Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:35, 26 September 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:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: 48h)

Page: Denis Avey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwatcher1 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2011/November#Sunday Times article

Talk:Denis Avey#Ownership

Comments: Wikiwatcher1 has been deleting all material from the lead that mentions the problems with the authenticity of this biography page. He also is reverting all material that refers in any detail to the controversial aspects of the 'swap' story of the WW2 veteran and ex-POW, Denis Avey. His reasons for removing material do not appear to me to be valid, viz, he regards the New Statesman, The Daily Mail and The Sunday Times as not suitable sources as they somehow to his mind are original research. E.g. he argues that material detailing the controversy using citations from a source already cited is original research yet he refuses to explain this partiality for removing only some material in the article which uses the same source (The Daily Mail). Etc. (see following diffs on the talk page ) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He has argued for acceptance of his reverting based merely on what he personally "believes", without providing any verfiable source for this belief. And he appears to think the article should rely only on what he personally believes is true or "fictional" and not on verfiability. E.g. He argued finally with this: *I believe key facts were verified by the person he exchanged clothes with and by that man's wife. The fact that some sceptics (in the U.K. only apparently) don't believe what he did or why, and point out some factual inconsistencies in his account, does not make it fictional. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

*Result: No action, since a reasonable discussion on the article talk page is now in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• New result: Blocked 48 hours. After the above closure Wikiwatcher1 continued reverting to his preferred material again, after being invited to wait for consensus on the talk page. It seems he will not allow any mention in the *article lead* of the fact that Avey's claim of breaking into Auschwitz is controversial. Although a reasonable discussion is taking place on the talk page, it does not seem he has any interest in seeking consensus there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: No violation, wrong forum)

Page: Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (admitted edit warring; self-reverted when warned)
• 4th revert: (self-reverted, but tag bombed the lead)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Closing this RfC

Comments:

While this user has not strictly broken the 3RR, I believe the examples above highlight the latest in a larger pattern of disruptive editing which I first warned the user about here User talk:Arthur Rubin#Disruptive removal of sourced content - September 2012

Notably, the user has made few if any actual contributions to these articles, instead seeming to prefer to police them for perceived bias and then argue both against consensus and against reliable, verified sources.

Other examples where this user has removed sourced content from articles about designated hate groups, (falsely) claiming that the content is unsourced. In each case, the sources can be verified and usually are direct quotes:

AFTAH

• September 14, 2012:"It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• September 18, 2012:""reason" is still unsourced. As you added back the default reason, within any justification, I'm removing the entire thing until it can be specifically sourced"

MassResistance

• September 17, 2012: " additional information not in any of the sources yet provided"
• September 17, 2012: "Hate group designation: still not in citation. Please stop synthesizing" (except it is in the source)
• September 17, 2012: "It's not in the source. Please learn to read."

Southern Poverty Law Center

• September 9, 2012: tag bombing

Public Advocate of the United States

• August 23, 2012: "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede"

Parents Action League

• September 17, 2012: tagging and (unwarranted) attribution
• September 19, 2012: overtagging (even re-introducing a biased statement with a misspelling in the tag)
• September 17, 2012:Talk:Parents Action League#Revised content - discussion related to above edits

I think this editor's objectivity may be clouded by some unknown bias that is evident in his edit history. He consistently tries to raise the bar for inclusion on certain articles. When multiple supporting sources are documented and consensus trends against his arguments, his arguments then morph into WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, followed by overtagging articles with dubious maintenance tags.

I do not propose a block for this user however, given his tenure and role as an admin, he should know better than to engage in disruptive, tendentious editing. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. – MrX 17:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

MrX (and others) are using synthesis to insert unsourced material. I'm not going to discuss the clear bias by the reporter in this former, but almost all of the examples I'm removing or commenting on consist of combining

1. SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group.
2. (SPLC): that groups are generally called (anti-gay) "hate groups" because of X, Y, and Z

to produce

• SPLC says group X is an anti-gay hate group because "X, Y, and Z".

This is just wrong, even if the two statements are in the same source. It should be clear to anyone who actually looks at the edits that the statements that they are attributing to SPLC are not in any of the sources, and many of the statements made about SPLC are not in any sources except SPLC.

A topic ban might be warranted against the nominator, and a couple other editors. But I wasn't going to propose one without sufficient evidence. Almost all of my "reverts" are reverts of misquotes or synthesis of sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I reluctantly accept, for the moment, the assertion that SPLC is generally reliable, even though no actual argument was presented on WP:RSN. (The history of discussions on RSN lead from (1) arguments than SPLC is generally reliable as an organization of experts, but without indication of fact-checking; hence reliable, but not necessary BLP-reliable to (2) assertions that the previous consensus was that SPLC is BLP-reliable.) That doesn't mean we should synthesize multiple SPLC statements to construct statements about their reasoning, or that we should reinterpret their statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong. SPLC defines a category of wrongdoing, and then fills the category with list members. The list members are of course in the list because they meet the definition—there is no synthesis. Frequently, the SPLC gives additional material to tell the reader specific examples of wrongdoing, but that is frosting on the cake. Without that elaboration it is enough to make a general statement that the article topic group has been named a hate group because of its actions that meet the definition. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Arthur has seven previous blocks for edit-warring, and seems to do an awful lot of reverting and not a lot else (I only looked at his last hundred or so edits though). Seem like this might be worth a longer look. --John (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  Over the past few days I have over 100 reverts of IPs determined to be a blocked editor. In this topic, I may be reverting edits when I should be removing the entire sections which include the edits, or tagging the information as unsourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When looking at his edits, I suggest looking at the topics about the SPLC, or in any way connected with it, such as articles about hate groups. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In the multiple discussions created on this topic, repeatedly the term "role as an admin" or similar comes up. Looking through the edits above no administrative tools were used nor was the rollback feature. There is no administrative abuse in this case. As for the contentious content mentioned here, its worth noting The SPLC source uses the phrase "anti-gay" explicitly 18 times in the cited article. Fairly specific terminology. While WP:BLPGROUP applies, its worth mentioning that "Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. ..To whatever extent the BLP policy applies to edits in this particular case. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Noone has claimed that anything was done with admin tools. We do expect admins to behave well though, per WP:NOTPERFECT, and I don't think anyone is suggesting removing the bit. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I clicked on a few of MrX's diffs and they look like reasonable edits to me. For example, this (moving a "hate group" description from the lede to a criticism section) on the face of it seems perfectly fine per WP:WEIGHT. This looks like a valid de-SYNTHing though it might have been better to separate out the two sourced statements and include both rather than eliminating one. MrX mentions the possibility that Arthur Rubin is editing from an "unknown bias". There is a saying about WP:NPOV that while everyone has biases, if you're editing neutrally then those biases should be hard to identify. So the "unknown bias" comment corroborates a theory that Arthur is editing neutrally, which is what we should be hoping for. My general impression of Arthur Rubin is that he's a usually-good editor who occasionally gets overheated, but I'm unpersuaded that anything like that is going on at the moment. Overall the complaint makes me more suspicious of MrX than of Arthur Rubin. 69.228.171.70 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article in a consistent pattern against the SPLC isn't "perfectly fine". Then the edit warring to remove categories as well: . Should admins be expected to continue the edit war of other editors ? I know these are from 2 weeks ago, but they fit the overall pattern. Is this topic under the community sanctions? Also , he did start to edit war: "Thinking it over, I am going to edit-war. That phrasing is not supported by any of the 3 references. The third says something similar, but doesn't attribute it to the SPLC. The first two say nothing of the sort. And why was "anti-gay" removed?", which he self reverted half an hour later: , after this discussion . IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, who are you? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: I understand your concern, but it always makes me nervous when people say stuff like "moving material from the lead and hiding it in the main article". In my experience phrases like that are too often used as straw man arguments against WP:Weight. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you have just deflected on some irrelevant part of my comment and not actually addressed anything I have said. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Queries Where a source does not directly support a claim, does it require a clear consensus to note the fact that the claim is unsupported? Where a group is small in size, does WP:BLP enter in at some point where a "contnetious claim" requires substantial sourcing? How small is the dividing line? And where an opinion is given about such a group, ought the opinion be given in the lede, or is it proper that such opinions be given in the body of the article where the opinion is from a single source, and not from multiple independent sources (positing that a single cource used in 1000 newspapers remains a single source for an opinion)? Where edit war is asserted, is a laundry list of all articles edited by that person utile where the reverts in question are in one specific article? I rather think these questions should be answered by anyone seeking to resolve this complaint. I would also suggest the current incarnation of the edit making a specific comment about a single living person, "the discreditied theories of Paul Cameron", requires more than the opinion source now given per WP:BLP (I assert the SPLC is an opinion sourse, staing its opinions, and not a source of objective fact) and should not thus be given in the lede in a prominent manner. Collect (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In my experience, Arthur raises the bar arbitrarily high when it comes to sources that say things he doesn't agree with and is more than willing to revert over and over again to keep these sources out. If he were consistent in his high standards, I'd conclude that he had his heart in the right place but was a bit overzealous. As it stands, it's clear that he is very selective about resisting sources and has arrived at conclusions about reliability that differ from community standards. Most notably, he joins the right-wing fringe in discounting the SPLC. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that Arthur is editing fairly and with NPOV. He should have the communities support. --131.109.101.13 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I only looked at the first diff in this complaint and believe Arthur was de-SYNTHing in good faith. There were two sources for the wiki text, "In 2009, IFI was designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the grounds that it is 'heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality n general.'"

Regarding the first source, it does not support our text's claim that the IFI was listed (past tense) as a hate group, because the source pre-dates the actual listing. In addition, although the the internal quote above does indeed come from the first source, it was taken out of context. The source was just characterizing the IFI, and if you read the entire document you find that source #1's opening italciized paragraph explicitly offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group.

Regarding the second source, our cite itself has a quote that also offers a different reason for listing IFI as a hate group, i.e., a very specific reason other than the sweeping generalized remark that IFI "heavily focused on attacking gay people and homosexuality n general." I'm not saying this quoted text is untrue, I'm saying the two sources in the complaint's first diff did not support that quoted language and actually offered a different reason for the hate group listing.

I agree with Arthur that in terms of the diff listed above, the sources did not support the text he reverted. I have not reviewed this complaint in terms of wikietiquette other than to say I don't think going to ANI is a good way to try to defend SYNTH.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Rebuttal - Please see User talk:Arthur Rubin for conversation about how this is not the case. Basically, the source has a heading that applies to all hate groups, so it's not synthesis to apply it to this particular one. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not a violation; declining. This is a matter that can be handled via further discussion and fluid editing. I would view blocking as more taking a side in what is a fairly good faith content dispute. NW (Talk) 02:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To remind you, MrX wrote, "I do not propose a block for this user". What he did request was for Arthur to be warned. I can only hope that Arthur takes all of this feedback as a warning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any place that he requested a warning, please provide diffs.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a warning would be appropriate here. Pass a Method talk 11:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban is not possible in this area, and I am not going to give a warning (I mostly focused on the diffs and missed that line last time). I see poor edits by Arthur and good edits by him. For me to warn him about what I perceive to be poor edits would almost certainly be crossing the Rubicon some sort of line and ruling on content. NW (Talk) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. But I do have a follow-up question: If you decline to warn him and believe this is the wrong forum, what would the right forum be? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(This is not a purely theoretical question, as his behavior has not improved.) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Rishu.jaggotta reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Local store marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rishu.jaggotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 15:30, 22 September 2012
• 2nd revert: 18:50, 22 September 2012
• 3rd revert: 09:26, 23 September 2012
• 4th revert: 11:03, 23 September 2012
• 5th revert: 19:21, 23 September 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

• Blocked – 48 hours. The editor is now up to seven reverts in one day. There is also an IP adding the same stuff. I wonder if this is part of a spam campaign. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Worse, it appears to be part of a school assignment involving widespread plagiarism/copyvio on part of most or all of the students. There does not appear to be a project page for the class, but see recent edits to Spin (public relations), ‎Brand ambassador, Brand equity, Multichannel marketing, Catalog marketing, Socially responsible marketing and numerous similar pages. Hairhorn (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:24.177.121.137 reported by User:RolandR (Result:72 hours)

Page: Israeli settler violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.177.121.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Article is under 1RR. User has just returned from a 24-hour block for edit-warring over the same issue on the same article.

Repeaterdly; eg Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated unsuccessful attempts

Comments:

• 72 hours for a second offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Expert opinion or reliable sources being sought )

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I already tried to tell him not to make edit-warring and I left a message on his talk page trying to resolve the situation there. He refused to respond. Same thing happened five days ago (), I left him a message to resolve the situation and again he didn't respond. Every time I left him a message he continues to revert edits and leave explanations in the edit summary. --Wüstenfuchs 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I would like to contest this. I had only reverted it three times. Please see the history of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Further more I did not receive an edit warning on my talk page. What i did receive was "I would like to stop edit warring" Acknowledged - but I only reverted 3 times, and the reason being was because Wustenfuchs edits were a breach of the WP:RS policy. Sopher99 (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, your fifth revert... the Voice of Russia is not neutral to you, the Guardian is not neutral to you... --Wüstenfuchs 14:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian is neutral, its just that you broke the agreement on the talk page not to make POV pushing statements. Specifically anaylsying a source and quoting single witnesses in an attempt to discredit the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What agreement? I was citing the Guardian. And please, not accuse me for an attempt to discredit the rebels. I'm nobody's agent here. --Wüstenfuchs 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I quote the Edit warring page saying "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. " Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page, then you saw this report and soon after you made another revert. You think I'm a psychologist to know what edits you're gonna revert and which you won't. I'm simply editing Misplaced Pages. --Wüstenfuchs 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not receive an edit warning on my talk page. What i did receive was "I would like to stop edit warring" Acknowledged - but I did not engage in edit warring, I engaged in preserving WP:RS. Sopher99 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You enaged in edit warring. You made 5 reverts in less then 24 hours. And it is not your first time you refuse to respond my messages on talk pages and insted you go for reverting explaining me the situation in edit summary. And waht is RS to you? You revert everything you dislike, the Voice of Russia, the Guardian... --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said you did not give me any official edit warning, nor did you make any attempts to resolve the "dispute on the talk page. VOR is not RS, and to uphold the WP:RS policy, I removed it. I also reverted a POV statement which you attempted to back up using the guardian. Sopher99 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

VOR acctualy meets the WP:RS policy. And I didn't tried to backup anything I was citing the Guardian about the situation of the battle and yet you reverted this because you don't like it. Also I think that my message "to try stop the edit warring" was clear enough why am I sending it. --Wüstenfuchs 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

VOR does not meet WP:RS as it classifies one side as "terrorists" , and talk about how the Syrian army "liberates" areas. It is state own, and state controlled, and the mouthpiece of an actual party in the conflict. You did not give me any official edit warning either, nor did you make any attempt to resolve the issue. Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat What I said before because the style of the format makes it look like we are bickering. The only problem I am seeing is that you are using a tic--tac report to try to ban me. I have yet to edit war - I reverted three times the attempts to add a source which breaks the WP:RS policy, and 1 revert against an edit which break the WP:NPOV. Wustenfuchs has not properly warned me of anything, nor has any attempt been made on the talk page to clarify things (Despite of a long history of using that article's talk page to resolve conflicts). Quite frankly Wustenfuchs has a histroy of trying to get people banned, to gain an editing advantage. Sopher99 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't made an attempt to resolve the issue? It's the message I sent to you to which you refused to respond. About the Guardian, you acctualy reverted a satement from a rebel commenting the rebels and you said it's POV and it's discrediting the rebels... It's clear enough you removed the text as you don't like it. And about the VoR, it's your personall oppinin that the source is not reliable. You haven't provided any statement which could prove that VoR is unreliable neither any source said that. And VoR named nobody a "terrorist". --Wüstenfuchs 15:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you ask for help from WP:RSN? Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

I have done so. --Wüstenfuchs 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just ten minutes ago. Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. --Wüstenfuchs 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Unnamed101 reported by User:Torchiest (Result: Declined )

Page: Diablo III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unnamed101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was just reported a couple days ago on this page, and immediately started reverting again when block expired.

Comments:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.

I have only performed 3 reverts, and have therefore not broken any rules, furthermore it was not immediately after my block expired.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Breaking WP:3RR is only a bright line rule for determining edit warring. You can still be considered to edit war even if you do not go over 3RR. —Torchiest _edits 16:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at what bright line rule is, regardless I put this up for conflict resolution to be sorted by a neutral party, before being reported for edit warring.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the editor has stopped reverting and seems willing to discuss at WP:DRN and accept the results of the discussion, I'll consider this settled. —Torchiest _edits 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Declined Reverts have ceased and request initiated at DRN by the editor in question.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickidewbear reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 72h)

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

The editor has been inserting edits whose edit summary suggests the edits are based on personal opinions ("Undoing Anti-Christian and Pro-Talmudist" etc) and the edits weren't referenced. The editor was reverted 4 separate times by two different editors (Evan, me, then Evan twice) and warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and recommended repeatedly to go to the talk page, yet has persisted in edit-warring, and has reverted 5 times.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - this is among edit summaries warning. Also notice Evan warned prior to this about personal attacks - I don't know whether Nicki got upset and followed Evan to this article or what, but it clearly shows some issues going on here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Niki's refused, I've gone to his/her talk page.

Post-submission - after I submitted this, Niki went onto the article Candice Cohen-Ahnine, an article I created and got on DYK, and added a category that isn't mentioned at all in the article. It's possible Niki was WP:HOUNDING me... --Activism1234 06:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment - User also forged a source with this edit. I have made a third revert to undo this and will not be reverting again anytime soon. Evanh2008 06:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And a fifth revert, reinstating the falsified material. Evanh2008 06:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Bump", as it were. Evanh2008 08:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. This is already a plain 3RR, and the editor seems to be adding unsourced personal reflections to the article. Is the editor paying any attention at all to what he's doing? As noted by Evanh2008, here he changes the wording of a direct quote from adl.org to falsely claim it said something different. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales and others reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: Protected 3 days)

Page: Will.i.am (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

• My revert:
• revert by User:Eleventhblock:
• revert by User:RA0808:
• 1st revert:
• 1st revert by User:Fram:
• revert by User:Jayen666:
• 2nd revert by User:Fram:
• 2nd revert:

Discussion on his talk page:user talk:Jimbo Wales#Seriously, Jimbo? Come on

Comments:
Although nobody made more than 2 reverts, it is clear that this is an editwar.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You reported Jimbo :D --Wüstenfuchs 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not closing this as I've commented on Jimbo's talkpage and could be considered "involved," but I consider this to be a frivolous report. Jimmy's edits were amply justified for all the reasons discussed there, and in any case, discussion continues on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Dirk Beetstra 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) Good grief. Lots of edit warring by people who should know better. I've fully protected for 3 days to allow consensus to form on the talk page. If *any* (hint) admin makes any edits that are not extremely uncontroversial without consensus, they will be blocked. People outside WP are watching this page, so it's a bad time for everyone to act like children. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not agree that this is an "edit war". It is normal routine editing accompanied by a constructive discussion on the talk page. Protection in this case is counterproductive. You've frozen it to my own version, so perhaps I should be happy with that, but I actually think that progress is being made towards a compromise version. Please reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not an edit war? Take a look again, please. Once there is consensus for a compromise version on the talk page, or consensus that protection is no longer needed, then protection can be lifted. That's how it works for the mere mortals, seems reasonable to handle it that way here too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Objectively, if I had been on the stick at WP:RFPP and this came over, and it was no names that I recognized, I would be hesitant to full protect. 3 total reverts from multiple editors isn't exactly a full blown edit war, and isn't that uncommon for editors to bounce around a few edits then for it to settle down, all part of the editing process. Not the same as two editors ping/ponging past 3RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Eight reverts, actually. But if you really wouldn't have protected a "normal" article with 8 reverts in 24 hours, then feel free to unprotect. Like you, I'm more than willing to have an uninvolved admin change whatever I do, without needing my OK first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I didn't see but 15 edits in three days and four were double edits, for a net of 11 edit cycles in 72 hours. I'm not saying there isn't contention or that you "shouldn't have" so I am sorry if it seemed that way. Protection was a valid option even if it wouldn't have been my first choice. Fram and Jimmy both had two reverts (plus Jimmy's first edit), and maybe no one likes to throw a template on Jimmy's page, but dragging him to AN3 certainly isn't a better option at 2RR. Again, grey area and I just felt like the likelihood of it escalating too much further wasn't that great. And yes, I've seen 8RR that I've protected, or that I've blocked for,or that I've just talked to the participants, depending on those particular circumstances. It's no shocker that I'm not a lover of "bright line" rules. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Facepalm Whilst I'm sure the subject did tell Jimbo this, and it's correct, Jimbo should really know that this is the very definition of original research without reliable sources. Sigh. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that was my initial reaction as well, but c'mon. In some cases primary sources are acceptable. All policies are marked at the top with the advice that they are subject to "common sense and the occaisional exemption" How somebody spells their name would probably be be one of those. On top of that, there are actually sources that back Jimbo's edit, more so now that this incident itself has been commented on in the press. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have been impressed and delighted if Jimbo had shown her the cool way instead: registering, boldly making the change herself, with an inline citation to her website or a supporting independent RS, noting in Talk her preference with reference to WP:BLP, and finally filing with OTRS from her own email address re the change. --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source so far that really back his edit. I have commented on the talk page of the article that articles that state that he was born "William Adams" don't prove or back anything, as the same can be found for pretty much every celebrity with a pseudonym (I gave the examples of Sting and Bono): sources will give them as "born First Name Last Name", omitting the middle name(s), all the time. Obviously, this doesn't mean that the middle name in this case is correct or existing, but it isn't evidence of the opposite either. The fact that the middle name only seems to appear in sources after our article was created is much more damning though. Fram (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:94.11.147.97 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

Page: Optical Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.11.147.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Multiple previous versions and successive reverts by same editor makes it difficult to find previous versions of individual reverts listed below.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Optical Express#PM to Golfbravoecho

Comments:
The other user (User:Golfbravoecho) involved in this edit war continues to revert even after being warned. Reviewing admin might like to look into reverts done by Hardlygone (talk · contribs) who also displayed edit warring behavior on this article today. --SMS 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: The page is now fully protected by User:Elockid after a request at WP:RFP. --SMS 03:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:184.58.11.202 reported by User:Jprg1966 (Result: 72h)

Page: Begin Again (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.58.11.202 (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: N/A, reporting other users

Comments:
Co-warrior with Afireinside27 (talk · contribs), who did stop reverting when warned of being at 3RR.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked both editors and protected the page for five days to allow for discussion. I count four reverts for Afireinside27 and so blocked him as well but would be open to an unblock at any time so long as he assures he won't edit war again. Ks0stm 20:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by User:Ks0stm

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

Page: List of programs broadcast by Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• . To be honest, it's easier to link to page history; I count ten reverts tonight alone.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: . Warning was given here as I entered into a discussion which was already ongoing and felt it easier to warn there than with a template drop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is simple page blanking and should not need discussed.

Comments:

• This is a case of constant page blanking as the reported user has taken a warped approach to NPOV, believing that no one article should be better than articles on similar subjects and to improve only one is wrong. Coupled with accusations of "fanboy"ism thrown at the productive editor involved in improving the page in question, this is clearly a blatant bad-faith campaign. GRAPPLE X 01:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You know what...I don't care anymore...it's not worth the hassle...do whatever you want to the article. Vjmlhds 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Vjmhlds for 72 hours...but I've also blocked User:TBrandley for the same amount of time. Both of them went far far beyond 3RR, and this was not a case of vandalism where there's a 3RR exception. I can't block one person and not the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: )

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: There have been subsequent edits to the article so please see comments for recommended action.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
There's a conflict coming to a head over at the Frank Vandersloot BLP regarding the improper inclusion of a partisan Heritage Foundation video that is rife with serious allegations about third parties (including the President and several others) and clearly violates WP:BLP. I've removed it from the article but one editor keeps on putting it back and ignoring the BLP violation. I've pointed out the issue in my edit summaries and on the Talk page, so it's now a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the other editor's part. I just left a lengthy explanation, again, as to why the video violates BLP, and although policy states that it should be immediately removed, I didn't want to be the one to pull the plug again lest the other editor starts squawking about a 3RR violation, so I'm asking for some immediate assistance to remove the external link in the article to the video ASAP. I've also posted this notice on the the BLP noticeboard.

Regrettably, this is the type of conflict over a straightforward issue that has been coming up all too often with this editor and one other editor on the article lately, and it's getting to be a really exhaustive process having to explain the simplest of details over and over again to editors who refuse to listen or play by the rules. It seems that they are waging a war of attrition, whereby they make blatantly inappropriate edits and then launch edit/revert wars under obviously flimsy premises, necessitating lengthy talk page replies/explanations and noticeboard interventions time and time again. Seems very unfair for a couple of rogues to punish other NPOV editors in this manner, so I'd really like to see some user blocks handed out for this sort of conduct so that it can be kept to a minimum in the future. Not to sound vengeful, but there needs to be consequences for WP:DE/WP:TE] and an example needs to be set so that this sort of punitive war of attrition and waste of WP resources does not continue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I must have angered the beast. Now the editor is blanking huge swathes of content from the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the external link to the video. However I have no idea about what to do with the rest! I would suggest going to WP:DRN as this seems to be more of a content dispute than edit warring... (And no, I am NOT an admin!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. That should hopefully put the immediate BLP violation issue to rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. Problematic behavior continues. One of the other edit warriors just reverted the deletion and put the video link back in the article.

I believe this is a simple case of two editors disagreeing as to when new information was added to an article and who has the right to revert it. I was the one who originally added the video, so any blanking of it would be a reversion, and any restoration of it would be, well, a restoration.

The video in question was originally posted by me to the page at 18:17, 23 September 2012 as a source for a statement in the text that VanderSloot as a child was engaged in "chopping wood for his mother's cookstove, milking cows and feeding chickens, and he began managing the farm when he was twelve years old. He was allowed to keep the $2.50 cream check to save for his college education"

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514194933

At 20:23, 23 September 2012, Rhode Island Red removed the text, as well as the citation, with the Edit Note "Seriously? Video speech with Norquist at the Heritage Foundation making allegations about third parties? Not even properly attributed or accurately quoted; no transcript. Take it to talk if any objections."

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514204751

At 23:42, 23 September 2012 I restored the info that had been deleted by RIR – and added some more – along with the Heritage video citation (again) as the source. My Edit Note stated "Rewriting two paragraphs to give a more rounded picture of the subject, as reported in WP:Reliable sources. Fixing a link to Heritage Foundation per request (See Talk Page)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514212931

Having realized that this video was not really a good source for the information in the article, at 00:01, 24 September 2012, I removed its link from the list of References and made a new Section for the article, titled "External links," and I placed the link there, with the Edit Note stating "Changing Heritage Foundation link from a Source to an External Link. The statements in the article are sourced elsewhere as footnoted." This I considered to be a new posting, not a restoration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514235315

I posted a note explaining the above at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Heritage_Foundation_video

At 03:11, 24 September 2012 RIR reverted a large number of my editorial and factual changes, going back to a previous version, I believe, as well as removing the External Link section with its link to the video in question. His Edit Note stated: (none of what was added is mentioned in the cited source (Popkey))" This, to me, was RIR's first reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514252801

At 04:51, 25 September 2012, having taken RIR's concerns into consideration, I restored the External Note, with a link to the video. This restored External Link had a new reefer, as follows: "'The Bloggers Briefing,' Heritage Foundation, May 29, 2012, video, at 32:33] VanderSloot speaking at a meeting of the Heritage Foundation, talking about his life, childhood, education and family, supporting the free-enterprise system and responding to charges made against him." I did not leave an Edit Summary because I considered that was all taken care of on the Talk Page (sorry). This was a restoration, not a reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514433477

At 16:25, 25 September 2012 RIR removed the External Link and added this Edit Note: "video is filled with WP:BLP violations (i.e., controversial claims against third parties). I explained this already, so please stop ignoring the issue." I considered this RIR's second reversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514508854

Really puzzled, I took RIR's complaints to heart and spent an hour or more viewing the video and making notes, and I found only one comment in it that could possibly have been damaging to any person, who, by the way, was a public figure about whom Frank VanderSloot stated an opinion.

I posted my complete report about what I found in the video on the Talk Page at

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Link_to_Heritage_Foundation_video

At 21:23, 25 September 2012, I restored the External Link, with the Edit Note "This has already been reverted twice by the same editor. See WP:3RR and WP:Editwar)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=514550067

So far the External Link in question has stayed put. There is a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Link_to_Heritage_Foundation_video on the fate of this video, and I believe that is where this complaint should be decided.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a mighty long post that really seems to miss the point. It's late, so for now, I'll just reiterate that I clearly documented all the reasons why this video violates WP:BLP, so I don't know why the point is still being missed after I had been making those same points all along. This never should have escalated to an edit war. The BLP and sourcing issues are cut and dried.Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just received this notice on my Talk page alerting that the editor in question is now violating WP:CANVASS in a possible attempt at vote stacking. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The CANVASS issue would be troublesome were it not for the fact that no one not already cognizant of this page has appeared at all, making it moot at this point. I would point out that I am known as a very strong proponent of WP:BLP. The issue here is whether WP:BLP is a valid defense where the source is essentially an SPS by the person and the person deleting it suggests it is self-serving for the subject of the BLP. If a self-serving statement is removed because it defends the subject of the BLP, does WP:BLP suggest that reverts do not count? I fear that both editors have, indeed, edit warred here, but misuse of a policy as a license, if it is indeed misuse, does not excuse RIR. OPs are not exempt, IIRC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note. The edit-warring report, as originally filed, is stale. The edit-warring occurred 3 days ago. It looks fairly clear to me that GeorgeLouis canvassed. The fact that no one has appeared as a result of the canvassing does not render the canvassing acceptable. I don't usually look at content too much in an edit-warring report but because this is intertwined with whether there is a BLP policy violation, I did look at some of the history, including the comments here and on the article talk page. The topic at BLPN doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. The video is very long (an hour is what someone said), and I'm not going to watch the whole thing. It's fairly clear to me that it is a link that should not be in the article body or in the external links section. It is essentially a platform for a political organization to spread various messages. Assuming that RIR is correct as to what it says at various points in the video (RIR lists quotes and times on the article talk page) - and GeorgeLouis has not challenged the actual facts of RIR's list - the link violates BLP because third-parties make accusations against living persons, and it is not reported in a secondary source. Honestly, I find it highly suspect that anyone would use this link to report on the subject's childhood and various anecdotes he tells about his childhood. It's mostly trivia; yet to hear that trivia, you have a an hour-long link with a great deal of objectionable material. I believe GeorgeLouis himself does a good job of pointing to WP:ELBLP as one of the policies that prohibit the use of this link in the article. At the moment the link is out, having been removed several hours ago by Barts1a. If there were still a tug-of-war on the article about the link, I'd lock the article, and I'd lock it without the link because of the policy issues. Even if someone wants to continue arguing that the link does not violate BLP, WP:BLPREMOVE is sufficient to keep it out until the issues are fleshed out. I might remind editors that a content consensus cannot override policy, although I understand that editors can disagree whether the policy is violated in the first instance. My belief is this report should be closed as stale with the understanding that the link cannot go back in. I'm not going to close the report, though, particularly in case other admins wish to comment. I will be watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Liftmoduleinterface reported by User:Bridies (Result: )

Page: Video game genres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liftmoduleinterface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (this is his first removal of the disputed content)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games#Visual novel as a genre. This was started by another user on a project talk page.

Comments:

Obviously, there is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. The user has ceased discussion in the relevant talk page thread (where consensus was unanimously against him) and here appeared to acknowledge that there was a consensus, and said "A consensus about invalid information means little". 2 out of 3 of the reverts were performed (in the last few hours) after he ceased discussion, and he has continued after I pointed out he had not added anything further, and was acting against consensus. 3 different editors have reverted him over the course of the dispute. bridies (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring