Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 12 March 2010

• 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:Carl Milles and 83.250.48.172 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Warned)

Page: Art Deco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Carl Milles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and 83.250.48.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: March 3, image changed by Special:Contributions/194.68.56.43

• 1st revert: – March 5, by Carl Milles
• 2nd revert: – March 5, by Carl Milles
• 3rd revert: – March 6, by 83.250.48.172
• 4th revert: – March 6, by Carl Milles
• 5th revert: – March 7, by 83.250.48.172
• 6th revert: – March 7, by Carl Milles

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Art_Deco#Chrysler_building_image

Comments:
The conflict is very simple: a new user would like to have a different image at the top of the Art Deco page, one that he feels is superior, and I disagree. The new editor has been using his logged-in username and his anon IP address to edit the article and to discuss on the talk page, so I have submitted this report on both accounts. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true! I have been sloppy and not logged in properly. I will try to be much more careful.

Unfortunately Binksternet went into the edit as he/she belives the old one is better. I will probably not care about this (or any Misplaced Pages contribution whatsoever) anymore, if little people are allowed to rule by mere persistence, instead of trying to reach some concensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Carl Milles was revert-warring, under his own account and as an IP. We can accept his statement (above) as a promise to be more careful in the future. I am semiprotecting the article to be sure that Milles will edit the article under his own name from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well. I will not make any contributions to the English Misplaced Pages any more as people such as Binksternet are allowed to rule by pure persistence. This is what makes articles like the one on art deco stale, and there are numerous of other examples. Hopefully there will some other way of writing encyclopedias in the future. My part ends here.Carl Milles (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:Gilisa (Result: Protected)

Page: The Invention of the Jewish People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported:RolandR RolandR (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:

• Isn't the first diff Roland's first edit of the day, making this three reverts, not four? And don't you have three reverts as well, Gilisa? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are surprisingly fast. Anyway, all are reverts made in much less than 24 hours. In any case, he didn't try to achieve consensus and verged, if not exceed, with article ownership. I informed him that his manner of editing is disruptive before he violated the 3rr. And I encourge you to count from the begining, I don't have three reverts, only two, while he have four. --Gilisa (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here are three: 15:16 7 March 14:41 8 March 15:08 8 March — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• This issue is already closed but just for the sake of good order: it's not a three revert. It is my first edit that was discussed on the talk page few hours before the edit was taken. --Gilisa (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the first "revert" was an original edit; the others were an attempt to prevent a POV reversion of this. I have discussed this at length on the article talk page, and have carefully explained the reasoning behind my edit. RolandR (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No you didn't, you replied on the talk page only after the last revert you made on my edits. You didn't show any realy intent to discuss. I, on the other hand informed about my first edit much before it was done-here-and you reverted my edit about two hours after it was made. Which mean it's a revert and not merely first edit.--Gilisa (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• My first edit was not a reversion. I didn't restore the text you removed; indeed, I agree with you that the words "by some" should be removed, and have not replaced them. RolandR (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pardon? Please read this from the begining - I sepcifically informed on my intent to remove the words "by some" and to leave there only the word "controversial" and only after then I did it (This edit was according to the reference). You changed it in purpose to change the meaning and it can be learned from the correspondence on the talk page and in the edit summaries. Typically in your style of edits as I was impressed, you didn't discuss them first. It can be seen here that your first edit was certainly with intent to change the meaning-so it's a revert, even if you didn't restore the original words (with which it seem, unlike you wrote here, you agreed before and after you engaged into edit warring (e.g., you wrote that you changed from controversial only to "has been described as controversial" because you don't think the book is controversial, ignored sources on one hand and challnged me to prove my proven and sourced assertion with sources on the other hand). In your last revert (of Kuratowski's Ghost) you removed without hesitation and discussion (even he posted on the talk page before his editing) a statement that was supported by 5 valid and reliable sources and restore to your own disputed version --Gilisa (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected five days. Is this really a revert war over a single sentence? Are people hair-splitting over the reverts? Did a person who has three reverts just report a person who has four reverts for edit-warring? Please! Three reverts is not an entitlement, and you are both warring. Since there are plenty of editors on this article, you could easily have started a discussion on the talk page with three or more people to sort this out. RolandR's first edit is technically a revert because it removes some words that were previously in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Public image of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:55, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Conservative support */ eliminated until it's resolved on talk page")
2. 21:41, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Orangemike; Again you dont get it...it doesnt matter if its sourced...it doesnt belong here. (TW)")
3. 22:15, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "his public image may lead to conservative support, not the other way around...doesnt belong here")

• Diff of warning: here

— Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

What began as a slow-motion edit war where fully-referenced and notable content was repeatedly removed has now morphed into a technical violation. Here are some earlier related diffs:

1. 21:10, 2 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* Conservative support */ eliminated sub section....why is that put there but not liberal support? or conservative/liberal criticism?")
2. 11:46, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Tarc; Thats biased. (TW)")
3. 22:32, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Scjessey; It's totally biased and not needed. (TW)")
4. 22:36, 3 March 2010 (edit summary: "its not vandalism at all...we need to talk about this on the talk page before going further")

-- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've left a note for Jerzeykydd and asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  I had already notified Jerzeykydd of this report. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Jerzeykydd has resumed editing without making any response to this complaint. If he continues to remove a section from Public image of Barack Obama without getting consensus first, he will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by Karunyan (talk) (Result: Stale)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of The Clique series characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 23:07, 2 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 68.228.188.73 identified as vandalism to last revision by 98.64.18.216. using TW")
2. 14:36, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Giraffedata (talk) to last version by The Thing That Should Not Be")
3. 16:34, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Karunyan (talk) to last version by Collectonian")
4. 17:29, 8 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Karunyan; Rv; randomly reverting shit just because I reverted something you did earlier is childish; unnecessary and stupid change, original wording is perfectly acceptable. using ")
5. 01:47, 9 March 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Karunyan (talk) to last version by Collectonian")

—Karunyan (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend any admin look at the whole picture. Karunyan is basically running around randomly reverting my edits purely because I reverted his "contribution" to the InuYasha character list.. A second editor also reverted him when he tried again. Among his reverts include a restoration of vandalism by the Bambifan101 sock puppet. with a summary of "Just trollin'." and reverting a consensus approved merge (which another editor reverted This claims of reverts above are also bull. The first is from the second and was clearly vandalism. Being totally WP:POINTy and trying to get revenge (or by his own edit summary, "Just trollin'."). Was left a note about his childish behavior on his talk page, which resulted in his filing this BS report and doing more reverts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of Karuyan's last seven edits, one was to file this report, the other six were all to revert Collectonian's edits with no explanation, save the one marked "Just trollin'" . It certainly seems like provocation. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the indications of hounding, I've suggested to Karunyan that he withdraw this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. No reverts in 24 hours. Karunyan has not edited since I gave him the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Groupthink reported by User:John Asfukzenski (Result: 24h)

Page: Trent Franks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Groupthink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

John Asfukzenski (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of the article in question, you will see that the alleged "reverts" are in fact revisions to accomodate objections by John Asfukzenski, such as creating a new "Criticism" section and adding references to establish that the material in question does not violate WP:Tabloid. If anybody's violating the spirit of WP:3RR here, it's John Asfukzenski.
Please also note that John Asfukzenski did not notify me of this report, per the instructions above. Groupthink (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24h to Groupthink for edit-warring and tendentious editing. I believe that both Groupthink and Asfukzenski are in trouble with 3RR, but the latter has been trying to tone down some of the language that might be considered extreme in a BLP, such as calling Franks 'an ultra-conservative Republican' in the lead of the article. That sounds like editorializing in Misplaced Pages's voice. Groupthink also changed 'conservative' to 'paleoconservative' for Pat Buchanan, which sounds like POV-pushing. Since John's reverts may be covered by the WP:BLP exemption, only Groupthink is being sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Magnius, User:RepublicanJacobite, User:Michael C Price, reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Declined)

Page: Tannhauser Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Magnius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Michael C Price (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• See Tannhauser Gate history

This is a rather different type of conflict. Two editors keep reverting sourced content, then template Michael C Price everytime he re-adds it back (with explanations, sources, etc...). The content is both legitimate, sourced, and they just won't have any of it. Discussion is impossible (see User talk:Magnius, which followed the blanking of his userpage after we tried talking to him, and see User talk:Michael C Price#March 2010 as well).

Comments:

My request isn't in the form of the usual 3RR request, since I don't really know what exactly this falls under. Warnings for Magnius and RepublicanJacobite might be enough to force them to engage in productive discussions. Or maybe the routine 24 hour 3RR block is enough. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You haven't made any attempt at discussion first on the article's talk page, and you're reporting three editors for a non-3-RR violation here. "Hoah, boy!" Doc9871 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is more general than 3RR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Wouldn't it be best to exhaust discussion amongst the editors, or at least raise it on the article's talk page first? Just curious... Doc9871 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the links, you'll see this was directly raised with the editors themselves and the result was being ignored, and threatened with bans. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really just mostly wondering why no discussion on the talk page has occurred since May 24 of last year. It seems odd. I don't know the full history here (give me 15 minutes), but I know things should be discussed before edit-warring occurs... Doc9871 (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This is absurd. I gave Michael Price one warning, which was for 3RR, a warning he earned. I never gave him any other warning. Furthermore, there have been no edits, by anyone, in regard to that matter in 3 days. The most recent round of reverts, in the last 24 hours or so, are in regard to another piece of trivia in the pop. culture section. Do these matters need to be discussed on the talk page? Certainly. Have we been remiss in not doing so? Yes. But, this is not a matter that needs to be addressed at ANI, especially considering that you never made any attempt to discuss this with any of the three of us before making this report. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems one of civility re WP:DTTR, coupled with a shot-first attitude. User:Magnius's only mode of communication seems to be templating editors in this and a number of other articles. (I picked up a template for adding a citation request to a contested claim, and then another when I actually sourced the claim with a book reference.) Others have complained about Magnius on his talk page (which he blanked as soon as I added my complaint). Such behaviour sours the atmosphere generally and does not improve content. --Michael C. Price 21:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Following up on what I said earlier. My first revert in two days was reverting an addition by an IP editor, which was then reverted by Michael C. Price. So the "facts" as presented by Headbomb are a blatant distortion, and he's managed to leave out his own edit warring, since one revert is now classed as edit warring. This is a content dispute over pop culture cruft of doubtful relevance in an article already bloated with such material. Headbomb's approach here, though, has not been helpful, including leaving a message on my talk page, then deleting it, realizing he had the wrong editor. At any point, he could have started a discussion on the article's talk page. Why didn't he, given his concerns? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Declined. This is intended to be an edit-warring complaint, but it's too hard to follow. How can admins verify that someone is going against the talk page consensus when there is nothing about the dispute on the talk page? I attach some concern to the edits by Michael C. Price; I do not see where that he obtained consensus for the changes he is repeatedly trying to make at Tannhauser Gate. Perhaps he should take the first step and ask for opinions on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Xandar reported by User:Karanacs(Result: Protected)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Today, User:UberCryxic and I made changes to an article's organization. After that, several other users made other changes to the article - copyediting, formatting, etc, some completely unrelated to the layout changes. The organization changes are being discussed on the article talk page in several sections.
• Xandar came to the article, and, rather than discuss, immediately reverted. He did not engage in discussion on the changes other than to say that he thought the process used to make them was unacceptable.
• Another user reverted Xandar's wholesale change.
• Xandar reverted again:

Note that this page has been protected for editwarring repeatedly recently, and all editors on the page are well aware that we should not be edit-warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Catholic_Church#No_way

Comments:

Karanacs and UberCrycix have decided to break the rules of Misplaced Pages and try to impose highly contentious changes to the Catholic Church article which have not achieved consensus. These include a major reorganisation of this Good Article - which was not agreed when proposed. the elimination of referenced material and whole sections of the article. This is disruptive editing, which would not be tolerated on any article. I have reverted TWICE to the last consensus version, which is quite proper under BOLD, REVERT DISCUSS. If Karanacs wants to discuss her proposed changes to the article, she is free to do so. However she and her friend are NOT allowed to change the article radically without consensus, and then come here claiming that the longstanding editors have no right to insist on the longstanding version being retained. Their actions have been opposed by other editors including Myself, Nancy Heise, Richard Husr. Johnbod and Yorkshirian. I have several times proposed mediation on disputed content, but Karanacs and Ubercryxix seem determined to have their way by any means. Xandar 02:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. See talk there and my talk for extensive discussion. Tom Harrison 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:UberCryxic and User:Karanacs reported by User:Xandar (Result: See above)

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) UberCryxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Karanacs and UberCrycix have decided to break the rules of Misplaced Pages and try to impose highly contentious changes to the Catholic Church article which have not achieved consensus. This intention was announced here These people are attempting to edit-war major unagreed changes onto the Catholic Church page because they have lost patience with, or are not prepared to go through an orderly process of discussion and mediation on content. These major changes include a wholesale and non-consensus reorganisation of this Good Article - which was not agreed when proposed. The elimination of referenced material, and whole sections of the article. This is disruptive editing, which would not be tolerated on any article. Editors Johnbod, Richardhusr, Nancy heise, Myself and Yorkshirian all immediately objected to the changes and expressed intentions that they be reverted to the longstanding consensus version. Yet the pushers of this attempted transformation are attempting to bully it onto the page with reversions, and accusations that the editors obeying WP rules are the ones edit-warring. Xandar 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Breein1007 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: No action)

Page: Sheikh Jarrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of attemp to resolve dispute on user talk page (subsequently deleted by user):

Comments: Breein1007 has been notified of and is under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBPIA. He/she refuses to discuss their reverts in the article talk page or on their user talk page leaving me no option.

Factsontheground (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My reverts were made with valid edit summaries. I didn't have anything else to add to my point on the talk page. On the other hand, Factsontheground repeatedly reverted a series of my edits, while only addressing his concerns with 1 of them. More specifically, here are the diffs: - not only is Factsontheground also edit warring (ie: it takes two to tango), but he is also making blanket reverts without even so much as mentioning a hint of reasoning. His edit summary mentioned his belief that the source is not reliable, which I disagree with. But in his revert, he also hid the reinsertion of inappropriate material about Baruch Goldstein that violates WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Breein1007 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here's my take on the issue. Factsontheground removed some paragraphs attributed to an op-ed on March 7th, and opened a discussion on the talk page on the same day. Breein1007 didn't join that discussion, but reverted Factsontheground's changes three days later, in addition to removing part of a sentence about Baruch Goldstein. Factsontheground sent Breein1007 a message on his talk page about why he made a change he did, and asked Breein1007 to join the discussion on the article talk page, then reverted Breein1007's changes. Breein1007 deleted the message from his talk page, with an edit summary of "no thanks"., and reverted Factsontheground, complaining that Factsontheground had reverted several edits.

As far as I can tell, Factsontheground made a fairly good attempt at starting a discussion on both the article talk page, and Breein1007's talk page. Breein1007 stated that he didn't want to discuss the issue. Breein1007 complained that Factsontheground reverted multiple edits, which is true. However, the only difference between Breein1007's multiple edits and his revision of Factsontheground was a few words in one sentence. He could have very easily just redone the changes to that one sentence, and joined in the discussion on the talk page, but instead he reverted en masse too. This started an edit war.

Rather than edit warring on this issue, the opinion piece cited, written by "a PhD student in geography at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem", should have been taken to WP:RSN. It seems to me either of you could have (and should have) done that before edit warring. But it's also pretty clear that Factsontheground at least attempted to discuss the issue (twice), while Breein1007 refused. ← George 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the talk page discussion, it is true that I did not see the post until after I reverted. However, upon reading the post and then checking the article, there was nothing I had to add to the talk page that I didn't say in my edit summary. In terms of my talk page, I would have been glad to treat Factsontheground's message seriously, had he not decided to use a template to give me a bogus warning. I can't take "invitations to discussions" like that seriously. I wouldn't think WP:RSN is needed here, but I suppose that would be a better route than edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion Breein1007, why not self revert, re-add the change to the Baruch Goldstein sentence, and ask if that op-ed is a reliable source at WP:RSN? ← George 05:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair suggestion. I will consider it... even though I still don't think that I should be the one expected to bring sources to WP:RSN if Factsontheground is the one removing information that as of now is properly sourced in the article. Breein1007 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources aren't RS by default. Isn't the editor who wants to use a source supposed to establish reliability prior to use ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)..unless it's obviously reliable. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." ← George 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did take this issue to WP:RSN some hours ago. If you want to argue for Frantzman's supposed expertise, Breein1007, there is the place to do it. And as George and Sean have noted, the burden of proof rests upon those who want to add material not those who want to remove it. You really need to self-revert and engage in discussion if you don't want to appear to be edit warring. By the way, Zero0000, an editor who knows a lot about I-P historical matters has posted a good comment debunking Frantzman's claims -. Indeed, to anyone familiar with the history of the region the Frantzmans claims are ridiculous nonsense. Factsontheground (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is considerd RS, that's can explain much.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But a blog in a newspaper is a RS for only the blogger's opinion, not for historical fact. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely frank here. Earlier today I had basically come to the conclusion that I should simply leave the issue alone and allow the information to be removed from the article, even though I completely disagree that the source is unreliable. I was for all intents and purposes prepared to give up on this issue because I didn't want this edit war to continue. However, the case has developed on WP:RSN (by the way, I appreciate that Factsontheground brought the matter there - I didn't know that he did until he mentioned it here). There is no clear consensus at this point about the reliability of the source, and the discussion is ongoing. As such, I will not give up on the issue until a final decision is reached on WP:RSN. That said, I won't continue edit warring, even though Factsontheground's version is currently in place on the article as a result of his own edit warring (as well as another editor who joined in). If WP:RSN comes to the conclusion that the source is reliable, I will be reinserting the information into the article unless another editor beats me to it. Breein1007 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action. Breein1007's comments might be interpreted by some as an intention to edit war, because there is no indication he intends to get consensus before re-adding the Frantzman material to the article. Since this has not yet happened, no action is yet appropriate. Breein1007 has already been notified of the Israel/Palestine Arbcom case. If edit warring resumes, this article may be protected, or editors who revert without getting consensus on the Talk page may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:213.240.232.170 reported by User:Maral616 (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Gümüş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 213.240.232.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user keeps continuously adding numbers to the number of original episodes wich was 100, thus by doing so vandalizing the content of the article.

• Result - Semiprotected. This IP just came off a block for revert-warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.183.125.170 reported by User:EPadmirateur (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Shadi Bartsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 75.183.125.170 (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: RfC added and subsequent discussion.

Comments:

This IP editor appears to want to add disparaging and sometimes unsourced information about Ms. Bartsch, probably arising from a controversy in which Ms. Bartsch is "dating" the married, now separated President of the University of Chicago, Robert Zimmer. Examples of these edits include: , . --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Semiprotected. IP editor has exceeded 3RR while making no attempt to discuss on Talk. IP has no interests besides this one article. Ms. Bartsch has achieved notability sufficient for Misplaced Pages through her teaching and research at the Univ. of Chicago. Do we really need to know who she is dating? EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:KrumpKrumpKrumpKrump reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 1 month)

Page: Mike Tyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: KrumpKrumpKrumpKrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1010 March 3

• 1st revert: 1317 March 5 "Undid revision 347485307 by Favonian (talk) Celebheights.com is reliable. Heights are from evidence"
• 2nd revert: 0626 March 6 "BBC is unreliable. Celebheights.com specialise in heights."
• 3rd revert: 0444 March 7 "Undid revision 348117514 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Hell yeah! Celebheights.com specialise in heights FROM EVIDENCE. BBC doesn't!"
• 4th revert: 1054 March 7 "Please do not delete references. Celebheights.com is the most reliable site on heights of celebrities. Regards"
• 5th revert: 0828 March 8 "Celebheights.com manifests Mike Tyson "measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10." Read the reference article. It is 100% reliable!"
• 6th revert: 1137 March 8 "Mike Tyson is 5'10 RIGHT NOW. He was 5'11.5 in his prime, not now. Celebheights.com states from an article "He measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10.""
• 7th revert: 1312 March 10 "Celebheights states: Mike Tyson "measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10.". Mike Tyson's last year of fighting was in 2005. Thus, his fighting height is 5'10. Understand?!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 0548 March 7

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Celebheights.com.

Comments:
I blocked him for 24 hours between the 6th and 7th revert.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 1 month. This is his fourth block since 1 December. No sign that the earlier blocks (for as long as a week) made any impression at all. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the editor is willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • He has toned it down a bit as of late, no? ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cgersten reported by User:JamesMLane (Result: 48h)

Page: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Cgersten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Background of earlier reverts:

Today's reverts violating 3RR:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (article talk page), (user talk page)

Also note prior 3RR warnings with regard to other pages: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts by me and by User:Jojhutton at Talk:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration#2001 Airstrikes

Comments: Aside from the 3RR violation, the language the user keeps reverting to is clearly improper, citing praise of Bush but asserting as fact the accuracy of one POV on a contentious subject.
JamesMLane t c 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI- User:Cgersten is also the subject of a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Cgersten. For this edit summary.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that all this user does is edit war, over and over and over again. I haven't looked at the Bush article stuff, but re: Clinton, this thing is a minor news blurb about one section of the presidents SOTU address. It is completely out of place in a section that is summarizing major pieces of legislation, policy initiatives, etc... Tarc (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been slowly trying to remove this information for over a month now. Mostly on my own, and always careful to never make more than 3 reverts on a page a day. I knew that it was a matter of time before this user went over 3 reverts. All he/she seems to want to do is add random information, and thinks that as long as its cited, its okay. It finally took an extra pair of eyes to see what was happening. I didn't want to take it to a notice board, until he/she really did something worth mentioning, and I didn't want to try and get others involved, for fear of being accused of canvasing.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not citing praise of Bush (please read news artlcles cited), and how one can infer that is beyond me, especially considering future actions against Iraq that occured? What's more, apparently JamesMLane doesn't support Bush, while Jojhutton does. So one news item can be interpreted differently by people of different political views.

I was merely citing two front page New York Times news items (escalation by bombing beyond "no fly" zone), that considering future events is significant. Also the opinions about the raids on Iraq was from a reliable source (i.e., NY Times).

Only real question: Should someone researching the presidency of Bush be aware that Bush ordered this raid within 30 days of becoming president?-- (talk)tuco_bad 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 48 hours. Block can be lifted or shortened if the editor will agree to follow our policies. He has been unusually persistent in his warring at Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. He seems unaware that caution is needed on high-profile articles, especially for someone like himself who appears to have limited knowledge of our policies. Since this report was filed, he has moved on to Presidency of Bill Clinton and has already made two reverts there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OuroborosCobra reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: editor warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User talk:ColDickPeters (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). OuroborosCobra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 18:49, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "/* March 2010 */ new section")
2. 19:46, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:49, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:54, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 19:57, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349061623 by ColDickPeters (talk)")
6. 20:00, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 349062111 by ColDickPeters (talk)")
7. 20:17, 10 March 2010 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Uncle Dick (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Would this be the place to respond with the fact that they have launched attacks based on what they have decided is my sexual orientation, that they trolled talk pages with homophobic posts, that in removing warnings from talk pages, they did so with personal attacks, that they have launched a personal war on the article of an organization they just don't seem to like, and have done so on unrelated talk pages as well? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't. Try WP:WQA for that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • While I am accepting the warning, I would like to point out that only 5, 6, and 7 constitute actual reverts. In all other cases, I posted more in response to a conversation the other user had blanked on their page, while continuing on my own. If you look at the contents of the other edits, they all include new messages continuing an existing conversation. Those edits, 1-4, are not reverts. Technically speaking, by the diffs, shown, I do not have more than three reverts. I would also like to say that I am more familiar with Memory Alpha's policies and ways of doing things, where warnings are not to be removed by the user being warned. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

    You might want to check out the Misplaced Pages, not MA, definition of edit warring before relying to heavily on your definition above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am accepting the warning on edit warring, but I have also been accused of violating the three revert rule. I have not done so, I have not, by the Misplaced Pages definition, had more than three reverts within 24 hours. Four of the edits accused of being reverts are not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR was actually never intended to be for talk pages, despite there being no technical wording to state that in policy. It was meant to avoid content warring, not to prevent people from deleting or restoring discussions. If this really is being considered edit warring and 3RR violation, both warring parties should be warned. But if it's not an actual 3RR violation and rather just being called that in a desperate attempt to do something about the reverting, it would be better to simply inform OuroborosCobra that users are generally given the right to end discussions on their own talk pages, and that he should generally respect that. Equazcion 21:01, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, since you're specifically allowed in policy to blank everything you want from your talk page except declined unblock requests, there are no grounds to block both parties here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. The applicable policy here is not 3RR but user talk page policy. Equazcion 21:08, 10 Mar 2010 (UTC)

User:202.129.79.232 reported by User:Morenooso (Result: malformed)

Page: El dannys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 202.129.79.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

--Morenooso (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey reported by User:Emptymountains (Result: No vio)

Page: Kelsang Gyatso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert-a: 20:57, 2010-03-08
• 1st revert-b: 20:59, 2010-03-08
• 1st revert-c: 21:00, 2010-03-08
• 2nd revert-a: 20:42, 2010-03-09
• 2nd revert-b: 20:50, 2010-03-09
• 3rd revert: 03:19, 2010-03-10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have responded to YellowMonkey's and Shii's requests for more reliable sources in the section of the article being fought over. I have flagged two lines with "citation needed" to give Truthbody an opportunity to provide references, since he was the one to put them in there in the first place.

This edit by YellowMonkey not only took out the two lines with citations needed, but also removed my sourced statements from third-party sources (e.g., Waterhouse, Spanswick).

YellowMonkey appears to be one of Misplaced Pages's more established editors, so I'm surprised he's not more willing to discuss things on the talk page.

• Comment - The last talk page entry was some time ago. Edit summaries of reverts are not "talk page" discussions... Doc9871 (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. When I posted the 3RR warning on YM's talk page, I asked him to explain on the article's talk page why he was removing third-party sources. Emptymountains (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So... you posted a warning to his user talk page after and reported him for edit-warring; have not participated in the discussion you raised on said user talk page (where others have), and there was (and still is) no discussion initiated whatsoever on the article's talk page. Am I missing anything? Doc9871 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This part of the edit-warring report: "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: " comes into play here... Doc9871 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

YM is talking about me on his talk page, but not with me (e.g., "Well, regardless, he's plugged a bunch of self-serving info from self-sources"); you'll notice he did not respond to me directly. Specifically, I asked him to explain why Waterhouse and Spanswick are, in his view, self-published and non-idependent sources. I asked that he bring this discussion to the article's talk page, where everyone contributing to the article can participate; most editors wouldn't even know there was a 'discussion' going on at his user page. Emptymountains (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you take the first step towards fostering discussion by opening a new section on the article's talk page (agreed, not another editor's talk page), and the other editor does not reply; you are ahead of the game... Doc9871 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• No violation YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) has not made 4 or more reverts in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, since YellowMonkey seems to be removing blatant POV-pushing from a BLP, I would not be prepared to sanction regardless of the number of reverts. CIreland (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Drummer182 reported by User:Bdb484 (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drummer182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:
• 13th revert:
• 14th revert:
• 15th revert:
• 16th revert:
• 17th revert:
• 18th revert:
• 19th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Drum#External_links, more on the user's talk page.

Comments:
Note: This request is being reposted. Another admin declined to take action because one of the pages in question had been protected. Now that the protection has been lifted, the user has returned to edit war. Although it seems to have gone undetected until last month, this editor has been edit warring on Drum and Drum kit since 2007. Although I left a plenty-friendly warning about our EL policy and edit warring, he is unapologetic.

As you'll see at his talk page, he acknowledges that the links he's adding are to his own advertising-driven websites, and he says he won't stop "until fairness and common sense enter this picture."

These IPs could be socks or meatpuppets, as their only edits are to restore Drummer182's links:

• User:141.152.45.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:96.248.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User: 68.238.26.6 (talk · contribs · 68.238.26.6 WHOIS)

— Bdb484 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week While the list of diffs above makes the report appear worse than it is, the editor did declare an intent to continue adding the link until common sense prevailed.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian reported by User:UberCryxic (Result: no violation )

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The version before all reverting took place:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The following is the straw poll that agreed to my version of the article:

Comments: The version of the article that I posted has gained wide support in the talk page (see the link above) and I went ahead and implemented it after the protection of the article came down. User:Yorkshirian then got rid of all my changes and went to the old version, I reverted once, and the user reverted me again, bringing me here. This is not 3RR, but I have no wish to engage in an edit war with this user and do not want the user banned either. I notified the user that he is edit warring, but I don't think that will do much good. I just want him verbally reprimanded and instructed not to engage in an edit war when he has no consensus for his version. I hope something can be done here. Thank you very much for your time, and I'd be happy to provide more details as necessary.

UberCryxic 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I suggest that you please see here. It appears that there has been considerable conflict over this article. User:Tom harrison, an administrator, full protected the article and began a straw poll on two versions of the article. During that straw poll, two editors of the article opposed to the version proposed by UberCryxic were blocked. The administrator, Tom harrison, characterized the block as "a (successful) campaign" to get the two editors in question (see here), invalidated the straw poll, and unprotected the page. UberCryxic declared victory (apparently the "vote" at the time of invalidation was 11-7 for his version) and was rather sharply reprimanded by User:Bigtimepeace for his comments here. Good luck dealing with this one, I'm out of here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

UC, I think you would need to leave the straw poll open for longer than a day or two, and ideally have it closed by an uninvolved editor or admin. The changes you want to make are substantial, and therefore the onus is on you to show you have consensus before implementing them. SlimVirgin 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for scattering the discussion everywhere. I didn't know that I was allowed to write here. The user and I are currently hammering out our differences in the talk page, so no action may be necessary. For those who are interested in following the discussion, I have also made comments here and here to the administrators Wehwalt and SlimVirgin. Thank you for your help.UberCryxic 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We have come to an understanding in the talk page. No action is required. Sorry to bother you with all this.UberCryxic 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Factsontheground (Result: )

Page: Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mbz1 (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: . I also attempted to resolve the issue on the user's talk page but he deleted the discussion: .

Note that Mbz1 is also edit warring on Robert F. Kennedy attempting to insert similar POV-pushing material:

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

Comments:
User has ownership issues with this article and is ostensibly asking for help yet rejecting any edits that do not agree with her pro-Israel agenda. She is cherry picking quotes that support her point of view and removing any quotes that are balanced or neutral.

She is also removing important, sourced facts from the article that do not support his agenda, such as that RFK was 22 at the time of his trip and only spent several weeks in Palestine.

I would also like to note that Mbz1 has a serious problem in the way she treats Misplaced Pages as a battlefield. As this edit shows she seems to believe he is "fighting for a cause" and not merely writing an encyclopedia. It may not be relevant here, but she has been extremely uncivil towards me in the past (, , ) and other Palestinian users such as Tiamut (talk · contribs) ().

Amazingly, Mbz1 has even removed such objective, important information as the dates that RFK was in Palestine simply because they don't further her agenda. This user really needs to improve their understanding of neutrality on Misplaced Pages. Factsontheground (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, Factsontheground, Mbz1 is a woman, not a man. With respect to Robert F. Kennedy, I see as much revert-warring from you as from her. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Factsontheground (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, Malik.
    • To the closing administrator. May I please ask you to note that me and the filing party are involved in the discussion at the article's talk page, where we have agreed on some edits. Apparently filing party agreed not to add a quote that is not from Robert Kennedy's reports he wrote in 1948. The last edit I've done to the article was done 10 hours ago. I was mote than surprised to see the report.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bevus1 reported by User:Kittensandrainbows (Result: 0)

Page: Tall Guy Short Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bevus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I didn't try to delete the page, just suggest that the content be merged into another article. Author keeps removing the call for discussion without responding on the talk page. (Hope I filled this form out right.) Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a new user, should have been warned before being reported. Has not reverted more than 3 times. However, this article is an obvious candidate for speedy (it is already mentioned on the Johnstones page, I'm not sure there is much more to merge). I've slapped an A7 on it, if the user keeps reverting blindly, please notify me. Thanks, yandman 16:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring