Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 24 November 2016

• 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:Namiba reported by User:WilliamJE (Result: Both warned)

• Page: Pat LaMarche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the article Pat LaMarche he reverted edits here, here, here, here, and here when first one editor and then myself changed the categories for the article. Namiba is now claiming it is a BLP issue. It is common categorizing practice to catgorize a person (actor, politicians, sportspeople) as from Foo even if they did not practice their profession in Foo....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the header of this report and notified the user. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Namiba and User:WilliamJE are both warned they are risking a block if they revert the article again without a prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jazbar reported by User:Yerpo (Result: Indef)

Page: Party of Slovenian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jazbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Later today, against a different editor:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
The user tries again to hide unpleasant (but well sourced) facts about a political party, accusing me (again) of being a government tool. This is a continuation of the edit war he engaged in two years ago after failing to provide sources for his opinion, so probably a much longer block would be warranted. I also recommend semi-protecting the page, because he had tried to achieve the same using various IP addresses after being blocked the first time. — Yerpo 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This a continuation of the same edit war for which the user was blocked two weeks in 2014. I've warned the user they are risking an indefinite block if they don't agree to wait for consensus. The same person has been indef blocked since 2011 on the Slovenian Misplaced Pages for reasons of nationalist editing, per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To be precise, I tried hard to reach consensus with him, but it proved impossible (see Talk:Party of Slovenian People); instead of providing reliable sources for his statements, he quickly regressed to conspiracy theories and trying to discredit my sources. Now me and all the editors who have reverted his vandalism are "paid by the government to suppress opposition". Don't want to assume too much, but I'd wager he is at least an active member of this party, so I can see only one direction this situation can go. — Yerpo 06:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: he continues with edit warring, personal attacks and baseless removal of sourced data, with no indication that he intends to heed any advice, argument, or warning. — Yerpo 12:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – Per the above, which continued after my warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:68.190.153.14 reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)

Pages:

The Challenge: Rivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Cutthroat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Fresh Meat II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.190.153.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This IP user thinks that he/she owns all of aforementioned The Challenge season articles, and is always making edits to suit his/her liking. This user is just making unexplained changes and removal of content and not discussing on the talk pages of the season articles of which his/her edits are taking place. When this user does make an edit summary, he/she goes off like this: "For the last time, stop changing these tables. I gave you my reason a lot so I'm done explaining why I'm changing it." This user has been previously warned for edit warring on other articles. DPH1110 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)DPH1110

Blocked – 48 hours. At The Challenge: Rivals the IP is conducting a long-term edit war on one of the layout parameters. When questioned on their talk, and given a chance to defend this behavior they express a lack of interest in collaboration. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:007nkr reported by User:Cotton2 (Result: Indef)

Page: CMS, Rajajipuram Branch NB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 007nkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. as sock
4. blanked page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
User blocked as sock puppet. Cotton2 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for socking by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Malerooster reported by User:JFG (Result: sanctioned)

Page

Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "undo clueless rv"
2. 14:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "not appropriate, its like saying "Hillary is being a cunt". not nice nor needed"
3. 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "not a forum"
4. 01:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Clinton Foundation */ rm ,not a forum"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750882105 by Malerooster (talk) Do not censor another editor's statement per WP:TPO, no matter how strongly you disagree with them"

Comments:

Malerooster repeatedly removed parts of a Talk page comment by Scjessey which he deemed offensive to Bernie Sanders. His edit was reverted once by me and five times by other editors. A quick discussion took place on my talk page, debating his assertion that he was justified to censor that comment per WP:BLP. Several reverting editors quoted WP:TPO to educate Malerooster but he persisted, even calling the latest revert "clueless". Lastly, he removed from his own talk page Scjessey's warning and PeterTheFourth's my 3RR notice. — JFG 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary for the second diff is wildly inappropriate, especially because it's in an edit summary. This is true even if Malerooster is using Scjessey's talk page comment as an excuse to engage in some BLP vios of his own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Malerooster's reversion edit summaries are sub-par, however, every single revert falls under WP:3RRNO point 7. Those were BLP violation removals. They are supported by our policies. Point being, recommend warning without official sanction. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor claimed they were BLPVIO removals, but that is only an opinion. Other editors have agreed with me that "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Malerooster restricted to 1RR in WP:ARBAP2 area for 1 month. This is clearly not the first time the editor has been involved in an edit war within the topic area. While I'll err on the side of good faith as far as the 3RR goes (though it seem a stretch), the repeated reverts stop now. --slakr 22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  Uhh, you might want to see this, which clearly shows consensus that the removal was legit as a BLP vio. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  While I appreciate input on the matter as well as pointing me to that thread, I feel that calling someone a dick in the provided context is either a personal opinion or a personal attack, unless, of course, we're talking about truly alleging someone is literally an actual dick—a walking penis. An unsourced claim, in an article, that someone defies biology and walks around as Homo penisis would be more what the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy seeks to redress—not an opinionated (if not impassioned) comment on a talk page... at least, in my interpretation. It would no more be appropriate to censor someone's opinion that soandso is a "jerk" or "meanie" or "stupid." However, I understand your and the other editor's interpretation as encompassing any incidentally unkind remark, which is why I felt no block should be issued, despite my belief that BLP doesn't clearly and obviously apply here. That's the risk you run when repeatedly reverting something, so when taking it upon oneself to flame-on an edit war in an WP:ACDS area single-handedly, one should be absolutely certain that you're undeniably in the right. --slakr 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  Well consensus at AN/I is that the user -was- right, so even with your sanction, the mentioned reverts would have been ok under the BLP policy. Not sure what you believe this accomplishes. Arkon (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowgolf reported by User:Velella (Result: indef)

Page

Snow golf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751035020 by Velella (talk)"
2. 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751034330 by NOTNOTABLE (talk)"
3. 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed grammar"
4. 23:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor unable to grasp that (self?) promotion is not acceptable here. A pause for reflection might be useful  Velella    23:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is factual information that needed to be updated. You are wrong in deleting it. It is not promotional at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowgolf (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Anon3579 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Protected)

Page

Sebastian Gorka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anon3579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Added arrest on a weapons charge of a public figure and self-professed expert on national security"
2. 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751016879 by Ccherzog (talk)"
3. 20:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751013365 by Ccherzog (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC) to 20:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017) Undid revision 751011291 by Ccherzog (talk)"
   2. 20:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "information about Gorka's father irrelevant. Separate page should be created if necessary."
5. 20:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751010090 by Ccherzog (talk) Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017"
6. 17:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750984802 by Ccherzog (talk)"
7. 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750983157 Gorka pled guilty 8 August 2016 re: public records from the Arlington County Circuit Court website. On 3 February 2017, the Court will adjudicate him guilty and impose sentence."
8. 17:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750982608 by Ccherzog (talk)"
9. 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750980838 by Ccherzog (talk)"
10. 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750977218 by Ccherzog (talk)"
11. 04:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "reinserted relevant information pertaining to criminal weapons conviction"
12. Consecutive edits made from 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) to 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    1. 19:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 750724078 by Sk-gorka (talk)"
    2. 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Removed - intent not an element of the crime, see VA Criminal Code §18.2-287.01. Also, commission of same crime by others irrelevant."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Gun charges */ new section"

Comments:

New user is adding repeatedly contentious BLP issue involving brief news blurb of criminal arrest. Source is valid, but it's a relatively minor thing. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – One month. There is edit warring, possible COI and sockpuppetry and BLP issues. Any talk page discussion would be welcome. If agreement is reached, it might allow lifting the protection early. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:75.190.136.195 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Lee family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
2. 05:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
3. 05:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
4. 05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."
5. 05:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
6. 05:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
7. 05:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Lee family. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Freewillforever reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

Page

2016 South Korean political scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Lemongirl942 do not revert my changes again. This is unbiased writing."
2. 11:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Lemongirl942 is vandalising the edits made by Freewillforever"
3. 11:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751085951 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
4. 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC) "Detailed information describing the Choi sun-sil's wrongdoings added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"
2. 11:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV? */ reply"

Comments:

Freewillforever is adding back material which is a gross BLP violation. They originally added a lot of information which consists of unproven accusations - and I reverted their edits. My revert was in turn reverted and it led to this edit war. I am trying to explain but they are still reverting. I have done 3 reverts and I don't want to do any more (despite the BLP issues).
Note that Freewillforever is a new user and I would like to be patient. But the BLP issues are important here and I don't want to let them stay in the article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 erasing the contents based on false claims. And Freewillforever did not violate the BLP rules. Note that Lemongirl942 has been simply reverting the changes made by other users without contributing to contents. Lemongirl942 has been involved in several edit wars with others before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewillforever (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Freewillforever, Please sign your posts. What you were doing on the article is considered edit warring. See WP:BRD - you made a bold change (which was controversial) and I reverted it. The next step is not to revert again but to discuss. You have already changed the contents of the article more than 3 times (including your bold edit) and this can get you blocked. I strongly suggest you revert your own edit (the last edit). This is important to make sure that you understand that WP:Edit warring is disruptive and also to demonstrate your understanding of policies and your good faith. The reason I reverted is because you changed a lot of the article which was previously NPOV and is now heavily POV with a lot of accusations in it. This is also a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I strongly suggest you to self revert. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Please have a look at this exchange on the talk page. I see a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude with no indication that they understand why BLP is an issue here. I suggest a short block is in order. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Now trying to blank this report. GAB 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Avaya1 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: )

Page: Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: roughly this version; with no section on Israel. (Other edits have happened in the meantime that are not the focus of any edit warring or dispute.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (initial addition of section)
2. 20:01, 21 November 2016
3. 00:15, 22 November 2016
4. 09:32, 22 November 2016
5. 20:19, 22 November 2016
6. 08:36, 23 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page here and received no response.

Comments:
Avaya1 is involved in an edit-war to include a particular quote on the page Tulsi Gabbard supported only by a primary source. At least three editors have objected to the inclusion. The editor communicates via edit summaries in a clear but non-constructive way, and did not respond to my attempt to initiate discussion on their talk page. Usual wiki-jargon bs is evident, including edits to include a quote with primary source citing WP:primary (numbers 2, 3 above) followed by edits to remove a quote with primary source citing the same policy (number 5).

Possibly, I have violated 3RR in the course of this edit war (I have not counted carefully, but have certainly made a bunch of reverts). I contend that my contributions are less disruptive and supported by consensus, but am willing to sit out a block if it is deemed appropriate. A quick look at Avaya1's talk page suggests that this is not the only article in which the user is currently engaged in contentious behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to count again and you've mis-written the times above. I've made 3 reverts within the first 24 hours. The fourth revert was over 24 hours after the first revert. And the fifth revert was more than 24 hours after the first two reverts. There is no revert there that contravenes 3RR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&action=history Avaya1 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:FPP reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: 24 hours)

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

The User is persistently reverting the well sourced mainstream version of the Chaldean Christians article, which I had reconstructed from the article history over the past days, into the narrative of a "Chaldean nationalist" fringe theory with no sources whatsoever for its claims. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 27 October, edit-warring with other editors: , ,

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 30 October, edit-warring with other editors: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts within the last hour today (edit: against me and User:NOTNOTABLE):

His edit summaries and one brief comment on the talk page consist only of parroting the always same sentence, does not engage in discussion. I would deem a revert of the article into the sourced mainstream version necessary, and preventing the reported editor from continuing edit-warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Cirflow and User:Arjayay who had fought against these fringe theory disruptions of the article by User:FPP last month. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you revert the article? I cannot legally do so now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate of me as the blocking administrator. I'd recommend calling eyes to the article from a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Successfully done, thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:2A1ZA reported by User:FPP (Result: No violation)

Page: Chaldean Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a racist view on Chaldeans, and all he wants is to associate them to Assyrians, while the constitutions of countries, including the Iraqi Constitution (125 article) and also the Constitution of the Kurdistan region, as well as documents of the United Nations and the European Union recognize the Chaldean ethnic, He claims that my edits do not have a reliable sources, and his words are a lie, because all existing sources, including the authoritative historian John Joseph and James Claudius and Ryan gengris and Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as the sources of the Chaldean Church and the old Nestorian Church (assyrain church) itself confirms what exists in the article.

Therefore, users like him are harming the reputation of Misplaced Pages, first doing edits contrary to what is known and existing national constitutions to be false and undocumented,

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chaldean_Christians&type=revision&diff=746964887&oldid=746897751

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This person does not want dialogue, but all he is do is retrieving my edits, so I ask for an immediate cessation of his edits in Chaldean Christians article --FPP (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
Obviously the fourth link is not a revert, but was a regular article edit earlier today. I recommend that User:FPP answer to the section above this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, not a violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Darmok and jalad reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24h)

Page

Gay Days at Walt Disney World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Darmok and jalad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
2. 00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
3. 00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
4. 00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
5. 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
6. 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) to 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
   2. 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
8. 00:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Gay Days at Walt Disney World. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edits appear to fall under WP:NOTVAND. That said, they were edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: No violation)

Page

Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751197282 by Keri (talk) the article cites only right wing sources, many of them highly polemical, but as soon as I cite a critical source I get reverted?"
2. 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "it is a pejorative and is never used in any other manner. more neutral phrasing since I'm sure most young people would reject this characterization"
3. 12:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751107883 by DynaGirl (talk) disagree that it is on topic, the focus of the article is affordable care act, and she is noted as a polemicist like coulter, not a "commentator""
4. 11:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Characteristics */ no encyclopedic value. affordable care act is only tangentially relevant to "snowflake" term and malkin is clearly a polemicist."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ new section"
2. 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
3. 00:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
4. 00:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Generation Snowflake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* POV */ re"
2. 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "/* POV */ tp"

Comments:

Behavior indicates that editor intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Response of "fuck off with your templates" demonstrates editor's attitude. Keri (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is of course not a violation of 3RR. User has dredged up an unrelated content dispute with a different editor as part of their evidence, which obviously is not relevant to the present case. I engaged in discussion at the talk page, the editor replied to it, then went ahead and templated me anyway in what looks like an attempt at intimidation. Language aside, I'm pretty sure any editor would be annoyed by this behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-read the part that says: "Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert", then look at the clock, then re-evaluate your defence. Keri (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

MaxBrowne has just almost violated 3RR, but not quite. It's time for everyone to stop this and find a consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to do anything right now, but I'd rather not have to hand out any blocks or protect the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful. Keri (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

MaxBrowne responded to you on the article talk-page, with a substantive comment. A heavy dose of AGF all around would be helpful. --JBL (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hardly substantive! He has not addressed the points made. And merely continues (@Someguy1221:) with disruptive, point-y editing , now feeling suitably enabled. Keri (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and other admins who deal with edit warring, please continue to watch the page Generation Snowflake, because it appears MaxBrowne has now made his 5th revert in 24hrs. The 4 listed above by Keri and now this one: , while I tend to agree with him that this term is a pejorative (and have added it to the lead myself in the past) this is currently one of the things being edit warred over, so restoring it again seems to qualify as a revert.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly gaming the system. Keri (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Unknowncoolio reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

Page

Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Updated"
2. 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 00:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "a"
4. 01:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "l"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW)"
2. 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "(Warning: Three-revert rule on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW))"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor claims to be related to the subject of the article and is reverting sourced material. User:C.Fred encouraged him to use consensus/talk page before reverting this via user's talk page, user continued to revert twice after this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• User has been warned for many things so far, but not explicitly for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• User was subsequently warned about 3RR here and made the same revert again here with the edit summary "It is up to you" --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• User has been advised that he has now reverted a fourth time (diff of warning). —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I request you to kindly take some action on The Discoverer

The Discoverer is deleting the contents of the page of Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation without discussing them. I would like to request to take appropriate action against him. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:188.116.6.130 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

Page

User talk:Dane2007 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
2. 05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
3. 05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
4. 05:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
5. 05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
6. 05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
7. 05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
8. 05:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
9. 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on User talk:Dane2007. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 188.116.6.130 (talk) to last revision by Dane2007. (TW)"

Comments:

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: )

Page: Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne (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: Talk:Generation_Snowflake#POV_edit_by_MaxBrowne

Comments:

This report is a follow on from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: No violation) above. I have limited the diffs to his edit warring of just one phrase, although they are edit warring over other aspects of the article, too. MaxBrowne is clearly gaming the system to continue edit warring at the article. Having evaded action for their edit warring last night, they then withdrew from the discussion in a huff. Finding today that their favoured version of the article had been reverted by another editor, who was engaging in discussion, they immediately reverted again. This is a blatant use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute, and stick 2 fingers up at the process. As I warned in the previous report, their behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, without meaningful discussion, and clearly intend to game the system in the process. Keri (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The intemperate language and assumptions of bad faith continue, and the accusation of gaming the system is getting into personal attack territory, as is the accusation that I left the discussion "in a huff". (A cursory reading will show that my language was actually calm and considered, and was simply an acknowledgement that attempts at discussion with the editor have proved unproductive). The aggressive and intemperate language continued even after I disengaged. User also claims to see inside my head and know what I'm thinking and know my intentions regarding reverts. And no I did not "immediately revert" User:DynaGirl's edits, in fact for the most part they are intact; she felt that the source I cited was given undue prominence and she's probably right. My subsequent edits were substantive, supported by sources and properly explained in editsums. User has consistently refused to assume good faith despite being admonished to do so by admins in the previous thread and has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality throughout. This user clearly has it in for me. So... was that technically a 3RR violation? Possibly. The WP:RS I cited (Collins Dictionary) in fact uses the stronger word "derogatory". If admins feel it is appropriate I will remove that word and engage in discussion but I don't think a description based on both WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:RS should really be a matter for controversy. I also think a warning to this user regarding continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and battleground mentality is appropriate. Do people ever get hit by WP:BOOMERANGs on this board? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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