Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Orangemarlin (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 28 June 2011 (→User:Orangemarlin reported by User:67.233.18.28 (Result: Reporter blocked 48h): There we go. Awaiting Lionel's response.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:WhereTimeStandsStill reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: No Violation)

Page: Three Cups of Tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WhereTimeStandsStill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

NOTE: While the editor did not revert a total of four times, his actions indicate to me that he is knowingly edit warring. Further, because of this addition to my talk page, his actions also indicate he is possibly attempting to game the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor was warned. Warning has since been removed by editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was also advised of policy regarding redlinks and warned not to edit war in edit summary made by me. User then proceeded to revert back again in edit warring fashion (and this time without an edit summary). His previous revert of the same stated, "if you want to create an article about David Relin, feel free to do so. Until then, piping should stay off".

Comments:

This user (who has edited as an IP and as User:Lgmagone) has a history of edit warring (as the IPs and as his previous user name) at all pages connected to the author Greg Mortenson. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

With this latest addition to my talk page (which he has been asked to stay off of previously) , I believe he has not only been trying to game the system, but has been intentionally engaging in baiting behavior. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice. LHB1239 reverted the page three times today. Not sure why I am the one accused of reverting when he has reverted more tha me. The first "revert" shown was the original edit, and the next two entries were my actual reverts.

No attempts were made to resolve this on the talk page. LHB1239 didn't discuss the change until after I made the final edit and he decided to take me to the 3R noticeboard. He also did not provide a link on my tak page with the actual complaint. I had to get the automated response from the bot to see the issue. WhereTimeStandsStill (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My intent in coming here was to report edit-warring behavior, not a violation of 3RR. Oh, well -- the behavior basically ceased, so I guess coming here was successful after all. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jamelia reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: 24h)

Page: Find Me (Sophia Montecarlo song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamelia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (A courtesy informing the user that they were close to violating 3RR), (The warning itself)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Note on the user's talk)

Comments: 4th and 5th reverts are not necessarily related to 1-3, but show a pattern of refusing to work with other editors or understand policies.

Strikerforce 15:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY 00:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Nightscream (Result: No Violation)

Page: Breen (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Δ claims that the image he keeps removing from the article does not have a fair-use rationale for that particular article. I have tried repeatedly to point out that this is false in my edit summaries , but as the aforementioned diffs of his reverts show, he simply ignores this, and repeats the same boilerplate warning over and over again in his edit summaries: "ll non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page; please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline for more information; one or more files removed due to missing rationale FAQ". I tried to ask him for clarification on his talk page:

Is there some particular reason you cannot simply clarify what the problem is with a given image, and why instead, you simply say the same thing over and over again? Did you not see my edit summary, in which I stated that the photo has a rationale for article in question? If this is wrong on my part, why not respond to explain why? Why do you make no attempt at clear communication with image uploaders? Can't you see how this can be seen as non-collaborative, and possibly disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And all he said in response was:

That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on. --ΔT 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the image's page here, it indeed has a rationale, which is specifically indicated for the Breen article. Because of this, I naturally reverted his removal of the image from the Breen article twice, and as a result, User:Δ has warned me that I am "edit warring". Keep in mind that good-faith reversions of unambigous policy violations, such as removing content without a valid rationale on the part of users who refuse to discuss the matter with others is not a 3RR violation. By contrast, User:Δ's three-time reversion, which he has engaged in without responding clearly and openly to discussion, most certainly is, since his statement that the image lacks a rationale for that article is false.

Keep in mind that User:Δ has a habit of deleting images from articles without clear attempts to discuss the matte or respond to queries from uploaders, templating regulars (which many in the community feel is wrong), and has a history of being brought to ANI for the tendentious manner in which he approaches enforcing NFCC, which has included having edit restrictions imposed on him.

Another user stated: "SOmeone, after Delta's removal, your revert, and his rerevert, fixed the image to make it say "Breen (Star Trek)" correctly. the wikilink to the Breen article was outdated, due to a previous page move. I don't know if this is indeed User:Δ's rationale, since he refuses to speak. If so, he needs to be cautioned, not only about his 3RR violations, but because he refused to speak with clarity about the situation, and presumed to accuse someone else of 3RR, simply because the name of an article had changed, and made the wikilink in the rationale on the image's page out of date. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just a few notes, WP:3RR exempts WP:NFCC enforcement from the policy. At the time of my removal the file did not have a vaild rationale for its usage see at time of removal. In my edit summary I link to two different pages a guideline on how to write rationales and a FAQ both of those and WP:NFCC#10c require the exact name of the article where the file is being used included in the rationale which it wasnt in this case. Nightscream is trying to make a point to get me blocked against policy due to their recent block due to their breach of WP:CIVIL and NAP directed at myself and others enforcing the NFCC. I think a good {{trout}} headed their way should solve this. ΔT 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One more time: Why did you not tell me, even when I asked, where the problem was? Those pages you linked to are filled with LOTS of different criteria for proper rationales. How am I supposed to know which criterion was wrong?

You are not exempt from edit warring if you refuse to speak to the other user. I tried to open a dialogue with you, and you repeatedly refused to give me a straight answer as to what was wrong with the rationale, and that's a fact, as shown by the article's edit history and my attempts at discussion on your talk page, where all you would say was "That is where you are wrong, it does not have a rationale for where it is being used on." You are clearly not interested in working with others on this project, preferring to self-righteously delete material so you can sit back and watch others scramble as they try to preserve their work. You have a history of this sort of behavior, and your edit warring with me over this is clearly motivated by a personal grudge over the previous matter with templating regulars. Nightscream (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you actually read them instead of saying TL;DR Misplaced Pages:Fixing_non-free_image_problems#LINKCORRECT is exactly what happened in your case. The street works both ways, if you refuse to read the information that I provide or fail to understand the problem ask, dont ingore the issue edit war and re-insert files against policy. ΔT 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While the image did technically have an invalid rationale, in that it linked to Breen instead of Breen (Star Trek), a much better solution would have been to just point the link to the right article, rather then remove the image from the article that would fit with the NFCC rationale. That said, given the NFCC exception to edit warring, given even without the exception there wasn't a 3rr violation here, and finally given that both sides now accept the inclusion of the image after the rationale was fixed, does any action really need to be taken here? Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• No violation At the time, the file unambiguously failed the NFCC, and so its removal was exempt from the 3RR anyway. Whether or not Delta could have been more responsive is another matter, but it is clear that his edit summary did provide all necessary information. As everyone is now happy with the result, there does not need to be any action taken here. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think Delta has been guilty of edit-warring here. Reversion should be the last resort, not the first resort. At the bottom of this was something that was at most a technical failing -- linking to a dab page, rather than the actual use page. There was a clear failure to communicate that simple information to Nightscream here. Failing to communicate, and instead merely repeating and re-repeating removal with an unhelpfully unspecific generic edit-summary falls well short of the behaviour we expect here. We expect editors to act like human beings here, not automata. Even worse is the apparent belief, after the event, that because there was a technical failing in the rationale, this kind of unhelpful minimally-communicative behaviour is acceptable. Masem has previously suggested that Delta would benefit from a spell of being placed on 1RR for image work, to try to instill a habit of appropriately interactive discussion and communication that at the moment appears to be lacking. I can only see this most recent occurrence as adding further weight to the sense in that suggestion. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  It wasnt a failure to communicate, but rather a failure to understand on the part of Nightscream. ΔT 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Jheald, by saying that there was no violation, I do not mean to say that the situation was handled perfectly- it probably wasn't. However, clearly, Delta did not break the 3RR. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  3 reverts is not an entitlement. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring -- edit warring is a pattern of behaviour and an attitude.

  What worries me most here is that Delta still doesn't appear to perceive that there has been any problem. Jumping to re-revert may be necessary as a last resort for unquestioned breaches of NFCC in the face of clear and wilful inappropriate behaviour. Instead what we have here was an accidental technical breach by an editor of good standing and good faith who, given only Delta's unspecifically generic edit summary to go on, was (as Delta notes above) unable to understand what the problem was that Delta had picked up with the image. When that happens, it is not acceptable simply to reiterate the exact same automated terse, unhelpfully unspecific, utterly generic edit summary, like talking louder to a foreigner.

  The fact that Delta jumps straight to the path of reversion and confrontation, rather than communication, and thinks even in retrospect that that is perfectly appropriate behaviour, shows that there is an entrenched behavioural problem here. I don't know what the answer is; but I do think Masem's suggestion of a spell of 1RR parole, initially for a short fixed period, but then repeated and extended if necessary, may be a good one and may be worth some serious consideration. Jheald (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Delta was correct to remove the image, but on the second or third revert when the other editor clearly didn't understand the issue, it wouldn't have killed to write "the FUR is for Breen, not Breen (Star Trek) so needs to be adjusted"; linking to rules doesn't necessarily aid an editor in identifying the problem. Clearly no action should be taken against delta as there was no 3RR violation, but hopefully he will see he could have been a bit more helpful in this case which would have been in the best interests of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jheald, Nightscream, Betty Logan: Delta removes an image with a long edit summary - the edit summary points to several policies/guidelines/essays. I am sorry, if I see someone remove something with a long edit-summary, then my first thought would be 'there is something wrong' - I could have a look, and if I did not understand or consider that everything is actually correct, I maybe would revert - then the same edit is performed again - I don't know about you guys, but to me that would be reason to consider the possibility that there actually is something wrong .. maybe that image does have a problem there, but I don't understand. What would I do .. go to the editor: 'I don't understand what you mean, what exactly is the problem?' Would I revert: NO, because maybe the other editor sees something I do not see. People, we are here looking at a problem which is under a foundation resolution - this is not just removing unsourced information (Nightscream: diff, - all you are doing there is bringing pages in line with policy - your edit summary is similar to ∆'s - pointing to policies and guidelines, what, I would argue that ∆'s "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page .." is more explaining the problem). Not understanding the problem with some edit is never a reason to edit war about it. Here there is, at the time of edit, a proper link to the article missing in the rationale, something that is relatively easy to fix (especially for an editor knowledgeable in the subject). Can we next time first ask ∆ (or other editors) what is the problem - we know that edit-summaries are not the best way of communicating, but repeatedly reverting an editor who tries to explain (and the problem is exactly "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - it may be as minor as a typo, but most cases are less obvious than that) - do we really continuously have to assume that ∆ (or I, for that matter) is wrong in their removals, or can we also assume that maybe there is something wrong with the display of the image, and that maybe something needs fixing. --Dirk Beetstra 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I, maybe cynically or sarcastically, remarked on my talkpage in a similar discussion:

I've got another one: diff .. how are we to know that the image contains Thomas Clarkson, and not Thomas Clarkson .. It is simple to solve for those that know, but for me? But it should be clear to me that this logo is for IBM and not for IBM, and it is clear that this logo is for DSM (or is it for DSM, no, wait, it is for DSM. Nooo .. I got it .. it is for the DSM - oops, no, that one does not exist anymore .. then it must be depicting the DSM .. you've got me here. I am at a loss, obviously I get it all wrong (but these are not non-free logo's anyway, what am I rambling about?)).

- Yes, there are blatantly obvious mistakes sometimes, but often the mistakes are not that obvious - if an image get removed with "All non-free files used on this page must have a valid and specific rationale for use on this page" - then there may be something wrong like this, it is, often, obvious to 'you' (i.e., the editor knowledgeable on the subject), but not to us. Still - the rationale is not valid, a requirement per a Foundation Resolution. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Just as a historical aside, note that Kat Walsh clarified here in August 2007 that the Foundation requires that a rationale has to *exist* if NFC is to be used (ie there has to be an acceptable reason for it, in general terms). It is not, she says, a Foundation requirement that the rationale be *written down*. That is a requirement that has been made by en-wiki, so something that both the substance and enforcement of are for the en-wiki to set the terms of. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• This strikes me as something Delta could have avoided, as the image rationale pointed to a dab page, and the image was used on a page linked from that dab page, the error should have been obvious, and Delta would have found fixing it easier than engaging in this skirmish. That said, the image page is fixed, and the matter is now resolved, leaving no action necessary from this forum. As a general suggestion, time to close the book on this one, though I'm also suggesting Delta be slightly more proactive in fixing similar issues in the future. Courcelles 14:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Courcelles, this is not something that Delta could have avoided - Example: How was Delta to know that this image contains Thomas Clarkson, and not Thomas Clarkson (I do not know the guy, and I do not expect Delta to know (he may), or that this DSM logo is for DSM, DSM, DSM, the DSM or the DSM. It may be obvious here (though, it might have been someone from Bregna .. I'm not knowledgeable on Star trek nor on Aeon Flux), it needs someone knowledgeable on the subject, otherwise mistakes will be made. And note, this has not been solved in 4 years since the beginning of the resolution - yet everyone thinks it is easy to solve. It is not. --Dirk Beetstra 15:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a point much earlier, IMHO, just pointing to an entire policy page as the justification to delete/revert is bogus, more so on a third time for the same deletion. (like saying "my reason for deletion is you should look through the whole policy and see if you can find something that you violated") IMHO such does not constitute communication of the reason for the deletion/reversion, doubly so on the third time. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000 - Delta states "one or more files removed due to missing rationale" - you don't even have to go to the policy to see what was wrong, there was a rationale missing. --Dirk Beetstra 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this, North8000: "Revert unsourced addition re living person, also that (gay activist) material is not even mentioned in the person's article" - how is someone even to know in which policy to look (you did not notify the editor who inserted it, nor started a thread on the talkpage

- I am at a loss here)? --Dirk Beetstra 15:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(added later)Dirk, you apparently brought up that tangent (a reversion that I did) to imply that I am being inconsistent, so I must address it. This was an edit by an IP whose entire talk page history consists of one recent vandalism warning. To a living person's name (in an article on a city) they added (unsourced) that the living person is a gay activist. I went and searched the entire article on that person and there was no mention of such. So I reverted it (once) and left the above notice. I felt that that was enough to make it no-brainer obvious, and went above the call of duty regarding deliberation on the revert, but would have been and am happy to discuss it in more detail if poster felt otherwise. And your implication that I was wrong in not notifying the poster or starting a discussion in this case (on this one reversion) is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, looking at the image, it looked like this when it was uploaded. The rationale has not changed, to present, when someone fixed the dab link in the rationale template. When a FUR links to a dab page, and the image is used on one of the pages linked from the dab, it ought to be fairly simple for a patroller to figure the situation out. This was doubly simple in this case, given the description mentioned Star Trek. Courcelles 15:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, Courcelles, it would need research, and most cases are less obvious. You really expect that Delta spends minutes on each removal, figuring out on most that he can't solve it, while for all of the removals, someone knowledgeable can solve it in seconds? And if most are so simple, here is a list of the cases without rationale. --Dirk Beetstra 15:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@Courcelles; there's a presumption in the idea that NFCC patrollers should fix rationales to point to where an image is used that where the image is used is in (a) correct in its placement on that article and (b) the rationale is appropriate for that use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get back to the issues here. Nightscream reverted with the message: "Revert. There is indeed a rationale on the image's page." Given that Nightscream has given that as his understanding, it is appropriate for Delta to investigate, and explain to Nightscream why he may have been mistaken. That is the kind of collaborative, collegiate editing that is required, particularly of people who have taken on an "enforcement" mission. Happening (in this case) to be technically right on policy is not a substitute for communication; going straight to reverting (twice) with no new information given or attempt at engagement is not acceptable. It is edit-warring; it is damaging to the wiki and its community; and it is behaviour that needs to be changed -- which in my view will require some sort of sanction. Jheald (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You're upset with Δ for not communicating to Nightscream why he was mistaken. It's been pointed out to you above that the edit summaries were explicit and detailed. Further, you take Δ to task for not doing something beyond edit summaries, yet don't take Nightscream to task for doing the exact same thing; he made no effort to communicate with Δ before his second revert. He just chose to continue the edit war. Collaborative, collegiate editing indeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No. I take Delta to task because his second and third edit summaries contained no more detailed information than his first one; whereas Nightscream's second summary , which went in before Delta's third, was more detailed and did exactly pinpoint the reason for Nightscream's confusion. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So Δ's edit summary pinpoints the exact problem and doesn't explain further. Nightscream's pinpoint the exact problem and doesn't explain further. Seems equal to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No. Delta did not "pinpoint" the exact problem. The exact problem was that the image had a rationale, but due to page moves it now pointed to the wrong page. Delta did not "pinpoint" that, given Nightscream's clearly-expressed and honest confusion. Instead, Delta reverted giving no more information than before, adding nothing to the utterly generic "missing FUR" message he had already given. Delta preferred to revert rather than to communicate, and that is edit-warring. Jheald (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You're trying to establish a difference between Nightscream's pattern of edits and Δ's. I'm not seeing it. Nightscream's second revert, while longer, expresses the same as the first. If you're wanting to censure Δ for edit warring here, I think you need to censure Nightscream as well. He's just as guilty of edit warring without further communication. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure / Resolution (or not)

Let's have a proper close here, from an uninvolved admin -- ie someone that isn't an active image patroller, and isn't even potentially going to be coloured by any conceiveable potential agenda and interpretation of NFC of their own.

J.Milburn is a fine editor and admin, but because he has a particularly clearly defined and agressive stance on NFC questions, he is not the best person to close this discussion, if that close is to be recognised as appropriate by all participants. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No violation since NFCC image reversions are exempt from the three-revert rule per WP:3RRNO. Delta could be more helpful in dealing with users who do not understand why there is no valid rationale for the image to appear in an article, but cannot be blocked for edit warring. Furthermore, there appeared to be only two reversions by Delta (see this history). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Am I the only one concerned about user delta's username, in that it maybe hard for others to search or find him/her as delta is not a standard keyboard character (in co-ordinance with WP:USERNAME?). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): "There is no requirement that usernames be in English. Furthermore, contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet"_(Upol). You prefer, it be easier to type ?
Like yours ? - Mlpearc powwow 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Moni3 reported by Jimjilin 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)}}]] (Result:Protected)

Page: Harvey Milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is my first time reporting, please forgive any errors I made have made in filling out this report. I made this report because I think the truth should not be covered up. I think Moni does not support Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality.

Here's my reply to Moni3's criticism. My replies are in bold.: Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. Slanting information?! How can the truth slant information! The source says Jack Galen McKinley was 16! The source is accepted elsewhere in the article. Was McKinley 16 - true or false? The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer Tom O'Horgan. Doesn't alter McKinley's age lol + * Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. But their ages are discussed. Moreover the ages of other individuals: Dan White and Moscone, are mentioned. How can you possibly object to mentioning McKinley's age when including the ages of these other individuals has been considered acceptable?! No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. Did you delete a fact supported by what has been considered an acceptable source, yes or no? How is that not censorship?Jimjilin (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected You're both engaging in an edit war. Something about this feels like a simple misunderstanding, and I've locked the page for a few days to let you slow down and talk, rather than hand out blocks. I'll tell you this, the discussion needs to be about the article content, not an insinuation that the other party has ulterior motives. Courcelles 14:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Str1977 reported by User:MastCell (Result: no action)

Page: Abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 26 June 2011

Abortion (and related articles) are subject to 1RR (see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Abortion/Log), so this is actually a 1RR violation.

• 1st revert: 08:55, 27 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 11:41, 27 June 2011 (undoes immediately preceding edit)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 11:06, 27 June 2011, prior to 2nd revert. The 1RR is also referenced explicitly in the abortion page editnotice.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion at Talk:Abortion, to which Str1977 (talk · contribs) has not contributed in the past 10 days.

Comments:
This article is not in the calmest of states at present, with an epidemic of reverting without discussion, and so I think 1RR violations need to be handled firmly. MastCell  17:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I may have also broken 1RR at some point today or yesterday. If the reviewing administrator determines that is the case and decides it would be appropriate to block me, then so be it. NW (Talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not know of any 1RR restriction or even that such a thing existed in regard to articles (as opposed to editors). I suppose it is an innovation. And despite a link to a supposed "warning" no one informed me of such a rule which I would have been mindful of had I known about it.

I and others have actually contributed to discussions in the past and as late as last week. Though I couldn't do that right now due to time constraints, others have making the point I agree with. Discussions on talk do not warrant overturning the previous consensus which I merely restored. Also my last edits were not reverts but ultimately the response to the clarification tag I myself placed earlier (which was later simply removed by another editor). Str1977 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

•  No action - page has already been protected. Pardon my crass use of the English language, but this page is a bit of a clusterfuck at the moment, and blocking at this point will not help deter any future behavior or alleviate the current situation, in my judgment. Magog the Ogre (talk)

User:120.18.224.12 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: Pages protected )

Page: User talk:Orangemarlin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · 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: It's my talk page, and it's just vandalism. No discussion required.

Comments: Edit warring on other articles too.

• Page protected NW (Talk) 18:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin reported by User:67.233.18.28 (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)

User:Orangemarlin has violated the general sanctions that have been imposed on this article. Orangemarlin has committed vandalism and is edit warring by reverting the lede to include language that does not enjoy consensus and has been rejected for years by the consensus of editors. The most recent reversion was 24 hours and 3 minutes after his last reversion. Such behavior is both tendentious editing and a violation of the 1RR rule that applies to this article ("subject to 1RR (1 revert per 24 hours per user per page)"). In addition, because on June 21 OrangeMarlin warned another editor that abortion articles are subject to the 1RR rule and is therefore aware of that 1RR rule, Orangemarlin has breached 1RR after knowing that the topic is subject to 1RR, and therfore Orangemarlin has violated the formal requirement to discuss any reversions made on pages in the topic on the abortion talk page. The following is an inclusive chronology of all editing done by OrangeMarlin to Abortion and to Talk:Abortion:

• OM1. Talk:Abortion 14:37, 23 June 2011 Asked a question to a poll response.
• OM2. Abortion 17:07, 26 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
• OM3. Talk:Abortion 20:47, 26 June 2011 Left comment that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM4. Talk:Abortion 01:54, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM5. Talk:Abortion 03:00, 27 June 2011 Made housekeeping edit that did not discuss his intent to change the lead.
• OM6. Abortion 17:10, 27 June 2011 Removed "death" from lede and replaced with "viable".
• OM7. Talk:Abortion 19:45, 27 June 2011 As of this date and time OrangeMarlin had left no comment about his edit to the lede.
• OM8. Talk:abortion 20:27, 27 June 2011 Only comment after editing lede was "Jesus fucking Christ, my left nutsack is a bit itchy"

What is more, OrangeMarlin has been disruptive in this topic area by engaging in that same excessively uncivil personal attack ("My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary") against another editor. The special sanctions that apply the abortion article allow an administrator to impose actions for edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, 1RR and not using the talk page when editing the article. Therefore I ask that an administrator impose extraordinary sanctions on User:Orangemarlin.

67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's disruptive behavior actually resulted in the article being frozen.67.233.18.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Responses:

1. The article was protected for....I don't know why, but admins tend to be careful. So last comment is really a personal attack.
2. 1RR restriction not violated. One edit per 24 hour period was strictly followed. Two edits over a bunch of days is hardly a violation of either the letter or spirit of 1RR.
3. Talk pages edits don't count. Rather lame of the IP to include them. I consider that a personal attack.

We're done here. IP should be blocked for....wait for it....being an annoyance. Oh yeah, we don't block for annoyances. LOL. OrangeMarlin 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) controversially reverted the lede sentence twice within 24 hours and 3 minutes. The edit did not enjoy consensus support. Both reversions were made with no discussion on the talk page from Orangmarlin that the change was being made. The chronology of the article and talk page verifies these assertions to be facts. Making controversial reverts within 24 hours and 3 minutes back to back is likely a vioaltion of 1RR. The abortion sanctions also require a user to discuss any edits, which Orangemarlin did not do. It is clear that Orangmarlin knew of the special 1RR sanctions because Orangmarlin warned another editor about them several days earlier. Orangemarlin also uses vulgar insulting language in making personal attacks and is by and large uncivil if another editor's diagreement is sensed. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• 67.233.18.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours for disruption; he seems to be on a mission and did not learn from his first (short) block. People need some time off. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Orange's 2nd revert of "death" 3 min past the cutoff for 1RR appears to be gaming the system. On any other article no big deal. But on this article, in the middle of discussion of this very topic, is extremely bad faith. It's hard to fathom a scenario where Orange would not be blocked. – Lionel 02:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really. The page was protected at the time this report was made. Typically, admins don't block for edit-warring after a page is already protected, because it would be purely punitive rather than preventive and thus against the blocking policy. MastCell  03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I sit around wasting my fucking time waiting for the time to expire. Good faith would assume that my hours of editing are structured. Lionel, you may apologize for your bogus and bullshit accusation on my page. I may accept it. I may delete it with all prejudice. OrangeMarlin 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin - please apologize for speaking to another editor that way. Responding to an accusation of bad faith with a more blistering personal attack is unacceptable. That is two personal attacks I see of yours on this page (one is simply quoted above), and I don't care if they were "justified" (they weren't); incivility is not acceptable". Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. OrangeMarlin 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Boffo (Result: both blocked)

Page: Éowyn (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&oldid=436305634

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436351015&oldid=436305634
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436597237&oldid=436593795
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436598381&oldid=436598094
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436598753&oldid=436598469

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWalter_G%C3%B6rlitz&action=historysubmit&diff=436594527&oldid=436591855

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3A%C3%89owyn_%28band%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436602239&oldid=436598193

Comments:

• Comment – There appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. + Crashdoom 01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, I am simply applying WP:ELNO policy. The page has been raised at WP:ELN. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ELNO policy is not an exception to the 3rr rule. Looks like User:Boffo is also in violation. Monty₈₄₅ 02:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

True. Also, the "warning" edit was made and then I made no further edits to the article, then other edit warring editor reported to avoid being reported here. Funny. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I put it back to before their reverting, so the dispute could be settled not while their edit sat as current. --Boffo (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Behavior was unacceptable on the part of all users, both who were aware of the edit warring rules and restrictions, and could have looked at policy at any time to decide whether continuing to edit was OK. I've kept the blocks relatively short in the spirit of allowing everyone to continue to come to an agreement after the blocks are over. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring