Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 20 November 2011

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:92.98.24.125 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: Already protected)

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

User being reported: 92.98.24.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rvv- better before. If you have a disagreement here, please discuss it first.")
2. 18:49, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- the previous revision looks better. You were told this before, and you ignored it. Wiktionary explains the word, TOC on the right makes sense to make the page shorter, etc. Hope this helps.")
3. 19:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- I just *gave* you an explanation that you've requested on the talk page in my previous edit summary. I assume you can read, which means your intent here is disruption, not help the article.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Funandtrvl (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments:

Please advise if I should rqst semi-protection for the page. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To the administrators- I was only trying to keep the article's quality. I was also hoping to reach understanding through my edit summaries, obviously I have failed. If I am being in the wrong here, please let me know and I will stop editing it. Thanks. 92.98.24.125 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed in the wrong, for failure to communicate after three separate requests. Please use the talk page: Talk:Itinerant. I also recommend undoing your most recent revert as a show of good faith while you discuss the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre? Is that from World of Warcraft? 187.33.225.150 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to get some input, and settle this disagreement, I have added comments to the article's talk page today, in addition to comments I left there yesterday. I will be glad to wait a few days, however, based on the article's history of a few revert wars in the article's past, I am not too optimistic that the same battles will not return at the next copy-edit. Any suggestions on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If the IP doesn't come and discuss the issue within a half day or so, I'd just revert it. I'm normally never for revert warring, but you've done your part, and now s/he must do his. Also, IP: see Magog (Bible) and Gog and Magog (both are in all Abrahamic religions). Guar is just a stupid name I saw the day I created my SN. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well taken, thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about this article, but my copy-edits were reverted again yesterday by an IP. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article is already protected per another 3RR report further down on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2011

User:TSWikis1 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Amy Daly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TSWikis1 (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:TSWikis1, an SPA who only edits with regard to the subject of the article involved in this dispute, is repeatedly adding content to the article claiming that a once (somewhat) prominent transgender activist, who was interviewed on the Entertainment Tonight TV show, has since become a performer in pornographic videos. No references or sources of any type have been provided for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer, just links documenting that the interview was broadcast. The performer uses a different name from the interviewee. After I posted a warning on TSwikis1's talk page, a modified text of the unsupported claim was added back to the article by an IP with no edit history, who I infer is TSwikis1; no other editor has made any substantive contribution to the article. Neither TSwikis1 nor the IP account have engaged in talk page discussion. For the record, I believe my removals of the disputed content fall within the BLP exception to 3RR, since there is no reliable sourcing for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think your characterization of the dispute may be a bit inaccurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not contesting that she (he?) is a pornographic actress; you're only contesting that she was on ET. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • What I'm contesting is that the person who appeared on ET became a porn performer. That's the unsourced claim. "Jacki" appeared on ET, and is a real, identifiable person. "Amy" is a porn performer for whom we have no reliable biographical information. Nothing supports the claim that Jacki changed their name to Amy and went into porn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• User Hullabaloo Wolfawitz has a frivolous delete dispute and is trying to win his argument, which is why s/he keeps hounding my changes and it is coming down to harassment. Porn Actors and Non porn actors all use stage names in their performances. I have been in contact with the performer and she has granted me permission to use her real name on the article. Otherwise, it would not of been posted at all. The person that the article is about is identified by non stage name and a photo on the source. In the actor's biography on her website and youtube secondary source, she notes being Jackie in the video and it is plain to see because the video and the source photo included clearly identify Jackie as Amy Daly. She also has photos of her on the entertainment tonight set on her website. This article has been thoroughly researched as I am a huge follower of the transsexual pornography industry. This user continues to harass this article, removing whole chunks of the persons life prior to the porn industry, which were all sourced as well, but s/he removed it all and did not tell you about that part. In his/her delete request, there are users asking her/him to stop harassing newer members, which is evidence that this is the sort of thing that he likes to do. I would like to request that wolfawitz is blocked from further edits to this article as s/he is vandalizing to get the article deleted. I am going to revert his vandalism and request action be taken to his account due to the repeated reverts of valid content and sources. I would like to continue to update these transgender performers for better accuracy, as I am a fan of both porn and wikipedia, but this user will make it impossible for me to do if I am being continually harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSWikis1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Feel free to continue to revert under BLP for the time being, until you can come to consensus (if the other editor is willing to engage in discussion rather than blindly reverting). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'm going to ask for further input at WP:BLPN, although it may take me a little while before I can write it up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:118.90.92.253 reported by User:Schwede66 (Result: 24h )

Page: Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 118.90.92.253 (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:The editor is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as this edit shows. Schwede66 03:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - if the user socks under a different IP, by all means request semi-protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for actioning this. I don't know whether this is relevant here, but for what it's worth, another editor has opened a Sockpuppet investigation that involves this IP. Schwede66 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Antique Rose reported by User:Gazifikator (Result: Block, semi, Antique Rose warned)

Page: Tamara Toumanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antique Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Antique Rose participated in an editwarring without any serious explanations at talk, with ironic and uncivil ( tone. The opposing IP-user was recently blocked, while Rose, who was an aggressive part of editwarring, feels free to continue his aggressive behaviour. Gazifikator (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've notified Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and asked him to reconsider. I agree it was a poor idea to only block the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• I've replied to Magog on my talk page (User_talk:Edgar181#Tamara_Toumanova_protection) giving my reasoning for my admin actions. Unfortunately, I've got only a few minutes before I'll be away from the computer at least until tomorrow. So I'm going to apologize and let another admin proceed as he or she sees fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• OK. I may have been out of order here. Is it considered edit warring, when one reverts apparent vandalism, e.g. removal of cited references? Anyway, it is quite obvious that user 85.141.14.195, now blocked, has been using several IP accounts, e.g. 176.14.208.219 and 176.14.208.162, making exactly or almost exactly the same edits. The user reporting me, Gazifikator, supports the Armenian cause in this particular case, citing the same sources as 85.141.14.195. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I must question Gazifikator's neutrality on this topic. Best regards, Antique Rose — Drop me a line 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not neutral despite I tried and explained my view at talk, but I never participated at this editwarring like Rose done. Gazifikator (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't edit-warring, it was fighting vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: User:Edgar181 has semiprotected the article and blocked 85.141.14.195 (talk · contribs). He has suggested that another admin take over closing this case since he is temporarily away. Using a fluctuating IP to conduct a campaign of reverts certainly violates WP:SOCK, so the sanctions on the IP appear correct. Since this is a dispute related to nationality (Georgian vs. Armenian descent) Magog's ARBAA notices for both the IP and Antique Rose appear logical. User:Antique Rose did break 3RR while reverting the sock-IP, but it is a stretch to want to apply a block to her at this time. The IP's actions (which include removing references supporting the other side) wander into vandal territory. This dispute has been running a long time. At first glance the arguments for an Armenian connection seem remote (e.g. descent from a family who were said to have been Armenian in the 12th century) and editors have put a lot of Russian-language information on the talk page with no translation. Nonetheless the subject's ethnicity is not for admins to decide. I recommend that the RfC at Talk:Tamara Toumanova#RfC note be finished and be closed by an admin if necessary. If anyone believes that Antique Rose has been socking they should open an SPI. Antique Rose is warned against any further edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:79.170.50.135 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: protected)

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

User being reported: 79.170.50.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 05:56, 17 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 461038182 by Funandtrvl (talk) wrong caption")
2. 21:10, 17 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 461146630 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
3. 21:33, 17 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 461174149 by Funandtrvl (talk) revert vandalism")

• Diff of warning: here

—Funandtrvl (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Second time this week that I keep getting reverted by an IP on the same article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that you're just as at fault with edit-warring here, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree. See my 3RR report at the top of this page, showing that each time, I have requested responses from the IPs, I have described my copy-edits in detail in both my edit summaries and the article's talk page. Also, if you read the Talk:Itinerant, there have been revert wars before by several IPs, with the IPs personally attacking the registered editors. Also, please note that if one does not revert the IPs edit, then what you are suggesting is a Catch-22. The 1st 3RR that I reported this week, I waited several days, and the first IP disappeared, and note, nothing was done essentially. The behavior of these IPs is very disruptive, and I believe, not in good faith, since both IPs have refused to discuss why they keep reverting the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

... and you know that what you said above is not an excuse for edit-warring, right? It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR. WP:DR is there for a reason (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if one believes that it is not an excuse for edit warring, I'm not sure I understand what you mean that BRD would apply to this case, as the IPs obviously did not wish to discuss. (see IPs talk pages, there are no responses from them.) And how would DR help in this case, when there is no active discussion from the other editors? I am not optimistic that when the article is un-protected next week, that this same cycle would not start again, and I would appreciate some input on what to do. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Request page protection is a first place - prevents you from breaking 3RR yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week by BWilkins. Also, I've restored the pre-dispute version. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr. JTT reported by User:Clovis Sangrail (Result: 24h)

Page: Occupy Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. JTT (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: Multiple removals of referenced material, no discussion or edit summaries. Other users have requested discussion on talk page

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

5th revert

6th revert

7th revert

8th revert

9th revert

Anyone home? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, not by me. Swarm 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:58.109.81.229 reported by Sparthorse (talk) (Result: declined)

Page: Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 58.109.81.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 00:21, 17 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "My source is ive been watching football for 51 years you seem to have incorrect in formation yesterday argentina defeated bosnia on may 14 now it's may 15 if you refuse to change the 6-2 please enjoy having false information")
2. 00:24, 17 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html please visit this uefa official website specifically list's portugal 6-2 as bosnia's biggest defeat")
3. 02:16, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html OFFICIAL UEFA WEBSITE SPECIFICALLY STATES BOSNIA'S BIGGEST DEFEAT AS 6-2 DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS IS SOLID PROOF THE FACTS ARE RIGHT HERE PLEASE GET YOU FACT'S STRAIGHT")
4. 10:44, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "thank you for helping post falsified information on wikipedia and ingnoring truthful facts even when they are in your face (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html because no one dare be right expect for you")
5. 11:30, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "the link on the right hand side specifically states 6-2 as bosnia's biggest ever defeat in all competitions you have to be blind to not see and something you may not no the argentina bosnia match was a friendly Uefa organizes all friendlys between")
6. 11:32, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "International friendlys between nations the link list all competitions and you may not know that fifa does not sanction friendlys Uefa does especially being that bosnia and european nation was involved uefa definatly sanctioned this event")
7. 11:37, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "And the estonia win was retracted because of those cheating alligations estonia is also a european nation it's also falls under Uefa")
8. 11:49, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Sorry i miswrote what i meant to say is aa match with a uefa nation and any nation from any arena concaf oceania etc is always organized buy uefa and not fifa just like the argentina game had it been bosnia biggest defeat uefa would of listed it as")
9. 12:39, 18 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "The defination of defeat according to fifa is how many is how many goals you conceded the number of goals you scored is irrelevant and goal diffrence 6-2 4 goal to 5-0diffrence makes no sense at all bosnia conceded more then 5 goals therefor 6-2")

• Diff of warning: here

—Sparthorse (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined I don't see a violation here (consecutive edits to an article do not count separately). And the only edit since the warning was a formatting change . Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Knispel reported by User:Binksternet (Result: already semiprotected)

Page: Erich von Manstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Knispel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 109.129.105.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.99.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.184.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)
• 109.129.206.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Knispel logged out)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 17:51, November 15, 2011
• 2nd revert: 18:10, November 15, 2011
• 3rd revert: 12:54, November 16, 2011
• 4th revert: 13:14, November 18, 2011
• 5th revert: 18:31, November 18, 2011
• 6th revert: 06:57, November 19, 2011
• 7th revert: 07:14, November 19, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Erich_von_Manstein#Some_troubling_claims

Comments:

• I've warned the user. Let's see how the editor reacts. I'm not closing this report yet. Wifione 09:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Knispel said on the article talk page that he "will be relentless in deleting the stuff", referring to what I see as well-cited text added by User:A.S. Brown. It looks like Knispel made a statement of intent to edit war. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Page protected Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Worstcook reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: -20:27, 18 November 2011
• 2nd revert: - 20:42, 18 November 2011
• 3rd revert: - 15:28, 19 November 2011
• 4th revert: - 19 November 2011

• In addition, an apparent IP sockpuppet: 06:23, 19 November 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Project Accessory#The Elimination Table, Talk:Project Accessory#Improvements to the Article.

Note: The discussion above is my attempt to build the narrative portion of the article, and is not related to the 3RR case at all; the discussion took place several days before the dispute above. I stepped away from the article for a few days to take a breather, and to give Worstcook and her friends the opportunity to (hopefully) write the narrative I recommended. Instead, I came back to find a series of inflammatory and selective reverts of content that is easily sourced to the episode, as is done with numerous elimination-style reality show articles all over Misplaced Pages. Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
The editor has a history of edit-warring, and rather than engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page, he gives minimal and defensive responses. Multiple editors have reverted him and have tried discussion. His latest volley of reverts have occurred with no discussion by him, despite requests in edit summaries for him to discuss his edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• While I have had my issues with Worstcook, who I believe treats Misplaced Pages as a fan page, and a pace to keep elimination tables, rather than being a serious editor, I have real issues with the selective nature of this 3RR claim. Yes, it's clear Worstcook violated 3RR on this article; with that I have no dispute. However, there are two problems that are being overlooked, I believe. Worstcook has consistently IP edited with one IP: 205.209.83.211, geolocated in Rockland, ME. Here, she is being accused of editing with another one, 155.47.192.82, which geolocates to Wheaton College in Massachusetts. While I suppose it's possible it's the same person, I have my doubts, and the evidence backs me up. Worstcook has been completely consistent about the use of an IP in the past, the original IP has been silent since the sockpuppet case against Worstcook, and most importantly, the new IP editor's edit history and Worstcook's are extensive, show concurrent editing and are far more different than alike, and that's apparently solely on cursory examination. Moreover, Worstcook demonstrates very poor command of basic English spelling and grammar, inconsistent with someone who would be attending a small selective religious college like Wheaton. I don't think there's any substantiation to believe Worstcook is socking using IP 155.47.192.82. Having been once been falsely accused of IP editing from Oklahoma while I was on the west coast by an admin who took no time to conduct even the most rudimentary investigation, I'm sensitive to the ease with which such accusations may be made and accepted.

• Even more troubling is the selective nature of this accusation. Again, I recognize Worstcook's offense, but it takes two to edit war, and Worstcook didn't start this one. User:Sparthorse made five reverts between 04:11 and 23:45 on November 18. His was the original revert, and he exchanged most of the reverts cited above with Worstcook, before Tenebrae stepped in. Yet, I see no 3RR complaint against him, and no good reason why he was not reported for 3RR when Worstcook was. There isn't even a 3RR warning on his talk page. It defies understanding why only Worstcook was cited, not both editors. I believe this case demands some careful scrutiny. Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Worstcook did technically violate WP:3RR and that's the main reason for this noticeboard to exist. I've semiprotected the article to shut down any possible socking, and invited Worstcook to respond here. Worstcook does seem to be editing like a single-minded fan, and it is understandable that this might set off the instincts of regular editors to feel as though abuse was occurring. You are correct that Sparthorse has made four reverts also, and his actions should be considered by the closer. I will notify Sparthorse that his edits are being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to EdJohnston for notifying me about the discussion. Yes, I did violate WP:3RR (making four reverts on the article), so I will accept any sanctions arising from this. 3RR is an important policy and I violated it. I will note that my intention was to remove unsourced material from the article, but accept without qualification that I should not have continued to revert the article to that state. Sparthorse (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No question that Worstcook violated 3RR, which I acknowledge twice above. But in all fairness, so did Sparthorse, who I applaud for recognizing as much and taking his/her lumps, should there be any. My big concern was that this report was one-sided with no apparent reason why, and as such, unfair, which I felt should be pointed out. I do believe Worstcook is a long-term problem editor who loves, loves, loves those elimination tables, but with rare exceptions, doesn't give a hoot about the rules, procedures or the best interests of the articles in which the tables appear, and demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to abide by policy, improve her editing or do anything but keep up those tables. But in this case, as goes Worstcook, so goes Sparthorse, and the end result should reflect that. Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, admire Sparthorse's forthrightness, and perhaps I should have included both. However, it had seemed to me he was trying to revert a habitual edit-warrior who was not responding to requests for substantive discussion and for proper documentation, and stubbornly insisting on reinserting an uncited table.

Of course elimination tables are an important, perhaps even critically necessary, part of competition reality-show articles. The issue isn't tables per se — it's having tables that are supported by the primary-source plot descriptions. That is what Worstcook refused to provide, and all that Sparthouse was asking for. And reverts for blatant vandalism or, in the case, blatant policy violation can be exceptions to 3RR.

I respect Drmargi, a responsible and meticulous editor, and clearly one with great empathy and caring for other editors. I do understand why he might feel this, but I don't believe it's unfair to look at the larger nature and the habitual behavior of problematic editors. Worstcook could have brought a 3RR case against Sparthorse herself; no one was preventing her from doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tenabrae, thank you for the clarification. Absent what you've just told me, this appeared to be quite arbitrary. With an explanation, your choice makes far more sense. However, while I agree that vandalism allows us to revert without being accountable for 3RR, I don't believe blatant policy violations do as well; Misplaced Pages has other remedies in those instances. Rather, while I do agree, and have said in very emphatic terms, that the article needs a fully developed narrative describing the show and the judging procedures, I don't think using the assertion that the content is unsourced is the way to get that accomplished, particularly given, as I said on the talk page, that there is too well established a precedent for sourcing with the episodes to not have it apply in this case. All that did was inflame the situation, and create an edit war that didn't need to have happened. Instead, we need to think in terms of all or nothing: either the article is brought up to standard, or it's recommended for deletion. Reverting it to a stub will accomplish nothing, just galvanize Worstcook and other IP editors who see the inconsistency from one article to another. (Oh, and for the sake of the permanent record, I'm a she-type, not a he-type.) Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 1 week)

Page: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR
• 4th revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

High edit account user very active in Abortion area. Knows the drill. Long block log. Clear edit warring in violation of Abortion 1RR. Their previous block was for 3 months, reduced to 1 month.– Lionel 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He is edit warring against two other editors (myself included).– Lionel 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, so of course I am aware of restrictions. The above diffs do not show a violation of 1RR as they are 24:01 apart rather than within 24 hours. I have been involved in improving the article with more scholarly opinions and I have been actively working toward consensus on the talk page. Right before making the second edit shown above, I submitted this detailed argument on the talk page. I am not revert warring, I am working toward improving the article and gaining consensus. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1 minute past the cutoff is gaming the system. A person whose last block was for 3 months in duration and who just came off a 6 month 1RR restriction should do more talking and less edit warring. – Lionel 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly "working toward consensus" you would've waited for someone, anyone to respond to your "detailed argument" before imposing your will and POV on the article. This "detailed argument" is nothing more than a cover to hide behind to avoid a block for 1RR. – Lionel 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

One post on the talk page without any input from anyone else, and then proceeding to revert against 2 other editors is not consensus. It is the out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior.– Lionel 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

With all the past friction between you and me, Lionelt, you are perhaps not the most neutral observer here. You would celebrate me being blocked, I'm sure. The article Maafa 21 is a tiny blip of a thing, orphaned and terribly faulty. I'm helping improve it, as you can see. Maybe you can help, too. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a big problem here. Not a 1RR violation, and talk page discussion of the disagreement is ongoing. If he wasn't discussing it, I'd say block him, but with discussion no. Calling 2 reverts in >24 hours "out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior" is just a wee bit hyperbolic. Falcon8765 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Falcon don't be taken in. I'm sorry: 1 minute past 24 hrs is gaming the system and qualifies as 1RR. The so-called "discussion" is token at best. – Lionel 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I would be inclined to agree. However, combined with discussion and the hyperbole here, I don't think he should be blocked for it. "Token" discussion or not, discussion is occuring. Falcon8765 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "not the most neutral observer"? How neutral were you when you reported Knispel in the above thread? How many neutral editors make reports here? 1 percent? Give me a break. This is about you reverting an editor, making a token post at talk, and immediately going back to the article and reverting a second editor. How can anyone possibly improve the article with your disruption? Stop edit warring. Stop disrupting. Than we'll see improvement. Your POV is not the right POV.– Lionel 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week This is this user's sixth block in a year and a half, and they clearly have a long history of edit warring (apparently with their most recent 1RR restriction expiring in July). They are familiar with the article's sanctions, and presumably what 1RR entails, having agreed to self-imposed 1RR restrictions multiple times in the past. What's arguably worst of all, though, is the blatant WP:GAMING to avoid 1RR by waiting one minute past the 24-hour time slot, which they've actually tried to defend (in addition to snidely acknowledging it here). WP:3RR clearly states that any appearance of gaming the system like that is likely to be treated as a violation. I'm taking into account that their last block was nearly a year ago (which I'll assume is a result of good behavior overall rather than successfully gaming the system), but future edit warring and/or gaming will probably result in longer blocks again. Swarm 01:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring