Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:58, 4 November 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:Nights At Nyte reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Page protected, Both warned)

Page

Summer Camp Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nights At Nyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923971740 by The Grand Delusion (talk)"
2. 23:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923931304 by The Grand Delusion (talk) Please don't remove this again. It can't get anymore official than HBO Max themselves showing it."
3. 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 923803672 by Drmies (talk) How is the HBO Max presentation showing ALL Max Originals considered unreliable?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Summer Camp Island. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has repeatedly re-instated content that was added by Simmerdon3448 at the objections of editors, including myself and Drmies. However, I don't think the two accounts are related. EDIT: I am starting to suspect the accounts might be related. They have demonstrated a similar level of combative behavior and defensiveness when reverted. The Grand Delusion 23:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Given the on going sockpuppet investigation, I figured it was preferable to protect the page while waiting how it turned out. @The Grand Delusion: @Nights At Nyte: You've both broken the three revert rule here. Expect to be blocked if this behaviour continues when the protection expires. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page

Alec Guinness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 924082504 by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) you are at 3RR. I suggest you use the talk page and PROVIDE A DECENT RATIONALE FOR KEEPING THE BOX"
2. 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Wallyfromdilbert (talk) to last version by SchroCat"
3. 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "No rationale given. It's still an excessive piece of nonsense"
4. 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 2A01:4C8:140C:7443:6CF7:CB61:F457:1EA2 (talk): Not a typo, is it? (TW)"
5. 21:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "Really not needed - too excessive and much is tangential to his notability"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alec Guinness. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated reverts of long-standing content with no discussion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not 4RR - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's actually 5 reverts in 24 hours, and still no discussion on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. How is number 5 a revert? It’s a bold edit. No 4. Was reverting sub-standard work, not part of edit warring. You are at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version... Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) There's an argument to be made that #5 is a revert, not just a "bold edit", as it removed material that had been added by other editors. #4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it. Notwithstanding these policy niceties, I think you are not behaving well in this battle, SchroCat. I'll leave it to another administrator as to whether you should be sanctioned, but Wally is correct that you should have discussed your removal of the infobox and not reverted the restoration of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Number 5 is in no way a revert: removing older information is not reverting - that is re-writing the whole policy as no edits could ever be made on any existing text without being accused of edit warring. No, I haven’t been to the talk page as I’m in the process of cooking supper. Wally is at 3RR, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've reverted to the status quo ante. When SchroCat is done with supper, he can seek consensus on the talk page. BRD. If that happens, i see no need to sanction anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Note that an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS. AFAIK there is no such threshold of "necessity" for the inclusion of one, meaning the removal was a subjective cosmetic improvement. BOLD edits are still fine in these circumstances, but when your rationale is not policy-based, you can't turn around and demand a policy-based rationale for the reversion. ~Swarm~ 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • • "an infobox is a fundamental element of an article as articulated by the MoS": nope. See MOS:INFOBOXUSE ("neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and their use and basis is NOT cosmetic. To remove one is NOT cosmetic: when something is as misleading as that is, cosmetics have nothing to do with it - it's about not misleading the readers and ensuring they get the right information that is supported by context and nuance. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Not saying an infobox is mandatory, just that it's a valid, fundamental element of an article. Perhaps you did not have cosmetics or aesthetics in mind, but that was the impression I got by you deleting it as "unnecessary", but that's all irrelevant. As you say, it's neither mandated or prohibited by default, but a matter for consensus, which is exactly what I'm getting at. ~Swarm~ 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
        • It's not a "fundamental element of an article", that falsehood exists only if you like them. No article is born with an IB. They have to be added - which is the bold edit. Anything that comes after adheres to the rest of the BRD cycle. Therefore, Schrocat was right to adopt the "R" and Wally should've discussed. That is how BRD works. Anything else is disruptive. Cassianto 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
          • If you read my words, I specifically said it's not mandatory, just that it's a "valid, fundamental element". I say that because it's described as an "element" of an article in ] section 1.2. ~Swarm~ 20:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
            • I did read them, and I don't dispute your use of "mandatory", indeed they're not. But again, an infobox is not a fundamental element of any article. Cassianto 20:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
          • If SchroCat was the "R", then this is indeed 4RR. Regardless, since all of the text had to be added, by this definition literally any removal (or replacement) would be a revert... This is all getting very strange — Rhododendrites \\ 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
            • • Wally should've been blocked after they failed to discuss. The reverting would've then stopped. Either enforce BRD or don't have it at all. Cassianto 19:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: From my read there are 4 reverts in 24 hours. First here, second here, third here, and finally forth here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • See Bbb23's comment: "#4 is technically a revert, but I personally wouldn't count it". If you want to enable nationalistic warriors (check out the rest of that IP's edits), then that's your call, and if you really, really want to block a long-term editor in such a technicality, then feel free. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd actually say both you and Bbb23 are being generous in assessing it as 'good faith disruptive editing', I'd write that off as simple vandalism. ~Swarm~ 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved, and not wishing to be involved, but I'm hoping Bbb23/Swarm could clarify for me (on my talk page if preferred). Since literally 2007 I've been under the impression that making the same edit 4 times in an article in a 24 hour period gets you blocked, and that's what I tell an awful lot of newbies. My understanding is that it doesn't matter whether your edit was the "bold" or the "revert" in the BRD cycle (and that it's doubly bad if yours was the "bold" edit, i.e. the initial edit that was contested). Where is that wrong? According to the interpretation I'm seeing here, for any dispute with two editors, the burden is actually on the "revert" side to find consensus against the new edits, lest they run into a 3RR violation (i.e. the 4th time someone makes their bold edit it's not a violation, but the 4th time it's reverted, it is). Now, obviously it should never get to four reverts, especially when non-newbies are involved, but what's the right thing here? — Rhododendrites \\ 03:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites The initial edit doesn't count. Only actual reverts count towards 3RR. It's important to note that 3RR is nothing but a procedural enforcement brightline. But, yes, in practice, this does indeed mean that the "R" in BRD inherently has a first-mover disadvantage as they will hit 3RR first. The "R" may be the reasonable one in the edit war, or the "R" may be stonewalling a good edit for a bad reason. They may deserve to hit 3RR first, or they may not. But the whole point is that we don't care about the merits of the content dispute, because edit warring is not permissible no matter how "right" you are. If you're a good faith, reasonable "R" who's trying to discuss, and your "B" is refusing to be reasonable and discuss, and is instead choosing to edit war, don't get baited into a 3RR vio, but report the situation here. If you explain that a user is edit warring over your objections and refusing to discuss, you can request a block. If we don't block them, we will likely at least restore the stable version and full protect the article, forcing them to discuss. If you let them trip you over 3RR and then report you, you'll probably be the one catching a one-sided procedural block. We're not enforcement robots who only care about 3RR vios, in fact I really wish we saw more users coming here before hitting 3RR. ~Swarm~ 18:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Most disappointing that someone can edit war to install a preferred version and the burden is on others to argue for the status quo. That seems contrary to the way just about everything else works around here. But sure, I appreciate that 3RR is about any revert, not necessarily the same material -- I suppose I just extrapolated from that and BRD a common sense conclusion: "forcing your preference four times in one day should obviously result in a block barring the usual extreme exceptions". Meh. No need to belabor this. Again, wasn't trying to get involved in this case. Was inquiring about a different case here and took a second because this challenged my understanding of how things work. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're suggesting that we should not just blindly screen for 3RR violations and treat edit wars with common sense, that's exactly what I'm getting at. But when you imply that we place a burden on the reverter, that misses the point. The burden is shared equally. Neither side is favored inherently. That's an overarching principle. ~Swarm~ 19:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Common sense says you can make a bold edit regarding a controversial element of an article and make said edit four times when it's repeatedly contested? I'm not challenging what you're saying is the case regarding the rules -- clarification is indeed what I was seeking. I'm just disappointed in the system that this is an acceptable scenario, and that the set-up of 3RR does indeed put the burden on the reverter, contrary to BRD (which, granted, is not policy). — Rhododendrites \\ 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I know you're not challenging me, we're just talking. I get where you're coming from, but like I said, 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. You should think of it as an emergency procedural backstop, and not interpret an ideal from it. Because the actual underlying ideals of EW policy is BRD. It's unfortunate that 3RR has the unintentional consequence of creating a paradoxical contradictory system in practice, because I think we're supposed to deal with edit wars fairly and with common sense and reason before they ever hit 3RR. Instead, nobody ever comes here until there's a 3RR vio for us to rubber-stamp. ~Swarm~ 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Swarm, unfortunately, when issues are brought to this noticeboard before 3RR is determined to have been violated, then no action is taken and the situation is allowed to continue deteriorating, as was the case in this report. I get that users who have been editing a long time have friends and are given a longer rope, but it certainly makes newer editors feel like their is nothing they can do for recourse when they are treated poorly. For example, look at the article talk page comments from the editor in this dispute, which took place in between when the report was filed and when you made your no violation decision, but which you did not address in your closure. I don't think this situation reflects positively on the efforts of administrators to improve situations or encourages editors to bring disputes here for assistance. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately when sub-standard work is defended to a ridiculous degree to ignore any decent level of standards, we end up here. Swarm, Rhododendrites, Bbb23 and PackMecEng are not my friends who will rush to my defence in these matters (see the interaction tool to see the various levels of work I have done with any of them I the last); they are my Wikicolleagues in the same way they are your Wikicolleagues. They are the people (all administrators?) who are busy dealing with activity on WP. It's not their role or their habit to rush to defend certain individuals. You, on the other hand with to keep things like Guinness's military career in the IB, ensuring his two years of service in the RNVR is given far more weight than his seventy-year acting career. Perhaps, rather than just go into automatic knee-jerk reversion mode again, you read, listen and think before acting. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• WP:BRD is a misnomer. Nobody abides by it. What's the point of it? Cassianto 18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's neither policy nor guideline, and shouldn't be used as a stick. It may make sense sometimes, but a lot of times it doesn't. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was policy or a guideline. Cassianto 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The creation of Alec Guinness on stage and screen article, would appear to have solved the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:MONGO (Result: report declined)

Page: Don Bacon (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:19, October 31, 2019‎
2. 12:50, October 31, 2019
3. 18:46, October 31, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fully recognize the brightline rule of 3RR and I never exceed 2RR on any page except in cases of vandalism reversion. However, Snooganssnoogans makes a history of edit warring. He rarely if ever does go to 4RR, but thats besides the point as he is STILL edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement. He's gaming the system. Other examples of edit warring/gaming the system just in last couple months:

• On RAISE Act: 16:27, October 13, 2019, 17:54, October 13, 2019, 18:52, October 13, 2019
• On Mitch McConnell:07:18, September 2, 2019, 10:38, September 2, 2019, 11:06, September 2, 2019, followed a week after by this BLP violating edit summary
• On Abby Martin, edit warring against several others:08:12, October 29, 2019, 11:39, October 29, 2019‎ , followed by a partial revert 12:10, October 29, 2019--MONGO (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it "gaming the system" unless there was another revert just after 24 hours. And, the photo doesn't really seem to connect to any text anywho. Work it out on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: You're bringing me here for reverting you in a case where you brazenly failed to adhere to WP:BRD on the Don Bacon page and you yourself were edit-warring? I reverted the addition of new content to the page (which is my right per BRD) and started a talk page discussion on it, whereas you have twice restored the content without any discussion on the talk page in-between your edits (despite the fact that you're the one seeking to add new content). As for the content in question, it is absolutely ludicrous to turn the Misplaced Pages page of a congress member into a photo gallery of his time in the military. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  You did not comment till after your third revert and after I had logged off for the day. I stated on the talkpage that the man has a 29 year military career so naturally more usable images are likely available from that time period than the few years he has been in Congress. I did not add the content to begin with anyway...another editor did. You seem to have a serious issue with the misunderstanding that this is a content issue, not a vandalism issue, yet you revert as if it is a vandalism issue. Thats called edit warring and I stopped after 2 reverts...which exceeds my usual 1RR only because your rationale is immaterial.--MONGO (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Adding that you could have removed the far poorer quality image of him where he is standing in front of the airplane. The new image is a high resolution and larger file by a long shot.--MONGO (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• If you want to swap pictures, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But then again, substantively trying to resolve the issue in BRD-style does not seem to have been the goal - the goal was just to pointlessly revert me and then drag me here when I inevitably refused to let you bully bad content into the article in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• If there is anyone who plays the bully in this matter, it's you. I could have gone for the the check and forced you to a 4RR but unlike you I dont edit war incessantly. If the admins want more evidence thats readily available as I only looked at some of the most recent examples. Since at least one admin already has said they question your ability to deliver NPOV content it would be wise to cease accusing anyone else of bad content. This isnt about content though...its a distinct matter involving edit warring and how you repeatedly game the system. I think you should be placed on a six month 1RR restriction.--MONGO (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is standard behavior for Snooganssnoogans. There might be hundreds of examples of the revert war games they play, but always careful not to exceed the bright line. Check their talk page history and see how many warnings have been placed, with few responses. I think an Arb case is needed for Snoog’s editing in general. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have hundreds of examples, please present them here or be silent. I could make the same claim about MONGO and you. But, that's not how noticeboards work. Let us not waste time here over a simple content dispute. O3000 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's not right to make sweeping personal generalizations about an editor from a few diffs or even from several or many diffs. Any complaint should be confined to the matter at hand with well-defined evidence. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined — I'm sorry, but this just isn't the venue to address these sort of potential problems. Such a venue would be AN/I, where, for example, such specialized sanctions as a six month 1RR restriction, and so on, can be proposed and implemented. AN3, by contrast, doesn't really operate in this manner. It is a place where a single admin determines whether, above all other things, 3RR was violated. Although, indeed, sometimes, also whether a chronic edit warring that does not breach 3RR ought to come under sanctions, as well, but this happens more rarely. At any rate, it is difficult to determine from the diffs whether such sanction is due or undue here, one way or the other. I suggest if you still wish to pursue this, MONGO, take your concerns and proposal on how to best resolve them to AN/I and see what the community has to say about it. Relying on a single admin to make that determination is simply unlikely to happen. So I thought I would, at least, spare you the time and energy of continuing to contribute to this report. That said, if another admin feels that I erred in my evaluation here, they may overrule me and close this report as they fit without the need to notify or consult me further in any way whatsoever. El_C 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

AN/I usually has the usual suspects take sides and nothing emerges. I suspect AE is the next step.--MONGO (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Or drop the stick. It's easy. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No...you're next. Youre behavior is worse now than it was before your disappearing act as has been noted.--MONGO (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It says “DECLINED”. Either a) drop it, b) stop the bluster and the obnoxious WP:BATTLEGROUND threats (“you’re next”) or c) follow through on those threats of yours and risk the WP:BOOMERANG coming hard at ya’. Volunteer Marek 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:101.109.175.0 reported by User:Gend07000 (Result: Semi)

Page

List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

101.109.175.0 (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 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 20:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 20:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 16:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   11. 16:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   12. 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   13. 17:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   14. 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   15. 17:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   16. 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   17. 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   18. 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   19. 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   20. 18:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   21. 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   22. 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   23. 19:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   24. 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   25. 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   26. 19:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) to 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 09:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"
2. 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive editing and constantly try to editing the article without explanation and references Gend07000 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Gend07000: Can you articulate what is actually wrong with their edits? ~Swarm~ 23:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• The IP edited the article many times without sources or explanation, adding unrelated images and reverted my edit 3 times. I suspect the user won't use his real account to edit the article. The user real account is Oppufc, evidence: Gend07000 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. I hope this will encourage discussion on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Both warned)

Page: Alec Guinness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wallyfromdilbert (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: "you are at 3RR" and "Wally is at 3RR, by the way"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alec Guinness#Infobox

Comments:

• I'm not sure why this user would not have continued the conversation on the talk page. I will self-revert if that is appropriate, although this would seem to be a clear boomerang if SchroCat is serious. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• You have reverted four times. Were you serious when you reported me for not reverting four times? - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:SchroCat and User:Wallyfromdilbert are warned. The next person to revert the article may be blocked unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie reported by User:Ultimâ (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to (before contribution):

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12 July 2019
2. 14 July 2019
3. 4 August 2019
4. 29 September 2019
5. 1 November 2019
6. 1 November 2019

3RR warning:

1. User Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk considered and updates made.

Comments:

• Wiki policy advises against reverting (deleting) user contributions and rather proposing amendments instead in the talk page. This user has removed my contribution (which was adapted based on talk page) six times. This user has previous history of edit warring. Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly this user is removing my contributions here:

Page: Cyber-physical system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 15 July 2019
2. 29 September 2019
3. 1 November 2019
4. 1 November 2019

(P.S. I can create a seperate report if advised) Ultimâ (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• What are you recommending? That Ultimâ and MrOllie be blocked? Repeating an edit to force preferred text is edit warring. Please use WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• No violation Perhaps it would be better to look at why your change is being described as "not an improvement" (it's also unsourced, by the way). Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CoffeeCartier reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )

Page: Thunder from Down Under (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CoffeeCartier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: – stable edition containing the disputed review material.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. – first revert, using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as rationale.
2. – second revert, same rationale. No point in me reverting further and encouraging 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:CoffeeCartier has been invited to start a discussion at the article talk page—it's his dispute, so discussion should be initiated by him.

Comments:
User:CoffeeCartier disagrees with the inclusion of a negative remark about Frank Gambale's singing on the Thunder from Down Under album, even though AllMusic staff reviews are RS per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I also don't feel as though WP:WEIGHT is an issue here, as three stars out of five is still a decent-to-positive rating, and several tracks are "listed as highlights". The reviewer's remarks about the vocals should be considered fair criticism, so User:CoffeeCartier's grievance is mostly invalid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:Greensboro Swarm roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
There is no guideline discouraging adding a “see also” section on templates. This user continually reverts insisting that the fact that “see also” suggestions exist on “article” guidelines explicitly means these sections are disallowed on templates - this is not correct. See also sections between templates is not an uncommon practice (see NFL, NBA). I encouraged the user to start a consensus discussion to try and institute guidance in this, but he declines to do so. Rikster2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user is aware there is opposition to his change, and it has been discussed on his talk page, but he keeps right on reverting. If his edits are justified by a policy, he should be able to link to it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:2.248.51.198 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked)

Page

William Rowan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 15:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 15:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 15:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on William Rowan Hamilton. (TW)"
2. 15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "/* November 2019 */ further comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The page contains misleading information that the subject was Irish which is misleading. His nationality would have been of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at that time and this must be represented on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.51.198 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I gave a templated warning, and a personal note on their talk page asking them to discuss, but they aren't listening; now edit warring against multiple editors. I would block myself, but having reverted them a couple of times I'm probably too involved. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:162.251.9.27 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 19:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Guillermo Gonzalez */"
3. 19:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "deleted unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
4. 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"
5. 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "unnecessary information irrelevant to the topic of the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Its also clearly a SPA that is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:79.132.16.97 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31h)

Page

Robert Sungenis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
2. 15:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC) to 15:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC) "I contributed by stating facts and evidence without demonstrating personal point of view as it was the case before my edit."
   2. 15:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC) to 15:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Geocentrism */"
   2. 15:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Geocentrism */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC) to 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"
2. 15:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Robert Sungenis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Not needed. Ordinary WP:PROFRINGE edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Also WP:DUCK from Idgyn. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Was going to come here and say just that, clearly the same user. But they are not (technically) socking yet.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Evading 3RR is WP:BADSOCK, blocked the account 31 for hours. Go ahead and report again if additional accounts or IPs show up. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:LissanX reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Reverting another editor:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:LissanX has for two days made 6 reverts to this article. Choosing instead to game the system, while calling two other editors vandals, and when I added my concerns/questions to the talk page, Lissan called my concerns nonsensical, moronic and lacking competence to edit Misplaced Pages. LissanX has chose not to answer my questions and ran to the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Now LissanX has readded the information to the article, yet again without consensus. If at all possible, LissanX needs to answer how these primary sources are related to Shahrbanu and to show this evidence on the talk page. Not sure a block is necessary, especially if this editor can learn how the discussion/consensus process works(Admin's choice). Admin's may want to take into account, LissanX's latest comments.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear removed content in the opening section. I disagreed, but never re-added the content. User:Kansas Bear said it was not appropriate since it’s not talked about in the body of the article, so I added relevant information to the body of the article. Note that I never re-added the previously removed content in the opening section. Additionally, User:Kansas Bear made personal insults on the talk page for Shahrbanu. I responded to his insults, and he subsequently left a warning on my talk page. I said that he was provoking me with insults and ended the conversation. So now he’s reporting me for adding the content in question to the body of the article, all of which is sourced, as some kind of manufactured revenge . — LissanX (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I blocked LissanX for harassment/personal attacks for 72 hours. I have not judged the edit warring, but I note Nyttend blocked them for that a year ago. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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