Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Signedzzz (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 11 September 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Kyohyi reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under WP:1RR and a mandated 24 hour WP:BRD via arbitration remediations. This user didn't like the WP:BLUESKY statement that Ngo's false statements were false and deleted it on the grounds that the three sources that said the statements were false didn't say Ngo uttered the falsehood. Which he uttered. Which was false. Per sources. When challenged they claimed a BLP exception to the arbitration remediations on this BLP. When another editor subsequently reverted them, they reverted again. This means they have reverted on an Arbcom enforced WP:1RR page three times in the last day. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Warned. The user was not given an AE alert. I have now done so. El_C 19:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, they got one in January 2018 that was still on their user page so I didn't think I was supposed to give a second one, or else I would have done it here.

• Oh, it was yellow then. I stand corrected. El_C 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple re-insertions of BLP violating material. People re-inserting are not demonstrating in the sources where the content comes from (see article talk page) and are linking to essays for content justification as can be seen here. Removals per blp are not considered reverts, re-insertion of blp challenged material are blp violations per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I seriously request that administrators take a closer look at this. Bluesky is not a valid justification for content on a blp. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been making that claim despite the fact that several people have demonstrated to you sources already on the page that show Ngo's claim that antifascists attacked people with the hammer to be false. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, one other editor created a synthesis argument, and you merely said it's in the daily dot piece. What content in those sources justifies it, quote it. I've challenged you multiple times to do so, and you haven't. Instead you came here. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to that, for the rest of us? El_C 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the most recent discussion the claim that the three sources currently in the article, including the daily dot one which really is very explicit, don't establish that Ngo's statement was factually incorrect is patently absurd. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And this archive is also relevant for establishing that there are multiple sources for the claim that Ngo made a false statement. . You should note that the article space did not state that Ngo perpetrated a hoax or even that he lied. Only that what he said was false. Which has been very well established. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the synthesis comment. here's where Simonm223 says it's in the daily dot. and here are my requests for content from the source. The sources in the archive are the same sources in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the fact Ngo claimed antifascists attacked the far-right protesters with a hammer. Nobody disputes the fact that the hammer attack was initiated by one of the far-right protesters on the bus. Kyohyi's claim that it's synth to say that Ngo's statement, which did not line up to reality, is false boggles the mind. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note — @Simonm223: maybe quote directly? BLP has been invoked, so you need to substantiate. El_C 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of what we're using: From the daily dot: "The magic of editing is helping people lie about who threw the first punch." - the lede to the article. Farther down:

Even though he didn’t attend this time, Ngo was again involved.

It began, sort of, when antifa-aligned protesters were recorded attacking a bus carrying members of the violent right-wing militia, the American Guard.

A clip of one masked counter-protester throwing a hammer through the open door of the bus was used by Ngo as proof of antifa terrorism. The video has been viewed nearly 4 million times.

It then shows several tweets from Ngo about the incident.

It then continues:

But the conflict viewed from start to finish answers a question filling Ngo’s replies online: “Where’d the hammer come from, Andy?”

People linked videos from other angles, shared screenshots, and slowed down footage. As it turns out, the man Ngo identified as a victim brought the hammer into the conflict.

He can be seen swinging the hammer from the bus, and it is thrown back after being taken from him. While some have claimed the bus riders acted in self-defense, it is hard to see how they could feel more protected by removing the physical barrier (the door) between them and the counter-protesters.

There are then several more tweets copied about the incident before the article continues,

The propaganda machine moves fast, however, and it doesn’t like to fact check.

The edited clip of the bus confrontation was aired on Fox & Friends, Trump’s favorite show. The clip was further edited to show the conflict out of chronological order, clip out the right-wing violence, and highlight the hammer being thrown into the bus.

So basically we have an entire article about how Ngo propagated false information about this incident. But this is apparently not enough to satisfy Kyohyi. Of course, we have two more supporting sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

::This demonstrates that there is more to the story, not what Andy Ngo said is false.  There's a difference there.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This article establishes a second source for the fact that the hammer attack was initiated by the far-right protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Who initiated has no bearing on subsequent use. This demonstrates nothing on the falseness of Andy Ngo's statement. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Oregonian also establishes that Ngo promotes the false claim that the antifascists attacked with the hammer, quotes his tweet where he says that, and then later says:

Though it is somewhat grainy and hard to see, the original video shows someone inside the bus swinging the hammer at counterprotesters before it is wrested away and thrown back into the bus. A separate photo of the scuffle clearly shows that a man inside the shuttle bus had a hammer in his hand and was swinging it.

So where, precisely is the WP:SYNTH in saying that the statement Ngo made was false? Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This source says the opposite of what you claim and in fact supports the truth of his statement. I'll quote you the passage "it is wrested away and thrown back into the bus". And the synth is from comparing a definitive statement with a narrative. More specifically you're claiming a specific statement is false by using sourcing which makes arguments that an incomplete narrative is being presented. And that since the narrative is incomplete (read false) then therefore the statement is also false. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: The accusation here is that Any Ngo presented a false narrative. If say, Person A attacks B, and then person B retaliates or defends themself, and then you claim "Person B attacked Person A", you are being technically correct on a very superficial level, but presenting a false statement, that is, a statement containing a false narrative. This is more extreme when you consider that Person B would not attack Person A with a hammer had Person A not brought a hammer with them to attack Person B. BeŻet (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't know who started the fight. For all we know it was like this: A attacked B, B attempted to defend himself with a weapon, and A took B's weapon and threw it at B. In that case, it's not even a "false narrative" to say that A attacked B and threw the weapon at him. And it isn't lying or even misleading to leave out that the weapon started in B's hands. Also, there was never consensus to include the story at all, and it was edit warred into the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

We do, we have video evidence and reliable sources describing the event. BeŻet (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No, no source shows who started the fight. We don't know what happened just before the video starts. We do have sources saying the people outside the bus charged and surrounded the bus prior to what we see in the video. But we don't know what, if anything, led to their decision to do that, and we don't know who committed the first physical attack. If you have a quote to the contrary, feel free to provide it. At any rate, the inclusion of this story was the outcome of an edit war and was against consensus. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to unexpectedly step out and won't be back for a few hours — can another admin have a look at this, in the meantime? El_C 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This story about the hammer attack was added to the article by means of an edit war in the first place. Several editors felt the story was generally undue and disputed the wording that called Ngo's allegation false. It was discussed on the talk page, but a minority of editors repeatedly reintroduced the material, and insisted not only that it was due, but also insisted on the disputed wording calling Ngo's claim false. Here are some diffs where the material was repeatedly added and re-added, in my opinion against consensus: , , , , . Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note — @Simonm223: per WP:ONUS, you need to get consensus for inclusion. Due to the BLP-sensitive nature of the addition, it would probably be best if this were to be undertaken via an RfC, so there is a proper, uninvolved closure to the dispute. Good luck. El_C 02:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, are you saying that the story about the hammer attack should be removed from the article pending talk page discussion? If so, who should remove it? I prefer not to remove it, as this has been an edit war, and I do not wish to participate in an edit war. But I will follow your advice. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to this addition. El_C 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, thanks for the reply. I don't mean to challenge here, but only to clarify. The article currently includes language that seems to me similar to the language in the diff you linked, sourced with the same three sources (Daily Dot, Huff Post, and Oregonlive) about the hammer attack. It says: In August 2019, Ngo claimed that antifascists had attacked far-right protesters with a hammer. The hammer was initially used by a member of the American Guard, a group labeled a White Supremacist Organization by the ADL, which was subsequently taken by a counter protester and thrown back into the bus the American Guard members were riding. Do you think that language and those sources should be removed? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't immediately see any outstanding BLP issues with that passage. It does not advance the point that he wasn't present at the incident, nor does it say that he made several inacurrate claims. Is the passage you quote even contested? If no one is contesting it, then it enjoys consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. El_C 03:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

On the talk page, I believe there are at least four editors who contested including the story at all. I'll post something there pinging those editors. For my part, I just didn't have time to keep fighting, and the edit warring required admin intervention, which I then did not have time to seek. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Odafa reported by User:Realmmb (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kolkata Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) to 02:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 10:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 03:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Kolkata Derby. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been repetitively reverting my edits, for no apparent reason and has not responded to repetitive warnings to stop with his disruptive editing and his deliberate push to delete a particular piece of information. REALMMB 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. User:Odafa has has never posted to a talk page in their entire Misplaced Pages career. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:1.20.99.89 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: 2019 Tell Rifaat clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I am reporting this user for edit warring, lying about reaching a conclusion in the talk page, removing my warning to him on his talk page, and excuse me for saying but leaving a edit summary removing my warning saying (F*** O**). 1.20.99.89 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Furthermore, if you insist on civility, don't refer to other people's contributions as "lying"! Favonian (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Here we go... Rule of thumb: When you falsely accuse people of lying, don't expect them to reply with a smiley face. I am happy to discuss the content dispute, but Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and you will have to present actual arguments.

@Favonian: Now for turning myself in: While I did not violate 3RR, I see that a week ago I did violate the 1RR, sanctioned on all articles relating to the Syrian Civil War. It is easy to forget when dealing with such a periphery part of said subject, but I do of course apologize. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Go and sin no more, Mikrobølgeovn. For my own part, I vow to check for 1RR restrictions. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Arllaw reported by User:Skythrops (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&oldid=910171754

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910171754
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910167798
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&diff=prev&oldid=910165385
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&diff=next&oldid=910164729

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AArllaw&type=revision&diff=914612989&oldid=911132302

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Parental_alienation#Potential_Wikipedia_3RR_Breach
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Parental_alienation#Talk_Page_Clean-Up

Comments:

On August 10, User:Arllaw made an edit that immediately reverted at least three edits made immediately prior. By doing so as a single edit, this also had the appearance of attempting to ‘game the system’ by making 3+ reversions instantly as one edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parental_alienation&diff=910188754&oldid=910171754

This was not the first time that Arllaw had reverted some of this same text, nor the first time that this editor’s conduct gave the appearance of breaching the 3RR, in my opinion.

REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN GENUINE DISCUSSION

On this occasion, I reverted the text in question and started an immediate discussion under a new section “Potential Misplaced Pages 3RR Breach”. I provided details of why the existing text, prior to Arllaw's actions, was accurate and better and why the multiple, simultaneous reversions were not appropriate.

I do not believe that Arllaw engaged in meaningful discussion about the content. On the contrary, Arllaw proceeded to close down this debate – quite literally, by closing down the section entirely on the Talk page.

CLOSING DOWN OF DISCUSSION

Arllaw then closed down other sections on the Talk page that I, in particular, had initiated – notably the sections on the opening paragraph – before proceeding, over the past four weeks, with an exceptional number of edits that ignored long-standing discussion and evidence presented on the Talk page and adjusted these and other sections of the page in spite of prior, reasoned debate by myself and others on the Talk page.

OTHER CONDUCT

I also note that:

- notwithstanding Arllaw's recent provision of rationales for edits, Arllaw's past comments on the Talk page have frequently been personal, rather than content-focused – attacking more than one editor and accusing me or others of conduct such as ‘policing’ the page which, I believe, reflects Arllaw's conduct if anyone’s;

- Arllaw ‘followed’ me to this and other Misplaced Pages pages, following some comments I made on the Parental Alienation Syndrome page, and has consistently and repeatedly undone accurate edits I have made on these pages;

- Arllaw has made a number of comments on the Talk page, and edits of the article, that indicate significant misunderstanding of the topic, including, but not limited to a mistaken belief that the term Parental Alienation is not derived from the term Parental Alienation Syndrome, and a mistaken belief that ‘alienation’ refers to a broad range of instances where children reject a parent rather than the specific phenomenon of a child being psychologically manipulated into unwarranted rejection of a parent and others. Many of Arllaw's edits continue to reflect these and other significant misunderstandings, making consensus exceptionally hard to reach;

- Arllaw's edits also seem to have a primary aim of casting doubt on the phenomenon of Parental Alienation and on focusing on the controversy that surrounded the related term Parental Alienation Syndrome back in the 1980s and 90s, while suggesting that this (rather than focusing on the characteristics of the phenomenon we're describing) represents an NPOV;

It has become impossible to edit this article (which I've been involved with for several years, with a number of other editors agreeing positively with my contributions) in the face of someone whose comments indicate an inaccurate understanding, or even lack of acceptance of, this phenomenon; makes extreme numbers of edits on an almost daily basis; and won’t countenance the edits that I (and others) put forward often with detailed prior discussion on the Talk page. I have avoided making any edits for several weeks to avoid contributing to what appears to me to be ongoing, edit warring conduct. I hope this matter can be resolved. Thank you. Skythrops (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

None of that is accurate. Discussion was made of closing past discussions which overlapped ongoing discussion, to which only one editor commented and those comments were respected. The one editor who consistently sided with @Skythrops: disappeared from the talk page after revealing himself to be editing under multiple accounts. Skythrops made a number of inappropriate personal attacks on the talk page, as he continues to do here, and it was not unreasonable to suggest that he stop doing within the context of trying to get the discussion back on track. Other editors have participated in discussion, and the most recent NPOV discussions kicked off when another editor (who is a subject matter expert) raised the issue. I have not "followed" Skythrops anywhere. Considerable advance notice was given of recent changes, which are both appropriate under Misplaced Pages policy and were made following proposals to which no objections were made. Nobody owns articles here, no mater how many edits they have made in the past, and editors' strong personal feelings about a subject don't trump efforts to improve an article or achieve NPOV. Arllaw (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No violation – The diffs provided above are from mid-August and they are not even edits by User:Arllaw, so no violation has been shown. The talk page reveals a lot of disagreement. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the talk page or follow one of the other methods of WP:Dispute resolution. User:Arllaw has been putting closure boxes on discussion threads and it is not obvious that these closures enjoy consensus. An RFC benefits from an external closer and this can avoid some issues, such as one editor declaring victory based only on an incomplete discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:You Persian reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: Blocked)

Page

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

You Persian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC) to 13:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914630870 by SharabSalam (talk) You are both one"
2. 13:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914628293 by Benyamin-ln (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC) to 13:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Dont repeat sources in the lead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

30 edits 80% of them are edit warring and adding this in Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been likened to ISIS by many Iranians and foreign governments. Many countries believe that this government provides financial and weapon support to the terrorists. Also, It has good relations with China and Russia. No source and not a neutral point of view. SharabSalam (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

See also their comment in the edit summary Special:Diff/914632458, it shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia and also accusing me of using two accounts while reverting them.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Special:diff/914633192. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please continue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Persian (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Another revert, Special:Diff/914636073.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Already blocked N.J.A. | talk 15:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kbb2 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result:Warned)

Page

Geneva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kbb2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC) to 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 01:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914522400 by ZH8000 (talk) disruptive editing"
   2. 01:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914537793 by Kbb2 (talk) per WP:3RR, I've already started a discussion on the talk page"
   3. 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "respellings should follow the pronunciation respelling key, if you want to challenge it make a thread on Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key]"
2. 21:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC) "see the first note @ Help:Pronunciation respelling key, this is fine"
3. 12:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC) "rv, this is correct"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Geneva. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* English pronunciation */"
2. 14:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* English pronunciation */"
3. 14:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* English pronunciation */"
4. 14:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* English pronunciation */"

Comments:

You do realize the first revert (at 12:13, 7 September) is a self-rv and one to the version before he arrived at the article, right? Not sure how that counts (WP:3RRNO). Nardog (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't broken the 3RR, I've only reverted you twice (self-reverts don't count here). The third revert happened after I advised you to take the issue to Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key. The fact that you said that you're not challenging the PRK and yet you've just reported me makes no sense to be honest. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page did obviously not result in a concensus, but you decided to revert it back, nevertheless. I am still expecting and missing a source for your claim (I wrote twice I do not challenge the PRK). Urging me to move to another talk page is just tactical skirmish. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll let admins deal with this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really, it’s just where you are supposed to be discussing a change like that. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kbb2 & ZH8000 it seems calmer now - Have you both decided to stop edit warring and use talk pages to resolve? I hope so, otherwise the page will be fully protected and or block(s) issued. N.J.A. | talk 15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bmarashian03 reported by User:AbhiMukh97 (Result: 48hr)

Page

X-Men (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bmarashian03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC) to 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 08:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on X2 (film). (TW)"
2. 08:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on X-Men: The Last Stand. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• uninvolved comment it would seem the reported User:Bmarashian03 has reverted once and the reporter User:AbhiMukh97 has reverted twice. No 3RR-violation and the reporter at least as much at fault. Jeppiz (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48hr for disruptive edits / warring. N.J.A. | talk 15:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Hyperbolick (Result: No violation)

Page: Varadaraja V. Raman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:02, 5 September 2019 (precedes 3RR period, but first removal of content, for context)
2. 16:02, 9 September 2019
3. 16:30, 9 September 2019
4. 16:45, 9 September 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred in the edit summaries. Comments: Reference to the Raja Rao Award has been in the article since its creation in 2009. Discussion should precede its removal.

• Clueless behavior is not welcome in an ACDS governed area. He has been in the process of adding anything and everything to this article, to save it from deletion, despite being rejected by nearly everybody at the AfD. Some self-retrospection on why his multiple additions have been reverted by at-least two other editors and failed to persuade a lot more over the AfD, is called for. ∯WBG 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You have no excuse. You recite policy left and right and knew you were in 3RR violation when you did it. Yet you chose to violate. Seems your summary here forgets that the content you complain of was already on the page for ten years before I ever touched it. As to AfD, participants there have specifically requested more sources which I am providing as requested, despite your sole effort to stymie discussion through indiscriminate deletion. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

    Thank you, you amuse me. ∯WBG 17:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Block should be a week. He knows better. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

      Why not a month? ∯WBG 17:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

      • Would do you good. This must be stressful for you. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

        I see that you are into stress-counselling as a part-time gig. In the meantime, how about learning to indent properly? ∯WBG 17:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No violation. Enough. Anyway, you need four reverts to violate 3RR. Please continue to use the article talk page often (maybe even more often) — without, however, resorting to personal comments or the casting of aspersions, Hyperbolick. El_C 18:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Been provoked. Expertly, I might add. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AndrewKkh reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: 24 hours Unblocked)

Page

Pillars of Hercules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914719736 by Crossroads1 (talk) Providing a pertinent quote is not original research. Perhaps you could read the article you linked and find out. It’s also irresponsible to remove my edit, and leave in what was under it, “which in effect placed it in the unknown” which is original research, and based on the direct quote, essentially false."
2. 22:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914661572 by Crossroads1 (talk) Is there an issue with direct Plato quotes on the topic of the article? “per Doug Weller” is not a justification, as he removed a different edit, for a valid reason (original research). Please read edits before you remove them."
3. 15:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Added pertinent information"
4. 15:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Added pertinent information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:13, 8 September 2019

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An IP added the material originally, and this user's 4 reverts are above. It has been more than 24 hours technically, but I think their intentions are clear. They have been warned on their talk page by Doug Weller. The content concerns a quote from Plato, and originally the user included a comment implying Plato knew about America, so there is no reason to discuss something so ridiculous. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Declined. For now. Too many mandatory fields were left blank. I'll give you a chance to correct this. El_C 18:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, that's a good start, but please don't make me look up the Previous version reverted to. El_C 18:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• So sorry! I must have missed it on Twinkle. What is being asked for is the original attempt to add the content correct? -Crossroads- (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 20:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought I looked at everything, but the last field actually remained blank — so that's on me. User unblocked with apologies. And @Crossroads1: why did you even file an AN3 report without attempting to engage the user on the article talk page, where their comment remains unanswered? Next report, please make sure all the mandatory fields are filled. El_C 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've taken people here twice before, and both times the "previous version reverted to" was left blank. Also, in the first one the attempt to resolve on talk field was left blank, and in the second, the warning attempt was left blank. None of this was a problem, and blocks were doled out both times. I didn't know these fields were strictly mandatory. I'll be more careful to fill them all out in the future. Sorry this was such a mess. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:BE8B:DF00:F9ED:7C43:79CF:5B3D reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page

Scarlett (video game player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FCC8:BE8B:DF00:F9ED:7C43:79CF:5B3D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC) to 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "/* StarCraft II */"
   2. 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC) to 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
4. 02:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Important notice regarding your edits to Scarlett (video game player) */ new section"
2. 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Scarlett (video game player). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• The topic has been discussed at Talk:Scarlett_(video_game_player)#Gender.

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Generic515 reported by User:Cobblet (Result: )

Page: Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Generic515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
After three reverts by Generic515 and myself, my attempt to start a discussion on the talk page was immediately met with personal attacks. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Going by Generic515's broken english. It's likely he's a minor, english isn't his first language or there's a competency problem. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lmatt reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked)

Page

8chan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "reword"
2. 21:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "restore some prior wording"
3. 19:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "reverted addition of Template:Antisemitism as the article does not currently explain how 8chan is linked to antisemitism, 8chan is apparently linked to the alt-right which is why it is listed in the Alt-right navbox"
4. 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "restore good-faith edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 8chan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Antisemitism template */ Reply"

Comments:

Lmatt listed three reverts at Talk:8chan#Antisemitism template, but then blew past 3RR anyway. Lmatt is blanking further attempts at discussion from at least two editors. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• It appears Lmatt self-reverted as I was filing this. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• And then restored the edit anyway. Alright. Grayfell (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Choy4311 reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: )

Page: Davao City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Choy4311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user is trying to remove the thing Davao is most known for from the lead. I warned him about long-term edit warring. zzz (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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