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

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

Revision as of 14:54, 3 September 2016 view sourceEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Violation of 3RR at Skanderbeg: Remove extra header← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:15, 3 September 2016 view source EdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:Norschweden reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: No action): ClosingNext edit →
Line 476:		Line 476:
	*{{AN3\|p}} Handled at ] ] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)		*{{AN3\|p}} Handled at ] ] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|St. Anger}}		;Page: {{pagelinks\|St. Anger}}
Line 505:		Line 505:

	:::until the consens is found it should be this way, and btw hard roch (with out a source) is also wrong ] (]) 09:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)		:::until the consens is found it should be this way, and btw hard roch (with out a source) is also wrong ] (]) 09:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
			:'''Result:''' No action. One editor, ], made four reverts but it appears that agreement may have been reached on the talk page. If the fight continues let me know. Whether this band should be described as 'nu metal' has been discussed on the talk page since 2006. (Search the talk page for that term). It is reasonable to expect good consensus for a genre change when the issue has been disputed for so long. ] (]) 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:15, 3 September 2016

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

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

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

also older diffs of the same matter

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm starting by noting that three editors oppose his edits and that concensus against him has been pointed out to him. The main matter at hand across both articles is mainly about a fringe case of Amherst. Two smallpox blankets were given to natives with the intended purpose of infection. The edit warrer tries to paint this singular case as the cause of the smallpox epidemic which has raged on from times of Columbus, completely fringe. Pretty much all sources cast heavy doubt on the effectiness of the two blankets. I could have pointed that out as well but tried to instead just point out two testimonies of the native encampment already having been infected. The edit warrer keeps removing a mention of this.

The second matter is the syphilis splashback. As the natives were infected by smallpox, so was a strain of syphilis brought back to Europe which killed millions. Pretty much all sources support a brought strain being the cause. It's not 100% clear that syphilis never existed in Europe before, but it's clear the killer strain was brought. This is a tiny mention only to illustrate the Columbian Exchange and to point out the unintended epidemics on both sides. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again at Genocides in history or Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. As a brand new editor (created August 29), User:Etsbybetsy should be careful about reverts lest their good faith be questioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, about that warning, Ed, I'm unsure what the takeaway is supposed to be for me. It is common knowledge that (paraphrasing Misplaced Pages policy): any editor who reverts any edit at any article with or without consensus on a Talk page may be blocked for edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I'm already keenly aware of that risk whenever I edit (no additional warning needed), but I always edit with trust that "the circumstances" will be carefully reviewed by any admin considering blocks. Anyone taking a cursory look at the above complaint will find it obvious that Etsybetsy has: (1) ignored Talk page discussions since June (and I initiated them); (2) has inserted the same problematic content at least a half-dozen times using multiple IPs, which have been reverted by multiple editors; (3) has linked to an "attempt to resolve dispute" (above) which actually shows consensus against Etsybetsy's edits. It's so obvious, I didn't feel the need to even comment here. So Ed, if the "warning" (to me) is just superfluous rubber-stamp routine, then consider it acknowledged. Matter closed. If, however, you intended to spark a change in my editing practice, I'd appreciate it if you'd be more specific. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:37.186.42.93 reported by User:ThE~fUtUrE~2014 (Result: Semi)

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:

Repeatedly keeps removing content for absolutely no reason at all.

Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP has been removing various bits of content from the article but it is hard to guess what his objection might be. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kendall-K1 reported by User:Mercadix (Result: Declined)

User Kendall-K1 is war editting RooshV page, giving all pro-RooshV quotes, adding partisan pro-RooshV stuff without any 3rd party reference, writing at the end <ref=Everything> which are simply his pro-RooshV beliefs.

Also user Kendall-K1 keeps on adding spam links to commercial website rooshv.com and returnofkings.com which are commercial websites owned by exactly RooshV, where he sells his sex guides Bang.

Kendall-K1 deletes third party neutral websites as Anti Defamation League, and instead adds more links to rooshv.com commercial website.

Kendall-K1 is obviously either RooshV, either a commercial employee of RooshV, considering his obsession of daily editing partisan pro-RooshV stuff.

Please restrict or ban Kendall-K1, as he turns wikipedia in a commercial, money-making business redirecting the traffic from Misplaced Pages directly to RooshV's commercial websites where he sells his sex guides

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercadix (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I can only find two places where I reverted, you: . Are there others? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mercadix: if you have concerns about the content or sourcing of an article, you should bring those concerns to the article talk page. This page is for reporting violations of WP:3RR, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You can report insertion of commercial links at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam, and concerns about whether I represent Roosh at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. General concerns about neutrality of biographies can be reported at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Declined – 3RR was not violated. If you have other concerns about User:Kendall-K1 see the above suggestions. At first sight, this appears to be normal editing rather than spamming. When you file at this board, please list the diffs that seem to show an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclubs reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This diff is also a revert: the user continue removing the number of casualties of 1,200,000, same number he removed in previous edit.

Warning about edit warring on another page was removed by this user from his talk page.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user also edited using two other accounts (this and this). This is something he admits and not an issue here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll not opine on whether this was a violation, but talk more generally. It's generally advisable to at least talk to the person to let them know that they have violated WP:3RR and give them the chance to self-revert. It is my practice to self-revert in such cases whether or not the complaint is correct. In this instance, Guccisamsclubs self-reverted their last edit in response to this complaint, and actually their interlocutor reverted them, agreeing that they were probably right. I fail to see what MVBW hopes to achieve with this complaint, since they have never edited either the talkpage or the article. Actually I suspect the answer, but I will leave it to others to evaluate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking why exactly this user (an IP and two named accounts) refrain from making any comments on administrative noticeboards, even after a complaint about him like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I don't care—and neither do the people I was "disputing" with. And you're the one accusing me of stalking? Guccisamsclubs (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you care about 3RR rule? Are you going to comply with this rule in a future? My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Given no response here (although this user is currently active), I would expect the same behavior to continue, i.e. violation of 3RR rule and self-revert if reported on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Piha ilman sadettajaa reported by User:Moira98 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Edits are unsubstantial and do not warrant discussion, imo. Moira98 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The brand-new user (September 1) is warring to add original research to this article. The changes are problematic under WP:BLP since he is making unsourced criticism of living people. If this continues an indef block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Coconutporkpie reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Warned)

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: (NOTE: User has repeatedly deleted that thread in its entirety.)

Comments:

User is repeatedly attempting to remove threads from the article talk page -- either his own faux pas or comments on his faux pas (see related inappropriate ANI if desired ) -- by extremely prematurely archiving threads and/or closing his own RfCs and archiving them, and by removing entire threads and replacing them on user talkpages instead. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The thread that was moved to User talk:DionysosProteus § Archiving of talk page was a thread of entirely personal commentary that had no bearing on the content of the article, and so clearly didn't belong on the article talk page. It was a relatively innocuous conduct dispute between two editors, which reached a natural end with this edit. Why User:Softlavender wants to insert himself or herself into that dispute, I'm sure I can't imagine. But I do find it curious that in scolding me for removing other users' comments, he or she has now thrice deleted my comment explaining the move, here, here and here. Looks like a clear breach of the three-revert rule to me.

As for ending my own RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment explains, "An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator The question may be withdrawn by the poster". I was the originator of the RfC, and I removed it. So, guilty as charged there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove or move threads from any talk page except your own. Don't archive threads prematurely without consensus just because you don't like them. Each time I replaced the thread you repeatedly deleted, I added a note at the bottom as follows: NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at User talk:DionysosProteus. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC), to note that fact that the thread had been copied to DionysosProteus's talk page and had further comments there. WP:3RR is not breached unless there are more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Per talk page guidelines, "At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion". The talk page in question had several instances of such distracting, off-topic commentary. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the latest episode in a long line of antagonistic and disruptive editing at that talk page by Coconutporkpie. Having attempted to argue in this forum that the editor had experienced incivility, and received many responses that clearly didn't validate that sense, Coconutporkpie decided to archive it all away, despite having occured very recently (stretching back over the past two months with a sequence of other editors). So far, the most recent action has been objected to and reverted by three different editors, each of whom Coconutporkpie has chosen to ignore. • DP • 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of "antagonistic and disruptive editing" is pretty serious; this would be the place to show some concrete evidence of it. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A perusal of the material you are archiving confirms "antagonistic and disruptive editing" easily enough. Once again, I encourage you to rethink your priorities and focus on actually improving the article in question. • DP • 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, the thread was an instruction to you not to prematurely archive the article talk-page threads; you moved it without consensus and edit-warred to keep it removed. You also omitted the rest of that TPO guideline: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." -- Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that following "instructions" is how Misplaced Pages works exactly. Nor am I aware of having made faux pas at Talk: Ajax (play). If anything, it is the inappropriate and personal remarks by other editors that are an embarrassment to the project as a whole, and merely clutter the talk page with long paragraphs of irrelevant text. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution explains, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with DionysosProteus that Coconutporkpie has been extremely disruptive on that talk page, having made 90 edits on it since July 4 , and also having filed an extremely time-wasting ANI about the talkpage: . I don't know if this is the correct forum, but I believe he needs some sort of sanction to prevent further disruption -- say, a topic-ban from that article and its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm inclined to close this with no action taken per my note on Coconutporkpie's talk page and with the understanding Coconutporkpie realizes that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if the same behavior resumes. Topic bans need general community input and cannot be enacted here. NeilN 14:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: Warned for talk page edit warring. Since the above comment by NeilN, User:Coconutporkpie has responded again (at 21:51 on 2 September) and appears to believe that it is fine to move material to talk archives against the wishes of of the other participants. The next time he archives Talk:Ajax (play) without prior consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Safehaven86 (Result: Warned)

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:

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments: Editor has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article. A 2:1 WP:CONSENSUS exists on the talk page, and in article history, for including this material. Have made significant attempts to engage editor and hash out policy disputes, but even in the face of a talk page consensus, editor has an WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality which has unfortunately led to edit-warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)} Response: This is a clear case of BOOMERANG. Safehaven86 was warned about edit warring here. And warned these edits violated WP:POV and WP:UNDUE here as well as on the Talk Page here and most recently here. Instead of working collaboratively with editors of opposing viewpoints to reach consensus, Safehaven86 responded with the following edit-warring filibuster: 1) here 2) here 3) here 4) here 5) here 6) here 7) here 8) here 9) here 10) here 11) here 12) here 13) here 14) here 15) here 16) here 17) here 18) and here. I should also point out that, contrary to Safehaven86's claim, my mass revert was fully explained here. I should also note Safehaven86's mass edits were done while 3 editors were actively working on a consensus of the wording for this section. I should also point out that this occurred after Safehaven86 "warned" me about warring! So Safehaven86 knew full well what this massive, non-consensus edits were doing. But just like the honey badger, Safehaven86 don't give a **. It's also important to note that Safehaven86's response to violations of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE is always that they are reliably sourced. Which only proves that, despite repeated requests, Safehaven86 refuses to submit to either policy, which notes that sources aren't the sole concern in these cases. Again, Safehaven86 meets honey badger. Further, Safehaven86's sources themselves are frequently either outdated; or they themselves violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 also ignores WP:BALASP. But again... It's also worth noting that Safehaven86 edit-warred at the very moment the user was filing this "edit-warring" complaint against me! Safehaven86 also intentionally ignored the fact that I had already noted that my explanation for the mass reverts was already on the talk page. And again, here it was. But it's also very important to note that Safehaven86 has been POV pushing this same, single issue on this article for over a year. Since June 2015 on the talk page alone. See here. And this series of edits follows a pattern of this user's POV pushing on this article, which goes back over a year. Here is Safehaven86's June 2015 filibuster, which starts out harmlessly enough, then abruptly changes: 1) here 2) here 3) here 4) here 5) here 6) here 7) here 8) here 9) here 10) here 11) here 12) here 13) here 14) starting here 15) here 16) here 17) here 18) here 19) here 20) here 21) here 22) here 23) here 24) here 25) here 26) here 27) here 28) here 29) here 30) here 31) and here. So it is seems likely that there may even be some OWNERSHIP issues with Safehaven86 regarding this article. But even as far back as 2015, other editors complained to Safehaven86 about the POV pushing edits.** See here. It did not go well then either, as can be seen: 1) here. 2) here. 3) here. 4) here. 5) here. 6) and here. So this is not Safehaven86's first rodeo. Safehaven86's POV pushing on this article has been objected to by several different editors over more than a year - and still, Safehaven86 persists. So I'm not sure if a BOOMERANG block would be effective here. After all this time, it seems more likely that only an article and its talk page topic ban of Safehaven86 on this article will finally end this. Unfortunately, given Safehaven86's long history of flagrant disregard for policies - even after being repeatedly advised of them, over a year - by multiple editors. So I would have to support such an article and the talk page topic ban. Otherwise, we'll just be here again with the next editors who try to fix Safehaven86's long-term and determined, POV pushing on this article. X4n6 (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Cool story, but nowhere in this large wall of text do you deny edit warring or address your own behavior on this article. If you had concerns about my editing on this article, which it sounds like you've had going back a year now, you should really bring that up in the proper form (probably WP:ANI). The fact that you've chosen to air these apparently very serious, honey-badger related concerns only after I've filed this report against you seems suspicious. All of your many diffs above only show the validity of my original report: me and User:clpo13 are in agreement on the talk page, and you're continually reverting both of us. Your reason for reverting this edit is not sound. Consensus was reached, and it was to include the material--that's why both clpo13 and I added the material to the article. The fact that you reverted both of us--two editors who had built a consensus on the talk page--because you didn't like that consensus, is edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC) It speaks volumes that you don't deny anything I've addressed. I even tried to warn you about BOOMERANG when you launched your ill-conceived "warning" on my talk page - which was apparently easier for you than just editing collaboratively in the first place. But everything I said was accurate. As I've already shown and linked to in my response: 1) You were wrong when you claimed I had not explained my mass revert. I had. 2) You also knew you were wrong, because I had already noted in the edit log that the explanation was on the talk page in the edit immediately prior to yours. Yet you reverted anyway. 3) You even continued edit-warring after you lodged your complaint here. 4) And as the edit log clearly shows, you have been POV pushing this same claim - with your outdated and biased sources - since June 2015. 5) Other editors have also complained to you about your POV pushing - and you ignored them as well - just as you ignored me. So you have no answer for anything I've presented. But there's more: 6) As to my behavior - the edit log is also clear that with each revert you listed: I either expressly asked you not to edit war; or I specifically cited which policies your edits violated. 7) What's more, you forget - it also takes two to edit-war. So you've ignored that in every case where you cited my reverts, your own reverts either preceded them - or followed them: A) here. B) here. C) here. D) and here. Also, I need to discuss your clear misunderstanding regarding CONSENSUS. Consensus is not defined as two editors who agree ignoring the opposing view of any other editor(s). Consensus is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages policies." While determining consensus is "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." Your arguments failed on their own merits; and they failed to follow Misplaced Pages policy. So you never had consensus. Instead, you had WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which states: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What you also had was an example of tendentious editing, explained as: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." But the additional fact that for over a year, other editors have repeatedly told you that these exact same edits - either violated policy; or were just factually wrong - indicates that, if any "consensus" exists, it is against you. And for over a year, you have repeatedly ignored that consensus. Finally, as to your claim that I didn't address these concerns before your report here? Once again, not true. I tried to warn you here. But honey badger just didn't give a ***. And now that you've made it clear that you'd rather litigate than collaborate - your longstanding tendentious behavior on this article is finally being addressed - and should be addressed. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) This is really TLDR, and I doubt any passing admins will have a desire to weigh in here. It's not actually too complicated, though. You removed longstanding material from the page. Clpo13 reinserted a version of it. You then removed the original content and more. I reinserted it per WP:BRD. You removed it again, saying it was "pretty clear" why you removed it, but declining to discuss on the talk page. I reinserted after me and Clpo13 had a discussion about it on the talk page. You removed it again, ironically stating "please do not edit war" in your edit summary. I made a series of edits, some relating to the content in dispute, but most not relating to it. You undid all* of the edits. It would be one thing for you to tag or remove the disputed content, but I do not understand why you would also undo a variety of housekeeping type edits (adding archived links, correcting redirects, WP:MOS copy edits). Clp013 reinstated my edits, calling them "clearly beneficial" (this editor also used the "thanks" log to thank me for making these edits in the first place). You undid these edits again. I reinstated them because you had not, in fact, explained why you had undone all of the edits, and two editors were in agreement that the edits should stand, while one editor, you, was not. Even if you believe you have consensus on your side, there is no justification for edit warring per Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. I brought this complaint here because you didn't give any indication that you were going to stop reverting me and another editor. I'm glad you now seem to have stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately, the time to rationally discuss this with you is passed. You have consistently refused every invitation to edit rationally. Instead you've doubled-down on your POV pushing. You were repeatedly offered collaboration on the article's talk page. You consistently refused - claiming as your excuse, either some non-existent "consensus," or flat out lying in the edit log, saying my reverts were unexplained. You knew better. You just didn't like the explanation. You also knew we were right in the middle of a 3-editor discussion and collaboration on what content we could all agree should be included. But you couldn't wait for a real consensus and collaboration. Instead you unilaterally bulldozed your own opinion into the article - by making 18 consecutive edits right in the middle of consensus building! This was after you "warned" me about the 3 revert rule. So what about your 18? If 3 merits a temporary block - 18 warrants a permanent topic ban. You also failed to notice that even in your latest comments above, every revert I made only came after your own reverts. Except for the last one - which was followed by your last revert. Which I have left in place. Editors may see it. I was trying to collaborate. As, I'll assume, was the other editor. You were trying to bulldoze and intimidate. So you were reverted. Just as you're trying to intimidate me with this complaint. But that's fine. Since now that I've exposed your almost year and a half long campaign of relentless and disruptive POV pushing, in due course, you will also be given every opportunity to defend yourself and your actions to other editors. Instead of me. X4n6 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, you "exposed" me for my efforts at mitigating the years long undisclosed WP:COI editing that has been happening on this article. Something about an organization's staffers repeatedly adding press releases to their group's Misplaced Pages page doesn't sit well with me, call me crazy (or call me honey badger, it seems you prefer that). In any event, thank you for ceasing the edit warring. I appreciate it. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Wow... I can't believe that's your defense for POV pushing - blaming the foundation's staff for your own POV pushing? As for your latest edits, I'm content to let others - or admins - scrub your policy vios. I just don't know if being a conspiracy theorist has ever been used as a defense for disruptive editing. But you've just become my best defense here - and your worst one later. X4n6 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Yep, I'm a conspiracy theorist, that must be it.... Safehaven86 (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC) You are clearly a conspiracy theorist. I saw no unsourced or POV edits, just info and update edits. There were just 16 total edits there from that account, from March 11, 2015 to June 21, 2016. That's 16 edits in almost a year and a half. You had 31 edits there from June 3 to June 12, 2015 alone. That's nearly double in just over a week. You had 18 edits just yesterday. You didn't uncover the problem. You are the problem. And if you believed there was a COI in 2015, you could have reported it, not edit-warred. You did not. Bottomline: none of it justifies your own POV pushing. Period. Either then - or now. X4n6 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments:
Editor has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article. A 2:1 WP:CONSENSUS exists on the talk page, and in article history, for including this material. Have made significant attempts to engage editor and hash out policy disputes, but even in the face of a talk page consensus, editor has an WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality which has unfortunately led to edit-warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)}

Response:
This is a clear case of BOOMERANG. Safehaven86 was warned about edit warring here. And warned these edits violated WP:POV and WP:UNDUE here as well as on the Talk Page here and most recently here.

Instead of working collaboratively with editors of opposing viewpoints to reach consensus, Safehaven86 responded with the following edit-warring filibuster:

1) here
2) here
3) here
4) here
5) here
6) here
7) here
8) here
9) here
10) here
11) here
12) here
13) here
14) here
15) here
16) here
17) here
18) and here.

I should also point out that, contrary to Safehaven86's claim, my mass revert was fully explained here.

I should also note Safehaven86's mass edits were done while 3 editors were actively working on a consensus of the wording for this section. I should also point out that this occurred after Safehaven86 "warned" me about warring! So Safehaven86 knew full well what this massive, non-consensus edits were doing. But just like the honey badger, Safehaven86 don't give a ****.

It's also important to note that Safehaven86's response to violations of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE is always that they are reliably sourced. Which only proves that, despite repeated requests, Safehaven86 refuses to submit to either policy, which notes that sources aren't the sole concern in these cases. Again, Safehaven86 meets honey badger. Further, Safehaven86's sources themselves are frequently either outdated; or they themselves violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 also ignores WP:BALASP. But again...

It's also worth noting that Safehaven86 edit-warred at the very moment the user was filing this "edit-warring" complaint against me! Safehaven86 also intentionally ignored the fact that I had already noted that my explanation for the mass reverts was already on the talk page. And again, here it was.

But it's also very important to note that Safehaven86 has been POV pushing this same, single issue on this article for over a year. Since June 2015 on the talk page alone. See here.

And this series of edits follows a pattern of this user's POV pushing on this article, which goes back over a year. Here is Safehaven86's June 2015 filibuster, which starts out harmlessly enough, then abruptly changes:

1) here
2) here
3) here
4) here
5) here
6) here
7) here
8) here
9) here
10) here
11) here
12) here
13) here
14) starting here
15) here
16) here
17) here
18) here
19) here
20) here
21) here
22) here
23) here
24) here
25) here
26) here
27) here
28) here
29) here
30) here
31) and here.

So it is seems likely that there may even be some OWNERSHIP issues with Safehaven86 regarding this article. But even as far back as 2015, other editors complained to Safehaven86 about the POV pushing edits. See here.

It did not go well then either, as can be seen:

1) here.
2) here.
3) here.
4) here.
5) here.
6) and here.

So this is not Safehaven86's first rodeo. Safehaven86's POV pushing on this article has been objected to by several different editors over more than a year - and still, Safehaven86 persists. So I'm not sure if a BOOMERANG block would be effective here. After all this time, it seems more likely that only an article and its talk page topic ban of Safehaven86 on this article will finally end this. Unfortunately, given Safehaven86's long history of flagrant disregard for policies - even after being repeatedly advised of them, over a year - by multiple editors. So I would have to support such an article and the talk page topic ban. Otherwise, we'll just be here again with the next editors who try to fix Safehaven86's long-term and determined, POV pushing on this article. X4n6 (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool story, but nowhere in this large wall of text do you deny edit warring or address your own behavior on this article. If you had concerns about my editing on this article, which it sounds like you've had going back a year now, you should really bring that up in the proper form (probably WP:ANI). The fact that you've chosen to air these apparently very serious, honey-badger related concerns only after I've filed this report against you seems suspicious. All of your many diffs above only show the validity of my original report: me and User:clpo13 are in agreement on the talk page, and you're continually reverting both of us. Your reason for reverting this edit is not sound. Consensus was reached, and it was to include the material--that's why both clpo13 and I added the material to the article. The fact that you reverted both of us--two editors who had built a consensus on the talk page--because you didn't like that consensus, is edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It speaks volumes that you don't deny anything I've addressed. I even tried to warn you about BOOMERANG when you launched your ill-conceived "warning" on my talk page - which was apparently easier for you than just editing collaboratively in the first place. But everything I said was accurate. As I've already shown and linked to in my response:

1) You were wrong when you claimed I had not explained my mass revert. I had.
2) You also knew you were wrong, because I had already noted in the edit log that the explanation was on the talk page in the edit immediately prior to yours. Yet you reverted anyway.
3) You even continued edit-warring after you lodged your complaint here.
4) And as the edit log clearly shows, you have been POV pushing this same claim - with your outdated and biased sources - since June 2015.
5) Other editors have also complained to you about your POV pushing - and you ignored them as well - just as you ignored me.

So you have no answer for anything I've presented. But there's more:

6) As to my behavior - the edit log is also clear that with each revert you listed: I either expressly asked you not to edit war; or I specifically cited which policies your edits violated.
7) What's more, you forget - it also takes two to edit-war. So you've ignored that in every case where you cited my reverts, your own reverts either preceded them - or followed them:

A) here.
B) here.
C) here.
D) and here.

Also, I need to discuss your clear misunderstanding regarding CONSENSUS. Consensus is not defined as two editors who agree ignoring the opposing view of any other editor(s). Consensus is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages policies." While determining consensus is "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." Your arguments failed on their own merits; and they failed to follow Misplaced Pages policy. So you never had consensus. Instead, you had WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which states: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What you also had was an example of tendentious editing, explained as: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."

But the additional fact that for over a year, other editors have repeatedly told you that these exact same edits - either violated policy; or were just factually wrong - indicates that, if any "consensus" exists, it is against you. And for over a year, you have repeatedly ignored that consensus.

Finally, as to your claim that I didn't address these concerns before your report here? Once again, not true. I tried to warn you here. But honey badger just didn't give a ****. And now that you've made it clear that you'd rather litigate than collaborate - your longstanding tendentious behavior on this article is finally being addressed - and should be addressed. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is really TLDR, and I doubt any passing admins will have a desire to weigh in here. It's not actually too complicated, though. You removed longstanding material from the page. Clpo13 reinserted a version of it. You then removed the original content and more. I reinserted it per WP:BRD. You removed it again, saying it was "pretty clear" why you removed it, but declining to discuss on the talk page. I reinserted after me and Clpo13 had a discussion about it on the talk page. You removed it again, ironically stating "please do not edit war" in your edit summary. I made a series of edits, some relating to the content in dispute, but most not relating to it. You undid all of the edits. It would be one thing for you to tag or remove the disputed content, but I do not understand why you would also undo a variety of housekeeping type edits (adding archived links, correcting redirects, WP:MOS copy edits). Clp013 reinstated my edits, calling them "clearly beneficial" (this editor also used the "thanks" log to thank me for making these edits in the first place). You undid these edits again. I reinstated them because you had not, in fact, explained why you had undone all of the edits, and two editors were in agreement that the edits should stand, while one editor, you, was not. Even if you believe you have consensus on your side, there is no justification for edit warring per Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. I brought this complaint here because you didn't give any indication that you were going to stop reverting me and another editor. I'm glad you now seem to have stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the time to rationally discuss this with you is passed. You have consistently refused every invitation to edit rationally. Instead you've doubled-down on your POV pushing. You were repeatedly offered collaboration on the article's talk page. You consistently refused - claiming as your excuse, either some non-existent "consensus," or flat out lying in the edit log, saying my reverts were unexplained. You knew better. You just didn't like the explanation. You also knew we were right in the middle of a 3-editor discussion and collaboration on what content we could all agree should be included. But you couldn't wait for a real consensus and collaboration. Instead you unilaterally bulldozed your own opinion into the article - by making 18 consecutive edits right in the middle of consensus building! This was after you "warned" me about the 3 revert rule. So what about your 18? If 3 merits a temporary block - 18 warrants a permanent topic ban.

You also failed to notice that even in your latest comments above, every revert I made only came after your own reverts. Except for the last one - which was followed by your last revert. Which I have left in place. Editors may see it. I was trying to collaborate. As, I'll assume, was the other editor. You were trying to bulldoze and intimidate. So you were reverted. Just as you're trying to intimidate me with this complaint. But that's fine. Since now that I've exposed your almost year and a half long campaign of relentless and disruptive POV pushing, in due course, you will also be given every opportunity to defend yourself and your actions to other editors. Instead of me. X4n6 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you "exposed" me for my efforts at mitigating the years long undisclosed WP:COI editing that has been happening on this article. Something about an organization's staffers repeatedly adding press releases to their group's Misplaced Pages page doesn't sit well with me, call me crazy (or call me honey badger, it seems you prefer that). In any event, thank you for ceasing the edit warring. I appreciate it. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow... I can't believe that's your defense for POV pushing - blaming the foundation's staff for your own POV pushing? As for your latest edits, I'm content to let others - or admins - scrub your policy vios. I just don't know if being a conspiracy theorist has ever been used as a defense for disruptive editing. But you've just become my best defense here - and your worst one later. X4n6 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a conspiracy theorist, that must be it.... Safehaven86 (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly a conspiracy theorist. I saw no unsourced or POV edits, just info and update edits. There were just 16 total edits there from that account, from March 11, 2015 to June 21, 2016. That's 16 edits in almost a year and a half. You had 31 edits there from June 3 to June 12, 2015 alone. That's nearly double in just over a week. You had 18 edits just yesterday. You didn't uncover the problem. You are the problem. And if you believed there was a COI in 2015, you could have reported it, not edit-warred. You did not. Bottomline: none of it justifies your own POV pushing. Period. Either then - or now. X4n6 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: User:X4n6 is warned for edit warring on this article. We should give him the irony award for removing 5,000 bytes from the article in the middle of a discussion, while suggesting in his edit summary that there will be no edit war if the other parties cooperate. If he reverts the article again before getting a clear consensus in his favor on the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by User:Serialjoepsycho (Result: protected + blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
A Consensus was established via RFC Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother. All reverts were done to undo the consensus. The justification seems to very much be a nationalistic sentiment. The Editor has been twice before banned for edit warring on the very same article about a month ago. I can't see any reason that they should continue to be allowed to edit this article. With them attacking Croatian and Chauvinists without any realistic justification it's clear that this article and subject matter is far to personal. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as person who's involved in that article. Kavonder 23:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.108.202 (talk)

Page protected by someone else --slakr 02:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MARSELIMADHE reported by User:Antidiskriminator (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
My edits were reversal of reversal of others' edits of my additions which are fully referenced. MARSELIMADHE (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll and User:79.167.10.188 reported by User:TastyPoutine (Result: )

This is not a WP:3RR violation but is turning into an edit war on several pages. The editor and the IP have made several page moves without seeking consensus. In addition, the page moves were being performed via a cut and paste.

The changes were reverted by other editors and warnings given to User:Basque&Roll about both the move and the cutting and pasting.

.
After the first round of reverts, User:79.167.10.188 entered the fray and started making the same page moves as before, and in the same fashion. The user has not replied to any talk page messages so wanted to file this report in an effort to stop what ultimately will be an edit war over these pages.TastyPoutine 09:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
In the space of a month, and now within a few days, User:Claudevsq has reverted my edits five times—slow edit warring, with no edit summaries. The edit I have tried to introduce is regarding Jesús Cuellar, a boxer whose full name of Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar is not used on the title of his WP article, per WP:COMMONNAME. User:Claudevsq is nonetheless adamant that his full name be used via piping, which is completely unnecessary as the article title in question only uses a two-component name, as do most search results: "Jesús Cuellar" brings up around 64,000 more Google hits than "Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar".

Have left four messages on User:Claudevsq's talk page, to no avail. I don't wish to sound petty by dredging up the past, but he does have a history of doing this before, so this isn't anything that surprises me. Furthermore, rather than communicate via talk pages, he has used one lone edit summary to dismiss me as having "threatened" him—I have done nothing of the sort. A bit of pestering, sure, but that's just my style when someone chooses to be non-communicative. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:222.71.88.222 reported by User:Murza-Zade (Result: Page protected)

I do not know exactly where to go with the request.

Anonymous variable-ip. On the talk page is not going to answer. Anonymous introduces false information. Removes confirmed by sources information. Threatened on my talk page. ]--Murza-Zade (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Page protected Handled at WP:RFPP NeilN 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Norschweden reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: No action)

Page: St. Anger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norschweden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 06:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC) to 06:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1. 06:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 4TheWynne (talk) to last revision by Norschweden. (TW)"
2. 06:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC) "this "source" just says its metal, not that its heavy metal"
14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 737059124 by Norschweden (talk): Kind of vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

21:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. (TW)"
22:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Why heavy metal!? */ Weighed in"
08:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC) "/* Why heavy metal!? */"

Comments:

Bogus warning for disruptive editing when it was in fact he/she who was editing disruptively by genre-warring, and with several other editors before me. 4TheWynne 08:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

you ignored references, and changed the genre with a reference that says nothing, and now you blame me for your mistakes Norschweden (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Even though you have finally been able to provide us with a reliable source on the talk page, continuing to revert when a consensus has not yet been reached – particularly when it looks like it might go the other way (and that IP wasn't me, by the way) – won't help your case. 4TheWynne 09:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

until the consens is found it should be this way, and btw hard roch (with out a source) is also wrong Norschweden (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: No action. One editor, User:Norschweden, made four reverts but it appears that agreement may have been reached on the talk page. If the fight continues let me know. Whether this band should be described as 'nu metal' has been discussed on the talk page since 2006. (Search the talk page for that term). It is reasonable to expect good consensus for a genre change when the issue has been disputed for so long. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Categories: