Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive99

• Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 68.148.149.184 (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]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]
• 7th revert: [8]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [9]

• This editor has reverted four separate editors on this action, in order to open up an improper and irrelevant RfC in the face of unanimous opposition to his proposal, which also contravenes general MOS guidelines as well as the specific ones mentioned here. At this point, his actions have been a failure to see the point, acknowledge consensus, or assume good faith opposition on the part of the other editors. This has already drawn out far too long, and this editor has, within a limited time, already drawn considerable criticism for his edits on other pages, including the Watchmen page. I think that the IP's edits on this page (as well as the others, including an active ANI) should adequately speak for themselves, and I encourage their reference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Invaders Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Legitedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:05, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:55, 8 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 12:59, 9 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 22:49, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 22:35, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 09:09, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
7. 14:03, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
8. 16:33, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
9. 13:22, 16 May 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Have warned the editor several times on User Discussion page, however all have been deleted by the editor.

• Editor continually reverts reviews to remove any negative ones and to include reviews from non-professional sources. Ignores any attempts to enter discussions. Reviews chosen contradict the rest of the article. Perlonkid (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) You've marked your reverts as reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want

• Page:
  Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch Pure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), User talk:Nanami Kamimura
• User: Gryffinclaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: ep list link, characters link, Pitch Pure link, Nanami user talk link

episodes

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

characters

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

Pitch Pure

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link

Nanami Kamimura user talk

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: link, link

Gryffinclaw modified 3 different Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles to use a fan-preferred spelling of a characters name, going against Wikipedia's naming guidelines and

I don't understand. You've clearly stated in your edit summaries that you are reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want

WP:AIV, no? William M. Connolley (talk

) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

He is edit warring. I began reverting him as vandalism as such, and introducing deliberate factual errors as he is now clearly aware he is acting inappropriately. Edit warring is generally to complex for AIV, however. --

talk · contribs

) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be closed with a block as a conventional 3RR, on List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters. It's not vandalism, though. Disagreeing about names is not 'introducing deliberate factual errors.' Gryffinclaw has been editing since July 2008 and should be aware of our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry I was being a bit POINTy. 24h. I suppose I'd get into trouble if I "solved" the problem by just deleting the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Microsoft Office 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ghettoblaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [16]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

notice all reverts are minor edits, as are 99% of Ghettoblaster's edits. Scientus (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio, and you haven't even bothered to try to discuss this on the talk page. Also you can't spell your own name :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Dunajská Streda ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 89.173.1.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]
• 5th revert: [25]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: The approx. 380 pages in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Korlzor.
  • Example page: User talk:92.15.47.255 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diffs of edit warring warnings: 1, 2

Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution per

• On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmaster and every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
• On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; see this thread and specifically this response)
• On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained a pretty clear OK from PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
• About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
• Two hours later,
  WT:SPI
  , but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
• Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing

Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of {{IPsock}} (see this ANI discussion). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

24h. Hopefully TE will see sense, promise to stop, and get unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]
• 6th revert: [33]
• 7th revert: [34]
• 8th revert: [35]
• 9th revert: [36]
• 10th revert: [37]
• 11th revert: [38]
• 12th revert: [39]
• 13th revert: [40]
• 14th revert: [41]
• 15th revert: [42]
• 16th revert: [43]
• 17th revert: [44]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

I really didn't want to take this drama this far, but as a new editor, I just found his behaviour extremely unacceptable. This user is totally dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impossible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. He is completely abusing his administrator rights. Any positive edits made to this article is immediately removed by this user, even if they are properly sourced, and many new users have become victims of his tactics to block any user who is apparently a meatpuppet according to him (and his socks). I find this totally unacceptable and there must be an end to this nightmare drama as soon as possible. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Meandmylefthand is an alternate account of the indefinitely banned User:Ziggymaster, and all the reverts listed are instances where I was reverting edits from a banned user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've indef'd M as an obvious sock, though I didn't know whose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this be thrown out? There are all kinds of problems with the report. First of all, the "diff of 3rr warning" isn't a diff, it's a link, and to a 'warning' that was given just a few minutes ago and I haven't reverted since it. Secondly, most of the 17 reverts he listed are not even edit war reverts; for example, #16 is rolling back vandalism, #15 is restoring content that was deleted without explanation, #17 is reverting an entirely different problem and not related to the content dispute that's going on right now (and, besides, it was a week ago). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been thrown out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Recent discussions concerning similar behavior:

• RfC/U
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani 21 April 2009
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#More_edit-warring_by_Badagnani 28 April 2009
• User_talk:Badagnani#Welcome_back 11 May 2009
• User_talk:Badagnani#Wolfberry 17 May 2009

Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.

In David Oei, an article he created, he is once again edit-warring over poorly sourced information that has been discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5#David_Oei.27s_former_wine_shop.

This time around the information was tagged as failing verification 23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material 18:33, 14 May 2009 . Within two hours 22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again 04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.

I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts of

I support this: situation really needs attention. Badagnani has been asked more than once to go to

WP:DR over these edit warring issues, and has completely ignored a user RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani. Gordonofcartoon (talk

) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Wikipedia:Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? You already told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life [in the context of a Wikipedia article] unless a citation can be found.
  It seems to be verifiable that he owned it: [46], [47]. Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...

• It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist?
  Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things like this. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded to Quiddity's accusations, instruction, etc

talk

) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Re: Instruction: You quoted

WP:BATTLE

to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?

2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (

wikihounded

) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.

I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read over

WP:TRUCE

, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.

3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?

From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact is not in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --

talk

) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Badagdani would edit war much less if Ronz (a polite and careful edit warrior, whose weapons are carefully cloaked by appeals to policy and concealed behind various
  talk
  ) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --

talk

) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you. [48] is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

1. 04:55, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:59, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 05:18, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 15:29, 17 May 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Continues to make the same edit, which he self reverted once, then made again. Dan D. Ric (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: (multiple reverts)

Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments on

• 1st revert: [49] 23:59 17 May and following. comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "

• 2nd revert: [50] 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "

• 3rd revert: [51] 01:08 18 May "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"

• 4th revert: [52] 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"

• 5th revert: [53] 08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))" (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [54] prior warning at [55] by another user for same article

It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors. [56] is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warning Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors can follow the TMZ/Copperfield controversy here and here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under

WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered. ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post? Collect (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:

TheMagicOfDC (talk · contribs · count) a SPA who runs a Copperfield fansite and is in contact with Copperfield diff

Karelin7 (talk · contribs · count) another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfield diff

Collect. All that needs to be said about him is here at his own glorious RFC. No sensible consensus possible with him editing the page (not a PA, a fact). ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)? Ed -- please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott, Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [57]

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [62]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [63]

IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there must be a reason why you think your reverts are exempt from 3RR but I don't know what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source per

WP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is, who gets to decide that is what you were doing. You? Please see [64] and in future be more cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Distributed Inter-Process Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Psw1359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: J123Jordan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [65]

• See generally: [66]
• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Inter-Process Communication

I don't see a technical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war between User:Psw1359 and User:J123Jordan concerning the article Distributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it is a disaster area but no-one has even warned Psw about this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wozwoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: This version was the one being put together by User:Melodia and User:Binksternet as of late May 17 and early May 18.

• 1st revert: The sum of 11 edits, reverting User:Binksternet
• 2nd revert: The sum of 4 edits, reverting User:Melodia
• 3rd revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
• 4th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
• 5th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet

Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [67]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Tiptoety ^talk 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Resident Evil 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&oldid=290584526

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290584526&oldid=290574301
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290786238&oldid=290780651
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290792534&oldid=290792310
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290796224&oldid=290796154

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.106.43.95&diff=290698872&oldid=290585607 (from previous offense)

• Very lame edit war. I'm arguably involved, having tried to put an end to it.
• Possible sock of presently blocked 97.106.45.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  –xeno ^talk 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Conflict: Desert Storm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 97.106.43.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [68]

• 1st revert: [69]
• 2nd revert: [70]
• 3rd revert: [71]
• 4th revert: [72]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [73]

Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Dorothy Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amerindianarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 04:09, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 04:25, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
3. 05:16, 19 May 2009 (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

—Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd

No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Please see this (and with this as background).

I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I will have gone into

Any advice help would be of interest. [81] [82] Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning for

WP:COI, and the repeated removals do hint at some motive other than plain article improvement. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Template:HUCountiesto1918 (edit | [[Talk:Template:HUCountiesto1918|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Imbris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 21:53, 18 May 2009
• 2nd revert: 23:39, 18 May 2009
• 3rd revert: 01:45, 19 May 2009
• 4th revert: 17:19, 19 May 2009
• 5th revert: 17:44, 19 May 2009
• 6th revert: 18:22, 19 May 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protected — Aitias // discussion 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Oubliette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 12.36.39.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]
• 3rd revert: [86]
• 4th revert: [87]
• 5th revert: [88]
• 6th revert: [89]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [90] (and [91] and [92]).

In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• The IP has been Blocked – for a period of 24 Also, Oli Filth has been Warned Tiptoety ^talk 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

• [added later] 23:26, 18 May 2009 Puts the project he was edit warring about up for deletion [93]
• 21:52, 18 May 2009 [94]
• 20:34, 18 May 2009 [95]
• 10:03, 18 May 2009 [96]
• 09:40, 18 May 2009 [97]

As per the instructions above:

If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

• talk · contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk
  00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - although the edit summaries look odd on the face of it, the contents of

hablo

. 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the past history of edit warring, with 11 valid prior blocks for edit warring since his RFA, endorse.
  T
  ) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [117]

• 1st revert: [118]
• 2nd revert: [119]
• 3rd revert: [120]
• 4th revert: [121]
• 5th revert: [122]
• 6th revert: [123]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [124]

In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Article: Palm Pre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 85Zed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time: 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
2. 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk
   ) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
3. 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk
   ) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo).   user:j    (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you notify him of the 3rr?

talk

) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.

I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you did revert, three times, on the issue of price. They are listed above for you to see. Revert is not the way to solve an editing problem, regardless of how certain you are about it. In this case, though, there are

WP:V issues that I'm not sure you're familiar with yet, and I've gone into greater detail on the article's talk page. We can discuss it further there if you'd like.   user:j    (aka justen)  

17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Corfu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 194.46.181.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.164.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.247.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: 194.46.253.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st vandalism: 194.46.181.124
• 1st revert: 194.46.164.111
• 2nd revert: 194.46.247.61
• 3rd revert: 194.46.253.210

• Diff of 3RR warning: [125]

Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR?

talk

) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - Semiprotected by User:Philippe. Looks like regular vandalism. Blocking the range is not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for the technical information. Dr.K. logos 23:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 87.196.45.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [126]

• 1st revert: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]
• 5th revert: [131]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [132]

Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio, and no recent evidence for attempting to solve this dispute on talk. Please see

WP:DR. Moreover, this [133] looks like a good edit to me, and removing it a bad one William M. Connolley (talk

) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]

I warned the user last night prior to his 4th edit with the following.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [139]

Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. Editor

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [142]

• 1st revert: [143]
• 2nd revert: [144]
• 3rd revert: [145]
• 4th revert: [146]
• 5th revert: [147]
• 6th Revert [148]

• Warning – today for PAS, yesterday for PA

This is a huge mess, and there has been no engagement on any talk pages. JaniceMT knows the CCRC links should not be used based on extensive discussions on

(ec) I can confirm that multiple IPs and users have been editing to get references to the Canadiancrc website (often to copyrighted material) hosted there. See this blacklist report[151], and the very obvious blatant spam message at the bottom of this recent edit.[152] User:S-MorrisVP et her IPs were blocked for similar actions a week ago and the page semi-protected. This is a a bigger problem than 3RR but let's start here. --Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note the return to parental alienation which may be a 3RR violation on that page as well.

_complex

20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also an interesting comment here, that I am asking for clarification on. This may be an ANI or COIN issue.

_complex

20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 19:52, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 291193193 by WLU (talk
   )These are all valid links to papers published in reputable publications ie Canadian Bar Assoc.oc")
2. 20:21, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 291246759 by WLU (talk
   ) Verifiable good linked content - Stop the vandalism")
3. 20:50, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 291252520 by Slp1 (talk
   )undo vandalism")
4. 22:03, 20 May 2009 (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO| Why do you think the Florida Bar Assoc., Canadian Bar Assoc., and ABC news, and the courts of Canada decisions are "dubious" sources?")

—Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-05-20T22:21:03 Ruhrfisch (talk | contribs | block) blocked JaniceMT (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3rr) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [153]

• 1st revert: [154] 12:24 20 May "This view doesn't deserve anywhere near such prominence"
• 2nd revert: [155] 12:54 20 May

Each revert specifically removing over 4K of material currently in an RfC in Talk:Fascism

• Diff of editwar warning: [156]

This user has 10 entries in block log [157], has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable. [158] and [159] show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC. Collect (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why 2 reverts is supposed to count as edit warring on this article. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

REPORTING 121.220.36.117 AS SUSPECTED SOCK PUPPET, VANDALISM, EDIT WARRING AND COI

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

If you will review the talk page of this person, 121.220.36.117, he does pretty much nothing else but revert Carbonne entries. I HIGHLY suspect he is a sockpuppet and the same person on the extended-range bass page who is overtly and aggressively advertising himself, with no supporting links. This person is not only uncivil (see his talk page calling someone else's header "stupid"), he is also stalking Carbonne on here, removing anything he finds about him. He has also accused ME of being Carbonne's partner, and therefore, implicating Carbonne in having something to do with the additions I added about him, which he DOES NOT. I have not added anything about Carbonne since I was suspected as having a COI (although I absolutely do not), and now some other knowledgeable contributor who I do not know - picked up the ball, and added factual information about Carbonne on the page. First, 121.220.36.117 accused me of having a COI, and now, because another editor has added factual information, he is removing valid, important information without any valid reason, except for the fact that he is stalking Carbonne. If the latest contributor who added the Carbonne info to the page forgot or did not know to add a link, I have. However,, with the spurious reason of removing Carbonne because there was no link, and other artists on the page have no links, it is clear that 121.220.36.117 's motives are very suspect. In addition, he removed information about Michael Manring, who is one of the best known Extended Range Bassists in the world. Please address this, and stop him from warring and stalking Carbonne. It is very clear he fancies himself as a competitor.

Thank you.

Here is his talk page:

* 13:44, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (rev website.)
   * 13:38, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (remove this paragraph about Carbonne. No consensus for this material (see talk page) and Carbonne article was deleted as failing notability) (top) (references removed)

   * 13:34, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert unsourced addition about Yves Carbonne. Please resolve existing dispute re this material.)
   * 12:13, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Richard Tognetti ‎ (remove personal comments from end of page) (top)
   * 12:01, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Australian Chamber Orchestra ‎ (reverting copyright violation lifted from http://www.aco.com.au/?url=/about) (top) (blanking)
   * 14:50, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (fix) (top)
   * 14:47, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (make these pics a gallery to repair the layout of page)
   * 14:43, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (revert unencyclopedic editorial comment)
   * 07:38, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:81.86.68.253 ‎ (as with the userpage, use a soft redirect.. IPs shouldn't be redirected to user accounts as there always remains a possibility that someone else may use it...) (top)
   * 07:35, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:81.86.68.253 ‎ (turn this into a soft redirect as theres no guarantee it will always and only be used by this user) (top)
   * 13:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (→Mr Rent-A-Kill: revert unsourced additions that don't come from the book this para is sourced to...probably more Underbelly fiction. Please cite published sources. kthx) (top)
   * 13:34, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Sasha Alexander ‎ (revert external link)
   * 12:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) 2005 Cronulla riots ‎ (revert series of degrading edits - removal of bolding in intro, confusing language &c)
   * 12:33, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page ‎ (rvv)
   * 03:18, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (change stupid heading)
   * 05:26, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert recent spamming by someone with a blatant conflict of interest) (references removed)
   * 05:24, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (Carbonne article was deleted as not notable) (references removed)
   * 03:22, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)
   * 03:21, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (revert spamming by Carbonne's partner.) (references removed)
   * 03:20, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)  

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

That is all rather incoherent. Who is the anon supposed to be a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this report must have been filed by someone who is a fan of Yves Carbonne. The IP who is being cited here for edit warring, 121.220.36.117, does not appear especially troublesome, though they have removed a couple of citations to the work of Carbonne, for instance here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, User talk:Jodel141 and User talk:TLCbass#Your comments at WP:AN3. I hope that User:JulieSpaulding will add a comment here if she knows what is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, yes, I know quite a lot about this through some extensive investigation. What would you like to know?

talk

) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know if

talk

) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This board is not the right place for sockpuppet complaints. Please file at

WP:3RR himself. I suggest that this report be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of William M. Connolley, I think TLCbass is a little misguided as to what a sock puppet is. I think he believes 121.220.36.117 works for one of Yves Carbonne's competitors. Regarding the closing of this report, there is still a little bit of edit warring going on, possibly between Carbonne and some other musician's representatives.

talk

) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Result - I'm closing this as an Incomplete Report. Please use the button supplied in the header entitled 'Click here to add a new report.' I think the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a better place to discuss this. Noticeboards are limited in their power of investigation, and we hope that users will get their material in order before coming here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)