Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 5 August 2009 (Archiving 6 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:122.104.185.81 reported by Vicenarian (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Filipino people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 122.104.185.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 07:03, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits to last version using WP:Cleanup. Stop making excuses")
2. 07:40, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Excuses reverted trouble maker")
3. 07:47, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert back same old problematic issue caused by a sockpuppet.")
4. 07:55, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Not racial slurs direct to you only because your troubvle maker. This is not American or California spec.")
5. 09:15, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Wrong reverted to last version")
6. 11:00, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Wikipidia:No original reseach by User:Cali567. It is basically a political agenda or seeking attention from this users point of view. Reverted back to last version.")
7. 11:27, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Im trying to clean what? in your point of view bullshit User:Cali567 your a sockpuppet haha")
8. 11:53, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Your making me laugh haha. Reverted back to last version")

• Diff of warning: here

Pattern of behavior and edit summaries means this is likely Orsahnses (talk · contribs), who has previously been blocked for edit warring on this page under several IP and account socks. Not a first time edit warrior. Suggest a longer than usual block against this IP and indefinite semi-protection of page. Vicenarian 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by --Ethelh (Result: Both warned)

• Three-revert rule violation by Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on

Chris Davis (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While technically only two reverts in past hour, seven over time, and usere continues to make same deletions despite input by two editors that the material is relevant, and without any cogent reason. I note that "3RR ... is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." And "Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page". This is an experienced editor who has been blocked previously twice for 3RR, and is gaming the system with 7 reverts timed to avoid technically 3 reverts within 24 hours. Time reported: 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest:

Diffs of two warnings to Yankees10; each simply deleted by user

--Ethelh (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is a malformed report; you did not list the proper links, and particularly you did not display any diffs or evidence of attempts to discuss these issues at a talk page. In the future, please fill out the report properly using the Click here to add a new report link at the top of the page.

That being said, I am giving both of you a warning. Both of you have reverted one another excessively and neither of you have attempted to have a discussion, as far as I can tell. Ethelh, you just jumped immediately to giving him template warnings today, I don't see any discussion attempts at either the article talk page or his user talk page before the template warnings. As things stand, under the edit warring rules neither one of you is "right", and if reverting without discussion continues then administrators reserve the right to block one or both of you, or to protect the article.

Warnedrʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the format error. First time here, so I am a newbie at this process. As to the assertions that there were no diffs that evidence attempts to discuss these issues, that is not the case. The diffs do reflect that, as I will discuss on your talk page.--Ethelh (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen (Result: 24h)

• Page: British–Zionist conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: - (editor acknowledges it is a revert in his edit summary)
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced editor who knows 3rr and has been blocked for it in the past

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in editing this article at all.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster reported by User:Noloop (Result: Main edit-warriors blocked)

• Page: Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anti-Americanism&oldid=303355919

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

He is constantly abusive.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=302966680
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=302968521
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAnti-Americanism&diff=302850348&oldid=302830619

I solicited a Third Opinion, and WebHamster's first response was to dismiss my "stupid comment" and "inane questions" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAnti-Americanism&diff=301712271&oldid=301708894

See also, "go fuck yourself" directed at another user, in a discussion that sprang from this issue... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=301844482&oldid=301839442

He's stated he intends to ignore my view while editing, e.g. "I haven't addressed anything you say because I make it a rule not to respond to total bollocks."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303355407
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303356997
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism&diff=next&oldid=303355407

He's been blocked for edit-warring on Anti_Americanism before: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWebHamster ..and for disruptive editing and trolling, two months ago. He's just here to amuse himself.Noloop (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
I have no comment on the edit warring/3RR by the user (particularly as they've had a 3RR block for the same article in the past), but for the user's behaviour taken together I'd recommend that you add to the report already filed against the user at WP:WQA. Nja 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked WebHamster (talk · contribs) blocked for 5 days for edit-warring and repeated incivility.

Blocked Slatersteven (talk · contribs) blocked for 1 day for edit-warring.

CIreland (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjbesquire reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 55h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rjbesquire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:15, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */ - replaced "is believed to have been" for "was" since the matter remains disputed and unsettled.")
2. 18:34, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */")
3. 20:17, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned */")
4. 21:40, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Corrected for accuracy.")

Note user may also be editing from 74.138.199.84 (additional 2 reverts today)

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Clear edit warring. If he starts reverting again after block expires, let me or another admin know and the next block will be much longer. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also blocked the IP for 12 hours. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick help =) --guyzero | talk 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:71.212.10.108 reported by User:RetroS1mone (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 71.212.10.108 (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:
• 7th revert:

Reverted 4 editors and uses mean or sexual insults in edit summaries, will not discuss on talk page and harasses other editors with "hey sexy lady" and "monkey boy."

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Continued to edit war after this warning and put a big "NO!" on their talk page.

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

Editor responds with "get over yourself" and calls me asinine .

Same editor obviously was edit warring from a few Texas IPs around July 10, for example saying "get over herself" all though the IPs are very far apart, i suspect proxy?? RetroS1mone talk 22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Aitias // discussion 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Valkyrie Red reported by User:MuZemike (Result: no vio / stale)

• Page: Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to:

Edit-warring on Mario on 15 July 2009

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

Edit-warring on Mario on 18 July 2009

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

Resuming of edit-warring following breakdown at Talk:Mario on 21 July 2009

• on Mario:
• on Shigeru Miyamoto:

• Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
  • For the 15 July 2009 edit-warring, informal 3RR warning by Bws2cool and template-warning by MuZemike
  • For the 18 July 2009 edit-warring, template-warning by MuZemike
  • (not necessarily for edit-warring) For introducing unsourced BLP material to Shigeru Miyamoto, a warning by C45207

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see discussion at Talk:Mario#Mr. Nintendo, where the user has indicated ignorance of the discussion at hand and proceeded to re-add the "Mr. Nintendo" material to both Mario and Shigeru Miyamoto →
• After the above diff, user proceeded to re-add the "Mr. Nintendo" material (according to the reporter's read of the discussion, against consensus) to Mario and to Shigeru Miyamoto .

For the past week, user has been consistently edit-warring over the addition of the following material to the article Mario:

...sometimes referred to by fans as Mr. Nintendo...

After being warned a second time for 3RR and direction by MuZemike to discuss at Talk:Mario, on 21 July 2009, user has decided to re-add said material back into Mario as well as Shigeru Miyamoto in what it looks like against a rough consensus in that discussion to include it in the article let alone in the first sentence in the lead. Said material has only been briefly mentioned in the description of a trophy in the video game Super Smash Bros. Melee (which still makes no mention of him being referred by fans as such) and nowhere else that is either primary, secondary, or otherwise reliable. MuZemike 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see this as a vio. WP:DR? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Willallen93 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24h)

• Page: Jordin Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Willallen93 (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:

The user has reverted six different editors removing a piece of information the user claims is in the source he provided, but in fact is not in the source. The user has also warned two of the six editors with vandalism warning, and .

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fight_the_bias reported by User:ThaddeusB (Result: 24h)

• Page: Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Fight_the_bias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 204.2.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was reverted at least 4 times as an IP. After getting a final warning they immediately registered a new account (obvious WP:DUCK here) and resumed edit warring - at least 3 additional reverts. Not every single revert was to the same exact wording, but all have the same (defamitory) gist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Swift as an Eagle, User:DreamGuy reported by User:Dlabtot (Result: Stale)

• Page: Garden of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Swift as an Eagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: DreamGuy (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:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I couldn't find any evidence that they tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page.

Edit-warring is not a constructive way to edit WP. Dlabtot (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate his desire to report this, but I'm not sure why Dlabtot says that he could not "find any evidence that they tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page." See my attempts here: Garden of Eden talk page However, I will keep this is mind and be more careful. Cheers, SAE (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And FYI, what Dlabtot listed above as a "6th revert" , is not a revert at all on my part. It was an unrelated edit to the same article. SAE (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:DreamGuy has also been exhibiting similar behavior elsewhere, including the Ambigram page. He has stuck well below 3RR, but mainly because I and the admin who became involved have been trying to be as reasonable as possible. He has rejected any attempts at discussion, instead calling me and other editors liars. He accuses practically everyone of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, says we all have a COI where none exists, and acts like he is the only one who understands Misplaced Pages rules, etc. See, for example, , , , , and others. Here are some sample edit summaries, showing his incivility:

• not helpful post from civil POV pusher - part of the game to push a POV, which is unfortunately endemic on Christian articles
• Reverted to revision 301578211 by Martarius; revert person who think he WP:OWNs artilcle restoring original research/spam/coi content without consensus.
• Undid revision 302244201 by RoyLeban (talk) the guy edit warring to push a POV/COI complains of edit warring, that's a laugh
• removing items never had consensus to be here, original research, unsourced claims of notability, promotion of nonnotable websites added as spam, removing ELs that most obviously fail WP:EL
• rv -- yeah, and if discussion ever goes your way you can add it back, your attempts to WP:OWN this article by falsifying consensus votes are over, you never had consensus to add this, so it goes
• Consensus on items to include in this page: per mul;tiple people saying this section needs to be removede, especially cosnidered how Ropy was caught blatantly lying about votes to force his way
• Who is Phil Mole?: response to person lying about source and trying to argue it should be removed because he doesn't like it)
• rv POV pushing/outright lying about what source says/allegedly doesn't say
• Alternate meaning: good grief -evidence is presented and clear as day... and now spelled out for the admin who seemed determined to ignore the obvious
• Alternate meaning: again, would need reliable sources saying its significant instead of just trivia that someone wants added because of COI
• Split?: people who want to split are arguing based upon reasons that conflict with policy
• Bot (and others) removing images from my gallery: no, our guidelines are NOT stricter than the law, we actually follow the law, which confuses people who don't understand the law

Also see

RoyLeban (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stale. Three reverts for each user on 20 July and only a single one each today; whilst this isn't particularly good behaviour by either user I don't think it warrants a block. I have however watchlisted the article for any future issues. User:RoyLeban - this isn't the place to bring up user behaviour unrelated to edit-warring on this article; there are more suitable venues for that. Black Kite 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Black Kite - you're right. I should have held back. I'll take it to WP:RFC unless you think somewhere else is better. RoyLeban (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:EricLeFevre reported by User:65.188.37.65 (Result: semi)

• Page: F-22 Raptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: EricLeFevre (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:

User is POV-pushing via edit warring/violating 3RR. User is well-aware of the rule, demonstrated by the fact that user mentions it in the article talk page , threatening another user with 3RR report after violating it themselves.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dup of next report. Semi for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not merely a "dup", this user participated in clear violation of 3RR (FIVE reverts) and edit warring, and as such deserves a block. Semi-protection does nothing to prevent users like this one from edit warring. I'd like another admin to examine this report, please. 65.188.37.65 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:83.242.226.130 reported by User:EricLeFevre (Result: semi)

• Page: F-22_Raptor#Controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 83.242.226.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Old article pre edit war. Sample article after edit war, controversy section deleted, cited source material removed.

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Note all of his "additions" were auto tagged with Section Blanking. Background: The F22 is an incredibly controversial weapons program that had its funding terminated by the United States Senate last night. A section was added that explained the a few of the objections to the F22 and some names of its opponents. That section is getting repeatedly deleted. It contains non biased source citations, and explanations of the opponents views. Any article with a NPOV will have sections like these especially on controversial topics like this one.

• talk page warning.

talk page warning.

EricLeFevre (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Nubeli reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 24h)

• Page: Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nubeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:26, 22 July 2009

• 1st revert: 14:32, 22 July 2009
• 2nd revert: 17:53, 22 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 22 July 2009
• 4th revert: 19:22, 22 July 2009
• 5th revert: 20:27, 22 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:35, 22 July 2009

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

-- Vision Thing -- 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:82.16.113.24 reported by User:Timmeh (Result: 2 weeks)

• Page: United States presidential election, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 82.16.113.24 (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:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

The user has continually reverted the images at the aforementioned article to large, unofficial ones without explanation. At first, I left a message about it on his talk page. He ignored it. I then left a 3RR warning after he violated the 3RR, yet he continues to revert after that, still with no explanation. Timmeh 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also of note, this is the same person as User talk:82.4.220.242 who has received dozens of warnings and several blocks for his disruptive editing and edit warring on articles about politics and elections in the US. It looks like his IP changes every few months and his old addresses don't look to be allocated to anyone else after he's gone on, so I suggest a long block. Timmeh 23:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Obsessed Battlefield reported by User:Unitanode (Result: 24h) (Result: still 24h)

• Page: {{Jordin Sparks}}
• User: Obsessed Battlefield (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: -- included slightly uncivil -- and provably wrong -- edit summary.
• 2nd revert: -- includes another insulting edit summary, questioning whether I really read the source.
• 3rd revert: -- with yet another insulting edit summary.
• 4th revert: While he has yet to make a fourth revert as OB, he is almost certainly a sockpuppet of WillAllen93, who was edit-warring (and blocked for it) previously on this article.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -- This is in an edit summary, which he clearly read, as he left a disruptive reply at my talkpage, which I removed.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened a thread at the talkpage, in which OB simply became insulting, and refused to listen to multiple editors.

Unitanode 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: Self-revert)

• Page: Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 13:10, 23 July 2009

• Version reverted to:

• 2nd revert: 18:09, 23 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring: He is well aware that article is under 1RR since he posted this warning on my talk page today.

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

Note: Fascism is under 1RR. I left a message on talk pages of both administrators who were involved in this previously but they were editing Misplaced Pages only sporadically during last month. -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No action - User:The Four Deuces reverted his own change, when requested to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:81.102.157.87 reported by User:Roman888 (Result: Page protected)

• Page: Template:2009 flu pandemic table (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 81.102.157.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• The person is aware that there was no consensus to delete the column listing the number of confirmed cases. He proceed to make several reverts arguing that there was consensus, while there was none.

• Fully protected already by another admin; blocks would therefore be punitive at this point. MastCell  23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dems on the move reported by guyzero | talk (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dems on the move (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 20:12, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Discourage challenges to the concensus") - Was a material content revert to his preferred text, first added (@ 0RR) here:
2. 20:19, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303801751 by Guyzero (talk) concensus CAN change, but NOT LIKELY, so the purpose is to discourage new discussions")
3. 20:38, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303805732 by Jbarta) "weak concensus" is a POV. This is a basic warning that trying to argue the matter again is futile.")
4. 23:20, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303830911 by Tarc (talk) No more "pedantic" than "please review the archives to see past discussions on this topic"")

Additionally, he has been edit warring at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

1. 20:37, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303596077 by Brothejr (talk) Lack of Objection = Concensus. If you object, please provide a reason")
2. 23:05, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303624561 by Brothejr (talk) If there is an RS, please provide the reference")
3. 22:48, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to last edit by Dems on the move. Note that the propsed bills are already covered in the article, so there is no need for duplication.")
4. 22:52, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303830123 by ChrisO (talk) There is duplication -- see talk.")
5. 22:53, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 303829636 by ChrisO (talk) Huh??? They are promoting the theory, which means "campaigning" for the theory.")

• Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint -- only 3 reverts on the FAQ, and 3 reverts on the article in a 24 hr period. Dems on the move (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mifter (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The page that had (and may continue to have?) the "content dispute" is Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories/FAQ. The main article was also the subject of an edit war, but was due to a misunderstanding and not a content dispute. This was acknowledged on the article talkpage .

It would be a shame to see the main article fully protected when there is no content dispute there. I mentioned the main article in this report only because I'm concerned that User:Dems on the move appears to be hitting the undo button on good faith edits too quickly, which caused some aggravation today. I believe this overall report is stale, and am not seeking a block, but please reconsider the article protection. thank you, --guyzero | talk 01:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:YourHumanRights reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24h)

• Page: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: YourHumanRights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:32, 21 July 2009

• 1st revert: 01:11, 23 July 2009 (2 consecutive edits by YourHumanRights)
• 2nd revert: 19:15, 23 July 2009
• 3rd revert: 19:19, 23 July 2009 (restores material from this prior edit which had been removed)
• 4th revert: 23:32, 23 July 2009 (partial undo of immediately preceding edit)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:26, 23 July 2009

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not pretty...

Reported by MastCell  23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pandacomics and User:Readin (result: peace?)

• Pandacomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Readin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry about the unorthodox report. These users are reverting one another across numerous articles; the dispute is over the use of "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" to describe birthplaces/locations of singers/actors. Anyway, I have already warned both users (and warned Pandacomics that I would block him right away if he continues reverting—this user in particular has abused rollback during a content dispute and has ignored the other user's request to start a discussion), but soon I am going to be away from the computer for several hours so I'm requesting that someone here can keep an eye on things and be ready to step in if the reverting continues. Thanks, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like peace may now have broken out William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Moradrock reported by User:Hairhorn (Result: 24h)

• Page: Kirkuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Moradrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (reverts are not identical; the user blanks whole sections, then after they're replaced, blanks different ones, eventually closing the circle and redeleting the same material over again. This is my first 3RR nom, apologies if this is a simple vandalism case rather than a content dispute. More than a dozen blankings over the past two days.)

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

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Have not attemped, user does not even leave edit summaries.)

Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I could not find a single instance of a technical violation of 3RR, since it's reverts on different sections. However, either as a violation of WP:LAWYER (here I'm assuming good faith) or as vandalism (more likely), I've given a 24-hour block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AnarchistAssassin reported by User:DreamGuy (Result: stale)

• Page: ENom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: AnarchistAssassin (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: (*It should be noted that this revert was a revert of a null edit I made earlier to add an edit comment, but from the comments it doesn't look like AnarchistAssassin or the editor that reverted him later knew the content was the same as earlier content; maybe not technically a revert, but already had four anyway)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (and also others on the page)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ENom#Illegal_hijacking_of_Customers.27_Websites

This person is a SPA account to add blatant POV and OR to a page about a business accusing company of breaking laws, occasionally citing sources that do not support his accusations. Appears to be a WP:DUCK case of a sockpuppet of previously banned user/sockpuppeter User:KillAllSpammers/User:TeerGrub -- would be nice if the person were indef blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there any particular reason this report has been ignored while later reports have been handled already? DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No good reason, just random chance. Perhaps because it was semi-stale when reported; it is certainly stale now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: Protected)

• Technically no 3RR violation, but persistent pattern of edit warring with little or no talk page discussion across multiple articles. This is small sample, but other edit wars not listed here are on going. User's edits are frequently reverted as fails to seek consensus and negotiate with other users.

Genetic history of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1. 04:04, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Removed unnecessary map of Africa.")
2. 18:39, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 18:40, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Compromise")
4. 19:49, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid mass deletion of sourced material.")
5. 20:29, 24 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid extreme afrocentric POV")

Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Also edit warring on

1. 03:40, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early history */")
2. 15:55, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid unexplained deletion of map.")
3. 15:56, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:34, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Map is sourced read talk page (of map). You want me to go to your first edits and start undoing them?")

Poles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 03:45, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:08, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "What are you talking about? that is not a blog intry its a map and who is Osioł?")
3. 16:53, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Re added map.")
4. 18:32, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Whatever.I don t follow you around except for on articles that are about genetics. Which I would edit anyway.")

Muntuwandi has also edit warred on those articles if that is considered edit warring.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You may want to protect genetic history of Europe for a few days because Muntuwandi has a long term tendency of Reverting its edits. He has reverted the edits of me, Small Victory,Causteas, The Ogre and others simply to add afrocentric POV http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Also it is important to remember that I have no reccord of a pattern of edit warring with little or no talk page discussion across multiple articles on the Articles about the poles and Croats I only did a few edits on those articles since they were invented. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. If you have issues with the editor generally, consider opening a request for comment. Nja 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle reported by User:Mwalshie (Result: 12h)

• Page: Waterboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: QueenofBattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Editor reverted 3 times, becoming progressively less civil first.

Initially editor expressed an issue with having Anon editors (Undid revision 304068248 by 76.126.99.67 (talk)undid bizarre reversion from ANON), so I registered an account.

Editor then decided that other people's disagreement was "bizarre" (Undid revision 304068248 by 76.126.99.67 (talk)undid bizarre reversion from ANON)) so I registered an account.

Then editor decided reverted his/her edits was vandalism. (rv POV vandalism; editor has been warned.)

At no stage did this editor engage in the talk page to hash out the issue at question, until after all this. ] Editor resorted to accusing me of sock-pupperty, an allegation that regular editors should not use to inflame things, but should report it for investigation if needed. Then the editor started stalking me on other articles : Salt Pit

• I issued a 3RR warning template

And even that became an edit war, with the editor repeatedly blanking it. My iunderstanding is doing so oon one's talk page is allowed, but the sheer persistencey of it looks odd... Diff, removing 3RR warning Diff, removing 3RR warning Diff, removing 3RR warning

I had already disengaged on blocking her repeated reversions at so as too cool the issue on that page. {Waterboarding is a ARB probation artcile due to what looks like a long ugly history plaqued by recentism. As such I feel this editor needs to cool off the issue (as I will). On such an article, removing content without engaging in talk as was done at 1st revert: is not helpful to anyone. 'The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.'

I am requesting admin action to keep things cool at , even if in their judgement that includes keeping me out, or equal treatment for myself for reverting the users deletions at the article (or the talk page).

Mwalshie (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mwalshie, you insisted to keep the edits after QueenofBattle explained the issue on your talk page: QueenofBattle specifically said your edits were unsourced. You then claimed her edits as vandalism and you reverted without solving the issue. The warning template was bogus and unacceptable, thus it was reverted. ZooFari 06:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A warning page is not bogus, nor unacceptable for 3RR, . Saying Cheney is right-wing in that context is certainly NOT unsourceable, the unsourceable claim was wikilaywering to supress another editors contribution (whoever put right wing in). Just deleting, repeatedly (and not saying it in talk), then deleting and demanding that text be sourced (on my page, NOT talk) is not helpful, we have cite templates to request sources, and a talk page wheich are preferred to blanking words from troublesome articles. Insitsting on source for Cheney's left right leanings is like demanding a source to show that water is wet If we require sourcing at that obvious a level we should all give up on writing encylopedias. Anyway, had a cite request been put in, I or another editor would have found a source to cite the obvious. QueenofBattle did not enage in discussion on the article until after he/she was blanking the 3RR template. It took that template to engage this user in talk. As such, I think the template served it's purpose, it stopped the warring on the article and initiated the talk activity; as such wouldn't you not consider it effective. Mwalshie (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, for preventing a no-talk edit on an arb probation article, I've been called a sockpuppet, a vandal, and bizarre. All for reverting the edit and starting a talk in the article's talk page on it. Mwalshie (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet allegation. Edit Summary: QueenofBattle (talk | contribs) (364 bytes) (Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I think.) (italiced by ~) Mwalshie (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

12h for Mw William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Marktreut reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Reporter and reportee both blocked 24h)

• Page: Lupin III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Marktreut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff - restored after it was removed, putting it in another section
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Lupin III#Renamed for French Broadcast

Once again, Marktreut is edit warring and acting in a disruptive fashion. He added a section on "copyright issues" to Lupin III, a good article currently undergoing a GAR. Today, the article's primary editor who has been working to address the GA issues merged the section into the production section and removed the sentences regarding the series renamed as it was sourced to a non-reliable source and falsely claimed the series was renamed to avoid the copyright issue. Marktreut restored his content in the new section, reverting the removal. He continues to revert attempts to remove his non-reliable, and possibly copyright violating source, despite myself and the other editor asking him to stop in the discussion and his being warned. In the last revert, he put in a blatantly false reference that does not mention the name of the series at all (also not his first time). This is not the first time he has done this, causing several articles to be locked and himself to be blocked at least once. He knows fully well that he should not edit war, so there is no real excuse here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Marktreut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit-warring.
• Blocked Collectonian (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit-warring, failure to assume good faith.

CIreland (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Unitanode reported by User: Ethelh (Result: Declined)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Declined by an administrator; decision to decline endorsed by another one. No need for further discussion on this page; if deemed necessary, this can be discussed elsewhere. — Aitias // discussion 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Sam Fuld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , and

The article in question, Sam Fuld, was formerly stable until the recent past. User:Unitanode has in the last 24 hours deleted (among other appropriate language) the statement that Fuld is Jewish three times. See The seasoned reverter is one short of his fourth revert, but rather than revert and have him revert a fourth time I would hope his edit warring and refusals to leave the article stable as it was for a long time while discussing it on a talk page can be addressed now.

I detailed the basis for that statement not only my edit summaries, but also discussed it at some length on the article's talk page and the talk page of the complaining editor (Unitanode) .

In my last edit summary, in addition, I had entreated Unitanode to "Please stop edit warring; please leave as is (and has it has been, in stable form, for a long time) and discuss on talk page where I have discussed." (see ) His response was ignore my entreaty, and to revert yet again, and then to open a at .

As to the substance of the dispute, The deleted language was as follows: " Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill." In place of that, Unitanode insists on "Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic."

The support for the deleted three words consists of three citations (emphasis added below), as follows:

Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.

The complaining editor here would delete the words "who is Jewish" (see ), and instead indicate the religions of Fuld's parents, as follows:

Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.

One article of the above three citations, written by Jonathan Mayo, a senior staff writer for MLB.com (the official publication of major league baseball), who has been writing for MLB.com on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post), and who has been writing about Fuld since 2007, states: "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg .... ". ("Members of the Tribe", also known as "MOT" is slang for Jewish (Israelite or Member of the Tribe of Judah), as is reflected at and ).

A second article says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13".

And a third citation clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American First Team.)."

I would note that Jews are a nation and ethnicity, not just a religion. The Misplaced Pages entry for "Jew" indicates that a Jew is a member "of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group .... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated". Jews therefore differ from many other religions, which are not ethnicities or nations.

According to Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, but inclusion must be justifiable by external references. Such is the case here. The article does not state what he believes in, just that he is a member of this ethnoreligious group, where ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly related. With three supporting citations, including one who is a senior writer for the official publication of the sport, and who has written on Fuld in both 2007 and 2009, I believe that the citations amply warrant the sentence as is.

WP:BLPCAT, which my colleague refers to, is limited to statements as to the subject's "religious beliefs and sexual orientation." Here, that is not the focus (we do not say "Fuld believes in Judaism ... for example, he could be a Jew for Jesus). We only say that he is part of the ethnoreligious nationality known as the Jewish people; what two of the authors above refer to as a "member of the tribe". I note, as well, that curiously while railing against the deletion of the heavily sourced reference to Fuld's religion, he insists on inserting references to Fuld's parents' religions -- which clearly don't meet the standard that my colleague (innappropriately, I would suggest) says apply. See . I also note that the criteria for religion per se brings to mind the rhetorical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Apparently, by the criteria, not unless we can find a statement made by him to that effect; and, judging by my research, it is possible that none exists.

In addition, it should be noted that my collegae baseas his deletions on a guidance as to categories on wikipedia. But he was not deleting categories at all -- he was deleting text within the article. Categories, of course, raise different issues -- as the guidance says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". While for the aforementioned reasons the category should also remain, it should be noted that the entire premise for his removal of this information was based on an innapplicable guideline.

I also think it a shame that my fellow editor would not agree to leave the article in the form that it has been in stable fashion for an extended period of time, and instead insisted on edit warring despite my entreaties to leave it as is and discuss on the talk pages.

--Ethelh (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Since there has been no violation of the three-revert-rule by either party that I could see, I am disinclined on that basis alone to block. Moreover, I concur that Unitanode's edits constitute a removal of poorly sourced information about a living individual insofar as "Jewish" may be read as a statement about ethnicity and religion and none of the provided sources (one of which is a blog) adequately support this. I do not understand what the problem is with distinguishing within the article the two meanings of "Jewish" but that is a matter for the article editors. Finally, I would advise Ethelh that blind reverts such as that change back unrelated formatting changes as well as the material actually in dispute do not create a favourable impression. CIreland (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) While the decline was based on the fact that there has not been a violation of the three-revert-rule, a violation of the 3RR is not required here in order to block the user.

The edit warring guidance states: "edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule." see WP:WAR.

I understand, and agree, that this seasoned editor has only made 3 reverts in under 24 hours (and not 4). One could perhaps conjecture whether this may fall into the category of "gaming the system", which prohibits an editor from finding within the 3RR policy wording "apparent" justification for disruptive actions that policy is clearly not at all intended to support.

But the basis of my complaint is simply that the editor has engaged in edit warring, and has not agreed to let the article remain as it had been in its stable form, while discussing our issues on a talk page.

I failed in my efforts to convince him to stop edit warring/reverting. I chose to not demean the process by letting it get to the 4-revert point, however. This editor refused to stop reverting, and in the interim leave the article as-is and discuss our disagreements. He did this despite my clear warnings and requests (see above). Having failed in my efforts to convince him to stop edit warring, I brought it here. I did that given that I feel his actions fell squarely within the portion of WP:WAR quoted above.

2) As to the suggestion that the information was poorly sourced, I disagree. One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball, who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a "poor source". That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

As to the suggestion that one of the other secondary sources is a blog, perhaps that is a characterization of the second source listed above. But the fact that it is a blog is not reason, in and of itself, to no disregard it. Per Misplaced Pages:Blogs as sources, blogs may be used as sources in Misplaced Pages articles, depending on the blog in question (specifically, the nature of its author and/or publication), and this author and the publication are just the sort countenanced by the guidance.

The author of that entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.

The newspaper, which has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey. The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question.

By the way, though this does not appear to be the expression of an opinion, but rather a fact, if anyone thinks it necessary (I don't) we could always say: "According to ..., Fuld is Jewish."

3) As to "I would advise Ethelh that blind reverts ... that change back unrelated formatting changes as well as the material actually in dispute do not create a favourable impression," I would point out that the material in question related to matters which the other editor was reverting blindly in the first place, such as italicizing the names of publications. He blindly reverted my performing those and other appropriate edits. I think that comment is directed at the wrong editor.--Ethelh (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse decline. I was gathering links to paste here. User:Ethelh appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPing; see these two permalinks: AN/I and Talk:Sam Fuld (two sections on that page). There is also related content at BLP/N. I suggested politely that 3RR does not apply to BLP violations, in the hope that this might simmer down a notch, to no avail. I agree it is not 100% clear-cut that it is a BLP issue, but it is definitely not clear-cut that Fuld identifies himself as Jewish, and Ethelh is aware of this and chooses to rely on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to draw the conclusion. I couldn't care less how Fuld identifies himself, but we cannot make the decision for him, and "MOT" asserted by others is not a high enough bar for BLP. I would also note that this dispute appears to predate User: Unitanode's involvement; see Talk:Sam Fuld for a discussion which Ethelh was involved in 6 days ago.  Frank  |  talk  14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not at all "forum shopping". As you point out, I attempted to resolve this through discussion on talk pages. I also sought to attempt to resolve this through discussion on edit summaries, as discussed above. My efforts were unavailing. Rather than edit war, and given that my last request for discussion rather than reversion was met with a blind revert (see above), I sought assistance in putting an end to this edit war via the above request. I understand that when an editor edit wars with you, that is the next step if efforts at talk page discussion are unavailing. Rather than being forum shopping, that is what I understand Misplaced Pages directs one to do in such instances. Am I missing a step, or are you suggesting that under these circumstances I should do nothing?

As to the AN/I, I did not go shopping in that forum; the other editor did, and the focus of his complaint seems to be my asking him if he was the editor that was wikistalking me, not the issue here -- edit warring. As to the BLP/N, I was not made aware of that until it had already been closed, so I did not go shopping there either.

And as to the suggestion that 3RR does not apply to a BLPCAT violation, I note that this was in no way a WP:BLPCAT as was asserted by the editor, as it does not involve (at this point) an edit war about a category (which is what BLPCAT applies to), but rather an edit war about reversions to the text of the article (which BLPCAT does not apply to). I would suggest that it is in fact 100% clear-cut that this is not a BLPCAT issue, as the reverting editor incorrectly charged.--Ethelh (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: "MOT" asserted by others is not a high enough bar for BLP. Your apparent reliance on WP:WIKILAWYERING is unlikely to gather significant support for your point of view. The vast majority of editors around here do not care one way or the other what religion or ethnic group Sam Fuld belongs to. That same vast majority is committed to upholding WP:BLP, and the edits you are trying to add to the article do not meet the bar.  Frank  |  talk  01:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Sherurcij reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: )

• Page: Somalia Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Sherurcij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 06:32, 25 July 2009

• 1st revert: Revision as of 08:19, 25 July 2009
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:54, 25 July 2009 - revert back to same version but with a few words changed around & one wikified link to avoid 3RR
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:12, 26 July 2009
• 4th revert: Revision as of 07:04, 26 July 2009

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

• Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute: see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The dispute is over the inclusion of copyright-violating screenshots from video footage depicting scenes of racist human torture, screenshots which the User:Sherurcij insists on including in the Somalia Affair article. This user has voluntarily chosen to caption several of these images with the word "nigger" (e.g. 1 and 2), and has also again voluntarily titled one of those images which he has uploaded as "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers". I think this user is acting out of bad faith, and at least one other user and an uninvolved administrator agree with me. Over the past 24 hours, User:Sherurcij basically reverted four times my attempts to remove these copyright-violating images of torture. In his second revert, however, he wikified one link and changed four words around to try and make it appear as if he wasn't, in fact, reverting back to the same version of the article which included those copyright-violating images of torture (and thus avoid 3RR). But as can be seen, that too is still very much a revert. Middayexpress (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:98.148.49.233 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: Jackie Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 98.148.49.233 (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:
• 7th revert:

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Promptly removed by IP user with edit summary "blanking disruption by mindless bureaucrat"

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Multiple warnings from multiple users, repeatedly blanked by IP user

IP began with edit summary denouncing provisions of WP:RS as "an idiotic rule" and continued with uncivil edit summaries including personal attacks

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Aitias // discussion 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael H 34 reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 24h)

• Page: Fathers' rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Michael H 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a case of long-term POV-driven edit warring against consensus, rather than strictly speaking 3RR. Since being blocked twice for 3RR on a related page (Parental alienation syndrome), Michael has been careful not to break the "limit" of four reverts. However, as can be seen below, there is both a long standing pattern of reverting editors, and today in a little over 24 hours 4 restorations (update; now 5 within 34 hours) of the disputed material (with three within 24 hours) The material sourced from an opinion column ("half of its members are women") does not have the agreement of other editors on the talkpage or at the RSN and this (and other aspects of MH34's editing), have been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage of the articles concerned. Recent edits

1. 14:11, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "add attributed sentence and well sourced sentence")
2. 16:18, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Demographics */ Better attribution; Minnesota Star Tribune article is a quality source for the attributed opinion of Sacks and Thompson")
3. 17:16, 21 July 2009 (edit summary: "Undid the RSN disapproved the opinion article as a source for a fact; the statement in the article is now different and attributed")
4. 15:59, 22 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303412421 dated 2009-07-21 21:24:58 by Michael H 34 using popups")
5. 00:14, 23 July 2009 (edit summary: "Revert to revision 303551089 dated 2009-07-22 15:59:28 by Michael H 34 using popups")

A more examples of the pattern of slow edit-warring against consensus on this article since mid June.

Per instructions above: here is an (incomplete) summary of the more recent disruptive editing from this account.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: has been blocked before for editwarring. However, in this talkpage posting I warned him that if he reverted once again to his preferred version without getting consensus for his edit, I would report him here. He did and so I am.

• Endless discussion has been occurring for weeks on this talkpage. Here are some links

—Slp1 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No-one did anything with this because it wasn't clear-cut. Now its stale, sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. It's very hard for all of to know how and where to handle situations like this, I realize, though multo frustrating for those involved. :-( --Slp1 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible to reopen this; after the usual few days pause, he's at it again, with another revert of the same material. --Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - This report was closed as stale on 24 July, at a time when the last reported edit by Michael H was on 23 July. Since Michael H 34 has once again (on 27 July) restored the disputed reference by Sacks and Thompson, he is blocked 24 hours. He should be aware that the talk page consensus is against him. If he agrees to get consensus on the Talk page before making any further changes to this article, any admin may lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ec- thanks, EdJ and just for the record, I'll just say I was coming here to report a second revert today of the same material .--Slp1 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Chensiyuan and User:66.210.61.224 reported by User:Dabomb87 (Result:Page protection )

• Page: Bill Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Users: Chensiyuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  66.210.61.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (the edit warring has been going on for days, but 3RR was breached only today)

66.210.61.224

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

Chensiyuan

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

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (IP warning)
• I did not warn Chensiyuan; this was an honest mistake. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Breaches of 3RR by both parties; I hope that this does not come down to blocks, but I don't want the edit warring continued. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page until some sort of resolution about his height is sorted out on the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:89.241.185.12 reported by User:MuZemike (Result: 31h)

• Page: Fine Gael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 89.241.185.12 (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: ,

User continuously adding POV and unreliably-sourced information, labeling Fine Gael and some of its members as "fascists" or "Nazis". MuZemike 02:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) for 31 hours. –Juliancolton |  02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Realjduck1979 reported by Jduck1979 (Result: 72 hours)

• Page: User:Jduck1979 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Realjduck1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=209113247 Original from when i had to fix it in April 2008

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304041274
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304339228 (my fix after first violation, from IP: 74.196.172.31)
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304380909 (vandalism to my userpage from http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Realjduck1979 )
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jduck1979&oldid=304417460 (from when i've put it right just now)

Story: on the morning of Sunday 26th July 2009 I found someone following me over at Twitter mocking / harrassing me.

Later that same day I checked my Misplaced Pages user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jduck1979 It had been modified by persons unknown from IP Address 74.196.172.31 So I had to undo their little additions, which included a taunt people used to bully with since primary school in the 1980's.

I've just checked again at 5:50am BST on 27th July 2009 to find somebody had deleted a load of stuff off my page, and replaced more text... the offender being person using this Misplaced Pages profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Realjduck1979

I believe this to be the work of the person behind this cyberbullying attempt over at Twitter: https://twitter.com/realjduck1979 This is my real one: https://twitter.com/jduck1979

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned the user (Is it necessary in this case?)--B@xter 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - 72 hours to Realjduck1979 for disruptive editing. Since Jduck1979 registered his Misplaced Pages account back in 2006, he is the owner of that name for Misplaced Pages purposes. It is not important here who uses the name 'Jduck1979' elsewhere on the web. If the more recent Misplaced Pages editor known as Realjduck1979 continues to mess around with the other guy's user page, I suggest an indefinite block. In addition, if 74.196.172.31 (talk · contribs) continues to misbehave that IP should be blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Arab Cowboy (Result: )

• Page: Asmahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Supreme Deliciousness (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan/Archive_2, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Farid_al-Atrash#Stop_editwarring

This article has been in dispute for months and currently a mediator, User:Diaa Abdelmoneim, has been kindly helping resolve this dispute. After an absence of two days, I returned to find User:Supreme Deliciousness had made numerous edits to the article, some of which were approved by mediator. When it was my turn to make my changes, improve, and add sources to the article, as agreed on the Talk apge with the mediator, and after having spent 24 hours of continuos work and research to properly reference the article with reliable sources and improve its flow, User:Supreme Deliciousness reverted all of my work within minutes. I had not broken ANY agreements made on the Talk page reached through discussion, espcially with the mediator. I have been following the mediator's instructions to the letter. Any substantive changes that had not been previously agreed on the Talk page with mediator, I placed here, also as instructed by mediator, and not within the article.

So far, User Supreme Deliciousness has reverted the article 4 times in a matter of less than 2 hours, as shown above, although I warned him each time against restarting the edit war and to discuss the changes to which he objected on the Talk page. He did not heed the warnings and proceeded with his 4 reverts, undoing my 24-hour worth of hard work. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert the article 4 times, first time I did, then I took back the info backed up with sources he had added and restored the sections he had vandalized. Mediator asked for adding of sources to the article, what Arab Cowboy did was to change the whole content of the article without agreement at the talkpage first, as the mediation has been so far, he changed several areas without providing sources or references to fit his agenda. This is vandalism. Arab Cowboy has then edit warred.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=304285754&oldid=304283056
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=304287050&oldid=304285754
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=304289862&oldid=304287050

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I have provided sources to all of my text, to the extreme best of my ability. This is what took me 24 hours of hard work to do. There was no vandalism of any shape at all done by me. "Fitting my agenda" is not an excuse for your reverts and your edit warring on this basis is forbidden by Misplaced Pages. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying, you changed the Atrash Section, you deleted that Sulaf Fawakherji is a Syrian actress, although that is what the source say. You deleted that Suwayda is her familys home town, which is also sourced. You deleted part of the lead of the article, This is vandalism! These things were sourced and had nothing to do with what the mediator asked you to do which was to ad sources to the article and improve text backed by sources, You went on a vandalism spree removing everything you don't like to fit your agenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=304289862&oldid=304193933 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the rudeness of your language here and elsewhere, I have NOT removed any sourced information at all. This is the first diff that you reverted with your edit warring. In fact, you removed a lot a information that was very properly sourced by doing this first revert. Responding to your specific false accusation of vandalism:

• The article is not about Sulaf Fawakherji and her nationality is irrelevant to the Asmahan article, and the ref was not placed after the nationality but after the name, which I did not change. You had added this nationality during my two-day absence. Are we going to list the nationalities of all the actors in the series? This is irrelevant information.
• On homeland, mediator had instructed that all reference to a homeland be removed. Mediator's exact words on 13:09, 25 July 2009 were "I think we agreed at the beginning that homeland was not to be used".
• "Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" was not sourced and was redundant; it was like saying "Supreme Deliciousness is Syrian and belonging to the Syrian Deliciousness family." This is redundancy on an unprecedented level and is very poor writing style. Mediator's exact words on this matter on 16:52, 23 July 2009 were "Syrian-Lebanese is doubtful as there is no proof that she got the Lebanese citizenship."
• Any proposed changes that had not been previously agreed, I placed very neatly here, on the Talk page, as per mediator's instructions, and not in the article.

ALL of my changes were legitimate and previously agreed or approved by mediator on the Talk page of the article. Again, your 4 reverts of what you think was "fitting my agenda" is exactly what the 3RR is for. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You deleted sourced info, you deleted she is Syrian, and you yourself had previously added that all actors and directors she met was "Egyptian" if this is relevant to the article, the actor who played her is also relevant. You delete sourced info.

Yes mediator said that "homeland" was not to be used, but you deleted "her familys hometown" which is a different thing, which was also sourced.

You are twisting what he said, the Syrian-Lebanese thing was about was she should be called in the lead, It had nothing to to with ""Belonging to a princely Druze family of Syrian-Lebanese origin" which has to do with descent and not citizenship.

You are a liar! your edits was not approved at the talkpage, we have been been editing the article with mediator help and agreements at talkpage, now Arab Cowboy has destroyed the whole article, he changed it to fit what he himself wants without any kind of agreement! This is vandalism!

Also his meatpuppet Nefer Tweety has showed up --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The vulgarity of your style only reflects on you and your cause. Even if what you blurb above is true, which it is not, it does not give you the right to revert my work 4 times in less than 2 hours. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my work 4 times in the same time and your meatpuppet also reverted my work. I reverted because you deleted sourced info and was not following the mediation process of talking in the talkpage and agreeing to changes by the mediator.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This goes to show who the liar really is; you've already posted what you claim to be 3 reverts done by me, not 4. While you in fact have done 4 reverts in less than 2 hours, of MY work. My edits were a restoration of my own work that you had reverted. Your attempts to deceive the system, as you have done with your "Supreme Allah" username, by copying and pasting the old article instead of actually "undoing" will not fly by the admins. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

3 time you reverted the page, and 4 including the first time when you reverted the info I had added before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: I just noticed that it's been two days since this report was filed, and no one seems to have touched it. Is there any particular reason why? — HelloAnnyong 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NE2 reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: Both parties warned)

• Page: Illinois Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: NE2 (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:

Attempted Dispute resolution took place on user talk pages.

• Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk pages: ,

Despite my providing references that a regulatory branch of the US Federal Government recognizes IRYM as the reporting marks for this museum, NE2 removed this information 4 times within 24hrs. WuhWuzDat 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your references don't back up what you're saying. Nowhere do any of your references state that IRYM is the reporting mark, just a convenient abbreviation. It can't be the reporting mark, because a museum would have a "private mark" ending in X; marks ending in M are for common carriers. I also took it to WT:TWP and got no response. This is a case where obvious misinformation is being inserted into the article. --NE2 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have warned both editors and asked them to agree to stop edit warring. One editor is technically at 4RR and the other at three. It appears there are strong feelings on both sides. Under conditions like this, both parties are often blocked. Still, it is uncommon to sanction an editor who has publicly agreed to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do, in fact, have strong feelings about the insertion of misinformation, which I am 100% sure that this is. Is 3RR flawed in specialist topics? --NE2 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both warned. If either user continues to revert at Illinois Railway Museum they will be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. For example, ask at WP:3O for another view, or ask at WP:RSN to see if the references can properly support the conclusions that were drawn. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did ask at WT:TWP, which seems like the best place. --NE2 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Solas eile reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Killings at Coolacrease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Solas eile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: