Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:00, 14 December 2015 editTerrible towel7 (talk | contribs)18 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 00:02, 14 December 2015 edit undoTerrible towel7 (talk | contribs)18 edits →User: reported by User:Terrible towel7 (Result: )Next edit →
Line 524: Line 524:
***I was thinking that warning both users that they should take it to the talk page without making any further reverts (lest they actually ''be'' blocked) would have achieved the same goal without somewhat blocking the page for other editors. But I suppose it's not a very high-traffic page. ] (]) 22:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ***I was thinking that warning both users that they should take it to the talk page without making any further reverts (lest they actually ''be'' blocked) would have achieved the same goal without somewhat blocking the page for other editors. But I suppose it's not a very high-traffic page. ] (]) 22:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|As'ad AbuKhalil}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|As'ad AbuKhalil}} <br />

Revision as of 00:02, 14 December 2015

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    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

    User:Lauren55 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: protected, warned)

    Page
    Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lauren55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I edited words that did not express truth or relevance. I edited negative criticism that belongs on a critics page. This is a page of facts and I am attempting to honour the integrity of Misplaced Pages."
    2. 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I removed a misleading peicee of information that did not give us any insight to the subject. The page is about a Dr and not a place to write slanderous rubbish. That should be left for a gossip magazine. The information lacked integrity and quite simp..."
    3. 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I improved the page by removing a negative critique about his work. There are no positive critiques and it is not a place to write a critique. I improved the page by removing the argument. This is a well respected Dr and I do not believe denigrating hi..."
    4. 10:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I have stated previously. Thanks."
    5. 10:36 10 December 2015 (UTC) "See before"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Newbie SPA who needs educating enough to discuss, rather than edit war. She is inserting a non NPOV. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Bianbum reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    5. (the same edit mentioned below by Dan Eisenberg)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    (Yes, I know that the initial edit that added this material and the fourth reversion were done by unregistered or logged out editors but I'm completely confident in labeling them sockpuppets given the complete overlap in the edits of those accounts and the editor in question. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC))

    I'm also an editor involved in this and note that there is an additional diff since this has been posted: . I also note that this Bianbum has wasted other editors time on similar edits from the same linked in source in the past. I hope you can help us out with this one.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the help here. It appears that another sockpuppet of this user is user:79.33.94.69 who has continued to edit on the page in question. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've now semiprotected Turnitin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:82.19.126.221 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: Semi)

    Page: National Front (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:


    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:

    single purpose editor using multiple IPs, this has been going on a while, tendentious effort to downplay use of "far-right" descriptor in reference to Front National. Ignores all sources. Also misattributing and removing citations, while failing to provide WP:RS to demonstrate contrary minority view. Semitransgenic talk. 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    • Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page should be used to reach consensus on what terminology is best for this political party. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm the IP user in question here. I haven't made any attempt to downplay the use of 'far-right' at all. I accept this should be in the article. The issue at hand is that the user 'Semitransgenic' continues to revert mine (and other people's edits long before me), that the exclusive use of 'far right' is contentious - using her own logic/methodology of citing sources, and using common sense. I have made repeated attempts to field for some feedback on this from the user but she hasn't given any. In addition, she has now blanked her Talk page which previously showed nothing but a history of petty edit wars and bans from Misplaced Pages. It's unfortunate you chose to lock it without looking at the user's Talk page or your editing history first, but I suppose you're quite busy. 86.161.48.241 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Wikitrueplus/User:Mavsfernandez" reported by User:Elockid (Result: )

    Page: Ilocano language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikitrueplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Mavsfernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. As Mavsfernandez
    2. As Wikitrueplus
    3. Revert 3
    4. Revert 4
    5. Revert 5
    6. Revert 6

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Wikitrueplus appears to have abandoned their old account, Mavsfernandez. Listing them both here since they've both engage in edit warring. Not yet really edit warring, but this user has been engaging some of the same activity on Pangasinan language. This user has been POV pushing to promote the Pangasinan language/people. This can be seen in the diffs supplied for the article Ilocano language in which they keep re-adding "which is unfair" to the article. He/she has been using false edit summaries in a number of articles with Ilocano language being the most to stand out. He/she claims to be reverting vandalism (see diffs above) but the edits are not vandalism.

    When warned by another user, he/she changed the message. Elockid 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


    User:62.155.205.3 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: )

    Page
    Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    62.155.205.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:26, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "revert addition of unrelated and unclear statement about a different resistance movement."
    2. 13:16, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Weird sentence (are all resistance movements mundane, communist or non-autonomic by default?), and does not belong in the lede of an entirely different resistance movement."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:17, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Explained the need for consensus before removal of sourced text content Dan Koehl (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    No, he didn't explain anything. He left a template on my talk page that does not apply (because I did leave an explanation), and does not contain a warning (or indeed mention) about edit warring or 3RR, and does not contain anything related to consensus.
    Instead of discussing the merits, we now find ourselves here.-62.155.205.3 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:190.215.31.237 reported by User:174.23.100.137 (Result: )

    Page: Dodge Ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 190.215.31.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    So 3RR is not broken yet, but this kind of disruption is continuing by this same user on other articles:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Comments:

    Happy Christmas, guys! 174.23.100.137 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Semitransgenic reported by User:Phatwa (Result: Fully protected)

    Page: National Front (France) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Semitransgenic reverts any changes that make any mention of 'right wing' and prefers the term 'far-right' exclusively, which is dubious and part of an ongoing discussion, that has indeed been flagged with dubious-inline to field discussions. Note that the 'right to far-right' claim that Semitransgenic keeps reverting, has has been in place for some time.

    Also, Semitransgenic has managed to obtain a month long semi-protected lock status on this article here, but the primary IP user that was reported to obtain this lock, is bogus:

    This above IP user has never been involved in editing this article. It's a different user altogether with a history of defacing articles, but not this one, so the semi-perm lock may be dubiously obtained. Might I point out that Semitransgenic themselves has a colourful history of edit wars and blocks on Misplaced Pages, and blanked their Talk page before filing a report here. Phatwa (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Page protected for a period of 1 week – If warring continues after protection expires, blocks may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:NobleHumanBeing reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:Blocked per WP:NLT )

    Page
    Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    NobleHumanBeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Do not revert constructive edits with refs without an edit summary. Undid revision 694808961 by Doc9871 (talk)"
    2. 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: do not revert well-referenced texts with blank edit summariesUndid revision 694808651 by Doc9871 (talk)"
    3. 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Do not revert text with references with edit summaries that are empty or obviously false. Undid revision 694808318 by Doc9871 (talk)"
    4. 18:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: No personal attacks Undid revision 694807733 by Doc9871 (talk)"
    5. 18:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page, Doc. This is cited. Our readers have a right to knowUndid revision 694806856 by Doc9871 (talk)"
    6. 17:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Per consensus in talk page, I have added the reference to trump qua ethnic cleansing"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694742290 by Checkingfax (talk)"
      2. 06:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "This is sourced. You cannot revert me and say "citation needed" when you see very well I added the citation. Undid revision 694740976 by Checkingfax (talk)"
    8. Consecutive edits made from 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Fraudulent edit summary on the previous revert. I did add the citation. Undid revision 694741582 by Checkingfax (talk)"
      2. 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694741836 by Checkingfax (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Out of control edit-warring by this user adding controversial BLP information. Dr. K. 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Definitely over 3RR, but so is Doc9871, for that matter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    I am not a sock of a blocked user, so 3RR was not violated by me. Doc talk 18:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • You are distorting the situation. Doc8971 illegally reverted my edits without an edit summary. As for the earlier one on Checkingfax, that was only one reversion, but I had to revert 6 of his intermediate edits to restore my edit.i reverted Checkingfax because he supplied a wrong edit summary saying "citation needed." Not noticing the citation, I assume. I made a mistake in trying to revert the edit the first time, and you will see Checkingfax tells me to just re-submit it again, which I did. As for Doc89, If I am accused of edit warring, why not Doc? Firstly, All I did was revert his edit, which violated rules by not supplying an edit summary, and engaged in personal attack. He isn't allowed to just delete my good-faith referenced additions without supplying a reason, and so I was fully in my rights to revert his game-playing. Everything I added was sourced, and he just kept personally attacking and blanking my edits without explanation. Also, this was discussed on the talk page. And the information I was replacing was unsourced, so if you restore that version of the article, it is YOU who will be violating BLP. It is not a violation of BLP to report what news outlets have said about a political candidate. Please. NobleHumanBeing (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Blocked per WP:NLT, per this edit. Regardless of the ability of the person to do so, the person is clearly trying to use the threat of legal action (as unlikely as may be) to force others to do what he wants. Clearly a violation of WP:NLT. --Jayron32 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:81.44.196.128 reported by User:NottNott (Result: Semi)

    Page
    Don't Hug Me I'm Scared (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    81.44.196.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Clearly same user as User_talk:88.24.197.227. User has reverted my edit four times, and after messaging the user there's no interest in talking the edit out or seeking a consensus about the edit. NottNott talk|contrib 17:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    I did forget to send the user a warning however. NottNott talk|contrib 17:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Amerijuanican reported by User:HLGallon (Result: blocked)

    Page: Siege of Fort Erie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. - insertion of irrelevant non-sequitur into lead
    2. - some trite additions to the info. box (totting up casualties to arrive at a total) but also WP:SNEAKY insertion of the same irrelevancies into the lead
    3. - copypasted sentences from body of article, with cites, into lead to claim sources for edit to support WP:EDITWAR in War of 1812
    4. - with claim that the editor's repeated edits have consensus, constituting a personal attack in reason for edit

    Page: Capture of HMS Penguin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. - large amount of unsourced purple prose, all in the lead
    2. - original research and very unclear wording
    3. - revert, with addition of waffle
    5. - original research and waffle
    6. - ditto
    7. - meaningless waffle
    8. - more waffle
    9. - unsourced original research in lead again

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. - added large number of claims to lead, mostly not discussed in the main body of the article
    2. - straightforward revert
    3. - unsourced claims, in lead again
    4. - innocuous, though some unnecessary verbiage
    5. - original research change to cited casualty figures (a sourced figure plus or minus an unsourced figure is unsourced)
    6. - unsourced claims in lead
    7. - reinserted same unsourced material
    8. - straightforward revert
    9. - pretty straightforward revert
    10. - copypasted sentences from lead of article on Siege of Fort Erie (which User:Amerijuanican added) in attempt to claim sourcing


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: User:Amerijuanican is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Editing_Net, globally blocked on 21 June 2015 for edit-warring and disruptive editing on these same articles, and in turn a sockpuppet of User:UnbiasedVictory, blocked on 22 April 2014 for edit-warring and disruptive editing... The current edits pass the duck test easily. In particular: edits to info. boxes and article leads almost exclusively; repeated original research and unsourced claims; pointless "churning" edits of stable articles; refusal to Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass when an edit is pointed out to be in contradiction of WP policies or unnecessary. I and several other editors are heartily sick of having to revert or heavily modify edits made with machine-gun rapidity and clearly original research or contradictory or unnecessary. Given that this editor has been active (and disruptive) for over two years, and has shown no sign of recognising WP:V and WP:NOR, discussion or warnings are pointless.

    HLGallon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:93.109.250.94 reported by User:Thakaran (Result: )

    Page: Larnaca International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 93.109.250.94 (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: I used the user's talk page but he deleted the section I had created after replying. Here it is, a couple days ago:

    Comments:
    The user has deleted the Citation Needed tags I had added, along with other valid changes I had made, in the past too. A quick look on the article's edit history will provide a good insight on what has been going on. Thakaran (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Update: He just deleted the subst:an3-notice I had added: Thakaran (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Beyers31 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Beyers31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elon_Musk#Canadian_citizen

    Comments:

    In his four-month career here, user has already been indeffed once for nationality edit-warring. He was unblocked after five weeks on the condition that he not nationality war on film articles. This new edit-warring seems to be a continuation of his nationality warring, transferred from film articles to BLPs. He has had every policy explained to him several times. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    By the way, since this is merely a re-acceleration of his U.S. nationality-warring, I'm taking the liberty of pinging the original blocker and unblocker, EdJohnston and MSGJ. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    The last AN3 (which led to the indef) was at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive291#User:Beyers31 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Indef). There was also a lengthy discussion at User talk:Beyers31 which admins might look at, regarding the unblock. I would favor restoring the indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Saff V. reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: )

    Page
    Mujeer Du'a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Saff V. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695027404 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
    2. 07:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695025660 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
    Comments:

    Blindly adds information that is from highly unreliable sources/ is not even in the sources mentioned. Removed tags from the article as well. Seems to lack competency in English as well so adds complete gibberish to the article as well. Displays incompetency as he is unable to understand what exactly a "self published" book is. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    I undid deleted text that deleted without any reason and I undid it and put a new section in the talk page. But FreeatlastChitchat undid when the discussion was open in the talk page. Also, I undid the text 2 times and I think that FreeatlastChitchat like edit war because he or she delete the text without reasons.Saff V. (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    He/she has done three reverts. You have done two. Neither of you have broken the three-revert rule.
    Please could you widen the discussion at Talk:Mujeer Du'a#Mass deletion so that other people can understand your points of disagreement. It would help a lot if you made a list of the sources, and then explain one-source-at-a-time what your objection to that source is. If you are saying that the publisher makes the source unreliable, then please share with us your reasoning; for example if the publisher offers to publish books in return for money from the author, say so, and give links to a page where the publisher is offering these services.
    @FreeatlastChitchat: Do you have any examples of "complete gibberish"? Please could you quote them on the article talk page. It is possible that the other editor is in battleground mode and simply cannot understand that what he/she has written is difficult to understand.
    @FreeatlastChitchat: By the way, have you checked that the sources contain the information that they are provided as citations for? Past experience with Saff V. shows that to be necessary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:WWGB reported by User:Viriditas (Result: )

    Page
    2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    WWGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694998580 by Stefanomione (talk) no, ISIL did not instigate the attack"
    2. 23:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694982252 by Stefanomione (talk) who says?"
    3. 08:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694885827 by Bodhi Peace (talk) widely sourced"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 00:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) to 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
      1. 00:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694803295 by Aarp65 (talk) no consensus to add, see talk page"
      2. 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Syed Rizwan Farook */ this is an article about a shooting, not an extended family biography"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Comments:
    Response:

    I am a very experienced editor in good standing with over 80,000 edits spanning nine years. My edits to 2015 San Bernardino shooting were undertaken to improve the article, and not to advance any personal agenda. I did not engage in an "edit war" in the accepted meaning of that term. No editor whom I reverted complained about my action. For some reason, User:Viriditas has taken a dislike to me (see and ), and I am inclined to think that this complaint is malevolent and mean-spirited. I note the comparison of the accuser's block log with my clean record . I accept the determination of the closing admin, but I am perplexed and saddened at the basis for this complaint. Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Warned Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: Re your message at User talk:WWGB#Edit warring (diff), the 5 December 2015 revision of that page shows a very clear notification, and the edit warring report at 6 December 2015 provides the associated case. It is not reasonable to leave WWGB with the impression that being ultra polite is the only requirement when editing a highly contentious article subject to 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Another thing that I don't consider reasonable is applying WP:1RR sanctions to edits that are neither necessarily related to one another nor to the contentious subject of the sanctions (ISIL). This may follow the letter of these "broadly construed" sanctions but I can't see how it matches the spirit that they should embody. One thing is edit warring over one specific ISIL-related aspect of an article, another is making multiple separate edits related to various details, but to the 1RR reporters, that's not a difference that seems to matter. But what chance do I have for this point of view to prevail, when the latest commentator in my motion about the sanctions even suggests that the one allowed revert is a "freebie", implying that virtually any edit that removes any content would need to be discussed on the talk page before being enacted? LjL (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    WWGB has long been editing to prevent any mention of Muslim, Islamic Terrorism, and ISIL in the article. WWGB refuses to acknowledge that 1RR applies, even though a benefit of 1RR is it controls these POV pushing editors. Given the previous edit warring over the insertion of the 1RR template a warning now based on an assumed lack of knowledge is obviously flawed and I've raised it with the involved Admin. . I'm happy to acknowledge the Admin was missing key info, but if no block is executed I intend to raise the Admin's judgement at an appropriate forum. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: Page protected )

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revert 1
    2. Revert 2
    3. Revert 3

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    I had done revisions to improve some elements in the Bohol page, having edit summaries in each edit. However, User:Unbuttered Parsnip reverted my edits three times with different reasons (as seen in the page History) that leaves me puzzled. My understanding is that if a page could be improved, why should it not? It appears the experienced and veteran user is "playing with the rules" to prevent my revision from being saved on the page. Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    Page protected. No 3rr violation; work it out on the talk page. Ks0stm 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: maybe full protection for 4 days is slightly overkill for a dispute between just two editors. FWIW, I think Unbuttered Parsnip could have been slightly more amicable and justified their reverts, just like the filing editor had tried to justify their obviously good-faith edits with summaries. LjL (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but as both users are autoconfirmed and I'm not inclined to block either user the option left in my toolkit to prevent further edit warring was to fully protect the article. It doesn't necessarily have to be protected the full four days, so long as they come to a consensus on the talk page (or at least an agreement to not make any further reverts until they come to a consensus) I'd be more than happy to unprotect early. Ks0stm 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I was thinking that warning both users that they should take it to the talk page without making any further reverts (lest they actually be blocked) would have achieved the same goal without somewhat blocking the page for other editors. But I suppose it's not a very high-traffic page. LjL (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

    User:Huldra reported by User:Terrible towel7 (Result: )

    Page: As'ad AbuKhalil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695129006&oldid=695128960

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695129006&oldid=695128960
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695128837&oldid=695128823

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695127676&oldid=695127613

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    User Huldra claims I "misquote" author, but it is copied directly from his own page. Then gets in to an editing war. Totally inappropriateTerrible towel7 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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