Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 7 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:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h)

Page: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (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:

• : warned for EW at Political positions of Mitt Romney on Jul 29
• : editor is notified that this is a content dispute and not vandalism

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Still-24-45-42-125 is edit warring to keep "praised" out of the article as it relates to Romney's recent trip abroad. The pièce de résistance is revert #4. He knows he's about to cross the bright line so he invokes the BLP exemption. The problem is that he takes this opportunity to remove "praised" again. IMO this betrays his true intention: to eliminate the item over which he's been edit warring all day. 3RRNO exhorts editors to "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Still-24-45-42-125 is gambling that 3RRNO will give him cover for edit warring--well it's not going to work. Note: this editor has another report above. – Lionel 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. I am not persuaded that the vandalism or BLP exceptions justify any of these reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This report is under discussion in several places. Please do not archive it. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still being discussed. One of the things brought up is that there was no 4RR; the first two edits are a single revert. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There was an intervening bot edit. Per WP:IAR, possibly they should be considered a single revert. But there's no requirement that the 4 reverts violating 3RR cover the same material, so it's not clear why two reverts in the same area not covering exactly the same material shouldn't be counted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned the bot edit on my talk page. The bot is not a user; it was just adding a date to a previous edit and had nothing to do with anything else. Common sense shows that WP:3RRNO doesn't penalize for bots, so WP:IAR does not apply. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR would be required to not count them as two separate reverts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, we reach another point of disagreement. I would suggest that all that's required for us to ignore the bot is common sense. The bot is not a user, it is not participating in the editing process. It is a wiki-reflex, a delayed reaction to a tag someone added earlier. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)

Page: Battle of Ankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.108.23 (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: ,,;Attempts by Antidiskriminator, ,,,

Comments:
User:71.178.108.23 has continually removed Stefan Lazarevic and the associated references from the Infobox, using the edit summary,"Removed irrelevant insertions based on references with no valid primary sources; numbers, as given, cannot explain anyhting for being arbitrary estimates". Attempts by myself and Antidiskriminator to discuss this issue was met with these type of responses:

• "What was outdated and what is not, I do not want to discuss with you for seeing you as a person of no education and academic attitude."
• "You have to be capable of demonstrating clear knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss. Calling upon Misplaced Pages rules does not support your insertion of the knowledge of tertiary importance here.".
• "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude."
• ""I think that Moravian Serbia ..." is yet another nonsense and ignorance."

Here the IP can not even read the proper page and is quick to assert that Fine's book, "The Late Medieval Balkans", is a falsified source, "For example, The Late Medieval Balkans, page 449 is visible online here: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch8.pdf The whole page did not ever mentioned Lazarevic". When shown his error, replies, "*"So, what? You are caught cheating."

Regardless, of the time(5 days) you have been reverted by 3 different editors. You have NOT proven the sources used for Stefan Lazarevic fail verifiability on Misplaced Pages. All you have done is respond in an aggressive attitude to my and Antidiskriminator's attempt at discussion. Misplaced Pages has its own rules regarding reliable sources and you making up your own rules(ie. requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge) means nothing here. You are edit warring, plain and simple, to push your POV. --Defensor Ursa 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has now reverted Vrok, for the 2nd time! Using the edit summary, "This user did not participate in discussion, no contribution to this article."

IP response

• My response: all reverts were done in the span of FIVE days. My the only reason is not to revert, rather to remove text that has no value. My article improvements are removed without a reason, which needs explanation here, too. So, this is a nonsensic accusation and attempt to promote irrelevant and tertiary data, data that vary in thousands, made by the rule of thumb, by different chroniclers - as the important ones. These two, Antidiskriminator and Kansas Bear, do not have any relevant knowledge of this subject, their use of Google search is highly particular, their responses, i.e. "discussion" is just an endless spamming of the talk page whose the only goal is to sidetrack discussion, invalidate serous approach to this battle. I requested from them to provide PRIMARY resources for the data they are promoting as a knowledge and never get any serious response. For more details, read my comments in full on the article talk page.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed closure: The latest 18 edits by the IP at Battle of Ankara are as follows. I present them here because this appears to be a case of long-term edit warring. This war is a surprisingly intense dispute as to the exact size and significance of the admitted participation of Serbian forces led by Stephen Lazarevich at the Battle of Ankara, which took place in 1402:

My idea for closing this is to impose a long-term semiprotection, probably three months. I'll wait a bit to see if other admins object. The edits 1-5 above where the IP removes what appear to be sensible references to academic works previewed in Google Books don't inspire confidence. The IP's objections at Talk:Battle of Ankara#Falsely referenced sources are extremely indignant but also very hard to understand. In response to two editors who disagree with him, the IP states "It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude." My good faith is wearing thin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Big phrases like "My good faith is wearing thin." tell a lot about you, EdJohnston. Above I proposed reading and understanding completely all my comments on the article talk page, not just sentences showing my loss of patience in "discussion" where the opposite side demonstrated just rejection anything that goes above a plain Google search. Learn the simple thing: any academic reference must show us its primary source and the way it was validated. There are many other academic references, that can be located by the Google search engine, not accepting your "don't inspire confidence" phrase. If you want to attract people who are with strong academic background, then elevate yourself above strong-opinion-no-knowledge attitude, just supported by phrases I put under the quotes. The best way to do it is to keep yourself out of discussion and judgements about topics that are outside of your education and knowledge.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. Long-term edit warring by an IP against the talk page consensus. If you can't persuade your colleagues on the talk page that you have a valid point, you should not persist. Claims of expertise from a totally anonymous contributor are hard to evaluate. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Gimmetoo (Result: Stale)

Page: Talk:Sean Combs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 05:46
• 2nd revert: 05:50
• 3rd revert: 05:57
• 4th revert: 06:06

A comment I made on the talk page was moved by User:GFHandel without my permission (see WP:TPO). I objected and tried to move it back, and then to delete it. User:Malleus Fatuorum has restored my comment in the moved location four times.

Diffs of warnings: 05:49 05:54 06:07

Comments:

• Someone really should look at the totality of Gimmie's disruption on talk:Sean Combs over the last some months. What happened in the last bit is that Gimme "cut in" above a comment of mine and Mally and GFHandel were restoring proper threading. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo has also violated WP:3RR,

• 05:31, 4 August 2012
• 05:35, 4 August 2012
• 05:52, 4 August 2012
• 07:06, 4 August 2012

Per WP:TALK and WP:TOPPOST Gimmetoo's comments should be placed in chronological order, and since they were responded to, struck if he wishes to retract them. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I first tried to restore my comment to the place I had put it, and then tried to redact it in different ways. Editors kept undoing my attempts to resolve the inappropriate modification of my comments. Per WP:TPO, my comments should not have been moved over my objections, and the reverts by GFHancel and Malleus Fatuorum prevented resolution. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, You've been trolling that talk page for more than two months. You cut in above my comment deliberately and inappropriately. No one modified your comments, they just moved them to where they belonged and restored your inappropriate removal of comments that had been replied to. You're the disrupting and baiting party here and are overdue for a block for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus responded to the comment, and only then did GFHandel move it. As soon as I objected to the comment move, something else should have been done. Your repeated accusations are a behavior issue that I hope another admin or arbcom will take a look at. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quaking in my bare feet ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm involved because I tried to restore the conventional chronological ordering of talk page comments, but please note that neither I, nor Malleus altered context in any way as it was possible at all times to see who was replying to whom. The talk page comment added by Gimmetoo today has been responded to by a number of editors now, and needs to remain to show context of the ongoing issues on the page (hence the reversions). Speaking of which: today's troubles are the natural consequence of the tendentious editing that Gimmetoo has been engaged in at the page for a number of months now, and I would please ask the admins here to judge this action in the light of what should have been a dead issue a long time ago. In that light, could an uninvolved admin here please assess and suggest a possible course of action in relation to Gimmetoo's recent editing behaviour—especially in the context that he is editing at odds to a number of other admins, and an editor (Diannaa) who has worked so hard to move the article to GA status despite the horrendous obstacles she has faced from Gimmetoo (and Gimmetoo alone)? I really do try to assume good faith at all times, but I'm being forced to conclude that Gimmetoo is engaging in baiting on the Sean Combs article talk page (how else does one explain his recent inability to edit the article to address what he claims are obvious problems?). GFHandel ♬  06:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• If "tendentious editing" is to be reviewed here, I can provide further evidence. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • GFHandel modified his comment above after I had commented. Again, I will provide further evidence concerning "tendentious editing" if that is to be reviewed here. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice try, but ... I'm entitled to modify my comment because you posted at the same indent level as mine, and I made sure that I didn't alter the claim of your tendentious editing (so as not to alter the context of your comment). I trust that's cleared things up for you (and given independent readers here a huge view into the trouble that so many editors have been faced with recently). GFHandel ♬  07:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale - The diffs supplied are now over 24 hours old. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:94.200.20.34 reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: Semi)

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.200.20.34 (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 was warned about imminent breaking of 3RR on article history page in summary of revert. Yet he chose to continue with the revert, ignored the discussion in the talk, gave no rationale for his revert et cetera. Not really much to talk about here. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Syrian Civil War two weeks. The IP keeps adding a claim that Kosovo is supplying arms to a faction in the Syrian Civil War, but is unable to provide a reference. The IP feels that others should do the work of finding a source, but per WP:BURDEN the task falls on his shoulders. Reverts continued after the ones listed above. The same person uses multiple IPs, so a block is impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:EllsworthSK reported by User:DanielUmel (Result: Stale)

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EllsworthSK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syrian_Civil_War_%282011%E2%80%93present%29&oldid=505709166

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

Comments:

This user made 6 reverts today on the same page. I was myself blocked for 48 hours for having reverted too many times on another page. But this user is also not respecting the rules and is edit warring. I restrained myself this time and respected the rules, but it is frustating to see that this user is not doing the same and is always deleting sourced content like he wants. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no one, including yourself, made any attempts to warn him about edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I see that three of his edits were reverting vandalism by the 94. Ip. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not warn him but also he is aware of the rule as he has filled a report above about an IP. And nobody warned me before filling a report a few day ago (but really it is not about me). I was against the IP addition of Kosovo as belligerent but it was hardly vandalism as he had a source. It perfectly count as an opinion revert --DanielUmel (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is cute. Removal of Kosovo was after discussion and was also removal of unsourced content. IP ignoration of discussion was a clear vandalism, hence exception of 3RR (WP:NOT3RR) It is also mentioned above. The second one is also sourced, first diff was also not revert of user action and second two do not violate 3RR. Discussion about that has been ongoing for longer time than our fortunate period since you registered, as here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)/Archive_9#Military_infobox_and_civil_infobox and here Talk:Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)#Al-Qaeda_now_listed_as_party_to_the_conflict, no one once has something against removal of Fatah al-Islam based on the source which makes itself very clear. But still, it´s cute that you try so hard. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not even mentioning that I was not warned, not even after Sopher99 pointed you have to do it. Not just warn about edit warring but warn about reporting myself on this very page. That is mentioned on the report template and it is also mentioned on the project page. Without it, the report is incomplete as you just tried to get this over without me even noticing that something is going on and giving my own opinion. Nice going there. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing how little respect you have for other editors and their opinion. For you a talk ongoing mean that your opinion is validated, eventhough it is not at all the case as you are in clear minority for Fatah Al Islam, Al Qaeda and others. These talk show even more how much it is edit war. You don't listen to anybody else and just revert like you want. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard about this? WP:AGF. Had you, I expect that you would stick with arguments and not your baseless accusations. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just a sloppy attempt for User:DanielUmel to 'get even' after being blocked (the user isn't even showing the diffs, let alone an actual example of 'edit warring'). These edits by EllsworthSK aren't even disruptive, which is really the point of posting something on the admin noticeboard. حرية (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the header of this report. This is a dispute about the Syrian Civil War article, not its talk page. Updated the page name to its new title. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale – The reverts listed above are from August 4. If there are ongoing disputes about this article, try to work out the problem on the talk page. If you are still deadlocked, consider making a request at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The report was from 4 August but for some reasons was not noticed earlier. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:69.231.38.16 reported by User:Instaurare (Result: Semi)

Page: God Bless America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.231.38.16 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
The user has been adding the same unsourced material to the article for weeks now, despite warnings. Instaurare (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:842U and User:Dodo bird reported by User:Ebikeguy (Result: No action)

Page: Australian Cattle Dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dodo bird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff for first shot in this battle

• 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:

Comments:

This is a classic example of good editors behaving badly. I've included the last few reverts, but this edit war has been going on for more than a week now, with many more edits than the ones I have shown. Both parties involved in the dispute have made many, many wonderful contributions to Misplaced Pages and generally edit in a very responsible manner. However, they seem to have slipped over the edge on this one. I started an RfC in an attempt to resolve this issue, hoping that the edit warring would cool while the RfC was in process, but no luck. I requested page protection but was told that I should take the matter here. I do think that page protection would be the best way to end the disruptive editing at this point, and I sincerely hope that neither of these excellent editors will be blocked. Thank you very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true that I've probably been a part of a war. It's a controversial area -- I will consider what I can do better to avoid warring. Because the subject involves controversy, I haven't just reverted content -- I've also done my best to participate heavily on the Talk page, to take input from the other editors, to bring more and more reliable sources to the discussion, to offer compromises that include not just deleting information from the article but to include opposing points of view with reliable sources, to reiterate that the sources I've introduced have been independently deemed reliable, to examine comparable articles to see how they handle the issue of a breed's associated human-directed aggression and I've reached out to the Manual of Style page to invite independent editors to offer direction on how the handle the primary issue of disagreement -- whether to have a sub-section devoted to the breed's aggression. I haven't once attacked another editor's reputation -- in the face of direct personal attacks. But again, I hear it. I get it. As I've said earlier today, I'm leaving for a week. I will have extremely limited access to WP in the interim. I'll use the time to cool off. I appreciate the mediation that Ebikeguy has offered the process. I'll accept what direction I'm offered here. Thanks.842U (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

842U's comment on the talk page that "the content is controlled by a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question, in other words, a fancruft article — clouded by bias, lacking balance or neutrality" is an attack of the reputation of the major contributors including Mdk572, Casliber, Elf, Sasata, Jimfbleak, Quadell and Cgoodwin.

• Result: No action. Per 842U's statement above, and Talk:Australian Cattle Dog#Edit Warring, it appears that 842U and Dodo bird have agreed to work toward a compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Madifrop reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hour block.)

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 18:56, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: Jerry you nuisance, the counterattack was the main aspect of the reason for this article's title. Moving back to Union name!")
2. 18:58, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: moving back, see my REASONABLE comments Jerry! :p")
3. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're making me laugh at this ridiculous conflict")
4. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "me too.")
5. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo RIDICULOUS edit")
6. 19:06, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'm British, Jerry!")
7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undo YET ANOTHER ridiculous edit by colleague")
8. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Madifrop moved page Battle of Belle Grove to Battle of Cedar Creek over redirect: I see how well you annoy me")
9. 19:11, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "undoing MORE RIDICULITY")
10. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I WON'T stop, OK?")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Phan Ni Mai reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hour block.)

Page: Battle of Belle Grove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Phan Ni Mai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 18:55, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove: battle was a victory for the Confederacy, regardless of counterattack; rename to Belle Grove")
2. 18:57, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: I disagree, see my last comments")
3. 19:02, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "OI I cna't move it so I'm going to change the text to the RIGHT information")
4. 19:03, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I STILL stand by my first comments. I've replied to your email")
5. 19:04, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I'll probably be doing this all day")
6. 19:05, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you're so anti-South")
7. 19:07, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "i h8 r'guin wiv u <3")
8. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "I hope we don't bicker all day, ya know.")
9. 19:08, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: STILL DISAGREE")
10. 19:09, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "Phan Ni Mai moved page Battle of Cedar Creek to Battle of Belle Grove over redirect: stop being ridiculous! <3")
11. 19:12, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "stop it")
12. 19:13, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "you make me sick")
13. 19:14, 5 August 2012 (edit summary: "whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do we have to bicker")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Both editors blocked for 24 hours. I hope that is enough to persuade them to stop edit warring, without the need for a longer block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On close examination of both editors' history, something fishy is going on: they were created at the same time and show simultaneous activity. I've left notes on both talkpages asking for explanations. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Luciferwildcat reported by User:Collect (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to: before continous reversion

• 1st revert: 20:29 3 Aug et seq
• 2nd revert: 01:09 4 Aug et seq
• 3rd revert: 01:49 4 Aug
• 4th revert: 20:40 4 Aug et seq (4RR in 24:11 - actually 23:50 from end of sequence of reverts)
• 5th revert: 01:35 5 Aug et seq
• 6th revert: 19:26 5 Aug et seq (3RR in 23 hours after already having hit 4RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: pretty much entire talk page over 4 months including current RfC, etc.

Comments:

User created the Wiktionary entry for "Pink slime"m "Soylent pink" etc. He reverts use of quotes for the neologism on the grounds that Wiktionary incusion proves it is a normal word. He also wars about using "percent" or "%" which I find non-utile entirely. When he was at 3RR originally, I suggested he self-revert, and he not only did not do so, he continues to push his "word" etc. There is no doubt he is at edit war against every other editor at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did they also create the roughly 400,000 results this gets on Google? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See where the common usage for "Spam" is noted - while the connection to the beef product is not noted. The term defined as being about "pink slime" was removed by editors at Wiktionary as being unsourced for a long period of time. Unsourced "definitions" are wertlos. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're trying to suggest that "soylent pink" has nothing to do with "pink slime". A quick search for "soylent pink slime" brings back about 34,000 hits, refuting your claim. Cheers! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

First - "Googlehits" is not a reason for edit war. Second - excluding hits incuding "Misplaced Pages" etc. Google shows 797 hits (I paged through to see how many real hits wre there!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that you shouldn't edit war over Google hits. However, 797 is 796 more than we actually need. The part you're not really talking about is that we have some reliable sources that use "soylent pink" to refer to the same thing as "pink slime". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not my "word" soylent pink is the Los Angeles Times "word" for that matter. soylent pink was not removed from wiktionary, but the sense for pink slime was moved to the citations page because it is a neologism as it does not have "durably" archived usage spanning multiple years, there is citable usage beyond 2012 but it was not durable archived so it is being incubated until that time similar to "Tebowing" however the major media sources cite "soylent pink" and wikipedia reports on such usages even if they are new, for example we have an article on the Aurora shootings even though it is not exactly historical yet such is the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine massacre, Penn state massacre etc. We in fact report on the Tebowing phenomena at Tim Tebow because it is notable and all the terms used to reflect pink slime that are cited in multiple non trivial third party sources should be included. Lastly the article suffers from constant pro industry single purpose accounts and anonymous IPs although they have become more sophisticated their efforts to only discredit anything negative about this slime product are patently obvious. Lastly here are the numerous sources for soylent pink meaning pink slime.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the host of editors who dislike your reverts are industry shills of some sort? Everyone else is biassed? And that is a valid excuse for admitted edit war? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR, i.e., more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, has not been broken, and the reverts are not all the same. Collect has provided no link to a discussion about the reverts on the talk page. It might be better to lock the article or put it on a 1RR restriction while the issues are argued out. TFD (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"4RR in 24 hours and 11 minutes is generally considered passing the line. In fact, the final part of the first example was at 20:50 on 3 Aug, so 4RR was breached at the 23 hour and 50 minute mark - breaking the bright line. And the reverts do not need to be of the same material, nor does "the reverts are not all the same" even remotely relevant as an excuse for edit war. Collect (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know the reverts had to all be the same to breach the rule. In any case, if Collect has missed a step it will probably be because those of us who have come to this page have been pretty much exhausted by Lucifer's posts, reverting, personal attacks and general inability to cooperate with other editors. I am not optimistic about TFD's suggestion to try and resolve the issue, based on the article's history, but feel free to try. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No the edits do not have to be the same to break the rule and 4 reverts within 24 hours is not the absolute rule. However if an editor has not broken the 3RR rule then we need to look further before blocking for edit-warring. Is there any dispute about "per cent" vs. "%"? You have not even presented any evidence that there is a discussion about whether or not the article should mention "soylent pink". As an involved party, you are more familiar with the discussion than I and the presenter of this thread should have provided all the evidence necessary for a decision, but did not do so. TFD (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

4RR in under 24 hours is a clear and absolute bright line violation - sorry. And 4RR does not require discussion here of the content dispute unless the claim is that it is a BLP exemption. Cheers - but what you seem to think should be here, is actually barred from being here. And delaying on a clear bright-line violation ought not be considered "stale" because of such discussions. Collect (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I thought the whole point to a block is to protect Misplaced Pages. How exactly does it protect Misplaced Pages to block someone now for edits they did in the past? This just looks punitive to me. Is that the goal? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By that standard we could shut this page down. What other behavior should it review & base action on other than what has already occurred? North8000 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring over the percentage sign and soylent pink. Please review WP:BRD and follow it, and work toward making the page a pleasant collaboration. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Beanatascha reported by User:Duhon (Result: Blocked pending OTRS confirmation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Beanatascha&pe=1&

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The following user has been warned several times about reverting the birthdate on the article as per her talk page. In addition this user appears to be using ip sockpuppets to continually revert the date of birth when the consensus has been set on an appropriate date to cite as well as what constitutes reliable sources. May be a case of WP:BIOSELF Duhon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given this person is claiming to be the subject and hasn't provided any confirmation it's her, I'm blocking until she can confirm who she is via OTRS. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wtfiswithyourhead reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Warned, no talk by me or others.

Comments:
user talk:Danjel101 also involved. Exceeded 3RR, warned, has not edited article since warning. Jim1138 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please re-report if he continues after block expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  Given the username concerns here, I'm upping it to indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:John_Foxe reported by User:ARTEST4ECHO (Result: 2 months)

Page: Samuel L. Mitchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John_Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 10:46, 1 August 2012 undoing an IP removal of content
• 2nd revert: 18:19, 1 August 2012 reverting kraxler's removal of same content (~8hrs after above revert)
• 3rd revert: 20:30, 1 August 2012 reverting kraxler's 2nd removal of same content (~14hrs after previous revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mormon related footnote

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here
See also: John Foxe's 1RR restriction here and here

Comments:
User has had an extensive history of edit waring and has been warned/blocked a number of times. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. As a result John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years.

John Foxe is warring on Samuel L. Mitchill over text directly about Mormonism. He even start a thread on the talk page titled "Mormon related footnote" which puts it squarely within the bounds of the 1RR restriction by John's own admission. Therefore, John Foxe has violated his 1RR restriction . This is not the first time he has violated this restriction (see here and here). Please note, I have notified User:DeltaQuad (here), who placed the restriction.

Please read the talk page discussion. The reversion, five days ago, was to undo a removal of content, and Kraxler mistook me for a Mormon when I reverted. The whole matter was discussed fully on the talk page, and I think a reasonable compromise was reached. Furthermore, Samuel L. Mitchill is not a Mormon-related article by any stretch of the imagination. Remove the footnote material, and there would be no connection with Mormonism at all.--John Foxe (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was "there would be no connection with Mormonism at all" then why the title "Mormon related footnote"--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the last change to the page involving this issues was two days ago not 5 (see here). The edit war is still active.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The connection to Mormonism was made in the article back in 2009 by one John Foxe. In light of that edit, it is a curious argument to make that John Foxe's reversions of another editor's removal of that Mormonism-related material do not fall under the 1RR restriction. Either the material originally added was relevant (and thus 1RR applies), or else it was a WP:COATRACK edit and John Foxe was edit warring to maintain it.

That said, I would (somewhat weakly) advise against a block for this breach of the restriction, because the edit war is now several days old, was brief, and was resolved through discussion on the article talk page. A block would therefore seem more punitive than preventative—at least as far as this edit war is concerned, though one could argue that it would help provide a disincentive to future edit warring by John Foxe.

And yet, it is troubling that John Foxe is still willing to edit war at all. I'm not sure what would induce him to abandon the practice entirely, but it does seem that Mormonism is the primary trigger for his behavior. alanyst 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling the footnote "Mormon related" was the best way to identify the footnote material, deleted without explanation after being included in the article for three years, because the article has nothing to do with Mormonism otherwise. There's no ongoing edit war. I first posted a reworked paragraph for comment at 18:08, 3 August 2012, and Kraxler either had no objection or simply did not choose to respond.--John Foxe (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The text involved in the edit war was related to Mormonism. Additionally, even if it wasn't, there was clearly an edit war going on. I went out of town over the weekend, or I would have done this on the 3rd. Despite this, what's the point of having restrictions if they are not going to be enforce.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had thought Samuel L. Mitchill was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the disputed material is, as John himself pointed out in the talk page heading, "Mormon related" should be enough of a clue that this falls under the broadly construed, Mormon-related article restriction. If John's argument is that without the footnote, the article is not Mormon related and therefore his reverts are not technically a violation of the restriction even though the reversion itself makes the article Mormon-related, then that is the best case of wikilawyering I've seen in a while. I'm inclined to agree with a lot that Alanyst points out, namely that this is either a clear violation of his restriction or a case of COATRACKing and that the consistent trigger for John's edit warring appears to be the topic of Mormonism. In light of that, rather than multi-month extended block, perhaps an indefinite topic ban is in order (with possible option for review in a year or so). --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if I'd thought that protecting a long-standing Mormon-related footnote in a non-Mormon article was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it—especially because I got accused of being a Mormon in the bargain. I'm duly warned.--John Foxe (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if this had nothing to do with a Mormons 1RR restriction, which I disagree with, I feel that there is or was an edit war on Samuel L. Mitchill involving John Foxe.

Per WP:EDITWAR "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." While the 3RR rule is a "bright-line rule" just because a violation of the 3RR rule hasn't occurred, doesn't mean there isn't an edit war going on, see Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary.

While "Mormonism is the primary trigger for his behavior" he is involved in edit wars, albeit slow ones in order to avoid the 3RR rule, on other non-Mormon related on a regular basis. For example, Elizabeth Hope and Michael A. Bellesiles, to name just two.

It isn't hard to see that, if you disagree with John Foxe, he is more then willing to revert with you first, without discussion, and continue to revert you until you give up, no matter how many sources you can produce nor how many people come to a consensus on the matter.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

However, as I said in the first Paragraph in my last comments, I disagree with the idea that this edit war had nothing to do with Mormonism. The text in dispute was directly related to Mormonism. John Foxe said so himself, (i.e. "Mormon related footnote") which puts it squarely within the bounds of the 1RR restriction and a violation of his 1RR restriction. --ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a blanket 1RR restriction along with the Topic Ban FyzixFighter suggested, would prevent any confusion as to what is and isn't "Mormon Related", since by making all topics treated the same way, it wouldn't matter if it was "Mormon Related" or not.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe my restoration of footnote material on Samuel L. Mitchill, deleted without talk-page explanation, was completely appropriate; but I also subsequently discussed the disagreement on the talk page with the other editor. I even started the new discussion section. Furthermore, no one has suggested that the footnote at Samuel L. Mitchill is in any way biased or inappropriate. It's solid information, thoroughly sourced.

As I said above, if I'd thought that protecting a long-standing, noncontroversial Mormon-related footnote in a non-Mormon article was covered under my 1RR restriction, I wouldn't have touched it—especially because I got accused of being a Mormon in the bargain.--John Foxe (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I will admit I TL;DR'd the above comments. I am inclined to block John Foxe again as he knew that his violation covered Morman related articles broadly constructed (as in covering everything related to the topic), and that basically fits under this. The only thing i'm unsure about is the time...John, you've had many chances to try and try again...and here we are a year later and you *still* haven't figured it out. I'll wait for EdJohnston's comments as he helped deal with one of the previous cases. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand the 1RR restriction to include "everything related to the topic" of Mormonism. But, hey, if a noncontroversial footnote in an otherwise non-Mormon related article that's been untouched by any Mormon in three years is considered "a Mormon article broadly constructed," then so be it. With that understanding, I promise you won't have to deal with me again because there will be nothing to bring to the noticeboard. I've done a lot of constructive work on Misplaced Pages recently, including the dramatic expansion of Archibald G. Brown, and there are plenty of things for me to do here without discussing Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Two months. The reverts listed above show a clear 1RR violation on the article, which contains Mormon-related material. I'm just doubling the previous block length. In my opinion, any admin might consider lifting the block if John Foxe will agree to (a) a complete ban from Mormon-related editing anywhere on Misplaced Pages, (b) a 1RR/day restriction anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I agree with DQ that we've been back here many times. By this point, the community's patience ought to be running low. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that any Mormonism topic ban be limited to content space (articles and media) only, and that John Foxe be free to contribute to talk pages and project space? There have not been problems with edit warring outside of content space, and he can help bring a balancing perspective in Mormon-related discussions that might otherwise lack a skeptical/critical voice. alanyst 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I second what Alanyst said. John Foxe is nice to have around if for no other reason than he knows the sources better than most. The two month block seems fairly punitive to me, and I hope somebody will consider shortening that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there hasn't been issues "outside of content space". When it comes to any topic relating to Mormonism Foxe has had issues with Misplaced Pages:Civility, WP:BATTLE and Misplaced Pages:Assuming Good Faith. He has been blocked 8 out of 9 times over "Mormonism topic". "Knowing sources better than most" doesn't mean your exempt from the rules.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 19:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DigitalApe2000 and User:Larsonrick25 reported by User:Floating Boat (Result: Page protected)

Page: Court Bauer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: DigitalApe2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Larsonrick25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 1st revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 2nd revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 2nd revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 3rd revert (Larsonrick25): diff
• 3rd revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 4th revert (Larsonrick25) : diff
• 4th revert (DigitalApe2000): diff
• 5th revert (Larsonrick25) : diff (latest as of report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Larsonrick25 and DigitalApe2000

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

Comments:

• I came across this while patrolling Recent Changes, so I am uninvolved.
• Larsonrick25 told me on my talk page that the other user was using multiple accounts to vandalize. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by Fluffernutter. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Elsebeen reported by User:O0pandora0o (Result: indef blocked)

Page: Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elsebeen (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:

The Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse page has been a victim of Tile Join in the past. Its sole purpose on the page is to add in one single word that does not belong. This word was hashed out on Bethel's talk page (now archived), and Cirt, who was rewriting the article, decided against using the word. In context, the article describes a pastor's business, naming it "Sam Wibberly Tire". Tile Join/Elsebeen insists on adding that it is the pastor's tyre business.
Also, Elsebeen admitted to editing my userpage and talk page a number of times "in order to clock up 10 edits to be able to edit a semi-protected article."

Both Elsebeen and myself have been warned by WikiPuppies about 3RR. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I stopped undoing Elsebeen's vandalism edits, I do not wish to be blocked.

• o0pandora0o (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Triomio reported by User:De728631 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: An initial discussion was started by Martinvl at Talk:Friesland after Triomio had moved that page. Triomio was notified that the move had been undone and agreed to join the discussion. They later opened a second discussion at Talk:Friesland about the two terms Frisia and Friesland as synonyms but did not wait for consensus while reinserting contested edits at Friesland (disambiguation). A pointer at the central discussion was inserted there by Martinvl, and even Triomio asked for explanations of his edits being reverted. I have tried to present arguments at both talk pages , but Triomio went on editing and is now past 3RR.

I should also note that as an admin I am probably not impartial in this case since I'm a member of WikiProject Frisia that tries to coordinate these pages. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

1. AFA Foods blames 'pink slime' controversy for bankruptcy filing, Tiffany Hsu, The Los Angeles Times, 02-04-2012, access date 04-08-2012
2. Will BPI's Plant Closures Affect America's Ground Beef?, James Andrews, Food Safety News, 27-03-2012, access date 04-08-2012
3. 'Pink slime's' Beef Products Inc.: Hard knock for a good company?, Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times, 26-03-2012, access date 04-08-2012
4. Feds keep buying ammonia-treated ground beef for school lunches, David Knowles, The Daily, 05-03-2012, access date 04-08-2012

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring