Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 12 November 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:Aṭlas reported by User:2A02:1205:C680:DC0:A124:29CC:4B23:E9F5 (Result: No violation)

Page: Assia Djebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aṭlas (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2 November 2017‎
2. 10 November 2017‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Aṭlas restored my edits more than once, despite having very reliable sources, and from the writing itself.2A02:1205:C680:DC0:A124:29CC:4B23:E9F5 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: )

Page: Samson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (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: User_talk:Jytdog#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While not technically violating the 3RR, it was close enough, and 5 identical edit reverts were made in the space of 30 hours. The user keeps reverting content having not reached any consensus - despite warnings of being blocked and the onus being on them. Furthermore, they are not only failing to propose compromise solutions, as they are supposed per the abovementioned WP:ONUS, but are in fact rejecting proposed compromises by the other party, User:Dilidor, as can be seen in these two edits: "satisfactory compromise which avoids your pet bugaboo word", "Nope, does not deal with the issue. Please discuss on talk. Thanks.".

It is important to note that I recently had an edit-war report on the same user on another subject, as a result of which I was blocked. Jytdog suggested this could be WP:BATTLEGROUND and warned me of potentially receiving a topic block. Therefore, this report also applies to me as well, and I am strongly aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANG, However, it must also be noted that my second encounter with Jytdog was accidental, and I reverted their edits in good faith, not even realising I already met them on Misplaced Pages. la 00:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the OP, the first thing that is actually important to note, is:

• Per their blog log, they were given a 24 hour block on 6 November and a 48 hour block on 8 November for edit warring creationist pseudoscience into Answers in Genesis. When that second block expired, their next edit was
  • clear their TP of warnings
  • diff random unsourced edit to gravitational wave
  • diff beating a dead horse argument at Talk:Answers in Genesis
  • diff again making the edit warring edit for which they had been blocked for 48 hours, with a bullshit edit note This is NOT an edit war. Feel free to revert this edit. Just be so kind as to provide some reasons for your reversion - preferably, on the talk page..
    • That led to a discussion at their TP with another editor here where OJ had the stones to write The edit that I was restoring was reverted by only one editor, so I thought, maybe, if I restored it again, other editors would agree.

So that is PSCI-pushing immediate background

• At the Samson article....
• Please note that dif #1 in the report is not mine nor is it the version being reverted to. Please note that the diffs shown by OJ as "efforts to resolve the dispute" are nothing of the sort - not by OJ, nor by the the person who added the content. It is a very sad thing that OJ thinks those difs are efforts to resolve a dispute.

• the content under dispute was first added to the article by Dilidor on Nov 6 in this diff, and my first diff above, is disputing that addition.

• Yesterday there was a bit of a flurry as Dilidor restored that three times (yes I want up to 3 reverts yesterday -- I am very mindful of the limit). I (not Dilidor) opened a TP discussion yesterday at Talk:Samson#Encyclopedic and discussion was underway there (including one contribution from Dilidor) and the article had settled while that discussion was happening.

OJ, who had never edited the Samson article before today per their contribs to the page, showed up and:

• restored the disputed addition at 21:51, 10 November 2017 with edit note Please reach consensus first before adding information. which has nothing to do with the content under dispute. I gave them a warning to avoid battleground editing at their TP after they did that.
• diff at 22:23, 10 November 2017 with edit note You are modifying content in spite of disagreement from other users, including me, having not reached consensus on the talk page. I gave them an edit war warning after they did that.

• Please note that OJ had not, and still has not, actually participated at the talk page, so that 2nd edit note is a clear misrepresentation.
• Please also note also this bit of blatant canvassing (and it is canvassing, not a neutral notice) at the TP of Dilidor, writing Hello. I have used your edits on the article Samson to support my case for temporarily blocking user Jytdog for his disruptive persistent editing, as I agree with your edits on the article and believe that Jytdog's edits are damaging to Misplaced Pages. If you have any objections to that, please let me know, and I will remove them as soon as you do so

Oldstone James does not seem to have understood what is happening at the Samson article, and has made no effort to resolve the content dispute. They do not understand how Misplaced Pages works. This is not some battleground where you find allies and create GANGs to jump in and "help them win" because you "like" their content.

I have not violated 3RR and I suggest an even longer block for Oldstone James than the last one, for this incompetent effort at wikilawyering, battleground behavior. I don't come edit Misplaced Pages to play little games like this. Phooey. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I must say, Jytdog is very good of taking things out of context and passing the buck. However, not this time.

As to my block for edits on Answers in Genesis, yes, I did get it, and I have actually admitted that in the report summary. What I was certainly not doing is pushing pseudoscience, as I myself, like any reasonable person, consider creationism an awkward attempt at defending the obsolete biblical God. Instead, I was actually trying to reach neutrality on the article.

The listed edits are, for the most part, irrelevant. My edit on Talk:Answers in Genesis was an attempt to reach consensus - something Jytdog failed to even try. The other edit was not an edit war, as I stated. I explicitly said it was free to be reverted. The reason I made it again is because the first time that I made it, it got reverted, which led me to start a discussion, where we swiftly diverted away from discussing my edit to discussing the problems with the then-current version, as can be seen here. That's why I did not know whether my edit was actually accepted by the editors or not. As soon as I realised it wasn't, I, as rightly pointed out by Jytdog, started a discussion, without doing anything about the reversion of my edit. While this may not have been the right thing to do in terms of[REDACTED] policies, as was explained to me by Rhododendrites on my on my talk page, continuing an edit-war clearly wasn't my intention.

The diff in the report is the version of the article just before Jytdog's first edit, showing that it was indeed Jytdog who started the edit-war. The diff you provided is Dilidor reverting original research added by an anonymous user. The version before that, which is provided in the report, clearly shows Dilidor was just undoing an addition - rather than making it themselves.

Yes, these are attempts to resolve a dispute. Jytdog started a discussion, and Dilidor attempted to resolve the problem. I don't understand how this is not an attempt to resolve dispute.

No, that's not true. Jytdog was reverting edits as the discussion took place. That was even mentioned on the talk page itself.

That's not a strong argument. When I was being blocked, here, Jytdog did not only not in any way participate in the discussion on the talk page (proof), they also ignored my offer to discuss the matter at their own talk page.

The last part is not convassing. I just let the user know I have been using their edits in case they have any objections.

We can all see that Jytdog is trying to provoke the administrator to block me for as long as possible. If anyone is indeed making a battleground out of Misplaced Pages between me and Jytdog, it's the latter. I already said I didn't even recognise them when I was reverting the edits.la 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this note at the OP's talk page. They are deeply confused about how Misplaced Pages works and actually believes that edit warring and not talking somehow makes sense, and is a Misplaced Pages thing to do. I guess if you are come here to push some Christian/creationist POV and are failing to gain traction, you might take the perspective expressed in the message and "fall on your sword" as it were.

From the perspective of anyone here to build an encyclopedia that message is pure confusion and an admission that they are by now just "fighting for their side". This is so, so not what we do here.

As I noted on the talk page this dispute is very RFC-able but neither Dilidor nor OJ are working the very normal DR process enough to even get there. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "I guess if you are come here to push some Christian/creationist POV and are failing to gain traction..." - yes, clearly, even though I am an atheist. I do not believe edit-warring and not talking makes sense. I believe that you believe not talking makes sense. In fact, I don't just believe it - I can prove it: User_talk:Jytdog#Answers_in_Genesis. I tried to discuss the issue with you, but you refused.

Yep, I sure admit that I am 'just "fighting for their side"', which is why I wrote "if you undo your edit, I am removing the report right now". Perfect logic. I think you might be pushing a personal attack, as you practically told me to die. I don't think saying I can "fall on your sword" is really helping your case.la 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not how Misplaced Pages works. You are not trying to resolve the dispute, you are trying to "win" and you will keep getting longer and longer blocks as long as you continue to play that "game". I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Same. Let's just wait and see.la 02:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have seen other examples: OJ, shortly after the block expired, on Creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) changed a comma to a hyphen 1 Punctuation, which was reverted 2 by Theroadislong Correct before. OJ then reverted 3 My bad. Corrected. which was reverted 4 by Just plain Bill Comma works just fine here.. I mentioned this on OJ's talk page: 5 which was removed by OJ 6 with only a question mark: ? I don't think OJ understands how to handle disputes or believes Misplaced Pages's a battleground. Jim1138 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I tried to correct punctuation, but my edit got reverted. I assumed it was because I used the wrong dash - i.e., a hyphen rather than an en-dash. - and fixed it, saying "My bad", implying it was my fault that I forgot I should have used an en-dash rather than a hyphen. After that got reverted, I stopped. Your addressing me on the talk page was already after I figured out the reversion of my edit was because they didn't agree with my (correct) punctuation, so it didn't really bear any particular new information. I removed it because it is my talk page. You can't accuse me of doing things on my own talk page.la 02:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You understand, "correct before" to mean that you used the wrong type of dash rather than leave the comma in place? Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Talk:Answers in Genesis was an attempt to reach consensus

Right. That's why you've been blocked TWICE on the same article AND have continued to push the same thing that got you blocked -- while, amusingly, continuing to claim you weren't edit-warring.

I'm thinking that this should be declined on WP:CIR grounds alone. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been blocked twice - you got a good grasp of the situation. However, as I explained, I didn't push the same thing I got blocked for. I added something that got reverted before I started a discussion on the talk page and before my 'edit-war' began. I got blocked twice for a different thing. Also, I didn't push it - I explicitly said anyone is free to revert my edit, and after it did get reverted, I didn't make any further edits, instead starting another discussion on the talk page.la 13:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Time for another WP:BOOMERANG block. The fact that OJ has put it on the record that they are happy to troll indicates that per, WP:RGW, they are WP:NOTHERE and it should be an indef - although that is probably beyond the scope of this report. It is commendable that other editors have not taken this to ANI before now. MarnetteD|Talk 05:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I'm sorry, but when exactly did I say I am happy to troll? If you found that on my talk page that was an obvious example of sarcasm. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear, but I thought it was really obvious. As to WP:RGW, I have no idea how that applies to me. All my recent edits have been attempts to tackle it. As toWP:NOTHERE, I already explained that.la 13:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment; - I occasionally come across random stuff through my watchlist, this is an example of one such occassion. Let's disassemble this report quickly as it contains many inaccuracies. First, the version being reverted to is 17:13, 9 November 2017 and not the claimed one from November 6th - there's about ten uncontested intermediary edits in this time period. Further, the diffs of "attempted resolution at the article talk page" is citing mostly discussions that did not happen on the article talk page at all. It's also selectively ignoring the warnings given to Dilidor who hit the 3RR limit, but, was careful enough not to overstep it. The same is true of Jytdog, no 3RR breach due to the 24hr limit, but, you can argue that five reverts over a thirty-two/three hour period is edit-warring. Now, on that question, what is the edit-warring over? the choice of words and tone of a couple of sentences in one section of the article. Otherwise known as a stupid edit war. Jytdog, I have to say, you are equally responsible for failing to adhere to BRD as Dilidor is. Oldstone James' suddence appearance (despite having never edited the article previously) to engage in what can be described as an editwar is ... foolish at best. No idea what's triggered their presence, and I don't care to know. In summary; nobody has breached 3RR, however, I would describe this as an edit war. I think Jytdog's edits are an overall improvement on the article, but, that is not a justification for edit warring. Take it to the talk page, the next person to revert (of the aforementioned parties) should receive an edit-warring block. For reference, the current revision is; this one by Jytdog. Though, it's entirely possible that this is now over. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

Greek War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "restore without consensus in violation of MOS:IMAGES (ie post on talk and reverted wo waiting for a response) Undid revision 809734201 by Khirurg (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC) to 07:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "ce /* Peloponnese */"
   2. 07:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "encyclopedic tone /* Peloponnese */"
   3. 07:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "MOS:IMAGES /* Peloponnese */"
   4. 07:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "Not only is this not essential, it is so poorly formatted that it distracts from the article text instead of enhancing it /* Danubian principalities */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) to 07:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "not an improvement Undid revision 809610122 by Khirurg (talk)"
   2. 07:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "WP:Quotations /* Enlightenment and the Greek national movement */"
   3. 07:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "Looks terrible on smaller screens work it into the text /* Danubian principalities */"
   4. 07:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "fix text sandwich /* Danubian principalities */"
4. 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "text sandwich but neutral on adding the poem back in as text /* Philhellenism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talkpage discussion

Comments:

This is our weekly report on retaliatory edit-warring by Seraphim System. After two edit-warring blocks, the trend seems to be: 1. Pick a Greece-related article you never edited before. 2. Start sloppy and disruptive deletions. 3. Edit-war like there is no tomorrow 4. Rinse 5. Repeat. Please see also comment by blocking admin on previous report on 1 November, where the admin acknowledges retaliatory edit-warring by Seraphim System on Greece. Dr. K. 05:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The wider issue very likely may need to go to ANI or ARBCOM, but there's no 3RR violation here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is. But I will leave it to the patrolling admin to decide. Dr. K. 05:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The reverts are within 3RR though I am not keeping track of the hours, and I don't really have an opinion on the content, but MOS is clear that 1) text sandwiches should be avoided and 2) the images should relate to the text. I don't think my edits are disruptive or sloppy, the issue is that instead of reverting editors should be collaborating to improve the article - for example where the images are not discussed in the text - as in the painting of the flag being raised at the Siege of Tripolitsa being placed next to text about a non-contemporary and disputed account of the flag being raised at the monastery of Agia Lavra. Contrary to being sloppy, I carefully reviewed the text before removing the images. I also started a discussion on the talk page - these are clearly good faith attempts to improve the article which is currently B-Class (and is not only a Greece related article, but part of WP Ottoman history as well, where I am semi-active.) This editor really needs to stop relying on ANI as a tool to punish constructive editors and instead discuss on talk pages like everyone else. Seraphim System 05:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note also that during the last report on 1 November, Seraphim System edit-warred on this very noticeboard, blanking a portion of my report, repeatedly reverting, and only stopping on the second warning by Acroterion. See also previous warning by Acroterion, additional revert by Seraphim System edit-warring at 3RRN. Dr. K. 05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I did and I find it incredibly frustrating, but I should not have reacted to what is obviously provocation. Other editors talked to me about this, and I am trying to not respond to the provocation, but it is difficult and frustrating when you are making good faith improvements to articles and feel that is being derailed. My participation on talk pages is very high, and I always try to maintain a polite and constructive tone, but I disagree with the outcome precisely because when these tactics succeed it only reinforces and encourages more disruptive behavior. I would understand the zeal if the articles were FA, but they are not and I don't think this is helping the quality of the articles. Seraphim System 05:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please note also that on diff 1 of this report (04:53, 11 November 2017), the edit-summary is deceptive. It refers to MOS Images, yet the reported user also blanks text, as in the previous reverts. Use of deceptive edit-summaries is an ongoing problem with this user. Dr. K. 05:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It was recently demonstrated that this problem could easily be addressed by using talk pages and assuming good faith, the edit summary is as long as I could make it and my comments on talk explaining the text removal are lengthy. Yes, it is a box quote, but it still creates a text sandwich (I don't know what's wrong with the formatting, but it looks very unpolished on mobile which many people use. I compared it to other box quotes which don't look like this.) It was removed with an edit summary suggesting that it should be worked into the text - I don't think Dr.K. is stupid, so I think he knows that what he is saying is not true. Seraphim System 05:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally after the last block, I have only been making small edits and improvements on articles that I come across while reading. I am reluctant to invest significant time making improvements when I feel like my work and participation are not valued. Even so, something which I considered a simple request "This makes the article hard to read, please work it into the text" has sparked a "retaliatory edit war" and accusations that I am trolling Greece related article. I created both Alepotrypa Cave and Temple of Poseidon (Tainaron) and I wrote this section of Physis - why would anyone think that I am trolling Greece related articles? The constant templating, harassment, removal of citation needed tags, and complaints at ANI are making it hard for me to continue editing - I usually put some distance when I am having problems with a particular editor, but changing articles has not helped either. So even if you are going to block me, please make sure to add a note on what I can do differently to stop this from happening again. Seraphim System 06:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also this , with no response on talk. The quality of articles is important to me, and I can't keep editing if it is not important to the admins as well. There are significant factual errors, lazy wording, formatting issues, WP:OR on many articles in the area of Turkish/Ottoman history. It is my sincere belief that the recent actions of admins blocking me has only reinforced abusive and disruptive patterns of editing by Dr.K. (and what I strongly suspect are sock puppet accounts or accounts that are collaborating off-wiki to avoid 3RR) - the quality of the articles is mediocre. I refimprove, he removes citation needed tags. I participate in talk page discussions (27%) he does not (9.2%). I have had only one edit warring block before this, now it is 3 complaints with the same editor in a very short time. Incidentally, this editor files more edit war complaints then talk page comments. How does that work? How can one always be the victim of edit warring, yet never participate in consensus discussions? The area of Turkish/Ottoman history is considered vital and in need of improvement. No one is irreplaceable, and I think participation in the area would be more productive and less toxic if admins really looked at the whole pattern of editing and participation. Seraphim System 07:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) This is the third time in less than a month that this use is edit-warring on Greece/Turkey related topics. In addition to a block, discretionary sanctions may be in order, since previous blocks seem to have had no effect. Khirurg (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I would on the whole like to see participation on these articles improve. They are vital articles in need of improvement, but I find that it very difficult to improve them when my edits are reverted, I am accused of edit warring and have the stress of these complaints, and the editors who are complaining about edit warring are not engaging with the consensus process. There have also been numerous personal attacks and general incivility that make consensus difficult. I raised the issue here where I was accused of deceptive edit summaries and blanking genocide ] of good faith discussion, and it does not seem to have helped. We have cases now of the article text following the lede - I try to do high quality work and for an editor like me, this is frustrating. I have heard that this is one of the most difficult topic areas to work in, and I would say the quality of the articles on the whole is below average for a major history section on Misplaced Pages (The Holocaust and British history are two examples of topic areas where I have never had to "Edit war" to reach a consensus - even though I did not always get what I wanted). Seraphim System 07:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I will not add a detailed response to the walls of text added by the reported account, filled by PAs and deceptive comments, so as not to derail this report more than it already is, due to the sheer volume of obfuscation by Seraphim System. However, if anyone wishes diffs establishing the reported account's deception during their relentless edit-warring and blanking, please feel free to ask me. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Even after the errors have been pointed out the personal attacks and intimidation continue - at this point I think it fair to call this dishonest. I think it was a mistake to encourage this tactic with the first block and I said as much. Looking at the talk page participation of the editors involved should be enough - mine is 27%. Dr.K. is 9.2% - too low, in my opinion, for someone who is involved in so many edit wars. Seraphim System 16:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Vincearban28 reported by User:User 261115 (Result: blocked)

Page: Disney Channel (Southeast Asia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vincearban28 (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:
User repeatedly adding unannounced upcoming show information on Disney Channel page. Warned several times not to do so on user talk page unless it's been officially announced by the channel but ignores the warning and continues to do so. Nearly all of user's contribution history is just adding these unannounced shows. User 261115 (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User is continuing to do the same edits again and again completely ignoring the warnings, why hasn't an admin taken any action yet? User 261115 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: EC protection)

Page: Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. , 04:13, 8 November 2017
2. 17:19, 8 November 2017
3. 22:50, 10 November 2017
4. 00:41, 11 November 2017
5. 00:48, 11 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
While I wanted to avoid ending up here, this article is covered by WP:ARBIPA sanctions and has a WP:1RR restriction in place . Kautilya3 being experienced knows better of course and is well-aware of this, but unfortunately the slow edit war hasn't discontinued, even after 1RR was raised on talk. The set of edits on the 8th and 10th onwards are reverts under a 24 hour period. This first set of edits removed content before discussion, followed up by another here on the 8th. I see one revert by KA$HMIR on the 8th , although the rest of their edits appeared to modify unrelated sections. I've left a warning on their talk regardless. On the 10th, Kautilya3 has a revert at 22:50, followed by another hours later here and this one, which basically removed the same passage that was deleted earlier. This blanket reverting is unhelpful as it flouts the purpose of 1RR, which is in place to prevent exactly that, and it's happening unfairly IMO while the talk page discussion is ongoing. I haven't edited the article since my expansions on the 5th, prior to the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Response: Sigh... Mar4d should know first of all that RegentsPark has modified the edit restriction, and it is not under 1RR. Secondly, he should know that consecutive edits are not counted as multiple reverts (if they were reverts at all). Thirdly, he needs to recognize that as a long-term contributor to the article, I am certainly entitled to review and accept/reject all new edits that are made to the content, particularly if they modify my content. Everybody can see I have been discussing in good faith all the issues that are being contested. I see this as a bad faith report, and I see an effort to railroad dubious content by ganging up. I suggest that he continue discussing and use dispute resolution when necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Confirming that the 1RR restriction was removed by me and is no longer applicable to Kashmir conflict articles. --regentspark (comment) 14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I remember going through that. Why the page notice was never updated beats me. IMO, Kautilya3, these restrictions still don't give leeway for your stockpile of reverts left and right. Your five most recent edits within 24 hours involve whole or partial modifications of the same material. What's more problematic is that the blanket reverts are happening simultaneously to the talk page discussion where multiple editors are involved, and then there's misleading edit summaries like this (sigh). In one case, minutes after you commented. And the sources and additions you removed did not modify your content actually. Please don't justify this using WP:OWN. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, sometimes, I might work on a talk page response and an edit concurrently and commit both of them essentially simultaneously. The idea that a peer-reviewed scholarly article is a FRINGE is your opinion. That doesn't make my edit summary "misleading". It is a scolarly article, better than 90% of the sources being used in the article, ranging from newsreports to diplomats' opinions. No editor has produed a single source that studied the same issue and contradicted my soure. As I have mentioned there, knowledge progresses through new research. The new research doesn't automatically become a minority view just because it is new research. You are also ignoring WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when you claim that it is a minority view. The other sources are older, superficial, opinion-based etc. etc. The source as a whole could be reliable, but unreliable for the particular issue that is being covered. If you seriously want to contest my source, take it to the FRIGE theory noticeboard. Why are you here?

Let me also highlight the fact that I moved the contested pargaraph into a footnote, partially accepting that it could be a minority view. So I wasn't doing blind reverts. I repeat that this is a bad faith report. It is a content dispute where you don't have good arguments, and you are trying to take the back door by getting rid of the opposing editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not an issue of WP:OWN either. Being the largest contributor to the article, I have also done the most amount of research on the subject, and I know what is what. Don't expect me to take seriously half-baked edits that do Google search for a phrase and insert the first source they come across. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your explanation regarding concurrent editing on face value. But in the future, please avoid edit summaries that don't explain the edit being made. As for the issues surrounding your sources (and your approach to the article in general, which currently has several problems IMO), you should take it to the talk page where it's being discussed. I still see no acknowledgement from you about the edit warring that took place, or that you intend to not do it further. That's the real issue here. Mar4d (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

One last comment, even though the report has been closed. My understanding of 3RR and 1RR is that they are mainly intended against pointless going-back-and-forth edits. They are not meant to restrain editors from genuinely reverting whatever they find objectionable. If ten bad edits get made, ten reverts might take place, partially or completely, separately or together. I was explicitly assured by RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 that consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts. Whether you like it or not, that is the world we live in. For my part, even though RegentsPark has only asked for talk page explanation for the second revert, I often explain things on the talk page with the first revert or sometimes no-revert, when the issues are substantial. And I try not to revert any particular content twice within the a 24-hour period, in effect voluntarily following 1RR. My conscience is clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have been avoiding this article for sometime because all I am seeing is that one WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY account is disrupting this article, by using false edit summaries and engaging in edit war, while other editor is telling him how wrong he is but he is not hearing per WP:IDHT. And this disruptive approach is being repeated. We could do better than this, but these SPAs that don't abide consensus and remove long standing content just makes it very hard. There is no WP:OWN. Capitals00 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• KA$HMIR Appears at first glance to be a Nangparbat sock Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No 3RR violation by User:Kautilya3. The 1RR was lifted by RegentsPark in 2016. As a defence against sockpuppetry, and since Kashmir conflict is a hotly-contested article covered by ARBIPA, I'm applying one year of WP:Extended confirmed protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:David Tim reported by User:Anmolbhat (Result: Page protected and editors (Iamgod12345) warned.)

Page: Jaggi Vasudev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David Tim (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:

This guy is agian and agian reverting and there are some suspected IP's which are doing the same.So I think they may be his sock Anmolbhat (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully for a week. Anmolbhat there were two editors edit warring there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anmolbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:71.82.0.32 reported by User:Meters (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Marching 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.82.0.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:46 Nov 11
2. 17:44 Nov 11
3. 4:49 Nov 11
4. 3:23 Nov 11
5. 3:21 Nov 11
6. 22:32 Nov 10
7. 22:28 Nov 10 Different wording, but the same unsourced claim of an associated group called The Diamonds.
8. 22:26 Nov 10
9. 4:47 Nov 7 Outside of the 24 hour 3RR period. This is the original version of the 22:28 Nov 10 revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This particular IP has broken 3RR, but the claim itself has a long history of insertion by various IPs and seems to be false, not just unsourced. The first time I can find this claim being made was more than one year ago , The same IP who made that edit also inserted the claim into Florida A&M University at the same time , but with the additional info that the group only performs in the stands, suggesting that it is nothing but an informal group of fans not officially associated with the Marching 100. The Marching 100 website https://www.famubands.com/ makes no mention of the Diamonds. Meters (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Add latest revert. Still within 24 hr 3RR period (now at 8RR) and after this AN3 was opened. Undone as a hoax. Meters (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:92.76.6.155 reported by User:CBG17 (result:Both blocked)

Page: Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Joon (airline) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.76.6.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user is again and again reverting edits which are in line with Misplaced Pages guidelines and has used offensive language and reverting edits with no references to support the information that is being re added. CBG17 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 & 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Stewarino reported by User:Tiger7253 (Result: Declined)

Page

Chewing gum ban in Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined their last edit was 10 days ago.

User:Sadecherie2015 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )

Page

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sadecherie2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1st edits: 21:21, 9 November and 21:55, 9 November (removed "baseless" from "baseless allegations")
• 1st revert: 22:21, 9 November (removed "baseless", added "Express Newspapers had printed as fact ...")
• 2nd revert: 21:09, 10 November (three edits; removed "baseless", added "Express Newspapers had printed as fact ...")
• 3rd revert: 21:25, 10 November (three edits; removed "based on no evidence", added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs
• 4th revert: 22:32, 11 November (added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs)
• 5th revert: 00:48, 12 November (added unsourced or poorly sourced text about sniffer dogs; referred to attack site in edit summary)

Comments

This is not a 3RR report. Sadecherie2015, a little-used account, is editing through semi-protection to add conspiracy-theory-related BLP violations. He's making complex partial reverts. I asked him to stop yesterday, but it continued today. SarahSV 01:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809926227 by Darkness Shines (talk) Actually... everyone seemed fine with them except you. Please don't reinsert material with synthesis in it"
2. 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC) "Let's try this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Patriot Prayer */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Objection to "repeatedly disavowed them and denounced racism" */"
2. 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Request for comment */ new section"
3. 11:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "/* No consensus */ new section"

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction, changes were made without consensus ad can be seen from the talk page. Should the user self revert I will happily withdraw this report Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note There is currently a discussion in regards to this issue in question on 'MSGJ' TP. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with Pd4th breaking 1RR Darkness Shines (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and yes it does as they responded to your actions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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