Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:10, 11 October 2012

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Reiniger321 reported by User:Lguipontes (Result: Stale)

Page: Reconquista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Machismo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Turrón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reiniger321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: , ,

• 1st revert: Special:Contributions/Reiniger321. One can see at it continuous edit war behavior with the IP (used by me during late morning, afternoon and early night in a discloseted way) he reverts in the various problematic changes he does against consensus, it would be too long to list everything.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He was already blocked for edit-warring early on and continues his problematic behaviour without seeing consensus, and continues to stalk my contributions looking for things he can change to his POV. Lguipontes (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this correctly, this is a content dispute over which particular varieties of Portuguese to use for the phonetic spelling at the top of this article, and also a whole host of other articles. I think the best place for this is the dispute resolution noticeboard, but if one of the two doesn't agree to go through dispute resolution, then we might need to think about blocks or topic bans. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  After having a closer look at this, I think that Reinigers321's accusations of sockpuppetry are not without merit, and I've started an investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lguipontes. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• The dispute resolution? Well, his reasons to revert my edits aren't covered by any kind of particular policy of the Linguistics project, as he claims, just like Aeusoes1 said in my talk page. I've been making it for months, and no one has ever reverted me over these silly disputes other than him, which is concerned only with reverting and accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Sincerely, I think he has no merit to try to defend his point it if he demonstrates such enormous level of bad faith, is the only one at this dispute, has no good IPA skills as demonstrated by his frequent confusion of an alveolar tap as in Spanish pero with a trill as in Spanish perro (and the last one with the fricative as in French riviere, the 'rr' phoneme of Portuguese) and never, EVER tried to achieve consensus by discussion. Lguipontes (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a result. Lguipontes (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Stale. I'm not sure that your removing this from archives and putting it back at the top of the main page is permissible just because you didn't get a "result", but there have been no edits to the article since October 4, and there have been no edits of any kind by Reiniger since October 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is not said clearly somewhere in the archive or here that we aren't supposed to do this, I fail in the criteria of inappropriate behavior per ignorance. What kind of behavior is appropriate if he is back at reverting me again? Because it is a single-purpose account stalking me over, and I'm tired of him doing this. Lguipontes (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that unarchiving a discussion at an administrative noticeboard when you are not an admin is generally inadvisable, even without a rule. As for your question, if he edit-wars in the future, file a new report here (and link back to this one if you like).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not archived again, I suppose. Lguipontes (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you can link to the archive, assuming editors don't tinker with the archives (smile).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, a Brazilian IP (what coincidence!) undid two edits of mine on completely independent topics, and I answered it in a quite passionate way. Lguipontes (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PEOPLE OF WIKIPEDIA, IT'S WEDNESDAY DEEP INTO OCTOBER and he's doing it again. ¬___¬ Lguipontes (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. Please don't use all caps. It appears that he's warring (although not breaching 3RR) over a number of articles about WP:IPA and diacritics, the policies or guidelines for which I know very little. I know there've been discussions, which I have not followed, about diacritics at administrative noticeboards, so I suggest you take this issue to WP:ANI. If another admin better versed in this than I can make some sort of determination here, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (Result: Final warning given)

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 15:15 6 Oct
• 2nd revert: 17:00 6 Oct (in group of contiguous rvs not connected to others in this list)
• 3rd revert: 21:09 6 Oct
• 4th revert: 14:06 7 Oct
• 5th revert: 14:47 7 Oct

Making a clear 5RR situation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:31 6 Oct 4RR warning at 14:36 7 Oct One revert made after the 4RR notification, resulting in this report - 5RR is way too many

Notified of this report at 15:17 7 Oct.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: also discussions at BLP/N about the clear BLP violations being added

Comments:

I think 5RR is past the bright line of 3RR. The material - which includes listing of victim's names, an OR inclusion of a perp's middle name, etc. is clearly violative of WP:BLP as well Collect (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Will someone tell him (summary: Harassment. Stop posting on my page now) that required notifications are required? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. I've notified him of this discussion. Collect, you could have done that despite RIR's telling you to stay off his talk page. As you say, it's a required notice, and if he wants to remove it, he can. Up until today, I was not involved, but now having commented at WP:BLPN and edited content in the article, I cannot take action on this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I did, indeed, notify him at 15:17 I query the need for asserting that I did not notify him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I saw what you did but read only the content of the section, not the section header, which had a notice - a bit unorthodox, but still a notice. I've struck my comments above.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It is troubling to see this editor attempting to game the system by manufacturing charges of a 3RR violation. There is currently a minor dispute on the page and Collect is very much mired in it. The issues are currently being discussed on the BLPN (see below).

The first 3 edits Collect listed (all made yesterday) are all on unrelated areas and two of them (#37 and #38 ) were noncontentious. The first edit listed in Collect’s accusation (#36) concerned whether or not it was appropriate for Collect to have labeled Vandersloot (the subject of the BLP) as a major donor to Democratic candidates; in fact VanderSloot is clearly not, and even though this was explained to Collect, he continued to make this contentious change. I reverted it while explaining the clear rationale in my edit summary (#36 and on the Talk page. Collect was unable to justify the change, and clearly his position was indefensible (see ).

The last 2 edits listed by Collect in his accusation (#39 and #40) were made today and were not reverts at all but rather new edits. The first, #39, was the addition of the full name of one of the individuals mentioned in the BLP. It was added in response to concerns that were raised on BLPN here . Concerns were expressed that the individual in question, Brad Stowell, might be confused for other people named Brad Stowell (an odd argument to say the least) so I added the person’s full name (Bradley Grant Stowell) to eliminate the possibility of confusion. This was explained on the BLPN and in my edit summary. It was a straightforward logical edit that was intended to be constructive and to resolve a dispute in a simple manner -- and again, it must be stressed that this was not a revert.

What Collect listed as my 5th revert (edit #40) was simply a minor edit -- the removal of a duplicate citation – which was explained as such in the edit summary. It was in no way contentious nor was it a revert; and again, it was clearly constructive.

It concerns me greatly to see an editor involved in disputes (and Collect has been very much involved in disputes with this article in the past, with his own issues of WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR -- see edit history of the article Talk page) manufacturing charges of 3RR violation in order to game the system. It is also indefensible to portray constructive new edits as reverts and edit warring and to use such trumped up "evidence" to harass other editors. Disputes should be resolved through discussion, not red herring requests for administrative intervention and WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:EW. Your edits are separate reverts amounting to 5 reverts in under 24 hours, and 7 reverts in 48 hurs. As for your "warning" me for my 3 edits in 1 month - I think there is no comparison. And I would point out that several other editors also agree that you are seeking to put direct WP:BLP violations into an article. Cheers - and kindly do not misrepresent the number oof edits per month I made. BTW, reinserting BLP violations does not count as "constructive new edits" - never has, never will. Your laughable assertion that I have an "ownership" in the article is belied by the facts - RIR now has 233 edits on the article - I have 23. Ten to one ratio. And some of mine are vandal reversions to boot! Collect (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just came across this today, and iceberg-wise, it looks like the tip. Though apparently just revisited, this has been going on at least since September 13 . The concerns re: WP:BLP take precedence--I'm wondering why it's vital to continue to restore a non-notable's name to an article. Indeed, the name of this person is now so liberally splashed across multiple discussion pages that a good case can be made for an eventual deletion of discussions and edit summaries, per WP:CBLANK. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a content issue that's already being discussed on BLPN. It has no bearing on the inappropriate 3RR violation accusation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As a continuation of a long term pattern, rather than a new or isolated occurrence, context is relevant. The pattern of the last month is amazing, sort of 'revert, repeat, revert again' . One of the great long running edit wars I've ever seen. Has nobody contacted a noticeboard until now? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The nature of the "fifth revert" is worth noting closely. Removing a duplicate ref (an edit which is not in the least contentious in the current activity on this article) is not a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Any change affecting the work of another editor counts "even as little as one word." No exceptions for "the fifth revert does not really count if it fixes something" when the bright line was well and truly crossed at the fourth revert <g>. The edit war character of RIR is fully established - and hitting 7RR in 2 days shows it well enough, don;t you think? And I await your apology for the absure post made by you previously here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It didn't change the work of another editor and I have not made 7 reverts; but nonetheless, you got to state your case and I got to state mine; so now you should let the process take its course rather than throwing more fuel on the fire here on the noticeboard. The point of your report should be resolution but instead it seems blatantly punitive/vindictive. The accusation of a 3RR violation was based on edits as trivial as removing a duplicated link. There is no edit warring taking place on the article, and the report was disingenuous and entirely unnecessary; bordering if not crossing the line of WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You shout "HARASS" easily -- you even called my required posting on your user talk page "harassment" - which is a heck of a stretch! As for your assertion that you were not edit warring to add BLP violations - that is a laughable position to take. Anyone can see your number of edits on the article, and the absurd amount of detail which was added to it, contrary to what all the others agree was reasonable coverage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you tone it down a notch. That sort of aggressive comment at this point really doesn't help neutralize the situation. It's in the hands of other editors to decide now, so just kick back and let the process take it's course.Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Of the five alleged reverts at the top of this report, the first three (#1, #2, #3) certainly appear to be reverts (i.e., the undoing of another editor's edits). Alleged revert #4, however, has me confused. Collect, is there a particular edit that Rhode Island Red was reverting by adding material to change the text from reading "Brad Stowell" to reading "Brad Stowell (Bradley Grant Stowell)"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I added that based on the discussion that was taking place on BLPN. Collect's initial objection to the inclusion of Stowell's name was that other people have the same name and might be confused for that individual. That seemed like a very odd premise to me, and one without basis in WP policy, but nonetheless, to address his concerns, I did some additional searches and found reliable sources indicating that his full name was Bradley Grant Stowell, so I pointed this out on the BLPN as a solution to the perceived problem, and added the full name parenthetically in the article. It seemed like a perfectly innocuous, constructive, and uncontentious edit to me, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. It certainly wasn't a revert of any kind. It seems odd that Collect would raise the initial concern (which seemed baseless, but nonetheless...) and then freak out about 3RR over an action taken to remedy his concern. That combined with his listing of the removal of a duplicate link as a revert makes it hard for me to see this as anything other than vindictive/punitive. It certainly doesn't help to resolve editorial differences, it just throws gas on the fire. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Um -- all I did was respond to your charge of harassment. Seems that you wish to have your cake and eat it too -- allowing you to make unsupported charges without anyone noticing them. Again - you asserted that I was "edit warring" with three edits in one month <g>. And I note that your edits do not have support on the article talk page. Collect (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see five reverts here. I do see a chronic dispute with BLP overtones, that should be addressed, much more calmly, by everyone on the talkpage. There is a level of emotions involved on this page that is unhelpful and there have been some inappropriate comments that should not be repeated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That certainly sounds reasonable to me. We've got discussions going on the Talk page and BLPN and the page is stable for now, so I'm sure that whatever differences of opinion exist can be worked out through rational discourse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are three reverts, not five, but that is enough to enforce the 3RR rule. (1) Removing "Democratic" from the persuasion of the candidates that VanderSloot endorsed. (2) Reverting material about "journalists and gay-rights groups. (3) Restoring the name of the person convicted of a crime. As for the other accusations: (4) A different editor (not Red) did a revert to restore the suspect's name to the article; Red merely added a new fact — the person's middle name. (5) The correction of the repeated link was not necessarily a revert; for all we know, Red might have made the original error himself, and he could have been correcting it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• I have issued a final warning that any further edit-warring at the article will result in a block. I hope resolution can be reached at article talk and/or the BLP/N discussion. --John (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:MarcusBritish (Result: )

User:190.142.53.99 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Declined)

Page: Venezuelan presidential election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.142.53.99 (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:

Note. It's a clear violation of the 3-revert rule. It appears that the IP is from Venezuela, saw something on the news, and attempted to report it in the article, but he doesn't understand sourcing or other rules at Misplaced Pages. He did revert after he was warned about edit-warring, but it doesn't appear that he's reverted since participating in a discussion at the talk page. It's been about 45 minutes since his last revert. My inclination is not to block him unless he reverts again or attempts to add any unsourced material to the article. However, I could understand another admin coming to a different conclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Declined. The parties have moved on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Hyperionsteel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Restriction agreed to)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperionsteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (although thankfully I have been able to secure the removal of BLP violations cited to a lobbying organization)

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

In these reverts, Hyperionsteel repeatedly restores BLP violations including but not limited to a controversial and unverifiable quote from an individual that's subsequently used as a hook for two long paragraphs of criticism of the individual, false or exaggerated statements of supposed fact about a living person's character and employment history, and descriptions of various individuals as lacking basic general knowledge of understanding of free speech.

Edit-warring also took place earlier; same general business. I'd begun by removing a large amount of poorly sourced material, citing BLP as one of several reasons, but after being reverted I continued removing only the BLP violations, rather than the other poorly sourced but less urgent material.

(While there are 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, which some would view as an attempt to game 3RR, that isn't even my point and I didn't realize it was the case until I was compiling the report; the problem is the edit-warring to restore BLP violations. I've removed them and explained why they cannot be included, but that hasn't stopped this user. I obviously am at 4RR but I've stated very clearly in each revert that I am removing BLP violations, which I enumerate in the edit summaries and which take priority over that bright-line.)

User also edit-warred to insert content describing a BLP subject as a "race-obsessed paranoiac" before "compromising" and removing that line, while retaining other false or exaggerated claims about the subject (which he's continuing to edit-war into the article linked above; see the bottom of the diffs).

And this has just come to my notice at Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1st:
• 2nd:
• 3rd:
• 4th:
• 5th:

Originally just an RS problem, but one of the other users reverting Hyperionsteel pointed out that the edit was apparently plagiarism as well, which did not faze him at all.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (and earlier)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Removal_of_poor_sources (The discussion is generally over Hyperionsteel's insistence on the use of op-eds from unreliable papers; the bottom of the discussion concerns the BLP material specifically, which is also at WP:BLPN.)

Comments:
Already elaborated above, I think. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The additions to Antisemitism were blatant copy-pasted plagiarism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I admit I may have reverted this file more than 3 times within a 24-hour period (even though User:Roscelese acknowledges that I technically haven't) but only because User:Roscelese repeatedly removed huge portions of properly cited material from these article without any discussion on the article's talk page and her refusal to accept that mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources under Misplaced Pages guidelines. I find it ironic that User:Roscelese accuses me of edit warring, as she has engaged in this behaviour to repeatedly and unjustifiably remove material from properly cited sources. I acknowledge that I did engage in numerous reverts of these files but I acted in good faith and did so only because properly sourced material was being repeated removed by User:Roscelese without any discussion or resolution on the talk pages. I am prepared to face any consequences that may come of this, but I ask that User:Roscelese also face similar discipline.

Second, how am I guilty of plagiarism? I've clearly cited and acknowledged the sources (which are RS) and provided proper citations, and I'm certainly not claiming that its my own work. I have asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to clarify, but he has declined to do so. If this is simply about the wording of the material added, this can be easily addressed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

One more note, I asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to discuss his allegations of Plagiarism with me. The only response I received from him on my talk page that either I am "playing stupid" or that I shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages (i.e. that I am stupid). I would appreciate it if Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 would actually make arguments of substance instead of resorting to condesending and insulting remarks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

I'll gladly fill in here. For example, every single paragraph most paragraphs in this diff uses the exact wording of a national post editorial without clear attribution. a13ean (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on some further investigation, I have submitted this to WP:CCI. a13ean (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have acknowledged that I should have taken more care when incorporating this material into Misplaced Pages. However, I did provide proper sources and citations. I also attempted to reinsert a paragraph which gave better attribution to the author and source and consisted of reworked language, but this was also removed, again with explanation or discussion. In any event, the issue here is not allegations of plagiarism but whether or not my reverts were justified. I believed they were justified because Roscelese was removing huge portions of several articles (without discussion) solely because of her newfound hatred for the National Post (based on one incorrect article, a few derogatory comments on RSN, and her own invective). I pointed out repeatedly that a mainstream newspaper such as the Post is considered reliable by Misplaced Pages standards, despite the fact that it has a conservative outlook.

I will begin rewording and reorganizing the material I entered in the Antisemitism article (and I admit, I should have done this the first time) but let's focus on the real issue here - Were Roseclese's mass removals of properly sourced material without discussion justified, and if so, were my efforts to revert this justify disciplinary action against myself. One more thing - Roseclese directly accuses me of inserting false information into these articles. This I will challenge her on - please cite one example of false information that I entered. Anyway, as a temporary compromise, I will agree to leave the BLP material in question off the pages while the debate about the RS is ongoing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Very well - as per EdJohnston suggestion on my talk page, I will agree not to edit either of these articles for on month. I will only suggest that users not remove large portions of properly cited material in these articles without discussing it on the talk page first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

BLP violations are always removed immediately, without discussion. You wrote that a commissioner "has" no clear understanding of free speech, but the source said the commissioner "demonstrated" no clear understanding of free speech. You also wrote that the National Post "stated", but in fact they opined. The op-ed piece you cited was an attack piece aimed at the commissioner, but you made it more of an attack by couching it as hard fact rather than opinion gained by observation. You also violated WP:NPOV by using an attack tone, and WP:UNDUE by emphasizing too much the attack piece. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I though this was finished but since Binksternet is making new allegations against me, I feel the need to respond. With regarding to his claim the I was "emphasizing too much the attack piece" clearly he didn't read the rest of the article. I included entire section on people who support the CHRC and even statments from the commissioner herself. True, I didn't include this in the criticism section, because the criticism section is for --- Criticism! With regards to the NPOV claim, I can understand how the tone is too harsh, and I would be willing to accept alternatives. You also accuse me of misquoting the Post - This is what the Post originally wrote: "...when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it." When I incorporated this information into the article, I wrote: "The Post stated that Chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch has "no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it". Also, I explicitly noted at the start of this section that the Post editorial board was the author(s) of the article - "In June 2008, the National Post published an editorial which harshly criticized Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRCs)." I assumed I had made it clear that this section was sourced from an editorial and was to taken as such - i.e. it is the opinion of the Post's editorial board. I also assumed that such a statement/opinion written in an editorial would not be considered as a "hard fact" - I certainly was not "couching it" as you have alleged - It is clear in both versions that this is the opinion of the editorial board and not a "hard fact" - even if I did use the word "stated" as opposed to "opined". You seem to be implying that because I wrote that the Post "stated" something as opposed to "opined" something that it must automatically (or implicitly) be treated as a "hard fact." This is simply not true.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Thanks to Hyperionsteel for his agreement to not edit the two articles for a month. It seems to me that this should allow the 3RR report to be closed without sanctions against Hyperionsteel. I have not yet been convinced that Roscelese's reverts are covered by the BLP defence. I don't see a consensus anywhere that blanket exclusion of material from the National Post is justified, or that removal of Post opinions by itself is exempt from 3RR when the Post expresses a negative opinion about individuals. Misquotation of the Post by Hyperionsteel is obviously another matter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that such a result will not solve the problem; if Hyperionsteel is allowed to think that the problem is with the articles rather than with his own behavior, the behavior will continue at other articles during that month and possibly return after the month's end. He needs to understand that edit-warring in order to restore copyrighted material or controversial and unverified material about living people is not acceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment - Rather than making a new post, I think I'll just include it here since it's the same article, but it's come to my attention that possibly another editor, Seb az86556, edit-warred with Hyperionsteel as well, violating 3RR, based on what Ed wrote above (if I'm reading it correctly. Seb said he was reverting a copyvio, not sure if this is covered in 3RR, but if I'm reading the above correctly, I don't think this revert counts in this case). I will notify them about this. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for the trouble:

--Jethro B 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

reverting copyvios is indeed exempt. (and by the way, the diffs you give aren't even all reverts) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they are all reverts - either a direct use of the button or removing passages in Malaysia in a back-and-forth dispute that could've been just as easily solved through the talk page. Per WP:3RR, "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." That's exactly what is here.

Secondly, I brought this up because it isn't so clear that they were indeed copyvios and that this back-and-forthness was legitimate in that extent. --Jethro B 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

of course they were copyvios. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Restriction agreed to by Hyperionsteel. He will not edit Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy or Antisemitism for one month. I'm closing with no further action because there are so many copyvios, it is not even worth checking out whether reverts are covered by BLP. Hyperionsteel is warned not to violate copyright in the future. He should pay attention to the new entry at WP:CCI about his edits and see if he can fix the problems listed. Roscelese seems to misunderstand the BLP exception to 3RR, since WP:3RRNO only exempts extreme cases. If someone wants to include editorial opinion from a national Canadian newspaper, those opinions are hardly unsourced defamation. The wisdom of including these opinions should be decided by the consensus of editors, not by a single individual. If Roscelese wants to remove all editorial opinions of the National Post from all Misplaced Pages articles, she should open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've explained in response to your comment on my talk page that op-eds simply are not reliable for statements of fact, especially about living people and especially when reliable sources contradict them. Please don't fall prey to Hyperionsteel's misrepresentation of the dispute he was edit-warring over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like an argument you should be making at WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N, where broader issues are considered. Repeatedly reverting material you disagree with is risky. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's already at BLPN, where there's no consensus to override the normal BLP and RS policies of not using op-eds for statements of fact and not including unverifiable and controversial material about living individuals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this started because of Roscelese's newfound hatred of the National Post and her attempts to remove huge portions of articles (not just BLP issues) on her own initiative without any discussion, except for her own invective in the edit comments. I tried to explain to her that mainstream newspaper such as the Post are considered RS by wiki standards, despite the fact that the post has an ideological outlook which she despises. Instead she repeatedly launched into tirades about how the Post "makes stuff up" and is hostile to Muslims/minorities based on a single article published by the Post (as well as other media outlets) which later turned out to be based on false information) and a few derogatory (but unsupported) comments about the Post on RSN. I took the action I did because Roceslese appeared unable to accept that she cannot aribitrarily remove huge portions of articles simply because she hates the Post because of its political outlook (her unfounded allegations and conclusions about the Post have been discussed at length in the talk pages). If anyone is falling prey to something, it is Roceslese's rather arrogant belief that she and she alone can declare the Post an unreliable source for Misplaced Pages).

I also reminded her that wiki guidelines allow the use of op-eds and columnists as RS if they are from mainstream media outlets.

As for Roseclese new accusations, I realize now that some of the edits I have made over the last five years may indeed have violated wiki copyright rules (although it has never been brought to my attention until now). I will make every effort to avoid this in the future and to correct any and all mistakes I have made in the past. Even so, I will continue to add material from reliable sources (while ensuring that these additions are sufficiently paraphrased to comply with wiki standards). I will also bring to attention any attempts by users such as Roscelese who believe they can arbitrarily decide that a mainstream newspaper (one of the largest in Canada) is unreliable simply because they don't approve of their political stance.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Your comments indicate that you have absolutely no conception of why your behavior at the CHRC article (inserting unverifiable and controversial, or verifiably false, material about living people) was wrong. It is very likely that this behavior will continue, and a voluntary restriction is clearly not sufficient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have challenged you twice to provide an example of false information that I added to the CHRC article (you have yet to do so). Second, I certainly don't deny that the information was controversial. Third, as I have pointed out to you several times, all of the information I added came from mainstream media sources or from columnists who write for these papers, which are considered RS under Misplaced Pages guidelines. Finally, you are free to observe all my future edits (as I am sure you will) and point out any transgressions. You are also free to recommend harsher penalties against me (as I am sure you will). However, any sins I am guilty of doesn't change the fact that you arbitrarily removed huge portions of several articles based solely on your own determination that the Post is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages (despite wiki guidelines to the contrary), which is how this got started in the first place (you also strongly implied that I used a sockpuppet, which is blatantly false, but we'll leave that aside for the time being). I accept that I have made serious errors and will attempt to correct them, but I will ask you (again) to stop making false accusations against me. Considering your own behavior, you are not really in a place to judge me. As this issue (edit warring) has been settled, I suggest that you stop using this page to attack me and that we move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

On the contrary, I've pointed out that the Steacy quote is unverifiable and that the Chopra information is verifiably false. I've also pointed out several times that we cannot use op-eds for statements of fact and that the BLP guidelines are even stricter than our normal sourcing guidelines, and you have flat-out ignored me for no reason other than that you apparently like reading Jonathan Kay's opinion columns over your breakfast cereal. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages policy, you will be reported again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You are still claiming that the Steacy quote is unverifiable - as I have pointed out, Mr. Steacy was quoted by three different columnists (Jonathan Kay, John Ivision, and Robert Fulford) that have been published in the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, and the Edmonton Journal (Jonathan Kay has cited this quote in two articles, one in 2008 and again in 2012). I also pointed out that Senator Doug Findlay criticized Steacy in the Canadian Senate. Now, I believed (perhaps wrongly) that all of these sources combined are sufficient evidence to sufficiently verify this quote for Misplaced Pages. You are free to disagree with me on this, but don't state that the quote is unverifiable. Second, what information about Chopra was "verifiably false"? - true Jonathan Kay described in him in extremely unflattering terms, although it is true that Kay cited only one employee who held a certain view about Chopra instead of several (I acknowledge this error). It certainly does not place Mr. Chopra is a positive light, but it was clear that this was the opinion of the columnist and not a fact (i.e. "Kay described Chopra as ....).

Second, How am not ignoring you? I have responded to all of your rigmarole here and on the talk pages - I clearly do not agree with you on a number of issues, and I will continue to debate them with you as long as you wish, but I am certainly not ignoring you.

Third, you are absolutely correct: If I (just like every other Misplaced Pages editor) violate Misplaced Pages policy, then it should be reported.

Fourth, I was ask you again to stop using this page as your soapbox. The 3RR issue has been settled. It's time to move on.

Finally, your last comment about me was both wrong and offensive - I eat fruit for breakfast, not cereal.

(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

This back-and-forth argument to see who gets the last word in is futile and will likely not result in anything. Save your breath guys, save your time, there's no point in this chatter. At the heart of this is a content dispute that is best for talk pages, not for the AN3 noticeboard where a decision was already handed down. Make peace, shake hands, and sing Kumbaya around a campfire. But draw the line, and don't necessarily drag the conversation on when it has ended. It won't benefit anyone, and won't lead to anything. --Jethro B 01:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User: 221.160.109.38 reported by User:Feline1 (Result: Warned)

Page: Mellotron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I suggest using semi-protection for this article, as the editor in question (who does not log in with a wikipedia account) has been editing the article in this fashion for over half a decade, and shows no regard for WP:COI, WP:VER, WP:OR etc.feline1 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned the IP that any further attempts to re-add the same material will result in a block. At the same time, Feline, you should be handling this problem differently. The crux of the problem is that the IP has been adding unsourced/unreliably sourced/unencyclopedic material but hasn't been formally warned of that. I note the discussion on the talk page, a good thing, but you have to keep your comments in check and focus only on the content issues, not any perceived conduct issues. Bickering, calling each other vandals, etc., is unconstructive. Also, for the future, diffs are listed here from earliest to latest, not the reverse. Also, the IP made 3 reverts not 4. Two of your diffs are part of the same edit sequence, which counts as only one revert.Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) feline1 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:H. 217.83 reported by Thefirewillrise (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

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

User being reported: H. 217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:29, 7 October 2012 (edit summary: "No, you misunderstood me; by “my new edits” I meant e. g. the musical style section, which was not a part of any version before mine. But I announced “now that Williamsburgland is gone”, that part is correct.")
2. 11:20, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit including the parts that don’t really have to do with the edit war (the section on the musical style; the comparisons with other bands weren’t referenced before my edit).")
3. 15:48, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit; you could have corrected it yourself and left the message in the summary.")
4. 17:00, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Stop it, this is extremely stupid. You are creating needless versions by undoing the whole thing.")
5. 19:01, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Maybe I did not see one or two plural versions but at least I changed those I saw. Look at my different versions and you will see. No need for the sentence in the introduction since there is the section below. The Dissection members were no full members.")
6. 19:02, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
7. 19:31, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "I own both the Slayer fanzine and the book with the interview’s reprint, so I know that is a quote. In your version, one of the footnotes is broken, but I guess you just didn’t see. I know the interview, maybe you should read the biography.")
8. 19:32, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "How did that happen?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cautioned user several times on page (see below) and in summaries.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Involves myself, this editor and one or more IP/anon editors (?).

Thank you for your time. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. I'm not seeing a clear warning of edit-warring, although the user, having been blocked before for edit-warring on the same article, should know better. You also neglected to notify the user of this discussion; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about edit wars. But it is obvious that my edits are not 100 % equal (you know how to compare versions), see my summaries which both users seem to ignore. And I don’t consider it acceptable to undo constructive edits completely because you believe one part of them to be erroneous or something like that, like both of them did; and yet the third user involved, Swankytank (unless this is a sock puppet of Thefirewillrise or vice versa; both started here almost at the same time and focussed on the Nifelheim article, though that may be coincidence), dares to call me a troll and tell me about manners. --217/83 05:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair concern BB, but I'm aware of the user's history (I've edited in the past anonymously, just like the IP user above) and I had expressed my concerns here and the response I received has been less than friendly. That said, I should have notified the user; this is my first involvement in one of these and while I thought I was supposed to post a notification I didn't see the template above. Now, onto the concerns above, the user should know well that edit warring is more than three reverts on an article, and it includes any reverts. The user above has reverted edits done by every user on the article going back to his first bout of edit warring and doesn't seem to care about anyone else's inputs. He is now resorting to accusing me of sockpuppetry, which I think is ridiculous. I created this user name around two months ago, and while it seems that I've forgotten to sign in (again, I'm fairly new to certain aspects of wikipedia and I almost always use work/shared computers and cannot stay signed it) until recently I have been editing the Nifelheim article for as long as the Pantera thing has been an issue. I assumed the other user is this IP, and it seems his first edits are on this article, but I thought that my edits had gone back further than what's on my edit history (I'm fairly certain I signed in and edited in August), so I don't know if there's a way to hide older edits. I'd like to work with both users on this but I think the above user's behavior is ridiculous. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring this to your attention. I don't know if it counts as forum shopping, but it seems unfair to me, particularly because at the very least the user is inferring I am a sock puppet again. He has also reverted my changes once again, this time to a version with grammatical errors. I'm really doing my best here. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. H. seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:3RR and a history of edit-warring on the article, even between this block and his previous block in April. As for his sockpuppet accusations, the only comment I have is that the two editors' styles and points of view do not seem similar or aligned, although there's no doubt that the two are interested in the same articles, or in the case of Swankytank, just this article (except for one revert of vandalism on a completely unrelated article - Swankytank has only made 5 edits since registration).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

H. posted a long message on their talk page and asked me to post it here. I'm uncomfortable doing that, but anyone who wants to can read it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that notice and the note on my talk page. I'm hoping we're going to be able to work more peacefully when his block is up.--Thefirewillrise (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow reported by User:ScienceApe (Result: Declined)

Page: Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steelpillow (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 repeatedly tried to reinsert uncited material. After my first attempt to remove the uncited material, I tried to discuss the change on the talk page. Discussion was fruitless, no attempt was made by SteelPillow to find verifiable 3rd party sources to back up the material he wanted to keep in the article. Instead he proposed that I should come up with a better blurb. I pointed out that I wasn't the inclusionist, and if he wanted to keep the blurb, the burden of proof was on him to back up his claims with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BURDEN#When_a_reliable_source_is_required

He ignored that, so I removed the uncited blurb again, and then edit warring ensued. Dawnseeker then removed the uncited material again only for those edits to be reverted by The Bushranger. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aircraft&diff=516879154&oldid=516869559 ScienceApe (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There appears to be no violation of WP:3RR - all the reverts were in a period well over 48 hours, and the editors would be better following The Bushrangler's advice. Mdann52 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. It's true that there was no breach of 3RR by Steelpillow (3 reverts in 24 hours), but they certainly were edit-warring, along with ScienceApe, who only made 2 reverts, but they got help from Dawnseeker. Bushranger's point about WP:BRD is valid, but the content issues go deeper than that. The article has been tagged as lacking sources for well over 3 years. It's true that ScienceApe removed unsourced material from the article, which generally can be done (Steelpillow's analogy to the sky being blue is pretty weak), but the whole article is poorly referenced and poorly structured vis-a-vis the body and the lead. A good article would have a well-referenced body (this one doesn't) and a lead that summarizes the body (this one doesn't), and no references in the lead because everything in the lead is referenced in the body. The lead doesn't even come close to what a proper lead should be. It's too short, it has information that is not in the body, and obviously it doesn't highlight much of the body. In any event, the parties need to work out the small contretemps as best they can on the talk page and through dispute resolution if needed, but someone ought to tackle the larger - and more important - issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Constant edit warring on Jobie Hughes

User:Ohioana reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm reporting an ongoing reversion war between myself and User:Ohioana, which is pretty much a SPA that only edits Hughes's articles. The long story short is this: I came across the article, finding it not only out of date, but also suffering from some copyvio since large parts of the text in the biography section have been directly lifted from the author's bio page. I've not only edited the page to be more neutral, but I've combined all of the information about the one thing he is known for (Lorien Legacies) into one section and listed multiple reliable sources that talked about his leaving the series and why that might be. Ohioana has not only accused me of being biased and vandalizing the page because they personally didn't like what I wrote. The thing is, it's backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources and is never stated exactly as being cold hard fact, just that multiple reliable sources such as the WSJ had reported that Hughes had problems with the contract along with disliking the direction the series was going in. Every time I revert the edits, Ohioana reverts them back with the justification that they're "incorrect". I've yet to get any true explanation as to why, other than it appearing to be that they dislike that the page isn't full of glowing praise for Hughes, something I'd noticed in their edits for Hughes's At Dawn (novel), which was also full of copyvio, weasel words, and reviews taken out of context. I've outright asked if they were connected to Hughes in some fashion, only to have that ignored. My reasons for this is that as far as the general public has reported, all we have to go on are the news articles such as the one by the WSJ and NY Magazine, so there's nothing that can actually disprove that what these news sources have reported on are incorrect. I'd reported this to the admin board since I'd had the accusations of vandalism and bias, only to not really get much help. Rather than have this keep going on, I waited it out until I could bring it up here because this isn't going to stop anytime soon. There was also another user that was reverting my edits- specifically the same edits Ohioana has issues with (), but they seem to have stopped so I'm not as worried about them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Please see this discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:DawgDeputy reported by User:68.55.123.86 (Result: )

Page: Couch Potatoes (game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DawgDeputy (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:

Comments:
This user has an incredible history of edit warring and WP:OWN. Viewing the last 2500 edits by WikiLubber, 1473 are reversions (almost 59%). The user provides a standard edit summary for most of these revisions consisting of either "unneeded", "unnecessary" or "unsourced". User has been blocked three times previously for edit warring and twice for sock puppetry. How long will this behavior be tolerated? 68.55.123.86 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54 and User:Fat&Happy reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Michaelt54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and: Fat&Happy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Honestly, I have no clue.

By Fat&Happy:

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

...And more. Some of them are hard reverts, but still reverts.

By Michaelt54:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Michaelt54 has been warned, Fat&Happy has not, but has been around since 2009.

Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: They've been talking at User_talk:Fat&Happy#Glenn_Beck, but no avail.

Comments:
I'm not involved, I was just hoping to wait until these two quit fighting to figure out what the hell's going. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring