Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring 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

User:Daria Montella reported by User:Piriczki (Result: Declined)

Page: The Doors discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daria Montella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: This user has repeatedly reverted all attempts to correct information in the article and continues to cite sources that have been shown to be incorrect. I have tried to explain how and why his/her edits are incorrect and have sought a third opinion and followed the advice given but the reverts continue. Piriczki (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Declined User has not made any reverts past 3RR warning. If they make another revert, please re-report them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• • They have been reported to this page already but you haven't approved their request yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Furtie fert ferts reported by User:JamesAlan1986 (Result: No Violation)

Page: List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Furtie fert ferts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Scooby-Doo!_Mystery_Incorporated_episodes&diff=440223598&oldid=440218811.

Previous version reverted to: List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:Me and Black Yoshi have both talked to her about her edits and she just won't stop. She's constantly removing or changing things that are unnecessary and though we've tried talking to her she still does it.

• 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fistoffoucault reported by User:Dave3457 (Result: Declined)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

I am not contending that Fistoffoucault broke the 3RR rule but I am claiming that he is still engaging in edit warring on the grounds that... "The three revert rule is a convenient limit ... but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means"

I just reported Fistoffoucault for edit warring and got a "No violation" result however I do not wish to rehash that but to report on his behavior since that result. The most significant act being that he wrote the below taunting message at the top of my talk page...

[15] Dave, I noticed you have some trouble spelling English words, if you need help with your English, just let me know.Fistoffoucault (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is not about Wikiquette, but part of the reason that he was not blocked was because he was somewhat apologetic and wrote in part...

I'm sorry for forgetting to include edit summaries. I can see that this has bothered you.

Note that I asked him several times to include edit summaries but he refuses to, he doesn't "forget".

He also wrote..

I think that this entire dispute shows the difficulties involved in any endeavor like Wikipedia. Perhaps there was consensus between you, USChick, and Avanu. You all agreed. But when Aronoel and I provided well-reasoned arguments...

The fact is, as I explained in my initial edit warring accusation, of all the present active editors, he and Aronoel are the only ones that want the image of the female Shaman while everyone else seems happy with the Young Women Drawing.

Note that he wrote the above in response to my accusation of edit warring fearing he was going to get blocked, however when he received a "no violation" result he immediately went back to his old ways and made the following edit diff where he gave no edit summary and removed the image, Young Woman Drawing, which is the present consensus as explained in my original edit warring complaint.

He also made these significant changes, again without any edit summary. diff

While its not my responsibility to argue his position, I will never the less point out that he made the following contribution to the talk page.diff
I will also point out however that his contributions are very rare compared to the other interested parties. Newest section of discussion

In short I just don't understand how his behavior is in any way acceptable, which is in summary...

• taunting
• refusal to be considerate of others and use edit summaries to describe and explain his edits.

and

• refusal to accept apparent present consensus.

If you do read my other edit warring claim, in light of the fact that my argument was long winded, be sure to skip over the History section stuff and jump to the sentence that is in bold and reads...

Concerning the changing of the images without consensus which is really the bigger problem.

Dave3457 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Wrong forum. Make this report at WP:ANI -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} (Result: No Violation)

Page: USANA Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 00:10, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "restored mention of MLM and resume controversy; lightened up on Minkow content (article is about USANA not Minkow)")
2. 18:24, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 440331797 by Leef5 (talk)--restored deleted content")
3. 21:56, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "According to the background section, USANA is an MLM company, not a "direct selling" company. MLM and direct selling are not synonymous -- see multilevel marketing")
4. 22:01, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "The resume controversy was significant, led to resignations, and was widely covered in secondary sources, as described in the article (see Background section)")
5. 22:03, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "Minkow was not the only one who has suggested that USANA is a pyramid scheme; the settlement included USANA paying Minkow's legal fees -- let's not be misleading about outcome")

User:Rhode Island Red is an experienced editor, and is very familiar with the 3RR and edit warring in general. He has reported two other users on this 3RR noticeboard in the past that edit warred, and thus understands the 3RR policy.

Discussion I started before I even made the original edit to give a head's up on the wording issues in the lead : [16]

Comments:

I made an update to the lead of this article here: 18:36, 18 July 2011 (edit summary: "Lead updates to reflect WP:LEAD guidance") And I immediately posted on the talk page to elicit feedback to engage discussion since the lead to this article is controversial: # 18:40, 18 July 2011 (edit summary: "Took a stab at it")

Instead of engaging in the discussion, User:Rhode Island Red responded with a series of reverts, and uses edit summaries to attempt to justify the reverts. There is a long history of WP:OWN with this editor and this article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Attilios and User:Daufer

Hi there is a edit war ongoing at Battle of Cortenuova between two editors.

Attilios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daufer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

can they both be blocked for a short time to allow them to cool off. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- DQ (t) (e) 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Eolai1 reported by User:EricValley (Result: No violation)

Page: Valley Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eolai1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

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

Comments:

No violation These diffs are over the course of two years. I think you may want some other dispute resolution process, such as third opinion. Actually, scratch that. The link you removed was a wholly inappropriate link - you were 100% right to remove it. You should, though, see our policy regarding editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest. Again, removing this link was 100% correct, but you should be aware of the policy for future reference. --B (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:Trödel (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page: No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith#Brodie_and_Joseph_Smith_DNA

Comments:
This user has sufficient experience with Wikipedia and knows the rules. Has reverted 4 times in less than 16 hours. Has offered to compromise only after the 4th revert. I'm willing to discuss proposed changes on the talk page - but not through continued edit warring. --Trödel 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- DQ (t) (e) 16:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Theodorerichert reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• 5th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[35]]

Comments:
User has made 5 reverts in less than a 17 hour period and has made 14 reverts over the last 5 days. Despite ongoing discussion on the very likely scenario that his edits are violating WP:SYN, he is constantly edit warring to re-add the information and has ignored all three warnings he has received. In other words, edit warring with no intent to discuss. Requesting a temp block of at least 72 hours as a cool-down period. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How come you guys won't even investigate my sources, they are both the billboard. This is a routine calculation. Two numbers from the same source added together dosen't violate any rules. Billboard.com=Billboard.biz. You just have to pay for most of the charts on billboard.biz and billboard.com only has a few charts some of which are just top 25 or 40 however they are identical to the charts on billboard.biz and numbers are from the same source Neilsen Soundscan. According to Neilsen Soundscan Speak Now sold 2,960,000 in 2010 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story also according Neilsen Soundscan it sold 563,000 in the first half of 2011 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story so it MUST have sold at least 3,523,000 so far. How is this so hard to understand?Theodorerichert (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about your sources, this is about your 3RR violation. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 and User:Geromasis reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24h)

Page: 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Geromasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert (Geromasis): [37]
• 1st revert (Sopher99): [38]
• 2nd revert (Geromasis): [39]
• 2nd revert (Sopher99): [40]
• 3rd revert (Geromasis): [41]
• 3rd revert (Sopher99): [42]
• 4th revert (Geromasis): [43]
• 4th revert (Sopher99): [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (on article talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but it's a page I follow and occasionally edit, and I think this kind of behavior is disruptive and not constructive.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:DeCausa (Result: indef)

Page: Talk:United Kingdom
User being reported: ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53] (by another user) and on user's talk page here

Comments:

Armchair has history of disruption and edit-warring. Recently came off a 6 month block. Insists on repeatedly asking another editor whether he has another user account. Myself and other user have told him that it's not relevant to the article talk page, and to take it to the other editor's talk page. It looks as though 3RR warning coincided with his 4th revert. Armchair's fully aware of 3RR (having been blocked before), received a recent 3RR warning for edit-warring elswhere (here), and a reminder in the edit summaries.(DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was mistaken. Looks like another user had given him a 3RR warning an hour before: [54] DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin note Unfortunately, I've not much time to address this particular case myself. However, based on past experience with the editor in question, I can verify that AVD does indeed have an extensive and extended history of problematic behaviour. Another extended block would certainly be warranted if he insists on this sort of behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of forever Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

123.231.113.16 & 123.231.89.15 reported by Hot Stop (Result: protected)

Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123.231.113.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 123.231.89.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]
• 5th revert: [60]
• 6th revert: [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Comments:

Ongoing discussion here and here. I posted them together because it appears to be the same person making the same edits. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Esperanto

Looks like we're going to need semi-protection. Have an anon. IP who doesn't understand what the English grammatical perfect is and perhaps therefore is edit warring over deleting content he thinks violates CHRYSTALBALL. I'm at 3RR. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. For future reference, request page protection at WP:RFPP -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Amynan reported by User:Legolas2186 (Result: )

Page: The Story of Us (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amynan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• I'm gonna just post the history of the page here, to show the abuse and the edit warring this user has undertaken, even after a final warning. Has also resorted to sockpuppetry through an IP. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Also note the same thing happening over at Sparks Fly (song). ℥^nding·start 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Leef5 (Result: article protected)

Page: USANA Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]
• 4th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] , [70]

Comments:

User:Rhode Island Red and I are currently engaged in a debate on the lead of this article in question. I have asked him repeatedly to engage in the talk page to build consensus before adding potentially libelous info to the lead that has been taken out of context. Instead he reverts any attempts at compromise, and instead of engaging in the talk page to build consensus, he belittles, uses mild profanity, and edit wars the text back to his liking without reaching consensus. This appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• Page protected There are two people reveting back and forth, so I've locked the article for a week to encourage you to work out your differences or seek dispute resolution. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott reported by User:Bentheadvocate (Result: )

Page: Kingston University
User being reported: User:Cameron Scott

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Cameron Scott wilfully reverted good faith edits at least four times in a period of an hour.

• His first set of changes can be seen here: [72], (slanting the edit away from Kingston itself, and more towards UK uni's in general)

• His second revert can be seen here:[73], subtly removing a subtitle he found particularly contentious.

• His third revert here: [74] asserting his POV that the word "Hike" is too negative for his tastes. According to wiktionary def of hike, noun #2, hike simply means abrupt increase.

• His fourth can be found here: [75] Again changing to "increase", and readding material not relevant to kingston.

• A fifth can be found here: [76] An edit that User:Cameron Scott acknowledged in the edit summary as a Revert: 'BRD take it to the talk page' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheadvocate (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to chalk it up to enthusiastic editing, but this is clearly borderline, and he should at least not participate in community sanction discussions against me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments: I'd like to chalk it up to enthusiastic editing, but this is clearly uncool, and he should at least not participate in community sanction discussions against me.

BETA 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

report is stale (Article has been locked since the 19th), not 3RR (which is the reversion of the same material) and I guess an WP:POINT attempt to give me a slap because I voted support for a Topic ban due to his recent conduct on Kingston articles (which been the subject of 3 recent AN/I reports, the most recent being this - none of which were started by me). This is a distraction and a waste of everyone's time. Moreover, 3RR blocks (as define by the guidance in the policy) are intended to change behaviour not punish - the article is currently locked and the subject of discussion of multiple community members who have been drawn in (I myself was drawn into that article by the initial AN/I report) - so what behavioural change would a block lead to? I plan to let someone else make the community consensus edits to that article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The report is stale and should be declined, but WP:3RR does apply even if it is different content reverted each time. If you follow the link and look in the blue box you can see the policy. GB fan please review my editing 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it's still not 3rr because the second one highlighted is me moving some content after *I'd* edited it not reverting the work of other editors and unless I'm mistaken, moving but not actually deleting or changing content cannot be taken as a "revert". As I said, a complete waste of everyone's time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your motive is obvious though. You attempted to subvert 3RR by moving the contribution without the subtitle hoping no-one would notice, and claiming your assertion that it isn't a controversy in the process. BETA 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The second diff is nothing of a revert; it is simply a movement of material to a different part of the article. There is no call for Bentheadvocate to offer conjecture about Cameron's motives, and there is no technical 3RR violation. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object: I guess you didn't see the fifth self-exposed revert. -BETA 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Outside comment. While Cameron Scott isn't interpreting 3RR correctly, as GBfan accurately notes, I see nothing beyond a minor technical violation at worst. The first set of edits appears to be the addition of new material (unless I'm misreading the tangled article history) and wouldn't be a revert, unless one is going to tendentiously argue that the minor and uncontroversial style edit removing a couple of "Mr"s from the text is a revert. Similarly, in the second edit, relocating text doesn't amount to a revert (repeated relocations in a dispute probably would, but nothing's really being undone at this stage), and the ancillary removal of an unnecessary subhead should be viewed as a good faith and apparently uncontroversial action. So I'd say no substantial 3RR violation, just, perhaps, minor technical violations that fall well below the level of misbehavior calling for any sanction. About the broader claims of edit warring by multiple parties, no comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Amywolfe11325 reported by User:Syrthiss (Result: )

Page: Dr. David A. Wolfe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amywolfe11325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) | 74.13.236.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not done

Comments:

• I had warned the editor of COI concerns initially when she moved the article into mainspace from userspace, and then placed the COI tag on the article. The article is about a subject that appears notable, and is not written in a promotional tone...but an earlier move request by the subject was declined because of self-published source issues. Editor has continued to remove the COI tag, even logging out to do so (editor is likely the subject's daughter and the IP geolocates to their stated area of residence). Syrthiss (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I missed that notice. The reason for the constant log-offs is that there are multiple people (my self and two others) currently editing this page on the same account. You are correct, we are related, however we are making this page because we believe that his work is important and he has earned international credibility on his behalf. We took the initiative to make the page because his colleagues were too busy to have time to do so. We have no intention of promoting Dr. Wolfe in any manner, only stating that which he has done and creating a professional profile. Amywolfe11325 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Amywolfe11325

User:Mikefitzsimmons reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [85] (with minor variations)

• 1st revert: [86] 15:26, 20 July 2011
• 2nd revert: [87] 2:36 21 July 2011
• 3rd revert: [88] 2:39 21 July 2011
• 4th revert: [89] 14:46-49 21 July 2011 (multiple reverting edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [91]

Comments: The 3RR violation is straightforward, and the underlying editing is clearly promotional. The account is an SPA which edits only articles related to the subject of this article, and is behaving like a publicist. While no other editors have supported "Mikefitzsimmons" in this dispute, which has been running for several weeks (see article history), the removal of the disputed content was also performed by admin Tabercil[92], who commented that the disputed information had been "properly removed." Among the material restored today by "Mikefitzsimmons" was a bit of peacockery regarding another living person supported only by another Wikipedia article[93] and supplementary content, properly referenced to a reliable news source, updating information regarding a lawsuit filed by the article subject (information originally added to the article by "Mikefitzsimmons").[94] (Unsurprisingly, the news article includes matters reflecting unfavorably on the article subject, including the fact that the lawsuit was essentially thrown out, that it had been criticized by the EFF, and that it was described as "copyright trolling".) The editor's comments on my talk page [95] show no good faith interest in resolving the dispute in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines. I have not violated 3RR myself, and my edits to the article consist primarily of the routine removal of promotional content of of inadequately sourced claims, not in compliance with WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)