Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 29 June 2018

• 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:Shmurak reported by User:ВоенТех (Result: Declined)

Page: Revolution of Dignity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shmurak (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:

No dispute ever occured, the violator

1. simply deleted the talk page, redirecting it to other talk page,
2. reverted edits without any edit summary, which led me to suggest that it was a vandalism.

(Speaking frankly, anyone, who is able to use https://www.google.com/search can confirm that there is no room for dispute.)

I've applied to the WP:AIV,

User:Nyttend resolved that this is not a vandalism, and instead pointed out that this is definitely an edit warring.

By the way, the user is waging the same edit war at several other wiki-projects (though some were repelled quite recently and the IPs used are blocked), wikidata included.

Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen. ВоенТех (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined @ВоенТех: Charges of vandalism, no attempts to discuss with other editor, no warnings to other editor, no WP:3RR violation, no notification of this report as is required... NeilN 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Davey2116 (Result: Warned)

Page: Peter Welch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:13, 25 June 2018
2. 15:41, 25 June 2018
3. 15:56, 25 June 2018
4. 23:47, 25 June 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:16, 26 June 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the link to the talk page discussion attempt to resolve this dispute? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the practice is to not number the US presidents pro tempore. I believe this practice covers the state presidents pro tempores, as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Therequiembellishere is warned not to edit war. How amazing it is that there is no discussion on the talk page by either side. If people want to disagree about the numbering of office-holders, you'd think they would hold a centralized discussion. Or remember where those discussions have happened in the past, so they can link to them when editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Capriaf reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Protected)

Page: Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Capriaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edit summary: "We all know you want her to be president in 2020. It isn't working. " (not sure who "we" refers to here)
2. Edit summary: "STOP IGNORING HER COMMENTS WHERE SHE SAID IMMIGRANTS RAPE AND MURDER!" This is a WP:BLP violation and is also not supported by the source the user is trying to add
3. Based on the edit summary this appears to be a WP:POINT violation ("if you don't let me put my BLP violations into the article, I won't let you have some other text in the article"
4. Edit summary: "It’s controversial because she supports ICE, took money from Steve Mnuchin (Trumps Secretary of Treasury). I cited well sourced material on Mnuchin and it was taken down. Stop reverting and be fair. Either Mnuchin is up top or this is off. Be FUCKING CONSISTENT!" Multiple BLP violations in that edit summary.
5. Ditto. This presumably references previous edits made by the same person using an IP address , which was also a BLP violation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a warning for edit warring on a previous occasion. In this instance the fast pace of reversions meant that nobody left a warning for this particular spate of edit warring. The user has also been previously blocked for edit warring on a 1RR restricted article.

Here is a notification of Discretionary Sanctions in the topic area (although not necessary, since the user had previously been blocked and then unsuccessfully appealed the block based on DS )

Here is a warning about BLP and edit warring on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article was fully protected by User:Muboshgu, however, since this is also a discretionary sanctions issue, and also a BLP issue, and considering the complete lack of any sign that the user plans to stop, as well as the evident WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the edit summaries, I thought this report was necessary.

In particular, in addition to making 5 reverts in less than 24 hours, the users edit violate BLP multiple times. In the first revert , they added BLP violating material based on a non-reliable source (a comedian's show). In the second revert the user used a better source (sort of, Daily Beast) but the source doesn't actually support the claim. As mentioned above, the third revert is a WP:POINT violation and the BLP violation is repeated in the edit summary. This is repeated in the fourth revert , with a new BLP violating accusation thrown in. Same is true in the fifth revert.

So you get a trifecta here: edit warring, BLP vios and BATTLEGROUND/incivility, all in an article from an area under discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

These problematic edits are not limited to Kamala Harris. See also recent edits on Steve Schmidt: "The tweet literally says he is aligned within the Democratic Party. In the tweet rant, he called for a blue wave. Stop fucking calling him an independent and learn to fucking comprehend reading"] and a diff removed from his Talk page asking him to stop edit-warring on Kyrie Irving. This seems like surprising behavior for a longterm editor so I wonder if the account was recently taken over by someone else. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering I made edits based on WHAT YOU all said I should, you are being inconsistent. You said no editorial. Bam. You said stick to the facts. I did. Why don’t you leave it the way I left it since I complied with your standards and you keep moving the goal post? Your conduct suggests you are trying to make Kamala Harris in better light. I have done similar edits for Hillary’s Clinton and they remain. What I did was not BLP violations. They are undisputed facts. How is the fact that a major campaign contributor was Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s Secretary of Treasury, not important when it relates directly to “she opposes Trump.” And the source I cited about her support for ICE, she bluntly says ICE should exist and that immigrants commit rape and murder. How can you rationally say the source didn’t work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capriaf (talk • contribs) 07:37, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see a violation. Here is my count:
  • Revert 1 was an addition of "Harris support ICE". It was reverted due to poor source.
  • Revert 2 was the same addition of "Harris support ICE" except with a better source. They are at 1RR.
  • Revert 3 is a removal "opposed Trump" which is a different item.
  • Revert 4 is a revert "opposed Trump". They are at 2RR.
  • Revert 5 is a revert "opposed Trump". They are at 3RR.
• They were not warned
• – Lionel 23:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 24 hours by User:Muboshgu. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm too WP:INVOLVED on this article to be in the appropriate position to adjudicate this long term. That's why I locked it for only 24 hours; I saw a fire on my watchlist and moved to put it out. I was hoping to force a talk page discussion, but I see that hasn't really happened. Do you think protection should be extended? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Capriaf was alerted to WP:ARBAP2 on 25 June, so if the problems continue, they are risking a sanction. Capriaf's edit summaries do leave something to be desired ("learn to fucking comprehend reading"). Capriaf constantly deletes all warnings from their talk, suggesting they don't have much interest in discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried discussion but you all refuse to be consistent. I post something that related to Kamala opposing Trump, but you took it down. So to keep it consistent, I took down the opposition to Trump sentence. Now that it's not there, I am happy. Please stop being inconsistent. It comes off as defending her rather than being objective. She said on live national television that ICE exists to stop rapists and murderers. She said it on All in with Chris Hayes. I did not appreciate the reversions. You were being extremely inconsistent and I had to act.

 Comment: This whole discussion was removed by Capriaf (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=847695808), I don't think that was supposed to happen so I put it back. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Tootifrooti11 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Sino-Indian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tootifrooti11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847560284 by Capitals00 (talk)"
2. 06:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847467657 by D4iNa4 (talk) IDC Only Hindutva brigade thinks India won. Boka You lost, accept it and get over it"
3. 14:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "It's okay if your friend calls it POV pushing, but you have a problem when I speak the same language. I don't gel with hypocrisy. Say sorry for your attacks, then ask for proposing."
4. 08:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 847403826 by MBlaze Lightning (talk) You are not POV-pushing Hindu nationalist? You do not run this place."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC) "Edit warring"
2. 06:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Sino-Indian War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN 15:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:65.128.2.45 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Raven's Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Nominations"
3. 17:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Raven's Home. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN 19:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:640:8101:82FE:2C5D:D4DC:6603:905B reported by User:Sparzival (Result: Range blocked)

Page: David Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:640:8101:82FE:2C5D:D4DC:6603:905B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I apologize if this is the inappropriate venue. User:Coryphantha warned the IP for vandalism for some of these edits, though I had a slightly different interpretation of them. Let me know if this would be better handled by the admins at AIV. Sparzival (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They seemed to be a personal opinion that was not sourced, I did the best I could with it. The user was persistent and even changed his IP address probably thinking it wouldn't be noticed. I probably should've stepped aside and let another counter vandal user take over. Coryphantha Talk 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it seems like one of those edge cases that could reasonably be considered vandalism. The IP actually is adding another Lynch quote, but it doesn't belong strung along to the first one and seems a little less notable. Regardless, they should have taken a pause and discussed... I'm a recently registered IP user, who uses mobile and has a dynamic IP. It's possible they didn't realize their IP address was changing, but that's something frequent IP editors have to be cognizant of in order to edit with our colleagues. Sparzival (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did undo my undo and left it for others to handle and will stay out of it. The text: "Our so-called leaders can’t take the country forward, can’t get anything done. Like children, they are. Trump has shown all this." did appear to be vandalism, so I apologize if it was meant to be a quote and I misunderstood. Coryphantha Talk 20:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/2601:640:8101:82fe::/64 has been blocked 36 hours by User:Amorymeltzer for disruptive editing. The /64 is way over three reverts, and appears to have a warlike attitude judging from their edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:49.207.153.190 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Home network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC) to 19:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 19:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 19:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC) to 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 19:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 19:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Home network. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This anon editor might have a language problem, judging from the writing, but their barely readable and incorrect additions (and unexplained deletions) have been reverted by several editors, with no response at their talk page. TMG 20:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing as well as edit warring. The user's editing may indeed be well-intended, but since they have been unresponsive, it needs to be stopped at some point. Thank you for reporting, TMG. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User:116.68.76.120 and other IPs reported by User:91.110.126.210 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Winnie Harlow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.68.78.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.80.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.81.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.80.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.73.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.76.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2405:204:D109:E810:784F:2569:2E1B:6238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 116.68.76.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
This is a series of edit reversions by an IP editor of a range of similar IP addresses. The information being inserted is a BLP violation and false. The information being inserted by the IP range is a smear against the subject of the article. Removing the BLP violating information is exempt from the 3RR as far as I read it and the continued insertion of such information is edit warring. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)}}

• Page protected NeilN 22:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Continuation

This is now being perpetuated by User:Yowlscam, who appears to be a single purpose account for the continuing of this edit war.

This diff and diff are identical edit to the IP edits. The editing began only after the report above was filed and the page was protected.

I would also like to draw attention to User:Domecroak. This diff is also an oddly specific revert.

The times of the above diffs are also both 07:28, 27 June 2018‎ and 07:37, 27 June 2018. This in a behaviour pattern of suspicion. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Update: NeilN had already applied a month of semiprotection, so I upgraded it to a month of WP:ECP. The edits by User:Yowlscam do cause concern. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked Yowlscam for two weeks. --NeilN 13:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ju98 5 reported by User:Wind of freedom (Result: Warned)

Page: Template:Avianca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ju98 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:04, 23 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,755 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Undid revision 835444684 by Wind of freedom (talk))
2. 16:38, 25 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,820 bytes) (+136)‎ . . (Undid revision 847177403 by Wind of freedom (talk))
3. 21:42, 26 June 2018‎ Ju98 5 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,820 bytes) (+136)‎ . . (Undid revision 847521747 by Wind of freedom (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I also asked him to stop in its talk page but he didn't care.--Wind of freedom (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for a long-term pattern of reverting without discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Bueller 007 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Paul Erdős (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bueller 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Hmm, templates, how do they work? Second try at leaving a comment: unambiguous 3RR violation, highly aggressive edit summaries, editor seems to believe calling other people "assholes" is a good substitute for BRD. (I have also violated 3RR I think, am happy to take my lumps, but am logging off now for 9 or 10 hours.) Edit to add: actually, an admin should take a look through the recent posts on their talk-page; serious behavioral issues here, 3RR is just the tip of the iceberg. --JBL (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: edit warring continued with a newly created account Boxedberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bueller 007. - DVdm (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. User:Bueller 007 has been mass-changing articles to add a template (in the lead sentence) that identifies the person as a fellow of the Royal Society. (For example, see this edit). Meanwhile, User:Boxedberg is a brand-new account that has been CU-blocked by User:Ponyo as a sock of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 rather than the aforementioned Bueller. Some people over at WikiProject Mathematics have begun the project of removing the Royal Society templates. So far there isn't an explanation of why Boxedberg would be making the same reverts as Bueller 007, though 'joe-jobbing' suggests they might have been trying to make Bueller 007 look bad. User:Dlohcierekim has semiprotected the Paul Erdős article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Riyabakidkhar reported by User:Lorstaking (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Dkhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Riyabakidkhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 103.38.89.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 25 June
2. 25 June
3. 25 June
4. 26 June
5. 26 June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (after that he registered account to continue the edit war)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – 3 days. Riyabakidkhar and the IP are probably the same person. Article semiprotected two months. This kind of material seems controversial, so it would be good to see a discussion about it on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

user:BHJUnhuy reported by User:Sdfghjklh (Result: all LTA-blocked)

Page: Alison Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BHJUnhuy (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:
(Sdfghjklh (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC))

• Please note that, with this edit BHJ tried to blank this and other reports. MarnetteD|Talk 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=847854449&oldid=847854369

some more impotent information

Please verify revision history of Alison Brown

user:BHJUnhuy user:BHJUnhuy2

Both are socks ..Please open SPI

(Sdfghjklh (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC))

You've only made 10 edits total to Misplaced Pages: how do you know about socks and how do you know about SPI? --Calton | Talk 07:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:5.198.70.236, User:5.198.73.251 and User:Lloydyyj reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)

Page

East Yorkshire Motor Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.198.70.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 5.198.73.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lloydyyj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

See below

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See below

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

EW warning and 3RR warning both on 5.198.73.251's talkpage

Comments:

The page option (for diffs) on Twinkle didn't work so will list diffs below,

On 23 June 2018‎, 5.198.70.236 added unsourced content which I reverted, On 24 June 2018‎, 5.198.73.251 reverted twice without any edit summary (despite me telling them it's unsourced and even linking to wp:unsourced), Today (28 June 2018) Lloydyyj pops up and reverts with the edit summary "PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDITS, DAVEY2010 YOU DO NOT OWN THIS PAGE!!! Added additional detail regarding the acquire of EYMS by GNE. Added information regarding the coach operation ceasing from 1st July. Confirmed by EYMS via email"

Whilst this hasn't been in a 24 hour period the editor still hasn't been willing to discuss it over 5 days so I feel this is warranted, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 10:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

*ABout to head off out so unable to fix the mess - will do once back, Thnx, –Davey2010 10:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Lloyd has reverted again but I shant revert. –Davey2010 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Davey, you have reverted four times in the same period. Surely a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate for what seems to a genuine attempt to update the article. 194.46.225.147 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD the onus is on those inserting/reinserting unsourced content to go to the talkpage, I'm well within my rights to revert unsourced content, Sure that would technically make life simpler but again imho the content should either be included with a source or it shouldn't be included at all - If the editor added a non-reliable or a poor source then I would've helped the editor. –Davey2010 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD says: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once". Ultimately your actions come across as WP:BITEY. 194.46.225.147 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I disagree - The IP/editor was bold, They were reverted so their next option should've been to discuss, I have no reason to discuss the change because I'm not the one making the changes, If tables were turned and it was me being bold then no doubt about it I would've obviously gone to the talkpage, Sorry but the BITEY part is utter tosh - They were told 3 times it was unsourced and were told one to go the talkpage (and they were given 2 edit warring notices) - I should've added an unsourced warning sure but that one slight mistake doesn't warrant 4 reverts within the space of 4-5 days. –Davey2010 15:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:V, which provides "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." In other words, the 'remover' has discretion on when to remove, and once it's removed it shouldn't be put back in without a source. The paragraph that the IPs want to include (based on email 'sourcing' from the company) hardly seems vital and surely we can all wait for a published confirmation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Note some LTA socks were also blocked. NeilN 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1:F430:4155:0:68:BBE9:DD01 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:1:F430:4155:0:68:BBE9:DD01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC) to 19:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   2. 19:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC) to 18:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   2. 18:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* 2000s */"
3. 17:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
4. 16:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Film library */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC) to 14:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   2. 12:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   3. 12:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Direct-to-video feature films */"
   4. 13:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   5. 13:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   6. 13:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Selected filmography */"
   7. 14:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Direct-to-video feature films */"
   8. 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Film library */"
   9. 14:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Film library */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on StudioCanal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user keeps on hoaxes about films being released straight to video instead of theatrical and false film distributors. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Xavier Coleman reported by Brocicle (Result: Warned)

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10): RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Xavier Coleman: Xavier Coleman (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:

Comments: User is constantly reverting page to suit their preference of winner for the finale which has not aired. Has been reverted by myself twice and by another user once. Immediately after I notified them of 3RR they reverted again, completely ignoring the warning. I have removed their edits due to them being majorly incorrect and premature and may confuse readers visiting the page before the finale has aired. Brocicle (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Since the final episode of this show is said to have aired on 28 June this revert war is likely to be over. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Koniuchy massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version as of 5 May 2018 (with various variants - most of the reverted material was here], fully stable from 22 May 2018 until Revision as of 00:18, 23 June 2018 (by an IP).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 06:24, 27 June 2018 - revert chain (previously challenged on 24 June).
2. 06:26, 27 June 2018‎ - additional revert after previous edit challenged.
3. Revision as of 06:31, 27 June 2018 - additional revert. Editor acknowledges he's being reverted in edit summary.
4. edit chain - 06:41 to 07:19, 27 June 2018‎ - after being reverted.
5. Revision as of 16:46, 28 June 2018 (edit summary with a stmt towards the IP's person) revert of Revision as of 07:50, 27 June 2018 + some of the intervening edits, for instance - Revision as of 13:14, 27 June 2018 A grammar/language fix by Ealdgyth was reverted as well (look at the "Background" section in the big revert - e.g. "surrounding area" was removed).
6. Revision as of 19:06, 28 June 2018 - revert of Revision as of 16:53, 28 June 2018
7. Revision as of 00:49, 29 June 2018 - revert of Revision as of 22:20, 28 June 2018 (+AnimeBot restoring a reference)
8. Revision as of 03:11, 29 June 2018 (after several non-minor intervening edits by Ealdgyth who re-fixed issues that were previously fixed after previous reverts). This would seem to be a revert of Revision as of 19:53, 28 June 2018 AnimeBOT. VM has previously removed this referance and quotation within a few times in the past couple of days. Also in same edit chain - Revision as of 03:17, 29 June 2018 (not sure who added, is a revert, perhaps self, not sure - has been in there for a few days),
9. Revision as of 03:30, 29 June 2018 re-adding an IPN (prosecuting agency which was investigating this as a crime) press release (this time - the English version) to source BLPCRIME material. The IPN was not present as a source in the stable 22 May version. It was first added as a source in this edit chain from 23-24 June. It has been removed once in the interim.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 06:45, 27 June 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 06:01, 23 June 2018 + several other TP post (clearly evident on the talk page). Also the BLP issues here (use of PRIMARY material (from a PR release to boot!) from a prosecuting agency involving a case with BLPs, removal of closure of case in Lithuania) is open at discussion Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Koniuchy massacre

Comments:
Article was unedited since 22 May until 23 June when an IP, followed by VM and then GizzyCatBella showed up. Most of the reverted material is stable from 6 May (6 May - 22 May there was a discussion of the use of a journal article vs. BLPPRIMARY document from an investigating agency for a minor aspect). User has not gain consensus for his changes to the stable version (most of the material - particularly that sourced to an academically published book by John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, and another Rowman & Littlefield book by an academic, has been stabled since 6 May 2018). User has been continuing to add WP:BLPPRIMARY material from what appears to be a PR release of some sort from the IPN's prosecutor office (e.g. today) - while a BLP/n case is open. Looking at 27-29 June, VM has reverted 4 times in the 24hr window of 27-28 June (diffs 1 through 4). He has have reverted 5 times in the 24hr windows of 28-29 June (diffs 5 through 9). His edits in the 27-29 June period were challenged (by reversion) by 3 different user accounts (myself, User:יניב הורון, User:François Robere) + 1 IP. In addition there were intervening edits by @Ealdgyth: (who has noted after one of VM's reverts today - - you Know....this is , like the fifth or sixth time I’ve fixed the dates here...can everyone at least freaking revert to the versions where I’ve fixed the typos and errors????). VM has not gained consensus on the talk page for removing some 25% of the contents of the article (which are using high quality sources), which were introduced on 6 May 2018 and haven't not been challenged until 22 June 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In regards to my own editing (as I'm guessing this will be brought up) - on 27 June - challenged once, re-added constructive information I removed in previous revert, and reverted again (so 2 reverts) - I'll note that these could be construed as correcting a BLP issue. One 28-29 June I reverted once, provided a citation once, toned down attribution language once (so 1 revert + 2 more edits I don't think would be reverts - well I guess the citation could be a revert, since it is one of those things (along with dates and grammar as noted by Ealdgyth) that is clearly out of whack in some of these re-reverted versions). I have engaged significantly on the talk page and on BLP/n.Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see that somebody is willing to try and clean those articles up, at least; I suggest letting them get on with it and us others who are lucky enough to have had the responsibility removed from our narrow shoulders, can—what's the phrase?—"go and write a Good Article or something". —SerialNumber54129 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a dishonest and spurious report. In fact, as this dispute was ongoing, I informed User:NeilN about Icewhiz's problematic behavior. And I *predicted* that he was planning on doing exactly this - which is a violation of WP:GAME on his part.

The first "diff" Icewhiz provides is not a revert. It's a version from 6:24 27 June. By including it in the Diffs of the user's reverts: section Icewhiz is FALSELY pretending this is a revert.

Diff two is indeed a revert.

Icewhiz's diff labeled edit chain - 06:41 to 07:19, 27 June 2018‎ is also NOT a revert. It links to a series of consecutive edits. Icewhiz has been on Misplaced Pages very long time, has participated in numerous edit wars, so he knows that a series of consecutive edit do not constitute separate reverts, so his presentation here is, again, dishonest.

The diff labeled Revision as of 16:46, 28 June 2018 is indeed a revert... of a disruptive IP which has been stalking my edits, as noted here . This revert also comes more than 24 hours after the revert presented in diff two.

So right there you can see there was no 3RR violation. Icewhiz is "diff-padding" - including fake diffs which were not reverts to make it look like there was when there wasn't. This is dishonest behavior worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG all by itself.

On the 28th then I did make a revert of Icewhiz on 19:06, restoring the stable version of the article . Per edit summary this version also fixed numerous POV problems, horrible unencyclopedic writing and straight up misrepresentation of sources. And on 00:49 I did make a revert of another user who jumped in to perform a blind revert on Icewhiz's behalf without bothering to participate in talk That's TWO reverts.

Then we get back to the dishonesty. The diff labeled Revision as of 03:11, 29 June 2018 is NOT a revert. It's a consecutive edit with my edit from 00:49. Yes, there were some minor (but very useful) gnomish edits by User:Ealdgyth) made in between the 00:49 edit and the 3:11 edit. But these were to a completely different portion of the article. I did not revert Ealdgyth as Icewhiz falsely pretends.

Icewhiz's final diff is also NOT a revert. It's not removing any text. It's adding text - which has not been in the article previously (it's NOT a restoration of previously removed material).

I know this is confusing. Probably intentionally so, since Icewhiz has to muddy the waters to make it look like a 3RR violation. But it's also completely false and astonishingly dishonest. So here's the bottom line:

Icewhiz says: VM has reverted 4 times in the 24hr window of 27-28 June (diffs 1 through 4) - NO, out of diffs 1 through 4, diffs 1 and 4 ARE NOT reverts. One diff is a version of an article not a revert, the other one is a consecutive edit.

Icewhiz says: He has have reverted 5 times in the 24hr windows of 28-29 Jun (diffs 5 through 9) - this is absolutely false as well. Yes, diffs 5, 6 and 7 are reverts - one of them a of a stalking IP (an issue I had brought up already eleswhere) and one of them of a user who popped out of nowhere to revert on Icewhiz's behalf without participating on talk page. Diffs 8 and 9 are very obviously NOT reverts. 8 is consecutive with 7. 9 is addition of info, not a revert. Icewhiz, quite simply, is lying.

I want to emphasize one thing - for the first four diffs, two of which are reverts - what happened is that I was going through the article line by line and making incremental improvements. This particularly concerns diffs 1 and 2. My edits were seconds apart, since these were incremental improvements. At 6:25 Icewhiz began jumping in and performing reverts of my actions. I got multiple edit conflicts. My edit from 6:26 (Icewhiz second diff) only looks like a revert because Icewhiz managed to squeeze in one of his edits - which I was not aware of - between my edits at 6:24 and 6:26. Edits from 6:24 and 6:26 are consecutive edits since I could've made them as one edit.

Even though it was obvious I was actively working on the article, Icewhiz continued to "jump in" in between my edits making changes. He did it again at at 6:35, between my edits at 6:32 and 6:35. Again there were edit conflicts and loss of work. I asked Icewhiz to stop . I brought this up on an adminstrators's talk page . If I was really edit warring, would I have contacted an administrator???

I explicitly complained to User:NeilN about Icewhiz' behavior. Both the fact that he was making blind-reverts, without explaining his reasoning or participating on talk (he posted to talk AFTER he saw my comment at NeilN's talk page), as well as the fact that he was "jumping in" in the middle of my edits. In fact I explicitly said that Icewhiz was very possibly doing this to create the appearance of a revert (even though these would be counted as consecutive edits) so that he could come running here to report it. I said: Worse, it appears to be an attempt by Icewhiz to cause me to "revert" (not really) by quickly inserting his edit in between my successive edits, so that he can then leverage that, I presume, for sanction-shopping.

And this is exactly what happened. Icewhiz was WP:GAMEing the rule in pursuit of his WP:BATTLEGROUND. I predicted what he would do, and then he went and did it anyway.

So out of the diffs that Icewhiz presented four are not reverts (1, 4, 8, and 9) For the rest, they took place on different days, and there was no 3RR violation. Additionally, diffs 2 and 3 only look like reverts (I don't think they even are technically reverts) because Icewhiz managed to really quickly squeeze-in an edit in between my consecutive edits (between my edits at 6:24 and 6:26, then between my edits at 6:27 and 6:31). At the time this was going on *I* am the one who had already brought this to the attention of administrator.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As to the content issue - see my change here. It concerns a section which was one horrible mess. It repeated the same information THREE times (concerning Yitzhal Arad). It was mostly off-topic and UNDUE (out of the three sources provided, one doesn't mention the topic of the article at all and two mention it only once, in passing). It confused two different things (two separate investigations). It then repeated another piece of information twice (the opening of the Lithuanian investigation). It confounded the chronology (the text first talks about the controversy surrounding the investigation and then only later does it say that an investigation was opened). It dishonestly misrepresents sources (by making it seems like the criticism of one thing applied to something else). The section was a mess, and I yeah, I cleaned it up. Anyone interested in improving the article would do it. But Icewhiz was more interested in pursuing WP:BATTLEGROUND - which is why he blind reverts.

Additionally, Icewhiz claims he participated on talk. This is only half true. On this particular issue, he began talk page participation , ONLY AFTER I had complained about his blind reverts to an administrator .Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, another falsehood from Icewhiz, though I guess this is minor compared to the blatant misrepresentation of diffs above. He claims I reverted User:Francois Robere (presumably he wants to make it seem like I'm reverting multiple editors, rather than just him and a suspicious IP). Here is Francois Robere's edit. I NEVER reverted that, and on this article I've never reverted Robere. This is just plain false. In fact I consider that change by Robere to be a constructive, quality improvement. So just because Robere had made an unrelated edit to the article, which I did not revert, Icewhiz goes and falsely claims that I was reverting Robere as well. Bunk.

Taken together with everything else Icewhiz tried to pull here, there's more than enough evidence for a hefty WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the above - diff1 is a revert - it is a combined diff of several smaller edits which removed material which was previously reverted back in on 24 June. Each revert marked above is a series of consecutive edits without interspacing edits by other editors. If there were edits by other editors (reverts or non minor edits) it is no longer a consecutive edit. Diff9 is the addition of a primary news release by the IPN investigator - but in an English version as opposed to Polish. Most of the others are rather straightforward removals of material, which were already challenged in the past few days.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"If there were edits by other editors (reverts or non minor edits) it is no longer a consecutive edit." - no, that's not true. If a series of edits could've been made as a single edit then it's not a revert. I believe User:NeilN already explained this to you once. Otherwise someone, acting in bad faith, could really quickly jump in between consecutive edits (made within seconds of each other) and create "artificial reverts". Oh wait! That's exactly what you were trying to do here.

"Diff9 is the addition of a ..." - well, thanks for admitting that this diff is not a revert. Why did you pretend it was then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at this report (thanks to TonyBallioni for handling it) and I cannot exactly recall what Volunteer Marek is referring to but I imagine it was along the lines of saying admins use common sense when deciding what is a revert (and editors should as well). For example if one editor is working on the "Early career" section of a bio and another editor is working on "Personal life" at the same time then common sense dictates non-consecutive edits are not reverts for WP:3RR purposes unless (for example) the two editors are knowingly somehow pushing opposite POVs within their respective sections. --NeilN 19:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, pages 339-342
2. Suziedelis, Saulius A. (2011-02-07). Historical Dictionary of Lithuania. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810875364.

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Deal with it on the talk page or some other form of the dispute resolution process. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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