Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive102

• Page: Michael Ben-Ari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mashkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

Previous identical reverts:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [10]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11].
• Previous attempt to generate improvement that user had deleted: [12]
• User:Mashkin's talk page before self-revert documenting a history of edit wars and problematic behaviou: [13]

Editing with Mashkin is very frustrating. 'Deletionist' is too respectful a way to describe behaviour of edits that he disagrees with. He has a history of edit wars, almost 3rr and 3rr, and a recent 48 hour block after which he returned to the Michael Ben-Ari page. Technically, he did not break 3rr this time, but his behaviour and attitude has not changed and even perhaps continues in violating BLP. On the Member of Knesset Michael Ben-Ari page, there are two issues he cannot accept despite sources being provided: A) that Ben Ari is a rabbi (RS source provided using the term though many 'partisan' sources are available on the net referring to him as a rabbi) and B) that an 'investigation' has been opened and this is the wording of the source from a RS in English [14] not something I made up. The user merely tries to defend himself by bringing OR (why this army department does not investigate anything) in defense of his deletes and claims non-RS even though this media organization is in fact an accredited body and widely referenced. There is never an attempt to compromise or suggest alternate wording. The user is set on making sure that this Member of Knesset's page not be improved. The subject of the article is not in the scope of the user's interest and his continued 'struggle for justice' (if I try to AGF) here is disturbing..--Shuki (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• 
  WP:BLP in the future. Shell ^babelfish
  02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lanternix (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: [15]

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Muhammad#Young

Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected Shell ^babelfish 02:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Manfred von Richthofen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 74.248.89.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: claim of massive link cleanup
• 2nd revert: took concern to talk page
• 3rd revert: again reverted by another editor
• 4th revert: asked to again take it to talk page as there was no consensus
• 5th revert: again asked to go to talk page
• 6th revert: still removing content without discussion
• 7th revert: now claiming vandalism, still not using talk page

Talk page cautions:

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: non-response to article talk page other than one statement which appears to be a "boiler plate", no other communication other than edit comments

after continued edit warring, caution sent to user talk page.

This editor has a lengthy history of crusading against linkspam which is entirely commendable, however, the actions taken on one particular article have brought the editor into conflict with a number of other editors more actively involved in the development of the article. Other than edit comments and one "boilerplate statement" that did not deal with concerns that were raised, there does not appear to be consensus for the constant deletions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Sigh. This isn't 3RR because of the times. I was going to issue a stern warning about misusing vandalism in edit summaries, but I see you've made exactly the same mistake on the anons talk page. This is a difference of opinion as to content, not vandalism by either side. However removing linkspam - all new links must be addressed and approved on discussion page is clearly wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's blatant linkspam. Commercial spam links to online stores, a few MFA sites (Made for Adsense) to generate ad revenue, and most of those links don't even point to content specifically about the Red Baron. The other links removed should be moved to wiki.de and wiki.pl because they aren't in english. I know linkspam when I see it, Wikipedia is not a link repository. External links should add to the encyclopedic value of the article itself, and I intend to remove blatant spam links. 74.248.89.30 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Istanbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry for not strictly sticking to the established format, but I'm not sure who is to blame here, who is right, who is wrong and which specific policy should apply.

Basically since about 28 May, most of the edits to the Istanbul article seem to be centred around adding photos (by an editor), then removing (by another), then re-adding, then removing, etc. etc. etc. (ad nauseum) There seem to be more than two users involved.

This contant 'yo-yo'ing makes it very difficult for any other editors to come in and make useful contributions without getting involved.

This should be discussed on talk page, with info on which policy or policies are applicable and some sort of consensus on amount of photos, which photos stay and which go.

Some admin help here would be appreciated. Marek.69 ^talk 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - User:Jarvis76 and User:El Greco appear to be the main participants in the edit war. Shell ^babelfish 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Bombing of Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RutgerH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison: this revision.

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

1. 17:07, 17 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Signficance in context")
2. 06:31, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 297033896 by Bidgee (talk
   )")
3. 07:50, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 297114776 by Bidgee (talk
   ) You don't own this article")
4. 08:26, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 297118847 by Bidgee (talk
   )Get a consensus for revert or take action as suggested")

• Diff of warning: here

The user refuses to keep the long standing version by adding what they want and refuse to stop reverting and keep discussing[21]. The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me[22].

—Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:YellowMonkey. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the above discussion, Bidgee complained: The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me. I don't consider Rutger's comment to Bidgee to be any kind of a threat: Stop being petty and don't think administrators won't take the time to properly review the situation before taking action. (I am commenting here because I received an email on this subject). EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [23] [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

This editer has repeatedly deleted the edits from 3 different contributers, basically taking out anything that mentions that physical therapists (or the more general non physicians) take care in clinical situations to not give patients the impression they are physicians. He also refuses to allow in any information that doesn't relate to physical therapists, even though its not a physical therapist page and the page discusses multiple professionals. First he just reverted pages (as you can see from first link, the page's edit history) which I restored, then to not leave a revert history on the edit history he simply edited the page to change it to the same thing, over and over, and refused to accept others' offer to compromise...he seems intent on blocking any progress on this page, even removing references that are linked to the new content. I attempted to rewrite things and add references thinking that would please him, but that was just deleted too. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish
  02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought edit warring also constituted a violation? Fuzbaby (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case it appears that there is a dispute over content that involves multiple editors. The editor you reported appears to have tried several different things to resolve this dispute and is using the talk page; that's not edit warring in my book. Btw one of your links (the fourth) isn't a diff. Shell ^babelfish 02:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed it; its the same as the last diff just the second time he blanked it. I suppose I could keep trying to restore the page once a day and leave more on the talk page, but I think its doubtful he will not revert anything that has references to clinical use of titles. Thank you for the advice. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you could cease the back and forth on the article and instead focus on finding a consensus on the talk page. If the small group of editors there can't find a solution, I would suggest involving the wider community through an

WP:RFC or something similar. Shell ^babelfish

03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Will have to I guess, if you didn't look, we've alread tried the talk page. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone reads these much after, but a similar pattern is happening on another page [[32]] Fuzbaby (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Wade Rathke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 75.57.213.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Pecker Checker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [33] (This was the first introduction of content in violation of
  WP:BLP
  )

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

• Diff of 3RR warning: No formal warning given to this SPA sock of a probable banned user; fully aware of Wikipedia policies (see below).

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

This IP editor continually re-inserts the same controversial content into a

: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." - unless an administrator here wishes to explain why I should not do so. Semi-protection of the article is also warranted, as evidenced by the recent disruptive edits and vandalism by IPs and new SPA accounts.

(Note: At the risk of convoluting this matter, I strongly believe User:Pecker Checker = User:75.57.213.195 since they both are SPAs with the sole purpose of introducing this small bit of content into this article. Pecker Checker stopped editing after he was caught lying about his source.) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am User:Pecker Checker, I forgot my password, my apologies. Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring. If I am to be sanctioned for this, he should be sanctioned more severely. It would also appear that Xenophrenic is looking ot have the article place under semi-protection just as a way to enforce is edits. -PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The only misrepresentation has been your sourcing, and the discussion page reflects that. Every editor to comment has expressed concerns with your insertion. An additional level of care must be taken when editing BLPs. I'm requesting that an admin take a little additional time to look into this matter in more detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true in the slightest, you seem to be the only one bothered by the sourcing as the discussion page indicates. I would invite any adminstrator to verify this. 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24h for

WP:BLPN to get more opinions. Who is the 'probable banned user?' EdJohnston (talk

) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [39]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

(these June 20 reverts are just the latest in a dispute of Brews ohare against the other editors, mostly me and Srleffler)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Actually, most of the talk page is about this dispute, which started when Brews showed up on the page on June 10. I've reverted almost everything he's done, but have kept a few bits and added a lot of sources, as Srleffler and I have tried to talk him into being reasonable. But he just keeps getting worse, and now even does a 4th revert today after we both warned him. He has taken the 7 KB article up to 20 KB by adding material that no other editor agrees is sensible, and that is mostly unsupported by sources or irrelevant to the topic; when he's challenged, he just adds more irrelevant detail and more irrelevant sources.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed one: [46]. Brews was already at four reverts when I warned him, and proceeded to add a fifth.--Srleffler (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Response: Many of these reversions did involve added sources and revisions, and so are not strictly reversions. They were made by editing the reversion in the text editor before doing the reversion, which may disguise their nature. That was necessary as the entire section and all subsections were deleted, leaving nothing in the article available for more limited editing. These changes never satisfied Dicklyon and Srleffler, who rather than propose sensible changes or deleting portions, simply made global deletions of entire sections I worked on, regardless of their relevance to the dispute, accompanied by derogatory remarks instead of commentary. Material I proposed for RfC was summarily deleted within hours, leaving no time for comments to arrive. References provided to support argument were not taken seriously unless they contained the word "wavelength' explicitly, even when the argument was of a background nature and had not yet reached the implications for "wavelength". Responses to their nitpicking (in the form of espousing specious innocence about basic facts) are categorized as "irrelevant detail", and result in deletion of entire sections. I have decided that I cannot spend any more effort making figures, finding sources, and rewriting text in this environment. I am one contributor against two others exercising rigid rejection regardless of content. Of course, this is just my rationale. However, I believe their actions are a high handed power-trip, and have little to do with improving the article. The material I wished to add to the article and repeatedly deleted by Dicklyon and Srleffler may be found at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - User:Brews ohare blocked 24 hours. I consider his actions to be a form of disruptive editing, since he is edit-warring to add apparently non-standard material into a physics article about a well-known topic. Changes of this magnitude require consensus, and I don't see him waiting to persuade the other editors. I am warning Dicklyon that his own repeated removal of Brews ohare's material risks being challenged. He has the option of posting the matter on a physics noticeboard to get wider attention. Admins who think that the actions of other participants may require blocks can go ahead and do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice; where can I find this physics noticeboard? So far I'm unable to locate it. By the way, I did incorporate what I could of Brews's material over the last week and a half, but it wasn't much (what he added was much, but what was relevant and verifiable was little). Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50] – this one included the use of a vandalism tag when it wasn’t just vandalism that Xenophrenic was undoing
• 4th revert: [51]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring.75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to Admin: This is a retaliatory report submission. Please see related case, 2 entries above this one, and handle both at the same time. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action, per report above. If anyone thinks there are major BLP issues here, please post at

WP:BLPN to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Disembrangler

(Result: 48h)

• Page: Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [53]

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57]

• 3RR noted on talk page prior to fourth revert [58]; user had the cheek to claim a vandalism exemption (been around long enough to certainly know that couldn't be applied)

• Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Articles should match the source

User has previously been blocked for edit warring.

) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ...and admonished for edit warring and limited to one revert per week on Obama-related articles (which this obviously isn't). ) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All I did was change the article to match the sources. You can't just make stuff up and add it to articles. It has to be sourced. I explain this very well on the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That this is a mischaracterisation of the dispute should be obvious to third parties from the diffs.

talk

) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment (by R. Baley): User Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to arbitration enforcement due to editing at the Obama page see:

• Finding of fact (edit warring) [59]

• Remedy for Grundle2600: Grundle2600 admonished and restricted. Which reads, "Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week. . ." Note that the remedy is broad, not just for Obama articles as noted (in the only objection) by NYB, "This restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to the Obama-related articles." diff.

• Enforcement for remedy: [60]. Which reads, "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations." Also, "All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Log of blocks and bans."

I don't usually work in this area. But will look more closely and close this out if necessary. R. Baley (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Has form and is, as you point out, on 1RR. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: George Mason University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Tide rolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [66]
• Notification of 3RR report: [67] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] (as well as: [69][70][71])

User:Tide rolls was warned about the 3rr rule after his third reversion. I asked him to use the talkpage[72] and he responded by removing my comments from his user talkpage.[73][74] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no content dispute on my part. The user's first edit was to blank a section with a disingenuous link [75]. When I reverted that the user posted on my page in a challenging tone. I explained that I was reverting due the user's blanking sourced content. The user has known from the outset that I have no content issues with them or this article. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thanks Tiderolls 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If one looks at Tide rolls's contributions, you can see he is engaging in drive-by reversions. He jokes that he violates this policy 'three to four times a day'.[76] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I watch

Wikipedia:Recent changes...I do not engage in drive-by reversion. The statement the user refers to was not a joke, it was fact. Please note that I posted "tecnically". I will not be posting more replies as the user has resorted to ad hominum attacks. Thanks Tiderolls

20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes appear to be unconstructive to say the least, I'm not sure how Tiderolls was at fault. Among other things, removing Karl Rove (just skimming through names, it was the first I knew right off the bat) for notable alumni and removing any reference to George Mason in its own history section.

Soxwon (talk

) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TR has self reverted. No further action is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Human rights in the United States
• User: Viriditas

• Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: #1 -- June 20, 22:05 (see race equality section & Lede)
• 2nd revert: #2 -- June 21, 10:21 (see Lede)
• 3rd revert: #3 -- June 21, 19:18 (see race equality section & Lede)
• 4th revert: #4 -- June 21, 21:26 (see race equality section, Overview section & Lede)
• 5th revert: #5 -- June 21, 21:44 (see race equality section & Lede)

Notes:
(1) This editor was already warned by this board after violating 3RR on the talk page of this same article, here.
(2) Note that the last three edits are such blanket reverts that they include actually replacing the correction of typos and grammar.
(3) The edits, while involving multiple sections, usually involve entirely false accusations of "POV-pushing" or "Plagarism" (absolutely none exists for either, not that that matters). Note re the false plagarism charge re one quote in the Lede, that was just one sentence in the Lede, while all of the other changes exist in at least 4 of the 5 reverts above, and I think that is thrown into the edit summary to attempt to get cover for all of the changes from 3RR -- not that that's the rule. For example, 4 of the 5 also involved reverts in the racial equality section -- if you want an easy thing to look at (large changes), just look at the continuing deletions in the "see also" tags in the Racial Equality section -- 4 different times the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was deleted from the See Also tag (just one example, but it's an easy one so you don't have to look through the whole thing). (4)This is actually just an extension of multiple reverts from the prior day as well:

Nothing is complex, but 4 of the 5 reverts are massive and tough to read. As stated above, if you don't want to read through the large diffs, just look at something simple like the "See Also" tags in the Race Equality section. For example, the original insertion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the "see also" tag is deleted in 4 of the 5 reverts above.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: just one example (look up the page for Edit Warring warnings -- oh yeah, also lots of threats, crazed accusations, etc., but that's another issue)

Mosedschurte (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Viriditas for 48h. He was edit warring against two users: Mosedschurte and Biophys, he has done more reverts, he was the only one doing blind reverts Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [79]

• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

This user has now simply deleted my attempt at discussion on his talk page so I've moved it to [86]

64.56.248.185 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: John Oxendine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 24.98.228.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [87]

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [[89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]
• 5th revert: [92]
• 6th revert: [93]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [94] (in the edit summary, at least). I did explain on the user's talk page that continually reverting to remove copy-editing and cleanup templates as part of a content dispute was considered vandalism that could lead to blocking.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

I don't think I'm guilty of violating the 3RR rule, as it's pretty obvious to me that this user was vandalizing, rather than merely disagreeing on content. But if I am also guilty, I so accept. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 07:46, 16 June 2009

• 1st revert: 04:00, 19 June 2009
• 2nd revert: 12:21, 19 June 2009
• 3rd revert: 12:44, 19 June 2009
• 4th revert: 13:03, 19 June 2009
• 5th revert: 13:07, 19 June 2009
• 6th revert: 13:14, 19 June 2009

• The user was blocked in April of this year for
  Miesianiacal (talk
  ) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

After just noticing that this 3RR breach was already earlier reported, I must withdraw this notice. My apologies. --

Miesianiacal (talk

) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Freddie Mercury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greg D. Barnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:06, 21 June 2009

• 1st revert: 05:06, 22 June 2009
• 2nd revert: 06:33, 22 June 2009
• 3rd revert: 09:51, 22 June 2009
• 4th revert: 12:19, 22 June 2009

Comment

) 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 48 hours. 78.30.173.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also made four reverts and is blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Kiev
• User: 68.37.192.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Revision as of 17:51, 21 June 2009
• Revision as of 17:44, 21 June 2009
• Revision as of 22:34, 18 June 2009
• Revision as of 23:39, 17 June 2009

Judging from his list of edits and his talk page, this user has caused problems before with his anti-Russian edits and abusive language. Judging from his/her edit of 22:58, 21 June 2009 he/she has not changed.

I have placed a warning on his talk page.

--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Template:User_en-gb-5 (edit | [[Talk:Template:User_en-gb-5|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mintrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 20:27, 21 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297779606 by
   TW
   )")
2. 21:22, 21 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297786159 by
   TW
   )")
3. 17:11, 22 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297861661 by
   TW
   )")

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

—Law Lord (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

12h. Deletion debate is clearly in favour of keeping existing wording William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Jon_and_Kate_Plus_8#Multimedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: PhilthyBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilthyBear&action=edit&section=4

• [diff] [diff]

I was the one who created the chart for the DVDs and I added the Canadian dates with the word "Canada" in brackets, for the third date. No one objected until now. I've asked this user, nicely, to leave it alone, they refuse. Now this user is trying to tell me I'm adding dates for Hawaii and Alaska, which isn't possible since I'm Canadian and my dates from Amazon.ca. R7604 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The DVD chart is inaccurate. The third dates are for Hawaii and Alaska. Even if Canada's release dates were infact as you incorrectly state the date they are. Quoting (Canada) in brackets is unnecessary and crowds the chart. I agree with User:PhilthyBear edits. He/she linked the DVD region code which you erased for unknown reasons. You are just as much at fault if not more than he/she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.42.217 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• User is already blocked for 24h. Black Kite 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• User: Tnaniua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Trying to figure out how to handle the esoteric formatting requested here is beyond my understanding. Please accept this anyway.

User:Tnaniua is in a continuing edit war over the Developed country article, adding his own personal opinion about a report which characterizes developed countries, edit warring to add South Korea as a developed country. Note that I have no axe to grind in this debate, I just stumbled across Tnaniua's edit warring while reviewing Recent changes. I suggested that all he needed to do was to provide a reliable source as to the report's inadequacy, but that was rejected with a reversion. Perusal of Tnaniua's Talk page and edit history shows that he has had several different editors suggesting that he stop the war, but he refuses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 207.112.74.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [101]

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [106]

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

(User was warned multiple times on IRC to stop, as this reversion was over them changing the article to fit their claims during a debate in #ChristianDebate in DalNet. If necesary I can cut and past the IRC transcript here.)

Just an anon causing a headache. Darius Arcturus (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2009-06-22T20:13:22 Mazca (talk | contribs | block) blocked 207.112.74.90 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block). The other anon got zapped for vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Vector Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 98.225.16.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [107]

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• 5th revert: [112]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [113]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114] Has been warned by multiple users using edit summary instead

• 98.225.16.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has continued to violate the three-revert rule without discussion after being warned and has only been used for vandalism such as removing information from talk pages without discussion.

Semi'd for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Bria_Valente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Falsewords333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]

There are approximately 4 other reverts all in the course of today! Ive asked the person why are they discrediting the album reviews and they are stating it is libelous? Obviously they have some personal agenda to take out video content that has been verified as Brenda M Fuentes nee Bria Valente. No one knows this woman except a select few Prince fans so why is Falsewords333 so adamant and aggressive?

I do not need to warn the user as the user has TWICE warned me and I merely included media reviews of said subjects album

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcentrex (talk • contribs)

Page protected three days - There has been a multi-party edit war. It has been claimed that Falsewords333 may have a conflict of interest, but the last version he edited at least is free of

WP:BLP violations. Please use the next three days to discuss proper content for the article on its talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. Unconfirmed stories about romances have no place in this article. 'Citation needed' tags are not appropriate in BLPs for anything important; if you don't have a source, the statement must go. EdJohnston (talk

) 00:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Falsewords333 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)falsewordsFalsewords333 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) xentrex seems to have an unusuall invested interest and agenda towards Ms Bria Valente and the information associated with her. Conflict of interest seems to apply if you are ademate on the inclusion of irrelevant information that is defamatory, unecessary and does not have a place in this type of site. It is only to serve xentrex own agenda. Bria is notable and relevant because she is a "Prince protoge" with an official CD release in 2009 "Elixer". 'Credited' facts on her music career are noted, as well as personal biographical information taken from the Tavis Smiley interview which is a credible Television show. I asked xentrex to please cease to pursue this course of action, posting negative media reviews, personal attacks and irrelevant information. That type of 'information' is better left to internet gossip blogs and not on this site. I want to help keep Wilkepedia clean and civil. Thank you.

• Page: Norton AntiVirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 94.195.86.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [119]
• 2nd revert: [120]
• 3rd revert: [121]
• 4th revert: [diff]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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

No violation It takes four reverts in 24 hours to justify a 3RR complaint. Plus, this new editor was never warned about the 3RR rule. Consider discussing the issue with him on his talk page, which is still a red link. (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. His/her IP always changes. I believe I posted to one of his IP address' talk page, however he must have ignored it. He clearly reads the edit summaries; each time he restores the information with a summary addressing the summary I posted concerning why I removed the information. Did you see Norton AntiVirus' talk page, archive 2? I gave him time to fix his ref. I also posted tags above the text he posted.

talk

) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As requested by

talk

) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A 3RR warning has already been posted on one of the

talk

) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [122]

• 1st revert: [123]
• 2nd revert: [124]
• 3rd revert: [125]
• 4th revert: [126]
• 5th revert: [127]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [n/a see below]

• User had 4 reverts already when I reverted (had no idea that it was already a violation). User proceeded to revert a 5th time and then argued after being asked to revert. User keeps reinserting what appear to be
  Soxwon (talk • contribs
  )

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears to be justified by BLP for at least one of the reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I reverted this when he appeared to be unfamiliar with
  Soxwon (talk
  ) 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the proper forum for this discussion, please take it elsewhere. The ban's been served so there's really no point in continuing the argument.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment. Please give Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at least a warning on this, IMHO they've shown soem rather bad faith and incivility toward this user and others on that and associated articles of the husband, the band(s) and -- Banjeboi 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Response. Banjeboi, you know perfectly well that Swancookie is not a new user, and has been editing since February 2008 (but had been absent in recent months. He or she returned earlier this week, made a string of personal attacks on four editors, including me, insinuated that our edits were motivated by anti-LGBT bias, denied making that insinuation, then made an overt, completely unfounded accusation of LGBT bias against me and began canvassing editors who had shown interest in LGBT subjects for assistance in this edit warring. I initiated an AN/I thread earlier this week (also warning Swancookie of his/her first set of 3RR violations, which led to a ratcheting up of Swancookie's attacks. [129] This dispute has been running for three months, kept going by a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets, of which Swancookie is simply the latest. The common features of these SPAs and socks include their refusal to abide by BLP and RS, and their vigorous campaigns of personal attacks and incivility against editors who disagree with them. After months of this, it's time to start dealing with harassers like Swancookie as the disruptive editors they are. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I know of no such thing. Believe it or not I seaw this as a newby who was sincerely asking for help which I did and they took my explanations at face value as I have taken them. Meanwhile i saw your comments toward them, myself and on at least the Clint Catalyst article as needlessly aggressive and borderline uncivil as is, IMHO, your comment to me here. Just so it's clear to all can you point out any proof that Swancookie is simply the latest in "a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets"? That's the kind of uncivil comment that casts doubt on you, not them. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just to clear things up. I'm not a SPA. I have been a on wikipedia since February 2008 but had taken a long leave of absence from wikipedia to concentrate on school. In reality I have truly only been editing on wikipedia for a few months in total. Know that it was never my intention to upset anybody or vandalize the article Jessicka. I added the citation I was blocked for, to improve the article and strengthen the article not vandalize it in any way. I had a conversation on my talk page with Benjiboi ( who has been very helpful) about the reinserted citation and we agreed that it was fine. I don't believe I have attacked anybody here. I never insinuated Hullaballoo or any other editor of having an LGBT bias. I simply asked for an editor/admin that had a little knowledge on the subject so I could ask them about starting an article about a transgendered musician. I've tried to sort this out but rather then engage me editor to editor Hullaballoo removed my request from his talk page. [130] Hullaballoo again and again describes the articles I'm editing as those of "certain minor-league celebrities" These articles are about people whom are musicians, artist, and producers. They aren't celebrities, minor league or other wise- and I have asked him to produce any reference that states they are. Hullaballoo's tone and uncivil behavior to all editors involved who do not agree with him leeds me to believe that he has a bias against these articles, that and the fact that he accused user:Xtian1313 =Christian Hejnal of being a sock puppet [131] and mercilessly edits articles about he and his wife Jessicka and any articles relating to them. I just don't understand why Hullaballoo's behavior here is excusable? Rather then be civil and semi- patient with new editors he spouts policy and negative uncivil condescending comments about editors and the articles they are editing. I am coming here in good faith and I am asking for any help regarding this situation. I'd like this resolved before I make more edits to any articles or start a new article because I believe if Hullaballoo thinks the article is related in any way to articles Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, or Christian Hejnal he will edit within an inch of it's life until it can be nominated for speedy deletion. I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the articles be the best they can be User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can not say the same. I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in all wikipedia policy but I am learning as I go. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines. The more I get help from editor's like Banjeboi they better editor I can become. Swancookie (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Since this discussion is not asking for any admin action, it needs to go somewhere else. This complaint was filed due to editing on a specific article, WP:RFC/U. I think we are done here. EdJohnston (talk ) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) While Swancookie's comment is a bit -- Banjeboi 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Instead of hostility collapsing and dismissing this as a "not here" could you please direct where Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rather incivil behaviours and SPA accusations would actually be addressed? At this point I'm thinking -- Banjeboi 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I have a better idea. Why don't you review the history of this long-running dispute, which has sprawled across multiple administrator noticeboards, already resulted in the identification of sockpuppets and SPAs, and generally found no indication of inappropriate behavior on my part or that of the two other editors, and one administrator, who Swancookie accused of bias, bad faith, etc within a day of his/her return. Start here [132] You've already admitted in various discussions that you refuse to apply WP:DUCK test on its face (cf the contribution histories of User:Tallulah13 and User:Granny Bebeb as anything but a disruptive and malicious user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk ) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, there may be some wisdom to sorting this out - not sure it's worth the effort to search out everything. My issue was with your comments which remains a bit hostile. Not sure I admitted any such thing but in the absence of evidence Swancookie being an SPA I have to look at it as if they weren't. Again, is there any evidence of that? If these are all one in the same then we really should sort that out. Regardless we need to remain civil - even if someone is an abusive or banned editor we strive to higher level in dealing with them. That has been and is still my issue with your comments. If someone is violating our policies we still must politely show them the door. Not doing so would seem to cause more problems. Intertwined in this is the very real concern of calling someone a sock, or SPA, which is rather insulting if they are not these. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I apologize for the lengthiness of my last entry. I'm not SPA! He's still pointing fingers? What about the fact that Hullaballoo completely fabricated that I insinuated a LGBT bias of three editors, when all I did is request somebody who was well versed on the topic? What about the fact that anytime there are edits made to the articles mentioned above he goes on some weird rant about myspace or buzzent ( neither site are Christian Hejnal or Jessicka associated with) and further aggravates an already tense situation by referring the the people in the articles as "c list celebrities"and the editors as "socks" and "SPAs". Is that not condescending? Uncivil? I'm sorry his behavior is verging on obsessive. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with this and continues to spout policy rather then admit he's wrong is astonishing. Please review the dispute there is some unsavoriness when certain users defend themselves ( mostly against Hullaballoo) but I think you'll see I'm not one of them. I think you'll see that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is uncivil and borderline hostile with anybody (in the situation) who does not agree with him. I think you'll see that after user:Xtian1313 addressed him and then was accused (By Hullaballoo) of being a sock that Hullaballoo went on an editing spree on his and his wife's articles. I don't think you'll find my tone or my actions abusive or threatening anywhere. I truly believe that Hullaballoo, no matter how versed in policy he is, is a destructive editor and has exacerbated this whole mess with condescending and uncivil comments. Swancookie (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [133]

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nt revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]

• previous reversions :[137], [138]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [139] (this is for the earlier dispute)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link to earlier argument and reversions

This is the version of the article as I would wish it to appear. In danger of breaking the 3RR rule myself I have reverted my most recent edit to the last version by User:Slatersteven (which although factually correct, does not link the 1998 trial and Griffin's comments on the Cook Report, as are linked in the source provided on page 63 of this book.

User:Slatersteven has admitted that he doesn't fully understand how to read citations provided in online sources, such as Google Books, demonstrated here. He appears to read my edits, disagree with them, reverts them, and then (once I have demonstrated that they are correctly referenced and that the source material backs them up), quietly either leaves them alone and moves onto another issue, or just continually reverts. This is where I now find myself, faced with an article that could be better, but unable to make the changes for fear that he will just revert to an earlier version. Its a waste of my time and frankly I'm growing tired of working on an article and having to continually explain myself to a user who doesn't understand the most basic concepts, even once they've been explained to him. The most recent insult is here, where he all but accuses me (in the heading) or pursuing untruths and breaching Wikipedia policies (this from a user who introduces possibly unreliable sources such as this. He is picking the smallest faults in anything he can find (regardless of whether any exist), and creating problems where none exist. Its worth noting that his additions to the article are close to zero, his edits tend mainly to be concerned with moving material around, and focussing on trivia.

I've done a lot of editing to this article over the last week or so. I found it a largely biased and unreferenced article, have sourced everything, all with what are generally considered to be reliable sources, and added and expanded the article to a degree where I consider it good enough for WP:GAN (indeed it is awaiting review there now). I'm entirely open to constructive criticism but what this user is doing is, I believe, disruptive, and unproductive. I'm quite genuinely of the opinion that this user does not understand what an encyclopaedic article is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I breached the 3RR rule (I appear to have not done), if not then perhaps an admin need to explain the rule to him. I will not comment on his other accusations as this is about 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of this report very clearly says 'edit warring'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of the users edits whilst they are sourced do not always make the claim the editor implies http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297886349&oldid=297802269 Niether source makes this claim. POD goes on to admit that there is no direct linik between the trial and the TV show http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297907078&oldid=297906649 even thoguh the section he is moving it to is about the trial. But still insits there is a 'contextual' linki (but still does not say were the source claims this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297910448&oldid=297910252. He continues to refuse to provide the quote to back his claim up http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=297906685&oldid=297905394.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you do not understand why Griffin's anti-Semitic writings in a right-wing magazine, his subsequent trial for those writings, and his secretly-recorded comments on the man who reported him to the police in the first place, belong together in the same section, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Most readers would find it easier to understand the relationship between these two if all information on them were presented together. This is what I want to do, in exactly the same way as the loss of Griffin's eye is best presented in the chronology of his career, about the time of his withdrawal from politics (Slatersteven wanted this information in the 'Family and personal life' section).

Slatersteven's objections to most of this is that as headings exist where such information might be included, then that information should instead go there. I'm not even certain if the article warrants those sections (certainly the sections on Islam and Climate Change are so short as to be almost trivia). I haven't finished work on the article, not by a long chalk, but I don't think I'll ever finish while Slatersteven nitpicks over every tiny matter he can find, reverts edits without prior discussion or without understanding how to read sources, introduces unreliable and incorrectly-formatted references, and generally behaves as though I exist only to satisfy his curiosity. I hesitate to resort to ad-hominem (although Slatersteven's accusations of bias and poor sourcing make it easier), but this user's actions remind me of an internet troll]. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They were, in thE section about his anti-semitsm. dop then moved it to the section about his trial with out discusion (as most of dop'S edits have been) User DOP also makes reversions without discusion indead in many cases I had to start a discusion on these very subjects. His eye may have influenced his withdrawl from politics (but it was 'not about the same time' it was the following year, another of POD's appriximations). But non of the soources made the claim, and in two areas of that debate POPD had to admit that I was accurate, just not very good at providng properly formated (but still working and checkable) sources. However that is not what this is about. Yes I agree I belive that information should go in the correctly headed section (for shame). As to the idea that the section on Islam is not needed I find very odd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bring content disputes here. One of your reverts - [141] - just adds the word "later" which isn't very convincing William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that happened as I was trying to undo a paragraph move.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So what am I to do? How do I resolve this matter? I've tried, believe me, but this is a last resort. Where do I go now? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading one of my posts you deleted, it might give you a clue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [142]

Even the rawest of newbies generally manage to dedge up at least *one* revert, which you have obviously failed to do William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: History Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• original version

• first revert
• second revert
• third revert

User is admin, and has reported others for 3RR.

• An ongoing dispute: this last diff at 2RR. The editors on the page know the issue here. Undue weight is not adressed by the current version, and the editor will not accept reference counting (or any other means) for establishing undue weight.

I am trying to see what the consensus is regarding my preferred version, which has been developed in user space for a while. The editor in question has said he does not like it, but does not leave it up long enough for others to comment.

A version of this dispute has been going on for a long time. I made changes with sources, they were reverted. I tried different wordings, they were reverted. I tried other wordings, I got reported for 3RR (and blocked). Right now, the user in question just makes pure reversions to an old version repeatedly, despite the ongoing dispute on the talk page regarding

. His administrator status can make challenging his preferred version intimidating.

I am aware that the issue is contentious. The

) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

but does not leave it up long enough for others to comment - this is nonsense. You can post a diff to the talk page, it doesn't need the version to be current. As for the report: your position (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that someone with 3R in 24h deserves to be blocked, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not like blocking people who are not obviously vandalizing. I don't want to block PBS, I want this dispute to be resolved. I am sick of introducing lots and lots of mainstream sources for a majority position, only to have them be reverted away without discussion.Likebox (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think that an administrator should be held to higher standards regarding rollbacks and tendentious editing. So perhaps a warning to stop is enough. With regards to your point about "current version", as I explained in the talk page: when a page is too offensive, it is difficult to get anyone to edit it. When my version was up, new editors started adding information to it immediately (before it was reverted).Likebox (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a dispute. You need

WP:DR, not AN3 William M. Connolley (talk

) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: User talk:Toddst1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Toddst1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: DoyleCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: User talk:Toddst1

• 1st revert: [143]
• 2nd revert: [144]
• 3rd revert: [145]
• 4th revert: [146]
• 5th revert: [147]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [148]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indef; too much nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Grief porn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 99.142.2.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [150]

• 1st revert: 20:43, June 22, 2009
• 2nd revert: 21:14, June 22, 2009
• 3rd revert: 09:52, June 23, 2009
• 4th revert: 17:12, June 23, 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: [151]. I'd point otu that the user has come right up to 3RR several times over the past week, and is clearly edit-warring, tag-teaming with another anon account 4.88.56.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it's the entire article discussion page.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. Although it would have been within policy to block the two worst offenders here, I have chosen to protect the article instead in order to, hopefully, foster the nascent discussion (assiested by GTBacchus) that can be seen on the talk page and at the IP's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  File:Tuđman Milošević meeting while writing the Karađorđevo agreement.GIF
• User: Aradic-es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [152]

• 1st revert: [153]
• 2nd revert: [154]
• 3rd revert: [155]
• 4th revert: [156]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [157]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]

I have already

sourced information.

rv 3 is from the *19*th. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

. Important to notice that he is accusing me for the same things that he is doing himself. That kind of behaviour is known as

• hypocrisy (in ethics)
• projection (in psychology)

anyway , just look at his contribuitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PRODUCER

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The user User:Sumbuddi has started an edit war on the Democratic Unionist Party article without as yet commenting on the talk page. He/she has started to make personal attacks/comments against me in the history. I have reverted and given proper rationale in the talk page. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

note: I have reverted this user's last 'edit without rationale'. I shall revert no more until the dispute is resolved. Vexorg (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, it takes two to edit war, and as I said you have the sorry record of being blocked four times in the last three months for exactly that. Evidently you haven't learned. I have explained why you are wrong, there is nothing more to say, given that you are the one trying to change the status quo, I suggest you seek consensus for it on the talk page, and until you have got that consensus, cease pushing your POV, which you have failed to provide any rationale for, and stop reverting the page. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no POV, but this is not the place to get into an argument. I shall leave it up to admin to decide. Vexorg (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, outside of the POV pushing, your behaviour is *bizarre*. You are plainly engaged in edit warring, and have a long history of the same, but you choose to make a 'pre-emptive strike' to report me for it? Not constructive and not sensible on your part given that you've attempted to add the same category to the page four times in the last 24 hours. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - Both editors warned. If either Sumbuddi or Vexorg removes or adds Category:Homophobia to the article in the next seven days, without first getting a consensus on the Talk page to do so, they risk being blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 22:37, 20 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Asia */ Per talk page. The UK does not have a diplomatic mission to "Taiwan / Republic of China"")
2. 21:38, 21 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 297741453 by Kransky (talk
   ) - I've provided sources. Provide a source if you claim UK has "Diplomatic" mission.")
3. 19:35, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   WP:Verify
   etc. Per talk page.")
4. 05:08, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 298005931 by Kransky (talk
   )")
5. 22:49, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 298110815 by Kransky (talk
   ) OK - Good idea to contact an admin (non-biased one)")
6. 05:08, 24 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 298231578 by Bidgee (talk
   ) - Who is edit waring, you or me?, Source please.")

No warning has been given for this edit war on this article however the editor has a history of edit warring and has been blocked 3 times in the past so they should know what an edit war is. While the edits are not done on the same day it's the amount and the way this editor has undid the edits. Maybe 1RR needs to be placed on the editor in question. —Bidgee (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Form. 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Melbourne Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 15:03, 21 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Avalon Airport */ removal of Avalon Airport section, it is not relevant to melbourne airport at the information is already on Avalon Airport's wikipage, no need for double ups.")
2. 19:11, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 297801186 by Mvjs (talk
   ) AVV has its on wikipage and is an operating airport as in SYD there is no second airport")
3. 22:17, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "doubling up information is not needed, the information is on AVV wikipage where it should be and only be...")
4. 17:20, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Avalon Airport */ doubling up not needed")
5. 10:32, 24 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 298233779 by Bidgee (talk
   ) stop adding content that is unnessecary")

• Diff of warning: here and here

—Bidgee (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

): Time reported: 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): [159].

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

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]

• Diff of warning: [164]

The user removed a well-sourced sentence, edited by

) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just want to notice that the related article has suffered much reverts by Albanian pov users, that claim a direct Illyrian-Albanian ancestry (autocthony of the Albanians). We have to rely mostly on npov english speaking sources (they are plenty) in order to retain neutrality. Moreover the one of the 2 sources is of 1969, when the country's intellectuals were under strict totalitarian cencorship. I feel this move by fellow balk. (it's not a clear 3rr violation) user just undermines a peacefull wiki cooperation. (not to mention a combined activity by albanian users in that case)Alexikoua (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note:The current revert has nothing to do with the dispute over Albanian POV or not, it has to do with the autochtony of Illyrians, not the continuity of Illyrian-Albanian theory. So, Atheneans reaction is unneceptable, as he showed a clear bias, removing Albanian authors, living Serb, Croat and Bosnian authors, which have no distinction (all of them are Balkanians, all of theri countries have a certain POV, all of them were under Communist regime, all of them were non-English sources). THis is a bias and a clear case of non-cooperation.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it is a clear 3RR violation, as I reworded once the paragraph, while Athenean only removed it (click undo+click enter).Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A clear bad-faith report. Each of my edits results in a different version, so they are not reverts. My first edit is in line with the what was discussed on the talkpage by admin DBachmann [165] and consists of removing unintelligible nationalist gibberish. All I did was remove outdated, fringe-nationalist non-English language sources (one from 1969, for god's sake, when Albania was under a totalitarian dictatorship). The "well-sourced sentence" by User:Aigest is anything but. The "professors in that field" do not have a single publication in an international English language journal. This article is plagued by nationalist Albanian editors who keep inserting cruft material such as what I removed. Admins Kwamikagami and DBachmann can testify to that. User Balkanian has been pursuing a vendetta against me ever since I reported him a while back for violating 3RR on that same article and is now trying to get back at me. --

talk

) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin: Every revert of Athenean resulted in a different version, because I tried to find a consensus with him, by rewording the sentence: actually the only thing User:Athenean did was reverting my edits, while in the first place he reverted Aigests edit. As he says he removed 1969 sources, at a time that on that section are sources from 1966, or worse

WP:3RR, which is a violation.Balkanian`s word (talk

) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that those two sources on

talk

) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this now. I just noticed that between the two of you, you have seven blocks for edit warring. It strikes me that neither of you should be reverting at all, but agreeing to talk it all out on the talk page, and perhaps even try collaborating on a
  WP:NPOV version that is acceptable to you both in user space, and then adding it to the article. Hiberniantears (talk
  ) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right Hiberniantears, the problem is that User:Athenean agrees on a version, only if that version does not include the words "Albania" or "Albanian". This case is the perfect example; as I tried to create a consensus, by rewording the sentence, based on his conserns; and immidiately he reverted it again, with reasons not included in his first edit summary.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that just saying "archaeologists" rather than "Albanian archaeologists" would be acceptable, or am I misreading that? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The accusations of anti-Albanianism by Balkanian are nonsense. The problem is that these two sources are in an obscure language which very few of our readers would understand, and as such are impossible to verify. Suppose I had brought Greek-language sources from 1969, how would they have bee treated? --

talk

) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that they would have been treated the same way you treat those unsourced parts of that page, which you never remove, and never let others to remove. Or, the same way you do not remove: "Benac A. 'Vorillyrier, Protoillyrier und Urillyrier' in: A. Benac(ed.) Symposium sur la delimitation Territoriale et chronologique des Illyriens a l’epoque Prehistorique, Sarajevo 1964, pp. 59–94." "Kühn, Herbert. Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung. Walter de Gruyter, 1976.

ISBN 3110059185

" etc.

@

WP:3RR, which is the case of this dispute.Balkanian`s word (talk

) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its more than reasonable that such kind of sources (Albanian of 60s) should be carefully avoided. Imagine someone using North Korean stuff, how npov can we consider him?Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy (as I understand it) is that English language sources should be used if available. That doesn't mean we need these sources in English, but rather, if anyone has written about this in English, we should use that. Questions of nationalist editing aside, there must be some English sources around that give an objective analysis on the history of the peoples who today are called Albanians. However, if there really are no other sources available in English, we can use sources in a different language. The 1969 source, given the government at the time, is most likely not a great choice regardless of what else is available. Has there been an exhaustive search for credible English sources discussing the hypothesis? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this article is on the

talk

) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR noticeboard is not a proper venue for content disputes. 3RR is 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Or at least it would be if we had a higher authority around here that ruled on content. In the mean time, I'm doing some leg work to figure out if blocks or page protection, or some combination of the two are in order. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Hiberniantears, the paragraph that Athenean removed has nothing to do with Albanians. It is about the ethnogenesis of Illyrians, and no connection at all with Albanians. So, per the above comment of Athenean, this is just the perfect example, that he does not even read what reverts, but he is just reverting everywhere that he sees something albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The text is supporting the view that Illyrians are Albanians. That said, as Colchicum points out above, this is not the place to sort this out. Consider yourselves both warned. Further reverts on this material will result in a 24hr block. It needs to be sorted out on the talk page, and if that is failing, an RfC needs to be opened to determine if the sentence has a place in the article. I don't see a problem with including theories on whether or not Illyrians are Albanians, but better sources are required, and the material should be limited in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. I will open a new thread on the article talkpage. Your last sentence, btw, is what I've been saying all along in that talkpage for months now. --

talk

) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)@Hiberniantears. Which text supports what? We are speaking about the ethnogenesis of Illyrians, and by the way, this is about 3RR. Did Athenean break 3RR or not?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR was broken, but you were both edit warring, and I would block you both. If you want him blocked, I will also block you. It is a package deal. Despite that, this happened yesterday, and I am loath to block someone for a stale 3RR, since that would be a punitive block, rather than prevention of an ongoing dispute. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a trust issue here, I'm also willing to protect the page until you both sort it out, if that is something that you would all prefer, so as to keep everyone on even footing. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a related discussion on

talk

) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I was edit-warring. Ok, I see.... trying to find a compromise by changing the paragraph twice, and the other one always removing it, while I did only 3 reverts, without breaking 3RR and he 4, is an edit-warring. Ok, my fault.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 24 June 2009

• 1st revert: 02:19, 24 June 2009
• 2nd revert: 04:45, 24 June 2009
• 3rd revert: 13:32, 24 June 2009
• 4th revert: 16:36, 24 June 2009

• 3RR warning: user has already been blocked for breaking 3rr three times

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166] - there are several open issues here (section name, Krugman's quote, Greenspan's blame)

-- Vision Thing -- 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Aitias // discussion 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

.

Stevertigo has persisted to post long-winded assays on the

He uses the Talk:Life page extensively as a forum for his assays. Once he actually introduced an assay (100% OR) into the main article:[175]. As a cell & molecular biologist, it is alarming seeing Stevertigo, without any formal education in biology, fabricate statements, terms and definitions, and push them in the talk page and in the article. On one occasion he introduced one reference, but it does not quote or support the definition (his Original Research) that he introduced.[176], so I also corrected that.

Of outmost importance, Stevertigo recently became subject to an editing restriction for one year for edit-warring: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [...] Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."

Since he has proven to be disruptive in the

) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], and last but not least: [186]

) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, this matter was also referred to AN/I, so this EW report may be redundant. Inasmuch as no 3RR violation is claimed, and without offering any opinion on the merits of this, maybe that is a better forum? Wikidemon (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking you for this [187] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Strange thing is BatteryIncluded is a skilled and probably accomplished biologist, and our issues there deal largely with a dogmatic view that "life" is an entirely biological concept and other concepts belong elsewhere. But in reality we were doing fine at Talk:Life until User:Binksternet came along: the sixth of my recent article talk pages where Bink's presented himself as an interested party (not in the article, but in me) and interjected some comments which BI took to be substantive, and that's where he got sidetracked. Its interesting - I hope BI reconsiders taking such a sharp angle and goes back to his previous productive and cooperative mode. Bink though, if he didn't get the hint at Talk:American Dream, might need some stalking-related consideration from the community. I guess I should make a list of my current sparring partners.. Afaprof01.. -Stevertigo 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jesusmariajalisco and User:Nirvania888 are possible the same user using 2 accounts judging by editing history and simultaneous edits, language, etc.

• Page: BRICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 1st revert: [188]

• 2nd revert: [189]

• 3th revert: [190]

• 4th revert: [191]

....Countless Reverts :refer to BRIC article History Cosmos416 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: BRICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Countless Reverts :refer to BRIC article History

• 1st revert: [192]

• 2nd revert: [193]

• 3rd revert: [194]

Cosmos416 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at how many times you reverted (~15x) and the times I and the other editor tried to engage you to try to reach consensus. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You two have the exact same tone and edits between minutes...and I tried consensus on the accurate updated material, and you said no. Cosmos416 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? Is it so surprising that two editors who have been editing for much longer than you take issue with your bold edits which you constantly revert to. "you tried consensus": consensus means coming to an agreement along all editors involved in the dispute; not constantly reverting to make a point. I suggest you see dispute resolution if you feel so strongly about adding your material. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: Cf. above. — Aitias // discussion 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: BRICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]

Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: Cf. above. — Aitias // discussion 10:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [199]

• 1st revert: [200]
• 2nd revert: [201]
• 3rd revert: [202]

• Diff of 3RR warning: repeat offender, blocked on June 21 for 3RR/edit warring on this article

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203], on user's talk page [204], at AN/I [205], in collateral discussions on other user's talk pages [206] . Swancookie typically responds by complaining about my "spouting policy," which he/she appears to believe to be a good enough reason to ignore the policy "spouted."

) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was in the process of getting a third opinion when User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported me. Per my discussion here I was under the impression that the L word site was acceptable. [207] "Some blogs and other self published sources are acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That is from WP:SPS. Forgive me, but I'm nulling the template (if you need more help, just post it again). Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)" I'm really trying to be civil but Hullaballoo makes it next to impossible. His uncivil behavior/ conduct is well documented. Please understand I am no vandal. I'm just trying to find references and am not 100% clear on what is acceptable. I can't trust Hullaballoo's judgement as I believe he has a bias when editing the article Jessicka. Swancookie (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted per my post

here about this issue, that indeed Swancookie has engaged in an edit war here. But it also takes 2 to war. The article history shows multiple reverts/revert edits by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) as well. As this content dispute isn't about controversial/disparaging content regarding the article subject, but about User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz believing a certain source isn't reliable, contrary to his claim here his reversions/edits are not exempt from 3RR based on BLP guidelines. It is my belief that they both should receive the same amount of "guidance" in regards to this report. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here}

04:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with ASE, especially considering Swancookie has already been blocked for edit warring on this exact same article.

Soxwon (talk

) 05:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In defence of my editing, I would point out that

WP:RS -- this is a garden variety fansite -- so that Swancookie's lack of good faith is easy to infer, and his/her repeated removal of ^{[citation needed]} tags amounts to vandalism. I'd also note that Swancookie has repeatedly been informed that self-published sources are generally not acceptable Wikipedia references, but has repeatedly added such references in violation of applicable policies. If there is a consensus that the BLP exception to 3RR does not apply to the removal of unacceptably sourced favorable material, I am of course willing to abide by it, But, as I pointed out elsewhere in this dispute, the Wikimedia Foundation less than two months ago issued a policy statement concerning BLPs, stressing the importance of removing inappropriate favorable/promotional material from BLPs. "As the popularity of the Wikimedia projects grows, so does the editing community's responsibility to ensure articles about living people are neutrally-written, accurate and well-sourced. [208]. I am, therefore, quite frankly baffled by ASE's suggestion that both sides in this dispute are somehow equally guilty. Note, in particular, that the administrator who blocked Swancookie earlier this week chose not to caution me about edit warring. Had he dones so, my response here would have been more guarded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I lurk around many of the articles that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is 'helping' to be more in line with what he believes wiki policy demands, I have seen a lot more than just the edit war on

WP:BLP aswell as other Wikipedia policy as a sheild, to allow themselves to undermine articles, with no attemp to fix the problems, or allow others to do so. I understand that this is not against policy, but when they are accussing other editors of Vandalism for their edits that are done in nothing more than good faith, as an attempt to improve the article [217], [218], I believe someone is attempting to make someone else look bad. Please can someone find a way to settle all of this, so I can go back to quietly removing vandalism and reverting bad edits from a few select articles, without fear of being in the middle of a war between editors that don't know any better and editors that should know better.  Doktor  Wilhelm 

08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm 100%. I'm not saying I'm not in the wrong but I assure you all I'm not a vandal, a SPA, a sock, or a disruptive editor. I'm simply trying to better the article Jessicka. I have taken proper steps to involve other editors when I'm not sure of the correct answer. [219] Like I've stated previously Hullaballoo's bias and bad faith editing make me question his judgement about acceptable references. I have since found a suitable and hopefully acceptable reference below. I removed the unacceptable blog reference. I would truly appreciate it if somebody could really take what I'm saying here in good faith and please investigate the claims Doktor_Wilhelm made about user: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. I also agree with User talk:Allstarecho it takes two to have an edit war and Hullaballoo is just as guilty as I am in this situation. The L Word Episode Guide . Season 3, Episode 8 TV.com Latecomer Notes + Add Notes

• Music Featured in This Episode:

- Whether You Fall by Tracy Bonham - Bummer by Scarling. - Get in the Van by Numchucks - Don't Look Back by Télépopmusik - C'mon by Go Betty Go - Neckbreakin' by DJ Revolution - Transformation, performed by Nona Hendryx, Pam Grier and Betty edit Swancookie (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here : I undoubtedly believe user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a bias and is making disruptive edits on both Christian Hejnal, my wife Jessicka, and anything related to us or our band Scarling's articles here on wikipedia. User_talk:Xtian1313#Please_do_not_post_uncivil_invective_on_my_talk_page He even went as far as to conduct a sock puppet investigation against me [220] no evidence was found. Comments made by Hullaballoo toward editors who edit the pages mentioned above (as well as article Clint Catalyst ) are needlessly aggressive and borderline uncivil. Calling editors socks, spas, fanboys, and vandals and referring to the articles these people are editing disparagingly, does not fall under these rules:

• Be polite.
• Assume good faith.
• No personal attacks.
• Be welcoming.

I concur with what both user:Swancookie and User:Doktor_Wilhelm are alleging. I'm not sure what the proper course of action is but I am asking that an administrator take a close look at user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 's uncivil talk and disruptive edits or at least refer me to a place where I can make a proper complaint. Though they are cleverly masked within wiki policy, they are disruptive none the less. You can confirm my identity by sending and email to [email protected] I will provide anything you need even a phone number where you may speak to me directly. Xtian1313 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not one for 3RR. This is a dispute about

WP:RS, or possibly something more serious. Advice: if I'm just trying to find references and am not 100% clear on what is acceptable then you should not be edit warring about it. Become sure before reverting. Will look into this William M. Connolley (talk

) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Banjeboi

22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing (like I did with Benjiboi [221]) I ask for help from reliable editors who state the reference or citation is correct and Hullaballo removes the reference or citation no matter what the outcome of said discussion. [222] In the future I will continue to check with other editors before a an edit war happens and post my discussion on the article's talk page. Swancookie (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Deford, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Michael herc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version Before Revert [[223]] Version After Revert [[224]]

• 1st revert: [diff] link: [[225]]
• 2nd revert: [diff] link: [[226]]
• 3rd revert: [diff] link: [[227]]
• 4th revert: [diff] link: [[228]]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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

link 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leonard%5EBloom#toc link 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett link 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_herc

Reporting false and wrong information provided by Michael herc. this is on the behalf of my changes and that of Bkonrad and Avery_player2011 as well who have posted the page with truthful infromation. Bernette 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Already blocked --slakr^\ talk / 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Version before revert: [229] / [230] Version after revert: [231] / [232]

• Diffs: (...Asia) [233] [234] [235] [236] / (...Europe) [237] [238] [239] [240]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [241] [242]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
  This entire section on the Asia talk page
  (which I initiated) deals with the issue, and has been linked to from a number of other related articles for wider input.

Comments: The edit warrior (whose alias is very telling regarding position) has maintained that the entry for Turkey should be included in the Europe articles since all confirmed infections have reportedly taken place in Trakya; this despite the fact most of the country's area and population are in Asia (e.g., Europe/Asia). After I solicited for wider input, a number of editors have since supported the entry's inclusion in the Asia article. The edit warrior has since resorted to ad hominem attacks (e.g., unproven accusations of sockpuppetry, referring to me as 'sly') to discredit opinion/consensus in favour of including the entry in the Asia article. I apologise if I have apparently contravened 3RR, but will refrain hereafter; however, discussion with this editor seems futile. Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bosonic dressing thinks Turkey should move to the Asia article because vast majority of the country lies in Asia but he keeps Russia, whose vast majority too lies in Asia, in the Europe article. The WP community first put Turkey, Cyprus, Russia etc. to the Europe article but Bosonic moved all these countries except Russia to the Asia article without a consensus. [243][244]. When I came to the article, I realized it and classified countries per WHO's country classifications. But I didn't move Israel and Central Asian ex-Soviet states because I predicted Bosonic would never approve this move.

He didn't want to accept that cases in Turkey are in European part of the country. Then he canvassed.[245] I said you are canvassing but he denied it. Later an IP user with no edit history came and edit the article with the same edit pattern with Bosonic. (See Special:Contributions/84.142.78.222) He thinks this IP user (maybe a sockpuppet) is a respected user and counts him in his side although he didn't express his/her thoughts on talk page. Another IP user came and said we should move all transcontinental countries to the Asia article, including Russia, but Bosonic only understood the IP user only wants to move Turkey to the Asia article. Then we couldn't reach a consensus and I suggested the usage of the real geographical borders of the continents. He first didn't accept it but later gave up moving Turkey to the Asia article since 22 June. He is now edit-warring again. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 09:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As explained on the talk page, I boldly made edits to the articles that weren't contested (e.g., per the

'new', unique, unannounced scheme: this edit warrior moved some countries like Turkey per the WHO scheme but not others (e.g., Israel) and would've had no idea of editorial reactions to this or that since we have had no prior interaction. As well, throughout discussions, this edit warrior has made numerous false accusations (e.g., about canvassing (I asked an uninvolved administrator to monitor and weigh in), sockpuppetry (the IP is in Germany, I am in the Americas, and I reiterated this) simply because this editor has been unable to garner additional support. I gave up previously as part of a cooling off period, and frankly because I was sick and tired of talking to a wall. Bosonic dressing (talk

) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

24h. Please don't use this page to discuss content William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unconcerned recently returned from a 2 month editing break and, within a matter of hours, had started 3 simultaneous edit wars, in which he was reverted by upwards of a dozen other editors:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Initial inflammatory edit, Rv#1, Rv#2, Rv#3, Rv#4, Rv#5 (Note: some of these were done by him as an anon, as he admits here)
• Criticism of IPCC AR4 - Initial inflammatory edit Rv#1, Rv#2, Rv#3, Rv#4
• RealClimate - Initial inflammatory edit, Rv#1, Rv#2, Rv#3, Rv#4

Unconcerned has previously been warned about violating the 3 revert rule, but doesn't seem to care. Raul654 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 0oToddo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [246]

• 1st revert: [247]
• 2nd revert: [248]
• 3rd revert: [249]
• 4th revert: [250]
• 5th revert: [251]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [252]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [253]

I would now be in violation of 3RR myself to remove the material sourced from the website, so I cannot remove the material readded from the fifth revert. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Niex05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has repeatedly added back in the same content to the article. He's reverted at least 5 times at this point: [254] [255] [256] [257] [258]

User was warned about the 3RR here: [259]

There is a seperate issue of a suspected

that is making the same reversions that I am filing on the SPI.

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Niex05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [260]

• 1st revert: [261]
• 2nd revert: [262]
• 3rd revert: [263]
• 4th revert: [264]
• 5th revert: [265]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [266]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [267]

There is an ongoing discussion on talk page about the relevance of Sean Hannity's pledge to be waterboarded, Niex has been warned to discuss and not edit war, but has just finished his fifth revert to include the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I encourage the administrators to look at the article, the edits, and the biases by those who revert any criticisms. The issue we had discussed was on an edit regarding a promise made due to "waterboarding", we have provided sources (including a video with the author's own admission of that promise). How much more proof must be provided beyond a video with Hannity's own admission? - Niex05— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niex05 (talk • contribs)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor continues to insert opinion. I attempted to restore article by finding citations. I also accept some of her edits, but she continues to insist that one factual section is POV and edits it. She also uses bad Wikipedia style by using two spaces after punctionation and turning plurals into posessives (ie. 1970's instead of the correct 1970s). I ahve attempted to talk to her on the articles talk page, but she refuses to answer questions raised and instead launches into ad hominem attacks. Her edits are turning into vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a template for adding new reports here. Please use it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. I couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing me right to it. The edit wars continue and you're stuck on form over function. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please guide me to the template and make it obvious. The interface is aweful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Frank Guinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LivefreeordieNH (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: 13:18, 26 June 2009

Returns section on two awards that was removed by Mountbaldface in immediately prior edit, among other reversion-like changes

• 2nd revert: 13:38, 26 June 2009

Removes tags to direct readers at talk page discussion added by me in immediately prior edit.

• 3rd revert: 13:46, 26 June 2009

Reverts article to preferred version, after my changes to show what I thought an NPOV version would appear like.

• 4th revert: 13:56, 26 June 2009

Removes tags as before.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [268]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [269] is my statement that we're not supposed to write a he said she said article where Democrats and Republicans fight it out. [270] is my statement that I'm not a political operative, rather an encyclopedia editor directed by a noticeboard. The responses, visible on the talk page, do not adress the content of the reversions, but are rather focused entirely on calling me a liberal. While the user is blocked/restricted/whatever, I will not return my NPOV version of the article, but will rather restore the tags and wait patiently for others to arrive. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

24h. However, please prefer discussion to reverting yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that I have only one revert on the article, and it's the reinsertion of tags. I will not revert again. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right on that - I just assumed your edits in between his reverts were likely to be reverts too. Carry on William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [271]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

^LeaveSleaves 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See also this quasi-legal threat. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 10:33, 24 June 2009 (edit summary: "Edits made to make the content neutral")
2. 21:56, 24 June 2009 (edit summary: "You are required to provide a valid reason for each and every sentence you delete. You may edit the context if you feel you can write it better.")
3. 17:47, 25 June 2009 (edit summary: "Gamesmasterg9, avoid deleting material which you personally feel is doubtful, do spend some time looking at the references provided at the bottom, stop making assumptions and stop assuming ownership")
4. 22:51, 25 June 2009 (edit summary: "Removed statement of doubtful authenticity, Removed doubtful names - Sounds like you have clear your personal doubts before you start editing")
5. 10:50, 26 June 2009 (edit summary: "I am not reading what you are seeing? I just copy pasted your words. Something is definately wrong with you. Please don't hesitate to bring this to the notice of the administrators.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There must be some reason why you think you're immune from 3RR but sadly I can't guess what it is. £rr from both sides; 24h for both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Audrey Tautou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 79.97.98.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273]
• 2nd revert: [274]
• 3rd revert: [275]
• 4th revert: [276]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [277]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Asked him to discuss it on talk page but hasn't responded. Not much else I can do really, but he has now violated 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite find it in my heart to block you, though you too have broken 3RR. Next time look in the mirror before filing, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thankyou, but I think if you check the times you will see that I have not actually made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have made three though, which I admit is still undesirable. While he's out of the picture for 24 hours I will try to get the situation clarified. It's a policy point rather than an editorial one so hopefully it can be cleared up by the time he's back. Thankyou anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could I ask another admin to take a look at this. The user that brought this complaint was the first to break the revert policy and only the IP has been blocked, he is requesting an unblock on these grounds. I had a good look and feel he has been treated less fair than the user. In the previous case both users have been blocked, with this comment from the admin "There must be some reason why you think you're immune from 3RR but sadly I can't guess what it is. £rr from both sides; 24h for both". There should be some degree of fairness to the decisions for them to continue to be respected. (
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes I wa sthe first to revert his edit, after he removed an image form the article. However, over the last 24 hours in which he violated 3RR he made the first revert and made four today. I made three today and did not make more than three in a 24 hr period. I invited the editor to discuss it on the talk page but he wouldn't. He had his chance, and now I've requested a third opinion. The 24hr ban will allow other editors to respond to that before anymore reverts are made. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You were actually the more experianced editor and dare I say it should have known better, this block of the ip is not so that you can freely find support for your situation. The IP is requesting an unblock, I am not supporting that but I am supporting you and him to receive equality of action. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

He got a block for violating 3RR. I did not violate 3RR if you check the history so why should I receive equal action? I asked him to take it up on the talk page, where I had voiced my view. After he reverted the third time I gave him a warning that if he did it again he would be in violation of the rules. He had his chance to be reasonable and contribute to the discussion. he opted to break the rules so he's now paying the price for that. Hopefully this will be over by teh time his ban is up. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The revert rule is not so hard and fast. I have looked at the exchange and you are both equally guilty. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

No we're not actually. He broke the rule I didn't. I tried to resolve the dispute and he/you weren't interested in discussing it. I've asked for a third opinion, so we'll see where that gets us. The image is permissable under Wiki policy I feel, although other editors may think it's not a good editorial use. If that is the case I'm happy to stand down. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are technically correct. It was a whole 24 hours and 1 minute for you to make your 4 reverts. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

4 reverts in 24:01 is clear gaming the system, and is something to be embarrassed about, not something to point to as justification for evading a block. Were I an admin, she'd be blocked for 24 hours and 1 minute, and I recommend an admin do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, The IP is requesting an unblock, they were both equally responsible for the reverting and should have been treated equally. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes I did play the system a bit but I was a bit annoyed he wouldn't discuss it with me. However in view of the fact the image's licence has been called into question I won't be re-adding it to the article until that is cleared up. In view of that I don't have any objection to the ban being lifted so he can join the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, hopefully we can find an admin to resolve this. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I looked at the situation and declined the unblock request. 79 broke

WP:3RR, Betty did not. Yes, she was close, but that puts it into the blocking admin's discretion. Given that she has tried to discuss this on talk, I would probably have decides similarly. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree with you. Have you seen the comments here from the other user who has here admiting basically gameplaying at one minute over 24 hours to 4 reverts in 1 moment over a day. And the IP's reverts made where as is stated here over the removal of a picture that's licence is in dispute and if you look at 3 r rules .. then removing disputed possibly copyrighted content in a BLP is not even to be counted as a revert.The block admin admit has said on his talk page that he is ok with a review. The other party in the revert war is saying here that they are ok with allowing the IP being allowed back.(

) 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I do feel bad about this now and I should have handled it better - Off2riorob is right about that. My exasperation just got the better of me with him not willing to discuss it and putting a template repeatedly on my page, but I shouldn't have let it and there isn't an excuse for that really. The irony of the matter is that the dispute has been resolved due to external factors so there is no danger of it starting up again. With regards to the licence issue, that wasn't at the heart of the dispute - the licence was clean when the author added it. If I had been aware of the licence issue - or he had been and made me aware I wouldn't have restored it until it was cleared. Regradless, the dispute is resolved and my behaviour wasn't beyond reproach, and he's had a slap on the wrists maybe it's best just to wipe the slate clean?? Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments here will i am sure be appreciated by the IP and respect to you for adding them. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

• Lindsay Monroe page that was just complete gibberish. I know they have not edited in several hours, and all the edits have been reverted (not by me) - but if someone will look at this person's history, they will see this behaviour has been going on for several months and a block did not seem to do any good. They have and will continue to engage in this edit warring again if not dealt with. Please help! Thank you. Trista (user Triste Tierra - unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk
  ) 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Malformed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Taiwan Major League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [284]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

I'm just a third party, but it appears it's a political disagreement over the nature of Taiwanese independence manifesting itself -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:PeterSymonds; User:Readin also blocked 24h by User:Juliancolton. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [295]
• 5th revert [296]
• 6th revert [297] (after 3RR warning)

Account's only contributions are to add this spam, which has been removed repeatedly over the last several days and restored by other IPs and SPAs.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [298]

05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 203.206.108.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [299]

• 1st revert: [300]
• 2nd revert: [301]
• 3rd revert: [302]
• 4th revert: [303]

• Diff of 3RR warning: []

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [304]

--Jpeeling (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

17:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Version before revert: [305] / [306] Version after revert: [307] / [308]

• Diffs: (...Asia) [309] [310] [311] [312] / (...Europe) [313] [314] [315] [316]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [317] [318][319]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
  This entire section on the Asia talk page
  (which I initiated) deals with the issue, and has been linked to from a number of other related articles for wider input; also recently warned on article talk page and through edit summaries .... again.

Comments: Freshly after being blocked for edit warring (see above report), Turkish Flame has resumed edit warring (in moving Russia's entry from the Europe article to the Asia article, despite stability on this point and without consensus) amidst ongoing discussions and in spite of numerous cautions. There is FAR too much discussion on the talk page regarding these points of minutiae, and this editor's behaviour is bordering on trolling, but I'd be remiss otherwise. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR today but he put 4 revert diffs to report. After blocked, I changed my point of view and supported other editor's views to reach a consensus, which Bosonic is higly against again. He reverted my edits 3 times and I reverted his edits 3 times. I want to remind admins that Bosonic started first this edit war with moving some transcontinental countries to Asia [320][321] (Cyprus, Turkey, Azerbaijani etc. except Russia) which he thinks they are not European eventhough cases in Turkey are in European part of the country. During my block, another user came and moved back some of these countries back but Bosonic reverted him too.[322] --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring across two interrelated articles, shortly after being blocked for doing just that for similar reasons. The link which TF provided above highlights the fact that the IP changed one article and not another, and the changes were not discussed. (A sockpuppet, perhaps?) Entries in the articles should be organised sensibly and consensually: I maintain this should be in accordance with the

all over the place. Anyhow, TF seems unable or unwilling to either wait or garner additional feedback before making disagreeable edits, so I stand by my reports and edits but apologise for any errors. If need be, I will withdraw for now. That is all. Bosonic dressing (talk

) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 7 days Multiple edit-warring and 3RR over various articles, immediately after a block for exactly the same thing. Black Kite 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Greeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 71.172.192.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 71.172.188.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Text added by banned user: [323]

• 1st revert: [324]
• 2nd revert: [325]
• 3rd revert: [326]
• 4th revert: [327]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [328]

Sock of banned User:Deucalionite attempting to insert the preceding text to Greeks article, in the face of reversions by three different editors. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected Black Kite 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [329]

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]
• 4th revert: [333]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [334]

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

3RR doesn't count if the user was reverting a change which doesn't have consensus. (

) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It does actually. Besides your edit is not the consensus anyway, otherwise you wouldn't have had to revert so many different editors. Once reverted you should have opened a discussion, yet you continued to revert and start an edit war.

MITH

19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a long standing version of the article as no discussion on the change has been proposed on the talk page by those proposing the change or discussed by all involved on the talk page or gained consensus on the talk page. Aogouguo (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter what you think you did you still broke the 3RR rule and have turned down the chance to self revert in order to avoid this edit war in order to support the edit which you made and three different editors have reverted you on.

MITH

19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted a change made to the article then you should have proposed it in the talk page, that's what it's there for. Aogouguo (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a wake up call to veteran users such as user:MusicInTheHouse, that if they want to make an edit to an article they should go about it like everyone else has to. I think the real problem here is they feel superior to other users and the guidelines don't apply to them. Aogouguo (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the wake up call exactly?

MITH

19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MusicInTheHouse if you wanted to make a change to the article so much that you brought it here why haven't you even proposed it in the talk page let alone discussed it? No, because such users see themselves as Kings of Wikipedia, and if they want an edit made it will damn well be made, whether it's by themself or by getting their cronie friends to do it for them. Such users can't bring themselves to think of lowering themselves down to the standard of average users and use the talk page, infact the only time they use the talk page is to use it as an old boys' club and discuss their control over the page with their cronie friends, and anyone who gets in their way will be bombarded with millions of contradicting Wikipedia rules which favour themself, failing that they'll threaten users with blocks and bans and God knows what to scare them in to submitting, hence this I'm having to write now trying to defend myself from the onslaught that's been brought upon me for standing in their way. Aogouguo (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the merit of any edit, the point is to report you for breaking the 3RR rule and engaging in edit warring as you so no sign of any remorse for engaging in the disruptive behaviour. Instead you go on how more "experienced" editors are out to get you, instead of acknowledging your behaviour and attempting to solve the issue by altering your actions. Anyway I'll cease my discussion on this page, the policy is clear on what happened and no positive discussion is going to take place here obviously. I'll hand it over to an admin.

MITH

19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one with disruptive behavior? I'm the one restoring the long standing version of the article. You are the one trying to implement an undiscussed change to the article which hasn't got consensus or been discussed or even proposed on the talk page. I'm the one restoring the long standing version of the article. It's you trying to bully a change through on the article. Aogouguo (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try using the talk page before reporting me to this then in future. Just another sign of your bullying behavior. And to have the cheek to say I'm the one with diruptive behavior. Too long have you thrown your weight around on here to bully non-veteran editors to get your way. Your behavior is like a selfish child running to their mum because the other kids won't do as you want rather than acting reasonably and talking with them. Aogouguo (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats another rule you've broken. Please don't

20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another rule is don't bully newbie users because you're a veteran user and used to getting your own way, or expecting getting your own way. Aogouguo (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are millions of users on Wikipedia. If you weren't trying to bully me you would have moved on by now and left me alone. You keep tracking my account trying to make it unviable for editing as revenge for editing an article you consider to belong to you in a displeasing manner to you. Anyone looking at our user histories can see that. Hence we are here with you desperately trying to get me banned. Aogouguo (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned The first given revert does not appear to be one, merely an altering of the image. Having said that, this rather lame edit war continued longer than it should have done, and should've been on the talkpage after the first set of disagreement. Clearly User:Aogouguo is most at fault at here, but it takes two (or three, or ...) to tango. Black Kite 22:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

An edit war has been going on over

of OR; over time the edit war has produced what I feel are improvements to the article, as Damwiki1 and others have tried to meet Kurfürst's objections.

Kurfürst has accused others of bad faith - see

Talk:King George V class battleship (1939)

Technically Kurfürst has remained within the three edit rule. See Revision history of King George V class battleship (1939). I think someone needs to have a look at this.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is mere forum shopping, without even an case. The whole issue revolves around the repeated edits of User:Damwiki1 who tries to remove a referenced information from the article, probably because he does not like it (he had similiar behaviour about the secondary armament of this ship class in May) with various reasoning given used (ie. 'undue weight', proven wrong by primary sources etc.), consistently replacing it with his own OR and with his own conclusions from primary sources. After several attempts to remove the reference sources, he now 'further refined' the article as he puts it, by placing contradictory secondary references and placing said reference source he tried to remove earlier into a footnote. As a result of his edits, the article devotes a grossly unreasonable amount of text to a minor question within the article. A compromise was suggested, which removed the contestable statements and only concentrated on a brief summary of the facts accepted by all authors, but he reverted this again.

It should be also be noted that there was an ongoing investigation for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive in connection with him. The suspected sockpuppet ever since limits its working to supporting User:Damwiki1 on various talk pages, or repeated the same edits as User:Damwiki1. The suspected sockpuppet is otherwise completely inactive.

There are no 'other' editors, except his suspected sockpuppet, which does the same edits as him. Some other editors made small tweaks to cites, and [in one case rewrote a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_George_V_class_battleship_(1939)&diff=298914735&oldid=298655681 weaselish edit] from User:Damwiki1. There were also some edits, removing the same sentence via using anonym IP editors and [335].

This editor, User:Damwiki1 is repeating intermittently this kind of behaviour for a period of six weeks now - removing the same statements from the article from time to time. Due to this a section of the article is complete wreck, filled by paragraph long footnotes, putting a minor question into 'proper' context, using a primary source as a basis... Its entirely unreasonable to assume good faith with someone with suspected sockpuppets, and keeps removing the same information periodically, every week or so. User:Damwiki1 should be prevented from editing this and other related articles to prevent further problems. Kurfürst (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The sock investigation was closed as showing the two accounts were not socks. Kurfurst seems to have added the information again since the report was filed, putting him over 3RR. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest edit of mine is an entirely different section, and an information that has not been present in the article so far. The only similarity is that it uses the same book, Garzke and Dullin as a source, but it is on a different matter (torpedo protection. The contested question was the unreliability of the main guns of the ship). Kurfürst (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the complainant hasn't actually listed the sequence of reverts that supposedly violate 3RR then I recommend that action isn't taken against Kurfurst. Looking at the history a lot of edit warring is going on and you are obviously not going to settle this between yourselves so I suggest filing an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Until the dispute is resolved the article should be returned to its most recent stable state. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

. Comment – As pointed out above, either an RfC or some sort of mediation would be more appropriate here Black Kite 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Chris Denning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Taciturnsole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 98.248.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: [336] [337]

Tacturnsole

• 1st revert: [338]
• 2nd revert: [339]
• 3rd revert: [340]
• 4th revert: [341]

98.248.32.178

• 1st revert: [342]
• 2nd revert: [343]
• 3rd revert: [344]
• 4th revert: [345]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [346] [347]

Both proceeded to continue edit warring after being warned. Both users had been in a dispute previously over a similar article and had 3RR warnings on their pages for that already. HarlandQPitt (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP is claiming 3RR violation. I'm just reporting the issue here and my suggestion is to fully protect the article while they resolve the issues Corpx (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Page protected - but blocks may follow. Black Kite 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Freely admitting that if anon's edits don't qualify as vandalism (though I consider them to), that I broke 3RR, and thus will be understanding of a block. I just didn't know what else to do about it. Anon and Sturunner seem to have broken 3RR as well(I think?). Thank you for protecting the article. It will help force discussion. And since disputes should not be brought to this page, that is all I will say here. :) Farsight001 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Sindhi people
• User: K Melwani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After the expiration of a 24 hour block all round for edit-warring on this article [348], User:K Melwani immediately reverted yet again

1. 20:32, 27 June 2009 (edit summary: "Man, you really need to get a life!")

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Immediate re-revert after release of block. Black Kite 05:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [349]

• 1st revert: [350]
• 2nd revert: [351]
• 3rd revert: [352]
• 4th revert: [353]
• 5th revert: [354]
• 6th revert: [355]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [356]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [357]

The user has just come off a 48-hour block for editing-warring [358]. Meanwhile, he is adding a disputed, apparently copyvio, paragraph to the article in question, against the consensus on talk page [359], while refusing to take part in the discussions on the talk page, to obtain a consensus for his edits. He is gaming WP:3RR, and has reverted several different users on that page, 6 times within the last 48 hours. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

not within 24h but edit warring. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: MataNui44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [360]

• 1st revert: [361]
• 2nd revert: [362]
• 3rd revert: [363]
• 4th revert: [364]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [365]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 and 2

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [366]

• 1st revert: [367]
• 2nd revert: [368]
• 3rd revert: [369]
• 4th revert: [370]
• 5th revert: [371]
• 6th revert: [372]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
  Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan#User:Burdoh and the "Skeptical Analysis" section.

I've never done this before, so I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly or not. This person started this last night and was apparently blocked by User:Gwen Gale. This is the exact same material that was being revert warred over last night, now with an apparent sockpuppet, so I figured I should report it.
— Ω (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

24h for S. Was there some reason you thought you were immune to 3RR yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: John Russell (Florida politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Baxterword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [373]

• 1st revert: [374] and [375]
• 2nd revert: [376]
• 3rd revert: [377]
• 4th revert: [378]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [379]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [380], [381], [382].

This is a bit of a nasty situation right now--the editor involved has accused me of trolling, not knowing Wikipedia guidelines, having a personal agenda which entails destroying a series of crucial articles on Florida politics, etc. Attempts at conversation have been met by barely understandable rants, inappropriately placed on my talk page, which appear to be soapboxing--they weren't addressed to me, for example. User went to Editor Assistance to report me, again as a troll. It's really all a bit silly, and I was perfectly ready to drop this--until xe reverted again, and this article on a wannabe politician who never won an election is now 10,000 bytes large and filled with excrutiatingly trivial matters.

In the meantime, another user has prodded the article for deletion and I've seconded; the first AfD, a couple of years ago, ended as no consensus and I think it's time to bring it up again. But that's beside the point, which is that Baxterword is disruptive and not yet knowledgable enough about what Wikipedia is to edit in the way that xe does. I'm not really interested in beating up on this user, but xe seems not to want to understand that this is serious business. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: TheEditor22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This report pertains not necessarily to reverts but to what appears to be an edit war which seems to include at least 2 sockpuppets being used to back up their apparent creator, as well as one of them making actual edits.

In the article

which included such remarks as the following threats and innuendo:

• "You are a truly evil character, to want to deceive somewhat naive people into believing that these MLM companies are a good opportunity. In fact, you truly sicken me"
• "You and your lies are an embarassment to the human race."
• "If this was the cold war I can tell that you would be Russia."
• "I am going to take you down Insider....I 100% am going to strive to present an accurate portrayal of ACN on this article whatever it takes. And if you keep this up I'm going to include Amway in my to do list..."

Also at one point, three brand-new Wikipedia editors appeared, created within a few hours of each other, and both showing up in edits around the ACN Inc. article and discussion page. I suspect these are sock puppets of TheEditor22.

• 16:29, 28 June 2009 Martin Ford - edited the ACN Inc. article at: Special:Contributions/Martin_Ford, and was also used as a backup for TheEditor22 in a discussion.
• 19:16, 28 June 2009 CabbageMan57 - used to provide an opinion (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at: Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases
• 21:31, 28 June 2009 David J Steadson - used to provide an opinino (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases

In short, TheEditor22 is editing Wikipedia in bad faith, with an implacable bias, and is creating a veritable sockpuppet army to achieve his ends.

Would somebody please check this guy out? If anyone thinks this mess can be resolved on the talk page, I suggest you have a look at it. This will quickly disabuse you of any notion that this is possible.

Mike (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I emplore anybody to look at the ACN.Inc discussion board. Mike is an ACN rep and is is acting on extreme bias to present a positive image of ACN. Take a look at his own page and you'll see blatent ACN advertising. Insider is a well known Pro-MLM write and owns the website www.thetruthaboutamway.com. I have strong suspicions that he is being paid to defend Amway, Quixstar and ACN. I have not been using sockpuppetry and have been acting entirely independently. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether TheEditor22 is using sockpuppets or not remains to be seen, but I support the edit-warring claim, as well as uncivil behaviour, and clearly a single purpose account. The user has also linked numerous times to other personal sites of mine, including here, which I suspect falls under

Insider201283 (talk

) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sockpuppets David J Steadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Martin Ford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),  Likely CabbageMan57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blocked indefinitely as a disruptive single purpose attack account. There are other ways to address alleged conflicts of interest. Thatcher 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Mike S. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Underdog Mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [383]

• 1st revert: [384]
• 2nd revert: [385]
• 3rd revert: [386]
• 4th revert: [387]
• 5th revert: [388]
• 6th revert: [389]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [390]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [391]

User has continuously reverted a biography of a living person, removing sourced information and adding unsourced information. Every Dog's Day (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

... which would have been fine, except the reporter was adding allegations sourced only by

Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours

There's a dog eat dog pun around here somewhere...

Soxwon (talk

) 23:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)