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 15:16, 15 March 2019 view sourceCalton (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits →User:Corkythehornetfan reported by User:Netoholic (Result: )← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:20, 15 March 2019 view source Bless sins (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,862 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 562:		Line 562:
	::''If yo'' ''had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did.''		::''If yo'' ''had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did.''
	::I did communicate with you on your talk page asking why you were making wholesale deletions of external links, and that's what got me the response I did. --] \| ] 15:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)		::I did communicate with you on your talk page asking why you were making wholesale deletions of external links, and that's what got me the response I did. --] \| ] 15:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christchurch mosque shootings}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Musicfan122}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' Article is fast changing, see below for exact edits reverted.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# 1st revert, reverted this edit in "See also"
			# 2nd revert, reverted the removal of a template
			# 3rd revert , once again removes the template, which had been added back
			# 4th revert , removed links from the "See also" section added in this edit

			The above reverts involve a dispute with ]. Musicfan122 has also been involved in a dispute with ] and made two reverts in relation to that just hours before:
			*
			*
			The editor has also made other reverts, all within a few hours.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />

Revision as of 15:20, 15 March 2019

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:Trapios reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: blocked)

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles.

User:Merphee reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Page protected)

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:

Also involved has been Onetwothreeip, who I'm pinging as a courtesy. Merphee has made several other reverts at the article, but this is the first 3RR violation I've seen by them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

By which I think you mean that Merphee reverted some of my edits. Unfortunately they are proud of edit warring in this instance , admitting that they knew they were edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on this point has been ongoing for some time, such as this discussion from the middle of last year. An RfC is being proposed. The long-standing consensus has been not to include a political orientation description, yet PeterTheFourth and his tag-team mate Onetwothreeip have been repeatedly inserting poorly-sourced material to this effect. This is a clear attempt to subvert wikipolicy to push a personal opinion. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The long standing consensus was that political orientation was included in the infobox until a few months ago when Merphee removed it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but that isn't what we're discussing right now. You and your mate are busily edit-warring while discussion is ongoing. You've been repeatedly told to drop the stick and let wikipolicy take its course. I mean to say, most of your frigging edits on the talk page have been in the RfC discussion so you can hardly claim you're unaware of it. Geez. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Skyring: Hi Skyring, minor point - that's not an RfC. That's just a normal discussion. Our guide on RfCs is here WP:RFC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I genuinely apologise for reverting back today. It was during this ongoing drawn out discussion and Onetwothreeip and Peter The Fourth were 'taking turns' to re-add the contentious edits to technically avoid the 3 revert rule. I will happily walk away. I thought though that during a discussion you don't go behind everyone's back like these 2 editors did and add edits that were in question and provoke everyone. They also kept posting on my talk page harassing me when I had politely asked them both to stop doing it. And then sure enough Peter The Fourth comes running here and reports me. Wow. I think Gnangarra's, Skyring's and ScottDavis's very wise comments on Talk:The Australian sum the situation up. Merphee (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Merphee: Would you be so kind as to self revert your fourth revert? You, uh, didn't give any edit summary as to why you were doing it anyway. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And here you are PeterTheFourth still carrying this on, without any insight into your own behaviour and provocations. No I certainly and obviously do not want to continue on with this conflict with you. I suggested to you and onetwothreeip we use dispute resolution much earlier on which is worth noting. Again all I can do is genuinely apologise to other editors and administrators for my behaviour and any disruption this has caused. Merphee (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Merphee: I shouldn't have to explain that the apology is quite insincere if you choose not to undo what you're apologising for. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way PeterTheFourth this bad faith edit during the discussion on the talk page was the provocation and this one followed it up. And this was the contentious edit as Skyring just said that we were all talking about. Why did you do that? Merphee (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth:A minor point? Not an RfC discussion, just regular discussion. Point taken. But as noted, a discussion about an RfC on this very topic, and you decided to edit-war while discussion was ongoing. Yes, you goaded Merphee into breaching 3RR, you and the other guy doing a tag-team act, and harassing him on his talk page, and as soon as he fell into your trap, you sprung it here.

The way I see it, you deserve a boomerang because you were edit-warring against consensus, during a discussion on this exact point. And it's not as if the discussion was much more than you saying the same things over and over. That's not the way to write an effective and useful encyclopaedia; that's the way to get editors riled up and distracted, and eventually get admins involved. Don't you all have better things to do than bicker?

It's not as if this is a major point anyway. We rely on reliable sources, and your sources for the material you want to insert are very dubious indeed. --Pete (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd to see a filer reporting themself for also edit warring...I'd suggest this is withdrawn before everyone gets a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protected Full-protected for 12 hours. Since multiple users are edit-warring with each other over something (IMHO) reasonably inconsequential, and no other edits of any significance have been done on the article over the past few days, I think protection is the answer. I have done 12 hours instead of the standard 24 as twelve hours has already passed, I think all the participants (being Australian) are asleep, and I'm not convinced the edit war is over, and will likely be started up again in the morning. I have added to the discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 16:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If this discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These are ridiculous accusations made by Merphee and Skyring. I have never co-ordinated anything with PeterTheFourth, I simply reverted something twice and PeterTheFourth reverted something once. I never asked them to do anything and they never asked me to do anything. Apparently this forced Merphee to revert four times. If an editor finds themselves being forced to break 3RR, why should they be allowed to continue to participate? Furthermore, is there anything that can be done about the baseless claims of co-ordinating to disrupt Misplaced Pages? Notifying Ritchie333. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC) A glance at the article's edit history shows the same names adding or removing the same material over and over going back weeks, if not months. Over the course of twelve hours I see user 123 making two reverts and user 4 making two reverts. I say you two numbered accounts are tag-teaming, because that's exactly what I see. I'd like a solid commitment from all of you involved in what is usually a slow-motion edit-war to refrain from continuing it at any speed until we can find a consensus. I'm seeing more editors contribute on the talk page, so we may be able to reach an agreement. So far as I can see, those pushing for the paper to have a label of centre-right or similar are not wrong; the problem lies in finding a good enough source and avoids us synthesising a statement that nobody has actually made. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Completely false and ludicrous accusations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC) No collusion, eh? I call 'em as I see 'em. The page history is there for all to see, and my statements are easily checked. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC) I feel the need to add one thing here. Pete/Skyring's claim above that "The long-standing consensus has been not to include a political orientation description" is completely wrong, as already pointed out by Onetwothreeip. This saga began when, in discussions with Merphhee last July on another Australian political matter, I suggested that his wanting to use The Australian as a source was problematic because of that paper's right wing slant. Non-Australians may find it useful to know that this paper is a Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd publication. I hope that's enough for most to guess at its political orientation. Merphhee's reaction was one of complete surprise that anyone would think The Australian was anything but nicely centrist and balanced. It seemed he had never heard any claims at all that his favourite journal was anything but centrist. How he had not heard them still puzzles me. His reaction was to aggressively argue the point on the matter, and to remove the long-standing part of the article that said the paper was right wing. Shortly after, for reasons of disgust with unrestrained POV pushers and bullying on Misplaced Pages, I took myself on a sabbatical. Having now returned, I felt it necessary to clarify things a little. I hope my little story is of some help. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it. The consensus was exactly what Pete/Skyring said. It was no claim. I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility, and accusations of bad faith should be reported to ANI. I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse. Merphee (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it.... I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility." Wasn't going to say much more here, but that demanded repeating. Then there's "I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse." This week is the first time I have commented on Misplaced Pages for maybe six months. HiLo48 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC) HiLo, consensus isn't what one editor prefers. It's what happens. We might get a general agreement (perhaps with a couple of diehard outliers), or we might get a status quo emerging where nobody feels changing what has evolved is worth any more effort. The stable version that emerged with this article was one where political orientation was omitted. We are now here on this notice-board because a couple of editors have decided to edit-war in order to change consensus. BRD is Misplaced Pages's preferred mechanism to develop a new consensus, and it works better if reversion and discussion do not occur simultaneously. Again, the history of the page is on display, and we may examine the various stable versions of this page which evolved. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC) 2012: No mention of political alignment in infobox or lede. (This reversion by HiLo is instructive.) 2013: No mention of political alignment. This was inserted for a short time in August and reverted with this reference to consensus. 2014: No mention of political alignment. 2015, 2016: In May 2015, Ag6858 adds infobox political alignment (of centre-right). This lasts until the end of 2016, gradually turning into "Right Wing", when it is removed entirely. 2017: A mention of political alignment in the infobox creeps back in March, and is the subject of some dispute. The latter half of the year shows a stable "Centre Right" infobox line. 2018: consensus reached on talk page to remove political alignment from infobox. This lasts until 6 July when "Conservative Right Wing" is claimed. Things really get heated over the Christmas drinks when 123IP changes this to "Right Wing" and Merphee disputes this. Kerry Raymond removes the infobox mention entirely on 29 December. 2019: No mention of political alignment until 24 February, when restored (as centre-right), quoting a discussion on a different board.. Since then it's been pretty much open warfare. --Pete (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC) The whole point of my comment was to highlight past behaviour of the editor involved, not to discuss content, or consensus. This is obviously not the place to discuss content in particular. And Merphee did remove content he didn't like from The Australian back on 7 July 2018 without seeking consensus. That was where this all began. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) That is complete crud HiLo48, and Pete once again has masterfully trumped you on this one, with his list of diffs provided below which you have once again ignored. What I don't appreciate HiLo48 as so many others on Misplaced Pages have noted in the past, is your constant unrelenting lack of civility, your rudeness, accusations of bad faith, distortions, personal attacks on a whole range of other editors over a long period of time. In fact anyone who disagrees with you. And here you are back at other editor's throats again on the attack with your constant belittling and condescension. I could show diffs if you like to prove your rudeness in the last couple of days. I asked you to apologise to Pete but you refused. It has to stop. Merphee (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "That is complete crud HiLo48." Actually, it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC) The page 'was' protected. Why is the goings on at the talkpage of the article-in-question, being fought out here? Take it to the Dispute board. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If this discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

These are ridiculous accusations made by Merphee and Skyring. I have never co-ordinated anything with PeterTheFourth, I simply reverted something twice and PeterTheFourth reverted something once. I never asked them to do anything and they never asked me to do anything. Apparently this forced Merphee to revert four times. If an editor finds themselves being forced to break 3RR, why should they be allowed to continue to participate? Furthermore, is there anything that can be done about the baseless claims of co-ordinating to disrupt Misplaced Pages? Notifying Ritchie333. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A glance at the article's edit history shows the same names adding or removing the same material over and over going back weeks, if not months. Over the course of twelve hours I see user 123 making two reverts and user 4 making two reverts. I say you two numbered accounts are tag-teaming, because that's exactly what I see. I'd like a solid commitment from all of you involved in what is usually a slow-motion edit-war to refrain from continuing it at any speed until we can find a consensus. I'm seeing more editors contribute on the talk page, so we may be able to reach an agreement.

So far as I can see, those pushing for the paper to have a label of centre-right or similar are not wrong; the problem lies in finding a good enough source and avoids us synthesising a statement that nobody has actually made. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely false and ludicrous accusations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No collusion, eh? I call 'em as I see 'em. The page history is there for all to see, and my statements are easily checked. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to add one thing here. Pete/Skyring's claim above that "The long-standing consensus has been not to include a political orientation description" is completely wrong, as already pointed out by Onetwothreeip. This saga began when, in discussions with Merphhee last July on another Australian political matter, I suggested that his wanting to use The Australian as a source was problematic because of that paper's right wing slant. Non-Australians may find it useful to know that this paper is a Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd publication. I hope that's enough for most to guess at its political orientation. Merphhee's reaction was one of complete surprise that anyone would think The Australian was anything but nicely centrist and balanced. It seemed he had never heard any claims at all that his favourite journal was anything but centrist. How he had not heard them still puzzles me. His reaction was to aggressively argue the point on the matter, and to remove the long-standing part of the article that said the paper was right wing. Shortly after, for reasons of disgust with unrestrained POV pushers and bullying on Misplaced Pages, I took myself on a sabbatical. Having now returned, I felt it necessary to clarify things a little. I hope my little story is of some help. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it. The consensus was exactly what Pete/Skyring said. It was no claim. I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility, and accusations of bad faith should be reported to ANI. I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse. Merphee (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"Wow, what a load of bollocks. The whole lot of it.... I think you are missing the point here and your constant lack of civility." Wasn't going to say much more here, but that demanded repeating. Then there's "I'm sick of it from you as so many other editors are. No-one should take your abuse." This week is the first time I have commented on Misplaced Pages for maybe six months. HiLo48 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HiLo, consensus isn't what one editor prefers. It's what happens. We might get a general agreement (perhaps with a couple of diehard outliers), or we might get a status quo emerging where nobody feels changing what has evolved is worth any more effort. The stable version that emerged with this article was one where political orientation was omitted. We are now here on this notice-board because a couple of editors have decided to edit-war in order to change consensus. BRD is Misplaced Pages's preferred mechanism to develop a new consensus, and it works better if reversion and discussion do not occur simultaneously.

Again, the history of the page is on display, and we may examine the various stable versions of this page which evolved. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

2012: No mention of political alignment in infobox or lede. (This reversion by HiLo is instructive.)

2013: No mention of political alignment. This was inserted for a short time in August and reverted with this reference to consensus.

2014: No mention of political alignment.

2015, 2016: In May 2015, Ag6858 adds infobox political alignment (of centre-right). This lasts until the end of 2016, gradually turning into "Right Wing", when it is removed entirely.

2017: A mention of political alignment in the infobox creeps back in March, and is the subject of some dispute. The latter half of the year shows a stable "Centre Right" infobox line.

2018: consensus reached on talk page to remove political alignment from infobox. This lasts until 6 July when "Conservative Right Wing" is claimed. Things really get heated over the Christmas drinks when 123IP changes this to "Right Wing" and Merphee disputes this. Kerry Raymond removes the infobox mention entirely on 29 December.

2019: No mention of political alignment until 24 February, when restored (as centre-right), quoting a discussion on a different board..

Since then it's been pretty much open warfare. --Pete (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of my comment was to highlight past behaviour of the editor involved, not to discuss content, or consensus. This is obviously not the place to discuss content in particular. And Merphee did remove content he didn't like from The Australian back on 7 July 2018 without seeking consensus. That was where this all began. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That is complete crud HiLo48, and Pete once again has masterfully trumped you on this one, with his list of diffs provided below which you have once again ignored. What I don't appreciate HiLo48 as so many others on Misplaced Pages have noted in the past, is your constant unrelenting lack of civility, your rudeness, accusations of bad faith, distortions, personal attacks on a whole range of other editors over a long period of time. In fact anyone who disagrees with you. And here you are back at other editor's throats again on the attack with your constant belittling and condescension. I could show diffs if you like to prove your rudeness in the last couple of days. I asked you to apologise to Pete but you refused. It has to stop. Merphee (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"That is complete crud HiLo48." Actually, it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The page 'was' protected. Why is the goings on at the talkpage of the article-in-question, being fought out here? Take it to the Dispute board. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:78.54.190.20 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected )

Page: User talk:Zackmann08 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.54.190.20 (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 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
1. 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887441211 by 7 qz (talk)"
2. 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ RfC: When are you planning to fix your edits? (Messed up replacement of template:Infobox Russian governorate, putting the type labelled as "Political status" in the field for higher level subdivision)"
18:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887441042 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
1. 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ new section"
2. 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ Now on ANI"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly posted the same spam on my talk page despite multiple warnings to stop. CLEAR violation of WP:NOBAN Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't SPAM. 78.54.190.20 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not helping your case. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User also is edit warring over at ANI removing an editors close. Kb03 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

21 edits from this IP, Over half have been reverts. Remember that this user IP hops so blocking just 78.54.190.20 won't help. --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

78.28.54.83 is another IP that appears related. --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 19:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If making a comment in an ANI thread makes someone "related" (*shivers*) then there are a few registered users that perhaps also should be listed, wouldn't you say? Hopefully not because it's nonsense. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protected Talk page semi-protected. Ritchie333 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: can you help me understand your decision? I'm usually not one to question an admin, but IMHO this was such an overt violation of WP:3RR that protecting the page seems like an odd resolution. To me this seems like a clear case for a block. Just would like to hear your thoughts if you are willing to share? --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't semi-protect your page, Widr did. Since it's within the bounds of administrator discretion, I closed the report as that being an appropriate action. I think he also blocked the IP. Ritchie333 17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: fastest response EVER! Lol. My talk page wasn't actually what I was referring to. The Clear case IMHO was 78.54.190.20's actions on the WP:ANI page. My talk page was protected because of another IP vandal. --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that'll be because I thought the notification was going to say "Your edit on has been reverted by " ... anyway, the IP has stopped commenting at ANI, and because your talk page is semi-protected, I don't think anything else is going to happen. It's possible the IP has been recycled, or that the user behind it has lost interest. Ritchie333 17:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: sounds good. Thanks for the info! --Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Brocicle (Result: Blocked indef)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User had a 48 hour block for the same behaviour and as soon as the block is lifted returned to do the same thing they were initially blocked for as you can see by the timing of their edits and block notice of their talk page. Editors have warned User Endowe yet again in edit summaries about edit warring and going against consensus but actions show they fail to care.
Brocicle (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Brocicle, Thanks for reporting. This editor is definitely behaving inappropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MusicHead24 reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to: 6 March 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 9 March 2019‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 9 March 2019

Comments:

The user has not strictly broken 3RR, but it is quite clear that they intend to continue edit warring to insert this material no matter what. They have clearly broken WP:V by reinserting uncited challenged material. They have been informed of this requirement here and another user supported that position here. SpinningSpark 12:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Ritchie333 14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lsw10 reported by User:Dawid2009 (Result: No violation)

Page: List of association football players considered the greatest of all time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lsw10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments I suggest reviev all constributions of this user and his whole talk page. This is not first time when someone discuss with him with good faith and later (after his ignorances) report him as vandalising this page (frankly it is just accident that this user never has been warned by short blockade). Actually this page is so very ofted occupited by various editors who are engaded in edit war that it need seriousl more pagewatchers.

In context of article to be clear: Number of counts for Gerd Muller and Pele are currently overrepresented and should be reverted to version of article where these counts are no longer overrepresented. The counts include France Football's voters and these voters were Winners of Ballon d'Or before this plebistice. This information clearly is described at source/refecence number 9. The only plaayers who who did not voted are Stanley Matthews, Omar Sívori, George Best and Lev Yashin because of all these four players were died before this plebistic. In current version of article is problem because of the column which include People who favorize Pele as "Greates of All time" there are mentioned Ferenc Puskas, Gianni Rivera, Franz Beckenbauer Johan Cruyff and Michel Platini and these five players are couted despite fact They are already covered by information about 17 of the first Ballon d'or winners. This is no way to an player get double representation from other one player. Sorry for my English and please solute this problem. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: You didn't warn them or notify them of this discussion (I've done the former). Why don't you discuss on the talk page? As a content dispute, it seems pretty mild at the moment, and you might find yourself reaching a consensus as to the material. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I do not have technical ability to correct this list because of my English is not enaugh good to correct this page. Here is revert of my edit which wa clearly described in this edition. Me and other editiors tried discuss many times but he ignored all suggestions for consensus. I am opened for new chenges in structure of the article but it is another problem which I started already here. This revert is clearly wrong. Why only Pele has to get double counts from Golden Ball's winners but not Gerd Muller and Di Stefano? This does not make any sense. And I have explained it above. I am opened for new changes but I do can not find any good faith in this user when he revert my edit to version of article where number of counts are overrepresented . Dawid2009 (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Billy Bonds isn't on the list :) but, seriously, those are all excellent points for discussion you make there—please, do so on talk, and ping interested editors! ——SerialNumber54129 18:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Honestly your specifical example with Billy Bonds was not any surprising for me ;) (Magico Gonzalez achivement only

No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AdusNow reported by User:Shoy (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887576511 by Mean as custard (talk)"
14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887576051 by Shoy (talk) MNC Group di MNC Vision"
14:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887575189 by Mean as custard (talk)"
14:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 866426921 by Roxy the dog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(My talk page)

Comments:

Edit warring. It appears that English is not this user's first language. Also edit warred on Info but stopped short of 3RR. shoy (reactions) 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Spoonkymonkey reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spoonkymonkey (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 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) to 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
1. 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "revert to accepted version, remove birth date (privacy issues, as they are used as identifiers in some countries)"
2. 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ remove BLP material. In light of #metoo, this is not suitable for hashing out on Misplaced Pages"
16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Revert to earlier version that does not violate BLP, arbcomm decision, #ibelievewomen #metoo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Moving & replying"
17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Help Request */ Replying to RhinosF1 (reply-link)"

Comments:

Has also edited while logged out. Suggest Semi/EC protect the page at least and block the user as they obviously know what they're doing. RhinosF1_{(status)(contribs)} 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I am glad this has been reported. See the talk page for the Arbcomm decision on Marsden, which is being ignored by this admin. There has been a concerted effort to denigrate this woman's report of sexual assault. People could get away with that 10 years ago, but in the age of #metoo and #Ibelievewomen, when Misplaced Pages has taken so much heat over its hostility to women, it might be time for a cold, hard look at how Marsden has been treated over the years. Is it because she is Wales' ex-girlfriend? I do believe women. We have seen so many cases of sexual assault that fit the Simon Fraser University pattern, and that were papered over. I haven't edit warred. I have followed the Arcomm decision to the letter. Three revert rule does not a

