Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:48, 5 August 2012

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h)

Page: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User:Nguyen1310 reported by User:Shrigley (Result: article protected)

Page: North Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nguyen1310 (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: actually from a few weeks ago, but involving the same page.

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

Article protected for 3 days, seems there were two editors guilty of 3rr violation here. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm suspecting discrimination by the reporting user, because the reporting user has pointed only myself out for edit warring, but did not extend the same action to other parties involved in the dispute.Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not involved but just pointing out that neither you nor Zeraful have been penalized for the edit war, the page is just being protected until you guys sort it out on the article's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The administrator who chose to take action in this case was involved with this editor in a non-administrative capacity, editing together on articles and posting friendly user talk messages before and after I filed this case. This involvement might explain the lenient judgment, which is why I am requesting the attention of an uninvolved administrator.

To answer why I didn't report both users: that's a limitation in the template. The bad behavior of the other user was obvious in the diffs, anyway, and I'm not defending anyone's behavior. In many such cases on 3RRN, both users are sanctioned. However, I considered Nguyen the principle edit-warrior since the other user initiated the talk page discussion first. Also, I have noticed that Nguyen uses repeated reverting with uncivil edit summaries (e.g. ), rather than civil discussion, as a matter of solving editorial disputes. Since this user has been warned for edit-warring before, I don't think continued warnings and education about policy are much more useful here. Shrigley (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, for most of the examples that Shrigley pointed out of the "uncivil edit summaries", it was made in response of undoing POV edits and vandalism committed by the same user, who changed their IP 4 to 5 times to evade IP blocks sanctioned upon them. That IP user has been posting quite insulting, even sexual, comments when editing on various Vietnamese related articles, and when I started to undo the POV and vandalism they made, that user went on some vengeance attack on me, and made personal attacks on my user page, and I had to run to various admins to block the IPs used, and even semi-protect my user page temporarily. No one can possibly compromise with an editor whose only mission is to vandalise and put POV into articles, not to make constructive encyclopaedic contributions. Looking back, I did see that those edit summaries were quite uncivil, but I hope everyone understands that I was very frustrated, and felt seriously insulted, and at times even helpless, when I was making those reverts. Concerning my recent edit summaries over the North Vietnam article, I was quite annoyed when the user Zeraful who kept deleting quite significant amounts of content in the article, regarding that country's diplomatic isolation before the 1970s, and kept changing the words used in the article. Somehow, that user didn't want the article to mention that the North was largely isolated and unrecognized by many countries worldwide, esp. by non-communist and democratic nations, and only had foreign relations with other communist and some developing countries. I know for a fact that this is true, as I came from Vietnam myself, and it makes no sense that the North, a communist country, had diplomatic relations with numerous democratic nations before the 1970s. Even China (PRC), a powerful and prominent country, was isolated from the worldwide community because many non-communist countries refused to recognize China because of it's political system, and it only managed to establish relations with countries like the US until around 1972. As well, this whole section about North VN's diplomatic isolationism is long-standing info, it has been on the article for a long time now, even before I was a member of Misplaced Pages, and I believed that the info was correct, and there's nothing wrong with it as it has been there for a long time without any controversy or dispute, until now with Zeraful. I felt that I cannot accept something false to be true or right, that's why I kept reverting it. And, Zeraful was changing the terminology used in the article, like instead of calling communist countries "communist", which accurately described the political systems of those countries at the time, the user changed it to "Warsaw Pact" countries, which is grossly wrong because the North had relations with other communist countries outside the Pact, like Cuba or N Korea or P.R. China. Zeraful also changed the term "non-communist" and "anti-communist", to "Western", which is again wrong because not only did non-communist Western countries didn't Recognize the North and were only diplomatic with South VN, non-communist Asiatic countries also did the same thing, like S Korea, Japan, ROC Taiwan, Thailand, New Zealand etc. It seems like Zeraful is deleting the whole North VN diplomatic isolation thing, and changing up terminology, primarily out of their own POV and wanted to remove facts that are true but are negative about North VN, and wanted to censor those things out. One of Zeraful's disputes is that the North VN article lacked citations, so I suggested that Zeraful put citation needed templates beside content that didn't have enough sources, instead of just deleting some of the content outright, until enough sources are found, just like what I saw on many articles in Wiki, however, Zeraful kept deleting some of the content. But even through all the disputes I had , I still lead efforts to make compromised changes to the article to address Zeraful's problems with the article, which can be found on my last several edits on the North VN article. But regardless, and from now on, I'll continue to use the article talk page to discuss and develop compromised edits when an article dispute arises, and refrain from constant reverting, and as well try to contain my emotions when I find myself in difficult situations. So yes, lesson learnt, but I just felt I need to explain the whole situation out first. I wish to thank the admins involved for their understanding and efforts in this.Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|conduct|7 reverts in 24 hours in one article by one user, with a particularly egregious pattern of conduct. another user warring with him.}}

Nguyen1310, an admin has already taken action on this report and nothing more will be done here. Though the article is protected, nothing prevents you from trying to reach agreement on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for what to do in case of a stalemate. Brevity is desirable on any admin board. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Ryulong (Result: No action taken)

Page: User talk:Coren (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (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:

Comments:

Youreallycan has sought fit to add his own personal (although minor) addition of a wikilink to a comment I left on User talk:Coren. I told him in an edit summary that I did not give him permission to effectively edit my comment. After he reverted me, I left him a message on his talk page regarding the fact I did not want him to do this. After I reverted, again, he reverted me and I left him a sterner message (the one in the diff above), but he put back the content in the first place. I do not care if it is helpful. He is adding it to my message on Coren's talk page in a way that makes it appear that I put the link there. This is getting way too bothersome and pedantic, and it is edit warring plain and simple, particularly when I expressed my distaste in his actions in regards to the text I left for another editor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh gosh someone please just ban YRC already for this crap. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Better yet, just create a permanent noticeboard for him like they have for long-term disruptive users. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) has offered to YRC to close this because he has effectively resolved the issue by reverting him, and adding the link in a way such that it does not appear to be from me. I do not find this satisfactory because it rewards him for his deleterious behavior.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've got to say you are both being ridiculous. YRC shouldn't have added the content and shouldn't have edit warred to keep it in Ryulong was correct in removing the comment, but shouldn't have edit warred once he realized YRC was. Instead, Ryulong should have moved the text and placed {{unsigned}} after it. We allow things to be escalated on this wiki that can easily be dropped. Let's please choose the latter in this case. Ryan Vesey 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that YRC's reverts were WP:LAME, but I had hoped to resolve this without a block since, as Ryan said, this was a fairly trivial issue. If a more experienced admin (someone who has been an admin for longer than three days, in other words) thinks that YRC should be blocked for this, I'll defer to their judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I notified YRC multiple times to either not repeat his edit, but he ignored me completely. And this may be trivial, but this is just one of several repeated incidents in which YRC was unnecessarily disruptive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I have seen his name coming up quite a bit on the admin boards lately, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI would be better suited to deal with his overall conduct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
          • It was not just lame but combative of Youreallycan. He should have manned up and left an honest talk page entry with his signature. YRC is experienced enough to know what kind of needling he can apply without penalty. Still, this kind of disruptive editing should be firmly countered. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
            • @Mark Arsten: this issue just came up twice (edit warring on user talk pages), and it was bad enough that I brought it to WP:AN, where there was a substantial portion of the community that said YRC should receive a long block. If this were a first time offense, I'd say call it WP:LAME, but it is not. Didn't he just receive a 1RR sanction? If not, he needs to have one, like yesterday. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
              • A 1RR restriction would probably be a good idea, I agree. It would have to be proposed at WP:AN though, right? At this point I'm a bit out of my depth, having been an admin for less than four days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Vnlstar reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Sansha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vnlstar (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:

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell  18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:GSorby (Result: No violation)

Page: Poppy Meadow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (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: . This was attempted but the user removed my warning and said: "Not interested".

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Poppy Meadow#Em dash vs en dash

Comments:

• There's no technical 3RR violation here, so I'm going to close this as such, with an encouragement to the involved parties to work this out on the talk page. MastCell  18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right...talking is the answer to everthing. Tommy Pinball (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps you should try it one day. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:BickerstaffeC2 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Bus Services in York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BickerstaffeC2 (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 user talk page:

Comments:

User has been edit warring to insert advertisements for Transdev York's prices and services, and is certainly another sock of Josh24B. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; I haven't formally looked into the sockpuppetry case, although at a glance it looks convincing. I'll defer a longer block to the admin who reviews the WP:SPI case. Alternately, if this account resumes edit-warring after the 24-hour block, let me know and I'll block it indefinitely. MastCell  18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Battle of Ankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,,;Attempts by Antidiskriminator, ,,,

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

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

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

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

IP response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Gimmetoo has also violated WP:3RR,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page: Syrian Civil War (2011–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.200.20.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Page: Talk:Syrian Civil War (2011–present) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EllsworthSK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page: God Bless America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.231.38.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

User:842U and User:Dodo bird reported by User:Ebikeguy (Result: )

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: before continous reversion

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring