Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:28, 25 June 2009 editAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits →User:Jesusmariajalisco reported by User:Cosmos416 (Result: ): result← Previous edit Revision as of 10:30, 25 June 2009 edit undoAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 edits →User:Nirvana888 reported by User:Cosmos416 (Result: ): resultNext edit →
Line 687: Line 687:
}} }}


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: blocks) ==


* Page: {{article|BRICS}} * Page: {{article|BRICS}}
Line 706: Line 706:


:::So what? Is it so surprising that two editors who have been editing for much longer than you take issue with your bold edits which you constantly revert to. "you tried consensus": consensus means coming to an agreement along all editors involved in the dispute; not constantly reverting to make a point. I suggest you see dispute resolution if you feel so strongly about adding your material. ] (]) 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) :::So what? Is it so surprising that two editors who have been editing for much longer than you take issue with your bold edits which you constantly revert to. "you tried consensus": consensus means coming to an agreement along all editors involved in the dispute; not constantly reverting to make a point. I suggest you see dispute resolution if you feel so strongly about adding your material. ] (]) 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

:'''Result:''' Cf. . —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 10:30, 25 June 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    Edit warring on Istanbul article

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    No violation It takes four reverts in 24 hours to justify a 3RR complaint. Plus, this new editor was never warned about the 3RR rule. Consider discussing the issue with him on his talk page, which is still a red link. (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    That's the problem. His/her IP always changes. I believe I posted to one of his IP address' talk page, however he must have ignored it. He clearly reads the edit summaries; each time he restores the information with a summary addressing the summary I posted concerning why I removed the information. Did you see Norton AntiVirus' talk page, archive 2? I gave him time to fix his ref. I also posted tags above the text he posted. TechOutsider (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    As requested by EdJohnston on my talk page, here is the notice on the Talk:Norton AntiVirus/Archive 2#Aggressive Subscription Marketing. Look through the article history (this issue spans back a couple months), and several different anon. editors add the exact same information. TechOutsider (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    A 3RR warning has already been posted on one of the IP addresses talk page. Since, he or she has added the information again. TechOutsider (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    • User had 4 reverts already when I reverted (had no idea that it was already a violation). User proceeded to revert a 5th time and then argued after being asked to revert. User keeps reinserting what appear to be WP:BLP violations by making contentious claims and referencing them with blogs. I'm wondering if I should take this to BLP/N, or would that be forum shopping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears to be justified by BLP for at least one of the reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    This isn't the proper forum for this discussion, please take it elsewhere. The ban's been served so there's really no point in continuing the argument.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment. Please give Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at least a warning on this, IMHO they've shown soem rather bad faith and incivility toward this user and others on that and associated articles of the husband, the band(s) and Clint Catalyst. Newby users should not be assumed to be SPAs and should be welcomed per policy. -- Banjeboi 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Response. Banjeboi, you know perfectly well that Swancookie is not a new user, and has been editing since February 2008 (but had been absent in recent months. He or she returned earlier this week, made a string of personal attacks on four editors, including me, insinuated that our edits were motivated by anti-LGBT bias, denied making that insinuation, then made an overt, completely unfounded accusation of LGBT bias against me and began canvassing editors who had shown interest in LGBT subjects for assistance in this edit warring. I initiated an AN/I thread earlier this week (also warning Swancookie of his/her first set of 3RR violations, which led to a ratcheting up of Swancookie's attacks. This dispute has been running for three months, kept going by a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets, of which Swancookie is simply the latest. The common features of these SPAs and socks include their refusal to abide by BLP and RS, and their vigorous campaigns of personal attacks and incivility against editors who disagree with them. After months of this, it's time to start dealing with harassers like Swancookie as the disruptive editors they are. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I know of no such thing. Believe it or not I seaw this as a newby who was sincerely asking for help which I did and they took my explanations at face value as I have taken them. Meanwhile i saw your comments toward them, myself and on at least the Clint Catalyst article as needlessly aggressive and borderline uncivil as is, IMHO, your comment to me here. Just so it's clear to all can you point out any proof that Swancookie is simply the latest in "a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets"? That's the kind of uncivil comment that casts doubt on you, not them. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


    Just to clear things up. I'm not a SPA. I have been a on wikipedia since February 2008 but had taken a long leave of absence from wikipedia to concentrate on school. In reality I have truly only been editing on wikipedia for a few months in total. Know that it was never my intention to upset anybody or vandalize the article Jessicka. I added the citation I was blocked for, to improve the article and strengthen the article not vandalize it in any way. I had a conversation on my talk page with Benjiboi ( who has been very helpful) about the reinserted citation and we agreed that it was fine. I don't believe I have attacked anybody here. I never insinuated Hullaballoo or any other editor of having an LGBT bias. I simply asked for an editor/admin that had a little knowledge on the subject so I could ask them about starting an article about a transgendered musician.
    I've tried to sort this out but rather then engage me editor to editor Hullaballoo removed my request from his talk page.

    Hullaballoo again and again describes the articles I'm editing as those of "certain minor-league celebrities" These articles are about people whom are musicians, artist, and producers. They aren't celebrities, minor league or other wise- and I have asked him to produce any reference that states they are. Hullaballoo's tone and uncivil behavior to all editors involved who do not agree with him leeds me to believe that he has a bias against these articles, that and the fact that he accused user:Xtian1313 =Christian Hejnal of being a sock puppet and mercilessly edits articles about he and his wife Jessicka and any articles relating to them. I just don't understand why Hullaballoo's behavior here is excusable? Rather then be civil and semi- patient with new editors he spouts policy and negative uncivil condescending comments about editors and the articles they are editing.

    I am coming here in good faith and I am asking for any help regarding this situation. I'd like this resolved before I make more edits to any articles or start a new article because I believe if Hullaballoo thinks the article is related in any way to articles Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, or Christian Hejnal he will edit within an inch of it's life until it can be nominated for speedy deletion.
    I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the articles be the best they can be User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can not say the same.

    I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in all wikipedia policy but I am learning as I go. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines. The more I get help from editor's like Banjeboi they better editor I can become. Swancookie (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Since this discussion is not asking for any admin action, it needs to go somewhere else. This complaint was filed due to editing on a specific article, Jessicka, and there was a clear pattern of edit warring there. To avoid future problems, *don't edit war*. Especially on BLP articles. Even better, wait to get consensus on the article talk page before making controversial changes. If you believe that Hullaballoo should be sanctioned for overall behavior, open an WP:RFC/U. I think we are done here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    While Swancookie's comment is a bit WP:TLDR, my point was concerning the actions on this board specifically which IMHO has participated in abetting a bad faith action. I've asked for evidence from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and continue to see them violating our civility policies. If the very board that propogagted this isn't correct then where should a thoughtful review of this take place? RFCU tend to be time-consuming and rather toothless. I was simply hoping an objective look would also note Hullaballoo's actions including SPA accusations. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Instead of hostility collapsing and dismissing this as a "not here" could you please direct where Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rather incivil behaviours and SPA accusations would actually be addressed? At this point I'm thinking Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts would make the most sense. From what I can see Swancookie was acting in good faith and thought that re-adding the material was acceptable. Meanwhile Hullaballoo Wolfowitz seemed to be rather uncivil throughout and has alleged here they are an SPA with no evidence of that.
      In this case the actions on this board endorsed in abetting a bad faith action, knowingly or not against Swancookie. RFCU tends to be time-consuming and rather toothless. I was simply hoping an objective look would also note Hullaballoo's actions including SPA accusations. To constructively move forward is Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts the likely next best stop? -- Banjeboi 20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    I have a better idea. Why don't you review the history of this long-running dispute, which has sprawled across multiple administrator noticeboards, already resulted in the identification of sockpuppets and SPAs, and generally found no indication of inappropriate behavior on my part or that of the two other editors, and one administrator, who Swancookie accused of bias, bad faith, etc within a day of his/her return. Start here You've already admitted in various discussions that you refuse to apply WP:AGF to me, but accepted Swancookie's claims without checking out the history of the dispute. And that is grossly inappropriate behavior. After three months of repeated, groundless personal attacks on me and on other editors -- included one character who's gotten away with making legal threats and completely fabricated allegations that I've been physically stalking him -- there's no reason for me to do anything but treat Swancookie, whose conduct fails the WP:DUCK test on its face (cf the contribution histories of User:Tallulah13 and User:Granny Bebeb as anything but a disruptive and malicious user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    Hmmm, there may be some wisdom to sorting this out - not sure it's worth the effort to search out everything. My issue was with your comments which remains a bit hostile. Not sure I admitted any such thing but in the absence of evidence Swancookie being an SPA I have to look at it as if they weren't. Again, is there any evidence of that? If these are all one in the same then we really should sort that out. Regardless we need to remain civil - even if someone is an abusive or banned editor we strive to higher level in dealing with them. That has been and is still my issue with your comments. If someone is violating our policies we still must politely show them the door. Not doing so would seem to cause more problems. Intertwined in this is the very real concern of calling someone a sock, or SPA, which is rather insulting if they are not these. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I apologize for the lengthiness of my last entry. I'm not SPA! He's still pointing fingers? What about the fact that Hullaballoo completely fabricated that I insinuated a LGBT bias of three editors, when all I did is request somebody who was well versed on the topic? What about the fact that anytime there are edits made to the articles mentioned above he goes on some weird rant about myspace or buzzent ( neither site are Christian Hejnal or Jessicka associated with) and further aggravates an already tense situation by referring the the people in the articles as "c list celebrities"and the editors as "socks" and "SPAs". Is that not condescending? Uncivil? I'm sorry his behavior is verging on obsessive. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with this and continues to spout policy rather then admit he's wrong is astonishing. Please review the dispute there is some unsavoriness when certain users defend themselves ( mostly against Hullaballoo) but I think you'll see I'm not one of them. I think you'll see that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is uncivil and borderline hostile with anybody (in the situation) who does not agree with him. I think you'll see that after user:Xtian1313 addressed him and then was accused (By Hullaballoo) of being a sock that Hullaballoo went on an editing spree on his and his wife's articles. I don't think you'll find my tone or my actions abusive or threatening anywhere. I truly believe that Hullaballoo, no matter how versed in policy he is, is a destructive editor and has exacerbated this whole mess with condescending and uncivil comments. Swancookie (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    After just noticing that this 3RR breach was already earlier reported, I must withdraw this notice. My apologies. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


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

    Result - Blocked 48 hours. 78.30.173.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also made four reverts and is blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Judging from his list of edits and his talk page, this user has caused problems before with his anti-Russian edits and abusive language. Judging from his/her edit of 22:58, 21 June 2009 he/she has not changed.

    I have placed a warning on his talk page.

    --Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nt revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • previous reversions :,


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

    This is the version of the article as I would wish it to appear. In danger of breaking the 3RR rule myself I have reverted my most recent edit to the last version by User:Slatersteven (which although factually correct, does not link the 1998 trial and Griffin's comments on the Cook Report, as are linked in the source provided on page 63 of this book.

    User:Slatersteven has admitted that he doesn't fully understand how to read citations provided in online sources, such as Google Books, demonstrated here. He appears to read my edits, disagree with them, reverts them, and then (once I have demonstrated that they are correctly referenced and that the source material backs them up), quietly either leaves them alone and moves onto another issue, or just continually reverts. This is where I now find myself, faced with an article that could be better, but unable to make the changes for fear that he will just revert to an earlier version. Its a waste of my time and frankly I'm growing tired of working on an article and having to continually explain myself to a user who doesn't understand the most basic concepts, even once they've been explained to him. The most recent insult is here, where he all but accuses me (in the heading) or pursuing untruths and breaching Misplaced Pages policies (this from a user who introduces possibly unreliable sources such as this. He is picking the smallest faults in anything he can find (regardless of whether any exist), and creating problems where none exist. Its worth noting that his additions to the article are close to zero, his edits tend mainly to be concerned with moving material around, and focussing on trivia.

    I've done a lot of editing to this article over the last week or so. I found it a largely biased and unreferenced article, have sourced everything, all with what are generally considered to be reliable sources, and added and expanded the article to a degree where I consider it good enough for WP:GAN (indeed it is awaiting review there now). I'm entirely open to constructive criticism but what this user is doing is, I believe, disruptive, and unproductive. I'm quite genuinely of the opinion that this user does not understand what an encyclopaedic article is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    Have I breached the 3RR rule (I appear to have not done), if not then perhaps an admin need to explain the rule to him. I will not comment on his other accusations as this is about 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    The title of this report very clearly says 'edit warring'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


    Many of the users edits whilst they are sourced do not always make the claim the editor implies http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297886349&oldid=297802269 Niether source makes this claim. POD goes on to admit that there is no direct linik between the trial and the TV show http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297907078&oldid=297906649 even thoguh the section he is moving it to is about the trial. But still insits there is a 'contextual' linki (but still does not say were the source claims this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297910448&oldid=297910252. He continues to refuse to provide the quote to back his claim up http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=297906685&oldid=297905394.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    If you do not understand why Griffin's anti-Semitic writings in a right-wing magazine, his subsequent trial for those writings, and his secretly-recorded comments on the man who reported him to the police in the first place, belong together in the same section, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Most readers would find it easier to understand the relationship between these two if all information on them were presented together. This is what I want to do, in exactly the same way as the loss of Griffin's eye is best presented in the chronology of his career, about the time of his withdrawal from politics (Slatersteven wanted this information in the 'Family and personal life' section).
    Slatersteven's objections to most of this is that as headings exist where such information might be included, then that information should instead go there. I'm not even certain if the article warrants those sections (certainly the sections on Islam and Climate Change are so short as to be almost trivia). I haven't finished work on the article, not by a long chalk, but I don't think I'll ever finish while Slatersteven nitpicks over every tiny matter he can find, reverts edits without prior discussion or without understanding how to read sources, introduces unreliable and incorrectly-formatted references, and generally behaves as though I exist only to satisfy his curiosity. I hesitate to resort to ad-hominem (although Slatersteven's accusations of bias and poor sourcing make it easier), but this user's actions remind me of an internet troll]. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    They were, in thE section about his anti-semitsm. dop then moved it to the section about his trial with out discusion (as most of dop'S edits have been) User DOP also makes reversions without discusion indead in many cases I had to start a discusion on these very subjects. His eye may have influenced his withdrawl from politics (but it was 'not about the same time' it was the following year, another of POD's appriximations). But non of the soources made the claim, and in two areas of that debate POPD had to admit that I was accurate, just not very good at providng properly formated (but still working and checkable) sources. However that is not what this is about. Yes I agree I belive that information should go in the correctly headed section (for shame). As to the idea that the section on Islam is not needed I find very odd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Not sure why that happened as I was trying to undo a paragraph move.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    So what am I to do? How do I resolve this matter? I've tried, believe me, but this is a last resort. Where do I go now? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    Try reading one of my posts you deleted, it might give you a clue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Template:User_en-gb-5 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mintrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PhilthyBear&action=edit&section=4

    I was the one who created the chart for the DVDs and I added the Canadian dates with the word "Canada" in brackets, for the third date. No one objected until now. I've asked this user, nicely, to leave it alone, they refuse. Now this user is trying to tell me I'm adding dates for Hawaii and Alaska, which isn't possible since I'm Canadian and my dates from Amazon.ca. R7604 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    Trying to figure out how to handle the esoteric formatting requested here is beyond my understanding. Please accept this anyway.

    User:Tnaniua is in a continuing edit war over the Developed country article, adding his own personal opinion about a report which characterizes developed countries, edit warring to add South Korea as a developed country. Note that I have no axe to grind in this debate, I just stumbled across Tnaniua's edit warring while reviewing Recent changes. I suggested that all he needed to do was to provide a reliable source as to the report's inadequacy, but that was rejected with a reversion. Perusal of Tnaniua's Talk page and edit history shows that he has had several different editors suggesting that he stop the war, but he refuses. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    (User was warned multiple times on IRC to stop, as this reversion was over them changing the article to fit their claims during a debate in #ChristianDebate in DalNet. If necesary I can cut and past the IRC transcript here.)


    Just an anon causing a headache. Darius Arcturus (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

    2009-06-22T20:13:22 Mazca (talk | contribs | block) blocked 207.112.74.90 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block). The other anon got zapped for vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


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

    Falsewords333 reported by Xcentrex (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    There are approximately 4 other reverts all in the course of today! Ive asked the person why are they discrediting the album reviews and they are stating it is libelous? Obviously they have some personal agenda to take out video content that has been verified as Brenda M Fuentes nee Bria Valente. No one knows this woman except a select few Prince fans so why is Falsewords333 so adamant and aggressive?

    I do not need to warn the user as the user has TWICE warned me and I merely included media reviews of said subjects album

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Page protected three days - There has been a multi-party edit war. It has been claimed that Falsewords333 may have a conflict of interest, but the last version he edited at least is free of WP:BLP violations. Please use the next three days to discuss proper content for the article on its talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. Unconfirmed stories about romances have no place in this article. 'Citation needed' tags are not appropriate in BLPs for anything important; if you don't have a source, the statement must go. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Falsewords333 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)falsewordsFalsewords333 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) xentrex seems to have an unusuall invested interest and agenda towards Ms Bria Valente and the information associated with her. Conflict of interest seems to apply if you are ademate on the inclusion of irrelevant information that is defamatory, unecessary and does not have a place in this type of site. It is only to serve xentrex own agenda. Bria is notable and relevant because she is a "Prince protoge" with an official CD release in 2009 "Elixer". 'Credited' facts on her music career are noted, as well as personal biographical information taken from the Tavis Smiley interview which is a credible Television show. I asked xentrex to please cease to pursue this course of action, posting negative media reviews, personal attacks and irrelevant information. That type of 'information' is better left to internet gossip blogs and not on this site. I want to help keep Wilkepedia clean and civil. Thank you.

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


    Even the rawest of newbies generally manage to dedge up at least *one* revert, which you have obviously failed to do William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Stevertigo, already subject to editing restrictions, keeps on violating rules (result: reporter blocked for incivility)

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

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

    He uses the Talk:Life page extensively as a forum for his assays. Once he actually introduced an assay (100% OR) into the main article:. As a cell & molecular biologist, it is alarming seeing Stevertigo, without any formal education in biology, fabricate statements, terms and definitions, and push them in the talk page and in the article. On one occasion he introduced one reference, but it does not quote or support the definition (his Original Research) that he introduced., so I also corrected that.

    Of outmost importance, Stevertigo recently became subject to an editing restriction for one year for edit-warring: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."

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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , , , , , , , and last but not least:

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

    Note, this matter was also referred to AN/I, so this EW report may be redundant. Inasmuch as no 3RR violation is claimed, and without offering any opinion on the merits of this, maybe that is a better forum? Wikidemon (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm blocking you for this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Aradic-es reported by User:PRODUCER (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    rv 3 is from the *19*th. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


    PRODUCER or should I better call him REVERTER because 90% of his activites are reverts, keeps revetting all my edits in 90% with not explanations like here. Important to notice that he is accusing me for the same things that he is doing himself. That kind of behaviour is known as

    anyway , just look at his contribuitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/PRODUCER

    --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Philip Baird Shearer reported by User:Likebox (result: try DR)

    User is admin, and has reported others for 3RR.

    • An ongoing dispute: this last diff at 2RR. The editors on the page know the issue here. Undue weight is not adressed by the current version, and the editor will not accept reference counting (or any other means) for establishing undue weight.

    I am trying to see what the consensus is regarding my preferred version, which has been developed in user space for a while. The editor in question has said he does not like it, but does not leave it up long enough for others to comment.

    A version of this dispute has been going on for a long time. I made changes with sources, they were reverted. I tried different wordings, they were reverted. I tried other wordings, I got reported for 3RR (and blocked). Right now, the user in question just makes pure reversions to an old version repeatedly, despite the ongoing dispute on the talk page regarding WP:Undue_Weight. His administrator status can make challenging his preferred version intimidating.

    I am aware that the issue is contentious. The User:Likebox/HistoryWars version I restored includes work of at least three other editors, and four new academic sources and an equal number of non-academic sources to bolster undue-weight assertions. The same editor repeatedly reverts to the current version which is sourced to a fringe minority in Australia, which denies the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines.Likebox (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    but does not leave it up long enough for others to comment - this is nonsense. You can post a diff to the talk page, it doesn't need the version to be current. As for the report: your position (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that someone with 3R in 24h deserves to be blocked, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    No, I do not like blocking people who are not obviously vandalizing. I don't want to block PBS, I want this dispute to be resolved. I am sick of introducing lots and lots of mainstream sources for a majority position, only to have them be reverted away without discussion.Likebox (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    I do think that an administrator should be held to higher standards regarding rollbacks and tendentious editing. So perhaps a warning to stop is enough. With regards to your point about "current version", as I explained in the talk page: when a page is too offensive, it is difficult to get anyone to edit it. When my version was up, new editors started adding information to it immediately (before it was reverted).Likebox (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    Its a dispute. You need WP:DR, not AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:DoyleCB reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: indef)



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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    Indef; too much nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:99.142.2.89 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: Prot 3 days)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it's the entire article discussion page.

    - Arcayne () 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Page protected for 3 days. Although it would have been within policy to block the two worst offenders here, I have chosen to protect the article instead in order to, hopefully, foster the nascent discussion (assiested by GTBacchus) that can be seen on the talk page and at the IP's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Edit warring on Democratic Unionist Party (Result: Warned)

    The user User:Sumbuddi has started an edit war on the Democratic Unionist Party article without as yet commenting on the talk page. He/she has started to make personal attacks/comments against me in the history. I have reverted and given proper rationale in the talk page. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    note: I have reverted this user's last 'edit without rationale'. I shall revert no more until the dispute is resolved. Vexorg (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Er, it takes two to edit war, and as I said you have the sorry record of being blocked four times in the last three months for exactly that. Evidently you haven't learned. I have explained why you are wrong, there is nothing more to say, given that you are the one trying to change the status quo, I suggest you seek consensus for it on the talk page, and until you have got that consensus, cease pushing your POV, which you have failed to provide any rationale for, and stop reverting the page. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    There is no POV, but this is not the place to get into an argument. I shall leave it up to admin to decide. Vexorg (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Seriously, outside of the POV pushing, your behaviour is *bizarre*. You are plainly engaged in edit warring, and have a long history of the same, but you choose to make a 'pre-emptive strike' to report me for it? Not constructive and not sensible on your part given that you've attempted to add the same category to the page four times in the last 24 hours. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Result - Both editors warned. If either Sumbuddi or Vexorg removes or adds Category:Homophobia to the article in the next seven days, without first getting a consensus on the Talk page to do so, they risk being blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Redking7 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 1 week)

    List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 22:37, 20 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Asia */ Per talk page. The UK does not have a diplomatic mission to "Taiwan / Republic of China"")
    2. 21:38, 21 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297741453 by Kransky (talk) - I've provided sources. Provide a source if you claim UK has "Diplomatic" mission.")
    3. 19:35, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297877417 by Kransky (talk) - See WP:Verify etc. Per talk page.")
    4. 05:08, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 298005931 by Kransky (talk)")
    5. 22:49, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 298110815 by Kransky (talk) OK - Good idea to contact an admin (non-biased one)")
    6. 05:08, 24 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 298231578 by Bidgee (talk) - Who is edit waring, you or me?, Source please.")

    No warning has been given for this edit war on this article however the editor has a history of edit warring and has been blocked 3 times in the past so they should know what an edit war is. While the edits are not done on the same day it's the amount and the way this editor has undid the edits. Maybe 1RR needs to be placed on the editor in question. —Bidgee (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Form. 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:M i k e y 86 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Melbourne Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M i k e y 86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:03, 21 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Avalon Airport */ removal of Avalon Airport section, it is not relevant to melbourne airport at the information is already on Avalon Airport's wikipage, no need for double ups.")
    2. 19:11, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297801186 by Mvjs (talk) AVV has its on wikipage and is an operating airport as in SYD there is no second airport")
    3. 22:17, 22 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "doubling up information is not needed, the information is on AVV wikipage where it should be and only be...")
    4. 17:20, 23 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Avalon Airport */ doubling up not needed")
    5. 10:32, 24 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 298233779 by Bidgee (talk) stop adding content that is unnessecary")

    —Bidgee (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Athenean reported by Balkanian`s word (talk) (Result: stale)

    Three-revert rule violation on Illyrians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Revert comparison ("compare"): .

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

    • Diff of warning:

    The user removed a well-sourced sentence, edited by User:Aigest, with the reasoning "per talk, it is unintelligible gibberish by someone with a very poor command of the Enligh language. See talk. No one objected to its removal." After, I reworded the sentence, making it have sense (it was really poor English), he reverted again saying "no nationalist pseudo-scholars, please", refering to 2 Albanian proffesors on that field. I explained to him that they are proffesors on that field, thus fulfilling WP:V, he reverted for the fourth time "I would agree with you if they had published in an international English reasearch journal, but Alb. lang. pubs are not acceptable", which has nothing to do with wikipedia policies. Moreover, User:Athenean is totally biased towards Albanian sources and Albanian articles in general, which he reverts without discussing.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


    Just want to notice that the related article has suffered much reverts by Albanian pov users, that claim a direct Illyrian-Albanian ancestry (autocthony of the Albanians). We have to rely mostly on npov english speaking sources (they are plenty) in order to retain neutrality. Moreover the one of the 2 sources is of 1969, when the country's intellectuals were under strict totalitarian cencorship. I feel this move by fellow balk. (it's not a clear 3rr violation) user just undermines a peacefull wiki cooperation. (not to mention a combined activity by albanian users in that case)Alexikoua (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Note:The current revert has nothing to do with the dispute over Albanian POV or not, it has to do with the autochtony of Illyrians, not the continuity of Illyrian-Albanian theory. So, Atheneans reaction is unneceptable, as he showed a clear bias, removing Albanian authors, living Serb, Croat and Bosnian authors, which have no distinction (all of them are Balkanians, all of theri countries have a certain POV, all of them were under Communist regime, all of them were non-English sources). THis is a bias and a clear case of non-cooperation.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Also it is a clear 3RR violation, as I reworded once the paragraph, while Athenean only removed it (click undo+click enter).Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    A clear bad-faith report. Each of my edits results in a different version, so they are not reverts. My first edit is in line with the what was discussed on the talkpage by admin DBachmann and consists of removing unintelligible nationalist gibberish. All I did was remove outdated, fringe-nationalist non-English language sources (one from 1969, for god's sake, when Albania was under a totalitarian dictatorship). The "well-sourced sentence" by User:Aigest is anything but. The "professors in that field" do not have a single publication in an international English language journal. This article is plagued by nationalist Albanian editors who keep inserting cruft material such as what I removed. Admins Kwamikagami and DBachmann can testify to that. User Balkanian has been pursuing a vendetta against me ever since I reported him a while back for violating 3RR on that same article and is now trying to get back at me. --Athenean (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    To the reviewing admin: Every revert of Athenean resulted in a different version, because I tried to find a consensus with him, by rewording the sentence: actually the only thing User:Athenean did was reverting my edits, while in the first place he reverted Aigests edit. As he says he removed 1969 sources, at a time that on that section are sources from 1966, or worse totally unsourced paragraphs. Actually, those two sources have too many articles and books, making Atheneans hypothesis not just untrue, but biased towards, every Albanian source, and every Albanian article in general. As for the vendetta, this is not the case: Athenean keeps reverting every edit made on Albanian, Arvanitic, Northern Epirus, Cham article, in bad faith, without discussing it first with the contributors. So did he in this case, breaking WP:3RR, which is a violation.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    You know full well that those two sources on Illyrians that I removed are unacceptable. They are outdated and not even in English. How are our readers supposed to verify them? As for those other articles, most of my edits there are in fact copyedits, as my contribs log shows. So if anyone is guilty of bad faith it is you. --Athenean (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm looking into this now. I just noticed that between the two of you, you have seven blocks for edit warring. It strikes me that neither of you should be reverting at all, but agreeing to talk it all out on the talk page, and perhaps even try collaborating on a WP:NPOV version that is acceptable to you both in user space, and then adding it to the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    You are right Hiberniantears, the problem is that User:Athenean agrees on a version, only if that version does not include the words "Albania" or "Albanian". This case is the perfect example; as I tried to create a consensus, by rewording the sentence, based on his conserns; and immidiately he reverted it again, with reasons not included in his first edit summary.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Does this mean that just saying "archaeologists" rather than "Albanian archaeologists" would be acceptable, or am I misreading that? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    The accusations of anti-Albanianism by Balkanian are nonsense. The problem is that these two sources are in an obscure language which very few of our readers would understand, and as such are impossible to verify. Suppose I had brought Greek-language sources from 1969, how would they have bee treated? --Athenean (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    I suppose that they would have been treated the same way you treat those unsourced parts of that page, which you never remove, and never let others to remove. Or, the same way you do not remove: "Benac A. 'Vorillyrier, Protoillyrier und Urillyrier' in: A. Benac(ed.) Symposium sur la delimitation Territoriale et chronologique des Illyriens a l’epoque Prehistorique, Sarajevo 1964, pp. 59–94." "Kühn, Herbert. Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung. Walter de Gruyter, 1976. ISBN 3110059185" etc.
    @Hiberniantears: No, only the fact that they are Albanians is enaugh for Athenean to remove them, and to break WP:3RR, which is the case of this dispute.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Its more than reasonable that such kind of sources (Albanian of 60s) should be carefully avoided. Imagine someone using North Korean stuff, how npov can we consider him?Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    The policy (as I understand it) is that English language sources should be used if available. That doesn't mean we need these sources in English, but rather, if anyone has written about this in English, we should use that. Questions of nationalist editing aside, there must be some English sources around that give an objective analysis on the history of the peoples who today are called Albanians. However, if there really are no other sources available in English, we can use sources in a different language. The 1969 source, given the government at the time, is most likely not a great choice regardless of what else is available. Has there been an exhaustive search for credible English sources discussing the hypothesis? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    The thing is, this article is on the Illyrians, not the Albanians, as DBachmann and I endlessly repeat on Talk:Illyrians. Said page is a graveyard of filibuster, WP:IDHT and WP:LAWYER, by the way. There are plenty of excellent English language sources on Illyrians, so I really don't see why we should rely on Albanian language sources from 1969. Most of contemporary Illyrologists treat any possible connection to modern Albanians with great caution, given that we know very little about the Illyrians, who were a pre-literate society. The prevailing academic consensus the way i see it is that "It's plausible, but we really know too little at this point to draw any firm conclusions". --Athenean (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC) --Athenean (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    The 3RR noticeboard is not a proper venue for content disputes. 3RR is 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Or at least it would be if we had a higher authority around here that ruled on content. In the mean time, I'm doing some leg work to figure out if blocks or page protection, or some combination of the two are in order. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, Hiberniantears, the paragraph that Athenean removed has nothing to do with Albanians. It is about the ethnogenesis of Illyrians, and no connection at all with Albanians. So, per the above comment of Athenean, this is just the perfect example, that he does not even read what reverts, but he is just reverting everywhere that he sees something albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    The text is supporting the view that Illyrians are Albanians. That said, as Colchicum points out above, this is not the place to sort this out. Consider yourselves both warned. Further reverts on this material will result in a 24hr block. It needs to be sorted out on the talk page, and if that is failing, an RfC needs to be opened to determine if the sentence has a place in the article. I don't see a problem with including theories on whether or not Illyrians are Albanians, but better sources are required, and the material should be limited in this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your effort. I will open a new thread on the article talkpage. Your last sentence, btw, is what I've been saying all along in that talkpage for months now. --Athenean (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    (outdent)@Hiberniantears. Which text supports what? We are speaking about the ethnogenesis of Illyrians, and by the way, this is about 3RR. Did Athenean break 3RR or not?Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    3RR was broken, but you were both edit warring, and I would block you both. If you want him blocked, I will also block you. It is a package deal. Despite that, this happened yesterday, and I am loath to block someone for a stale 3RR, since that would be a punitive block, rather than prevention of an ongoing dispute. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    If there is a trust issue here, I'm also willing to protect the page until you both sort it out, if that is something that you would all prefer, so as to keep everyone on even footing. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    I've started a related discussion on Talk:Illyrians. I for one do not think a page protection is necessary at this point, but I will let you know if that changes. --Athenean (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    So, I was edit-warring. Ok, I see.... trying to find a compromise by changing the paragraph twice, and the other one always removing it, while I did only 3 reverts, without breaking 3RR and he 4, is an edit-warring. Ok, my fault.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Result: Stale
    It appears that edit warring has stopped in the meantime. Though, I should note that further edit warring will result in (a) block(s). — Aitias // discussion 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Scribner reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 72 hours)

