Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 27 August 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:131.217.255.209 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)

Page: Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 131.217.255.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 06:43, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 507962969 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
2. 06:44, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 09:23, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 10:00, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508589195 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
5. 11:25, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Consensus sought")
6. 14:35, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508612946 by Frickeg (talk) No, it is correct, Howard is no liar.")
7. 23:46, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508698693 by Frickeg (talk) Analysing the content page shows the consensus is this, not the wrong information.")
8. 01:18, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Authoring a bunch of pages on Misplaced Pages and saying "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" apply to so and so does not make it so. Timeshift9 is the originator of this content and is redefining what the party's ideology against PM Howard.")
9. 01:26, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting incorrect content in accordance with talk page consensus.")
10. 01:40, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508712951 by Timeshift9 (talk) Vandalism")
11. 01:44, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting the wrong information is not vandalism. This is ridiculous. Look it up anywhere. It is not correct.")
12. 05:34, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508731023 by Timeshift9 (talk) Unexplained reversion of content.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users violating 3RR on that page:

• Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Diff 1

  Diff 2

  Diff 3

  Diff 4

  Diff 5

• Frickeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Diff 1

  Diff 2

  Diff 3

  Diff 4

A certifiable mess. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sorry I overstepped 3RR there - I had no idea, considering they were two entirely separate issues, one a pretty uncontroversial one, on a fairly busy page. Nonetheless, mea culpa. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As I'm a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian politics I won't action this, but I think that full page protection is the best response. There's nothing to be gained from blocking Timeshift9 and Frickeg, both of whom are highly experienced and very sensible editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Will leave a note on the article talk page. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Page protected)

I came to CBS Records by following an incoming link and was surprised that the article was about the 2006 incarnation of the company, so I tried to add the missing information.

Page: CBS Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: I add list of presidents and he reverts back to his original version.
• 2nd revert: I add references and reword the lede and he reverts back to his original version.
• 3rd revert: I add more references and add sections on the two incarnations of CBS Records as a compromise and he reverts back to his original version.
• 3rd revert: I change back to the dual RCA Records version and point out all the incoming links are to the earliest incarnation of the company, and he reverts back to his original version, then the article is locked. There are ~1,500 incoming links for RCA Records (1962-1988) and maybe 4 or 5 for RCA Records (2006). He insists the 1,500 links belong to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records which are other business entities with relationships to RCA Records (1962-1988). Sony Music Entertainment bought RCA Records in 1988 and gained ownership of the Columbia Record label and the Epix Records label.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• There are two incarnations of CBS Records as a business entity and there are 1,300 internal links to the article for CBS Records (1962-1988). Steelbeard1 insists that only the 2006 business entity should be in the article and reverts any and all changes to the article back to his version despite the addition of a half dozen references in the article from the New York Times and Billboard to the CBS Records (1962-1988) company with its own president. He insists that the CBS Records (1962-1988) version should be called Columbia Records despite the business news referring to it as CBS Records. Business structure is complex so we have to go with what the reliable sources use. If the New York Times says Clive Davis is the president of CBS Records and doesn't print a retraction, we have to assume that business entity existed and that is the correct name for it. For instance the New York Times reports: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. At the time, he signed a multiyear contract that was believed to have included a $20 million bonus. Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971. He had joined the company a decade earlier as a lawyer." All these internal links are to the earlier business entity and have nothing to do with the 2006 version of the company. If he wants to create a separate article called "CBS Records (2006)" he is welcome. That will take care of any links that may belong to the new business entity and save the hundreds of incoming links to the old entity. Here is my version of the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That material belongs in the Sony Music Entertainment article. Once again, this incarnation of CBS Records was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. All material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records company belong in the Sony Music Entertainment article and all material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records label belong in the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sony Music Entertainment is a conglomerate that owns Columbia Records, Epic Records, RCA Records, Provident Label Group, Verity Gospel Music Group, Legacy Recordings, Columbia Records UK, RCA Label Group (UK) as businesses merge we don't make one massive article and redirect the older companies, we preserve previous business entities. None of the incoming links are to the 2006 business entity. We still have articles on all the companies that were bought by General Motors and by Volkswagen and by Ford. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BEFORE CBS Records changed its name to Sony Music in 1991, its label portfolio included Columbia Records, Epic Records, CBS Records UK (now Columbia Records UK) and Legacy Recordings. After Sony Music merged with then acquired BMG Music, it added RCA Records among other labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute in which Richard Arthur Norton is inserting erroneous material involving the current incarnation of CBS Records. The 2006 incarnation of CBS Records is unrelated to earlier incarnations of CBS Records. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and gave only a temporary license for Sony to use the CBS name. So in 1991, the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment. The allowed later CBS parent CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. So besides the hatnote to direct the reader to either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertaiment article as well as the brief mention in the CBS Records article, all material regarding the former CBS Records entities belong in the Columbia Records or Sony Music Entertainment articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of incoming links are to the pre 1988 CBS Records. Reliable sources in GNews all refer to a business entity called "CBS Records" prior to the new incarnation in 2006. Clive Davis was president. CBS Records is not a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment or for Columbia Records. Business subsidiaries are complex so we have to rely on what the reliable sources say. If the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Variety and Billboard all refer to "CBS Records" prior to 2006, we have to go with the reliable sources even, if an editor says the truth is that CBS Records did not exist prior to 2006 as a business entity, and is just a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment and/or Columbia Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not the HUNDREDS of links which Norton refers, to. The link in the Talk:CBS Records page number more in the dozens so they are being corrected one by one. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)\

Here are the first 500 links here are the second tranche of 500 links here. Here is the third tranche of 391 links here for a total of 1,391 incoming links or which maybe a dozen are administrative links and not article links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on January 1, 1991, the CBS Records company was renamed Sony Music and the CBS Records label was renamed Columbia Records so any article from 1991 on which mention CBS Records are erroneous. See the news article at Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would also like a ban on Steel from delinking the ~1,300 incoming links in other articles until the issue is settled. He is currently changing the CBS Records links to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. Business and legal entities are complex, and by changing the link you are changing the meaning of the content. If a reliable source says the group is signed to CBS Records we should not be changing it to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. We need more reliable sources and less "truth". When you change the link you are making a subtle distortion from what the reliable source says is the correct business entity a group has signed with, they are not synonyms in either plain English or in the business world or in the legal world --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That leads to misleading errors so the corrections must be make. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misleading readers when you link to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records when the reliable source says the business entity is called CBS Records. At Misplaced Pages we go with what the reliable source says and not what the editor feels the truth is. "Sony Corp., which acquired CBS Records Inc. in 1988, will change the music company's corporate name to Sony Music Entertainment Inc. under the terms of the aquisition agreement, the company announced Monday. CBS Inc. had agreed to allow Sony to use the CBS Records name for three years. The name change will take effect Jan. 1, 1991, but it won't affect the company's domestic record labels, which are Columbia, Epic, Associated and WTG." The business entity of record is CBS Records and the subsidiary labels are Columbia Records or Epic Records. They are not synonyms, so stick to what term the reliable sources use, and not what you feel the truth is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Source, please. Since January 1, 1991 the official business entity of the parent company of Columbia Records and Epic Records is Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, no one is arguing with that. The 1,300 incoming links are to the business entity known as CBS Records that existed from 1962 to 1988 and that business name was used by Sony until 1991. Changing the article over and over to your version of the truth doesn't override how reliable sources use the name. The business entity is CBS Records from 1962 to 1988 and is not synonymous with Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records or Epic Records. Business entities are not synonyms, you can't use the subsidiary in the place of the larger business. We have to stick to the term the reliable source uses, so as not to cause semantic drift away from the original meaning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Steel is speeding up his changes to articles that link to CBS Records since I posted the request for it to be stopped. Can I have a decision by an admin person to put the changes on hold while consensus is forming. Steel is causing Semantic drift in the information by linking the corporate name CBS Records to one of the subsidiary labels which is not the correct legal entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton is STILL in the wrong here. The CBS Records article is strictly about the 2006 incarnation. There are already hatnotes directing the reader to the correct former CBS Records entity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the reason for that is because you stripped all the other information from the article and reverted it to your version 4 times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If Norton bothered to read the hatnote on the top of the CBS Records article, it reads: This article is about the record label founded in 2006. For the earlier CBS Records label, see Columbia Records. For the earlier CBS Records company, see Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In essence we have 1,300 votes from reliable sources that CBS Records (1962) is the proper landing page and not CBS Records (2006). Columbia Records and CBS Records and Sony Music Entertainment and Epic Records are not interchangeable synonyms. It is also bad-faith editing to continue to make changes to links while an Administrators' noticeboard notice has been posted and not been resolved. You are changing the 1,300 incoming links before a decision on consensus has been made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The proper landing place for the 1962 CBS Records is Columbia Records as the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991. The intro mentioned the 1962-1990 CBS Records label at the start of the Columbia Records article and the history section begins with the 1960s subsection of the Columbia Records article which shows the "walking eye" CBS Records logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by Beeblebrox. Take your content dispute to the article talk page. This page is not the place for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Guanxi reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Page protected)

Page: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guanxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Addendum

• 6th revert: diff

Suggestion When showing diffs, it is very helpful to put them in chronological order.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This editor doesn't have a lot of interest in discussion, he seems mainly interested in pushing through his changes over the objections of other editors. He wants to remove material on the basis that information from Reuters and the NY Times isn't reliably sourced, but when it suits him he sees nothing wrong adding coatrack material based on hearsay about a person's Facebook, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. Unfortunately, racking up 5 reverts in 20 minutes makes this situation impossible to deal with without admin intervention. Belchfire-TALK 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you can see plenty of discussion and compromise on my part, as well as purely constructive edits going back a long way.

• Some of the edits Belchfire cites could not possibly be mistaken for reversions. Some even advanced Belchfire's POV.
• The only thing I reverted (without violating 3RR) was from an editor who declined to provide an NPOV RS citation for his statement. He asserted that the organization's own website and a Misplaced Pages page were sufficient (but still didn't cite them in the article). If you look at the talk page and his user talk page, I tried to help him and even offered to post the cite if had reached the 3RR limit.
• The last edit Belchfire cites was changed, by me, moments later, to attempt to compromise with Belchfire. Unless something has changed since I last looked, Belchfire has offered no compromise.
• This complaint seems like an waste of my time and this page.

guanxi (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Belchfire claimed all of the edits were reverts to , but that's clearly not the case. Would Belchfire please identify what version he believes each one is a revert to? Otherwise, this case should be thrown out due to false evidence.

I'd also like to point out that this article is under WP:BLP, so we should not be including material unsupported by citations. That's precisely the issue with the "social welfare" claim. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A ludicrous claim if ever I saw one. The BLP exemption only applies to material that is potentially libelous. If there is anything of the sort going on here, it is to be found in diff #5, above, where such material was added by way of edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What's ludicrous is that you apparently didn't read WP:BLP. We do not get to insert uncited material in BLP's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:3RR. Purely for your benefit, since I'm quite sure everybody else understands it, here is the exemption: "7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since this is the EW noticeboard, anything else about BLP you would like to discuss is irrelevant here. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note again that what are incorrectly listed as reverts 2 and 5 are not actually restoring http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special_Operations_OPSEC_Education_Fund&diff=508881140&oldid=508879554, the way Belchfire claimed. It's not clear what, if anything, they're reverts to, and it's not our job to guess. Belchfire has to do his part in making the case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is clear at this point. Note that when the other editor (mentioned in my second bullet point above) eventually provided a valid citation, I not only supported it on the Talk page, but repeated his/her statement and cite elsewhere in the article: . I'm going to move on to other things now; hopefully I'm no longer needed on this noticeboard. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even clearer than that - 6 reverts in 75 minutes, over the objections of other editors and mostly prior to any meaningful discussion. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear at all: reverts to what? Your report falsely claims they were all reverts to a single version. Fix your report or close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To the same article. And the issue is not even close - for a BLP exception the edit must clearly relate to a single person or small group of people -- to call an organization a "social welfare" organzation is not a BLP violation, and can not be used to excuse a revert on that basis. Guanxi is a "proper cop" here, despite jis opinion that this page "is a waste of time." The idea of WP:EW is to get folks to listen to the rules -- and the doscourse here by him (essentially "I don't care") is singularly unimpressive. Collect (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To what version? Belchfire has made a false claim. I'm giving him the chance to correct it by specifying, for each revert, what it's reverting to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if "reverts" 2 and 5 were not real reverts, that still leaves 4. And, you (at least) still don't understand the meaning of "revert" for 3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The report may not be properly formed (and it would be helpful to note, at the least, for each "revert", which edit was being (partially) reverted), but there's probably enough meat there for the closing admin to determine the facts of the matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that StillStanding-247 has a history of edit warring and has been blocked for such behavior, this is not surprising. --Mollskman (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The history is messy, but let me see if I can make some sense of it. I see five clear reverts of different material, but two were made consecutively (with no other users' edits in between).

• Reverts adding the text "...has taken extreme positions against President Obama..." that had previously been removed here:

, .

• Reverts removing the words "social welfare" that had previously been added here:

, , .

The first revert in each series were made in the same string of edits, and thus count as one revert, which gives us a total of 4RR.

Additionally, as best as I can tell, it looks like User:ViriiK and User:StillStanding-247 were both at 3RR, User:Belchfire was at 1RR or 2RR (depending on whether you call the first edit a revert or a bold edit), and User:Kenatipo, User:Arthur Rubin were at 1RR. In other words, protecting the article was a smart move.

In summary, the 6RR report was inflated, but there was a 4RR violation. That said, a block at this point would probably be more punitive than preventative, and I don't have an opinion on whether one should be issued. I commented because things seemed to be getting confused here so I thought I'd jump in and try to clear up the picture. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do Belchfire's work for him. Still, I'm pretty sure I was at 2RR, since that's my voluntary limit, but you're right that it doesn't matter so I won't dispute it. In the first place, it's not as if Guanxi was acting much differently than other editors, and now that the article is protected, blocking him would be punitive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247, 4rr, 3rr, 2rr, it doesn't really matter since you are still edit warring and have a history of doing such and have been blocked in the recent past for the same. Keep using the talk page. --Mollskman (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, I'm not. It's entirely normal for edits to include reverts even when you're not edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by The ed17 (talk · contribs). MastCell  18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Opn800 reported by User:Sionk (Result: 31h)

Page: User talk:Sionk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opn800 (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:
I'm not sure where else to ask for help. Opn800 has been resorting to personal abuse for several hours on my Talk page, following disagreements with a number of editors about changes to articles he has created. I (and another editor) have removed snide/sarcastic comments from my Talk page but these have been repeatedly reverted by Opn800. I have asked him to desist and explained it will be impossible to engage in constructive discussion until he does so. He is already aware of 3RR rule because of his actions on 'his' articles today. He has also received a formal warning from another editor about 'vandalism' to my Talk page. Sionk (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for general disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: Protected)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mollskman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (for all but last)

• 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:
While we'd be entirely within policy if we blocked him, I recommend page protection, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that Still did not report ArdenHathaway which he's now at 6RR+'s reinserting the same off-topic content. I would suggest that the page is to remain off page protection or at least PP without the offending off-topic material. ViriiK (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Read up on page protection and you'll see that you don't get to demand that the "right" version is frozen in place. I didn't report Arden because he's obviously new here, so it would be punitive. Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So you conveniently ignored the rules on 3RR in order to accept ArdenHathaway's 6RR+ violations? You warn me and other users consistently of breaching 1RR and yet you are giving a pass to this edit-warrer? Did you even warn him that he broke the 3RR rule? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And also unlike Mollskman, Arden engaged in personal attacks against other users. User_talk:ArdenHathaway#August_2012 ViriiK (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Still how can you make this statement Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. when anyone can go to the talk page and see it to not be true. Arden has made two comments on talk, Mollskman has made 9 (as of this comment). Arzel (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, Arzel, he used the talk page to attack other editors who were opposed to his inclusion on the basis that they are all paid PR flacks. ViriiK (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all interesting, but how does it relate to protecting this page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. ArdenHathaway blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and for personal attacks. Mollskman warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the drama and I will try not to repeat this. --Mollskman (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Statesman1 reported by User:Dailycare (Result: )

Page: Six-Day War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Statesman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

User advised in 2009 to discuss on Talk rather than "continually reverting":

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Informed user of this report:

Comments:

This article is under 1RR, however this report isn't a 3RR or 1RR report as such, rather this involves general edit-warring behaviour.

This account has been sporadically active since 2009, this year largely in the article in question here. The issue involves the "Background" section of the article, which was discussed on the talkpage with an eye to making it shorter. User:Statesman1 has repeatedly (four times, see diffs above) inserted information in this section: 1) that a UN resolution was vetoed (i.e. not adopted), and 2) that Egypt prepared to perform (but did not perform) attacks in Israel. No sources have been provided to the effect that either event would have been key or central to the unfolding of the events leading into the Six-Day War. To the contrary, User:Statesman1 has removed from the section text stating that border provocations were actually done, which is identified in an academic source as an important factor in the deterioration of the situation toward war.

Therefore it seems very much that the motive in this edit-war is the pushing of an agenda, rather than an attempt to identify the most relevant material to include. As the editor has refused to engage in the Talkpage concerning this content, I feel that a sanction is in order, for example a block regarding the Six-Day War page only. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ArdenHathaway reported by User:ViriiK (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArdenHathaway (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:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This was the user's only response to the talk page and he used a personal attack to accuse other editors of being paid PR flacks against Kathryn Bigelow. I am not a participant to that conversation. I did not edit there and I do observe that this user is edit-warring to reinsert the same contested material over and over again without even coming to consensus for insertion. ViriiK (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

There's a massive, ongoing edit war here. Rather than single out this editor, I suggest page protection. I suggested it when I reported another editor, and I've also formally requested it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so massive as you make it out to be. An admitted Kathryn Bigelow fan is edit-warring to reinsert the same offending material over and over again. As per above, you failed to warn him, knew he was edit-warring thus ignored his edit-warring habits and also he did not discuss on the talk page as you claimed him to have done so but instead used personal attacks claiming those who were opposed to his insertions were "Paid PR flacks". Mollskman has been a more active participant in the talk page unlike ArdenHathaway. ViriiK (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As the article has already been protected, a block would be inappropriate. If ViriiK's allegations are correct, a warning would be appropriate. An extension of 3RR to ignore the time the article was protected, for the purpose of defining "24 hours", might be appropriate, although I don't recall that ever having been done before. And I believe I've edited the article, so my opinions here are not as an admin, but as an interested editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but exactly one of the editors was blocked. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:74.14.85.152 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 h)

Page: First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.14.85.152 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Dr.K. reported by User:Cinque stelle (Result: No violation)

Page: Tenedos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

User was warned on the Tenedos talk page, the history page, as well as my own talk page where he threatened to block my account. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Dr.K. continues to make edits and reverts in violation of WP:TPYES. Guidelines state that editors should: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Dr.K. attempts to shift the discussion to speculate about WP editors. His activity is disruptive of the community attempt to find a solution to the name Tenedos/Bozcaada page name dispute.

Cinque stelle (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No violation. This is a problem with the reporter refactoring other editors' comments on the Talk page. I have advised the reporter accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

• Revert by Gussss:
• Revert by Dr. Vicodine:
• Addition then reverted by Gussss:
• Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

• Gusssss -
• Dr. Vicodine -

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientiom reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: changed "practicing homosexuals" to "LGBT people"; which is a revert of this
• 2nd revert: changed "practicing homosexuals" to "gays and lesbians"
• 3rd revert: added quotation marks to "practicing"; this is not a minor change: the scare quotes change the meaning of the word and represent a legitimate POV issue
• 4th revert: is a revert of which re-added the disputed "Demar/SPLC" item

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor was blocked a couple of months ago for 48 hours for edit warring on Marriage. The subject relating to the 4th revert (Demar/SPLC) is currently the focus of a 2 day old edit war that had just subsided. The issue is currently under discussion and the revert was extremely poor judgment. The discussion is barely a day old! Why try to restart an edir war? Why not wait until consensus is reached?

I alerted Scientiom to the problem but they refused to do the right thing. I wrote on Scientiom's talk page: "You are at 4RR at American Vision. This is your lucky day. Editing has slowed down, and if you hurry back there, you might just be able to self-revert..." But unbelievably they did not take the chance to self-revert. Instead Scientiom responded "I'm at 1RR not 4RR." When it was pointed out that Scientiom was over 3RR at another article (YCRBYCHI) they personally attacked me writing "stop the lies." – Sir Lionel, EG 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Scientiom of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Scientiom, but I'd like to suggest that you might want to look at the history of this article. The people reporting the edit warring are themselves quite guilty of edit-warring. You could block them all, or you could protect the page. I politely recommend the latter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. I reported the the 4RR violation and I am not edit warring. You statement is completely erroneous. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did say "people". You're not a people, you're just one person. There are a bunch of people, many of whom are members of your WikiProject Conservatism and others who are followers or fellow travelers, who are edit-warring. You're filing this on behalf of your people because your hands are cleaner, but their hands are not. This is a common pattern. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring