Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lagaman (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Lagaman (talk | contribs)
58 edits
Line 1,076: Line 1,076:


I'm simply trying to provide some missing information, and a link to more, but this person keeps removing it. Four times, to be precise, and in the past 24 hours.
I'm simply trying to provide some missing information, and a link to more, but this person keeps removing it. Four times, to be precise, and in the past 24 hours.

I've gone through two rounds of getting editor assistance, as well as a third-party opinion. In both cases, I have followed their recommendations, only to have this person undo those changes.


I may have screwed up the links here, and if so, I'll try and get them corrected. [[User:Lagaman|Lagaman]] ([[User talk:Lagaman|talk]]) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I may have screwed up the links here, and if so, I'll try and get them corrected. [[User:Lagaman|Lagaman]] ([[User talk:Lagaman|talk]]) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:17, 11 March 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

    Reports

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


    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • 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]


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: warned 24h)

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

    1. 18:53, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273582563 by DDima (talk)")
    2. 18:59, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274205590 by Ahonc (talk)")
    3. 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343973 by DDima (talk)")
    4. 16:42, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274587417 by Ahonc (talk)")
    5. 16:53, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274714703 by Nick UA (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahonc At the foot!")
    6. 17:02, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274717169 by Ahonc (talk)")

    —Anatoliy (Talk) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noob, no warning, so I'll do what you should have done William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what template I should use.--Anatoliy (Talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahonc, replacing Ukrainian names with Russian names is not considered to meet the definition of vandalism here; because of this edit, where you incorrectly labeled Whiteroll's edit "vandalism", I must ask you to read WP:VANDALISM#NOT. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is continueing of wars for Kharkiv/Kharkov, Kiev/Kyiv (such edit wars also were on Commons last year).--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Kharkiv University‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whiteroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 18:56, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273583964 by DDima (talk)")
    2. 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343997 by DDima (talk)")
    3. 16:54, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274715200 by Nick UA (talk)")
    4. 21:38, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274767904 by Nick UA (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Oh well, 24h then William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues warring: [12], [13]

    Yes, both were at it again. 48 to Whiteroll for another vio, and 12 to Ahonc for consistent blind reverting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User is continuing reverting [14].--Anatoliy (Talk) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tommylotto reported by MehTsag (talk) (Result: prot)

    Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tommylotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    —MehTsag (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tommylotto is clearly aware of the 3RR rule in regards to edit warring, he even warned another editor # 01:53, 6 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Education section is incorrect. */") potentially trying to game the system and frighten off the other editor so Tommylotto could win the edit war. MehTsag (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The original edit and 1st revert as identified above concerned a different topic (the subject's last semester in college). The 2nd revert as identified above was actually the original edit on a totally different subject (the identity of the school attended). Then I made only two reverts (identified as 3rd and 4th above) and stopped and after another editor started an edit war. I left the article with the version that I disagreed with and continued to seek consensus on the discussion page. The warning that I gave to the other editor (being used as evidence against me) was actually issue after my second revert had been undone (by WindyCityRider's 3rd revert) and after I had left the article with the version that I disagreed with. The warning that I issued was not an effort to intimidate the other editor (as I was temporarily conseeding to his version) but was actually coupled with an invitation to discuss the matter on the discussion page to seek consensus rather than pursuing an unproductive edit war. I think this report is totally unwarranted, was not adequately investigated by MehTsag, and was not proceeded by any warning whatsoever. I suspect content bias.Tommylotto (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) m (37,303 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Keith Olbermann": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    85.72.90.42 reported by Mikaey (Result: Article prot'd )


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Matt (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jcmenal reported by 69.158.150.169 (Result: Blocked both 24+48 )


    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    Notice of warning: [26]

    Long history of edit warring on this and other Mexico-related articles. Continues to restore sentence fragment, despite edit comments pointing this out, and reverts without discussion or edit comment. Doesn't seem fluent in English, and belligerent. Behaviour at other article listed is similar. Was previously blocked for edit warring on the very article, with similar pattern (see here) Given this, a longer block than usual may be warranted. 69.158.150.169 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - I've blocked Jcmenal for 48 hours for edit warring and then the IP for 24 hours for also edit warring (despite knowing that he has an account somewhere. Log in after the block expires, please). 69.158.X: Thanks for reporting but you know you where a bad boy for reverting too. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result: No vio)


    I have continually edited this page to remove public relations materials (specifically a "pink press" article) as well as unsubstantiated discussions of a former career. I would actually suggest that this page be removed entirely, as this person is of little or no significance. However, the party who continually reverts appears to be a relative of this individual. This person did a warning on me, which was completely absurd. I have not given her a warning, but I will if it is necessary.

    Definitely in violation of the 3RR.

    I believe that the page should be deleted entirely. It adds nothing to Wikipedia.

    • Result - What's the big deal in getting it deleted? Go to WP:AfD if you're that worried. Anyway, there's a no vio here as UnionSoap is actually doing a good job against a bunch of sock IPs. ProperlyRaised, please maked sure you log in and stop edit warring too. Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    74.248.178.84 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: Blocked IP for 24hrs )


    • Previous version reverted to: [27]


    Notice of warning: [32]

    User User:Rvbaxley uploaded a number of personal photos across several articles - which are at best low quality and irrelevant. The photos were removed by User:Icarus3 earlier. Reverts were done by 74.248.178.84 this evening.

    TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 06:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Scampi history, too. As Rvbaxley and 74.248.178.84, this individual has done the same edit 5 times in 24 hours, including after being warned about 3RR. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lordvader2009 reported by Aktsu (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [33]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [38]

    The notice he's removing is required by MOS:FLAG to explain the flags are not representing nationality but sporting nationality, i.e. the country the participants are representing. --aktsu (t / c) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's also removing information from the article (e.g. that Fernandes recived a yellow card, and that the doctor stoppage was due to a cut). I can only imagine he's doing it to have the page conform to his strict view of how a "result" section should look (i.e. without "excessive" information) - with the result that it's impossible to expand the section. --aktsu (t / c) 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably also add he's known for not responding to any inquiries and was previously blocked for not listening to people asking him to stop uploading images without free-use rationales (see block log). I mention it because I see little point in attempting to discuss the issue with him. --aktsu (t / c) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He continues to remove (this time specifically sourced in case that was his problem) content (diff) --aktsu (t / c) 09:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A distressing lack of talk; but you could set him an example by using the article talk page to discuss this yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, I'll do so in the future - though I somewhat doubt (and doubted) anything would come out of it going by experience... --aktsu (t / c) 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shshshsh and reported by Ultramegasuperstar (Result: Both blocked for 31 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    I reverted due to my view of vandalism according WP:3RR rules. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The same applies to the user who reports this incident. Please look. I think I'm experienced enough to know when I can and cannot revert something. I was reverting this user's sneaky vandalism. The user violated both the consensus policy and the three revert rule. The article was even semiprotected because one anon was defying this consensus. He makes the same edits as the anon. An issue that was thoroughly discussed on the talk page, with sources being added. Ultramegasuperstar (talk · contribs) reverted everything despite not being a part of the discussion. I discussed it, cited sources and he still claims in the edit summary there are no sources, which is his sneaky vandalism and devious way of pushing his POV. What he says about me and how he presents the situation, it is all exactly the opposite, I reverted him because I considered his edits vandalism (and there is a reason, no?). I can cite even book sources, and he was also warned, but it didn't help. He called the newspapers I cited biased and that it's all lies. I also reported him and I suspect he is a sock puppet, which will be checked tomorrow. I ask admins to check this very well before clicking the block button. Shahid • Talk2me 13:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 31 hours (talk · contribs).. In the span of only six hours, both editors reverted each other six or seven times. Regardless of the fact that each editor was labelling the other's edits as "vandalism," this is a textbook example of edit warring in a content dispute. Additionally as Shshshsh used rollback inappropriately in this content dispute, I have removed his rollbacker status. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant.Alpaugh reported by Knepflerle (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [39]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44] - previous edit-warring blocks of 24, 24, 48, 55 and 72 hours - and the last less than a month ago.

    Clear consensus for material addition on Talk:UEFA_Europa_League_2009–10#Listing_teams (seven editors adding or supporting, only Grant removing the text) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#UEFA_Europa_League_2009; incorrectly labelling addition as "vandalism". Knepflerle (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Syjytg (reporter blocked)

    3RR violation and edit warring at :[45]by : Syjytg

    Syjytg was banned just a few days ago for doing exactly the same thing, but is continuing to disregard the rules.

    --Johny Foxy (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporter indef'd as a sock, S warned for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TomCat4680

    He keeps merging Toon Disney artticle to Disney XD, and when I reverted those he kept reverting. To not keep reverting I placed a merge tag but then he reverted that too. I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this though. --Gman124 talk 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Him and his friends are vandalizing my user page and talk page. They are also impersonating administrators and sending me fake warnings. I stopped re-merging the articles and agreed to wait for a consensus.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't vandalis your page, the above section (at top of this page) says that tell the user you are reporting about the fact that you have reported him/her here. So you consider leaving that message impersonating admins. --Gman124 talk 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't vandalize your page i gave you a warning for violating WP:3RR. Also i am not impersonating administrators by giving you a warning. Anybody can give warnings. Powergate92Talk 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Syjytg

    3RR violation at :[48]by : Syjytg

    And if there was a 12RR rule, Syjytg would have broken it here UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout stage - fchd (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Avrumelmakis1 reported by Ronz (Result: Blocked )

    To make it worse, he's edit-warring over a link to a promotional website that he's stated is his own site [49]. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's now blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Keepcalmandcarryon reported by unomi (Result: stale)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Hi Sorry, I am new here and not really sure how to give an 3RR warning.. Basically I was gamed by Keepcalmandcarryon in collusion with user Tom Harrison. I was adding some notable and relevant direct quotes that they took exception to, I opened a section on the discussion page and invited them to discuss so we might find a solution but they kept reverting my edits without any comments. I asked for their reasoning on the discussion page repeatedly and 'naturally' undid their vandalistic deletions. The end result is that just as I navigated here to seek help I was notified that I was under 3RR warning. Tom Harrison had not previously done any editing on the topic, did not seem to be able to read the source and did not see fit to justify why he deleted my quotes. 2 minutes after I undid his deletion I received the 3RR warning.

    Please help us sort this out, thanks. Unomi (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an inappropriate use of this noticeboard. There is no 3RR, you are make serious bad faith accusations to two other editors, and you are using this noticeboard for resolving your issues. You need to stop. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced this editor is "new here". Much that they have done indicates experiance, and a similarity to at least two other SPAs on this topic. Verbal chat 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time I am accused of being a sock puppet, it is worrying because it seems to center around my ability to read and apply what I have read, this is apparently controversial. From what I have been able to gather sock puppetry is a fairly serious allegation, right up there with WP:MEAT, WP:CIRCUS, WP:CABAL and WP:WL. I have been forced to read all these wiki terms because of the dumping of WP:TAGS without explanation. This has proven unfortunate but fairly interesting reading.
    I was not really sure how to go about resolving the constant deletion of sourced information, despite my requests for discussion here, here, and here before hasty decisions. This was why I brought it to the attention of this noticeboard, honestly I did not know the meaning of [WP:3RR] at the time, if I did, why would I have violated it? It is quite clear from my initial posting that I am not accusing [user:keepcalmandcarryon] of violating 3 Revisions Rule, obviously the fact that some try to frame this as a spurious 3RR accusation could explain why my ability to read wikipedia policy is so perplexing to them.
    I also wish to add that user:orangemarlin is not a neutral party in this.
    My apologies if my attempt to explain myself is taken to be [WP:SOAP] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fault is with U, who is lucky that this report is now stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Realist2 reported by 79.74.116.72 (Result: stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    • 1st revert: [51]
      • I was following policy per WP:LEAD, leads don't need sourcing when the information is sourced elsewhere in the article body (which it was).
    • 2nd revert: [52]
      • Although I did not need to source the lead, I added the source, per your persistent request for a citation (that was not needed).
    • 3rd revert: [53]
      • You removed the source because you did not understand what it was (surely asking me would have been better), I reinserted the source and explained to you in the edit summary what it was.
    • 4th revert: [54]
      • Your comment on my talk page indicated that your removed the citation (that you had demanded), because you did not like the way it was formatted, even though the reference was formatted correctly and used in numerous other featured articles (see examples of these featured articles below).
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]
      • You did not warn me that there was an alleged/potential edit war, all you did was inform me that you were reporting me over this joke. At no point during these edits did you suggest there was an edit war, to me there didn't seem to be one. I thought you were simply a newbie who did not understand WP:LEAD or citation formatting conventions. Rather, you are an experienced account holder, signing out to cause mischief.

    Realist2 has something of a history of arbitrary reverting on any article pages related to Michael Jackson. When a "citation needed" tag was added today to one of the pages (for dubious worldwide sales of an album), he has repeatedly removed the tag, insisting that something he read in a book was a sufficient source for the information (which it is not as it fails WP:RS and WP:POV). Looking back through his edit history, it seems that his involvement is somewhat obsessional, often treating the Jackson article pages as his own property, and he tends to revert the work of others without discussion. It appears he has been banned for breaching the 3RR rule on various occasions before. 79.74.116.72 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll currently in discussion with 2 administrators trying to resolve the issue, hopefully we can get some sense out of this, so please bare with me. The book in question is used on a multitude of featured articles (Michael Jackson and Thriller (album)), so I'm not sure why he's moaning about WP:RS and WP:POV all of a sudden. It seems quite obvious also, that this is a registered user (I have a reasonable idea who it is) signed out to cause trouble. — R2 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, do not disrupt the format of the 3RR report as you have done above. If you have anything to say in your defence, then state it at the end of the report. Secondly, do not attempt to throw the blame onto me or any other user. You have clearly breached 3RR regardless of your so-called reasons for doing so. I am not signed in at present because I am not at home, but I will not allow you to use that as a smokescreen to deflect what you've done. Now kindly wait for an administrator to deal with this matter and discuss it further with him/her after they have investigated if you wish.79.74.116.72 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (this comment was sent by a different IP)[reply]
    How on earth is the "second revert" a revert? I specifically inserted the (apparently offending) citation (for the first time), like you requested. Am I banned for adding citations when they are requested? How does that count as a revert? I no numbers are not strictly relevant, but hopefully the assistance of the administrators will bring this issue to an amicable ending. I've certainly never seen citations rejected because an editor disagrees with how they are formatted. Having a notes section for the page number and a reference section for the specifics of the book is common practice on featured articles. — R2 02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Technically, no 3RR violation here: [56][57] and [58] are reverts, but replacing the fact tag with a citation was not. Realist's formatting of the citation isn't my favorite, either, but I have seen it used on other articles, and refusing to accept it and stamping a "fact" tag over it doesn't seem particularly appropriate.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the method I was taught when getting Michael Jackson featured, I was actively encouraged to do it. The Beatles Wiki project seems to love it as well, numerous GA's are formatted in that manner. Rejecting a reference (that I didn't even need to give per WP:LEAD), because it was not formatted in a particular way, is rather odd to say the least. I've tried my best, I sourced the lead, even though it goes against my writing style, I sort the opinion of 2 admins (now 3), unfortunately they were busy. At no point did it ever occur to me that this was an edit war, rather someone who didn't understand the writing convention used. First it was one issue (sourcing the lead), then the problem seems to be the formatting of the reference itself. — R2 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - the way the reference was cited is somewhat problematic, but that alone is not the central issue. The claim that this album sold a certain amount of copies was not directly backed up by any source either in the opening lead or in the main body of the article (by directly, I mean a source ref added immediately after the claim). It would appear that the IP user above then added a fact tag, which is fair enough. Realist2 insisted (perhaps mistakenly) that the information was adequately sourced and thus began the edit war. In the end, the claim was backed up by some vague reference to a Michael Jackson biography that cannot be immediately fact-checked nor verified for its own factual accuracy (since it isn't any kind of recording industry publication). This is made all the more questionable when the actual worldwide sales certifications on the article page itself do not seem to come anywhere near the amount that is claimed. Looking through the history, it appears that this was discussed to some extent on Realist2's talk page prior to the 3RR, but s/he still went ahead and reverted the other user anyway so there is an undeniable breach of 3RR. As for the disputed information itself, I can't say if it is right or wrong, but I would find a more reliable source.GoldCoaster (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it was already sourced in this section of the article, at the end of the relevant sentence. Invincible was a commercial success, debuting atop the charts in 13 countries and going on to sell approximately 10 million copies worldwide. It received double-platinum certification in the US.[7][8][1]. I wrote it in months ago, using a book I've used for multiple featured/GA articles on Jackson. Never had a problem, the book in question is quite possible the most well known on Michael Jackson. There is no such thing a body or entity that documents worldwide sales online. Books are a totally acceptable form of sourcing. To imply that when an editors users a book, it can't be trusted because it cant be checked instantly, is not assuming good faith at all. Despite the fact it was already sourced in the article, I added the source to the lead as well, even though I didn't need to, this was rejected by said user because he did not like the method of formatting, a method that is perfectly acceptable for GA/FA. I most certainly did not make a 4th revert, I've sort the assistance of a third party. The issue can be resolved amicably. If this involves altering my writing style, on that article, so be it. — R2 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP breached 3rr

    One fact tag, Two fact tag, Three fact tag, Four fact tag. — R2 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP also participated in an edit war, added citations, and used the 3RR page, which makes it seem like the IP is probably a regular user who logged out. Logging out to edit war is against the rules, so a CU should probably be requested for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    R2 warned for breaking 3RR. Anon is presumably someone's sock, but that is no excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alekboyd reported by JRSP (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [59] and [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]


    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wells Fargo Bank reported by Marek69 (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [66]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

    User Wells Fargo Bank is also warning other users with 3RR templates [72] -- Marek.69 talk 02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noob; no reverts since warning William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.34.161.230 and User:174.34.161.16 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: delete)


    • Previous version reverted to: [73]


    [79] [80] [81]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [82]


    Reverting back in a lot of puffery and a whole slew of mostly irrelevant or duplicative external links. Hipocrite (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Akradecki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cal Orey" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (restore) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coa$ter reported by 68.89.169.63 (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [83]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

    The problem is obvious upon examination. 68.89.169.63 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The obvious problem is that 68.89.169.63 continues to delete Premier Ride's company background, sample awards and accomplishements from the page. I am simply fixing the page by reposting the same accurate information. I have asked for this user to stop deleting the same. Coa$ter (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coa$ster, As I indicated on your talk page, if you insist on posting this info, it should sound less like an ad for the company and should include references. For example, you should avoid saying things such as "the industry leader" and "best". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.169.63 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No proper 3RR warning, but has one now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.229.36.15 reported by Lucek (Result: semi)

    100% all edits by this IP is reverts editions by 5 users [97], [98].

    Semi-protected William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:wikidemon reported by User:Expertfp1 (Result: no vio, reporter warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [99]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

    Wikidemon modified the heading of my comment several times on the talk page,even after I reverted it and asked him to stop. He made uncivil comments accusing me of edit warring, then closed and archived the section, and placed a warning on my user page. He appears to be trying pass himself off as an administrator as well, by telling me I am on "probation" on my talk page. NDM (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those are not reverts. Plus this is a process fork of an AN/I matter, and I am on article patrol rather than edit warring. I'll address in a moment. Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe not given below. But please see the talk page here, which refers to an AN/I discussion. We're trying to deal with some serious trouble at Barack Obama and it's talk page. We are doing a lot of talk page cleanup, vandalism fighting, organizing, etc.Wikidemon (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No vio by Wd; reporter appears to be causing trouble on the page, will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: )

    Kharkiv Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whiteroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 18:53, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273582563 by DDima (talk)")
    2. 18:59, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274205590 by Ahonc (talk)")
    3. 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343973 by DDima (talk)")
    4. 16:42, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274587417 by Ahonc (talk)")
    5. 16:53, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274714703 by Nick UA (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahonc At the foot!")
    6. 17:02, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274717169 by Ahonc (talk)")
    7. 21:47, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    8. 09:31, 5 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274795430 by Daniel (talk)")
    9. 13:18, 5 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    10. 14:04, 5 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 275162029 by Ahonc (talk)")
    11. 16:04, 5 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 275170532 by Ahonc (talk) I want to meet you halfway, you don't!")
    12. 11:07, 8 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 275211238 by Nick UA (talk)")
    13. 01:20, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 275804521 by Nick UA (talk) I do spit upon your talk! (!) http://www.metro.KHARKOV.ua - official site")
    14. 11:29, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276007692 by Nick UA. Have you ever meditated on why domain is KHARKOV.ua not KHARKIV?")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Anatoliy (Talk) 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BigbossSNK reported by User:Herr Gruber (Result: both sides cautioned)




    Yes, granted, I made four reverts here myself. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The warning was incorrectly added to the editor's user page, I've since moved it to his/her talk page. Also, as an aside, the first revert doesn't count as one (it was the initial content change). Thanks! Fin©™ 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've both broken 3RR so could both be blocked. And you will be if you resume edit warring. For the moment, I'm warning you both, here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SallyFord reported by User:SlimVirgin (warned)

    I'd appreciate some administrative help with a new account, SallyFord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PETA). The patterns of contribs suggest it's a returning user. First edit was February 5, 2009; she has made 29 edits to mainspace, many of them reverts.

    She is repeatedly removing a quote from the body of PETA on the grounds that there is a similar quote in the lead, and is now removing a photograph on the grounds that the same photograph is used in another article.

    The reason I'm bringing this to this page so quickly is that the user's brief history shows repeated reverting to be a modus operandi. At Amber MacArthur last month, the account inserted seven times that the subject's child was born "out of wedlock" — 13:35 Feb 18; 03:28 Feb 19; 19:23 Feb 19; 14:27 Feb 24; 21:25 Feb 25; 04:08 Feb 26; 14:49 Feb 26. She was warned about 3RR on Feb 26. [105]

    After this, the account stopped editing for a few days, then turned up at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to begin the same kind of reverting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous edits count as one, so 1 & 2 are only one. And the 3RR warning was on her user page. So I'll give her a proper warning William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas reported by Dlabtot (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [106]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [111]

    User:Viriditas is edit warring on this talk page, changing and removing my comments, violating WP:TALK as well as WP:3RR. In my zeal to restore my own comments, I may have violated or come close to violating 3RR as well, if so, I humbly apologize. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the page history, I haven't edited People's Park since 1 May 2008, and that was only to disambiguate a link.[112] On the other hand, the page history shows that you've been engaged in an edit war while tag teaming with User:Sierralaw, and User:Rkmlai against edits made by User:Apostle12. Most recently, you made a POV edit after starting an RFC. I arrived on the talk page on March 6 to try and mediate, only to be attacked by you and told that I have contempt for homeless people. Now, I discover you are pushing a minority POV in the article. Lastly, you started an RFC when you found that discussion between Apostle12 and Rkmlai was working towards resolving the impasse. Unfortunately, you didn't follow the conventions for article RFC's and you made comments about users instead of the topic. I removed them, you restored them, and then you tried moving the goalposts, claiming that I was invovled in the dispute (I'm not, I've only been mediating on the talk page). And that's where we stand. Article RFC's are not about users, and the RFC was changed to reflect the nature of the dispute, the words of which were written by you and you alone. I will admit, however, that my mediating style was overly aggressive, and had the effect of not one, but two elephants in a china shop, drunk on cheap wine. For that, I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the talk page history and the talk page version before you started reverting my talk page comments shows, my comment that you have deleted from the talk page was clearly presented as the comment of an involved editor and was never part of the RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but neither of those links show anything and I'm not involved in any dispute on this page. If you pay very close attention to the talk page, you will notice that I have criticized all parties involved from the very first edit I made as mediator. I'm surprised that you missed this fact. I would be happy to provide diffs if you need them. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I possibly nudge some admin to look at this? I would really like to restore my comments to this talk page but I don't want to do so if they are just going to be deleted again. I was advised elsewhere that this report would have been better made at WP:ANI, but it seems too late for that now. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: 55h)

    Kharkiv Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whiteroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 01:20, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 275804521 by Nick UA (talk) I do spit upon your talk! (!) http://www.metro.KHARKOV.ua - official site")
    2. 11:29, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276007692 by Nick UA. Have you ever meditated on why domain is KHARKOV.ua not KHARKIV?")
    3. 23:33, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276144541 by Ostap R (talk) Only one article allowed - Kharkov Metro")
    4. 23:41, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276146131 by DDima (talk)")
    5. 23:44, 9 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276147286 by Nick UA (talk) Vandlism? See Kharkov Metro article!")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Anatoliy (Talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-03-10T00:05:07 DDima (talk | contribs | block) blocked Whiteroll (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: continued edit warring and page move vandalism despite repeated warnings) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    JpGrB reported by F-22 Raptored (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [113]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [118]


    removal of information. I also have ownership complaints with this user, nearly reverting everything that gets put into edit without further research put in.--F-22 Raptor IV 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sunray reported by User:Skipsievert (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [119]



    Have had a hard time with ownership issues in the article. The reverts happened within an hour or so. Have tried informal conflict resolution. skip sievert (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Skip, as far as I can tell, Sunray is leading an active peer review and you're involved in several disputes already on the talk page. Get consensus for adding it back in intead of forcing the content in through edit warring. Sunray already moved it to the talk page for discussion and User:Granitethighs has commented on it saying it needs work. It's not going anywhere, so please follow the consensus on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor tightly controls the article with one other person usually. I request that you block this editor for violating the revert rule. Nothing else is going to change the way things are going on the article. It is not a page that allows much change and is tightly controlled by Sunray. Consensus on the talk page does not happen except through two other users. I moved it to the talk page before he did, after I made the edit... so that is not correct. I was not edit warring. He did the three revert. How is it that one editor can assume so much control over an article to the point of flagrant violation? He could have edited the material instead of ditching it. Or left it and discussed it. I brought the material to the talk page immediately after the edit. He did that after. skip sievert (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Skip, they are trying to bring the article to FA. Is this a problem? You think you might try helping them? Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good and fine. I have written sections of the article, particularly the early history part, and introduced many of the ideas of topics into the article Ecological economics Industrial ecology Energy economics etc. I also have been demeaned, harassed, and been called a troll previously by this user. I am tired of this user using a collegiate attitude and friendly demeanor while throwing every conceivable roadblock to others (me) participating in the article, in what I think is a positive way. I have tried informal moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_11#Proposed_findings with an editor I picked out of the blue. That person agreed, preventing another from editing because of the status of himself being a team leader is not appropriate. I have tried helping them often and positively... I have never edited disruptively... and sometimes my edits stick. Look at the general history of the page. I do think this editor needs to be blocked. I know that this may seem iffy. At the very least I will not be happy unless this editor is warned. skip sievert (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not be happy unless this editor is warned. Well, there you go. I, on the other hand, would be very happy if the article reaches FA. I suppose my priorities are messed up. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but sarcasm is not appropriate here. I am someone who cares about the article. It was a 'B' grade article before. I have tried to improve it... because I am interested in the subject. Because of the cumulative effect of having to deal with this person a block seems appropriate. I will take what I can get though. skip sievert (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Skip, I'm sorry you feel you were treated poorly. Now, how about getting back to the talk page and contributing to the discussion which is ongoing? Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Viriditas, and I will. But I think some action should be taken. Otherwise the guidelines, which I try to follow, do not mean much. I understand that rules are meant to be broken, and I have broken a few in the past, but I think there is too much concerted control in this article in general. skip sievert (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what did Sunray say when you shared your concerns with him? Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough. It is after the fact and he is back peddling now. I have shared these concerns for months... and are they being addressed suddenly now? If Skipsievert (talk · contribs) wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors. If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_11#Proposed_findings - if there was not a long standing pattern of this editor roadblocking elements he does not control and over controlling everything in general, I would not be here or complaining. This is a pattern. I do not like it. It has not changed. He reverted me because he felt he was immune from the guidelines. I suppose this may seem petty but this pattern is a pattern. skip sievert (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I recommend: Drop this, leave Sunray a friendly note on his talk page letting him know that the revert upset you, but that you want the article to reach FA as much as him and hope the two of you can form a better working relationship in the future. Then, visit the peer review page and see if you can help out with any of the tasks. That will create a huge amount of good will and bring more people over to your side. Then consider taking a break from the current discussion to get some perspective on your role. Also, if you know you are going to be making controversial or disputed edits, try to discuss them first. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would would I leave him a friendly note when he edit warred some good information?... which is a pattern of his? I say block him. Thanks any way. skip sievert (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Skip, at least two editors have a problem with the content, the article is undergoing an active peer review to reach FA, and disputed or controversial material should be discussed, not forced into the article through edit warring. The reason you want to leave him a friendly note is to show him that the article as a whole is more important than any small personal or content disputes you might have. That creates goodwill and a better working environment between users, making it easier for you to edit harmoniously with Sunray in the future. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No vio. Ownership issues, if they exist, can't really be addressed here. Allow me to note that edit warring with an edit comment of Stop edit warring... shows a regrettable lack of self-awareness William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. I see I am not going to have anything happen here. Thanks anyway. I reported a 3 revert vio. from a user with a team that controls an article to the detriment of the article. My opinion. So be it. skip sievert (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua and Balkanian`s word reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours each)

    • Previous version reverted to: various.
    • Alexikoua's reverts:
    1. 10 March, 12:42 (Blanket revert to version from December [123])
    2. 10 March, 13:46 (removal of fact-tags added here
    3. 10 March, 14:16 (same as #2)
    4. 10 March, 14:19 (reinstating own previous edit from 14:13)
    • Balkanian`s word reverts:
    1. 10 March, 11:38 (reverting previous removal of material by Alexikoua)
    2. 10 March, 13:09 (undid immediately previous edit
    3. 10 March, 14:10 (undid immediately previous edit)
    4. 10 March, 14:17 (undid this)

    Please consider a longer-term revert limitation under WP:ARBMAC. Balkania`s word had a brief revert-warring block just the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The first is not a revert. I added the material and reverted nothing. Just see revision history. It was 2,000 kb and it was made 18,000 kb, what could i revert?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the previous edits, and mine too. There is nothing reverted. It was 4,842kb, Alexikoua made it 2,469kb, and I added all the stuff from the page Northern Epirotes, which is the same as Greeks in Albania to this one. Reconsider your proposal fut.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. (cur) (prev) 11:38, 10 March 2009 Balkanian`s word (talk | contribs) (18,738 bytes) (this is the page) (undo)
    2. (cur) (prev) 23:02, 9 March 2009 Alexikoua (talk | contribs) (2,469 bytes) (→Notable members of the minority) (undo)
    3. (cur) (prev) 19:42, 9 March 2009 Alexikoua (talk | contribs) (4,842 bytes) (→History) (undo)
    The first edit I listed for you, [124] was reinstating, among other things, several sections in the "notable people" list which Alexikoua had removed with his immediately previous edit [125]. Hence a revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me, I added a whole page Northern Epirotes, it is called merging, not reverting. It was totally not under dispute if this people were or not Greeks of Albania, Alexikoua removed them and added them on Northern Epirotes, a page which is merged with this one. How can this be a revert? Should I add all other parts of Northern Epirotes and leave this out?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The very fact that it was part of your merger underlines it was a controversial edit. Because the previous edit by Alexikoua was exactly because he was opposed to the merger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was opposed to the merger? There was nothing to merge. Northern Epirotes were created as page on 22:45, 9 March 2009, and my edit was exactly the next day. How could he oppose to merge a page that did not exist?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Alexikoua definitely violated the rule: clear revert 1, 2, 3 + fact tag revert. 3 clear reverts by Balkanian's word, plus another reversion that we'd call a revert but he may argue wasn't. Balkanian is just off a similar block however, and has no excuse for warring again so soon. I've blocked both for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lverqlv reported by Themfromspace (Result: 12 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [126]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [132]

    User has no understanding of WP:RS and is also reverting with an IP sock (74.127.242.203). Requesting long-term block of both accounts. Themfromspace (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tedickey reported by dfrench (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [133]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Tedickey is purposefully ignoring changes and improvements made to this article for unknown reasons. This user reverts this article back to previous versions that do not contain the improvements then hurls insulting statements when asked for an explaination. Please block this user from editing this document again.

    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. Also blocked the reporting editor in question per WP:REALNAME. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DR2006kl reported by Miacek (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [134] - he reverted lead section only to his preferred version.
    • 1st revert: [135]
    • 2nd revert: [136]
    • 3rd revert: [137]
    • 4th revert: [138] (only partial revert (removal of undesired information plus introduction of own synthesis), see below)

    The last 4th revert, made 24 hours 55 minutes after the 1st one yesterday, constitutes partial revert: being warned that 4th rv to his previous version could result in block, the disruptive newby changed his wording a bit. However, the aim was still clear: to remove responsibility attributed to the Supreme Soviet side. Viz, my version's “demonstrators broke through police cordons and urged by Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, started storming objects in Moscow” was removed the 4th time within 24 h 55 min. But this time, probably with the aim of avoiding technical violation of the rule, in addition to reverting/removing he also added another (whitewashing) sentence “During the day the supporters of parliament removed police cordons around the parliament building” and additionally introduced WP:OR/WP:POV “ According to Eltsin supporters, the demonstrators tried to storm Ostankino. According to parliament supporters, they demonstrated to request coverage of their position on central television, which was controlled by Eltsin's supporters, and OMON opened fire. This way or another, the firefight resulted in the large number casualties.”

    I have been contributing to this article for some months. I've tried to introduce sources to this very poorly sourced article, and asked a knowledgeable user to join in and share his thoughts, once he has more time. However, a newby appeared some months ago, and has been criticising me for almost everything I did, reminding me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Without having done a single edit of encyclopedic value, the user concerned has engaged in disruptive edit-warring for a number of weeks. His so-called improvements in the lead are based only on his own argumentation at talk, they are too one-sided, removing ([140]), ([141]) valid references to who is usually held responsible for the escalation of the events (as the article itself covers). Instead of waiting other people's opinion or providing sources at talk, he blindly reverts to his version every now and again (compare the diff for 9 Feb/9 March, where his 'preferred intro' is again there. Note also, that in the meantime the article has been developed by me and other constructive users, adding sources, external links and citations.
    I also resent comments at talk like “most of the things you introduced here is either Eltsin's propaganda or of no encyclopaedic value” (WP:NPA). I have not engaged in any propaganda, I have introduced information so as to make sense of both side's positions [142], [143], [144], [145]. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Remind me again why he is edit warring but you aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, William, but the user seems to have violated the 3 RR, which I haven't. Indeed, the article had staid for years with the (well-known) statement that the Soviets started the armed rebellion on 3 October ([146]), which the guy has sought to remove (without so far having done any useful contributions to the article, furthermore, without bringing a single source, unlike me). Yes, purely technically I made 3 reverts within 24, so what? I was merely undoing his unilateral move, that he ha been pushing for months. I was careful enough not to revert over 3 times. What the guy is doing is, well, simply forcing through his own POV, apparently by breaking the (purely formal) 3RR. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I agree, he has 4R in ~24h, and you have refraimed from the 4th revert. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CENSEI reported by Xenophrenic (Result: warning + 55 hour block)


    • Previous version reverted to: [147]


    The editor has not yet technically crossed the 3RR threshold, and is not likely to, since he was recently warned and blocked for similar behavior a dozen edits ago. I'm reporting Edit Warring, not a 3RR violation.

    The editor persistently inserts and reinserts an allegation of manslaughter into this BLP article on Leahy without reliable sources. I have pressed the editor for proper sources and context on the article talk page and on the BLP Notice board without success. Instead, he tells me to look the stuff up myself. [151] The burden is on him to provide proper sourcing and context for such a contentious BLP entry, but I decided to go the extra mile and research it myself. Result: the content CENSEI is repeatedly reverting back into the article is not in the cited source. In fact, nothing even close is mentioned, so it's not even a misinterpretation issue. WP:BLP allows me to remove this false information repeatedly without violating WP:3RR, but I'd rather not waste my time. Hence this request. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is only very weakly BLP; please don't rely on it to get you off 3RR. This just looks like an edit war to me; you need to bring in other eyes or other parts of WP:DR. Warnings all round William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, William. This is a very strong BLP violation. Inserting text saying one person is responsible for the death of another person is obviously a contentious edit. Then citing that edit to a source containing no such information is fabrication with intent to deceive. No amount of additional eyes on the article will change that fact. Your advice on trying other parts of WP:DR is spot on, but I am at a loss as to which step to try next after this current step at the BLP Notice board resolves. Do I pursue the civility route now that this editor has resorted to personal attacks and harassing emails? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only on edit warring here is Xenophrenic as he is not only removing the disputed material but all the material added in the edit including material he is not disputing. CENSEI (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I rechecked all my edits just to be sure. Every single word I have removed or changed in that article does qualify as 'disputed by me' as explained in the edit summaries and talk page. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you take it to the article's talk page instead of here? This is not the place to continue disputes, friend. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you reverted again after Will's result so I've blocked you for 55 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pipuk53 reported by kejoxen (Result: Note)

    The tone of the edit just seem to me to be to personal, biased and unencyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejoxen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knowledge is free for all reported by Abecedare (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Rigveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 07:09, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 09:02, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 09:18, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 11:23, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 13:13, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276258234 by Dbachmann (talk)")
    6. 17:11, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276296205 by Doldrums (talk)")
    7. 20:58, 10 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276346867 by Dbachmann (talk)")
    8. 00:01, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 276394896 by Looie496 (talk)")

    Previously the user has edit warred over the same unsourced, undue and POV edits as 213.29.233.199 (talk · contribs), —Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note user blocked by Akhilleus for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.23.176.171 reported by User:wperdue (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [155]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [159]

    I have done everything that I know how to do in order to resolve this. I have been documenting everything on the article's discussion page as well as on the other editor's talk page. I have asked for and received a third opinion, and I have warned the user about the 3RR. I have not had a single response regarding the tag removal/reverts. What more can I do to resolve this? Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

    report

    User:99.9.23.19 reported by Nudve (talk) (Result: )

    Israel Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 99.9.23.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 05:04, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    2. 05:08, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    3. 05:45, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    4. 05:45, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 05:54, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    6. 05:55, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    7. 05:56, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    8. 05:57, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    9. 06:08, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
    10. 06:13, 11 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")

    Diff of warning: [160] (created page). Other warnings were given.

    —Nudve (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Grant.Alpaugh reported by Knepflerle (Result: 72h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [161]




    • Diff of 3RR warning: User was blocked after 4th revert just over two days ago, and further previous edit-warring blocks of 24, 24, 48, 55 and 72 hours.
    72h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24.0.96.29 reported by Cosmic Latte (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [170]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [177]

    Mrnhghts reported by happy138 (Result: Page protected for a week)

    • Previous version reverted to: [178]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [179]

    Happy138 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nukes4Tots reported by Lagaman (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [180]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [185]

    I'm simply trying to provide some missing information, and a link to more, but this person keeps removing it. Four times, to be precise, and in the past 24 hours.

    I've gone through two rounds of getting editor assistance, as well as a third-party opinion. In both cases, I have followed their recommendations, only to have this person undo those changes.

    I may have screwed up the links here, and if so, I'll try and get them corrected. Lagaman (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=276584815"