Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 14 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: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)

@Bishonen: @Clpo13: @Zero Serenity: I appreciate that this has been closed, but it's probably worth noting that only a day later, Sourcerery is again edit warring, this time over at Populism. I initiated a Talk Page discussion on the matter but their response suggests a propensity to tendentious editing. Clearly, there is a pattern of behaviourwith this editor. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting some very tendentious behaviour at Fascism and History of the Jews in Italy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Great idea, while admins are at it maybe they can look at midnightblueowls conduct at that page as well.Sourcerery (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This would now be a case for ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 13 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)

Most of this is blatantly untrue. If your statement that we never reached "final agreement on these paragraphs" is correct, why did you write in relation to the first paragraph: "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" in this diff? And why did you previously say that you were "fine" with changing the content in the manner that was done? You certainly never described it as merely a temporary fix. It's true that this applies only to the first of the two paragraphs, but we still discussed the second paragraph on the talk page. I proposed a compromise version, you said nothing, I added it, and then we each made some revisions to it in a manner that reflected finding a compromise. Later on you simply removed it, even though there was no consensus to do so, because the RfC respondent cited a version of the paragraph which no longer existed. Finally, if you state that neither of us should make any further changes to the disputed material until the RfC is closed, how do you justify your removal of the content while it was still open? You're holding me to an entirely different standard than the one to which you hold yourself. If you can edit the content while an RfC is open, why can't I?

I closed the RfC because it had received only one response in over a week and a half and because the versions of the paragraphs that you originally linked to had been altered by our agreement. I do not see how it violates the RFCEND policy. Display name 99 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Hashirama56 reported by User:Bakazaka (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This has been going on for over a week against multiple editors, exacerbated by implicit claims of racism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 13 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 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */It's a completely unnecessary addition and was not discussed on the talk page"
   2. 10:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */Per WP:POINTY -- do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point"
3. 12:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "That's no excuse for using rubbish markup for a purely cosmetic effect"
4. 11:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Entries */Remove unnecesssry, complex markup - the note in a simpler and more elegabt solution"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Mission Winnow */New section"

Comments:

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

A quick check of his edit history shows that Tvx1 has reported me half a dozen times for edit-warring, such as this one. It is quite obvious that he has an agenda and is trying to get me blocked for daring to disagree with him. I've been waiting for him to post something at ANI ever since this discussion did not go his way. As @SportingFlyer (sorry for the surprise tag) said in response to Tvx1 previously:

"You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment."

An uninvolved third party has clearly identified two separate instances of Tvx1 trying to use the ANI process to get back at an editor. Tvx1 and I have a long history of disagreeing with one another, and almost all of these disagreements are followed up with him coming to ANI trying to get me blocked for something. I can predict that he will respond to this comment accusing me of acting in bad faith and trying to talk my way out of punishment whereas he only ever wanted to see the policy upheld in a consistent manner. I can predict this because it is what he always does.

The ANI process calls for the editor filing the ANI to notify editors breaking 3RR before going to ANI itself. Tvx1 has done that, but look at the timestamps: the message he posted on my talk page was posted at 11:17 on 12 June 2019 and the above ANI report was posted at 11:17 on 12 June 2019. At the very most he had 59 seconds to a) post the 3RR warning, b) reasonably expect that I would see it, and c) put together and post a 3RR report showing evidence of multiple diffs. The more likely explanation is that he composed the 3RR report, posted the warning on my talk page and then posted the report here seconds later in a cynical attempt to give the appearance of having followed the procedure. To be perfectly honest, I should have submitted an ANI of my own asking an admin to look into Tvx1's obvious abuse of the ANI system. The only reason I have not is because digging through archive pages on mobile devices is a pain, but between his repeated behaviour, other editors pointing out his obvious ulterior motive, and his failure to follow the spirit of the ANI process, I have half a mind to do just that. I have lost count of the number of times Tvx1 has run to ANI trying to get me blocked after we have had a disagreement. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you wouldn't keep ending up here if you wouldn't keep violating the edit-warring policies. I'm not very involved in this issue and I have clearly stated that I don't have a strong preference either way. I have nothing to gain whatsoever, save from stopping the disruption to the article. There seems to be some desire to discuss from the editors (save Admanny who should really join the discussion now), however you have decided to continue edit-warring to the point op breaching WP:3RR again despite the discussion. And your defense is also your classic style whenever someone reports you here. You launch into a rant of ludicrous accusations (I think I have probably reported you twice in the last two or so years, both when you were still using your old account while you have reported me a for superior amount of times and while others have also called out your behavior, so your claims are far from the truth) against the user reporting you, while showing no insight into your own behavior whatsoever. And it's that lack of insight on my behavior that is my biggest concern still. By the way, we're not on the ANI here.Tvx1 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: if you want I can replace all the Tvx1 with SSSB because claiming someone has an 'agenda' against you doesn't mean you can break the 3 revert rule. As for you complaining about the timestamps with respect to Tvx1 warning you, I fail to see how this is relevant, (s)he is supposed to post this and the warning on your talk page at the same time (roughly), thats how this works, Tvx1 used Twinkle which allows it to happen at the same time. Further the placement of {{uw-3rr}} is recommended not compulsory and you were warned that you were edit warring on the talk page so thats not relevant either. SSSB (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said that it gave me a licence to disregard policies—only that Tvx1 has a long and documented history of abusing the ANI process that I think any admin looking into this should be made aware of. He clearly has a vested interest in seeing me blocked because then he can go about making changes to articles without having to worry about someone voicing opposition to his actions. If this behaviour of his had only happened once or twice, maybe he'd be credible, but I stopped counting after the fourth time he tried it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Very strange considering that I haven’t even filed four ANI reports against you in total. I’m also puzzled why you keep discussing ANI process here even though we’re not at ANI at all.Tvx1 15:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:ANI/3RR is the shortcut I followed to get here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged. This is one of the dumbest edit wars I've ever seen - the diff which brought over the line only removed white space - but it's definitely a violation of 3RR. Recommend something light, probably a 24-hour block, to both cool down the reverts and to emphasise the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss things once WP:BOLD goes out the window. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I've taken the time to scroll through what was happening. All I tried to do was maintain consistency across the F1 pages, as seen in 2011 and 2009, among others. I can see how you want the page to look less ugly and all, but if Ferrari is going to enter multiple races in the European rounds under standard "Scuderia Ferrari" it *should* be noted in plain text, not just in a note. Mclarenfan17 has repeatedly reverted my edits, but since there has been much opposition, I've decided to try the edit again in the future where Ferrari has entered enough races under "Scuderia Ferrari" for it to be considerably significant. Admanny (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

All of which could have been avoided if you bothered to take part in the talk page discussion. You were pinged there multiple times. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a big difference between someone who got a little carried away and accidentally crossed a line (which is what happened here) and someone who has repeatedly and blatantly ignored Misplaced Pages rules and thumbed his nose at everyone involved (which is how Tvx1 is trying to present me). I have not had a block in two years, which is at odds with how Tvx1 has misrepresented me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, I think Tvx1 has some explaining to do. First of all, he claims he is only acting in the interests of the article, but he only refers one person—me—to 3RR despite the way Admanny clearly broke 3RR himself with the following edits:

Secondly, in one of these edits Admanny demanded that changes be made to another article before they be applied to the article in question. I thus had reason to believe that he was being deliberately disruptive, and so reverting such edits is not considered edit warring as per WP:EDITWAR.

Finally, Tvx1 himself participated in the edit war. His edit clearly meets the definition of "a series of back-and-forth edits" defined by WP:EDITWAR.

So he only prosecutes one editor at 3RR, misrepresents some of the edits in question when there was reason to believe they were deliberately disruptive, and participated in the edit war himself. If I was indeed "launch into a rant of ludicrous accusations against the user reporting ", would he care to explain why he didn't bother to report one user for edit-warring when there was a clear case against another? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not report Admanny because they did NOT break WP:3RR. Please count their edits more carefully. Considering all your blocks you know full well how this rule works. Moreover their last edit appeared to be a genuine attempt at a compromise, whereas you just kept blanket reverting any change to that cell to the point of breaking WP:3RR. I do agree that they need to take part in the talk page discussion. I'm baffled though on how you can present my one edit as "as a series of back-and-forth edits". I made a revert, but did not edit-war. I did not revert again after my edit and focus on the talk page. I think you should stop focussing on the other editors now and try to show some insight on your own edits which broke WP:3RR (again). That remains the biggest problem. Whenever this happens you are utterly unable/unwilling to admit to have done anything wrong. And a few months later it happens agains. While you avoided being blocked for some time now, your edits in that period were not all perfectly fine. Certainly, when you stop using your original account and started editing as an IP and later this new account you went back to your old ways again. It appears that you think that with a new account you have a clean sheet regarding blocks again, and thus have some leeway now, though I do hope I'm wrong there. You did though break WP:3RR while avoiding a block at 2019 Australian Grand Prix a few months ago, so this is clearly not an isolated incident.Tvx1 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Whenever this happens you are utterly unable/unwilling to admit to have done anything wrong."

Oh, I'm totally willing to admit to wrongdoing when it is appropriate. The problem is that I'm dealing with an editor who will treat any sanctions imposed on my account as a personal victory, who clearly wants to see me humbled before the community and who would be thoroughly pleased with himself for bringing it about.

"I did not report Admanny because they did NOT break WP:3RR moreover their last edit appeared to be a genuine attempt at a compromise."

They made three reverts in 24 hours. Even if they did not break 3RR, they did not participate in the discussion on the talk page and were clearly edit-warring. That you think they genuinely attempted to make a compromise is irrelevant—they were still edit-warring. Conversely, if you feel that a "genuine attempt at compromise" is enough to excuse their actions, then you should acknowledge that, based on this edit and their unwillingness to participate in the talk page discussion, I had a legitimate reason to believe that further edits would be disruptive. As another editor pointed out, their actions were childish to say the least, so you can understand how my decision to revert one of his edits was made in good faith. Thus, at least one of my edits is not edit-warring because, as WP:EDITWAR states, "reverting vandalism is not edit warring" and "reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring". Given the editor's demands that other edits be made before the contested edits, I judged that to be deliberate disruption.

The point I am trying to make is that you are clearly judging the actions of different editors by different standards. You have not cited a single policy that would excuse or explain Admanny's behaviour, and so by your own logic and insistence that the policies be upheld, you should have referred him to ANI. His refusal to participate in talk page discussions and insistence on communicating through edit summaries clearly indicate that he would not stop edit-warring. And yet, you did not refer him to ANI because this was never about stopping and edit war—it was about your personsl vendetta against someone you disagreed with. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course different users are judged differently. Everything depends on their history. You have a series of blocks for breaking WP:3RR and are much more experienced than Admanny who hasn't been blocked for anything at all. Sure you haven't been blocked for a considerable time, but that doesn't give you a clean slate to start braking this policy again. I genuinely considered reporting the other user, but ultimately decided against it because they did not break that clear line and there last edit genuinely seemed to be well-meant. Whereas you just kept blanket reverting content you disagreed with, while with your record you shouldn't even venture close to the 3RR line. And just like with these case when you did end up being blocked, you claim you had rightful exceptions even though you clearly don't understand them. You did not revert vandalism (Please read WP:VANDALISM, at no point Admanny willingly added incorrect or offensive content) nor did you enforce an overriding policy. But rest assured that Admanny will be reported if they display such behavior again. Sorry but you just repeatedly reverted content you disagreed with to the point of breaking a hard and fast rule and "I thought they were acting maliciously" does not actually give you the right to do that. Now please drop this ridiculous obsession that others have a personal vendetta against you, because those claims are just a joke.Tvx1 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Sorry but you just repeatedly reverted content you disagreed with to the point of breaking a hard and fast rule and "I thought they were acting maliciously" does not actually give you the right to do that."

I reverted content based on the well-founded belief that Admanny would continue to disrupt the page. He insisted that edits be applied to one article before being applied to the in question and used that to justify a blanket revert. His subsequent edit with the summary "reverting to spec one" offered no evidence that he was changing his behaviour in any way. He did not participate in the talk page discussion—he has only addressed the issue once, on this page—and his contributions page shows a general lack of participation on talk pages. His user talk page is full of comments from other editors that he does not address, and the few comments that he has made show disdain for the need for reliable sources. In short, I concluded that there was no basis to believe that was not disrupting the page and that he would continue to revert edits to the 2019 article until his demand for changes to the 2011 article were met. Thus the revert was entirely justified because it was disruptive.

But please, if you have some evidence that demonstrates that Admanny's edits were, as you put it, a "genuine attempt at compromise", then feel free to show it. The nearest thing I can find is Admanny's explanation above, but you had already decided that he was trying to compromise nine hours before he posted it, so you could not have used that to assess his intentions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"My revert was justified because I believe he was being disruptive", is not an exception allowing you to break WP:3RR. It is that sort of misunderstanding of this policy which led to you repeatedly braking it in the past and repeatedly ending up getting blocked for it and it is obvious that aftar all of that you are still unable to understand it and why you recently broke this policy again a couple of times. That's what my biggest concern is. You're stilling not changing your approach to this policy.Tvx1 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:MapReader (Result: )

Page: Gentleman Jack (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Five reverts to the page within the last 24 hours:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and , both very quickly deleted by the reverting editor and the latter sadly described by her as "bully-boy crap"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

MOSTV states: "A series's nationality (country of origin) should be referenced by reliable sources, directly if possible, but otherwise by referencing the country or collaboration within which principal creative control was exercised. If singularly defined, it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence". The editor's attention was drawn to this existing consensus but she has continued to edit-war the page regardless.

Comments:
Editor has been warned multiple times by various editors about edit warring,(etc) warnings usually quickly deleted from her talk page. Notification of this discussion was also posted to her talk page as per policy, but also swiftly deleted.

As an editor with a history editing the page who also noticed this little dispute between editors, it's worth remembering that no discussion was initiated on the shows talkpage which should have been a given. Instead both editors had a little back and forth between each other. Not to mention diff four is Drmargi removing obvious vandalism and five could have been anyone as they only have one edit to their name. And funnily enough this editor seemed intent on restoring what the IP had added.

I believe the report starter should have created a talk page discussion as they were the first to take issue with the edit and then invited Drmargi to said discussion. I don't believe there's any obligation for anyone to respond to page disputes on their personal talkpage before such a discussion was created on the shows talk page. But that's just my opinion. Esuka (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Florida A&M University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Broadmoor (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 know that this is only three recent reverts but this editor has explicitly stated that "I'm not going to stop reverting." This editor has been blocked for edit warring previously so he or she certainly knows about our policies and practices. And he or she has removed this material multiple times. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tradeojax6 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:No action due to self-revert)

Page

Carlos Maza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tradeojax6 (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 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC) to 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "NPOV change as discussed on talk page."
   2. 17:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Steven Crowder */"
   3. 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Steven Crowder */"
2. 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss regarding changes. I've provided a sourced claim and adjusted the wording for NPOV. If anything, please explain why these changes should not occur on the Talk page: sourced information and adherence to Misplaced Pages's own policies should not be a matter of debate."
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC) to 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "They are not scare quotes. If you look below, specifically in the section regarding the Maza vs. Crowder event, multiple sayings, such as "playful ribbing" and "hurtful" are quoted."
   2. 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "It's a broad assumption to say only Conservatives are on the opposite end of the argument. The article's purpose is to be neutral, to showcase the events without taking a side. The language as it stands is decidedly in favor of Maza."
4. 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ""High-profile figures on both sides of the aisle have chimed in on the case.""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) to 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Why? Quotations go in quotes. See below in the article."
   2. 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Allegations drew investigation. Multiple articles speak of the polarizing effect, with as many in support of Maza as in support of Crowder."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"
2. 15:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* NPOV */"

Comments:

User was warned, went right back to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I engaged in a talk page discussion with you on this, and it seemed we'd reached an agreement. I was not aware you were still challenging the edit, I apologize. Tradeojax6 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There was clearly no agreement or consensus on the talk page, particularly with your weakening of the clearly stated facts of the slurs. If you self-revert your edits, this can be closed with a warning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted to the pre-edit conflict state. I would like to reach a conclusion on the talk page when we can, as I do feel the article is lacking on neutrality in its current state, an issue in and of itself. Tradeojax6 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see 4 clear reverts today by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), all going back to the 05:41, 12 June 2019‎ version: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. This seems to be a content dispute, and not correction of any disruption/vandalism, so pretty clear violation of 3RR on his part. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh of course Netoholic would wander in. The first revert is a BLP violation - it's an accusation of criminal behavior supported by an unreliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary gives -zero- indication that you reverted for BLP reasons. Claiming that after you've been called out for violating 3RR is just an attempt to evade consequences. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

One doesn't need to cite BLP everywhere for it to be relevant. Note to admins viewing this: Netoholic has never edited the article in question, never participated in any talk page discussions about the article, and somehow magically decides to show up here, likely because of his pre-existing disagreements with me on other issues and other articles. Otherwise, this can be closed because the user in question self-reverted to the status quo ante as requested and we're now having a discussion on the talk page about reaching a consensus version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is a pattern of behavior by Netoholic; they did the same thing (going after a user they'd had unrelated disagreements with) to User:Sangdeboeuf a week ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's really no magic involved, its called a Watchlist. By making a report here (and you are a frequent flyer), you should not be surprised that your related edits should be looked at as well, especially since you have a history of edit warring and then reporting your opponents to this board. As you said, I'm not involved in this specific page, but I, like anyone, can observe that you violated 3RR in this case. Shifting the focus is just another tactic to avoid responsibility. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action, due to self-revert by User:Tradeojax6. Any review of the recent edits should keep the BLP exemption in mind. The WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions may apply to this article so the editors are urged to be careful if they intend to make further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:24.115.251.72 reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Happy Together (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Please stop talking about commercials"
2. 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Why does Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist? We don't want any commercial talk...please."
3. 17:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Why do we need to describe songs being featured in TV commercials if Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist? That's why there is such a thing as the Peanuts Movie."
4. 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Because we don't want to deal too much with songs being used in commercials. That's why."
5. 17:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Because Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist, we don't want to deal with songs in TV commercials"
6. 16:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Why does Commercials I Hate and Am I Right exist?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* June 2019 */"
2. 17:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* June 2019 */" (made by MilkGames)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"

Comments:

I did told the IP to discuss the removal at the IP's talk page, but the IP apparently did not read it. INeedSupport 17:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Looks like a user (CodyFinke2019) removed the same content after the IP got blocked. It could be a possible block evasion, although you did account create blocked the IP. INeedSupport 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mark999 reported by User:Ajf773 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Doncaster Sheffield Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark999 (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:

Extensive addition of improperly source contents on a number of airport articles, including this one. Edits have been reverted by both myself and @Charlesdrakew. Warnings posted on the users talk page but has rudely ignored warnings and continued to undo the reverts. Ajf773 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional revert since posting this notice: . Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could help find an appropriate source or tell me what constitutes one, rather than reverting and reporting me!Mark999 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Any dates must be properly referenced with a firm start/end date. Otherwise they shouldn't be added. Ajf773 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason at all to reach 5 reverts within 24 hours, The edits in question were all unsourced (the cite used is this which as can be seen is useless), There needs to be reliable sourcing which states the content you are adding and given you've been here since 2006 you should know this by now, Like I said there's no excuse to reach 5 reverts within a 24 hours especially from a veteran editor such as yourself. –Davey2010 21:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:33Hudsonbay33 reported by User:Concus Cretus (Result: No violation)

Page: Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 33Hudsonbay33 (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: I gave up due to aggressive responses when user approached. Same issue was mirrored in the lead section of Economy of the Czech Republic.

Comments:

The user started by adding misinformation about the euro currency but was reverted and warned. Out of the gate, he replied that non-eurozone countries are "backward areas of EU", and resumed edit warring by removing what seems "good" economic indicators, but when reverted, he backpaddled but started to add and enforce "low" economic indicators in what seems some kind of mission to prove his biased point about certain countries. He did similar attempts to "downgrade" the wording in articles concerning Poland, Hungary and Slovakia or other countries, going as far as rounding down their average salaries by tenths of single digits or disruptively blanking out content (1 2) to remove countries in superpower or potential superpower articles. This is against Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point at least and POV edit warring at best. Concus Cretus (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:6C55:4800:29E:9C58:76E4:9D27:571B reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Range blocked)

Page

Colm Meaney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:6C55:4800:29E:9C58:76E4:9D27:571B (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 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) to 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC) to 06:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) to 06:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) to 06:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 06:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) to 06:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 06:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 06:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   6. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   11. 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   12. 06:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   13. 06:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   14. 06:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   15. 06:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""
   16. 06:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please note this person has also edited as DragoDominkovicfan34 (talk · contribs) (who was blocked as a sock of HBillMurray (talk · contribs) and several other IPs in the last few hours. WP:AIV and WP:RFPP reports have been filed. The Roderick Strong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article was also a target but it has now been protected. MarnetteD|Talk 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• IP now part of a range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:AliSami reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Both warned)

Page

Houthi movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 901803542 by SharabSalam (talk) again, we need to talk, stop Vandalism Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. stop reverting. read wiki policy."
2. 11:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 901802309 by SharabSalam good faith, need to talk (talk) No consensus for this (TW)"
3. 11:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "Vandalism is prohibited Misplaced Pages:Vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Houthi movement. (TW)"
2. 11:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Houthi movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is removing sourced information and adding a POV allegation in WIKIVOICE while asking to take the dispute to the talk page. His contributions also shows that they are not adhering NPOV.-- SharabSalam (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam, I am sorry but we need to talk here ] and discuss the untrusted sources. I noted that you forcing your opinion to this article, you have a history of many revisions on this page, you are preventing anyone trying to improve the quality of this article. again, we need to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliSami (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If either of you continues to revert the article you are risking a block. Use the talk page, open an WP:RFC, or use WP:RSN to find out which sources are reliable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:EEng, User:WikiWinters, User:TAnthony reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: )

Page: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiWinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TAnthony (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: To my knowledge the users have not been warned.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The page in dispute is the talk page

Comments:

These three editors are the chief combatants in a war over one of EEng's silly but usually harmless additions to the encyclopedia. I say "chief combatants" because others have been involved, potentially including myself as I modified EEng's original post, but the representative sample above is just these three. Normally if I encounter a situation like this I protect the page and direct the combatants to the talk page, but in this case the edit war is occurring on the talk page. Leaving it here for a neutral admin to assess. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has violated 3RR, and in particular I've only removed the copyrighted material (that serves no talk page purpose except decoration) twice in three days, each time with clear reasoning in my edit summary. I have found EEng to be a fine editor in the past, but I can't quite understand her/his apparent obsession with keeping this Star Wars quote box on an MOS talk page. Not that EEng is the only one to restore the quote box, multiple editors have gotten involved on both sides. But in my experience, when something is challenged, the editor who added it makes a case for keeping the material, and does not simply keep restoring it with "it's funny and it's fine" as a reason.— TAnthony 16:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody has technically broken 3RR, but this is an edit war that's been going on since at least Tuesday. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

when something is challenged, the editor who added it makes a case for keeping the material, and does not simply keep restoring it with "it's funny and it's fine" as a reason. As an editor reverting the addition once, this is where I stand. Consensus, WP:NOT, and edit warring policy apply to the talk space (and to toss it in, WP:TPG) just as they do elsewhere. The rationale I got on EEng's talk page On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is seems to miss the spirit entirely on how we settle disputes. This is not a good hill to die on, what with the hills people seem to be taking a stand on of late. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The operative principle on the very page you're citing (TPG) is Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. EEng 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposed principle, that anyone can remove anyone else's talk page comments because they think common catchphrases are inappropriate, or that talk pages should not be humorous, or whatever other vague objection they might have, and that they can only be reinstated after discussion/consensus (where?) seems very dangerous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Which is probably a reasonable position/thought on your part, but for the fact it's a strawman of my position. Regardless, it is unreasonable to edit war with multiple other editors to try to get what is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT quotation to stick, especially in a location to suggest that people who use that talk page agree with the content of the image in question. I didn't originally object to the quotation, just the fact there was apparently an edit war over it, but if you ask me now that I've taken 5 minutes to consider, I'm probably in the position that I don't want to have that be the first thing a newcomer (or oldcomer) to the talk page sees. I am neither scummy nor villainous, and I doubt you or anyone else are either, but that quotation is one of the first things a newcomer would see. Is that how you want to be reflected? Even as a joke? Without any context as to why? Not I.... --Izno (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As noted in my outdented post below, the question you raise about the effect of the quote on those visiting the page would be a most fruitful one; it was indeed my intention to have a salutary effect, though I certainly might have missed the mark. Removal for the stupid reasons actually given by the removers (enumerated in that same post below) was, well, stupid. EEng 19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't police talk pages the same way we do articles, but if I added a decorative item to an unrelated talk page and someone had a good reason to object, I'd let it go. EEng seems to be trying to prove a point? Having this quote remain on the talk page is not, I admit, the end of the world. But Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use says, in part, The quotation must be useful and aid understanding of the subject; irrelevant quotations should be removed. If this doesn't apply to talk pages, then what stops me from posting the entire text of a novel or screenplay here? We take copyrighted text so seriously that we even hide violations in edit history. I'm sorry, but "humor on talk pages is common" does not justify this one, in my opinion. What is also common is removing harmless but unrelated editor commentary on talk pages like "I Love this show! Do any of you think John Doe is not really dead?" I'm all for a little humor and levity on talk pages in place of contentious arguing, but this quote does not relate to anything actually being discussed on the page, and isn't even that funny. Quote a person and not a copyrighted work if you really need to entertain yourself.— TAnthony 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I also find snarky and petulant edit summaries like this one to be inappropriate and unhelpful.— TAnthony 18:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What David Eppstein said. A discussion of the issue Inzo now raises (i.e. the first thing a newcomer (or oldcomer) to the talk page sees etc.) would be fine, and such a discussion might end with the quotation removed or, perhaps, it being annotated in some way, or an additional quotation adjoined, to enhance its function as a reminder of the weird things that often go on on that page which should be avoided.

snarky and petulant edit summaries – Nothing snarky and petulant about them at all; they straightforwardly outline the knee-jerk tagteam removals with no coherent reason given -- blinkered do-gooder tsk-tskers repeatedly removing something with a series of half-baked incoherent "reasons". First it's "vandalism" , then it's copyright , then it's no reason at all , then it's "I don't like all this reverting" (to explain doing another reversion ), then some idiocy about imaginary "stylistic and grammatical errors" , and now we're back to the copyright blather combined with some We're all very important and serious here and no fun is allowed nonsense . Jesus. If you think it doesn't strike the right note, fine, say that and we can have a nice discussion about what might be better, but all this nannying and ultraseriousness is not on. Go ahead, make my day. EEng 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG I cannot believe that you are still blathering on about the usefulness of this stupid quote box. Other editors have given you plenty of valid reasons why it probably shouldn't be there, just because you don't like those reasons doesn't mean that they're nonsense. And no one is saying "no fun allowed", no need to be so dramatic.— TAnthony 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you say "we can have a nice discussion about what might be better". Is there a requirement I don't know of that talk pages should be accented with pithy quotes? If editors other than you think the copyright issue isn't a big deal, fine, I don't care that much. But I really don't understand your (seemingly desperate) need to keep a quotation on this page.— TAnthony 19:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And no, "wretched hive of scum and villainy" doesn't set the right tone on the MOS talk page, or anywhere.— TAnthony 19:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No one said there was a requirement ... that talk pages should be accented with pithy quotes, though you seem to be saying that there's a requirement that they not be. If you think there's a copyright problem here, you know nothing about copyright. I note that you didn't find it necessary to remove my use, above, of Go ahead, make my day.

Other editors have given you plenty of valid reasons – Sorry for being dense, but can you diff one of the valid reasons given? EEng 19:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You clearly think the rest of us are stupid and inferior to you, but WikiWinters, Izno, and I have given you reasons. You can be as dismissive as you want about it, but it doesn't invalidate them. Now this is a discussion and perhaps I will be the only one who thinks this is a copyright issue, but I actually do know something about copyright, despite your condescending suggestion otherwise. And like I said, we're not supposed to use copyrighted text unless it directly relates to the topic of discussion, and we're so serious about it that we often hide it in edit history after removing it. You can dismiss the rest of us if you want, but first why don't you actually give us a valid reason why it should stay, beyond "you're killing my fun".— TAnthony 19:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And as far as quoting WP:TPG, Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. We're not talking about a comment. We're talking about a joke framed at the top of a talk page.— TAnthony 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think the rest of you are stupid or inferior -- not Izno and Ivanvector, at least, whom I know and respect -- though the "reasons" you've given are indeed stupid, and if you keep this up I may be forced to form an opinion about you personally as well. The fact that you still don't see that the quote is a comment certainly helps things along in that regard.

I asked you to diff even one of the "valid reasons" given, and you still haven't done so, though you have mentioned copyright again, so let's start with that. Now, see, as it happens intellectual property was once my business, so while you may know something about copyright, I actually know ... well, not everything, but I know what it is I know, and I know this. So, seriously, I want to hear (so to speak) you say it: you actually think that when someone says Luke, I am your father! or Go on, make my day or wretched hive of scum and villainy on a talk page, that's a copyright violation that needs to be purged?

Or, if indeed there really was some other "valid reason" for removal, I again invite you to diff where such was given. EEng 20:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @EEng: When I asked you about this some time ago, I posed the question asking what happens when people start replying in the same way; the situation as I recall was adding it repeatedly at another users comment. Explaining a joke is not funny, what is it when some one starts debating the right to set the tone with a signed 'amusement'? cygnis insignis 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, Cygnis, but I am unable to parse what you're saying or asking. EEng 20:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Shamshamster1234 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: )

Page: Tadgh Quill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shamshamster1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 6/14/2019 at 7:58
2. 6/14/2019 at 8:42
3. 6/14/2019 at 9:58
4. 6/14/2019 at 10:11
5. 6/14/2019 at 10:33

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute in edit summary and discussions on editors talk page:

Comments:
Editor was issued a warning about Edit Warring before their final revert Which the editor then went on editing, flat out denying they are doing anything wrong.VViking_TalkEdits 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have very strong suspicion that this just a troll trap. The article, the rambling arguments at the AfD, the subject of the article . Clearly an almost hoax just to drag editors into wasting aeons of time. I would suggest a CSD and shut the whole thing down.  Velella    19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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