Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 26 November 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:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: at 05:30, 22 November 2012‎
• 2nd revert: at 05:56, 22 November 2012‎
• 3rd revert: at 06:01, 22 November 2012
• 4th revert: at 06:19, 22 November 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and a second time at

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Skyfall#Plot over 700 words

Comments:
Two editors, independent of each other, myself and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, have trimmed the wordy version preferred by User:Prisonermonkeys, who inexplicably appears to insist on using the passive voice ("The car is driven by Carl") rather than the active voice ("Carl drives the car') — a standard thing that Writing 101 teaches you not to do— and creates plot-bloat taking the straightforward plot to over 700 words. Despite discussion, he insists on edit-warring and reverting to a version of which two different editors disagree with him.

On a separate but related note, his edit-summary at his 4th revert exhibits WP:OWN: "Feel free to re-word as necessary (it might be in passive), but I expect a full explanation for any reversion." --Tenebrae (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was accidentally reverting stuff that I didn't intend to revert, and I have since realised my error. My issue was elsewhere in the paragraph in question, and that issue has since been resolved to my satisfaction courtesy of an edit by another user.

My concern, however, is the way Tenebrae has handled this. Firstly, the instructions for reporting a 3RR make it clear that a resolution should be sought on the article talk page. Tenebrae did indeed attempt that, but never informed me that he had started a discussion (which he should have done, since another editor was involved); if he had, I may have realised my error sooner. Instead, he kept sending me warnings about being in violation of 3RR, and while I am equally aware that editors must warn one another if they are part of a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard, the way he presented hismelf made me feel as if he was trying to force his edits through by theatening adminstrator intervention.

Secondly, the wording of Tenebrae's warning made it clear that "one more edit" would result in the issue being brought here. That warning was made at 6:11. However, a check of the article history page shows that my only edit after 6:11 was different to my edits made before then. When explaining my rationale for these edits, I explained what I was trying to do. I suspect that, when I made the edit at 6:19, Tenebrae never actually checked its content, and instead reverted it on sight. If he had checked it, he would have seen that my edits prior to 6:11 added 16 bytes to the page, but my edit at 6:19 added 50. Although this only represents a relatively small change to the size of the article, combined with my edit summary - which made it clear what I was changing, and had made clear to Tenebrae on his talk page - should have been enough for Tenebrae to review the edits to see what changes I had actually made. This is something I do before making any page edits.

Finally, in discussing the page activity with Tenebrae, I mentioned my issues with the page content twice: once at 6:03, and again at 6:15. In the half hour between my first explanation and his posting the issue on this noticeboard, Tenebrae made no move to address my issue with the page content. Between his failure to a) direct my attention to the article talk page and the discussion, b) actually check the differences between page revisions, and c) make any attempt to address my issue with the content, I feel he could have handled this a little better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He had not one but two warnings; to suggest that I somehow "made" him edit-war is disingenuous. Also, 3RR and edit-warring don't have to involve the exact same edits: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." It's hard to see how 4 reverts isn't a bright-line violation, whatever his rationale.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I never said that you "made" me do anything - only that you were far too quick to bring the issue here, and that if you had taken five minutes, you could have resolved the issue sooner. Instead, you ignored the issues I raised and threatened adminstrator intervention at every turn. The net result was that it felt like you were trying to force your edits through, particularly since you never gave any consideration to the issues I raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment to admin
This is something of a storm in a tea-cup, with what was a rapidly changing section of an article with three editors tweaking in order to improve, rather than a major conflab. The current version is (I think) one we are all vaguely happy to put up with, if nothing else and so peace, harmony and a stable state currently exist (at the time of writing, at least). In my not very humble opinion, WP:TROUT should be the very most it needs, rather than anything draconian. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If we start letting edit-warring editors off when they have made 4 reverts, that's a bad precedent and a dangerous slippery slope. They key to fair administration of any sort is consistency. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Rather than handing out blocks (plural), I've protected the page for 3 days. Work out the plot on the talk page. I recommend that you work out the exact wording that is supported by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)unfair

Without sounding like a child stamping his feet, it seems a bit unfair to prevent other editors from constructively editing the page when this was down to two editors. One of whom was repeatedly warned about the 3RR. The plot was already established and agreed on in the early days of the films release. Sorry, but protecting the page doesnt punish the editor(s) responsible but instead punish other editors. MisterShiney ✉ 21:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

MisterShiney, may I suggest you read WP:DEFINECONSENSUS? Just because a consensus was obtained, that does not mean that it is the consensus that will exist forevermore. A new consensus can be obtained at any time, and as the conversation on the talk page has demonstrated, there are multiple points of view that need to be considered. Perhaps I was repeatedly warned about 3RR, but I believe the circumstances of those warnings to be faulty given that the person who "warned" me did the bare minimum necessary to bring a case here in what I consider to be an attempt to force their edits onto the page. Furthermore, I believe there are issues with the page — particularly an overly-rigid adherence to the Manual of Style and a culture of editing that promotes this adherence before accurately representing the content it is decribing without allowing for any possible deviation from it, and all of it enforced by a user who seems to be under the impression that the page is his to control — which need to be resolved before the page is unlocked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I did. What do you want? A banner? A recorded delivery fed ex songagram? You made 4 edits in an hour. You were online and you could read the warnings in the edit summaries sufficiently. Yeah, you were probably making good faith edits and being Being Bold, but you should of also followed Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the first revert. The Editors you were warring with feel very passionately about the topic and have contributed to several good articles on the subject. It is of this editors opinion that you were in the wrong in this instance and forgive me for being blunt you have now prevented other editors like myself further improving the article. MisterShiney ✉ 14:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: )

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)

Version of article before all the reverting took place: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&oldid=524374658

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (most if not all of the sources in question are journalists rather than pundits -- calling them "pundits" denigrates them inapprorpiately)
• 2nd revert: (→‎Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.: unexplained removal of detail about FDA restored)
• 3rd revert: (→‎Idaho political and judicial campaigns: unexplained removal of name)
• 4th revert: (→‎LGBT issues: inappropriate addition -- that was not the quote provided in the sources cited)
• 5th revert: (→‎Operations: flufffy padding -- this is not sufficiently relevant to VanderSloot to warrant inclusion in the BLP -- see Talk)
• 6th revert: (Undid revision 524433071 by GeorgeLouis (talk)--once again, a basic description is advised per WP:BTW -- if there is disagreement with GL, go to talk to explain why it doesn't apply here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion There was no advance notice given because there was no time to do so. The reverts were already made. (Sorry about the previous posting; this form is a bit confusing.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on whether "commentators" are "journalists": Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Synthesis_and_sources

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on whether "commentators" are "journalists": Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section

Diff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#FDA_letter_._._.

Diff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#edit_request

Diff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Getting_back_on_track

Diff of attempts concerning use of the disputed "full quote": Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_2#Inclusion_of_full_quote_in_LGBT_section

Discussion of Melaleuca as a "direct-marketing" company: Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Consumer_Direct_Marketing

Comments:

RIR's frequent reversions are so disruptive that the other Editors have a hard time improving this article.

Go here for other 3RR activities involving this editor.

Reply

GeorgeLouis cant seem to tell the difference between "editing" and "edit warring". The malformed scattershot attempt to cobble together a bunch of unrelated edits is not evidence of edit warring. I left self-explanatory edit summaries and comments on the talk page justifying the edits. No one is being impeded from "improving" the article in any way whatsoever (with the exception of your attempts to impede me). This is roughly the third time in as many weeks that GeorgeLouis has filed a frivolous 3RR report against me. This is not an appropriate was to resolve editorial disputes; it has crossed the line into WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, with respect to this notice being malformed, George's alleged 3RR warning was not a 3RR warning; it was a notice that he had reported me for edit warring. In reality, he provided no warning and he left no new comments on the talk page concerning the edits. GeorgeLouis's position seems to be that I need his permission to make straightforward, justified edits on the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The applicable advice is "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." I considered it, but RIR made his edits quite rapidly, so he went way over the top before I could warn him. What's more, he is well aware of the policy, as evidenced by the conversation here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My point stands. You did not leave a warning, yet you misleadingly represented a link to the 3RRNB notice as though it were a warning. Secondly, you left no comments on the talk page subsequent to my edits, and the edits themselves were warranted, as indicated by my edit summaries and talk page comments explaining the rationale (which should have been quite clear). You are abusing 3RRNB and your non-stop harassment cannot continue. I will be filing a user conduct dispute to resolve the matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the adverb should be "mistakenly," not "misleadingly." I struck out the claim I made above and explained the situation there. I hope this satisfies everybody's sense of fairness. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently everyone should just revert until their heart is content. BB and Ed seem to be the only admins paying attention here, and they simply refuse to act on explicit violations. If you doubt this, you can check the last 4 reports in, oh, the last month. Arkon (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is hard to think of anything less pleasant for admins than to wade into this kind of dispute. In an ideal world, we would persuade three of the contending parties — RIR, Collect and GeorgeLouis — to take a voluntary break from editing the article or its talk page for a month. The alternative would be to open a thread at ANI that would either become a giant slugfest or be ignored by editors generally as just another example of partisan bickering. Such an ANI thread would appear not to be a good use of time (or of patience at ANI). The current RFC/U of Rhode Island Red is at least one place where the issues might be focussed and where a possible solution might be worked out. But to restate my first point, a voluntary agreement by the three editors to abstain for a month might help to push the debate at Frank L. VanderSloot towards a version of the article that most people could support. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  It isn't pleasant because you guys have punted on clear violations. That is on your heads. Arkon (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you failed to notice my absence from this discussion? And my absence from the VanderSloot page? Or the fact that my sole concern is not, and has never been, "partisan" but a matter of following what WP:BLP requires? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC) (Also note that the WP:CONSENSUS at the RfC is clear (RIR is the only one supporting his position at all - while all the outsiders uniformly disagree with that position) -- that we can not use "attack ads" over and over in the BLP - which was what RIR edit warred for) Collect (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Collect, you reverted RIR as recently as November 22 at Frank VanderSloot. You reported RIR at this noticeboard on November 22. You've made 56 edits at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot in 2012. If you truly do not consider yourself to be part of the dispute your agreement not to edit the article for a period of time should be no hardship. If you won't agree to stop editing, will you at least agree not to revert either RIR or GeorgeLouis for a period of time? I appreciate that you had agreed to wait for the outcome of the RfC on attack ads, but reverts have continued since then in other areas, causing the dispute to come back here yet again (though you aren't part of the latest iteration). Supporting BLP is valuable work. If you would agree to abstain from editing, you would be expressing confidence that there are other editors willing to defend BLP in the mean time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh my god. Ed, this isn't DRN, this isn't the article talk page, this isn't Arbcom. Stop spouting nonsense and enforce the 3RR or go the hell away. Arkon (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I was not involved in this section until you, yourself, added me. Nor have I made any contentious edits whatsoever since you asked me not to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This is an administrative noticeboard, and just like any other administrative noticeboard, a certain amount of leeway is permitted in discussions, but there are limits. Arkon, keep a lid on it; your comment stops just short of a personal attack. Collect, re-read WP:INVOLVED. Ed's analysis of the situation is purely in his role as an administrator. Nothing prevents him from including you in his proposal. He is not restricted to the editors named in the report. The continuing disruption in this article is damaging to the project, and anything an uninvolved admin can do to ameliorate the situation would be a godsend. So, listen to what he has to say, and stop pushing back.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Oh spare me. If you can't handle the fact that your inaction has contributed to this, and prior reports, I suggest you turn in the mop. And I will continue saying so, in the non-policy breaking manner that you so kindly pointed out. Arkon (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you and GeorgeLouis are the two certifiers of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2, which is mainly about RIR's actions at Frank L. VanderSloot. It would be hard for anyone to claim that you have nothing to do with this dispute. If AN3 is going to do anything it has to be based on evidence and should address the long-term war. If we go diff-by-diff this will be longer than the O. J. Simpson case. We can restore a normal editing environment more quickly if we can get a voluntary agreement among the three parties that seem closest to the issue. If the case needs to be handled with blocks they are likely to be extremely contentious. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have abided by the RfC as you had specifically requested. I have not actively edited the article nor talk page with anything remotely contentious at all. One article edit, and a few talk page edits for the RfC. I was not involved in the matter at hand here, other than being brought into it by Ed. And, if I recall correctly, being a certifier at the RFC/U does not mean that I have any active editing content disputes with RIR - if you read that process it is about civility and his repeated claims of "tag team" and "collusion" which is not germane to the discussion here at all. Now if you can show me that I have made edits contrary to consensus on that BLP or that I have made any edits contrary to my agreement to abide by the RfC, then tell me. Bringing me into this kerfluffle is, as far as I can tell, without merit. I would point out that my 'single edit in the past week was not contentious per WP:BLP as I understand it, and my prior edit ten days ago was the one you appeared upset at - and for which the RfC has am apparent consensus at this point. If you wish to include the three actual primary editors, you should add User:Andrewman327 rather than me. I do not intend to undertake any edits on any BLP other than those in accord with WP:BLP and I trust you will agree that is reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to EdJohnston for telling me I had been mentioned on this page. I am active on the BLP but I have only reverted twice (1 & 2 and don't engage in edit warring. Most of my contributions have centered on research and copyediting. I think one of the biggest things that this BLP needs is for cooler heads to prevail. The RFC is a good place for that and the discussion in slowly progressing there. I'm working on my response now. My biggest annoyance is being told that I'm colluding with other editors. I am concerned that if there is a 30 day truce by the three editors, it will will not have any effect once the month is up. After all, this notice was first filed because Rhode Island Red spent several days away from the page and engaged in a flurry of reverting after his/her return. The same thing happened after the page was temporarily protected. I appreciate that there are two admins willing to volunteer their time on this issue. I have a question for the admins: what happens next? I've never been in an edit warring situation before. Will the RFC reach a conclusion? Thank you, Andrew (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment." () --Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the admin comments (which I greatly appreciate incidentally) these comments illustrate some of the problems surrounding the BLP. Collect denies having any responsibility for the conflict on the article -- I strongly disagree with this contention. I would argue that he, along with GeorgeLouis, is a primary source of the conflict. Collect repeatedly asserts that his edits have not been "remotely contentious at all" and yet the example he gives of one of his most recent edits is in fact very contentious -- it was yet another example of content blanking/whitewashing. The line of text Collect removed has been in the article for quite some time, was not challenged, and was fully supported by the cited source. To say that this edit was not contentious shows either a lack of honesty or a lack of awareness as to what constitutes contentious.

Arkon's bloodthirsty comments above are stunningly belligerent. I have never and would never speak to an admin (or even another editor) so disrespectfully. The irony is that George and Collect are trying to tag me as being uncivil and yet Arkon's comment is more uncivil than anything I've said in connection with the VanderSloot article. It's noteworthy that Collect actually endorsed Arkon's incivility with his "ditto" reply, showing that he doesn't object to incivility per se (at least not when it supports his side of an argument) and that he has turned his editorial objections into a personal witch hunt against me.

As for Andrew (aka (Andrewman327), he's a member of WP Project Conservatism (a fact which he has never disclosed during the VanderSloot discussions). His edits have not been innocuous as he suggests, and he has tried to whitwewash the same material that George and Collect had been tendentiously trying to purge from the article, He has also bee a regular talk page contributor, and in all cases, he has marched in lockstep with George and Collect. The involvement of several editors with an obvious conservative political POV is one of the problems I've been complaining about, not simply because they have a particular pre-exisitng political bent but because that political bent seems to be responsible for biased editing (POV pushing, whitewashing), TAGTEAMing/vote tipping, and abuse of WP policies and GLs.

I think a 30-day timeout would be great, as it would allow us to focus on long-term solutions to the problem (and I would appreciate hearing some suggestions in that regard). But I do fear that other editors with the same politically-motivated agenda will step-in and continue editing contentiously, so it would be nice to find a prophylactic remedy for that scenario. It look like the POV problem isn't going to fix itself and our admins are correct in pointing out that some of the non-binding DR options are labor intensive and not necessarily effective. That's why I've felt that this conflict needs to be resolved through a binding mechanism. Otherwise a recurrence of disputes after the 30-day timeout may be likely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like George has no intention of going along with the proposal; at least not until after he makes some more tendentious edits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhuttonazia reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 20:13 11 November
• 2nd revert: 15:42 12 November
• 3rd revert: 09:12 14 November
• 4th revert: 18:29 14 November
• 5th revert: 13:18 15 November
• 6th revert: 11:21 18 November
• 7th revert: 09:30 22 November
• 8th revert: 16:22 24 November

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Comments:
This is a report for violation of WP:EW (and not 3RR). Most of the reverts are partial revert to the previous version. By looking at user's contribution it looks like the user has some kind of agenda related to ethnic distribution of the Karachi city. In case of no action I request the editor should at least be warned about possible sanctions as the article is in the scope of WP:ARBIPA. Besides Bhuttonazia, there are some IPs and a user (User:Pk5abi) also involved in the edit war. I have warned the Pk5abi about edit warring and he/she did not do any more reversion yet. I also requested protection of the page at WP:RPP earlier today. --SMS 18:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is subject to ARBPIA? Not that I'm an expert in these matters, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. I don't see a notice to that effect on the talk page or an edit notice warning when you edit the article, nothing that would give any editor notice that the article is subject to editing restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Its ARBIPA (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan) not ARBPIA. ARBIPA allows admins to issue discretionary sanction (DS) in this topic area. Previously most of my edit warring (not 3RR) reports were closed without an action, so I assumed it this time happening again and that is why suggested a warning about DS at least. Also because the editors overall edits look problematic (furthering a POV) to me. And it was just my opinion, of course I am also not an expert in DS matters. --SMS 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My error, I read it wrong. I've put a general sanctions template on the talk page, but I don't feel comfortable notifying the editor. Only one editor has ever been notified, and only a few have ever been sanctioned. The decision itself is fairly general, and I'm not sure it should be applied here. I don't think you'll get very far with WP:RFPP if your main concern is about Bhuttonazia and Pk5abi as both editors are auto-confirmed. Even if you are concerned about the IPs, there doesn't seem to be a lot of recent activity to justify semi-protection. Another admin more familiar with these particular sanctions and articles may view this differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 for looking into the matter. Probably the best way for me to stop this disruption would be to get involved in the content issue. I will dig in for some reliable sources on the topic whenever I get time. --SMS 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I was of much help, but I appreciate your professional, non-confrontational style in discussing the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User:76.102.172.86 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Józef Piłsudski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.102.172.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Earlier reverts (before 24 hr period):

• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

In his edit summaries the user referenced "discussion on talk" though s/he has not said anything there. Instead, apparently, s/he was referring to discussion from long time ago, buried deep in the archives . This suggest that this is not a new user but some banned user returning to stir up trouble again.

Previously the anon IP also edit warred (more than 24 hrs) on the Stefan Banach article, until it had to be protected :

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

That's when s/he moved over to the Jozef Pilsudski article.

The IP has also made racist and bigoted remarks on talk:

• " Instead of these ridiculous reverts, try doing something that you guys are good at - like fixing some leaking faucets, installing few toilet bowls here and there or introducing us to a hot bloodied Agnieszka or two" - racist stereotypes and sophmoric bigoted jokes
• "I don't mean stealing cars!" - more moronic bigotry, implying Poles are only good at stealing cars.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Frankfort05 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524795794&oldid=524780495 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524796097&oldid=524795931

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524777116&oldid=524251888
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524788095&oldid=524777649
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524795207&oldid=524794623
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524796745&oldid=524795670

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I sent several messages to the user and explained it to them and asked them many times to discuss it on the talk page but they just kept refusing.

Comments:
Pass a method is once again in an 'edit war' on this article. This user has done the same thing several times before, and I think he has been blocked for sort of thing more than once before. I feel that he is ignoring me and just doing whatever he wants to do on the article, and I feel he is attacking me needlessly. I'm pretty sure that he is a well experienced contributor here and so I don't understand why it was so difficult to get him to go to the talk page of the article and talk things out. He has also reverted my edits without even an edit summary. His style is *very* aggressive and seems to get angry whenever anyone objects to something he does. I linked him to WP:OWN, but he still keeps at it. I told him that he should go right away to the talk page because of what WP:BRD says, but he still keeps reverting me instead of discussing it first. What am I supposed to do?? --Frankfort05 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The first diff was not a revert, it was an addition/woding. The second diff was a compromise where i merely restructured the paragraph to seperate religions from denominations. Hence i made 2 reverts, not 4. Pass a Method talk 14:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC). Pass a Method talk 14:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In addition to the previous edit-warring blocks this year, Pass a Method does not appear to understand WP:3RR, putting aside that one doesn't have to breach 3RR to be sanctioned for edit-warring. The first edit was a revert. Pass a Method changed the material in the article; it wasn't just an addition. Indeed, to the extent it matters, it was a net loss of material. A "compromise" is a change and constitutes a revert; the supposed motive is generally irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

4 clear reverts today. I'd block but hopefully an Admin with more knowledge of Pass a Method's history will deal, particularly considering he's been reported below as well. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that an administrator has decided that he was edit warring, can his edit warring be reverted? Can someone please undo his last edit on the article as no one has agreed to it on the talk page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't normally undo in these circumstances unless there's a clear policy violation apart from the edit-warring. It's not only not my role to become involved in the content dispute; except in limited cases, it can make me involved. There are 837 watchers of that article. You should be able to get a consensus from some subset of those watchers as to which content is best. I wouldn't revert yourself, though; let someone else do it if you obtain a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. But that seems to allow those who commit edit warring to 'win' though. Meaning that their edits stay. At which point am I able to revert it myself? Oh and where did you get the 837 number from? Is there a link somewhere in each page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a function of winning. WP:3RR is mostly a procedural policy to prevent disruption to articles. Other than the exemptions to 3RR, it's not content-related. Blocking an editor for violating 3RR prevents further damage to the article, but it isn't intended to take sides in the content dispute. In any event, another editor reverted Pass a Method's last change. However, to answer your now moot question, I simply wouldn't touch the part of the article that the edit war was about because you could be accused of edit-warring. Theoretically, you could wait until you're outside the 24-hour period, but some might call that gaming the system if your reversion comes too soon after the period expires. Finally, on any page, when you are looking at the revision history of the page, there is a link toward the top middle, "Number of watchers". That will give you the number of editors who have the article on their watchlists. If you see a hyphen, that means the number is fewer than 30. BTW, when I did it earlier, it worked, but a moment ago, there was an error message. Toolserver is a wonderful collection of tools, but it has technical problems from time to time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I put 'win' in quotes. Just saying that it sometimes might allow edit warring users to get their way.... Oh and one more important question: what should I do if Pass a method goes back to being rude and edit warring when he comes back? Look I even noticed that he just ignored what you said about removing the block notice from his talk page; he's removed it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pass_a_Method&diff=prev&oldid=524804958 ! I mean, how does someone deal with situations like this? --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If Pass a Method resumes edit-warring on the article, you can report them again. Generally, it does not require a brand-new violation of 3RR to block based on a resumption of the same behavior after expiration of the block. As for the removal of the block notice, I've revoked their talk page access so the block notice cannot be removed again. Unfortunately, some editors get very angry when blocked and react badly, although Pass a Method habitually removes notices from their talk page. The removal of most notices is permissible, but not a current block notice. BTW, any more questions you have (and it's good that you ask questions), feel free to post them on my talk page rather than here as this thread is getting kind of long.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Kevin McE (Result: Declined)

Page: 100 metres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pass a Method (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: (deleted by PaM from his/her talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While I disagree with what PaM wants to add, and have explained why I think it inappropriate, it is not a totally unreasonable proposal. But having been asked to discuss the matter, he/she evidently considers the fact of having passed comment on the talk page as licence to change the article again. I note that another editor has also placed a 3rr warning on the user's talk page . Kevin McE (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. This report is a bit more unusual than the report above on Same-sex marriage. The first edit by Pass a Method was in fact an addition; they added an image. Moreover, Kevin acknowledged that his first reason for reverting Pass a Method (removing the image) was wrong. However, Kevin then took a different tack and said the image doesn't belong in the article. After that point, Pass a Method made 3 reverts in a row. If you don't count the first edit by Pass a Method, which I'm inclined not to, each editor made 3 reverts before the battle stopped. That is one of my reasons for declining to block. The other reason is I blocked Pass a Method above for 48 hours for the war at the other article, and I think that's sufficient. It might have been reasonable to increase the block beyond 48 hours, but I decided it was more punitive than preventive. The most important thing for Pass a Method to draw from these two reports is that they need to stop reverting in articles and then subsequently claim their reverts are not reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted that, partly due to a confused edit on my part. PaM did not merely add an image in that first edit, (s)he replaced one, thus deleting the image originally there. Per the definition at 3RR ( A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material) this is a revert. I began editing the caption that PaM put on the second picture, but because I was looking at a related page, I saw the second picture already in situ, changed tack, saved, recognised my error, and then resumed my original intention. At that stage, we had had a simple BR of the BRD cycle (with a slight hiccup at the R stage). Thereafter PaM made three further reversions without waiting for any support towards a consensus.

At the same time, banning a banned user seems pretty pointless, however, it should be on record that PaM has two breaches of 3RR on his record from today, lest he continues with such behaviour (this is evidently not a first offence).

Presumably I cannot now restore the page to the state it was in before PaM's interventions without myself being in breach of 3RR; could someone please do so? Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct; I did misread the first edit Pass a Method made and technically that means they breached 3RR, but your "confused edit" did somewhat mitigate the breach. And I'm disinclined to increase the length of the block. Normally, I would strike my language above, but it would make this thread even more confusing, so, hopefully, the subsequent dialog between clarifies my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the confusion my error caused. And thanks to Zozo for returning the article to its stable version. Kevin McE (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:CaroOlsen reported by User:Jæs (Result: not blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For several months, User:CaroOlsen (also editing as User:70.79.64.73) has reverted no fewer than five other editors to repeatedly reinsert a spam link to a publicity site for a "biography project" she claims to be writing about a notable living person, Léo Apotheker. There is no reliable sourcing indicating she has a publisher, is actually even writing such a biography, or that it is authorized. Even if there was reliable sourcing for all three of those facts, I think it would still be spam. It seems clear that she's going to continue reverting to reinsert her link regardless of objections from other editors or any of our policies. jæs (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the link as inappropriate, and I feel it is inappropriate and BLP violating enough to blacklist the site. My specific comments are on the article's talk page. If another administrator disagrees with the assessment, please feel free to revert my administrative actions (the blacklist) without consulting me. As to blocking, I don't see that she reverted again since the mild warning you gave her; at any rate, the blacklist should prevent that specific reversion. Kuru (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a closer look at this. jæs (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:77.42.209.47 and User:77.42.198.203 reported by User:Zozo2kx (Result: page protected)

Page: Al Akhbar (Lebanon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.42.209.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 77.42.198.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: (blanked the page)
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
The user insists on adding the word "tabloid" to the newspaper article, without providing any sources. He has been reverted by 3 different editors including myself. Yazan (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. It looks like there are multiple editors with 3RR problems there; I've protected the page for a short while to encourage a discussion on the article's talk page. If the IP persists after the protection expires without discussion, let me know. Kuru (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:AnthonyMark00 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result:Warned)

Page: Gail Riplinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnthonyMark00 (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: Here it is so far. As I've pointed out over and over, the link he's adding is not her official site.

Comments:
User has also (incorrectly) reported me for vandalism for removing his vandalism reports from the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes what I would like to add is that I dont really care! I was esentially looking for this section anyway Ian just beat me to it.

But it's as simple as this, the information provided in the article, the link in question is from her publishing company. As far as I have found out the only one she works with. Now you deny this being used as evidence of her work but you dont actually give a reason why

just your own opinions on the content of the site.

So it appears the good will guidelines ONLY apply to the friends and the editors & administators here on wikipedia. Becuause here I am trying to add documented, historical & verified evidence. Gone through the guidelines, But no one can give me a straight answer, except "I think this..." "I think that" GIVE ME A BREAK!.

So as I say this is fine, do whatever you want. I understand now I am outnumbered. But that will not be for long or forever! Ian I promise you, I will call upon men (theologians) with more knowledge on this subject in one hand than you and I both have put together!

And then we will see if you can manipulate the truth with the help of your ignorant friends.

Because this is what this is!

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok it's fine I thought Affiliates were allowed IAN dont ever message me directly again!

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, AV Publications publishes her works, and appears to be her primary publisher. You not knowing that (and ignoring when others have pointed that out) doesn't change that fact.

You've been spamming a link for a publisher she worked with, which was not her main publisher, and not her official site (even by Chick Publications' own admission!). When other editors have pointed this out, you alternated between ignoring what others have had to say and changing your argument when it became impossible to do so.

At any rate, "I'm right" (as if that was the case) is not a justification for edit warring.

As for your "ignorant" remark, "ignorant" means that people do not know something (for example, you are, by your own admission, ignorant of who Riplinger's real publisher is). The other editors are not ignorant of the site's guidelines, and they have not supported your edits. A sane and reasonable course of action would be to follow their example and ask their advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony has acknowledged the definition of an official site on the article's talk page, so I don't think there's any need for administrative action at the moment. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AV Publications does not produce any books. Chic does. As far as I can see AV is setup to let her retain intellectial rights over her books (like many authors do) So far I can find no other company producing the books. Now the rules are clarified to me I will accept it up to the point where I have to point out the degree of nepitism I am seeing here. As none of you can deny that the rules do allow for exceptions.

Not only that but as they are mentined repeatedly throughout her materials I see no reason why they should not be considered a primary source of evidence also?!.

Those two points alone imply at double standards & hypocracy. So you can sleep tonight Ian as I will let it go.. for now! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nepotism"? I don't think that means what you think it means. Yes, there are occasional exceptions, but in a situation like this, you will need an exceptionally convincing argument to make one. I think you'd be well-advised to just leave this issue alone, period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for administrative action at the moment ? Oh I don't know. Repeatedly edit warring in a link to a site that hosts bigoted and ignorant garbage in order to include a worthless zero-reliability bio into an article covered by BLP and trying to defend it by, amongst other things, encouraging other editors to look at the British National Party page as an example seems suboptimal. Threatening to return having "call upon men (theologians)" (not woman, probably no gay people either judging from chick.com) is also not ideal. Also he vandalized my talk page, but that may be tradition I am not aware of, and I'll let it slide. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked Anthony, clearly, you could have been blocked from editing the moment you broke the three revert rule. Please do go through our sourcing policies, especially NOR and WP:V to understand what citation standards are acceptable on this project -- and please discuss with other editors on the talk page of the article rather than simply enter into a revert-war. Please ensure that you do not indulge in an edit war again. You will be immediately blocked in case you do so. Thanks. Wifione 19:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)AV Publications claims to publish her books, Google Books lists AV Publications as her publisher, nothing on Chick.com indicates that Chick publications is anything more than an occasional distributor.

If any other admin takes a look at this, I'd like to point out that almost all of AnthonyMark00's edits fail to assume good faith from others, and are either like this or trying to defend a conspiracy theorist who worked for Chick publications. His continued failure to assume good faith and his "for now" remark indicate that he's not here to cooperate. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And for clarity: I meant that there was no need for admin action on the grounds of edit-warring only; there are other grounds for which further action might be justified, but I'm probably involved by now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whats going on now? Are you trying to say that I am BNP?! Or that I'm sexist????? Ok this feels like im in a "FREAK" part of the internet. Thing is you can read Hoyland! So you (and anyone) can see that I was using them as an example of a distateful page with multiple affliate links (it's still up there).

FYI I'm of ethnic origin (which I suspect will also get me in trouble with a few here judging by YOU!) Let me remind you ALL something. YOU DONT OWN WIKIPEDIA!

It is as much MINE as it is yours! And I think you all knew what I meant when I meant to write nepotism. Ok time to get back to MY life now, and the real world. You should try it! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring