Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:51, 2 October 2013 editTippyGoomba (talk \| contribs)1,712 edits →User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: )← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:04, 2 October 2013 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,868 edits fixing my screw-up (put sanction in wrong section)Next edit →
Line 365:		Line 365:
	User apparently has no interest in reading or responding to notices or warnings, and has not attempted to engage with me or - apparently - anyone else, not even bothering to use edit summaries explaining their actions or reasons, and continues to remove content in an apparent assumption of article ownership. ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)		User apparently has no interest in reading or responding to notices or warnings, and has not attempted to engage with me or - apparently - anyone else, not even bothering to use edit summaries explaining their actions or reasons, and continues to remove content in an apparent assumption of article ownership. ]<sup><small>]</font></sup></small> 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Expansion of Major League Soccer}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Expansion of Major League Soccer}} <br />
Line 404:		Line 404:
	: Your final edit also removed my tags on the weak sources, for the second time.		: Your final edit also removed my tags on the weak sources, for the second time.
	: If you add more sources, make sure they meet the requirements at ]. Adding information is good. Adding bad information isn't. It's not that I believe my information is the only credible information, I believe that blogs are not usually reliable. ] (]) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)		: If you add more sources, make sure they meet the requirements at ]. Adding information is good. Adding bad information isn't. It's not that I believe my information is the only credible information, I believe that blogs are not usually reliable. ] (]) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
		⚫	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Blocked~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Latin America}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Latin America}} <br />
Line 432:		Line 433:
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->		<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This user has been trying to add a paragraph about an evangelical gospel band in Brazil to a section in the article ]. The content is not notable for a section summarizing all of the music of Latin America. The user has made no attempt to discuss his edits on the talk page, and has not engaged with me after I've tried to start a discussion on his talk page to discuss it on the article talk page. The user was temporarily blocked from editing for 48 hours on September 28 for edit warring (see here: and was warned to discuss his proposed edits on the article's talk page. He has failed to do so and continues his edit warring instead.] (]) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)		This user has been trying to add a paragraph about an evangelical gospel band in Brazil to a section in the article ]. The content is not notable for a section summarizing all of the music of Latin America. The user has made no attempt to discuss his edits on the talk page, and has not engaged with me after I've tried to start a discussion on his talk page to discuss it on the article talk page. The user was temporarily blocked from editing for 48 hours on September 28 for edit warring (see here: and was warned to discuss his proposed edits on the article's talk page. He has failed to do so and continues his edit warring instead.] (]) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
⚫	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 04:04, 2 October 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984

User repeatedly engaged 3RR, first on The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2.--2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Note Re: The Fog, Stiarts erid was previously warned as a result of this discussion
Note Re: George of the Jungle 2, it appears that the editor stopped after the most recent warning.
Comment I have added the formatted report above to allow for action as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TweetiePie1947 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 24 hours)

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:

TweetiePie1947 has been claiming that this animated short "was offically canceled out of theaters," but has not provided any sources for this claim. I recently added a sourced release date for the film, and TweetiePie1947 has been removing it and reverting the text to claim that the film was cancelled. I have left messages on TweetiePie1947's talk page and the article talk page, but have gotten no response. (Also, I'm aware that in the course of this edit war, I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.) Trivialist (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: TweetiePie1947 has been blocked, but now 205.223.222.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tweety1962compostion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making the same edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Obvious sock is blocked indef and the page is protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New sock: BugsBunny1957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: The account Garrejones44444777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making similar edits to The Jet Cage, claiming that it was "Originally Cancelled," and replacing sourced material with unsourced material and claims. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Magnus Carlsen#Trivia ‎

Comments:
Computerarts has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours but has reverted the disputed content into the article seven times over the last two weeks. When they do go to the article talk page they remove others comments such as , and . Warnings on their talk page are removed with responses of "yawn", , , , and . They do not seem to understand the necessity of discussion. GB fan 12:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks. In addition to the points made by GB fan, the user has created two articles that have been speedily deleted as hoaxes and edit warred in other articles. In their short editing history here, they don't appear to do anything useful. I came close to indeffing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dondraper1993 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: )

Dondraper1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and the potential sockpuppets

Draperdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
109.171.137.235 (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:

its not clear to me if the Draperdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a particularly st00pid attempt at sockpuppeting or an attempt to frame Dondraper1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? but the IP is making the same edits as the primary account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Xmisstree reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Shraddha Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xmisstree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Kapoor's Official Page on Twitter - I cannot imagine a more credible source than the actress herself! She received all her Birthday wishes on March 2. References for age are fresh - leading national magazine & national news channel. Thanks."
20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575043938 by SpacemanSpiff (talk)"
20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC) ""
18:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Birthday sources */ 3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The edits are a bit messy, but the gist of it is that they are adding a poorly sourced DoB. I left a message on their talk page before they added it again for a fourth time. James 12345 20:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:184.97.132.157 reported by User:Astrocog (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Blue Line (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.97.132.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574939261 by Astrocog (talk)"
13:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574761319 by Astrocog (talk)"
16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 574480646 by Astrocog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
00:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
00:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ new section"
21:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "edit warring warning - please engage in a discussion"
21:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ sig"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

00:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Deaths Section */ continuous reverts - if it keeps up an administrator should be consulted"

Comments:

This IP continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion. AstroCog (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lollywoodcafe reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Welcome message with link to EW policy, Edit Warring warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Malik Noureed Awan#Problems with the article

Comments:

A single purpose account dedicated to promotion of the subject is persistently edit warring without participating in any discussion at the talk. --SMS 06:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And, the editor immediately reverts after block expiration. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the result from header so this report catches admin attention. --SMS 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:128.147.45.149 reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: Blocked)

Original revision:

The user is adding unreferenced material/original research to the two articles; when reverted, restores his version and continues expanding it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not on article talk page; asked to stop and explain the edits on user talk page, to no avail. See above.)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ajaxfiore reported by User:AbuRuud (Result: Blocked)

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:

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: This case involves the same information over two different pages

AbuRuud (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although I was a bit troubled by the reverts by the new account, the combination of the edit warring and WP:BLP issues was too disruptive. Because of the WP:BLP problems, I have reverted Ajaxfiore's edits on both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's 3RR:

TheRedPenOfDoom has been removing many articles and removing the sourced material. He has been removing it and vandalizing. I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.)

This user continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion.

Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2013‎ (UTC)

It's impossible to hit 3RR with four unrelated edits on three different articles. Feel free to submit again if you have actual evidence of edit warring.—Kww(talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have an independent admin comment here, not someone with a track record of jumping at Red Pen's call when he needs a block threatening. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment As Kww pointed out, the provided diffs do not (and cannot) illustrate a bright-line violation. I reviewed each article, and I would have made the same reverts. The only difference would have been the unsourced Kunchacko Boban filmography, where I would have cut much more (Upcoming Movies? Opted Out Movies? Really?) and merged back into the BIO article (it would be nice to see the filmography and awards combined, for instance). The other two articles given were very clear (wrong article on one and WP:ELNO on the other). TRPoD may not be making many friends in those frequently debated subject areas, but the edits were good and forward what we are up to here. --(Non-administrator comment)Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:174.89.214.57 reported by User:Br100x (Result: Semi)

Page: Corn dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.89.214.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
02:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
02:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
03:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."
03:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Comments:

User continues to edit war on Corn dog after repeated warnings on talk page and edit summaries. br100x 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bradford4life reported by User:Besieged (Result: )

Page: Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradford4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
Consecutive edits made from 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) to 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
1. 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575283134 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
2. 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575284440 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
3. 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575285997 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
4. 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575308895 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bradford. (TW)"
18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Bradford. (TW)"
18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Bradford. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User apparently has no interest in reading or responding to notices or warnings, and has not attempted to engage with me or - apparently - anyone else, not even bothering to use edit summaries explaining their actions or reasons, and continues to remove content in an apparent assumption of article ownership. besieged 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Smj91791 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

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: Editor attempted to discuss on my talk page and I moved it to the article page and responded there under the section What the H*ll.., the section title was the other editor's as started on my talk page.

Comments:

I was just adding information in regards to Minnesota should be on the contenders list. Creditable sources state the behind the scenes discussions have been going on for 2-3 weeks. Each time the comments, they are revert without cause. If the three revert edit rule applies then this rule need to also applied to my executer. He revert my information more than three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted three times only and I warned you that we were both at 3RR and attempted to discuss between reverts as can be seen from the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I have serious concerns whether User:Smj91791 has sufficient WP:COMPETENCE to be a productive editor to the encyclopedia. Beyond all the issues involved in the current dispute (edit warring, original research, relying on blogs, trying to add "behind the scenes discussions") the more troubling issue is that the user's talk page, the article talk page and article history are littered with warnings to the user to stop copy-pasting copyrighted content into the article. However, the plagarism has continued right up until today. I think some sort of administrative action is required here until Smj91791 can demonstrate that they understand our copyright policy. TDL (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TDL. The talk page of the article in question also has one section with two warnings to Smj91791 for the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The final edit was an attempt to remove any copyright issues. The situation with the Minnesota expansion bid is no different than that of Atlanta. Additional sources will be added shortly. Their are few editors on the site believe that their information is the only creditable information. Its their way or no way. I was simply trying to add additional information to current state of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your final edit also removed my tags on the weak sources, for the second time.

If you add more sources, make sure they meet the requirements at WP:RS. Adding information is good. Adding bad information isn't. It's not that I believe my information is the only credible information, I believe that blogs are not usually reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lindodawki reported by User:Goodsdrew (Result: )

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:

This user has been trying to add a paragraph about an evangelical gospel band in Brazil to a section in the article Latin America. The content is not notable for a section summarizing all of the music of Latin America. The user has made no attempt to discuss his edits on the talk page, and has not engaged with me after I've tried to start a discussion on his talk page to discuss it on the article talk page. The user was temporarily blocked from editing for 48 hours on September 28 for edit warring (see here: and was warned to discuss his proposed edits on the article's talk page. He has failed to do so and continues his edit warring instead.Goodsdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: )

Page: Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Campoftheamericas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

06:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573617661 by Jmh649 (talk), since he incorrectly marked the IQ change as 0.4"
01:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored addition by User:Podiaebba There was no consensus for removal"

First block Reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has not breached 3RR today (yet), rather, the diffs above show a continuation of the previous edit warring this editor was blocked for recently. While it is not the same exact edit, it is once again on the subject of IQ and water fluoridation, demonstrating that the editor has refused to engage in consensus building..

If you read through the talk page you'll also notice a failure to adhere to sourcing standards, IDHT behavior, ignoring consensus, and attempts to push a WP:FRINGE POV (see talk in general).

Because this page is under discretionary sanctions I would request in addition to what ever the result is here that the editor be formally warned about WP:ARBPS

Note that I am no longer actively involved in this dispute - I saw the reverts on my watchlist and thought it appropriate to report but I doubt I will have the time to stick around and comment. Nformation 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I restored a previous edit, that had been on the page for some time and accepted into the article by User:Podiaebba (although it was initially changed to incorrectly assume that a statistic was equal to the actual IQ drop, by User:Jmh649). If anything, there is a meatpuppetry on this page towards driving off anyone with research that doesn't agree with the current NPOV deficit. Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppets are removing NPOV tag on article Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're just edit warring. Seek consensus on the talk page. Maybe a rewording will get the content included, but edit warring won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious edit warring now. We need a quick block. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I added diffs for a 3RR violation and the diff for a previous 3RR block. There's mainly a WP:COMPETENCE issue here as demonstrated by the talk page. At the very least the user should be topic-banned from controversial articles. The user needs to develop some experience editing and interacting with others. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: )

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:
TheOldJacobite says that full character names are in cast section and should not be require in plot summaries. But they are things like full names, occupations and such that are at much should be on plot summaries. TheOldJacobite just doesn't seem to get it.

User:86.170.97.182 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: )

Page: Pier Paolo Pasolini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.170.97.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575328200 by N0n3up (talk) you are the one being arbitrary, you have given no reason for keep removing salo, just because you may not like the film it does not change it's reputation"
20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336102 by N0n3up (talk) well at the moment with Aunva6's opinion it's two against one that you're in the wrong"
20:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336938 by N0n3up (talk) how thick are you? i was using two against one as an example of consensus"
20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575337822 by N0n3up (talk) salo is pasolini's most famous, albeit infamous work, it stays"
21:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575342441 by N0n3up (talk) yes exactly, it's hard to find another filmmaker so synonymous with one of his works than pasolini is with salo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

violated 3rr -- Aunva6 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: )

Page: Pier Paolo Pasolini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid possible vandalism 575241039 by 31.50.150.116 (talk) Please stop doing arbitrary edits, take it in the talk page first."
18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "The work is already mentioned down below."
20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid possible vandalism 575332675 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Until you decide to resolve this problem and reach consensus, you must stop."
20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336604 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Message talked problem, "two against one" is not in the Misplaced Pages rules, please use the talk page to resolve problems."
20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 575337311 by 86.170.97.182 (talk)"
20:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575337997 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Not exactly, read some of his article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"
03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

this editor's intent is in the right place, but unfortunately, he is persisting in the edit warring. he violated 3rr after my warnings. I attampted to expain to him on my talk page what he was doing wrong, but i'm not sure I got the message accross. -- Aunva6 03:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories: