Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 8 March 2012

• 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:Fama_Clamosa reported by User:Taylornate (Result: declinedboth blocked)

Page: Abductor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fama_Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also on user talk with no response:

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation, but intervention is clearly needed because Fama Clamosa explicitly refuses discussion

About two months ago, I merged about ten articles into one. Fama Clamosa is now reverting my redirects. I initially forgot to redirect Abductor pollicis longus muscle and so I completed it recently. I think because of this he saw it as easier to attack, but he is now reverting redirects on nine articles (listed here), has even blanked the recipient article without stating a reason , and has falsely reported me for vandalism . He has not posted any discussion with his latest round of reverts.--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work if he refuses to communicate? Don't most edit wars involve a dispute of some kind? I'm confused.--Taylornate (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any refusal to discuss. I see two people vehemently disagreeing on the talk page (you pointing to what you claim is a consensus on another talk page, which does not appear to be strong consensus to me). Try WP:RFC first, or try WP:M if that fails; my guess is you two can come to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did dispute this with another user but Fama Clamosa explicitly refused to participate and he is the one reverting now. I thought I gave two diffs showing his refusal, but it looks like I made a mistake on one of them. Here they are again:--Taylornate (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please open an RFC or try mediation. Your consensus is not as elusive as you might think: I see at least one other editor who has reverted you: User:Arcadian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC and mediation are not applicable if both sides aren't willing to participate. Arcadian is refusing to discuss as well, even marking his reverts as minor, and Fama Clamosa is calling me a vandal in edit summaries. If this is not an edit war, what is?--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For quick context, see this. Taylornate is fighting three different editors here, and has already been instructed that he needs to review Misplaced Pages:Merging, both before he started this process and after. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with Misplaced Pages:Merging, my merge was in-line with it, and I've referenced it multiple times in the course of discussion that you are ignoring. The only point relevant to this board is that the editors that disagree with my merge are reverting while refusing to discuss. I won't list here the editors that agree with me because it's irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not comfortable your above use of the word instructed. Do you feel you are in a position to issue instructions to me rather than discuss as a peer?--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fama Clamosa continues to revert and continues to explicitly refuse discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a closer look at the history pages before re-reverting an admin. There is one user that is trying to redirect pages out of existence, and three users (including an admin) trying to stop the destruction of information by restoring the individual muscle pages. If Taylornate really wants to engage in a radical new approach to medical content, s/he would need to generate a far greater consensus before doing so. To the degree that a consensus exists, it is for the preservation of the anatomic content. --Arcadian (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Whether or not the merge should have taken place, and support for or against it, is irrelevant to this board. What is relevant is that even after a block Arcadian continues to revert, to mark the reverts as minor, to refuse to discuss, and believing that as an administrator he has special status in this dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • A few things to note here: 1) Revert warring isn't the proper answer in any case, 2) There is clearly no consensus for the merge - Taylornate is unfortunately just wrong about this - and I note he still hasn't filed an RFC or mediation case and 3) being an administrator doesn't give someone extra clout in a dispute, and using the automatic rollback tool to revert war while engaging in an absolute bare minimum of discussion is terribly unacceptable - unacceptable to the extent that if it continues, he will be on the hook for sanctions according to the last paragraph in the lede of WP:ROLLBACK (I don't say this to shame or threaten him, more as a genuine warning). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • RFC or mediation is obviously the next step, but the first step is getting the opposition to participate in discussion. If they refuse to communicate at all then RFC/mediation is pointless. Anyway, that's my interpretation of it. If you can point out specifically how it could be useful in this situation then I will file.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Just do it. Just open up the RFC and inform them of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Ok, RFC is open.--Taylornate (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Breadbasket reported by User:Yopie (Result: Warned)

Page: Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Breadbasket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:

etc., this was only for last month.

Use Breadbasket is edit warrior in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, and he reverted all reliable sourced criticism about duke. Alexander Montagu was convicted for fraud and bigamous marriage. This info is sourced by articles in The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, Houston Chronicle. OK, these newspapers were not scientific papers, but for informations about living people are sufficient.

Problem is, that any critical information about duke is reverted by Breadbasket, without discussion, explanation etc. I and other users tried to communicate with him, without success. Some diffs of attempts in talk page of the article , and - without any reply. And attempts in his page , he deleted this and new message by other user , again without any reply.

I know, that he is not violating 3RR, but his behaviour is editwarring - reverts without explanation or discussion. We can have different opinions about the duke, but we cannot reach consensus without discussion.

Even in his talkpage was 'We do not wish to receive messages here.Same problem with him have Gareth E Kegg, Bridgetfox and Andy Dingley, so this is not only my personal problem.

Breadbasket was blocked for edit warring in same article .

There is other notice about edit warring of Breadbasket .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , and - without any reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is also a discussion of Breadbasket's editing of this article at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. While Breadbasket has been known to fiercely denounce some of his opponents, he would get more credit if he would actually participate in the discussions of article content. He has been reverting the material he considers unsuitable from this article since September 2011 (which is when he was previously blocked) but he has never posted on the article's talk page. If he would show up to participate in the BLPN thread his BLP objections would be easier to take seriously. He used to edit as User:Aaemn784 but his account was renamed in December 2011.
• This article was placed under full protection for two weeks per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive177#User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: Page protected). In my opinion the admin who closes this case should take adequate steps to ensure that reverting doesn't continue for several more months. Helpful advice has not been working, the full protection didn't have any lasting benefit, and the previous 3RR block does not seem to have had any influence on Breadbasket. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

A quick comment: I am well aware of the 3RR, and I do not violate this rule in ordinary cases. However, the case above (Manchester) is special. When I again and again have reverted contributions and reversions in the duke's article, I have done it based on (my interpretation of) the BLP rules (i.e. that the 3RR does not apply to critical BLP issues), which say:

‘Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.’

I do not agree that I allegedly only wish positive content. The fact is that of the present contributors, I am probably the one who for the longest time has followed that article. I know and have seen things that the recently arrived contributors haven't. For example, when I discovered the article, there were absurd sentences like 'In 1992, when still married to X, he married, bigamously, Y'(!). If the article looks relatively clean now, it is not the others' merit, but mine. It was ten times worse than now.

As the history section's edit summaries show, I have several times requested a relevant context. This has not happened; instead, they have, despite the rules, reinserted the same, biassed/exaggerated content. One cannot just drop tabloid oneliners like that and as ‘documentation’ provide a link to the Daily Mail; such serious claims should be presented from at least two points of view (if available) and as soberly as possible. For example, has the duke commented on the bigamy? If yes, why do these contributors not include it in the article, thus making the presentation wider? The BLP rules state the difference between encyclopedic and tabloid:

‘Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.’

Conserning my nine(?) reverts above: I think that it is important to distinguish between good-faith reverts removing ‘potentially defamatory material about living persons’ (like mine) and reverts that obviously are purely non-corporating or destructive. I may agree that I early should have brought the whole case to the BLP noticeboard, but this article is not within my primary field of interest, so I don't want to engage myself too much in it, and a good, solid discussion would demand much more time than I have.

(P.S. Yopie is known at the Misplaced Pages King of Reverts. I also experience him as notoriously dishonest in his argumentation and his presentation of fact. I do not agree with his description above.)

Greetings,

 — Breadbasket 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If a 'good solid discussion would demand much more time than you have' it is surprising that you have time to continue reverting the article. You've been continuing a campaign of reverts for several months. (This issue was the reason for your block for edit warring back in September). It seems to be generally agreed that the statements about Montagu are true and well-sourced, and what remains is a question of relevance and how to word the article in the best way. Removal of true and well-sourced statements from a BLP is not an exception to 3RR. If you continue to revert without getting consensus for your changes you are risking a block. You still have made no comment in the BLPN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait. The potentially defamatory material should never have be reinserted in unedited form in the first place. Even a high school pupil understands that serious cases need a neutral, many-aspected context. It is not a question whether the statements are ‘true and well-sourced’ (but ‘well-sourced’ may be discussed), but about how they are presented. Read also the following in the BLP rules:

‘Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Misplaced Pages article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Misplaced Pages article to support the original edit.’

This is not a case about what I allegedly have done to make the article worse, but what other contributors have done to make it better,—and the answer is: nothing. They have not provided (Misplaced Pages requires this) a context that could make the presentation more balanced. They have not even attempted to see or to accept the several-times explained problems in the article. But why? A comment from one of the many revert-contributors might give an idea of their mentality and incentives: Thank you so much for reinstating the only interesting part of the Alexander Montagu article. I shall back you up if needs be. Keep up your great editing. Gareth E Kegg. Many of the contributors are simply non-encyclopedic.

Will an administrator please enter the discussion?

 — Breadbasket 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm an administrator. Admins are expected to decide at this noticeboard whether reverts are allowed under the WP:BLP policy, and your reverts are not. Your critical opinion of the other editors is not germane. It's your job to convince them, and you've made no effort to do do. You've never commented on the article talk page or at BLPN. If you continue to revert the article without getting consensus, you may be blocked by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I had intended to suggest that the case was ended by agreeing that I would stay away from further reverting, and the warning may well be considered as a such solution.

If I had time, I should have shown for example how, before the reverts escalated, BLP tags added by me systematically were removed. Also peerage-relevant information has been removed (I assume that his notability is based on the peerage), for example when I added that the duke also is the 16th Earl of Manchester.

The article is still not neutral. The responsibility lies on them who add content. They have several times been told that content must be (1) neutral and (2) placed in a descriptive context, but they have reinserted the content unedited. These two factors are basic in any serious encyclopedia. I also strongly doubt that the Daily Mail is a reliable source, and I have therefore, earlier, claimed that there should be at least one additional—and intellectually independent—source confirming a claim.

 — Breadbasket 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: (for 1st and 2nd revert), (for 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Editor raised the issue of Bangladesh Genocide on Pakistan's talk and while discussing he/she kept on undoing other editors edits related to this content dispute. He/She was warned by User:TopGun of the 3RR in the same discussion. --SMS 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I've probably become too involved with JCAla to hand out any blocks or decline them at this point.
• Statement: The first revert isn't a revert at all, but simply an action (unless I'm wrong, but you haven't pointed to an old version reverted to). The second and third reverts were definitely inappropriate. The final one wasn't edit warring, rather just BRD (thus, assuming I'm wrong about the first revert, this was a technical 3RR violation but not a violation in spirit). Thus, IMO, only the second and third were inappropriate edits.
• Suggestion: I think JCAla and TopGun need to have an interaction ban as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a single revert and left a civil warning. He reverted 3 users. So don't start on me when ever someone becomes disruptive. This content was introduced inspite of 2 additional editors (+ those reverting) opposing the content on talk page. Not BRD, JCAla changed the content (that too actually knowing that there was no consensus since he had started a talk page discussion along with it). This is the revert to an old version to the first edit by the way . --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't starting on you at all - I was recommending an interaction ban, because I think you don't work with each other any better than you and Darkness shines do. What's your issue that you would respond so defensively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because me and JCAla can probably both show you diffs where we have simply agreed (even though he usually just opposes me). It's just that this article started facing this editwar right after I nominated for FAC. There have been some previous hindrance and socking to disrupt the FAC before its nomination too by another user. Your comment suggesting interaction ban implies that it is due to my involvement with JCAla which is not the case. To prevent any stereotyping I didn't file here for a 3RR violation instead told an involved user who did some rephrases to fix. Now another user (rightly) makes the report... that was due. I think that was enough to suggest collaboration on my part. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1) About the supposed reverts, which were none. Also note that some of the above diffs used by User:Smsarmad have been manipulated to make it look like a general revert when it wasn't one.

• About the first diff: This is a single action, no revert at all.

• About the second diff: Compare this actual edit as of 07:51, 1 March 2012 to this the diff given by SMS. On content, someone opposed to simply use the wikilink Bangladesh Liberation War as it is and as I had suggested and he replaced it with "armed conflict". I did not revert back to "Bangladesh Liberation War" but instead made the suggestion to use "civil war" instead as it was indeed a civil war. So no revert here. This was the edit in which I added totally new content for the very first time! So no revert either.

• About the third diff: This is the one in which actually TG interacted with me as he had reverted my new additions. The diff provided by SMS is, however, again a manipulated one. Compare this actual edit as of 09:34, 1 March 2012 to the diff given by SMS. This was my actual reaction to TopGun's general revert. I restored the non-controversial content of my edit and left the rest to be discussed on the talk page. So, yes, this one was one partial revert. That's not an offense in any case.

• About the fourth diff: This was a single BRD objection to a single sentence of Regentspark's rephrasing - and in the course of that day he rephrased many sentence which I made no reverts to. Actually - BRD textbook style - we both discussed that very productively afterwards on the talk and he changed it taking my reasons into full account. And I let other things of him stand, that I didn't fully agree with. So that discussion is already solved.

=> All in all, i count 1 1/2 reverts, one partial revert restoring the non-controversial part of my edit as a reaction to a general revert of my whole edit by TopGun. And one rejection of one - out of many that day - rephrasing by RegentsPark which was very productively discussed afterwards and which has long been solved.

2) I don't think I need an interaction ban on anyone as I have dealt with everyone appropriately in the recent past. At the article history you can also see that, in fact, I was mostly interacting with User:RegentsPark, not with User:TopGun (only one interaction with him there). I, however, want to point out that I do not find this report anything close to appropriate for several reasons:

• I was not notified.
• This attempt came just hours before this report.
• This connection.

Thanks and yes, I am tired of this drama also. Regards, JCAla (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I admit my report was not that well written, I have amended it (Previous version). @JCAla Sorry for not informing you, I got disconnected (after filing the report) and was out of town for the last three days with no access to Misplaced Pages, so was not able to inform you. And I don't get what do you mean by other two of your concerns. I would like you to explain these more if you want my response on these. --SMS 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, your current report makes even less sense than the previous one, and I currently do not have the time to again put all those manipulated diffs which try to paint a picture that doesn't exist into the right perspective. On March 1, the Pakistan article underwent a major rephrasing effort with regards to Bangladesh. There was a lot of editing, rephrasing and discussing and I mainly interacted with User:RegentsPark. We discussed very productively and since March 1, his version including some of my input stands. The issue has long been solved and the article is stable. I don't think anyone wants to hear my explaining of why I think this report was made by you. People can think for themselves given the links I provided above. JCAla (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not infer any "connection" from any userpage comments, infact you did show I was the one contacting RegentsPark who did the rephrase instead of actually reporting you to prevent such allegations. The edits in question here are solely your edits. The discussion did take place but you added the content clearly opposed in that discussion anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You being here, speaks for itself. RegentsPark came to that article before you went to his talk. Even Magog has stated the same opinion as me about two of the four manipulated diffs (of the original report version which were interestingly also used exactly the same way by you on Regents' talk). Leaves me with 1 1/2 actual reverts and Regents' version stands stable for 5 days now. I won't waste any further time on this. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Liamfoley reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liamfoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: ]
• 2nd revert: ]
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] and ]

Comments:

1rr applies on abortion-related articles. User was just blocked two days ago for editwarring on same article (same revert as now). User also seems to have created a sock-puppet and made a rv using that account: ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Two clear reverts (continued from the previous edit war); editor clearly aware of the 1RR on the article, having been blocked for the same reason two days ago. Kuru (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments:
.The article like all other WP:ARBPIA articles under 1RR rule.This user has broken it and refused to revert.They have history of edit waring.Should probably be warned about WP:ARBPIA sanctions too.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Clear violation; warned and given an opportunity to self-revert. Kuru (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Demdem reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Comments:
This user delete fragment of article without consensus. In the description of the changes I exactly explained (3 times) to him - did not help. I am 100% sure that when I go back his edit, he reverted me, again. He does not respect the rules of 3RR, again. Recidivism. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected I would consider this a clear continuation of the edit war that took place in 2010. As there are two parties in violation, I've protected the page for three days to encourage you to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. Further blind reverts or accusations of "vandalism" after the protection expires will likely lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:14.99.234.43 (Result: Stale)

Page: Charles Dickens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

There is a discussion going on the talk page with five-six users involved. All others except this user have agreed that the content is undue and doesnt belong in the article. But he is refusing to listen and is repeatedly inserting the content even after five/six people are reverting him. There is a long discussion in the talk page spanning multiple sections. He is doing it despite the consensus there. He is being careful to avoid the 3RR/24 hour limit, (reverts about once a day) but is continuously edit warring for a few weeks now. A look at his talk page reveals severe POV issues and he has been reported to ANI before. He is also currently edit warring in other articles.--14.99.234.43 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Stale. Should the edit war start again, please do feel free to re-report. Salvio 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hibrido Mutante reported by User:Maunus (Result: 31 hours)

Page: John Searle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hibrido Mutante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (not logged in)
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (not logged in)
• 5th revert: (not logged in)
• 6th revert:
• 8th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is a new and potentially valuable contributor who just needs and administratopr to explain to him how we work by consensus and how we decide what goes into articles and what doesn't. Basically I am not asking for any sanction, just that someone reverts and explains him not to editwar when there is no consensus to include.

Update: He is arguing on talkpage but incoherently, and without responding to concerns expressed by three other editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: This notice board isn't worth much...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:OwenReeceBaines reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: No talk discussion needed because user has been warned on talk page about the specific action (deleting AfD notices). User talk:OwenReeceBaines#AFD_template Removal of AfD templates is generally not a topic for article talk pages, but for user pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tom Morris Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rjpsingh reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day)

Page: House of Tulsipur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjpsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: from here onwards on the user talk page, and subsequently (but after their last revert) on mine. The last edit summary above confirms that they edited while logged out, and their entire user talk page has numerous notes regarding this article. I also did put stuff on the article talk page and think that the respondent is the same person, again editing while logged out.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of A day Salvio 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lazyfoxx reported by User:Shrike (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: .There are currently discussion goes on article talk page.Talk:Jesus#Jesus:_A_Palestinian_Jew

Comments:
The user tries to add the word Palestinian and edit waring in other articles too ,.In my opinion he use it as WP:COATRACK to his views about I/P conflict.--Shrike (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I would normally block 24 hours for a first time, but Lazyfoxx's edit warring is particularly toxic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it particularly toxic? S/he's engaged in talk throughout and presented reliable sources for the changes being made. And are all the diffs listed revert or attempts to include compromise formulations. Is it the content you find to be problematic? Tiamut

The second edit cited as a "revert" here isn't one and was described by one of the editors vehemently opposed to adding "Palestinian" as a good move. Please note that Shrike hasn't attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page at all and instead chose to run over here to file a report. I see two reverts above, not four. The sanction is pure overkill. Tiamut 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion has moved to User talk:Lazyfoxx. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:LucMar reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:User has been warned, I have used the talk page, etc. I'm passing the ball down to your side of the field now. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. That way everyone will be forced to discuss. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blade.--MarshalN20 | 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22:10, 4 March 2012 (Deleted Controversial Claim)
• 2nd revert: 23:39, 4 March 2012 (Undid revision 480228718 by The Four Deuces (talk))
• 3rd revert: 00:11, 5 March 2012 (What do you mean "Restoring Talk Page Wording"???)
• 4th revert: 16:13, 5 March 2012
• 5th revert: 18:55, 5 March 2012 (Slimmed it down further for you)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:51, 5 March 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:47, 5 March 2012

Comments:

I filed a report on this editor for edit-warring on the same article on February 1st. However the report was archived before any action was taken. TFD (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Have added a 5th revert made after this report was filed. TFD (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Five reverts (material beginning with "generally...") in 24 hours; clearly warned. Kuru (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinh1985 and User:78.24.20.115 reported by User:Nuno93 (Result: page protected)

Page: Estadio Centenario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinh1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78.24.20.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (IP user)
• 4th revert: (IP user)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and for IP user (link to talk page, first edition in it).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (on an old discussion page, Martinh1985 started it there)

Comments:
There was a discussion recently on the spanish wiki which resulted in removing the "tenants" part of the infobox and making a more precise description of the matter with a text in the article.--Nuno93 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Protected the page to encourage the discussion; the last edit looked like a good attempt at compromise, but the previous reverting back and forth did not appear productive. Kuru (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.59.28.19 reported by User:Taylornate (Result: warned)

Page: Nursing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.59.28.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I freshly added the 3RR warning, but see 4 related previous warnings.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple warnings on user talk page.

Comments:
This IP is pushing an anti-nursing POV at Nursing, Anesthesiologist, and Nurse anesthetist.--Taylornate (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked The warning we're looking for here is the edit warring/3RR warning to make them aware of the policy; you've correctly added that one, but I don't see any reverts after it. If he makes another problematic edit, re-open this request. Kuru (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:68.198.104.107 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Article semi-protected)

Page: American Third Position Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.198.104.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 16:34, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Whitewash? You editors clearly have an agenda against A3P. More and more Misplaced Pages loses credibility.")
2. 20:29, 5 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted back to proper information; undo Misplaced Pages editor bias.")
3. 06:23, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Nowhere on A3P's website do we describe ourselves as supremacists, though we call ourselves, and are, white nationalists. To continue with the white supremacist argument, considering the biased sources explained away in the talk pages, is WRONG.")
4. 06:24, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 480451438 by ClueBot NG (talk)")
5. 06:35, 6 March 2012 (edit summary: "Seems only anti-whites have a right to write descriptions of pro-white organizations on Misplaced Pages. Anyone who doesn't agree with this is "vandalizing" and "IP warring".")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is only one of several IP address used in a declared edit-warring campaign ]. Other address used include:

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

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

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

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

These edits are being discussed on the white-supremacist site stormfront.org: ]. Page protection has ben requested. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of a fortnight. Salvio 13:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:114.229.252.184 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: 31 hours)

Page: List of tallest buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.229.252.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

--JohnBlackburne_deeds 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Deryck Chan Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:U5ard reported by User:DVdm (Result: A day)

Page: Gravitational potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U5ard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: - this time without the source, which was unreliable in the first place.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

DVdm (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 21:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shiatsushi reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: Indef)

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

Original article version, Shiatsushi added dubius material to the article most which were reverted:

• 5th revert:
• 4th revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
It's a recent SPA account.

• I don't see an editor here who's interested in helping write neutral, verifiable articles. Indefinite here means until this user shows they either understand MEDRS or agree not to edit in that topic area; I won't hold my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jersey emt reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User warned me as well in an edit summary "One more time and you are in violation of WP:3RR" but it was the editor's fourth edit within 24 hours at that point. Editor is aware of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
At first this was an issue about whether one source was reliable. Then, after I balanced the claims, the editor removed the entire section with only a warning and no discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four clear reverts; aware of 3RR. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Aravis195 reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result: page protected)

Page: Dolphin drive hunting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aravis195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: , basically

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page on the user's talk page (I hope that's acceptable):

Comments:
I seriously hope that I haven't committed any misconduct during this whole mess. If I have, I accept full responsibility and will accept whatever corrective actions that are deemed necessary. In addition to addressing the user directly at his/her talk page, I also made an attempt to work this out out WP:AN/I, to no avail. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page was protected by another admin. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:69.47.229.136 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: Stale)

At least 5 reverts on the Bob Uecker article in the last couple of hours. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: A day)

Page: Jeremy Lin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 00:06, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "removed quotes, explanations on the talk page")
2. 02:17, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you; also I've explained why I made the changes but i see you haven't made any comments on them.")
3. 02:46, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Stop removing the edits. If you're going to do it, at least explain WHY you're doing them on the talk page!")
4. 03:12, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Chris, STOP doing this. WP:BURDEN falls on you I've pointed this out many times. It has nothing to do with my ownership of this site")
5. 15:14, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP:BURDEN falls on you so please STOP with the reverts. Also, you've yet to explain why you've made the reverts on talk")
6. 15:37, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted vandalism, user Mubogshu made no attempt to discuss the reverts on talk page")
7. 16:20, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Misplaced Pages:Vandalism:Reverted vandalism user made no attempt to explain on talk page his/her changes to the article")
8. 16:39, 7 March 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted Vandalism no attempt by the user to discuss his/her changes on the talk page")

• Diff of warning: here
• Relevant talk page discussion section: Talk:Jeremy Lin#Quotes

Please note that this behavior dates back into February. —– Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the edits were all made in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and given full explanation on the talk page. I understand that the edits I've made are plentiful, but all of them were made after having given extensive consideration to not only its merits but the merits of the opposing arguments on the Jeremy Lin talkpage. As for the last edit by Mubogshu, here is an edit by the user here attempting to justify his violation of WP:REVEXP by arguing that reverts to edit wars are justified (in violation of the normal procedures of dispute resolution.Festermunk (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators reviewing this case may also wish to take note of the fact that, following the normal procedures of dispute resolution, I've taken this dispute to the dispute resolutio noticeboard.Festermunk (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You violated 3RR. It's that simple. The content removal is secondary at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are what's known as 3RR exemptions, which is why my removal of your posts (vandalism) is relevant. It's that simple indeed.Festermunk (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The exemptions include undoing page blanking without a reason, which is exactly what you were doing. Your edit warring does not satisfy any legitimate exemption. You didn't get the consensus you wanted, so you went against it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what the (heck) you're grasping onto. If you go through the talk page, you'll see exactly the reasons I've given for deleting the quotes. I can't help the fact that you haven't even looked at the talk page for Jeremy Lin, but I'd advise you to have a look there first. Festermunk (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 18:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:67.84.159.1 reported by User:N-HH (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Bee Thousand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.84.159.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The IP user has repeatedly reinserted a unreferenced, unattributed POV piece of commentary about the release being a "landmark album of the 90s". They're not yet over full 3RR for this 24 hours (their first addition of the sentence was a few days ago now) but they are blindly edit-warring as well as refusing to offer any justification, when that burden clearly lies on them. Only discussion has been through edit summaries and user's talk page so far, including urging IP editor to go to talk. All without response - IP user leaves blank edit summaries; has not responded on their own talk page to welcome & warning; and has not opened any talk page thread. I'm bringing it here rather than carrying on that edit war. N-HH talk/edits 18:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, or rather semi-protected, for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, OK, thanks ... but the morale here seems to be: edit war a rather blatant piece of unsourced POV into a page and you can not only avoid having any action being taken against you but you end up with the page protected with your piece of nonsense included. As a registered editor with an account, it looks as if I can still take their sentence out. But my whole point was to get someone to explain the rules to the IP editor, and improve the content of the article, but for me to avoid edit warring myself over it. N-HH talk/edits 21:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it seems to be only an issue with anonymous editors, and playing whack-a-mole gets very tiring, I'm trying to force some discussion. If you or another editor removed it one more time, I wouldn't block you or take any action against you. If it flares up again, I have no problem blocking people, but I'm trying to avoid that if I can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 1 week)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 05:22, 7 March 2012 (Absolutely no justification for removing the bias tag.)
• 2nd revert: 18:50, 7 March 2012
• 3rd revert: 20:45, 7 March 2012 (It is false to say that ALL on the Right support traditional hierarchy - How many times does this have to be pointed out?)
• 4th revert: 21:50, 7 March 2012 (To be on the "Right" can also mean Classical Liberal)

Comments:
This editor just came off a twenty-four hour block for edit-warring on this article - the discussion appears above on this noticeboard. Some of these new edits were made using a dynamic IP, but it is clearly the same editor. Note that the article is currently protected due to edit-warring. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Normally I'd escalate to 48 or 72 hours, but the use of dynamic IPs to try to evade scrutiny doesn't sit well with me. I considered an indef, but I'll try this first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring