Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 9 October 2010 (→User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution): Adding result). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Arzel reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: 24h)

Page: Fox News Channel controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version:

• 1st revert: 18:25, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Remove bad faith edit which is being used as an attempt to WP:GAME WP:SUMMARY")
• 2nd revert: 20:55, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388152076 by Blaxthos (talk)I disagree. This edit was being used to WP:GAME the system. Take it to talk.")
• 3rd revert: 19:58, 2 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388167901 by Blaxthos (talk)I specifically dispute the allegation, and the WP:POINT that you are trying to make.")
• 4th revert: 19:34, 4 October 2010 (edit summary: "This was orignially put in by Virinditis (sp) at the begining of a continued edit war without any consensus for inclusion. It should have been reverted immiediately.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Relevant talk page section:

Comments:
User continues to remove lead summary of criticism -- which was also posted to the Criticisms section of the main article Fox News Channel, where User is also attempting to remove it:

• 18:24, 1 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Criticism and controversies */ Remove bad faith edit. You don't make a disputed edit to the sub-page and then claim that WP:SUMMARY allows this edit to be made.")
• 19:38, 4 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 388736905 by PrBeacon (talk)No concensus. Go to the FNC controversy page for discussion.")

-PrBeacon (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For continuing to edit war before the last protection and on this one (thanks dailykos). I warn you, however, as the reporter on this board, that you too are quite close to becoming blocked yourself. Please do not continue to edit war or you too risk being blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect I realize I should not have made my 2nd edit after his 4th revert before lodging this complaint, so I apologize for that. The editor has a history of reverting others before (or instead of) discussing it on the talkpage, if he discusses it at all -- contrary to his userspace claims. For the record I note that, after the block he insulted 2 admins and lied about the talkpage discussion -- only to seem contrite after he was unblocked. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is done, but I have to note that the supposed 3RR warning was from the 29th of September, prior to any of the reverts. Just how do you warn someone for something that has happened yet? Isn't that a little disingenious? Oh, and this warning was after my first edit to that page in some time. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Varma0440 reported by User:Anandks007 (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Nair subcastes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Varma0440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User already banned once for repeat section blanking. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive140#User:Varma0440_reported_by_User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar_.28Result:_48h.29. Repeating same vandalism again. Axxn (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked this editor previously for edit warring on the same article. Varma0440 has reverted this article 13 times since mid-September. He never participates on article talk pages. I suggest that the next admin action should be an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks I also warned him that if a third block is required for the same behaviour, it will be indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by User:intgr (Result: See below)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st notice 2nd notice invitation to start a discussion notice about 3rr/edit war final edit war warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed in the past, consensus reached here: Talk:TrueCrypt#Concerns: The "Stoned" bootkit

Comments:

Single-purpose account. The user systematically deletes the section from the TrueCrypt article exactly once per day. I have asked him to join the discussion on the talk page, in my edit comments as well as his/her user talk page, but (s)he has not responded. -- intgr  16:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked See below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by Nuwewsco (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: TrueCrypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 1st revert: 14:54, 30 September 2010
2. 2nd revert: 17:02, 1 October 2010
3. 3rd revert: 17:10, 1 October 2010
4. 4th revert: 15:44, 2 October 2010
5. 5th revert: 15:03, 3 October 2010
6. 6th revert: 15:43, 4 October 2010
7. 7th revert: 14:43, 5 October 2010
8. 8th revert: 15:38, 6 October 2010

• Diff of warning: here (multiple warnings given, together with requests to discuss first)

Comments:
User:LogicKey has repeatedly deleted sections from the TrueCrypt article, despite numerous requests from multiple editors to talk through and discuss his deletions first. LogicKey may not technically have breached WP:3RR, though is clearly edit warring here, without any attempt being made to gain consensus.

—Nuwewsco (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: 12h)

Page: Park51 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hauskalainen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: - I've just realised this might point at the wrong version, but everything else should be clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: part of this - IMO the second part is OK
• 4th revert:

All within the last 36 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps removing the word mosque from the lead which is against consensus on the talk page. Their edits have been reverted by 3 different users. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Blocked because there was a 3RR violation, only 12 hours because it was hardly the most heated edit war I've ever seen and because they seemed to be making constructive edits in between the reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Mhalberstam (Result: no vio)

Page: Taste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fleetham (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: I put this in my comments of undoing his changes, so I don't know that I can link to it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest comment: Latest response by Fleetham:

Comments:

The latest majority (although slight) is in favor of Savoriness. Previous discussions on the subject had also agreed to Savoriness (as of last year). Fleetham believes he/she has given proof for the choice of "umami", but has no supporters of their comments (yet several against them), and does not address the counter-claims against what I think are faulty proofs. Fleetham's latest claims state that "current" usage precedes the earlier agreement, but most of the articles referred to are older than the decision made against Umami last year.

I do not feel that Fleetham is being receptive to discussion, and is just deciding to favor their own side without any substantial backing. It is Fleetham's "belief" vs. common usage. There are no responses to anyone else's points against "umami", just a declaration that they are justified, and an undo to the page.

I also felt that my choice to favor scientific links over promotional / sellers association links when redundant, but Fleetham is also favoring those links as well. I don't want to be accusatory, but other anti-savory folks in the past have admitted to wanting to "advance the usage of the word", and I wonder if this is another case of that. I am for clarity and accessability in the wikipedia, but if it causes the commercial aspect of an article to fall, then I have no issue with that either. (It is obvious looking at Fleetham's vast edits on the page that the edits are not just to promote Umami. Deleted ridiculousness on my part, but still stand by my other statements.)

(Sorry for the awkward gender-insensitive English above)

Mhalberstam (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• No violation Nobody has exceeded 3RR here, and there is plenty of discussion, and there is not yet enough edit warring that I think the page would need protection. I will keep an eye on this for the next few days. Please, both of you, wait for consensus among the other editors at that page. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (page move, removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
• 2nd revert: (removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
• 3rd revert: (removal of specificty based on source in seocnd paragraph, removal of main link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other things)
• 4th revert: (removal of fact tags without adding source, reinsertion of text regarding the development of educational accreditation, removal of source (not a good one, and I agree with the removal, but it was put in place by another ed))
• 5th revert: (reinsertion of text split to Pre-tertiary education accreditation, among other edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Educational_accreditation#Proposed_merger_of_Pre-tertiary_education_accreditation_back_into_Educational_accreditation

Comments:

Orlady also violated 3RR on a related page within the last 24 hours, at Regional accreditation as I noted on her talk page here, even if one or two of her reverions were caused by uncorrected edit conflicts. This seemed excusable, so I did not report it.

This all started when Orlady discovered a page move (by me) and minor repurposing of an article (by another ed, after notice put on talk without comment). She acted first, and asked questions later (see my talk). For more on this, read here at ANI. Despite my objection which was never addressed, Orlady implemented a series of article moves that, to my mind, confounds the edits history. This was the beginning of the problem at this article today. I would note that I am at 3 reversions at this page (and had been at Regional accreditation in the last 24 hours, so I will not be further reverting Orlady. And I asked her to self-revert about a half hour ago to no avail. I think these issues will play themselves out at the talk page (with an RfC is needed), so long as Orlady stops removing the link to the article she seeks to merge. Ideally she would work to improve that article (Pre-tertiary education accreditation) so that, if her proposal carried the day, it will be a clean merger.

Novaseminary (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Link to now-archived AN/I discussion. I think that this is a case of normal editing with some edit conflicts and a little disagreement over which "default state during discussion" should be used, but I am leaving this open for another admin's opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would more readily accept this if this were one instance as initially it was on Regional accreditation as noted above, though even there, Orlady continued after the debatable technical violation. But this was at least two edits over the limit, on a second article after having made a series of contested page moves without consensus. Admins should be held to the same standards as other eds. I was just as frustrated by the edit conflict, yet, I have been able to avoid violating 3RR. Based on Orlady's comments on my talk (before actually reading the relevant article talk ("I am not a happy camper. I'm reverting your edits.") and in edit summaries on Educational accreditation ("I don't want to link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation for several reasons"... without first noting those reasons on talk) indicates to me that there are some WP:OWN problems here, as well as a troubling disregard for 3RR. Novaseminary (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sheesh! Shame on me for trying to create content instead of wikidrama, and shame on me for going to bed last night instead of staying up all night to see what new wikidrama Novaseminary would try to start overnight!
  Alleged revert #1 was one of a series of edits that I made (not very expertly, I admit) to repair the page history of Educational accreditation after Novaseminary had renamed that page, then created a new page under the original title. Those changes were based on the "how-to" advice I received in response to my query at ANI. Novaseminary doesn't think I should have done those repairs, per his comments at User talk:Orlady#Educational accreditation. I guess because I did a "revert" as part of that process, s/he feels that I was firing the first salvo in an edit war.
  Alleged revert #2 actually combines a couple of edits. The edit summary on the first one said "Continuing the changes that I was in the middle of making when I got a bright orange notice about a message on my talk page from Novaseminary. I don't want to link to Pre-tertiary education accreditation for several reasons (not just AdvancED)." I was continuing to try to sort the fallout of the move process, but had been interrupted in order to reply to Novaseminary on my talk page. While I was replying, s/he made some changes on Educational accreditation, which s/he apparently believes makes it possible to label my next edits to that page as edit warring.
  In alleged revert #3, I had dug up a couple of paragraphs of content that had been deleted from the article (and not moved anywhere else) as part of another user's initiative (a few weeks back) to narrow the article's scope. In the 12 minutes between #2 and #3, Novaseminary had made 3 other minor edits to the article, which I saw (and reviewed) when the "Edit conflict" warning came up. There was some incompatibility between those changes and the changes I was trying to save, and I believed that one of his minor wording changes resulted in an incorrect statement, so I kept some of the changes and overwrote others.
  After that edit, Novaseminary pointedly slapped two "fact" templates on two successive sentences in the article -- the second of those templates was directly in front of a footnote to a reference citation. Alleged revert #4 is a series of 7 separate edits thereafter in which I added text and reference citations -- and yes, I removed those two "fact" templates.
  After that, while I worked on drafting some additional sourced content for the article, Novaseminary showed up and moved some big chunks of content to a different article that he had created a day or two ago. My edit summary for the new material I was adding was going to say "I'm adding the international info (bare-link refs for now because it's bedtime for me)", but when I saw the umpteenth "Edit conflict" screen of the evening and discovered that most of the paragraph that I had been working on revising had disappeared during the 15 minutes since my last edit, I revised my summary to say "Yet another edit conflict! I'm adding the international info (bare-link refs for now because it's bedtime for me) to the paragraph I was working on...". And then I went to bed.
  Novaseminary apparently didn't believe my "bedtime" comment, based on the pot-stirring additions s/he made to my talk page over the next several hours: User talk:Orlady#3RR warning for Educational accreditation.... --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• No violation Uh... I don't know where and how you are going to sort out this mess, but it isn't here. No one is getting blocked for edit warring, and the pages aren't going to be protected (at least not yet). Please continue on the consensus path. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are several justifications for exceeding 3 reverts in 24 hours listed at WP:3RR. Orlady does not invoke any of them. She could have used template:inuse to avoid edit conflicts (I did when editing the related Pre-tertiary education accreditation). As for "creating content", the reason I split the articles was to allow them to grow, not to stifle growth. This is a series of articles that has had significant POV problems over the years. Orady herself has worked to stem that flood. My effort was merely to create a structure and consistency to the articles that would allow such POV to most easily be exposed, removed, and replaced with good sourced material. There is no reason we can't work with each other instead of against each other (as I tried to do by adding sources to a new, valuable stub Orlady created). But if we violate 3RR, that becomes difficult. And Orlady's or my motives are not terribly relevant to a 3RR issue. She violated 3RR without one of the consensus-approved reasons. Novaseminary (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Demonik187 reported by BOVINEBOY2008 (Result: semi)

Page: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Demonik187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 07:08, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "Added spoiler notation before the story summary. I was so upset this was included in the article without a spoiler tag, I made an account and edited it myself.")
2. 07:36, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "added spoiler tag again. do not remove it this time unless you can provide me a good reason for doing so.")
3. 07:48, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 389273143 by Bovineboy2008 (talk)")
4. 07:58, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "Regarding disclaimers: "This guideline represents a solid and long-standing consensus on English Misplaced Pages. It hasn't been elevated to the status of policy..."")
5. 08:04, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 389275182 by 69.181.249.92 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—BOVINEBOY2008 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined No further edits by this account since the 3RR warning. There might be a sock puppetry case to be made here, but I am semi-protecting the article instead. The game was just released, so active editors are requested to be especially vigilant for vandalism and other nonconstructive edits while still being appropriately welcoming to the newcomers. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RomanHistorian reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 31h)

Page: Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RomanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm an involved admin, so I recuse myself from any admin action. Pretty straight forward set of 4 reverts in 9 hours.Andrew c  16:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation by User:Rklawton. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cxw888 reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: 24h)

Page: Victor C. X. Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cxw888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also as anon IP from 134.139.107.168 (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's talk page:

Comments:

User has been consistently removing the AfD template (despite being warned not to do so) and adding complaints to the top of the article page rather than the talk page. Attempts to be helpful and to warn the user have not worked. User is not contributing to the AfD discussion or the BLP/N discussion, either. As user is currently using an anon IP to essentially vandalize the page, I suggest that it be semiprotected as well as having Cxw888 blocked. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours to Cxw888 for edit warring. The page has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by User:Nableezy(Result: 1 week)

Page: Jonathan Cook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 17:07, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "added criticism section") Rv of this
2. 19:02, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "peacocking") Rv of this
3. 19:05, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "please do not remove sourced material. A polemical writer is open to criticism from advocacy groups.") Rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.
4. 19:08, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "if you have an objection, raise it on Talk; please stop reverting") rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.
5. 19:22, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 389376318 by Nableezy (talk) there you go again") rv of this. This reinserted material removed as a BLP violation.

I asked the user to self-revert the last revert of BLP violating material, their response was to label my request "vandalism".

The material itself is discussed on the talk page here. After a BLP issue is raised the user makes no comments on the talk page and continues to revert to include material removed as a BLP violation disregarding WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content

—nableezy - 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator will see that user "nableezy" is also edit-warring and in gross violation of the 3RR. He simply removed/reverted my edits without engaging on the talk page. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That is, simply put, a lie. I have written on the talk page about this issue whereas you refused to do so. Also, see the BLP exception at WP:3RR. Material removed as a BLP violation does not count as a revert and WP:BLP requires that you gain consensus for returning material removed as a BLP violation, something you did not do as you repeatedly restored the BLP violating material. nableezy - 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can see here is a tag editing by a few users againstuser:Ledenierhomme. I believe no block is required. The article should be protected until the differences are resolved on discussion page.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. A user repeatedly reinserting material removed as a BLP violation is not a problem, it is everybody else. nableezy - 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this report was filed the user has continued to revert. this revert once again reinserted material removed as a BLP vio, and this was a revert of this. That is now 4 different reverts consisting of material removed as a BLP violation being reinserted and an additional 3 unrelated reverts. nableezy - 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The BLP exception at 3RR says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption". Did you take that into account when you reverted 4 times in the last hour? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. Also, WP:BLP explicitly says that material removed as a BLP violation must have consensus to be included prior to it being reinserted. This user both failed to gain that consensus and did not even attempt to until after this report was filed. nableezy - 19:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:BLP allows the removal of any material critical of a living person that is cited only to camera.org, which is not a reliable source. In my opinion User:Ledenierhomme should be blocked for 3RR violation unless he will agree to stay off this article for thirty days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Clear edit-warring and a repeat offence. As for Nableezy. I have trouble seeing these reverts as being justified on the BLP exemption to 3RR. The material is negative. But it is not stated as fact; it is stated as CAMERA's opinion. As unreliable as CAMERA may be as a source, it is a reliable source for its own opinion. The inclusion of this material is a NPOV/balance issue. I am inclined to block but will leave this open for 30 minutes to hear other views before doing so. Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an unreliable source to include negative material about living people does not become acceptable simply because you write "according to <unreliable source name>, ...". nableezy - 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems like something that should have been resolved at WP:BLP/N, not by an edit war. WP:BLP says "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Or on the talk page. I wrote a comment about this source on the talk page. This user reverted an additional 3 times prior to even responding on the talk page. WP:BLP requires the aggressive removal of poorly sourced contentious material about living people. Had this user even given the impression of being willing to discuss this we would not be here. nableezy - 20:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked in respect of nableezy. I have my doubts about the applicability of the BLP exemption, as above, especially as that exemption is only intended for clear cases. On the other hand, nableezy clearly believed in good faith that the reverts were covered by the exemption, and others would seem to agree (see Ed.Johnston's comment on my talk page). There is no real dispute that the source for the negative material is unreliable. The note that an editor should consider posting difficult BLP issues to BLP/N is not a mandatory requirement, although it would have been a very helpful step to take here before edit-warring. In light of that, a block is not warranted. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Doc Tropics reported by Anon (Result: No action)

Page: Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc Tropics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 23:43, 6 October 2010 (edit summary: "rv x2")
• 2nd revert: 17:56, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "The individual IS notable and we DO have an article about him, another about one of his books, and a third about his organization. That looks like notability x3, so please stop removing this item")
• 3rd revert: 18:12, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "there are clearly THREE links within this text, all notable. even if there weren't that doesn't mean that he is not notable. please stop deleting and come to talkpage")
• 4th revert: 20:03, 7 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Former Muslims * /adding Faith Freedom International a group/movement of former Muslims critical of Islam.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already familar with 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Ali_Sina

Comments:
Perhaps in violation WP:Point, the editor in the final revert added an organization to a list of individuals, i.e. former Muslims, and omitted mentioning Ali Sina in an attempt to get around 3rr. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked I only count three clear reverts. That, combined with the fact that the edit war seems to have ended nearly four hours ago, leads me to believe that no action is necessary at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the last revert is a partial revert. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Ginelli (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User submitting the report: Ginelli (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:

• No violation One revert of an unconstructive edit does not an edit war make. This report appears malicious and the reporter has repeatedly reverted on the same article. Seems to be a case of WP:FOOT. Reporter blocked for 2 weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  I think you mean WP:BOOMERANG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  BTW this seems to be a bit harsh (two weeks) for not even a violation of 3RR, and when other editors were using the rollback tool and misaccusing the reporter of vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that was the shortcut I was after. The reporter has a previous block for edit warring, this report seemed malicious to me and the edits didn't seem constructive. All that combined, I don;t think 2 weeks was too harsh. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ginelli wants to change the definition of the San Francisco Bay Area to call it simply the Bay Area, and to highlight the importance of San Jose. He has not been able to persuade anyone else to support his view. So far his changes are always reverted, but he keeps making them anyway. A sample edit from August 3 is here. His campaign started in June, and has persisted in spite of many warnings and one previous edit-warring block. Background can be seen here and in his block log. If he won't stop trying to force the article to his version after three months of warnings, what else is there for admins to do? EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They'll edit war themselves into an indef if they carry on like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution)

Pages: History of ancient Israel and Judah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Book of Joshua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Joshua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Authorship of the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), History of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Shabbat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a 3RR but a clear ongoing edit war of at least 11 reversions by PiCo. Other reversions are by Dylan Flaherty, who if he was warring has stopped for now, and Dougweller, who is usually reasonable, but they are included for context, because they all rely on each other for claims of consensus, and all three have been named in a pending mediation that I seconded (ADD: yes, I named Doug myself), relating to one of these articles (note the requesting editor has nearly given up due to being constantly reverted; this claim of reversions is wholly additional to everything below). While talk at the ancient history article has been building new consensus, PiCo has thoroughly mixed up that consensus as described here, which appears to me to be the last straw in an edit war. PiCo also has significant history of being warned for warring on this very topic (e.g. Battle of Jericho); I have also had minor warlike scrapes with PiCo in the past at longevity myths, with similar behavior. PiCo's probable WP:STALKing hounding may also be considered, as there would have been no other apparent reason for the undo at Shabbat without having seen my edit summary in my contribution history. My attempts to restore my own various versions in all this may naturally be considered as well. Many of PiCo's reversions are distinguished by restoring the misspelling "Killebrew, Anne" for "Killebrew, Ann E.".

This all started because PiCo inserted about 10 sentences suddenly into Joshua, cribbing from History of ancient Israel and Judah, and I observed that every one made WP:SYNthetic claims not in the sources present. PiCo's failure to cite the article cribbed from may be a violation of the copyright-attribution rules, and it may have happened again with the sudden insertion today, as I have not taken time to review it in detail. The entire series of reverts on the first three articles arose solely from my attempts to fix PiCo's verification failures. Doug and Dylan tentatively agreed to (very slow) one-by-one consideration, which appeared to reach consensus on the first two, but PiCo's last edit thoroughly mixed up the history of this consensus. Certain disingenuousness in edit summaries on PiCo's part will be obvious.

History of ancient Israel and Judah:

• 26 Sep PiCo reverts to
• 27 Sep PiCo reverts to
• 27 Sep Dylan reverts to same
• 29 Sep Dylan reverts to
• 29 Sep PiCo reverts to same
• 29 Sep Pico reverts to same
• 30 Sep Doug partially reverts to but changes source as attempt toward consensus
• 1 Oct PiCo reverts to
• 1 Oct PiCo immediately following the prior reversion, continues by partial reversion to (undoing part of my edit)
• 7 Oct PiCo partially reverts to (undoing part of my edit)
• 7 Oct PiCo partially reverts further to same (undoing Doug's edit and part of my edit that Doug was enfolding)
• 7 Oct PiCo immediately (4 minutes) following the prior reversion, abandons prior reverts and instead reverts to same version as reverted to on 29 Sep (link repeated), undoing a week of clear consensus-building improvements, and immediately makes sweeping new changes and at this hour continues to edit beyond this diff

Book of Joshua (prelude to above):

• 26 Sep PiCo reverts to
• 29 Sep PiCo makes numerous changes partially reverting to same (undoing almost all of my edits to "Authorship" based on PiCo's apparent agreement at talk)
• 29 Sep Dylan reverts to
• 30 Sep Dylan reverts to
• 7 Oct Doug reverts to , apparently undoing my edit in full after intervening edits; this was resolved amicably, however
• 8 Oct PiCo makes sweeping new changes, which include partially undoing my edit as to collared-rim jars that had stood since 30 Sep

Joshua (prelude to prelude):

• 21 Sep Doug reverts to
• 22 Sep PiCo reverts to (PiCo's version, further back than Doug's reversion)
• 22 Sep Dylan reverts to same further-back version
• 26 Sep Doug reverts to
• 7 Oct Doug reverts to ; not yet resolved

History of Israel (war casualty):

• 2 Oct PiCo partially reverts to (partially undoing my edit)
• 2 Oct Doug partially reverts to same (partially undoing more of my same edit, although leaving a clause of mine not in the "revert-to" version)
• 7 Oct Doug partially reverts to , though with differences (partially undoing my edit)

Authorship of the Bible (war casualty):

• 29 Sep PiCo reverts to a blank lead (here's PiCo's prior version; this undid my edit to lead)
• 29 Sep PiCo reverts to less 1 space
• I have not analyzed the remaining fruitful article history for reversions of others

Shabbat (potential stalk hound):

• 5 Oct PiCo reverts by blanking the paragraph (prior version; this partially undid my edit of 3 Sep)
• 5 Oct PiCo reverts to ; I backed off my graf to see if anyone else would comment

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21 Sep, 6 Oct

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most of Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah

I would also appreciate advice on how to proceed after the ANEW case is closed. JJB 02:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be dealt with on the talk page. I'm not going to have the time to look at it all in detail for several days due to RL commitments, but I'm not always convinced you interpret consensus correctly (I'm thinking in part of your edit summaries which didn't reflect accurately what I'd said). Both of you get frustrated with each other, as do you and I at times. No drastic action is required at the moment, just patience. As for Shabat, not only do we not use the word 'stalk', both of you edit religious articles, and it's not uncommon for an editor who is not sure about the edits of another editor to take a look at their edits in related fields of interest. I see he's said he's going to discuss his edits on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add, for any reviewing Admin, that this is also a pov disagreement, which isn't made cleare. I'm also a bit bothered about the statement I've been named in what appears to be a stale mediation case Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors of the Bible. JJB did mention me, but person who brought it (who I notice has just been blocked for edit warring) did not name me and no one has notified me about anything to do with this case. Dougweller (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I give up trying to get any more sleep. It also occurs to me that the bit about sentence by sentence was proposed by me after JJB's bold (JJB's word) edit(s). An RfC on the talk page may be in order, although even that may not be necessary, but this is not the way to settle a content dispute, especially one where the editor seems to be in a minority of one. More people interested in the article would be nice, but we aren't going to get them through this means. Dougweller (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I thought I'd apologized appropriately for the one summary of what you'd said that you objected to.
• This is not about frustration, this is about clear edit warring (constant and usually wholesale reversion over a period) and about moving mediation forward (the talk page is forward enough already).
• It is uncommon for an editor looking at another's contributions to do a double-revert after having engaged in the same on several other articles, and that is (potential) hounding, by the policy.
• Mediation is not stale, but new and unassigned.
• I don't know whether Doug's being notified about "this case" refers to this ANEW report (I'm not reporting Doug) or the mediation (I notified Doug).
• Being a minority of one (to the degree that's true) has no bearing when WP says something its sources don't say (to the degree that's true) and when the opposition is mostly bald assertions that WP does actually say what the sources say.
• Your minor corrections of my hasty speech are appreciated and refactored, but:
• All that does not mitigate the warring report nor the need for mediation. JJB 07:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, after reviewing all of these diffs, I wonder if it's entered your mind that you might be editing against consensus? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note for PiCo with some ideas for closing this case. This is not a very intense dispute, but if PiCo continues to make large changes with little consultation, the situation may get worse. (Without speculating as to who is right, his changes are clearly large). His past blocks are all in this topic area, though closing this case without a block would be desirable. I suggest that whoever closes this report should wait for a response from PiCo. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC started, but it did appear today that there was some movement towards a compromise. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller's RfC is at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Conformity/verification of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Dispute resolution. An RfC has been opened, and the people named here are urged to participate before reverting futher. Admins will retain the option of fully protecting one or more articles if we continue to see large reverts which are not adequately discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring