Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 14 August 2011 (→User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Elvellian (Result: )). 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:FreemanSA reported by User:Objectively (Result: indefblocked as a sock)

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 10 August 2011

• 1st revert: 18:51, 10 August 2011 (Undid revision 444090704 by Kudzu1 (talk))
• 2nd revert: 02:09, 11 August 2011
• 3rd revert: 16:32, 11 August 2011 (Stop giving too much credibility ro rumors proved wrong)
• 4th revert: 19:22, 11 August 2011 (Undid revision 444295661 by Objectively (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:09, 11 August 2011 (→Khamis Gaddafi: keep reverting and it will get you blocked)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:12, 11 August 2011 (→Regarding the latest claims of Khamis' death: lets try to keep it neutral)

Comments:

The user has a clear side in the ongoing Libyan conflict, and is bringing their POV to this and a variety of articles on the subject. Other users have criticized the user with their reverting edits summaries: "Tisk tisk tisk, POV pushing in its rawest form", and "we compromise: keep tenses consistent, militia≠NLA, "hostile" is a contentious term, "totally" is **nowhere** in the source", and "based largely on UNconfirmed loyalists claims, Because most have not been partially confirmed. But then again, what should i expect from the libyan government's official mouthpiece on wikipedia. Go drink some nescafe." Looking for some assistance here!--Objectively (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Warned While you mentioned the concept of edit warring in one comment, no one ever explicitly explained WP:3RR. I'm going to do so now. If the user continues edit warring after a clear warning, you can let me know on my talk page and I'll block. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that helps, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:

• 5th revert: 12:55, 12 August 2011 (Undid revision 444317399 by Kudzu1 (talk) WP:NPOV)

They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. Additionally, the edit summary (listed below) has the same grammatical style of their previous comments.

• 6th revert: 17:50, 12 August 2011 (Precedent version more neutral and closer to reality as at the moment the appearance of Khamis show that the rumor was not founded.)

Thanks for your help! Objectively (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note Sockpuppetry case filed here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have now blocked FreemanSA (talk · contribs) and Archeopterix5 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as socks of Geromasis (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:William Bradshaw reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 21:07, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "re-adding information on personal life per consensus on talk page and BLP noticeboard")
2. 21:11, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444332999 by Off2riorob (talk) - you have stated on the talk page that you want someone to add the info other than you.")
3. 23:33, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "revert attribution of a quote given in 2011 to a source published in 2010. afterelton is a reliable source in general but it is OBVIOUSLY a reliable source for a quote that IT PUBLISHED.")
4. 23:36, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "added citation to afterelton back to the quote from afterelton")
5. 23:40, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444352565 by Off2riorob (talk) - reverted disruptive edit")
6. 00:23, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "given the long and documented history of actors careers suffering because of being gay (start with William Haines and go forward) lack of effect on evans is reasonable to include")

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• First, adding information to an article based on the consensus that I believed had developed on the talk page should not be held against me. The third edit was to repair an edit that incorrectly attributed a quote made in 2011 to a source published in 2010. I don't see how that can be held against me either. The final edit had nothing to do with the disputed source and was by the way made in violation of the consensus on the talk page. The other edits were related to an editor who has been disrupting this article for days and has been reported for doing so. I've apologized for being a hothead about the article and have voluntarily stepped away from it. I've offered to stop editing the article altogether except for vandalism if another editor agrees to do the same. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I originally blocked here for 24h; however, as has been pointed out and which I didn't realise at the time, the editor was not warned until after the 4th/5th/6th (depending on how many edits you believe are reverts) edit. (At least four are clear reverts). Therefore I have unblocked the user; however I have not declined this report, especially given that the user's reply to the 3RR warning was this ("Bullshit"). I am leaving this open for another admin to look at. I have cleared the autoblock. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) Recommend letting the associated ANI thread take its course and let user off with a warning considering he is new and likely didn't realize (and wasn't warned until late) that he ran afoul.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Declined Discussion currently underway at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User_dispute_assistance_request -FASTILY 18:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Luckyguyinoh reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 9 August
• 2nd revert: 9 August
• 3rd revert: 10 August
• 4th revert: 12 August
• 5th revert: 12 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:67.188.201.99 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )

Page: Barney Glaser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.188.201.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP has not responded to comment on article talk page, their talk page or on discussion on BLPN. All edits without edit summaries and seems purely interested in reverting information about a specific matter. The editor's history is telling. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 h This IP has a long history of removing material without explanation, and thus the next block should be longer. I'm watching the page, but the last drama evolved when I was offline. Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:IownKudzu reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Indef)

Page: Alliance of Yemeni Tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2011 Western Saharan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suzanne Bonamici (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002-present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brad Avakian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gdeim Izik protest camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IownKudzu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There's no point doing the whole diffs thing. There's no good place to start. It's blatantly obvious this user is a sockpuppet created to give me a hard time by reverting my edits and vandalizing a whole ton of pages on which I've been active. If someone can please take care of this, that'd be great. Thanks.

User blocked by Favonian. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Quigley (Result: Indef)

Page: Pure blood theory in Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kuebie (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: Also refused multiple suggestions to self-revert after 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Kuebie was blocked in May for move-warring on the same article, which was his fifth block for such behavior.

I reverted 3 three edits from you and Benlisquare. Check again. Instead of silencing me, maybe you can actually participate in the discussion about content of the article. Kuebie (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first revert was of Hkwon and 212.183.128.45, so you made four reverts in total. I've been trying to discuss the edits with you; coaxing you to start a discussion before reverting, but you refuse to self-revert and discuss and instead speak tendentiously about people "silencing" each other. I would have rather liked it if you didn't "silently" (without responding to my warnings or invitations to discussion) revert four different users four times. Quigley (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef. Kuebie has resumed edit-warring on the same dispute that led to his one-month block last May. It does not make sense to let him continue to edit this article when he repeatedly shows he is unwilling to accept consensus. He was previously indeffed back in February 2010 as 'a single purpose account dedicated to pushing an agenda', but the block was lifted. Nothing he has done since February 2010 seems to disprove that statement. His talk page is one long catalog of warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:76.186.76.133 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 24h)

Page: List of One Piece episodes (season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.186.76.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I tried to talk this user into adding reliable sources for the air dates on the IP's user page and posted a discussion on the article talk page. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to resolve the issue, the IP continued to add the unsourced air dates back into the article without explanation and has not responded to comment on article talk page and their talk page. I understand that edit warring is really disruptive to the project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note - A textbook example of edit-warring. This is an obvious SPA just reverting away (with no communication on their part - always a bad sign), and they need a timeout. Doc talk 04:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should we block this SPA if it is absolutely necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A block for edit-warring/failure to communicate before reverting should earn a 24-hour block so they don't keep at it in the short term (remember: preventative, not punitive ;P). This one doesn't seem too prolific under this IP, but it could certainly be a "castaway" from a vandal who hops around. I've seen a few of those. Anything similar to other articles come to mind? Doc talk 04:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One example of this IP hopper's target article is List of One Piece episodes (season 13), in which the ip in question restored the unsourced air dates before I moved the rest to the season 14 episode list in the series. If you check the user's contribution page, the IP has done the exact same edits on the season 13 episode list before this. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The differences can be found here and here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Omen1229 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 31h)

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

User being reported: Omen1229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 20:59, 11 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444261935 by Hobartimus Definitely related to the topic of the article. Please do not delete References. Matica slovenská is not fascist organization. Your original research?")
2. 08:08, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444378527 by Hobartimus Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
3. 08:16, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444405527 by Nmate Please discuss on the talk page first what is "far from NPOV". Please do not delete neutral sources, it shows extreme POV")
4. 13:00, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "MS is public-law cultural and scientific institution. Your Original research about fascism is not important here.")

• Diff of warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Within a period of 24 hour, Omen1229 made at least 4 reverts on the article Magyarization ,even though 3 users expressed concern that the source(s) he added to the article is not credible. There is an ongoing disussion on the talk page of the article to resolve this situation as linked above. The 4th revert was the restoration of the status of what was before the article was edited by User:CoolKoon -> --Nmate (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this user Omen1229's good faith at editing articles is questionable (to say at least), which's evidenced (amongst others) by his insistence on sources published my Matica Slovenská. This Matica Slovenská is an organization in Slovakia with spreading history falsifications as one of its main goals. The historians supported by MS are the strongest supporters of various Slovak historical myths (overused by politicians as well) and the books/papers published by MS are usually highly unscientific, lack any reliable sources (or they use other MS sources respectively i.e. the nationalist historians only quote each other) and usually reek of nationalism (especially strong anti-Hungarian sentiments). In short, sources published by MS are heavily POVish materials and try to serve rumors (and "common sense BS") as scientific data. Omen1229 however seems to dispute this, because either he fails to assume good faith, doesn't even pretend to present a NPOV, or neither. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. There is a suggestion that Omen129 is making edits from a Slovak nationalist point of view. A complaint was previously made at ANI about this editor having an anti-Hungarian user page, though the slur (if there is one) is not completely clear. I am also notifying Omer1229 of the possible sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:Davidandkimbenton (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Genital wart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We have had discussions on the talk page where user's asked specifically for more images which were less advanced. I provided a link to those as requested by other users. Images that were not found anywhere else or on the WIKI, I feel that these images add to the overall value of the page and have had other users thank me for adding them. Jmh649 has not read the entire discussion page and seen the request for more images, or just does not care.

Davidandkimbenton (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has repeated added links to his own website. If he would like to contribute to Misplaced Pages I would suggest that he add images to Wikimedia Commons. He would need to owns the copyright of course. Per WP:ELNO Misplaced Pages is not a collect of external links. I have suggested that the user start a discussion at WT:MED if he wishes a further opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Submitter is warned about spam. The four reverts he lists above extend back to 2010. The history shows he repeatedly tries to insert links to what appears to be his own website. As Jmh649 points out, the photos may be submitted to Commons, provided he owns the copyrights. Addition of a link to http://www.hpv-genitalwarts.com or to http://genitalwartshelp.com to medical articles is probably not going to be accepted and may lead to sanctions under our WP:SPAM policy. These web sites have no listed owner and there is no way to check the copyright of their images. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Edsonbradley reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Carey Mansion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edsonbradley (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:

Comments:
Edsonbradley apparently feels that he must "clear up the damaged reputation of the lovely Mrs. Herbert Shipman" by adding a large amount of unreferenced original research into the article, and has continued to edit-war to retain his version. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edsonbradley has admitted a conflict of interest (but still provides no sources) in this edit. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked for 24 hours by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Carey Mansion edits by User:Edsonbradley

User:Edsonbradley reported by User:Velella (Result: 24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 19:18, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444648294 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
2. 19:27, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
3. 19:30, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
4. 19:37, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")
5. 19:55, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Notes */")
6. 19:57, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 444676826 by MikeWazowski (talk)")

— Velella    20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have come into this as a by-stander editor - I have no knowledge of Carey Mansion or either editor involved. Unable to provide mediation on article talk page without some knowledge of facts. Original reverting editor simply sought supporting refs and notes that in edit summaries.

Already blocked by Dabomb87 (see above - I'm not sure why this was reported twice) Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:REGICUAZA reported by User:BalticPat22 (Result: Declined)

Page: Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: REGICUAZA (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:

I have sent a comment to the user's personal page and on the discussion board of the article, Mariah Carey. This user has had a history of vandalism and violating the three-revert rule. They have been warned before, but have made no visible effort to change. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 20:47, 13 August 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. Per WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." All 5 of those edits count as a single revert for counting towards 3RR. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Enok reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

Page: Amphibious assault ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

This is a report of sustained edit warring while an attempt is being made to resolve the matter on the article's talk page, and not a 3RR violation:

• 1st revert: (3 August - a source had been provided on the article's talk page in a discussion Enok was participating in)
• 2nd revert: (4 August)
• 3rd revert: (13 August)
• 4th revert: (13 August)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• (4 August)
• (13 August - note that this was before the most recent reversion)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long running discussions at: Talk:Amphibious assault ship#Italian amphibious assault ship and Talk:Amphibious assault ship#Hello, hello, hello involving multiple editors with no clear consensus. Despite this, Enok keeps on edit warring.
Comments:

As demonstrated by the article's history Enok has been edit warring over this article on several occasions over the last few weeks. He or she has also been repeatedly warned for other edit wars on their talk page in the past, and was blocked for this last September. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Elvellian (Result: )

Page: Death of Ian Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Whilst the user has not violated WP:3RR, I do nevertheless believe that her actions constitute edit warring for the following reasons.

A few months ago, a lengthy discussion took place in which it was felt by every editor who contributed, except SlimVirgin, that the lead of the Ian Tomlinson article was out of date and in need of improvement; although of course people disagreed on how this should best be done. Nevertheless, a consensus was reached and the new lead was inserted a couple of months ago without complaint.

A few days ago, a completely separate editor raised an issue with the new lead on the talk page, as a result of which SlimVirgin immediately reinserted the old lead, without waiting for comment from other editors and without justifying why that lead actually addresses the concerns the editor made. In my view, it does not address them at all. Also, I believe that the new lead could be tweaked quite easily to address the editor's concerns, and I set out my suggestion for this on the talk page.

I have since reverted SlimVirgin's insertion twice. Both times I explained my reasoning clearly on the talk page and invited her to explain hers. Given the lengthy discussion which did produce the new lead, I felt that it was right to ask her to explain her reasoning before effectively overruling every other editor who had previously contributed. However, she has reverted back both times without providing any explanation. I should also say that I have no intention of editing a third time in the immediate future because I think (probably rightly) that such action would be deemed edit warring on my part, despite my activity on the talk page.

Therefore, by inserting an old version of the lead that currently has no consensus - as evidenced by the discussion of a few months ago - and by repeatedly reverting to protect that version without providing any explanation on the talk page, despite being asked to do so by myself and another editor, I therefore believe that SlimVirgin's actions constitute edit warring.

On a technical note, I should also say that I have not attempted to formally warn SlimVirgin for edit warring; hence why I provided no link for that above. Apologies if I haven't followed strict protocol, but given that I have made two reversions myself, I felt that such action would probably not be helpful. Elvellian (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Elvellian, it appears that User:SlimVirgin actually wrote most of the Death of Ian Tomlinson article, and brought it to Featured article status, using a lede very similar to the current one. You, on the other hand, have used your Elvellian (talk · contribs) account almost exclusively for the purpose of edit-warring over the lede of the Death of Ian Tomlinson article, and removing warnings from your user page. Can you give a good reason why your account should not be blocked? Jayjg 19:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Haymaker (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Experienced editor who has been previously blocked for edit warring made 4 reverts in 10 hours. - Haymaker (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Our policy on edit warring states that "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." The article in question is a biography of a living person. An IP editor tried repeatedly to insert wild mischaracterizations of Bachmann's views on science, and Roscelese reverted those additions three times. That is not edit warring. The fourth reversion was a routine matter of no consequence. Especially because Roscelese clearly disagrees so strongly with Bachmann on so many issues, this editor should be praised rather than chastised for removing unsourced, defamatory additions to the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The EW page also states; "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". None of the above tripped the BLP exemption. Ros has been in this situation before and has been blocked for it before. If she had concerns she could have reported those other parties to AIV, asked for the page to be protected, reported the page to the BLP noticeboard, contacted an administrator or any combination of the above. Instead she made 4 reverts in 10 hours. She is old enough to know better. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How are these first three reverts "controversial" in any way? Please explain clearly why you believe that the first three reverts you listed were not valid exceptions to the 3RR rule. To me, they appear to be clear BLP violations and therefore unambiguous exceptions to that rule that show Roscelese's good faith in this particular matter. What am I misunderstanding? Cullen Let's discuss it 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, how do you know how old she is and why is her age relevant in any way? Cullen Let's discuss it 18:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an expression, she has edited long enough and gotten in trouble for this before, she knew better. The above do not constitute blatant vandalism, she should not have crossed the 3RR. - Haymaker (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) It can be controversial, but in this case it wasn't. I agree with Cullen that Roscelese "should be praised rather than chastised". And praising Roscelese surely implies upbraiding Haymaker, too. His and his buddies' forum shopping to make trouble for Roscelese has become harassment.. The next person who moves these baseless complaints to yet another board, or otherwise pesters Roscelese, will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

How is this forum shopping? - Haymaker (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is forum shopping because your complaint was utterly without merit, and pursued because of your obvious dislike of the editor. The first three edits listed were to revert the worst sort of vandalism of a BLP, namely, plausibly written lies that might actually fool some readers. She was right and you are 100% wrong here. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

1 - It is your opinion that this is without merit, I have seen plenty of editors blocked for similar behavior.

2 - Are you familiar with the definition of forum shopping? - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another frivolous attempt by this user, who's been harassing me since November, to get me blocked for enforcing BLP. See the similar report of a couple of weeks ago, when he reported me for removing a "hoaxes" category from the biography of Jamie Leigh Jones. I'm glad that everyone's been able to see this, too, for what it is. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Calling this the removal of a "BLP violation" is a real stretch. It's just personal commentary added by a user who agrees with and wants to elaborate on Bachmann's views. On the other hand, since most people wouldn't think of objecting to these edits if they were spaced out over the course of 48 hours, it's not appropriate to describe this as "edit warring". Quigley (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Knowzilla reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Declined)

Page: Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knowzilla (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: , and

Comments:

This is a one-sided edit "war." I.e. I add content, and the editor deletes it. They have effectively blocked me from editing the article. The editor has been warned twice in the last few weeks not to edit war. Been editing since 2007. – Lionel 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done this purposely to get me into trouble, you've been extremely uncivil in the past, and more and more it's beginning to look like you're stalking me to articles and purposely looking for fights. --~Knowzilla 10:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have been abrupt in informing you of WP policies. I'll try to be more gentle in the future. It may seem like I'm following you, but in virtually all of our encounters I was at the article first. That still does not excuse the fact that you were warned twice to stop edit warring and you continued to be disruptive. – Lionel 10:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Continuously you've followed me to articles and reverted my edits so many times and then placed unwarranted warnings on my talk page only to be informed by other editors that the warning was not warranted. Both of the edit warring warnings you've linked to are from you - no other editor. Finally 3 of the "reverts" you've linked to are not reverts at all, and the other 2 were due to unsourced material placed in the lead of the article which aren't mentioned in the rest of the article - a lead is meant to be a summary of the article. This entire episode looks like it was for the sole purpose of reporting me here. --~Knowzilla 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Declined for two reasons; one, not all of Knowzilla's edits are reverts, and those that are include removing unsourced content that you have added () which is completely correct; and secondly, since you've started a discussion here, it may be better for the article for you both to continue it on the talkpage, rather than going down the punitive route. I will watchlist the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, the addition you're referring to is an accurate summary of content found in the "International governments" section: "In December 2009, the neighbouring countries of Rwanda and Burundi also discussed legislation that would criminalise homosexuality." The other addition was also an accurate summation of content in the article. The edit summaries Knowzilla left were erroneous. He has a POV to push and he's edit warring and shutting down the article. – Lionel 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw this is not a BLP issue: you cannot edit war to remove unsourced content per WP:3RRNO – Lionel 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael Fontenot reported by andy (talk) (Result: )

Page: Twin paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 17:01, 12 August 2011 (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")
2. 03:35, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion")
3. 23:32, 13 August 2011 (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")
4. 03:46, 14 August 2011 (edit summary: "unwarranted deletion.")

• Diff of warning: here

—andy (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RonaldMerchant reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: RonaldMerchant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Keeps changing numbers of victims without supplying sources. He does not engage in talkpage discussion despite being twice told to do so (check 3RR warnings issued). Has also resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries Note harassing/nonsense notes on the talkpages of the editors who warned him: User talk:Seb az86556 and User talk:Dr.K..

Previous version reverted to:

Time reported: 11:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:52, 13 August 2011
2. Revision as of 00:43, 14 August 2011
3. Revision as of 06:49, 14 August 2011
4. Revision as of 07:03, 14 August 2011

• Diff of warning #1: by Dr.K.
• Diff of warning #2: by Seb az86556

Dr.K.  11:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Favonian. Take care. Dr.K.  11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring