schedule with User:27pieRsquared, and others at different times
• ...and with just about everybody at Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, including move-warring with two editors at once.

More to come pbp 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
Given that I have been mentioned a number of times here, I guess I should give my experience of editing with Drmargi. I've already said in my talk page before that I have only dealt with her on a few occasions, but every time the experience is the same - aggressive reverts (even when other people were attempting compromise edits), demanding a discussion, but refused to discuss when requested or won't address the points made. The first time was at Mr Robot - (it was a very long and tedious discussion and I won't recommend anyone to read it), but the most egregious one is at The Great British Bake Off (series 7), where she repeated reverted edits demanding consensus but refused to participate in the subsequent discussion and RfC - see Talk:The Great British Bake Off (series 7). It appears that she misunderstood the British use of the word "series" with the American one, and instead of admitting the error, she chose to force other people to through the RfC process. Same here at the current discussion, where she demanded consensus and discussion, but again refuses to contribute a meaningful discussion - Talk:The Great British Bake Off (she claimed there had been no meaningful discussion, but omitted to mention that she refused to discuss it, and appears to want me to wait until she is ready to discuss. I did wait, for a week, but she still won't contribute, but reverted an edit while demanding discussion, but still again won't contribute to the discussion. I do always try to contact editors to discuss the issue where there is a conflict to avoid pointless reverts, but here it does not work, instead she keeps claiming WP:STATUSQUO (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) but won't discuss the issue in terms of actual policy or guideline. Hzh (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmargi's incivility

• here
• Responding to concerns about behavior with "horseshit" and name-calling

...and repeated harassment of @Robberey1705: More to come pbp 01:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

• Comment: I looked at this and although I'm pals with MarnetteD I was fully prepared to believe his (the editor is actually a he) actions were possibly inappropriate. However the actual facts of the matter are that DrMargi made exactly two reverts on Ten Days in the Valley, and then stopped, and the person she had been reverting was not Purplebackpack89: . So Purplebackpack89 is clearly stalking DrMargi (as also evidenced by the lists of stalked "edit wars" and "incivility" begun above), and the stalking and inappropriate templating is indeed WP:HARASSMENT of DrMargi. This is even above and beyond the fact that a list of edit wars and various other grievances about a third and unreported party does not belong here but rather at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A small point Softlavender - Dm's first edit in this situation was not a revert - it was a removal of WP:TOOSOON items. Thus the template was added to her page after one revert. Regards MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That initial edit was a revert of the material added 12 hours previously by Brojam: . -- Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you say so Softlavender. The edit you link to only added 190 bits to the article. Dm's edits removed 856 bits and even taking into account the other edits by Brojam spread out over 20 minutes that add up to 1379 bits I would have to maintain that it was a the first edit us removal not a revert. All that aside you are correct that none of this has anything to do with this report. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR, the red box in the middle: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." However, the fact that you were not aware of that part of the policy would substantiate that you believed that DrMargi had only made one revert at the time you removed the edit-warring template, so that does stand in your favor. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much. FYI I have read it countless times over the years and was more than aware of it. IMO not every edit that someone makes removing info is a "revert" since 10s of 1000s of them occur every single day. MarnetteD|Talk 04:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If it undoes any part of another editor's actions, it is indeed a revert, per that brightline policy. However, that only becomes a problem when one continues to revert after the material is restored to the status quo ante, which then becomes an edit war, and the initial undoing of another another editor's actions is where the counting starts. So DrMargi's first edit was her first revert. Of course, reverts don't particularly matter unless someone is edit-warring, warned, and reported; many editors make many constructive reverts on the same page without edit wars, warnings, or reports at ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender:@MarnetteD: How many reverts isn't particularly relevant because removing uw templates is not a listed reason allowing removal of talk page comments. pbp 04:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The templating was 100% appropriate and 0% harassment. Removing the template 100% violates TPG Do you believe she wasn't edit-warring? Do you give a damn that her record is far from spotless? Also, there's no rule that says you can't look an editor's past diffs, WP:HARASSMENT even notes that that is acceptable to do it on many occasions. WP:HARASSMENT also says nothing about it being acceptable for MarnetteD to do what she did pbp 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, if you are so insistent on dwelling on the past blocks of the editor you have been stalking and harassing, why don't we bring up the THREE times you have been blocked for WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASSMENT?: . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Let's make a deal

I'll agree to not interact with DrMargi anywhere expect LA Olympics-related pages...if she agrees to sanctions that result in blocks if she breaks 3RR or engages in continued incivility to other editors. pbp 01:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ANEW isn't "Let's Make a Deal". If you believe an editor is engaging in continued problematical behavior, the appropriate venue for discussing and resolving that is that editor's talk page, not ANEW. If that doesn't resolve matters, and you still want to report the editor's behavior, then the appropriate venue is WP:ANI; however be advised that your own behavior will come under scrutiny as well there. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's ANI then, because I've tried to discuss her problematic behavior at her page and she just responded by calling me names. Hzh has done the same. Many others have. And if this isn't the "discuss incivility" page, it's not the "discuss harassment" page either. FWIW, I think you calling it "harassment" is over-the-top. pbp 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG - FlightTime (open channel) 01:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If the boomerang can hit me it can hit others. pbp 02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual issue raised at this EW report

Purplebackpack's argument is that his edit warring was justified because he was right and Marnette was wrong. Marnette's argument is that his edit warring was justified because he was right and Purplebackpack was wrong. Quoting from WP:Edit warring, "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." " --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My edits were based on the harassment of placing a 3rr tag on the talk page of an editor who had made only one revert on the article in question. If that is not harassment then so be it. I took into account the previous harassment of Dm by P and made a judgement call. I would just add that the editing on Dm's talk page by both of us has stopped so any block would be punitive rather than preventative. But, as I stated earlier I will accept whatever is decided. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And my edits were based on the assessment of TPG that Marnette had no policy-based reason to make reverts. I'd also note that some of the things Marnette removed were EW templates, not 3RR templates. Had he not violated TPG, I wouldn't have kept re-adding my comments. I also think that Marnette, DrMargi and a lot of other people throw the word "harassment" around way, way too loosely, accepting DrMargi's mislabeling of previous concerns I've had with him as harrassment. I've made only a handful of comments to DrMargi's page. She doesn't like them. That doesn't make them harassment, it just sets them in a pile with the comments she doesn't like from...practically everyone else who commented on her talk page. pbp 04:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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