Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 21 July 2012 (→User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: ): Close, editor self-reverted). 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:LibStar reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Libstar and RAN blocked)

Page: 1896 Eastern North America heat wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: These two editors have been the subject of multiple edit wars, all of which have the same pattern as this one: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) attempts to add content and then User:LibStar arbitrarily decides that content must be removed. See Joachim Cronman, Estonia–Sri Lanka relations, John Patterson MacLean for a small flavor of LibStar's incessant edit warring, a pattern of abusive edit warring that has persisted for years unabated.

Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar and RAN Blocked – for a period of 31 and 48 hours, respectively. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why did Richard get a longer block in this case? It seems quite clear to me that this is a long-running harassment of him by LibStar. Block for edit warring, fine, but why is his longer? Libstar's block should be longer, as he is the aggressor. Silverseren 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that the problem here is LibStar and that the punishment for RAN is not appropriate here. Once LibStar finds that he disagrees with another editor, his preferred tactic is edit warring accompanied by confrontational edit summaries that appear intended to bully and provoke the other editor. I could provide several dozen more, but some edit summaries from yesterday include: "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "incorporate into main text. if you must. stop being disruptive Richard.", "rm excessive quotation in foreign language. not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "particularly useless when this is an English Misplaced Pages. stop being disruptive." It's either LibStar's way or the highway, and while RAN has been trying to add sourced content to articles, LibStar falls into his "Dr. NO!" mode and starts edit wars to impose his arbitrary preferences; It is clearly LibStar who is being disruptive, not RAN. I think modifying RAN's block duration to be much shorter while extending LibStar's block to several days/weeks would be far better justified by the case history of provocation by LibStar. In addition, an interaction ban should be imposed on LibStar forbidding interaction with RAN, as it appears that these wars are unilaterally begun by LibStar and never the other way around. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I too am curious why RN's block was longer. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Probably because RAN's block log is a mile long, while this is Libstar's 1st? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar has been Wikihounding RAN for years and a look at the edit history here shows that RAN is simply trying to add reference to articles while LibStar arbitrarily removes portions of the sources and then blames RAN for disruption. As LibStar stated in appealing his block, he is capable of productive editing, but he has been in a prolonged conflict with RAN and ceaselessly provokes him. The current block is unlikely to get LibStar to cool down, walk away and end the bullying in edit summaries that just yesterday took the form of "please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "stop being disruptive Richard.", "not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "stop being disruptive.", while RAN has tried to avoid being baited no matter how hard LibStar tries to pick a fight. LibStar should have been blocked long ago and an interaction ban with RAN put in place; 31 hours is hardly long enough. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc is basically right about my rationale. If there's a larger problem of hounding going on, this isn't really the venue to resolve that; this would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would WP:RFCN be the right venue? I think you meant WP:RFC/U. - SudoGhost 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also utterly confused when I clicked on WP:RFCN. I agree that LibStar has been duly notified that his actions are inappropriate and that if these same behaviors start reappearing that WP:RFC/U should be the next step for reaching a more thorough solution to end the edit warring and bullying that have been LibStar's trademark. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to live out the block and indeed engage in future to prevent edit warring. AlanSohn claims above that Richard Norton is totally innocent here. Richard could have stepped away and ignored my edits and sought advice but simply decide to play in the game, look at his ANIs he as a history of conflict. it takes 2 to edit war, and given Richard's long history of being blocked, failing to engage, ignoring admin sanctioned warnings, I am painted solely as the bad one? I've never been blocked before in years of editing nor had multiple ANIs against me or problems with multiple editors like Richard. Alansohn you may want to re examine your view that Richard is more innocent than a baby. Someone made a good point on my talk page that we both needed to engage and discuss. Richard and I both failed. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather blatant case of persistent Wikistalking / Wikihounding and the rather sad fact is that you consider yourself to be the victim here. The LibStar modus operandi in this edit warring spree is to jump into an article that RAN has edited -- one that you have never edited before and have no connection to whatsoever -- arbitrarily removing sourced content that RAN has added, accompanied by some taunting in the edit summary. Just looking at the past few days turns up some classic examples of your edit warring / taunting:

• Freyenstein
  • "rm excessive quotation in foreign language. not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block"
  • "particularly useless when this is an English Misplaced Pages. stop being disruptive"
• 1896 Eastern North America heat wave
  • "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks"
  • "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks" - Yes, this was repeated, and as if adding "thanks" makes the edit warring OK
  • "incorporate into main text. if you must. stop being disruptive Richard."

You've already been blocked here for edit warring ( far too briefly, in my opinion) and sadly it appears that you still believe that you are absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong. I think that based on this evidence (and there's tons more just like this) that an interaction ban should have been imposed as well as a 0RR restriction on removing material from articles. Hopefully the block has provided some much-needed time for introspection and that further action won't be necessary in the future as long as this style of edit warring / bullying ends. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I will happily acknowledge that I edit warred here and that this should be avoided in future. I do not believe I was totally right and everyone else wrong as you claim. Can I ask a very specific question: do you think Richard is totally innocent? Many have pointed out that it takes 2 to edit war. simply restoring disupted content is in fact edit warring. Is Richard totally innocent in failing to discuss disputed content and refusing to engage like me? Do you acknowledge his longer block is due to his long history of blocks for various past disputes, failing to engage others. I have taken on board your comments, time for you to WP:CHILL as the dispute is over. If you an issue with me please raise on my talk page. Happy to discuss. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Justice007 reported by User:Vibhijain (Result: No violation)

Page: Pakistan Zindabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Justice007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is continuously edit warring without taking policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:SYNTHESIS into consideration. I have also requested temporary full protection of the page. He is continually adding wrongly phrased controversial statements just because he likes it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation ItsZippy 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (explaining because this is the only one not clearly marked as a revert in the edit summary: in this edit, Kwami removes material zie has been unsuccessfully trying to remove for some time, after failing to gain consensus to qualify the statement by adding original research about the person in question)
• 5th revert:

These are only the 5 reverts in a 24-hour span; Kwami has been trying to make these edits without consensus for longer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: : In this talkpage edit, which Kwami saw and responded to before making the fifth edit above, I warn hir that zie is at 4RR and strongly advise hir against continuing to revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most recently here

Comments:
This isn't the first time that Kwami has hit 5RR at this article - another time, it was 5RR with 4 reverts in the space of an hour. See also Misplaced Pages:An#Secular_Islam_Summit, where I begged for administrative help in order to prevent precisely this from happening.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious BLP concerns, with Roscelese's stated idea that libel or slander is okay if we can demonstrate in a RS that someone said it. Her latest argument was that it's okay to call a group atheists when there are devout people in it, if the devout are a minority. BLP issues, like copyright issues and vandalism, are exempt from 3RR. This is an issue which we've been making progress with on the talk page, and has been resolved to the point where Roscelese is pushing at the margins, like using quotes of events from someone who has no knowledge of them (because the opinions were expressed before the events took place). — kwami (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami is not a new user and knows quite well how BLP works, and it isn't about hitting 5RR in an attempt to remove reliably sourced material that is critical of someone's political views (which is what the contested material is about, despite Kwami's false claims that it's about something else). BLP ceases to have any value as a policy when it becomes a catch-all defense of edit warring, original research (about living people!), and refusal to talk, compromise, or heed consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point out this consensus, since no-one else is able to see it. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It seems clear to me that this dispute had absolutely nothing to do with protecting possibly libelous material against a living person. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Solhjoo reported by User:Massagetae (Result: Declined)

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

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

Comments:
Solhjoo is repeatedly deleting links to "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article Iran although it is against the reference in the info box (where is cited, which shows Southern Pashto is spoken natively by 113,000 in Iran, which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned). The same user made the same irrational change in June too. These repeated changes obviously seem nationalistic vandalism. Massagetae(talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ItsZippy 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Declined - there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Also, I'd like to point you to Misplaced Pages's brief explanation on what vandalism is not and my essay on the same subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:166.250.71.30 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dark Ages (historiography) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.250.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as 166.250.71.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:207.204.180.50 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Declined)

Page: 2012 Burgas bus attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 AMIA bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.204.180.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

IP is removing same sourced info from three articles and edit warring on all three. Has been blocked twice prior. His talk page is replete with previous warnings about edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP address engaged in the same type of vandalism against me on a page relating to today's attack in Bulgaria. I looked in his edit history, and he appears to have done this for many terror attacks. I will give a case in point.

Consider the 1994 London Israeli Embassy Attack. On this page, in the infobox under suspectedperps, "pro-Iranian extremists, allegdly linked to Hezbollah" is written. Does anyone deny they were suspected? Of course not. A quick glance at the article reveals that both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence blame the attack on them. Yet the IP address reverted the edit here, so that perpetrators were written as "unknown" and there was no line for suspected perpetrators. His reason? "iran and hizbs deny having any role , there is no solid proof to link iran." . Now, both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence clearly believe there is proof to link Iran, but at either rate, they are not listed as "perpetrators" but rather "suspected perpetrators." In other words, they're suspected. This is a fact you can not deny. BBC even reports it here.

I thought that perhaps the user just didn't understand what suspected meant or what belongs in the box. I reverted his edit, and wrote in the summary box and warned him "Just bc a country and org denies it doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't belong in SUSPECTED perps box... Seems like vandalism, don't do it again."

Despite this, he goes back and reverts it - and lists the same reason, nothing more and nothing less, just the same exact reason he gave before.

There are many more examples of this same behavior that I intend on listing here soon. --Activism1234 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider another example from the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina. Again, suspected perps was listed as Hezbollah. No one denies this. Yet the IP address reverted it here, again saying that hezbs denies that they did the attack. It's fine if they deny it, but that doesn't mean they aren't suspected... You know how many criminals lie? If the IP address would just read the section on Responsibility in the article, he would see that Hezbollah (and Iran) was linked to it in many different ways. A Hezbollah-linked organization took responsibility, and both Israel and Argentina blamed it on Hezbollah (and Iran), and proof was brought that suspects them further by the American National Security Agency. Again, it's all in the 5 paragraph passage in the article.

Brewcrewer reverted his edit, for obvious reasons, and mentioned that Hezbollah also denies the Holocaust, and that doesn't make it true.

IP's respones? Revert. His reason? "this is not a place for israeli activism. you can't name someone when they deny having any role." Now, the first part is just delusional, any unbiased editor or admin would see why Hezbollah belongs in suspected perpetrators box. The second part is silly - police charge criminals all the time when they deny the role (I'm referring to people who actually did it), and often later they admit it. If there's enough proof, it can go. We're not talking about the perpetrator box - we're talking about suspected perpetrator box. And it is supported by 5 paragraphs in the passage on Responsibility.

Now, when I noticed what he did on the Bulgaria page, and saw his edit history, I went to this page and reverted his vandalism, with a clear explanation. "read up on what the word "suspected" means before removing factual and important information. Don't repeat this again, it looks like vandalism." Again, I pointed out that it was suspected perpetrator box and why it should go.

His response? Again he reverts it. So now he just violated the 3RR rule, which is a serious offense. he writes in the summary box - "iran and hizbs deny having any role, and suspected by whom ? by israel ?)" AGAIN, he does vandalism - the article clearly gives 5 paragraphs on this very topic, and no, not just by Israel, although even if it was only by Israel, it would still go in the suspected perpetrators box!

I reverted his vandalism (this is only my 2nd revert on the page). Again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote in teh summary box and warned him "IP address, I am warning you a final time - do not continue this vandalism. If you have a question, raise it in talk page. I am reverting this vandalism. Read aftermath section...)" The appropriate thing would've been to go to the talk page if he still had problems. Or to just read the responsibility box. Since I saw he just kept reverting my well-explained reverts and good-faith edits to his vandalism, I decided not to revert further on other pages other than what I had done since an edit war is unnecessary and could result in sanctions, and the appearance already may seem like some to be an edit war (although not my intention and not how I played it out, although clearly how the IP address did it). So I decided I'd file a request, but noticed Brewcrewer already made one.

Admins are free to do what they feel best. Personally, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles and suspected Hezbollah/Iran attacks on Israelis/Jews, or an indefinite Misplaced Pages ban considering his previous two bans.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism, please take to heart WP:TL;DR. I notice neither of you have followed the recommended format. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - No violation on 3RR grounds. Take it to another forum if you believe there's underlying issues. - Penwhale | 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: revert of this edit (added later as clarification per this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=503092782#3RR)
• 2nd revert: revert of this edit
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert of this edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user once again broken 3RR.He was already blocked multiple time for this.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me but check the diffs. in the 2. diff i added back *a reliable secondary source* which user frotz removed without any justification. removing sources like that without discussion, without justification is *contentious editing*. in addition, this diff is *totally* UNRELATED to the other diffs.

in the 3. diff i reverted estlandia who is tag-teaming and hounding me. he reverts me blindly, without any discussion at all. his disruptive behavior has been confirmed by several other editors and an administrator here, .

the first 1. diff came after *consensus* was reached on the talk page regarding how *you* misrepresent/misuse sources. it was *not* a "revert" either. you are the one who should be blocked for tag-teaming and misrepresentation of sources. we see this over and over again. user shrike's attempts of tag-teaming and disruptive behavior is discussed here, .

just like to point out again: the 2.diff is totally unrelated to the other 3 diffs. hence i have not broken any rule. you are trying misuse this noticeboard.-- altetendekrabbe  07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it was still revert of this edit .I urge you to revert yourself.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

the edit confirms what i wrote: user frotz removed a reliable secondary source without any justification nor any discussion. i want the opinion of an administrator. if i broke the 3-rr then i will indeed self-revert. if i revert now i would be guilty removing a reliable secondary source.-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The removal you're referring was a case of removing commentary of something not completely relevant to the article. I accidentally hit "Save page" before I wrote my summary. -- Frotz(talk) 09:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

please, stop talking nonsense. the diff is there. you removed a reliable secondary source.-- altetendekrabbe  09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing its reliability. I removed it because it was not relevant. -- Frotz(talk) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I must note that editor constantly change his post after my response so it hard to follow, he was blocked many times for edit warring and he back to the same behavior once again moreover this issue is still under discussion as evident from the talk page but the user reverting non-stop instead seeking proper WP:DR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

this is utter nonsense...shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is now adding unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike is now being *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure. he is deliberately making new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. shrike has now added another UNRELATED diff to his list (the 5. diff). incredibly stupid.-- altetendekrabbe  10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined I see 3, not 4. It's also evidently a content dispute, so this isn't the forum for it. - Penwhale | 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm extremely close to block both of you for disruptive editing. Please do not make me do so. Play nice. - Penwhale | 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I too would feel extremely close to blocking both parties here – see my previous warnings a few days ago – but I'll defer to Penwhale in this instance. (Note also that I was sollicited to comment by one side in the dispute). In any case, one alternative suggestion would be the following: block all parties to this dispute for a longish period, unless they commit to the following conditions: (1) strict 1RR/48 hours revert limitation for all parties concerned on the two articles in question (Dhimmi and Dhimmitude); (2) every revert to be preceded by (a) a substantive, content-not-commentator-oriented explanation of the reasons for the planned revert on the talk page, followed by (b) an obligatory waiting period of, say, 4 hours between the explanation and actually carrying out the revert, to slow the revert warring down and allow for more discussion. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Well you became involved as you edited the article I don't have problem with your proposal I was not me who have history of edit warring and made 5 or 6 reverts to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I consider my recent clerical edit to the article as well below the threshold of "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias", so I still reserve the right to take administrative action there should the need arise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@fut.perf., i totally agree with your 2. proposal which makes the 1. proposal somehow superfluous. more discussion is indeed the correct procedure. the dispute i had with frotz is now, more or less, solved. it was at that moment shrike became disruptive.-- altetendekrabbe  11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our primary bone of contention appears to be resolved. Howver, I understand the point that Shrike is making. Hopefully my recent writing at Talk:Dhimmitude will calm people down and start a dialog on exactly what's wrong now. -- Frotz(talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Unless I'm missing something significant, Altetendekrabbe has proceeded to revert again after this report was closed by Penwhale. With a clear set of four reverts at 10:48, 11:12, 22:03, and 10:13, I have blocked him for a month. While I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here, I don't see any bright line violations. Clearly, some alternate set of restrictions needs to be placed on the article. Kuru (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is idiotic. The three users, Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming and edit warring to try and get Altetendekrabbe blocked for a month now. They basically revert his every edit on this, and previously, on other, articles. Kuru just amply rewarded their behavior. Message to Misplaced Pages users: bullying others and ganging up on them is just fine, as long as you know how to kiss admin ass. And this "I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here" is just so many fucking crocodile tears. If it has been less than ideal (in fact, it has been much worse than Alt's) then block them for god's sake.VolunteerMarek 12:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have opened SPI case regarding this, as this is extremely concerning. - Penwhale | 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BROBX: reported by User:Angryapathy (Result: 24 hours)

Panic! at the Disco: Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
BROBX: BROBX (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:
User:BROBX has been repeatedly reverting edits I have made to the Panic! at the Disco article. When I first made the edits, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. The issue is adding Dallon Weekes as a full-time memeber of the band. The sources that had been previously added to source his addition to the band were not useful for that task, which I discussed in detail on the talk page. The first revert had no edit summary, and the next two called my reverts "vandalism". I entreated the editor twice on their talk page to discuss the issue on the Panic! talk page, with absolutely no discussion taking place from these notices (BROBX's talk page has since been blanked by BROBX). I feel I did as much as I could to avoid this, but the editor refuses to discuss the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (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:

Vilation of 3RR, user is very keen on starting edit war and as a bonus his reverts include removal of sourced content and adding content from unreliable sources without any rationale but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK has been reverting sourced content that he did not like because of the source. The source in question is the Official press agency of Syria. There DOZENS of mentions of opposition sources with uncheckable claims. But we are still writing them. The same is needed for governement sources by NPOV.

EllesworthSK is using a various range of disruptive tactics to achieve its goal. He is purely erasing sourced content multiples times. He is erasing sourced content while adding other content to complain after a reversion that his addition has been deleted by reversion of his deletion.

And after that, he is also calling other people via private messages to come to help him delete source content in order to not violate the rule alone. The user is trying to take control of various page, including one I created, in order to remove any concept of neutrality in these pages. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And I am eating toddlers for breakfast, too.

Bytheway, since when does wikipedia has private messages? And since when do we consider state-controled propaganda agency to be reliable? Anyone? EllsworthSK (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, EllsworthSK report of my reversions of his deletion is a little bit unreal as he reverted 6 times another of my addition in the Damascus battle page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Damascus_%282012%29&offset=20120718151205&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielUmel (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I see exactly zero warnings for a new contributor likely unaware of 3RR, and exactly zero discussion of the issue. Please consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke reported by User:Hoary (Result: Page protected)

This is the noticeboard for edit warring, and not merely for edit warriors. Thus this post.

There is no one user involved; rather, two rather rash ones and perhaps three more who are more circumspect. Perhaps (the wrong version of) the article could beneficially be protected. I of course have the mop, bucket and light-sabre to do this and more myself, but since I seem to have become something of a combatant over there, I should refrain from using any of them. Anyway, the eyes of a few additional unexcited editors would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting active edit warriors" , and you can't have an edit war without edit warriors. No matter how you slice it, you can't report 209.6.69.227 as an edit warrior, but easily could report the editor with whom you are collaborating, Casprings. You are suggesting a remedy which fixes no apparent problem, but rather, rewards an edit warrior you are encouraging, by blocking all IPs.

The key standard to edit warring is "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" WP:BLP , or, more specifically WP:RS concerns with questionable material being removed were raised and never addressed on the Talk page (avoiding discussion), and instead reverted by Casprings, avoiding discussion.

An RfC ignoring the issues to be addressed on the Talk page (instead claiming this was an issue of size of paragraph. The size of a paragraph is determined by the availability of noteworthy, WP:RS material, not the other way around; puffing up a bio is what got us here) was initiated, and Casprings insisted WP:BLP and WP:RS issues could not be addressed until the RfC was concluded, avoiding discussion (unsuccessfully) on WP:BLP and WP:RS.

After 72hours, a 4:1 consensus (later 4:2, when Hoary 'fessed up) on RfC on removal of the WP:RS non-compliant material was achieved, material removed, Casprings reverts again, against consensus, avoiding discussion.

Could also argue that beginning a ANI:EW without naming a EW, as Hoary just did, with the hoped-for outcome of blocking an editor with whom you disagree, but who is NOT edit warring, thus avoiding WP:RS discussion could also be Edit Warring. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, instead. I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page. - Penwhale | 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Curious; how does this action in any way improve the situation? How does this action encourage proper reference to Talk pages and the proper discussion of the issues there, as has been asked for on the Talk and Article pages? --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44 reported by User:Despayre (Result: Warned)

Page: Philip Humber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is an ongoing problem with Carthage44, I have tried on several articles to discuss things, he will not engage, and the one time he spoke, when he decided the conversation was over, he blanked the article talk page (José Quintana article, where he's now blanked the talk page conversation for a second time... diffs here:and ). He constantly blanks his own talk page as well, so while I did place a template there, it will likely be gone before long. This particular conversation seems to be going on in edit summaries, and since he's replied to previous ones, he's obviously reading them. We've had the same problem with him on several articles, the Adam Dunn article has been particularly problematic as well, since he feels he should revert stats because "they don't need to be updated that often". Serious WP:OWN issues in general on this articles imo.

Comments:

He's already been brought to DRN and possibly ANI recently as well (Might have been EWN, not ANI), if you want more diffs, I can provide them, just let me know. He's had several editwarring blocks already as well, as I'm sure you can see for yourself.

• Warned. I suppose he read it, because my warning post was reverted. - Penwhale | 08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• sigh*... he's been doing this for months... we'll be back soon... and his excuse of "stats were not correct" is bullshit. He's been adding that as an edit summary every time after another admin told him that was the only good reason to revert. If you look through his edits you'll see he adds the exact same numbers later, or waits for another game before adding, and the stats were correct. I have reverted him many times for this but he continues to do it. -- Despayre   13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24.45.42.125 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political activities of the Koch family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.45.42.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: # 05:34, 18 July 2012 (edit summary: "this article is about their political advocacy, not their philanthropy")
• 2nd revert: # 04:17, 20 July 2012 (edit summary: "consensus has clearly rejected describing them as philanthropists in this article")
• 3rd revert: # 04:35, 20 July 2012 (edit summary: "citation for per-plate cost. Also, see talk for consensus. They are unquestionably billionaires, but their philanthropy has been ruled irrelevant to this article.")
• 4th revert: # 21:20, 18 July 2012‎ (edit summary: "Philanthropy is explicitly out of scope; see talk. Being billionaires, however, is precisely why they deserve an article.")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion in progress here

Comments:

Hi. Am I supposed to say something here? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple editors over what the Koch's should be called in the lead ("billionaires" vs. "philanthropists"), and you're claiming consensus on talk to justify your behavior. You can say something now... – Lionel 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I guess I should say that your statement is inaccurate. On the talk page, BoogaLouie, Jojalozzo and I explained repeatedly that the article, as per its title, is about political activity as opposed to philanthropy. Even you admit this, in your good-faith but wrong suggestion that we should expand it to include philanthropy.

Not only is this four to two, but the two (Collect and Belchfire) aren't discussing the topic collegially and are instead engaging in what you would call a "slow-motion edit war against multiple editors". They're not just reverting me, but the others as well. Belchfire hasn't said a word in talk for two days, while Collect only flatly contradicted the dictionary definition, yet both keep editing against consensus. And now Belchfire launched this black-pot-against-grey-kettle attack against me instead of participating constructively. Really, the problem here is them. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "consensus" is not an excuse to edit war per WP:3RRNO. Saying another editor was also edit warring is also not an excuse for you to edit war. You really should try to come up with a really really good rationale why the admins should waive WP:EW in your case and not worry about other users.– Lionel 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say they were "also" edit-warring. I said that, by your standards, they were, but your standards do not appear to be Misplaced Pages standards, at least not by a plain reading of the rules. The indicator of an edit war is that many changes are happening per day without discussion. In contrast, I've been playing a constructive role in the discussion and I'm just one of the people who keeps reverting the inappropriate term that Belchfire and Collect insist upon against consensus.

Once again, the problem here lies entirely with the accuser, not the accused. If anyone is edit-warring here, it's Belchfire, not me. It's ironic that he's trying to game the system by accusing me of what he himself is guilty of (and I am not). 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days due to the horrid page history. For the record - PAC is not really for "humanitarian purposes", and the word "billionaire" is entirely neutral, so I'm calling at least part of the revert warring WP:LAME. - Penwhale | 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Andomedium reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Declined)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andomedium (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:

• First attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
• Second objection to changes on article talk page:

Comments:

While the editor has only actually reverted twice, he has wilfully disregarded the consensus. Two editors favored adding images to the table while two editors were against this undertaking, as seen here. Despite the clear objection by two editors, and the clear lack of consensus the editor went ahead and undertook these changes without undertaking any further efforts to achieve a consensus. There was a further objection to these changes and observation that there was no consensus, but this was completely ignored by the editor who pressed ahead with making the changes, with a total disregard for the opposing viewpoint. There were also concerns by an editor that the archiving was unnecessarily speeded up too so that objections to the changes were speedily archived: .

I reverted these changes and started an RfC, given the editor's total refusal to respond to any opposing viewpoints. The RfC is in its early stages but so far the responses have been against these changes undertaken by the editor. I think the article should be returned to its pre-change state, and given the editor's refusal to cease making changes he should be blocked for the duration of the RfC so the consensus can suitably be decided and enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined, partially because the edit warring, while there, isn't blowing out of proportion. That being said, the original implementation of the new table was apparently done without it being addressed on the talk page, so I commend you on opening the RFC as well as trying to discuss instead of edit war further. - Penwhale | 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you at least fully protect the page then until the RfC is completed? At least then the editor will HAVE to participate in the discussion, otherwise he will just keep making the changes. It is pretty clear he is going to continue ignoring all protestations. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason to; the table layout, not the content, is being questioned. Therefore, as it's not content dispute, and there's no edit-war going on, page protection is not necessary. - Penwhale | 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• So basically, he can continue to keep implementing changes regardless of the fact that there is a major disagreement over them and there is no consensus for them? So what you're really saying is that to take him out of the picture I have to edit war with him, and take a hit for the team, and we both get a 24 hour block? I can live with that I guess, but I still think it's a little unfair. I'll get us both up to four reverts and then you'll be able to block us both. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I did NOT say that. Threats to revert war is also grounds for blocks, so I strongly suggest you to refrain from doing so. - Penwhale | 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• An editor is undertaking edits that not only does he not have a consensus for, but which other editors OBJECTED to. Despite these objections he is continuing with them. However, you are saying he's not breaking the rules basically because I am behaving and not edit-warring with him? Can you not see the absurdity of your stance? Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• From MY point of view: the table formatting can be changed later; as I can see productive edits in the history, I see no reason to block. Please keep in mind of the protection policy on disputes, where admins are free to choose whether to protect a page or issue blocks. At the moment, as you have threatened to continue edit-warring, it's entirely possible for admins to block you and only you. I note that Andomedium has commented at the current RfC, which means that at least you can try to come to a compromise on the talk page without being forced to. - Penwhale | 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please read my response here. The troublemaker known as Betty Logan either has a poor memory or she's attempting to deceive you. --Andomedium (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:109.165.140.217 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

Page: 2012 Burgas bus bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.165.140.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor also makes personal comments about other editors.

I can see that the 3rd, 5th and 6th edits are reverts; could you show me diffs for the edits which added the content for the 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts, so that I can be sure they are reverts? Thanks. ItsZippy 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also encouraged by this and would be hesitant to block, unless the user reverts again. ItsZippy 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I am discouraged by this, editor has made several 'Israeli' attacks. Ankh.Morpork 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit 1, this content in the lead was added by two different editors ,, and was the subject of lengthy talk page discussion. The content he removed was the product of talk discussions.

Edit 2, the edit summary makes clear that its a revert.

Edit 4 reverts this edit.Ankh.Morpork 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • (ec) You bet me to it, but I was considering blocking both editors. The 109.* IP clearly broke 3RR, but AnkhMorpork's hands aren't clean either. He has made at least three reverts too . Moreover, AnkhMorpork's edits show troublesome signs of tendentious editing: presenting a ripped-out-of-context quotation by a politician as he did here , in a way that clearly insinuates the words were in reference to the topic of the article, when in reality it seems pretty clear they were spoken in a totally different context, is a pretty serious sign of disruptive agenda-pushing. Even if it is true that some Israeli news outlets have also suggested that connection (here is an English version), that hardly justifies just adopting it as a matter of source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your cited edit, I restored a deletion with the explanation of "heavy WP:SYNTH, because speech was completely irrelevant to attack". I checked the cited source which explicitly linked the two, so restored the content as the grounds of removal were obviously incorrect. I am at a loss as to how you have construed this as TE.Ankh.Morpork 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I welcome FPaS to block AnhkMorpork or warn him of possible sanctions. I blocked solely based on technical grounds of a 3RR violation (1RR doesn't apply to WP:ARBPIA regarding anonymous editors). That said, now having looked into the content, I do not believe that quote was at all out of context (double speak is common in international relations where two sides don't like each other). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at the source, look at the the explanation for deletion - "speech was completely irrelevant to attack", and explain to me what I did wrong? And this was not the only listed source either. Ankh.Morpork 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking me: I just clearly stated I didn't think you took the source out of context. Behavior-wise, edit warring is always discouraged, and it was probably within my leeway even to have blocked you for it in this case. You really ought to have stopped after at most the second revert and let discussion finish or let someone else step in (after all, the IP had broken 1RR at this point). A large part of the reason I didn't block your account is because this is breaking news, so it's more important than most articles to make sure we have the right version now (because it will be receiving many more eyeballs now), so the behavior for edit warring is more understandable even if it is suboptimal. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice accepted. I will refrain from editing this article until it is more stable and just participate in talk page discussions.Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to Magog: it may be justifiable to say he made non-specific remarks about "blows" dealt out to Iran's enemies, which were interpreted by some observers in the Israeli press as veiled references to the attack, and as "gloating" about it. That much is true. Claiming as a fact that he did in fact refer to them, or even just insinuating he did through the juxtaposition of the quotation with the rest of the paragraph as was done here, in light of the fact that according to the literal quotation itself he clearly didn't mention the attacks at all and was speaking in a different context, falls into the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" category in my view, and in the absence of such exceptional evidence it can really be seen as a BLP violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

] reported by User:212.123.25.114 (Result: Declined)

Page: Weston Wamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help). hiroloveswords

Previous version reverted to:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user has removed the "controversy" section about a particular political candidate, Weston Wamp. For the sake of multiple sides on the issue and democracy, I ask that the section remain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp)

• Declined This noticeboard is to report editors who make more than three reverts on one article in 24 hours. If you disagree with another editor's contributions, try to discuss it with them on the talk page. ItsZippy 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:IJBDD reported by User:David1217 (Result: Protected)

Page: Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IJBDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: The fourth revert was done by an IP who used the same edit summary as the other reverts ("Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by Example (talk)"), so I'm guessing it's the user, logged-out to prevent breaching 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: However, my reverts are an exception to the 3RR rule because they were removing clear copyright violations.

Comments:

• Page protected I've semi-protected the page for 2 days because of the copyright violations. I can't block the user in question because they have made only 3 reverts (the fourth was from an IP editor). ItsZippy 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: No action per "preventative, not punitive" and self-reverts)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor keeps reverting edits even though all the other editors on the talk page disagree with him on the matter.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"All other editors" do not say this, so please remind User Quarkgluonsoup that slandering other editors to make a point isn't the way to approach the Administrators' noticeboard. Quarkgluonsoup came to the Thomas Jefferson page and started in making one major edit after another, repeatedly, not allowing time for other editors to respond, often removing sourced text. There is no one single item that has been reverted more than three times in a row. All edits in question have been restorations of original sourced text that this user took upon him/herself to delete and/or edit. Quarkgluonsoup's presence and hurried editing manner has done little more than bring disruption to the page and to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR clearly states "undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine). It also states "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake". I suggest you make use of this option before a less flexible admin processes this case. There are many editors watching the Jefferson pages, so it is unlikely that a widely unacceptable version will survive for long. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup made the initial changes, dozens of them, major edits, continuously deleting or changing sourced material. I merely restored. If this is a 3rr vio, I will be happy to undo the edits and simply write the sections involved as they were before. My apologies for any rules I may have breached. -- While we're at it, how does one 'check' an editor who storms in and makes dozens of major changes, removing sourced contributions? If an other editor can only make three reverts, that would leave the offending editor to edit as he/she pleases until someone else comes along, and then again, that someone else can only make three reverts. This is an exceptional situation and I can only hope the people reviewing this case will take this into consideration. Also, the Thomas Jefferson page has a long history of editors who act without discussion or consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation I have reversed two of my major reverts of Quarkgluonsoup's last edits. My apologies for any trouble I may have brought to WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what I did wrong, but a longish post I made as an involved editor somehow turned up on another page, where it got deleted. Here's the diff. Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how that got moved either. -- In any case, I have conceded mistakes about 3rr, which is what I think they're most concerned about here. Your opinion that I am a "warrior" is also unfair, as the page has a long history of bloat, pov, so forth. At one time the 'Hemings controversy section was more than four (screen) pages long and filled with pov and one sided conjecture. There was a large consensus to correct it so there is and has always been plenty of reasons to look after the page -- and as edit history will reveal, I am not the only "persistent warrior" to the page. And may I also say in my own defense I have never edited/deleted material in the Jefferson page at a rate as we have just seen here. This whole issue was highly provoked and is typical of the past trouble we have had to deal with on the Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillickers is one of two persistent warriors during the time I've been at TJ, maybe a year. He's unhappy because QGSoup has messed with his article. Gw' similarly did an indignant total revert to recent changes (improvements, imo) I made; I just didn't fight back.

Looking at QGSoup's contributions, his editing style seems to be to blitz through one article after another. He may take notice that a better way to help build the encyclopedia is to engage with longtime editors at any given article; collaboration is fundamental to the project. Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• User has understood the violation and self-reverted. There is spirited discussion with some ownership problems at the Jefferson articles, but I'm closing this for now.. Some additional admin attention at the articles would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• link
• link

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

Comments: Arzel has removed large amounts of content and has not justified the second specific removal in the talk page despite repeated calls for WP:BRD. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are also edit warring and are subject to a block? That's called WP:BOOMERANG. And boy is it a bitch. Btw what's up with asking other editors to keep your edit wars going when you reach 3RR? That's called WP:MEAT. – Lionel 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I made exactly two reverts. The first removal was after a period of 3 days time under which no justification was made for the inclusion of non-notabl criticism of a living person. The insertion of the criticism at that time did not have concensus, but I thought I would see if any valid reason would be given for the inclusion, or if main-stream sources had discussed the controvery in order to validate weight. No main-stream sources were commenting on the supposed controversy, only left wing sites.. I justified my edit on the talk page and recieved no discussion from Cartoon Diablo. One of the sources which had been added is rightwingwatch.org which is definately not a reliable source for a BLP. Arzel (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FTR, CD attempt to use another editor to violate 3RR. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell has been full protected for 7 days or until this content dispute is resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring