This editor has reverted four separate editors on this action, in order to open up an improper and irrelevant RfC in the face of unanimous opposition to his proposal, which also contravenes general MOS guidelines as well as the specific ones mentioned here. At this point, his actions have been a failure to see the point, acknowledge consensus, or assume good faith opposition on the part of the other editors. This has already drawn out far too long, and this editor has, within a limited time, already drawn considerable criticism for his edits on other pages, including theWatchmen page. I think that the IP's edits on this page (as well as the others, including an active ANI) should adequately speak for themselves, and I encourage their reference.Girolamo Savonarola (talk)06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Have warned the editor several times on User Discussion page, however all have been deleted by the editor.
Editor continually reverts reviews to remove any negative ones and to include reviews from non-professional sources. Ignores any attempts to enter discussions. Reviews chosen contradict the rest of the article.Perlonkid (talk)14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(a) You've marked your reverts as reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you wantWP:AIV (b) I see no signs of your attempting to resolve this on talk in the past 2 monthsWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There are many comments in theInvaders Must Die talk page from several other editors regarding the continued vandalism of the reviews. I have reported this to theWP:AIV page and they rejected my request and recommended I lodge a request in this page. To be honest I am a new editor and am totally disillusioned with this process. The other user is blatantly trying to bias the reveiws and there seems to be no way within the wikipedia process to stop them. I have attemped to engage the other editor in discussions on several occcasions but the other Legitedits has failed to respond on eithter the history tab of the page in question, or the users own comment page (they react by deleting my comments/warnings) As a result the album page is biased as it gives an unfair representative of the critical response of the album.Perlonkid (talk)00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Gryffinclaw modified 3 different Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles to use a fan-preferred spelling of a characters name, going against Wikipedia's naming guidelines andWP:MOS-AM. These were reverted and it was explained to him byUser:Nanami Kamimura in the edit summary, then a longer note was left on his talk page.[10] He initially ignored her notes, and began reverting them, engaging in an edit war spread across three related articles. Nanami approached myself andUser:KrebMarkt on our talk pages for assistance, as we are both heavily active in the Anime/manga project. I tried explaining to Gryffinclaw why his edits were rejected.[11] He responded on Nanami's talk page,[12] but at this point she did not wish to deal with him anymore and removed the note, requesting he talk with me instead.[13] He began edit warring on her talk page, continually replacing his message despite her request that he not contact her anymore (4 more reverts total). He eventually also began leaving messages on my talk page, first claiming that because he is certified in CIW Web Page Design, his edits are justified[14] (yes, I also went ???), then claimed that he was a teacher and protecting the children from being "hurt" by incorrect names[15]. He then began blanking his talk page any time a warning was left for him. He clearly knows he is edit warring. Even while I was preparing this report, he went back and reverted all of the articles yet again showing he has no intention of stopping. --AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs)17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
He is edit warring. I began reverting him as vandalism as such, and introducing deliberate factual errors as he is now clearly aware he is acting inappropriately. Edit warring is generally to complex for AIV, however. --AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs)17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range.Hobartimus (talk)22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected.EdJohnston (talk)14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution perUser talk:TravisTX#Why?.
On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmasterand every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; seethis thread and specificallythis response)
On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained apretty clear OK fromPeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
Two hours later,TravisTX began to revert Tennis expert per the general lack of support for TE's format atWT:SPI, but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing
Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of{{IPsock}} (seethis ANI discussion). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I really didn't want to take this drama this far, but as a new editor, I just found his behaviour extremely unacceptable. This user is totally dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impossible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. He is completely abusing his administrator rights. Any positive edits made to this article is immediately removed by this user, even if they are properly sourced, and many new users have become victims of his tactics to block any user who is apparently a meatpuppet according to him (and his socks). I find this totally unacceptable and there must be an end to this nightmare drama as soon as possible.Meandmylefthand (talk)15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Can this be thrown out? There are all kinds of problems with the report. First of all, the "diff of 3rr warning" isn't a diff, it's a link, and to a 'warning' that was given just a few minutes ago and I haven't reverted since it. Secondly, most of the 17 reverts he listed are not even edit war reverts; for example, #16 is rolling back vandalism, #15 is restoring content that was deleted without explanation, #17 is reverting an entirely different problem and not related to the content dispute that's going on right now (and, besides, it was a week ago).rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.
This time around the information was tagged as failing verification23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material18:33, 14 May 2009. Within two hours22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.
I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts ofWP:DR he will follow and respect. --Ronz (talk)17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments.Wikipedia:Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? Youalready told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life [in the context of a Wikipedia article] unless a citation can be found. It seems to be verifiable that he owned it:[46],[47]. Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...
It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist? Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things likethis. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. --Quiddity (talk)04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
1) Re: Instruction: You quotedWP:BATTLE to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?
2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (wikihounded) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.
I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read overWP:TRUCE, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.
3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?
From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...
I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact isnot in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus(talk)20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --Ronz (talk)20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk)21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you.[48] is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in futureWilliam M. Connolley (talk)22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments onWP:RS/N for National Enquirer and TMZ.com. Other editors have removed such material citing BLP concerns. This has now gone on for several days, but only last day is cited.
1st revert:[49] 23:59 17 May and following. comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "
2nd revert:[50] 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "
3rd revert:[51] 01:08 18 May "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"
4th revert:[52] 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"
5th revert:[53] 08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))" (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)
Diff of 3RR warning:[54] prior warning at[55] by another user for same article
It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors.[56] is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks!Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warningCollect (talk)13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here.Collect (talk)15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK underWP:BLP.EdJohnston (talk)15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered.► RATEL ◄15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post?Collect (talk)15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:
Karelin7(talk·contribs·count) another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfielddiff
Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)? Ed --please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott, Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea.Collect (talk)15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support.EdJohnston (talk)17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior.Wildhartlivie (talk)12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source perWP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent.Wildhartlivie (talk)19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are.Wildhartlivie (talk)22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see atechnical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war betweenUser:Psw1359 andUser:J123Jordan concerning the articleDistributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk)14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.
I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c[talk]01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
04:25, 19 May 2009(edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did. I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules. Check them out. An authir can do it")
05:16, 19 May 2009(edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author. There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")
This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link.Uyvsdi (talk)07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd
No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk pageWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk)20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. --Hoary (talk)11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I will have gone intoWP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted toWP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order , I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.
I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports?William M. Connolley (talk)18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits.Oli Filth(talk|contribs)21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.
Blocked – for a period of9 days Also,Ikip (talk·contribs) you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block.Tiptoetytalk00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page).Risker (talk)00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits.Dawn Bard (talk)00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 byJ (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 byJ (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")
User continues to inexplicably revert toremove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo). user:j (aka justen) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however. user:j (aka justen) 00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though.EdJohnston (talk)04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.
I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk)11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that you did revert, three times, on the issue of price. They are listed above for you to see. Revert is not the way to solve an editing problem, regardless of how certain you are about it. In this case, though, there areWP:RS andWP:V issues that I'm not sure you're familiar with yet, and I've gone into greater detail on the article's talk page. We can discuss it further there if you'd like. user:j (aka justen) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
194.46.181.124 and cohorts reported for vandalistic edit-warring byDr.K. (Result: Semi)
Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs.Dr.K.logos22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning.Dr.K.logos00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. EditorJohnbull has gone out of his way to help Wousfan by re-writing Wousfans POV diatribe against Gladstone in as near a NPOV form as he can, see here[140]. It appears Wousfan does not acceptWP:NPOV in any way shape or form and is highly abusive in his summary replies to Johnbull. In addition there is also a 5th revert here[141] which although technically outside the 24 hour period is still germane to it. -Galloglass09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a huge mess, and there has been no engagement on any talk pages. JaniceMT knows the CCRC links should not be used based on extensive discussions onUser talk:JaniceMT andtalk:parental alienation. Edit warring from yesterday is continuing today on theparental alienation syndrome page, accompanied by the deletion of well-sourced materials, replacing links to news stories with inappropriateconvenience links, bizarre removals of useful information[149], and inappropriate interpretations of summaries and policies[150].WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I can confirm that multiple IPs and users have been editing to get references to the Canadiancrc website (often to copyrighted material) hosted there. See this blacklist report[151], and the very obvious blatant spam message at the bottom of this recent edit.[152]User:S-MorrisVP et her IPs were blocked for similar actions a week ago and the page semi-protected. This is a a bigger problem than 3RR but let's start here. --Slp1 (talk)20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
19:52, 20 May 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 291193193 byWLU (talk)These are all valid links to papers published in reputable publications ie Canadian Bar Assoc.oc")
20:21, 20 May 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 291246759 byWLU (talk) Verifiable good linked content - Stop the vandalism")
22:03, 20 May 2009(edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO| Why do you think the Florida Bar Assoc., Canadian Bar Assoc., and ABC news, and the courts of Canada decisions are "dubious" sources?")
This user has 10 entries in block log[157], has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable.[158] and[159] show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC.Collect (talk)13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If you will review the talk page of this person, 121.220.36.117, he does pretty much nothing else but revert Carbonne entries. I HIGHLY suspect he is a sockpuppet and the same person on the extended-range bass page who is overtly and aggressively advertising himself, with no supporting links. This person is not only uncivil (see his talk page calling someone else's header "stupid"), he is also stalking Carbonne on here, removing anything he finds about him. He has also accused ME of being Carbonne's partner, and therefore, implicating Carbonne in having something to do with the additions I added about him, which he DOES NOT. I have not added anything about Carbonne since I was suspected as having a COI (although I absolutely do not), and now some other knowledgeable contributor who I do not know - picked up the ball, and added factual information about Carbonne on the page. First, 121.220.36.117 accused me of having a COI, and now, because another editor has added factual information, he is removing valid, important information without any valid reason, except for the fact that he is stalking Carbonne. If the latest contributor who added the Carbonne info to the page forgot or did not know to add a link, I have. However,, with the spurious reason of removing Carbonne because there was no link, and other artists on the page have no links, it is clear that 121.220.36.117 's motives are very suspect. In addition, he removed information about Michael Manring, who is one of the best known Extended Range Bassists in the world. Please address this, and stop him from warring and stalking Carbonne. It is very clear he fancies himself as a competitor.
Thank you.
Here is his talk page:
Extended report
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
* 13:44, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass (rev website.) * 13:38, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar (remove this paragraph about Carbonne. No consensus for this material (see talk page) and Carbonne article was deleted as failing notability) (top) (references removed)
* 13:37, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Michael Manring (reverting unsourced addition) (top)
* 13:34, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass (revert unsourced addition about Yves Carbonne. Please resolve existing dispute re this material.) * 12:13, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Richard Tognetti (remove personal comments from end of page) (top) * 12:01, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Australian Chamber Orchestra (reverting copyright violation lifted fromhttp://www.aco.com.au/?url=/about) (top) (blanking) * 14:50, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut (fix) (top) * 14:47, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut (make these pics a gallery to repair the layout of page) * 14:43, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut (revert unencyclopedic editorial comment) * 07:38, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:81.86.68.253 (as with the userpage, use a soft redirect.. IPs shouldn't be redirected to user accounts as there always remains a possibility that someone else may use it...) (top) * 07:35, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:81.86.68.253 (turn this into a soft redirect as theres no guarantee it will always and only be used by this user) (top) * 13:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery (→Mr Rent-A-Kill: revert unsourced additions that don't come from the book this para is sourced to...probably more Underbelly fiction. Please cite published sources. kthx) (top) * 13:34, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Sasha Alexander (revert external link) * 12:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) 2005 Cronulla riots (revert series of degrading edits - removal of bolding in intro, confusing language &c) * 12:33, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page (rvv) * 03:18, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery (change stupid heading)* 05:26, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass (revert recent spamming by someone with a blatant conflict of interest) (references removed)* 05:24, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass (Carbonne article was deleted as not notable) (references removed) * 03:22, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)* 03:21, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass (revert spamming by Carbonne's partner.) (references removed)* 03:20, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)
This board is not the right place for sockpuppet complaints. Please file atWP:SPI and try to be as clear as possible. Under the circumstancesWP:COIN could be a better choice. I cautionUser:TLCbass to observeWP:3RR himself. I suggest that this report be closed with no action.EdJohnston (talk)18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For the benefit of William M. Connolley, I think TLCbass is a little misguided as to what a sock puppet is. I think he believes 121.220.36.117 works for one of Yves Carbonne's competitors. Regarding the closing of this report, there is still a little bit of edit warring going on, possibly between Carbonne and some other musician's representatives.JulieSpaulding (talk)18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - I'm closing this as an Incomplete Report. Please use the button supplied in the header entitled 'Click here to add a new report.' I think theWP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a better place to discuss this. Noticeboards are limited in their power of investigation, and we hope that users will get their material in order before coming here.EdJohnston (talk)21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly targeting Carbonne. You have removed 2 separate contributions on him by 2 unrelated editors repeatedly. You have repeatedly re-added unsupported, repetitive, promotional information about Garry Goodman, who is not a notable bassist, and who has little or no fan base anywhere on the internet, in favor of Carbonne, who has a HUGE fan base: He is the only bassist in the world to play a 12 string fretless sub-bass, with the lowest range in existence. But, it is clear that you know that and you fancy yourself as a competitor (I suspect actually, that you are a sock puppet). If you are the same person who is stalking him all over the internet, it is time to stop. The public has a right to know about his instrument and the contribution he has made to next concepts in bass development. It is clear you have a blatant conflict of interest. Stop immediately with your edit warring, and apply the same rules across the board. You are stalking Carbonne and you must stop IMMEDIATELY.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTLCbass (talk •contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2009
3RR is per-article. Your 5th revert is a different article. Contiguous edits count as one, so 2 and 3 are the same. Revert 1 is before the dawn of pre-historyWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There are many more reverts, mostly by the same person. If revert 1 counts as pre-history, it is one of several by the same person, less than a month ago. Revert 1 took place on April 28th, which is less than a month ago, and is the one in particular that clearly indicates 121.220.36.117 clearly has a conflict of interest. Thank you for your help.TruthBeTold (talk)18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me why rev1 indicates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, if that is the primary reason for a block, I think you're probably on the wrong noticeboardWilliam M. Connolley (talk)18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
REPORTINGUser:MrStalker for edit warring and 3RR violations
We were asked to report any 3RR violations onThe Sims 3. Ever sinceMrStalker's edits were reverted by many users for multiple reasons, he's violated this rule and the general rules on edit warring on at least 2 or 3 occasions, reverting back to his edits or removing others in what is nothing short of vandalism out of perceived anger. I warned him on it before, though obviously he sees fit to continue. In response to my warning him,he told me to "Go Fuck [my]self". Please address this as soon as possible so it does not continue. Thank you.ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②talk17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Please use the report format provided. I can't see a clear technical vio from a cursory survey of the edit history - are you claiming one. OTOH[166] is clearly incivil, so I've blocked fo 12h for thatWilliam M. Connolley (talk)17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Diff of 3RR warning: Abd is well aware ofWP:3RR; curiously, he chose towarn another user about edit-warring while in the course of racking up 4RR of his own in less than 4 hours.
By way of background, Abd has been a central figure in a recent Arbitration case concerning cold fusion:
I consider myself too involved to render an administrative verdict here, but I view this as problematic edit-warring in the context of a much larger, festering dispute. An aggravating factor is that talk-page discussion appears to be against Abd's reverts, and that he is handing out warnings about edit-warring to others while rapidly violating the rule himself. Note thatHipocrite (talk·contribs) has also edited the page heavily today; I count 3 reverts on his part, and will leave the handling to the reviewing admin.MastCellTalk19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Abd's 4th revert appears to be an error - since he signed the edit, he appears to have desired to send it to the talk page. I am well aware I bumped right up to 3rr. Thus, I pledge on pain of enforcement of this pledge by block not to edit the article or its talk page for 24 hours from my first reversion except for obvious vandalism or blatent violations of BLP in the hopes that perhaps all of the parties in question can be convinced to discuss instead of reverting over and over.Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Abd has commented that his 4th revert was not in error.Hipocrite (talk)11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not that I can claim to know what Abd is thinking, but theedit summary here seems to indicate that it was destined for the article itself, not the talk page. But whatever.MastCellTalk21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --Enric Naval (talk)23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
mmm.... here is a report on my behavior, I responded, clearly answering the question about that alleged fourth revert, and it'sremoved by Connolley as "discussion." And then, on my Talk page, he suggests I answer the question, which I had already answered. Perhaps, looking only at diffs, he didn't notice that much of my comment was in a collapse box. To read the full discussion directly, not in a diff, seepermanent link. Otherwise, I assume we are done here. My apologies to anyone offended by my defense of my actions. --Abd (talk)11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
09:50, 22 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 290921648 byBidgee (talk) images of buildings = irrelevant without being mentioned in the text itself")
11:03, 22 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "Undid revision 291588811 byF (talk) nice try Bidgee. why cant you explain why you think the images add value ? pls go to discussion page.")
User removed material with 2 english sources:[1][2] He added no references to prove his statements. Already told him to STOP on my userpage:[172] NOTE: he is removing references from the articleRobert Fico too.[173]
The anon has refused to answer my question[181] and continued blanking any entry inserted by others except one that he inserted (Madagascar'spolitical parties). Since my politely asking and 3RR warning did not stop his disruptive blanking, I submit this file. Thanks.--Caspian blue05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Time of edit warring: 01:07, 23 May - 06:11, 23 May.
Total reverts: 6
Straight reverts: 4
Complex reverts: 2
Total warnings before last revert: 2
User notified of AN3 report? Yes
Straight reverts
01:07, 23 May 2009 RevertsUser:Soxwon to previous version at 01:03, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "whoa, hey, slow down on the reverts on the outside the article material")
01:18, 23 May 2009 RevertsUser:Soxwon to previous version at 01:11, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "More direct: Please stopWP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
01:28, 23 May 2009RevertsUser:Soxwon to previous version at 01:18, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stopWP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
02:40, 23 May 2009RevertsUser:Larkusix's removal of tags and lead section[182] and restores tag and lead section to previous version at 02:30, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "restored tags and improperly deleted through mass revert")
06:11, 23 May 2009RevertsUser:SlimVirgin's removal of tags[183] and partially restores tags to previous version at 04:05, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "a few (but not all) of the most obvious deleted tags -- see talk for discussion of each")
Diff of warning:here andhere. User continued to revert after first and second warning were given. User notified of this discussion,here.
Note: The only way to "compare" the complex reverts in 02:40 and 06:11 was to cite the diff for the change by the previous editor. In this way, the complex revert jumps out of the diff when compared separately to the user's revert diff. Using this method, the date of the version reverted to appears as the "old reversion" and the material being reverted appears struck-out. Comparing the first diff with the "compare" diff using pop-ups, for example, makes the reverted material immediately clear. If I was to simply compare the two diffs from the previous version and the revert, the complex revert would not appear in the preview pane. If there is another method to do this, let me know and I will fix them. If there are any questions, please contact me or post a request here.Viriditas (talk)11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Diff of 3RR warning:[192], subsequently deleted, and duplicated on my talk page in a tit for tat move
I realise my edits could also be seen as edit warring but I'm not the one making changes that go against the references, and I don't see why an article should be compromised in this way for any amount of time.
Josquius has engaged in edit warring and been warned about it before:[193][194]
Much discussion has been made onTalk:Cornish people and Josquius is the only contributor continuing to change the article according to his personal opinion, without citing a single reference. His changes also disagree with the references provided, but refuses to read them.
Blocked – for a period of1 week Also appears to have hopped around several other ips around May 10th, necessitating semi-protection of the talk page back then. If it gets bad enough again during this block, feel free to report torequests for page protection --slakr\ talk /02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books.Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violateWP:Reliable Sources andWP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violateWP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of ShiaHere, which violatesWP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violatesWP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier,WP:Reliable Sources,WP:neutral andWP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.
Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.
Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))). As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point outWP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me knowWilliam M. Connolley (talk)23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Never reported a user before, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, especially since the warring encompasses multiple articles.
User first started editingVicarius Filii Dei with several edits. History:[201]. Policy was explained on talk page, user continued to edit, article was protected. User continued to complain on the talk page, once threatening me here:[202]. User then moved on to articlesDonation of Constantine andAugustinus Triumphus, and made very similar edits there. Policy was crudely explained again in my revert summaries. UserBiblelight then moved on toSeventh-day Adventist eschatology and added the same information to that article. Has ceased discussing things with other users and simply re-adds his information. One more revert and he violates the 3RR, which I told him. Here's the 3 reverts so far:
I really don't know what to do becausebiblelight simply moves his edits to a different article if people revert enough, and nothing I tell him seems to change his mind.
Again, this is the first time I've reported a user, so apologies if I did it wrong. Feel free to correct me in any way. :)Farsight001 (talk)21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Updated status to "warned," since the user appears to have stopped for now. If he continues, feel free to update. --slakr\ talk /02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Extended discussion
If the sysops will please review the aricles I have been posting to, they will see that I have been trying to post verfied historical information from reliable sources in an effort to counter demonstratably false statements, in particular false information regarding Seventh-day Adventists.
In the latest incident, to demonstrate the point, I have been charged with vandalism of the article onSeventh-day Adventist eschatology. Gentlemen, I AM a Seventh-day Adventist, and quoting the SDA commentary on Rev. 13:18 is NOT vandalism, particularly when it completely exposes the claim in the article that the same commentary rejects the application of Vicarius Filii Dei to the papacy. That false claim in the article is NOT verified in any manner. It IS demonstrated as false by what I am trying to post.
Farsight001 is censoring me from posting information that I believe is within Wikipedia rules. He charges me with rule violations because he wants patently false information to remain, he is censoring verified reliable from being posted because he does not want that information to be available.
I request that the matter be looked into by nuetral admins so that I can get a ruling of some sort about the acceptability of the information I have been trying to post, and clear specific reasons why, about what is ruled inadmissable, if anything.Biblelight (talk)17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have begun a discussion atTalk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology#Recent Revisions. You made a proposal, but two other editors disagreed that your changes belong in the article. You should probably wait to convince them before trying to make the same change again. If you think their views are not representative, useWP:Dispute resolution to get more views on the problem. If you try to force your opinion into the article by reverting, you may be blocked. You are already up to six or seven reverts on this article, so you are walking on thin ice.EdJohnston (talk)18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is the unsupported false claim,
Historically, some Adventists have interpreted thenumber of the beast, 666, as corresponding to the titleVicarius Filii Dei of the Pope. The chief proponent of this view wasUriah Smith, and he was followed byJ. N. Andrews. (They thought that theLatin letters when added equal the number 666.) However, the interpretation is rejected by most modern scholars as well as by theSeventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and is still held only by a minority.
According toBurden of evidence "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Am I not allowed to follow that rule on an article that purports to represent the church I belong to?Biblelight (talk)19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That statement, though, is in fact sourced. See the very next line in the article. Also - removing what you thought was unsourced material is far and away not the only thing you were doing. You were adding far more to the articles than you were removing. That you ARE an SDA is irrelevant to your ability or right to edit the article as you see fit.Farsight001 (talk)22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
TheSeventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a 12 volume set, theCommentary on Revelation, authored by Ranko Stefanovich, Ph. D. which is mentioned in the ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No 139 totally different, not part of the SDA Commentary! But then since he is NOT Adventist, Farsight001 would not necessarily know that. I want him to right this error by reverting to my last post and allow me to continue editing there.Biblelight (talk)22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion needs to continue atTalk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. All parties need to abide byWP:3RR and not try to force their version in by edit warring. A member of the SDA church has no special authority on this article. Use the discussion to present reliable sources for your view.EdJohnston (talk)22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments: IP has been reverting edits made by me, and some other users for quite some time. The anon user has been reverting the plot details that were supposed to removed/modified from the article based on a consensus on theTalk:Resident Evil 5 discussion page. The user is ignoring requests from myself and other editors to read over the consensus. Similar IPs have been making disruptive edits on relate pages:86.143.125.177/86.165.81.180/86.170.16.43 Please leave a comment on my talk page if you further require my help. Thanks -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please take a look atHot Fuzz andThe Thing (film) to see if semi-protection is necessary there. This user has been edit warring on those too. This my be coincidence or this user may be watching my contributions, as we have several articles in common.Geoff B (talk)22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help so far guys. Do you have any suggestion for dealing with this problem if the issue continues? Perhaps a block-ip ban? -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The information being reverted to by Jerrykme on the JetAmerica page is outdated before the airline reorganized under its new name and identity. Sources have been provided for each change, including links to the company's own website reflecting the change. The airline's current reservation system remains outdated as several markets are listed that were dropped due to ending relationships with other company - sources also referenced on this.—Precedingunsigned comment added byVenture79 (talk •contribs)15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - Jerrykme has not edited since receiving a 3RR warning, and he is not over three reverts yet, at least on this one article. I've notified him of this complaint, and marked this report as 'Waiting for reply', in case Jerryme may want to respond. Even if it turns out that he is justified underWP:V, his repeated reverts atJetAmerica with no discussion or edit summary could be improved upon.EdJohnston (talk)15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be permissible to correct the information again since I do have valid sources to back up the information (everything is getting documented in discussion as I go on theJetAmerica article)? I don't want this to be an edit/revert war, but the information there is inaccurate based on latest reports. Thanks for looking into this.Venture79 (talk)17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a genuine content dispute between the two of you, and it's not clear who is right. Since you filed a report atWP:AN3 you should wait till it's resolved before editing any contested items further.EdJohnston (talk)17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - Since Jerrykme did not respond to the edit-warring concerns, but simplydeleted Venture79's comment from the article Talk page, he is blocked 24 hours.EdJohnston (talk)18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an anonymous user with a dynamic ip-address. A direct message on the user's talk page is difficult: I have placed a message on all known talks[217][218] which deferred the 3RR warning to the article's talk. A block may pose impractical because of the dynamic nature of this user's ip-address, semi-protect may be a necessary alternative. Full disclosure is on the article's talk page. The ip-address above is the most recent, the remaining are: 94.27.220.95 and 79.122.70.79.ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Sorry, need to refresh on 3RR.ChyranandChloe (talk)22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Edit warring. It would be good to see more extensive use of the Talk page by all parties. Raymond Dundas, however, continues to revert out a connection between liberalism and science that appears to be supported by all the other editors.EdJohnston (talk)17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph in question is badly written and irrelevant to the main topic of the article. It contains a number ofWP:SYN claims. The user has accused two editors who have provided good rationale for deleting the paragraph in edit summaries and on his/her talk page ofVandalism.HLGallon (talk)10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
User under different IP addresses for at least a couple of weeks seems intent on changing thestatus quo of the article by changing the origin of the band from the explained London to Colchester. There has been no attempt to source this change or discuss it. As it's borderline and I'm already on the verge of 3RR myself I've brought it here. I haven't reverted the editor's last change. --WebHamster11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Having been rebuffed for trying to delete information and source links fromScienceBlogs (linked above as the previous version reverted to), what appears to be the same anon with a slightly different IP changed to adding a slightly derogatory description of the author, without sources and hence a violation ofWP:BLP, and repeated this three times so far, the third time after being templated with a 3RR warning. . .dave souza,talk16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note also Budelberger's long history of cross-wiki intimidation and what people concerned calledtrolling. This has led to him beingpermabanned from a number of wiki projects already. I've referred to his fr.wiki adventureshere and hence shall not repeat this.
What? 3RR no longer holds? Calling other users terrorists, savages and what not is ok for you? This guy shamelessly violates every basic rule of Wikipedia and now gets away with his preferred version page protected? Has someone gone crazy?! --Miacek(t) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)The mistake has been fixed.Miacek(t)12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to explain above that this is partial revert so to say. The user concerned removed theUser:Ohpuu's changes and reverted back to the statement that Livonian is extinct ('28 February2009, whenViktor Berthold died.'). Also, I suggest the user's troublesome record be considered here, I don't think it's worth wasting our time to start a new thread somewhere else.Miacek(t)22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is true, however this user refuses to accept consensus in the face of overwhelming support against his position. I trust that he is currently being watched now and will hopefully correct his behavior.Garycompugeek (talk)00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've notifiedWard3001 of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. I hope he will express his willingness to search for a compromise, and propose what thenext step should be.EdJohnston (talk)01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that there is a conflict of interest in this case. Ward3001 is a psychologist and as per his organizations ethics is trying to remove evidence about the tests they use. This secrecy is at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia.[258]--Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If I edit warred, I think it's a safe bet that Garycompugeek did also. And Doc James has (as he has done in the past) misrepresented the situation simply because he can't convince everyone that he's an expert on a psychological test when he's a physician and not a psychologist. I do not represent the American Psychological Association here. I represent myself; I have profressional ethics that guide my opinions. Am I not supposed to have those Doc James?Ward3001 (talk)01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Two editors here have both made three reverts in 24 hours, Ward3001 and Garycompugeek. (A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts). I think this case might be closed with no further action if both parties will agree not to revert the disputed item for one week unless a clear consensus is first obtained on the article Talk page. If only one party agrees, the other will be in a bad spot. If neither agrees, we should consider full protection.EdJohnston (talk)01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I had already resolved not to revert the article for at least a week; so I have no difficulty with that suggestion. As for my willingness to compromise, please see the lengthy details in the archives. The current dispute actually arises from an attempt to scrap a previous, hard-fought and difficult compromise. There has been much compromise by editors on various sides of this issue in the past. I recognize that anyone can challenge a previous consensus that brought peace to the article for almost a year, but please don't think that compromises have not occurred.Ward3001 (talk)01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearly consensus in this matter has changed regardless of Wards denial. I was supporting Xeno, an uninvolved admin, claim that consensus has changed.Many other editors and admin have valiantly tried to impress logic upon Ward but he refuses to see it. I have no qualms about and agree not to revert the article for at least a week.Garycompugeek (talk)01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Gary and I have a difference of opinion about whether consensus was achieved. But let me clarify a misconception he has created. Xeno was an uninvolvededitor in the Rorschach debate. Xeno himself/herself acknowledges that he/she was not functioning as an admin on that page.Ward3001 (talk)01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - Closed with no admin action, since the submitter and the other party have agreed not to revert the article for a week.EdJohnston (talk)02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an expecially egregious case ofWP:3RR, because the reversions also involve the deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors --User:Mosedschurte,User:Biophys andUser:Yachtsman1 -- in violation ofWP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is:Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (bold emphasis in original Wikipedia guidelines). Thus, not only is it aWP:3RR violation, but it also cuts to the core of the spirit of the project by deleting other editor's Talk page comments about subjects.
2nd Complex revert (changed section title to take Talk page comments out of comments again):User:Viriditas then later changed of the comments section in which the talk page comments were located to effectively take them out of the normal comments section to "These comments need to be merged into the RFC so that they properly reflect the position of Yachtsman1 and Mosedchurte. The RFC is designed to solicit outside opinions. That is its purpose.":here
And further deleted my civility and other warnings here on her talk page: [[261]]. I have also asked the editor to stop editing comments and to cease personal attacks/uncivil comments, to no avail to date.Yachtsman1 (talk)02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Continues to edit war by removing an entire section of RFC discussion to a separate portion of the talk page: [[262]]. Stated reason is that it's a "distraction" in summary, complicated edit with five subsequent edits after the move not allowing an editor to revert.Yachtsman1 (talk)02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a simple misunderstanding of how the talk page is used. Most of the material the users claim was removed, was actually moved into an ongoing thread and preserved as part of a continuing discussion (Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina). Because of the length of the talk page (before I archived half of it), the users appeared confused about the location of the discussion and continued to post the same comments that were moved higher up on the page and by then, had new comments; As a result, two duplicate discussions were created. One user, Biophys, was informed of this, but didn't seem to understand. As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their commentsinto the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments fromoutside, uninvolved editors. It is unfortunate that in the process, I managed to make several of these editors more upset, and in hindsight, I should have taken things slower, and tried to hold their hand a little tighter. I apologize.Viriditas (talk)03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So, your edit warring at the article talk page was a "standard procedure"? Some of the diffs were outright deletions, others were moves made regardless tomy objections. But it does not really matter since you violated 3RR rule.Biophys (talk)03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:"As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their commentsinto the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments fromoutside, uninvolved editors." (Viriditas)
That is such a brazenly false statement on an ANI board -- simply unreal -- that it will almost certainly hurt, not help, your case.
There is absolutely ZERO "misunderstanding." You flat out DELETED, not moved, several comments that had to be replaced by users every time, as outlined, just to begin with, in the straight reverts. You had simply decided that comments by "non-outsiders" should not belong to the Rfc, and FLAT OUT DELETED THEM. They each time had to be replaced by users, and you just deleted them again. Such as:
Note that this is different from the numerous moves of other's talk page comments (which also angered others). I didn't even count those among the slam dunkWP:3RR flat out revert deletions you made.Mosedschurte (talk)03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No, your own diffs prove that I moved the Katrina material intoTalk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrinabefore the timestamps of the diffs you provide. Here is thediff of my merge, timestamped at 02:16, 25 May 2009. Does this make sense to you? If you look at the timestamps and the content, you will discover this to be true. The timestamps for the material you claim was "deleted" shows that the material was still in the article, but located in a different thread (Katrina) where apparently you failed to see it. Look at the diff you posted above. The material is already there. You posted aduplicate of the discussion. Nothing was deleted. The exact, duplicate material was already in the article, higher up. What is interesting (and ironic) is that this material wasnot originally posted to this talk page. It was initially posted byme toUser talk:Biophys at 21:20, 24 May 2009.[263] Biophysmoved my talk page comment to the article talk page at 00:20, 25 May 2009.[264] And finally, to recap from above, I in turn, merged the discussion into the already existing Katrina discussion at 02:16, 25 May 2009. That should clear that up for you. As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman. Some other material was refactored, and included comments from myself as well. I believe this is an accurate recall of the situation, and I hope that people like yourself will not be so quick to revert in the future. Usually, there is a good reason to refactor the talk page. In this case, there were two: 1) the Katrina section was duplicatedtwice and was merged back into the original discussion; 2) The RFC was incomplete and required positions from involved editors to be merged into the statement per Jayen's instructions. Both you and Yachtsman were contacted on your respective talk pages and asked to help. Both of you refused and deleted my comments. I understand that you disagree with my assessment, but if you also slowed down a bit and tried to focus on communicating effectively instead of edit warring, we might be able to move past this and collaborate on the article. So far, that has been impossible, because you seem to have trouble following the discussion threads, and the same discussions (and the same comments verbatim) continue to get reposted in duplicate threads. I think my solution of placing a link at the bottom finally worked.Viriditas (talk)03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
From Viriditas:As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman. Pray direct me to these "massive reverts" you are talking about, because I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. Your comment on my talk page asking for "help" was as follows:The Rfc is used to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors outside the talk page. Please do not respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [[265]]. Can you show me where my "assistance" was requested? I would be interested in seeing that as well.--Yachtsman1 (talk)04:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I made a request on both of your talk pages and at least two requests on the article talk page to both of you. AtUser talk:Mosedschurte, I wrote:If the RFC does not reflect your position, then change it.[266] And, onUser talk:Yachtsman1, I said:Then edit the question per Jayen's comment above. Or did you not read it? Edit the RFC directly.[267] OnTalk:Human rights in the United States, I requested the assistance of both editors several times; First to Mosedchurte:Please merge your comments above into a very small paragraph explaining your position. If you don't agree with how Jayen described your position, Mosedchurte, then either alter it or change it.[268] And to you, Yachtsman1, here:Condense your positions into small statements and find consensus for the RFC itself.[269]Viriditas (talk)04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A request for what? There was no request on my talk page for "assistance" or "help" in any manner. Indeed, quite the opposite. The link shows that as a matter of fact. The comment you direct our attention to was made after you have already deleted my comment on the talk page, and you only asked for me to reframe the question, not for "help" and/or "assistance". The "massive reverts" you referred to previously appear to be non-existent.--Yachtsman1 (talk)04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would note that this was in no way a "refactor" or "move". These were flat out deletions of comments that cut against your position on the Rfc. It was literally that simple.Mosedschurte (talk)04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. My "position" on the RFC has never been under discussion. Perhaps you are referring to something else? My only concern was with wherther the RFC represented all sides fairly. It does not represent my position, if that is what you mean.Viriditas (talk)04:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
At this time, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.Viriditas (talk)04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
We must be talking past each other. At no time have I ever stated my position. I actually never was given a chance, and I chose to remain neutral as a result. In any case, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first. I apologize.Viriditas (talk)04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Your apology is great, but it's not what you were doing. And, of course, you did state your position on these issues before the Rfc -- you argued directly in favor of keeping in the Katrina and Abu Ghraib sections. You weren't "refactoring" anything. You were just deleting Talk Page comments of all of those who disagreed with your position (to keep in "outside the U.S." human rights issues) -- such as me, Biophys and Yachtsman1 -- and directly told us that you didn't want our comments on EACH OF OUR TALK PAGES. It's all laid out in detail above. Then you simply deleted those comments when they were re-added to the article. Repeatedly.Mosedschurte (talk)04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the third time I am returning to this board to report Abbatai for breaking the 3RR. After numerous warnings and corresponding blocks (see the comments by admins made and the warning of sanctionson his talk pagehere), it's clear that user does not want to play by the rules and, frankly, doesn't even care. His edits have come in the midst of a long range of vandalism on Armenian-Turkish related articles and I believe a more stringent action is warranted (see the comments in my previous complaint filinghere). But to put it shortly: he has been edit-warring on this article without pause, and has failed to show a singlereliable source to back up his claims. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk)18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week — Oops, sorry, forgot to update this. Anyway, guy has a history of edit warring on that page, so 1 week it was. --slakr\ talk /06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
A review of the history of theLebanon article shows this user (as both LebaneseZp, and their IP address) involved in prolonged edit warring with several different users on several different statements for at least the last week. A review of the IP addresses talk page will show that the user has been warned numerous times about this article. ←George [talk]02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? The user seems to repeatedly skirt 3RR by logging out or switching to other accounts (still pending check user confirmation), or staying just below the four reverts per 24-hour threshold, but I still consider theirprotectionism (in the face of reverts from several other users) to be edit warring. I was more interested in the "disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt togame the system by reverting a page" line from the policy page. Also, I only consider one of their edits to be vandalism – the user seemed to get frustrated that other users were reverting their additions, and acted out by removing additional material tomake a point. Since it was only one case, I don't think AIV is the proper place for it, but I'm open to suggestions. ←George [talk]19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? Here. CU is confirmed. I'll have another lookWilliam M. Connolley (talk)19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So, maybe it's easiest to focus on the two most contentious statements the user has been pushing. Here's the details about when they were added:
01:08, April 23, 2009 –Statement #1:72.10.109.105 first adds statement regarding Phoenicians paying taxes to invaders as a reason that modern day Lebanese are descendants of Phoenicians
16:04, May 12, 2009 –Statement #2:72.10.109.105 first adds commentary regarding Lebanese not being Arabs
Now for the revert history, broken down by when they occurred, who performed the revert, and what was reverted. I've only listed the contiguous edits once in this list, but made a note when an edit contiguous to the one listed touched one of these two statements:
Please note that I listed the reverts by two users and three IP addresses that I consider to be the same user. Unfortunately a check user was never performed, though there seemed to be a consensus that LebaneseZp was 72.10.109.105. All three IP addresses are from Connecticut (one a University, the other two residential), and the later two (24.151.25.180 and 75.27.148.7) haveonly performed edits to the Lebanon article, that are strikingly similar to edits by LebaneseZp and 72.10.109.105. Furthermore, the editing behavior (time of day, what statements they added or reverted) is very similar amongst all three IP addresses and the two accounts. Joetoril popped up as soon as LebaneseZp becomes inactive in editting, performed the same revert to the same article, and I found it suspicious that the IP addressfirst edit was a bit of vandalism to the Lebanon article that included the statement "ugliest spot in the world and is ran byJOE the OWNAGE". ←George [talk]23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just noticed that Cirt actually protected it, not semi-protected. That makes all this moot. You should now be using the talk page to discuss the conflict, and/or lobbying Cirt to unprotectWilliam M. Connolley (talk)08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I had invited the other editor to join the discussion (which I had started on the talk page prior to the page being protected), but they chose not to. Even after the page was protected, the user hasn't joined the talk page discussion, instead moving over to thePhoenicia article and starting an edit war with another editor over there (again, skirting just under 3RR – that editor warned them about 3RR, but the anonymous editor removed the message from their talk page). TheLebanon article will automatically drop protection in a couple days, and I suspect that the user will return and take up edit warring again. I'll probably file an ANI fordisruptive editing when I have time. Thanks for you help. ←George [talk]08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)::I had similar problems onPhoenicia. The IP:72.10.109.105 personally attacked me (diff) when I reverted an edit by Joe Toril telling him in the edit summary that Dougweller did not accept his citation either. Meanwhile Joe Toril and the IP kept reverting me, Doug and Ogre. If this goes on ANI, I will try to assist George.Dr.K.logos22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There is adispute onResident Evil 5 currently about the possible ambiguity around the fate of one character. Daymeeee does not believe there is any ambiguity, and insists that ifthis character did possibly survive, so did others in previous Resident Evil games, even when there is no ambiguity there.Geoff B (talk)21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
1strevert: Not necessarily arevert, but after I edited the article to comply with neutral POV stardards decided on WikiFashion's talk (specifically that "supermodel" should not be used in leads and only used in the article itself when the instance of being deemed a supermodel is notable in itself to avoid POV pushing) B.manotoc returns the POV pushing info and adds a blog ref. I undo this andexplain why on the user's talk.
2ndrevert: D.manotoc ignores my explanation and reverts the edit, as well as removes the refimprove tag and begins returning "supermodel" to the lead sentence.
3rdrevert: Thinking I was only restoring the refimprove tag (D.manotoc erroneously thought it was an unsourced tag), using Twinkle, I blunderingly undo B.manotoc's previous/2nd reversion, which came at the last second. He/she reverts it a third time and adds a pair of sources.
4threvert: To avoid an edit war, I edit the article in way that I hope can be a compromise between our positions and leave acautionary note about further reversions (rather than an actual 3RR warning). Minutes later, the IP 124.197.109.101 (no other edits and likely B.manotoc using an IP to avoid 3RR issues) reverts this.
5threvert: I tag the article as a COI, which 124.197.109.101 reverts before adding another non-RS ref of the variety B.manotoc was attempting to add.
A lot of the reversions/edits came in pairs, so it's somewhat tricky, hopefully I got it right. I have an SPI open right now to see if these two are the same editor, which I'm pretty sure they are, for the intent and the timing of it. Perhaps I should also note that D.manotoc is the article's creator so COI/Own issues are probably at work.Mbinebritalk ←01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: varies, but all edits remove existing info; all but the last one remove the paragraph that begins with "From the beginning of the war...".
Another userwho was banned previously tried adding some POV wording to the article earlier today. After being reverted and subsequently banned for a username violation, this new account popped up making similar changes. Justthefacts 101 wasadvised by2help to go to the talk page to discuss the changes but failed to do so. I also advised them to do the samevia edit summary due to the previous drama that surrounded the article (see the talk page archive). It took a very long time, but a consensus was finally reached regarding the article's current wording and the ideas that are presented.PinkadelicaSay it...06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours — both the user and the ip. Without even running a checkuser it's evident that between the overlap in their contribution topics and the timing of a logged out revert of the exact same edit war issue—right after being warned of a 3RR violation—that they're the same person. --slakr\ talk /12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
17:34, 27 May 2009(edit summary: "RV: Requesting further review, Previous admin did not take into account the miuse of demeaning edit summeries as seen at the top. These are unprovked one way violations")
17:39, 27 May 2009(edit summary: "Your not an admin ,please do not close requests for further review as it is a form of disruption")
17:45, 27 May 2009(edit summary: "No thanks, Im after a different admin. You clearly disregarded key parts that were not reliant on any evidence require of me, Such as the edit summary abussage.")
18:37, 27 May 2009(edit summary: "Undid revision 292716712 byDreamGuy (talk) - Same rules apply to all, I cant reopen it, you cant edit it, its finished, move on.")
This user persists in repeatedly inserting a long rambling section of unsourced original research. He appears to be unreceptive to the proposition of changing the content and rejects all distillation of his insertion to a more appropriate size.—BurnDownBabylon23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Editing to add at 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC): the user is reverting what is a good faith and non-disruptive edit that removes redundant Wikilinks to the same article, and clean up the infobox. While I am happy to discuss it, the user has not raised the issue in talk, nor has left any edit summary. The user has already been blocked twice for 3RR, so ignorance of the rule is not an issue. —Mosmof (talk)15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of4 days This user has been blocked twice before in 2009 for edit warring. He has never posted to an article Talk page and does not use edit summaries. His long-term practice of making controversial edits without discussion will not lead to harmony with other editors of these football articles. I think Bruninho is approaching his last chance.EdJohnston (talk)16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Editor refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page, and is editing in direct opposition to a long-standing consensus. The user has been using misleading edit summaries, accusing me of vandalism andownership.Parsecboy (talk)23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Editor refuses to abide by consensus on talk page and continues to behave asowner of this important article. He continues to make extremely damaging changes by deleting 90% of the lead and inserting his own personal news bulletin board. Attention to this deconstructive editor would be useful ASAP as the article has nearly 40,000 readers per day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This block does not appear to be justified. No difs were provided anywhere which show a violation of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I do not see a valid basis for this block established on the talkpage of the blocked individual, who has made many productive edits, or on the talk page of the article in question. This appears to be a mere difference of opinion between two editors as to how best edit an article. Therefore I request that the blocking admin lift the block.Edison (talk)04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong withCool Nerd having an idea for the article that was different from what it had been up till that point. The question is, how to go about persuading people to make the change. He was trying to keephis new version of the article in place by revert-warring. (He was failing to get support from the other regular editors of the page for a news-like format. His format change was being reverted by different people). Inthis post, he is asking an infrequent editor of the page for support and suggesting thatit's well worth relaxing wikipedia rules. This suggests that he knew his changes were against normal standards for the page. The right way would have been to try to persuade the other editors working there, and abide by consensus if he didn't win the argument. The block can be lifted if he agrees to stop trying to change the page format without getting consensus on the Talk page first.EdJohnston (talk)05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here -->Playerdragon wants to remove existing references about the number of North Korean women working as prostitutes in other countries, and is replacing all of them with a single newer reference that is not necessarily reliable; he is also changing the number reported in the text (currently 100,000) to a number that is not even present in his new references (5,000). He has previously done this under the usernameUser:Neotommy10 and as the IP121.165.130.100. Is refusing to discuss with anyone (and in fact is unable to contribute intelligibly or discuss effectively in English, but has ignored request to try Korean Wikipedia) and continue removing references.
I'm requesting that Playerdragon (and future socks of his) be blocked, and the article semi-protected to prevent further edit warring from this editor. It's a pretty obvious case but I probably shouldn't block and protect myself, since I have been reverting him already. <b>r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ</b> <small><sup>talk</sup>/<sub>contribs</sub></small>13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Result - I hardblocked121.165.130.100 for a week. Let's see if that fixes the problematic edits of Playerdragon as well. (They both use the phrase 'WRONG INFOMATION'). If it works then we saved having to file the case atWP:SPI. The submitter of this report, who is an admin, has already indef-blockedUser:Neotommy10 as a vandal-only account. Anyone who wants to admire the work of theAbuse Filter should look at the tags it has added to theedit history of this page.EdJohnston (talk)21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
Blocked 2 weeks - the previous block for disrupting this page apparently was not sufficient to get the message across. --B (talk)02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
The user was blocked May 25 for edit-warring and a request to unblock was declined.[328]
Since the block expired, the editor made a comment on the talk page[329] (May 29 20:12), and 6 minutes later reverted the article to his preferred version. I reversed his edits and posted a 3RR notice on his talk page. He then reverted the edits, deleted my 3RR,[330] and posted a protest on my talk page.[331]The Four Deuces (talk)21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Your acquaintance, Rick Norwood was just as guilty of edit warring as I was and he wasn't blocked. Are you saying you too are not engaged in edit warring? Why the double standard? I have consistently discussed this on the talk page, Norwood refuses to address my points and you haven't posted anything on the talk page. If anyone is guilty of senseless edit warring, it is you two.Raymond Dundas (talk)22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
The User has been disruptive since May 16 or even longer. when engaged at [[341]] they seem unable to achieve a compromise. Appears to have some knowledge in certain rules of Wikipedia, particularlyWikipedia:Soapbox. Redundant in reasoning.--23prootie (talk)02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply: Its not vandalism. Its a conflict of using simple written information, and educational skills. All i have done is used proper written information, and improve thePhilippines article. However most of her edits is based onWikipidea:Soapbox such as advertisement, and other issues.DCrhDtalk03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that I'm may also be at fault but I have been trying to have discussions at the talk age that got nowhere so what am I suppose to do?--23prootie (talk)03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
4th revert:[346] - here, he hides a reversion of the other party's edit with an edit summary of '+ref'.
Edits to talk page:
1st edit:[347] - veryuncivil comments about 'here's why I'm right and you're wrong'.
2nd edit:[348] - appears to think that his say is final.
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
Diff of 3RR warning:[349] (the 'leave me a message' link redirected to someone else's talk page so I changed that too in the same edit).
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here -->I am a 100% uninvolved party who simply stumbled across this dispute while travelling across Wikipedia.JulieSpaulding (talk)12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here -->Sorry to file this, but this article is on probation. Just reverting with brief proclamations of irrelevancy is inappropriate, per the terms of the article's probation. The edit summaries were not conducive to belief that a discussion of merits would ensue. Regrets, --4wajzkd02 (talk)21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering I responded and I was the second editor to agree it was irrelevant I stand by my edits and really don't think this has any merit. I also find this amusing considering the editor who brought it up actually has 3 reverts today on said article.Soxwon (talk)21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)It appears that the reporting editor, 4wajzkd02, has been edit warring. In general the burden is on the editor who wants toadd disputed material to gain consensus, not the editor who rejects it per BRD and consensus. 4wajzkd02 is at 3RR and is obviously aware of article probation. Soxwon has removed the material twice, and another editor removed it once, all with valid content objections.Wikidemon (talk)21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Both editors warned - This article ison probation, so any edit wars will get a very short leash. One party listed here has already reverted twice, and the other three times. I see that someone has opened an RfC on the very issue these editors are reverting. If reverts continue before the RfC concludes, the results may not be good.EdJohnston (talk)21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here -->This edit war was over 50 edits long, reverted, warned, editors start again. Neither editor appears to add constructive content. Thanks, and forgive me if I'm wrong,<span>mynameinc</span><sup><font color="red">Ottoman project</font>Review me</sup>00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, both parties are guilty, but the template was only for one user so that's what I did. I did not leave a warning because there are already 5 reverts and I saw the multiple warnings thatMikeWazowski left onUser talk:67.8.109.183.Dlabtot (talk)19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I was not trying to edit war, but the anonIP was veering into vandalism territory (which, as far as I can remember, isn't covered by 3RR) with the continued insertion of incorrect information, and refused to answer any attempts at communication. Situation seems to have stalled for now.MikeWazowski (talk)19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
At first sight, adding the words 'in Nevada' does not seem to be vandalism. Can you clarify how you arrived at your conclusion? Also, if this issue is so important that an immediate revert is necessary, why is there no comment from you on the article Talk page?EdJohnston (talk)19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, initially it was simple misinformation inserted by the IP - the Nevada location is based on information from the fourth film, which we cannot apply to the original film, and I stated this in my original edit summary. Other information added by the IP (to several articles) was also inaccurate descriptions of events in the films, which I also mentioned in my edit summaries. The third warning text mentioned "continued vandalism", and that, coupled with the editor's refusal to respond (either to the warnings or in edit summaries), is what led me to call the editor's later contributions (after the warnings) vandalism.MikeWazowski (talk)11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit Warring on Lionel Richie, Disagreeing about the popular culture section.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 12:46 pm, Today (UTC+12)
► RATEL ◄15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hoursTiptoetytalk19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Page protected —Aitias// discussion18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
WarnedTiptoetytalk23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Already blocked --<span>slakr</span><small><sup>\ talk /</sup></small>13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)