Spoonkymonkey, I'm not an admin which is why it's here. If I was, Id have protected it first. You've failed to discuss something where editors obviously disagree with you. RhinosF1_{(status)(contribs)} 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I had already dealt with it in a talk page post two or three weeks ago. I brought up the targetting of this woman, the long history of attacks on her and the change of attitude in recent years to women's claims of sexual assault. Today, I also asked people to read the Arbcomm decision linked on the talk page, which says the 3 revert rule does not apply to removal of disproportionate negative material about this person (or BLP issues in general). Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonkymonkey, Your post did not show consensus for it and despite being reverted you continued to make the change while both logged in and while logged out. RhinosF1_{(status)(contribs)} 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I had removed the derogatory material on Feb. 26 and posted on the talk page the same day. Almost three weeks later, the material, with violates both BLP and the arbcomm decision was returned by someone who did not engage on the talk page and did not ask for consensus, and now the page is locked with these BLP violations. Today, a series of socks attacked my edits and targeted my talk page. At least one has already been blocked.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protected for 4 days under WP:AC/DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2019-03-11T14:34:28 "Added information about where she currently lives."
2019-03-12T08:50:32 "To achieve a neutral point of view and present another side, I added statements of Greenpeace's founder criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal"
2019-03-12T09:17:05 "My edit was previously reverted by another editor who dismissed the statements by Patrick Moore as rantings of a lunatic. This is a problem with many Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. While espousing a neutral point of view, they use their own opinions to dismiss statements they disagree with or which do not align with their invariably leftist point of view. To be neutral, both sides of an issue should be included if supported by citation - not just those you agree with."
2019-03-13T22:04:38 "Added Controversy section. Included ethical complaints, criticism of Green New Deal by a Greenpeace founder (check the cite), criticism by Fed Chair of her reliance on Modern Monetary Theory, criticism of her tax plan by Bill Gates, and criticism of her moving to a luxury apartment building with no affordable housing units. Inclusion of a "Criticism" section is necessary to ensure a neutral point of view in this article."
2019-03-13T22:37:09 "Undid revision 887666778 by PunxtawneyPickle (talk)"
2019-03-13T23:25:20 "Controversy, with factual statements cited to approved cites, needs to be included to achieve a neutral point of view"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

Two 1RR violation in 48 hours. Bent on inserting POV material, as well as personal attacks under WikiLove misuse trolling . Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf was given discretionary sanctions notices about BLPs in August, and American Politics in February. Bradv 🍁 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Third revert just now. I've filed an ANI thread for the separate incivility problem. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings from numerous people they did it again. I have blocked them for 72 hours for edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JamieShupe reported by User:Mooeena (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mooeena&oldid=887670766

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mooeena#Detransition_Page_Edits Note, this is on my user talk page rather than the article talk page.

Comments:

I'm bringing this here instead of reverting this unproductive editing a third time. This user has a history of denouncing transgender people for "gender ideology" and has been edit warring by adding non-notable puff pieces about individuals who have reversed their gender transition, including a piece that uses an offensive slur in its title and throughout the article. I reverted the edit (as I thought, pretty uncontroversially) and explained why in the edit summary and on my talk page when the user asked for an explanation. They seem to have taken my reluctance to argue with them on my talk page as permission to redo their edits. This user has also been rude to me and does not show a willingness to learn the rules of Misplaced Pages. Apologies if this is not quite extreme enough for this noticeboard, but I think this would be better handled by a third party. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Begin: Jamie Shupe Comments.

It was explained to Mooeena that they are not entitled to police language on Misplaced Pages. For example, Mooeena objects to an article with the word tranny. It was explained while it may offend Mooeena, the language is perfectly acceptable in the context and time period from which the news article was authored. Drag queens often call themselves trannies. Further, Mooeena undid not just the supposed offending language, but a number of edits twice. Mooeena's problem lies with me as a person and the fact that the page exists. So Mooeena is essentially vandalizing the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Nigger

"The term tranny has been adopted by some drag performers, notably RuPaul, and the gay male community in the United States, but it is considered offensive to most transgender and transsexual people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/Drag_queen

As further proof that Mooeena's behavior is malicious, I'll point to the LGBT Firsts page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_lesbian,_gay,_bisexual,_or_transgender_firsts_by_year

Note that Mooeena repeatedly used "notability" as a reason to undo the edits on the detransition page but yet the exact same types of entries are on the LGBT Firsts page. My understanding is people who don't qualify for their own page are put into pages of the appropriate category.JamieShupe (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User:JamieShupe was checkuser blocked by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vicheasambath reported by User:Andrewgprout (Result: )

Page: Phnom Penh International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vicheasambath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC) ""
13:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Passenger */"
00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Passenger */"
08:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Passenger */"
03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Phnom Penh International Airport . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I strongly suspect the user here is the same user (42.115.2.208)that was blocked by dlohclerekim at 08:35 12 March 2019.

I and other editors have left messages on the users talk page. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887670659 by Tsumikiria (talk) Controversy, with factual statements cited to approved cites, needs to be included to achieve a neutral point of view."
02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887666778 by PunxtawneyPickle (talk)"
02:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Added Controversy section. Included ethical complaints, criticism of Green New Deal by a Greenpeace founder (check the cite), criticism by Fed Chair of her reliance on Modern Monetary Theory, criticism of her tax plan by Bill Gates, and criticism of her moving to a luxury apartment building with no affordable housing units. Inclusion of a "Criticism" section is necessary to ensure a neutral point of view in this article."
13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "My edit was previously reverted by another editor who dismissed the statements by Patrick Moore as rantings of a lunatic. This is a problem with many Misplaced Pages editors and administrators. While espousing a neutral point of view, they use their own opinions to dismiss statements they disagree with or which do not align with their invariably leftist point of view. To be neutral, both sides of an issue should be included if supported by citation - not just those you agree with."
12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "To achieve a neutral point of view and present another side, I added statements of Greenpeace's founder criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal"
18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Added information about where she currently lives."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

03:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Where subject lives */ Bottom-of-the-barrel journalism. See also WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:COPYVIO."

Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Also addition of copyvios in the same 1RR violation. Recently blocked for 48 hours for AE violations. Dr. K. 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This is a duplicate filing; not surprising because their edit warring has been blatant and unresponsive to warnings. I have blocked them for 72 hours for EW. There is also a discussion at ANI about them. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Melanie. I didn't notice the earlier report. Dr. K. 04:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf was previously blocked here in February for warring on the same article per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive385#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked for 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours by User:MelanieN per a report at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DanielJTown reported by User:Pfhorrest (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:
User appears to be a WP:SPA that exists only to repeatedly "correct" a WP:ENGVAR spelling despite an embedded comment clarifying that that is disruptive. User is probably the same as several anonymous IPs that were doing the same thing shortly before user's account was created. Pfhorrest (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:185.51.8.40 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This one also probably related: 5.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Anon IP.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

ONE editor has objected to this content on the talk page, User:ModerateMikayla555 (where they made some strange comments) and then all of sudden the anon IPs show up to support them in the edit war.

Comments:

The IP(s) are obvious sock puppet. Somewhat hilariously in that last edit, the anon IP with ... now I guess... six... edits cites "BLP exception to 3RR". They also cite all kinds of Misplaced Pages policies as if they had been editing for years. Sock puppet. Sock puppet. Sock puppet. Probably not ModerateMikayla555 sock puppet, but somebody's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they're socks, but I can definitively tell you they're not mine. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Carnivourous123 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AndreyVorobyov reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Original addition of text

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:47, March 13, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
23:53, March 13, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
07:45, March 14, 2019‎ - AndreyVorobyov
11:20, March 14, 2019 - 91.193.177.251
11:41, March 14, 2019‎ - 91.193.177.251

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1st warning:
2nd warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, despite being advised at least twice.

Comments:
Editor attempting to add -- well, SOMETHING -- to the PayPal article, sourced to a forum page. The first three reverts are by the editor's account, and the last two are obviously the same editor logged out, despite their evasive denial. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I tried to discuss an article with user Calton many times. I wrote on his user talk page, but never get a reply, he rejected to discuss an article. Misplaced Pages is not about a winning, it is a discuss process. Please find his user talk page messages: User_talk:Calton I work here under my name. Indicated IP is not mine. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. User is edit warring to insert material that was found in a complaint on a web forum by an individual Paypal user. In other words, it doesn't pass the standards of WP:RS. EdJohnston (talk)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887790159 by Alexbrn (talk) see my talk page. Restoring Josve05a edition."
19:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887776580 by Zefr (talk). Warning Zefr to observe factual statements on my talk page"
19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887757034 by Zefr (talk) Restoring Josve05a edition. A balanced article is better than a single sided article."
16:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC) ""
03:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Cancer */"
03:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Cancer */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Fasting edits */ new section"
19:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Fasting edits */ cmt"
19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Fasting edits */ ce"
22:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Fasting edits */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Uses in cancer treatment or prevention */ new section"
19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC) on User talk:Campoftheamericas "/* Fasting edits */"

Comments:

User is stuck on using animal studies and theories to propose fasting prevents cancer. There is no WP:MEDRS reviews indicating such an effect. User does not engage on the Talk:Fasting page or leave fact-based edit summaries. Zefr (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Campoftheamericas is a chronic edit-warrior, regularly attempting to force their preferred version onto articles with little regard for Misplaced Pages editing norms. They edit only sporadically, October 2013 being the last flurry of activity when they attempted to force an NPOV tag onto Water fluoridation, a featured article. They collected three separate escalating blocks, each for edit-warring, in the space of a month at that point. Their previous block was in March 2009, not surprisingly for edit-warring. I don't believe Campoftheamericas is a good fit for editing Misplaced Pages. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Dogru144 (Result: Fradio71 blocked for a week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: --I put the notice of EditWarring on his TalkPage but he removed it.Dogru144 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Earlier notice re edit warring on his page: -which is no longer on his current Talk Page, as he removed the notice.Dogru144 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
− Comments:
If you take a look at the edits, I perfectly explained why I removed the content. Soon after he started the discussion, he posted a failure to engage notice on my page three minutes after I had already engaged on the talkpage. In his further reverts, he claimed I still hadn't engaged on the talkpage. When I tried resolving it under his warning of alleged "failure to engage", he handed me the edit warring notice without addressing the issue. He never returned to either my nor the page's talkpage, so I handed him an edit warring warning. It became clear he didn't want to negotiate a resolution, he just wanted it his way. He even tried avoiding me entirely here, seeming to imply that his edit has to stay up and that anyone who tries to remove it is bad. He never returned to the talk pages and instead reported me for removing content he had no right to re-add. Dogrul was conflating the scandal into the person involved, and insisted pertinence despite repeatedly pointing out that the item he added was only loosely connected, and was trivial from the person's perspective. I find his attempt to "resolve" the issue extremely shallow since he never actually returned to discuss it--Fradio71 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Clear-cut violation. Fradio seems to think that being right makes it OK. BTW Dogru seems to believe the same thing--see Fradio's talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Corkythehornetfan reported by User:Netoholic (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: (for list of links), (for caption)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- initial revert of caption and external links, and other changes, with misleading/incomplete edit summary
- second revert and false claim of caption exception for US Politician official photos

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Per removal of above warning, Corkythehornetfan believes he only reverted once.

Comments:

I wasn’t aware of the 1RR on his page. When you hit the revert button, it doesn’t show that. I have better things to do than to waste my time here. I’ll be done with Bernie’s article for a few days. Corky 05:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Editnotices/Page/Bernie Sanders appears when editing the article and displays the edit restrictions on the article. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the user is making large changes -- undiscussed as far as I can see -- to many U.S. politician articles: John Boozman, Chris Coons, Roger Wicker, Amy Klobuchar, Bob Menendez, Lindsey Graham, etc. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan had a very classy response to Calton bringing this up to him. -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m done. You can quit watching my page, stalking me, whatever you are doing. Whatever your reasons are, you are out to get me. If yo had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did. Besides that, I just told Carlton what he told me - I just chose to blatantly say it. You’re all a waste of my time and I have no reason to go any further with you two. Don’t comment on my talk page again. Goodbye! Corky 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

last I checked, you can go fuck yourselves.

What is that even supposed to mean?

If yo had done the reasonable thing and just communicated with me first on my talk page, you never would have gotten responses like you did.

I *did* communicate with you on your talk page asking why you were making wholesale deletions of external links, and *that's* what got me the response I did. --Calton | Talk 15:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122 reported by ] (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Article is fast changing, see below for exact edits reverted.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1st revert, reverted this edit in "See also"
2nd revert, reverted the removal of a template
3rd revert , once again removes the template, which had been added back
4th revert , removed links from the "See also" section added in this edit

The above reverts involve a dispute with User:Vice regent. Musicfan122 has also been involved in a dispute with User:Neegzistuoja and made two reverts in relation to that just hours before:

The editor has also made other reverts, all within a few hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Categories: