Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 970: Line 970:
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->[[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->[[User:BatteryIncluded|BatteryIncluded]] ([[User talk:BatteryIncluded|talk]]) 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? [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 02:11, 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? [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

== [[User:Aradic-es]] reported by [[User:PRODUCER]] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Karađorđevo agreement}} see also [[:Template:Campaignbox_Bosnian_War]] and [[:File:Tuđman Milošević meeting while writing the Karađorđevo agreement.GIF]]
* User: {{userlinks|Aradic-es}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&oldid=296421926]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=297099988&oldid=296992986]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=297302083&oldid=297271138]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=297378995&oldid=297357852]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=297870351&oldid=297699952]

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aradic-es&diff=298128152&oldid=296510120]

<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=288738797&oldid=284878070]

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
I have already [[Talk:Karađorđevo_agreement#Name_of_article|explained]] the name to him but he continues with his feeble attempts at changing the name and [[Talk:Karađorđevo_agreement#two_other_problematic_Sources|removing]] sourced information.

Revision as of 14:04, 23 June 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:RutgerH reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h)

    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)[reply]

    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[1]. The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me[2].

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

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

    User:Ttonyb1 reported by User:Cherry1779 (Result: No violation)


    • User keeps asking for the page to be deleted as the page is being designed [diff preferred, link permitted]


    • 1st revert: [diff] Keeps deleting content relating to lily. Deletes sections as they are written
    • 2nd revert: [diff] same thing
    • 3rd revert: [diff] same thing
    • 4th revert: [diff] same thing


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    He has repeatedly flagged it as deletion. It is a work in progress. Evertime a piece is added he deletes it.

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

    User has done this to others in past. I am also the person behind the page. This guy has done it to others. The page should not be deleted. It is a person who is part of MSN GAMING zone article.

    Result - No violation. This is a page that has been recreated repeatedly, after speedy deletion for A7 (lack of notability)and G11 (advertisement). Consider working on a new version in your own user space, and get feedback before putting it back as a real article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Braincomputerguy reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [3] Material added by IP


    • 1st revert: [4]
    • 2nd revert: [5]
    • 3rd revert: [6]
    • 4th revert: [7]
    • 5th revert: [8]
    • 6th revert: [9]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [10]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article users talk page: [11] and [12].

    Obviously I could block them or protect the page myself but that would just leads to claims of abuse or COI. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for editwarring for 24 hours.--Slp1 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ckatz reported by User24.176.191.234 (Result: No vio)

    I am not very good at this, so I am trying to provide the information to allow this to be investigated without much trouble. User:Ckatz has repeatedly replaced the name of Vanessa Ferlito, who formerly played Aiden Burn on CSI: New York - but died in the second season and is no longer on the show. I think (but am not sure) User has been warned - they surely see the notes when someone reverts reminding them character is dead - but continues to revert edits back to their preference to see this person in the main cast listing. This has happened 6 times since June 9th, and many times before that date. I do not necessarily wish this user blocked unless Powers That Be find this should happen, but I would like to see a semi-stern warning issued - then a block if they repeat the behaviour. I do believe the majority of this user's edits are in good faith, but they do not seem to understand a dead character does not belong under "Main Cast" unless they are currently appearing as a spirit every week. I have read some of the archives of Ckatz, and they are counseling users as an apparent admin. Perhaps they believe if they don't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period it's okay. Thank you. Trista (unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a 3rr issue, but part of a common misunderstanding regarding the Television project's guidelines and the way in which we address fictional subjects. (Newer editors tend to insist on removing actors if their character dies, as well as changing "is" to "was" when a show ends.) I will attempt to explain it to the user. --Ckatzchatspy 16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note for the above user on the most recent IP talk page here, as well as a similar note on the CSI:NY talk page. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested the Wikipedia Guidelines that say this is the way it truly is, as I do not understand why a character who is no longer starring in a show is still listed. Whatever it says, I will follow - as I want to be a good editor. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.12.195.143 reported by User:OfficeGirl (Result: Semi)


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

    The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) Removed the tag for original research HERE IN FIRST REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297374396 It was Restored by User Thibbs HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297374396 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) was the next person after Thibbs to edit and he removed the tags HERE IN SECOND REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297389955 After a series of edits by the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) I came to the page and I tagged it for a few things including the same ORGINAL RESEARCH tag HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297535151 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN THIRD REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297554371 I reverted ONCE to replace the tag HERE and placed a general note on the talk page for the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) about not removing tags without proper reason http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297563828 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk)then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN FOURTH REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297563971

    On the Talk page for The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) there is a tag noting that someone suspects the address is being used by an indefinitely blocked user by the name of Samlaptop85213 (talk) On the talk page for Samlaptop85213 the blocked user has requested to be unblocked and as an argument for his reinstatement he pleads that his edits on this Bop It article using an IP address should be considered in unblocking him.

    I think this warrants Admin attention.

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

    His discussion of the matter was merely to state on the article's Talk Page: "No!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL NOT FIX THE ARTICLE!" as he removed the maintenance tags on the article.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297560180

    Thank you for looking into this. OfficeGirl (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - As another admin has noted, 'Block evasion isn't usually considered a reason to unblock.' IP was warring to remove tags. Article has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drork reported by User:Rami R (Result: 12h block)

    • Previous version reverted to: [13]
    • Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: not actually my attempts: talk page section.

    Rami R 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drork (Result: See above)


    • Previous version reverted to: [20]


    • 1st revert: [21] reinserts picture removed by User:Supreme Deliciousness
    • 2nd revert: [22] reverts my removal of picture
    • 3rd revert: [23] reverts SD's second removal with caption of "I see an edit war in the horizon"
    • 4th revert: [24] reverts my second removal


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25] This is in a thread on Drork's talk page started by Supreme Deliciousness in response to Drork placing a warning on SD's talk page accusing him of starting an edit war. I deemed Drork experienced enough that mere mention of 3RR sufficient for him to understand the consequences.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See thread at [Talk:Israel#Mount_Hermon_picture_must_be_removed.21].

    Also see [WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues] Although it might seem at first glance that I am acting as a tag team with User:Supreme Deliciousness, he isn't someone I normally agree with. Indeed I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation about him recently. It's just I think he's right on this issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mashkin reported by User:Shuki (Result: Nominating editor blocked - 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [26]


    Previous identical reverts:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [35]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36].
    • Previous attempt to generate improvement that user had deleted: [37]
    • User:Mashkin's talk page before self-revert documenting a history of edit wars and problematic behaviou: [38]

    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 [39] 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)[reply]

    • Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please be more mindful of WP:BLP in the future. Shell babelfish 02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lanternix reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [40]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

    Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.248.89.30 reported by User:Bzuk (Result: )

    Talk page cautions:

    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).[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Edit warring on Istanbul article

    User: [Various users] reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Jarvis76 and El Greco blocked 31 hours )


    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)[reply]

    User:DoctorDW reported by User:Fuzbaby (Result:No violation )




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

    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)[reply]

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However there does appear to be a content dispute, I would suggest using some form of dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Not sure if anyone reads these much after, but a similar pattern is happening on another page [[55]] Fuzbaby (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.195.86.16 reported by User:TechOutsider (Result: No vio)


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


    • 1st revert: [56]
    • 2nd revert: [57]
    • 3rd revert: [58]
    • 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)[reply]
    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. TechOutsider (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As requested by EdJohnston on my talk page, here is the notice on the Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2#Aggressive Subscription Marketing. Look through the article history (this issue spans back a couple months), and several different anon. editors add the exact same information. TechOutsider (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swancookie reported by User:Soxwon (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [59]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]
    • 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 WP:BLP violations by making contentious claims and referencing them with blogs. I'm wondering if I should take this to BLP/N, or would that be forum shopping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 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)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, I reverted this when he appeared to be unfamiliar with WP:3RR. I then readded it when I realized he's been here for more than a year. Soxwon (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 Clint Catalyst. Newby users should not be assumed to be SPAs and should be welcomed per policy. -- Banjeboi 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. [66] 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]


    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 (I was banned for) in 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. [67]

    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 [68] 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)[reply]

    User:75.57.213.195 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: 24h, semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [69] (This was the first introduction of content in violation of WP:BLP)



    • 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: [74]

    This IP editor continually re-inserts the same controversial content into a WP:BLP after the sources have been revealed to be inaccurate and discredited. While this has been explained on the talk page, and this editor has been requested to discuss his edits on the talk page, he hasn't -- he just keeps reverting. He has broken the WP:3RR rule as well. I have not broken the 3RR rule yet, but I fully intend to as authorized by WP:BLP: "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Result - 24h for User:Pecker Checker, who admits he is the same as the IP, and semiprotection since the IP is dynamic. The IP has violated 3RR. If there are any BLP issues here I don't see them as very significant. I suggest filing at WP:BLPN to get more opinions. Who is the 'probable banned user?' EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brews ohare reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [75]


    (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: [80]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

    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)[reply]

    You missed one: [82]. Brews was already at four reverts when I warned him, and proceeded to add a fifth.--Srleffler (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic reported by 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) (Result: No action, see report above)


    • Previous version reverted to: [83]


    • 1st revert: [84]
    • 2nd revert: [85]
    • 3rd revert: [86] – this one included the use of a vandalism tag when it wasn’t just vandalism that Xenophrenic was undoing
    • 4th revert: [87]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Grundle2600 reported by User:Disembrangler (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [89]



    • 3RR noted on talk page prior to fourth revert [94]; user had the cheek to claim a vandalism exemption (been around long enough to certainly know that couldn't be applied)

    User has previously been blocked for edit warring. Disembrangler (talk) 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). Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Grundle2600_admonished_and_restricted. Disembrangler (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    That this is a mischaracterisation of the dispute should be obvious to third parties from the diffs. Disembrangler (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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) [95]
    • 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.

    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)[reply]

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

    Tide rolls reported by 173.66.36.76 (Result: self-rv)

    • Previous version reverted to: [97]

    User:Tide rolls was warned about the 3rr rule after his third reversion. I asked him to use the talkpage[108] and he responded by removing my comments from his user talkpage.[109][110] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is no content dispute on my part. The user's first edit was to blank a section with a disingenuous link [111]. 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)[reply]
    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'.[112] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Withdrawn)

    • The user was blocked in April of this year for WP:3RR breach, and from his edit summaries was obviously well aware of the number of reverts he was making. --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result:48h )



    • Previous version reverted to: [113]


    • 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: [114]


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

    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)[reply]

    User:Oleola reported by User:64.56.248.185 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [115]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [120]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]
    This user has now simply deleted my attempt at discussion on his talk page so I've moved it to [122]

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

    User:Greg D. Barnes reported by User:Aussie Ausborn (Result: Blocks)


    Comment User:Greg D. Barnes was warned for edit warring after a period a multiple reverts on the Freddie Mercury article. Four reverts today in addition to at least 9 similar content reverts since June 1, 2009. User was issued a warning earlier today but chose to ignore the warning. The user's block log shows a clear understanding of 3RR with a previous indefinite ban being issued in October of 2008. The permanent ban being lifted only after an emailed apology claiming they would not violate Wikipedia policy again. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:24.98.228.92 reported by User:Qqqqqq (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [123]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [130] (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: [131]


    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)[reply]

    User:68.37.192.216 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )

    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)[reply]

    User:Slatersteven reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result: more info)


    • Previous version reverted to: [132]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [138] (this is for the earlier dispute)

    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)[reply]

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


    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Please don't bring content disputes here. One of your reverts - [140] - just adds the word "later" which isn't very convincing William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why that happened as I was trying to undo a paragraph move.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Try reading one of my posts you deleted, it might give you a clue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mintrick reported by Law Lord (talk) (Result: )12h

    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)[reply]

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

    1. 20:27, 21 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297779606 by 81.170.10.52; uncivil. (TW)")
    2. 21:22, 21 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297786159 by Mintrick; irrelevant. It's still uncivil.. (TW)")
    3. 17:11, 22 June 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297861661 by Spacepotato; that merely established it should be kept. Not the wording.. (TW)")
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

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

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

    User:PhilthyBear reported by R7604 (Result: Already blocked)


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



    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • User is already blocked for 24h. Black Kite 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tnaniua reported by User:Who then was a gentleman? (Result: 2 weeks)

    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)[reply]

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

    User:207.112.74.90 reported by User:Darius Arcturus (Result: 3h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [146]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [151]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:98.225.16.77 reported by User:98.225.16.77 (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to: [152]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [158]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159] Has been warned by multiple users using edit summary instead
    Semi'd for a week William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Falsewords333 reported by Xcentrex (Result: Protected)


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



    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)[reply]

    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.[reply]

    User:Stevertigo reported by User:BatteryIncluded (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [164]


    User:Stevertigo, already subject to editing restrictions, keeps on violating rules

    User:Stevertigo operates with a significant confrontational attitude and has consistently shown disregard to the "No Original Research" rule and POV while editing Life article: he creates his own definitions, such as the analogy "biological machines" [165]), [166], sentience as a (false) requirement for an organism to be considered alive [167]. Another example: "...while I understand the "distaste for original research, I consider wikiality makes sense far superior to versions like the current one" [168]; and suggested the use of a "credentialized linguist" instead of quoting the required references.[169].

    Stevertigo has persisted to post long-winded assays on the Talk:Life page pushing his POV and has consistently failed to produce references to his WP:OR own definitions he inserts in the article.("In biology...") After several demands -over several weeks- for him to quote references,[170], [171]; he finaly explained his inability to produce them was because he would need to use his "credit card" and because "None of which (research papers) particularly interests me".[172]

    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:[173]. 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.[174], 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 Life article, I notified the involved editors on the Talk:Life page of the editing restrictions imposed on Stevertigo for his edit-warring, however, he deleted my post and proceded launch threats against me.[175] With this violation and revert, he has once more defied the rules and violated the restriction placed by Administrators in no uncertain terms. Therefore, I respectfully request that his non-compliance enacts the disciplinary blokage proposed by the corresponding Administrators. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Aradic-es reported by User:PRODUCER (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [185]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [190]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

    I have already explained the name to him but he continues with his feeble attempts at changing the name and removing sourced information.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=298128294"