Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:17, 12 June 2019

• 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:Oska and User:Jheald reported by User:Jheald (Result: Both warned)

Page: Sabine Weyand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of User:Oska's reverts:

1. diff (also includes some rearrangement of retained material)
2. diff
3. diff

Diffs of User:Jheald's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

These follow similar reverts by both users earlier in the week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edit summaries on -- neither editor has yet gone beyond 3R

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

Comments:
I would like to request page protection of the page Sabine Weyand until mediation or 3rd-party opinion can been given re the dispute on the talk page, regarding inclusion of the subject's comments on the Brexit process.

By my reckoning, both User:Oska and myself are at three reverts, but the current situation is not healthy.

Jheald (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Response: My edit was made after I spent considerable time reworking this living person biography to fix a perceived WP:coatrack problem. (And it was done after discussion on the talk page and my making a proposal for compromise and inviting comment). Jheald does not appear to have considered the merits of my reworking of the article but simply reverted it in their edit . My edits were to restore the version which I felt kept the article within the BLP guidelines and were made on the instruction therein to take immediate action against breaches. However, I did not perceive my edit as a 3rd reversion, otherwise I would not have made it. In all my time here (since 2004) I have backed away from edit wars. My more persistent actions this time were because I was dealing with a BLP which I felt was in breach of guidelines and not fair to the subject. I have opened an RFC on the article's talk-page to better resolve the question of a perceived coat-rack problem and on which version of the article serves the subject better.

Without meaning to sound too accusatory, I would also like to note that Jheald is the creator of this article and my experience is that they seem to not welcome any edits that differ from how they perceive the article should be (basically seeing this person very much through the prism of her role in Brexit negotiations). I have had previous experience with this perhaps proprietorial stance when I made an earlier edit that they reverted and that was in the end resolved in favour of my edit by a third opinion (but credit to Jheald for seeking that third opinion).

Thank you for your attention. Oska (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra comment: I see that Jheald has reported us both. Personally I don't think the behaviour of either of us in this matter, while being less than exemplary on both sides, merited reporting at this point and I wouldn't have been seeking administrative consideration and perhaps action (for either of us). But now we are here I would appreciate advice on how better we both, and I personally, could have resolved matters. Was my filing an RFC a good choice? I chose that course rather than posting to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with my coat-rack concerns but perhaps the latter would have been the better approach? Feedback would be appreciated so I can work more effectively in the future and not waste admin time with potential reported incidents. I believe in making as little demand on the limited resources of this noticeboard as possible. Thank you, Oska (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. Jheald and Oska have each made about five reverts since 1 June, and the series of changes hardly show any compromise. Each editor is risking a block if they revert again prior to a consensus being reached on the talk page. The charges of WP:COATRACK are hard to fathom. (The mention of Brexit in the article is hardly "irrelevant, undue or biased", given Weyand's prominence in the Brexit negotiations, and mentioning Brexit does not interfere with giving a truthful impression of her career). The argument is about the relative emphasis to be given to a series of true generally-admitted facts. So this is a fight about article wording. If the parties want me to make suggestions on the talk page, I'm willing to do so. But meanwhile, further reverts look to be pure continuation of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I feel Oska and I have reached an impasse, so I would welcome any external input. But User:Oska would need to be happy to accept you as well. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I acknowledge the warning. I also want to respond to some of your comments.

Firstly, on the matter of compromise, I think you may have missed the compromise that I attempted when I proposed a summary paragraph on the talk page to replace the, in my view, excessive quoting from a speech by the article's subject (taking up half the article). When I made that proposal I also asked for suggested edits or improvements. Jheald did not join in efforts to work on a compromise and simply reverted the edit when, after making the proposal, I replaced the Brexit section with the summary paragraph.

Secondly, you appear to misunderstand my position on the coat-rack issue. I have absolutely no problem with Brexit being mentioned in the article. My reworked version mentioned her role in Brexit negotiations in the lead and had a prominent career subsection on her role as EU deputy chief negotiator for the Brexit process. My issue was with Jheald's preferred version of the article being almost completely dominated by her role in Brexit negotiations, especially with, to repeat, half the article being quotes from a single interview. I do not think this is a fair treatment of the subject. Also, I'm a bit puzzled over what you're referring to when you talk of "a series of true generally-admitted facts". Do you mean the quotes? Quotes aren't facts.

I will make further attempts at engaging Jheald in discussion on the talk page to find a compromise. I note that they made this report directly after their own last revert which has effectively locked the article at their preferred version. I hope they will make a sincere effort to engage rather than just keep blocking. Oska (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:M R G WIKI999 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )

Page: Gonorrhea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M R G WIKI999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Jun 9 10:46
2. Jun 10 01:14
3. Jun 10 01:38
4. Jun 10 02:15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jun 10 01:44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Jun 10 01:16

Comments:
Additionally they made less than civil comments here.

As described here however the content in question is reflecting the position of the CDC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I stand entirely by my edits; they are justified, accurate and unbiased and secular. I herein point out that it was Doc James himself who began edit warring by unnecessary reversion of quality, good faith edits to the said page... It is my contention that Doc James is reverting my edit for political/religious/ideological reasons; his CDC point above (for example) is very clearly a misdirection to stear you away from the cited source's secular and explicit instructions NOT to moralise or be judgemental. Non-judgemental or moralistic education is absolutely the methodology being put forward in the cited source, not the bizarre, barely hidden form of religiosly motivated(?) sexual moralising being erroneously presented by Doc James ... I invite all to scrutinise my edits and tell me that they are wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Misplaced Pages rules, gudelines or best practices. Indeed, I only ask that you apply the same scrutiny to my accuser's "undo" editing of my work... I am supremely confident that you will find his actions are unjustified, based on these standards. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

PS. Please excuse my many spulling mistooks above, as I'm currently on an awful mobile device that has a mind of its own. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are "wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Misplaced Pages rules, gudelines or best practices." -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• They continue to revert and appear to be under the impression that rather than new changing needing consensus, the article staying as it was needs consensus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Metalhead94 reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Metalhead94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (14 May)
2. (15 May)
3. (1 June)
4. (2 June)
5. (7 June)
6. (7 June)
7. (9 June)
8. (10 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow but persistent edit-warring against several other editors over a lame naming issue. Refused to join talkpage discussion for almost a month. Explicitly stated his intent to continue edit warring (: "I will continue to combat you"). Finally responded to talkpage today, saying that he "couldn't care less what the sources" do and that he finds "annoying" what is done "everywhere in modern English literature" . Clear case of somebody being out to "right great wrongs". Also keeps carrying that same issue over into yet more articles . Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sourcerery reported by User:Zero Serenity (Result: Declined)

• Page: Alex Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Sourcerery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As it says on the tin. User will not WP:LISTEN to long established consensus.

• Edit 1
• Edit 2
• Edit 3

User claims consensus is not had (when it exists), repeatedly blanks FAQ article:

• Blank 1
• Blank 2

And finally, despite us trying to use the talk page, user will not have it.

• Talk page.

Said user is running against 3RR, but might need a pre-emptive cooldown. Was warned on user talk page twice about actions.

• User talk

Zero Serenity 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Only users not listening are folks at Talk:Alex Jones (that includes zero). I ask for consensus but they can't show it.Sourcerery (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, as for the article, I see you repeatedly reverting text while three editors disagree with you on the TP. And, I see you blanking an FAQ three times on the TP, even after replying here, with agreement from no editors. Consider the possibility that gaining consensus for your changes falls on you. I suggest a warning before this editor crosses a line. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes consensus is important, you have to have it when making FAQ and none has been shown but you were happy to abuse it, point to it when pushing POV.Sourcerery (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The FAQ has been there for three months and I think you're the first of 634 page watchers to disagree with its existence. O3000 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Your statement makes no sense. When I proposed the FAQ with a couple items, there was one in affirmation and no in declination. I put it together, it was kinda bold (Talk pages don't have the BRD rule) but seemed to be liked as it outlined the most common arguments restarted for the page. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its against consensus. We have edited to make it better, but blanking it is not making anything better. Zero Serenity 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That is whataboutery, FAQ was bold edit made without obtaining consensus and is now abused to push POV. Plenty have challenged far-right (not conspiracy tho, to be fair that was part of FAQ as well) and FAQ was abused to shut down any discussion. Also note how Zero was attacking me for lying when I pointed out there was no consensus for FAQ but he is now admitting it.Sourcerery (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the complaints are from IPs that demand that Alex Jones tells the truth and everything else is fake news. We use FAQs in such articles to quickly answer such very common complaints. The change I made two months back from “right-wing” to “far-right” was suggested by Bishonen. Including me, four editors were in favor, none against. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That appears to be bold lie, Bishonen: "Zero Serenity, I think your initiative was great, but why does your point 2 ask Why is Alex Jones listed as right-wing? Because he's not, AFAIK." (there was no consensus for his political position on spectrum in first place) Let's leave it to administrators, what they have to say for lying, personal insults and abuse of FAQ. I almost forgot potential BLP violations, many sources call him just conservative, right wing and he calls himself libertarian.Sourcerery (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That partial quote suggests she is saying the exact opposite of what she said. And please stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS. (I won't call you a liar -- only that your reading was less than careful.) O3000 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it illustrates my point. No consensus was obtained for FAQ in time of making, it was challenged numerous times right on that talk page and FAQ was abused to shut it down.Sourcerery (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t change your edits after a response has been made. You quoted Bish as saying: "Why is Alex Jones listed as right-wing? Because he's not, AFAIK." You ignored that she than said he was far-right, not right-wing, according to RS. So, I changed it to far-right and other editors agreed. There is no BLP issue with well sourced text. And we don’t use self-descriptors. If we did, articles about terrorists would call them “freedom fighters” or “soldiers of god”. And we know the terms are challenged often. The previous one claimed Alex Jones was a "moderate". That's why we have a FAQ. In any case, you should have made these arguments on the TP instead of edit warring. O3000 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP wasn't directed toward you, but whoever will check page. They will look into questionable use of most derogatory term when numerous others are used to same if not larger extent by sources and putting it into first sentence. Also FAQ abuse that was taking place to enforce this and questionable behavior in general (insults, lies,etc).Sourcerery (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall there was a suggestion of A FAQ, and no objections either to its existence or its content. Even if this was not the case, it would still not justify an edit war. Also a very bad case of I did not here that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Declined, no 3RR violation. Sourcerery's conduct on the article and talk page might be worth a trip to ANI in the future, but Bishonen has already warned them about it, so no further action is necessary at this time. clpo13_(talk) 19:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Notfrompedro (Result: No violation)

Page: My War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor is aware as they have been blocked before for edit warring and they threatening me with a block.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
(Non-administrator comment) One revert a week and a half ago, and three more reverts of the same edit more recently, is not a breach of 3RR, and since the change he reverted was a new addition and hasn't been discussed on the talk page (at least in the past six months) I'd say if anything this should be closed with a TROUT and perhaps a warning to Notfrompedro. That being said, if what CT has said about Notfrompedro's source not saying what he claims it does is correct, I'd say CIR/IDHT block until Notfrompedro recognizes the problem with their editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

CT's view of my source is not correct. I even noted in this edit summary that the source literally describes it as "metallic and sludgy" on page 43 and page 358 says "sludge-metal-punk landmark". Notfrompedro (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I noted in my last revert how you misrepresented the source, and have told you that this has all been dealt with before (as well as WP:Genre warriors trying to add "heavy metal" to the infobox). On your talk page I told you already that the source is already in the article and properly contextualized. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the IP I reverted in the first link two weeks ago Notfrompedro? Is that why Notfrompedro lists that edit?

By the way, I disagree with Hijiri that Notfrompedro should be blocked (yet)—they're very new and just don't understand what's wrong with the edit. They need to learn that "|genre=" fields are not a dumping ground for every conceivable genre that someone, somewhere has applied to some part of an album—that the field describes the consensus genre for the album as a whole. In the case of My War, there are sources that call the B-side tracks "sludge metal" (or "sludge-metal-punk" or "proto-noise" or "heavy metal" or ...), and others that say it influenced "sludge metal" or "grunge" or whatever, but there is no consensus amongst sources that My War is a "sludge metal" album. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No violation – But both parties seem to be on the edge of WP:3RR so now is the time to get agreement on Talk, or open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TrailBlzr reported by User:Djsasso (Result: Warned)

Page: Maple Leaf Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TrailBlzr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. (edited logged out for this one)

Comments: This editor has reverted addition by a number of editors to the lead 6 times, 5 of which are in the last 24 hours. Attempts to have them discuss on the talk page just lead to another revert. Has been warned in the past for edit warring. See for example and here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

These additions to the lede require consensus as they are significant. They were also reverted because the two sources provided did not provide any evidence for the claim being made. There have been many who have casually made these additions before with them always being reverted back to the status quo by other editors. (NOTE: the assumption of good faith was made, as it appeared the other editor was misunderstanding the topic of the article.) That said, I'm happy to discuss further on the article's talk page. TrailBlzr (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:TrailBlzr is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The offer to discuss would be more credible if you had made any posts at all on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:GARY 809 (Result: No violation)

Page

Marc-André ter Stegen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
2. 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
3. 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
4. 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
5. 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
6. 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
7. 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Iggy the Swan (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

No warning? Nice.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There is a consensus on the subject's talk page. The anon is a known vandal who precipitated the discussion. I am simply reverting vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated reverts without explanation of edit GARY 809 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Vandalism is a reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no comment on the matter at hand, but the IP is just as guilty if we're going to be reporting people for edit warring. Amaury 17:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree in part, the anon had already reached a dozen reverts on that article by the time I was reported. Surprised that GARY 809 had not reported the anon as well. The anon has eared a 31-hour block for various edits. The issue is resolved for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved passer-by comment: Personally I'd see the phrase "Spanish club" there in the lead as useful but not essential. More style than substance. I always try and leave one or two warnings and then swiftly report to WP:AIV, and let someone there sort it out. But I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to see a known vandal edit without constraint. I'm sure you had only the integrity of the article in mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The consensus felt it should remain. Feel free to re-open the discussion. I personally think the term is problematic for the nature of the club itself as the club is a symbol of Catalan separatism. This was dismissed in the discussion on the subject's talk page.

I was following the consensus even though I disagree with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Good for you, Walter. Or rather good for Misplaced Pages consensus. For me, it's a plain fact that FC Barcelona is a Spanish club - that's the consensus over there. But then I'm not living in exile in Belgium. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• No violation. The anonymous editor's actions appear to be obvious vandalism (or at least willfully disruptive in the face of the RFC), so Walter Görlitz's reverts are not in violation of 3RR. That said, I would suggest taking Martinevans123's approach and letting the disruptive edit stand until the offending editor is blocked (with certain exceptions, of course). clpo13_(talk) 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Always helpful advice, but when the anon is reported and the patrolling admin says that we should seek dispute resolution, it's somewhat difficult to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, well here's the explanation. That alone is worth a block. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:CharlesShirley reported by User:MrClog (Result: No violation)

Page

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "It speculation and it needs to marked as speculation."
2. 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "clarify quote is from Breyer and that Breyer did not refer to Roe directly. That is speculation."
3. 00:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "replaced "likely" with "possibly""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */ new section"
2. 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */ Replying to CharlesShirley (using reply-link)"
3. 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */"

Comments:

CharlesShirley removed something they considered wild speculation June 9. I reverted the edit and started a discussion on the talk page. CharlesShirley is now refusing to use the talk page to discuss and has since June 9 reinstated a version that marked the "wild speculation" (according to them) as speculation in one way or another three times within 24 hours. Despite not using the "undo" button, the edits seemingly meet the definition of revert. MrClog (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

MrClog lives in a glass house and is throwing stones. He has reverted my work four times well within the last 24 hours.

Diffs of MrClog's reverts:

• revert 1 at 6/11 10:56
• revert 2 at 6/11 14:17
• revert 3 at 6/11 14:18
• revert 4 at 6/11 14:21

I have not refused the use the talk page. I responded to MrClog's comments. That statement is simply not true.--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically, those only count as two reverts, because three of the edits were consecutive. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, you did reply one time, but after I replied you started an edit war instead of further discussing the issue on the talk page. And per C.Fred, I did not violate 3RR and do not intend to do so. It is in fact the exact opposite, as my edits at :18 and :21 were meant as a form of compromise by (at least partially) addressing your concerns. --MrClog (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC); editted 21:16, 11 June 2019 (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. However, even though there is not a technical violation of 3RR, this situation is on the path to edit warring. I suggest both parties leave the article as-is and discuss the situation at the talk page. Otherwise, it is likely that an administrator will protect the page to enforce discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:BobRoberts14 reported by User:Meters (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Gainesville, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

BobRoberts14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "I changed the wording from "college town" to saying that much of the population and economy revolve around the colleges. That is not debatable."
2. 03:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 901316722 by Meters (talk) All you have to do is check Santa Fe's[REDACTED] article or look it up on Google to know it is in Gainvesville. You are trying to dispute that it is in Gainvesville? It most certainly is."
3. 02:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "In the[REDACTED] article List of College Towns, Gainvesville is listed, since UF has over 56K students, 27K faculty, UF health has 13K, and Santa Fe College has over 22K students. This is all well known information cited in multiple articles. There are no factual inaccuracies in stating that it is a college town when two massive colleges are in it."
4. 02:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "This is undoubtedly true, since UF is one of the largest schools in the nation (#5 public school in terms of number of students) with 50K students, and there are 27K faculty at UF and 13K at UF Health."
5. 02:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 901312689 by Meters (talk Look up the number of students at UF and the number of faculty, and then realize that 56,000 students and 27,000 employees, plus 13,000 at UF Health, is more than half Gainvesville's population."
6. 02:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "It is important to know that UF is where the majority of gainvesville either works at or learns at..."
7. 05:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "I added some important information that tells a lot about the city."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* June 2019 */ pt to EW"
2. 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gainesville, Florida. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Gainesville, Florida#Gainesville is a College Town

Comments:

User is determined to add unsourced claims to the article lead about U of F and Santa Fe College. Started off by claiming that the majority of the town either worked at or was a student at U of F. Extensive user page discussion at User talk:BobRoberts14 After challenge and user talk page discussion conceded that it was instead "a vast minority" (whatever that is). Switched to simply claiming that the U has a major impact on economy and population, and finally that it was a college town (discussion at Talk:Gainesville, Florida#Gainesville is a College Town). I provided a source for the final version and it appeared that we were done. I returned today to discover that the user then changed the "college town" back to the claim about the economy and population revolving around the U. There have been other to and fro edits on this article by this user that I was not a part of and have not looked at. Meters (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The "user" is stating an obvious fact, that UF has a large impact on the economy and population. Once again, if the school has 56,000 students, 27,000 employees, and UF healthhas over 12,000, it most certainly has a large effect on the economy and population. I liked the term "college town" but PopularOutcast kept on debating that it wasn't a college town. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

You do not need a source to say that UF affects the economy and the population, since that is blatantly apparent if the school has about 100,000 students and employees in total. What does need to be sourced is the number of students and employees, which are both cited later in the article. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobROberts14

I'm sorry, BobRoberts14, but almost everything on Misplaced Pages needs to be sourced to a verifiable, independent reliable source. We can't just take your word for it, and all 7 billion humans on this planet can't travel to Gainesville to personally check it out to see if they agree. The other point here is that edit warring(repeated reversions) is unacceptable even if you are correct. Please review policy on edit warring. If you agree to stop edit warring and continue to discuss on the article talk page to reach a consensus, nothing further needs to be done here. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I now see that this was also brought up at ANI, where dispute resolution was mentioned; that is also an option. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

331dot, Yes, Meters and I did these separately. I was just informed of Meters entry here. Since it was suggested at the ANI, I did contact an editor that I have personally met at Gainesville Wikipediathons to see if he could weigh in. That editor has not replied as of yet but maybe he could give a third opinion. The problem here is simply opinion about what "everyone knows" and verifiability. Additionally, there have been personal attacks that can be seen on the talk page linked above. The problem hasn't just been difference of opinion but an amazing abundance of vitriol for such a new editor. PopularOutcast 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will find a source that proves UF has a major impact on the population and economy, since it has over 100,000 students and employees in total. But for now, I won't revert anyone's edits unless they are incorrect, not just because I want to input my own opinion. But I will add my sentence back with a citation when I have time. Thanks for helping mediate this dispute. BobRoberts14 (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

• Warned I'm going to close this now as a warning; if further edit warring occurs, you may be blocked without further notice. I strongly advise you to continue discussion or use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:PluniaZ reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: )

Page: Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PluniaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Final sentence softened here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion took place here and here. Consensus was supposedly reached at the BLP noticeboard here and on my talkpage here.

Comments:
This issue is not necessarily over the timing and number of reverts as opposed to the manner in which the last one took place. I tried taking this to WP:Dispute resolution, but was told that that was not the proper forum because this was a conduct dispute. There were two paragraphs in the article that PluniaZ wanted removed but which I wanted to remain. We unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement on the talk page before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one, largely off the talk page itself, while the RfC was still open. The idea was that we had an agreement. PluniaZ closed his complaint at the BLP noticeboard with the notice: "Consensus has been reached and the article has been edited in such a way that it no longer violates WP:BLPSOURCE. Thank you all for your help in resolving this matter." The administrator MelanieN added in the compromise version of the article at our mutual request, expressing satisfaction that we had arrived at a solution. I haven't pinged her here because she's given the impression that she doesn't want to get involved anymore.

The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor later weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed before our compromise. Most obviously, they quoted a piece of the article which didn't exist in the current version and had been replaced as part of the agreement as an example of what should be taken out. PluniaZ used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections and was, as I said, added by an administrator at the request of us both. To me, this is extremely questionable both because the editor who voted in the RfC based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC was still technically open. I'm looking to see if someone can make a judgment as to the validity of the "consensus" for reverting. After I informed the editor who contributed to the RfC of the agreement, they declined to "fundamentaly" change their response but agreed that the content "probably" should not have been removed. It appears to me that PluniaZ is falsely claiming that talk page consensus existed for the removal of content in order to continue reverting to get their way. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Response - The behavior identified in this report is not edit warring, so the report should be summarily dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR or any other Misplaced Pages policy.

In response to the concerns raised by Display name 99 (talk), the most important point to keep in mind is that the article has had multiple issues that we have both been trying to address. The diffs linked by Display name 99 reflect this - Diff2 isn't even the same material as the other diffs. We and other users have been making extensive edits to the entire article to try to improve it. On some issues we reached a tentative agreement, but on others we have not. Display name 99's report reflects confusion in where we reached agreement and where we did not, so I will try to explain.

The BLP noticeboard discussion and the discussion on Display name 99's talk page involved a request for a temporary fix in order to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC. I specifically say this in both discussions. I wrote, "This would be an immediate fix to comply with WP:BLP, subject to the ongoing RfC on whether to remove the paragraph in its entirey " in User_talk:Display_name_99#Wuerl_Issue. And I wrote, "I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all" in Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick. Thus, while we did reach an agreement on a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP, we never reached an agreement on the the dispute that was subject to the RfC.

Throughout the time that the RfC was up, both Display name 99 (talk) and I made edits to the paragraphs under dispute. At no point did we reach a final agreement on these paragraphs. After 9 days had gone by and we received only one response to the RfC, I removed both paragraphs because there were 2 votes to 1 in favor of doing so on the Talk Page and I objected to the edits that Display name 99 (talk) was continuing to make to these paragraphs despite the 2:1 ratio against him on the Talk Page.

Finally, I object to Display name 99's unilateral decision to close the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened, and neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hashirama56 reported by User:Bakazaka (Result: )

Page: Rihanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hashirama56 (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:

Not 3RR, but user appears to have single goal of adding estimated net worth numbers to celebrity articles as factual information. I noticed the user edit warring against multiple users at Rihanna to remove the word "estimate", reverted once with an explanation in the edit summary, and issued a user talk page warning, which was obviously ignored. Bakazaka (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: )

Page

2019 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mclarenfan17 (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 10:51, 12 juni 2019 (UTC) to 10:51, 12 juni 2019 (UTC)
   1. 10:51, 12 juni 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */It's a completely unnecessary addition and was not discussed on the talk page"
   2. 10:51, 12 juni 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 10:37, 12 juni 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */Per WP:POINTY -- do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point"
3. 12:09, 11 juni 2019 (UTC) "That's no excuse for using rubbish markup for a purely cosmetic effect"
4. 11:32, 11 juni 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */Remove unnecesssry, complex markup - the note in a simpler and more elegabt solution"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:49, 12 juni 2019 (UTC) "/* Mission Winnow */ I don't think your replying to each other. All these messages are being directed at Admanny"

Comments:

Clear 3RR Violation. User has previous record of edit-warring blocks with original account Prisonermonkeys. Tvx1 11:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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