    • 3RR warning: user has already been blocked for breaking 3rr three times
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - there are several open issues here (section name, Krugman's quote, Greenspan's blame)

    -- Vision Thing -- 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Aitias // discussion 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


    User:Jesusmariajalisco reported by User:Cosmos416 (Result: blocks)

    User:Jesusmariajalisco and User:Nirvania888 are possible the same user using 2 accounts judging by editing history and simultaneous edits, language, etc.

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

    ....Countless Reverts :refer to BRIC article History Cosmos416 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    Result:
    — Aitias // discussion 10:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Nirvana888 reported by User:Cosmos416 (Result: blocks)

    Countless Reverts :refer to BRIC article History

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    Cosmos416 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

    You might want to look at how many times you reverted (~15x) and the times I and the other editor tried to engage you to try to reach consensus. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    You two have the exact same tone and edits between minutes...and I tried consensus on the accurate updated material, and you said no. Cosmos416 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    So what? Is it so surprising that two editors who have been editing for much longer than you take issue with your bold edits which you constantly revert to. "you tried consensus": consensus means coming to an agreement along all editors involved in the dispute; not constantly reverting to make a point. I suggest you see dispute resolution if you feel so strongly about adding your material. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    Result: Cf. above. — Aitias // discussion 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Cosmos416 reported by User:jesusmariajalisco (Result: )

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

    Jesusmariajalisco (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: repeat offender, blocked on June 21 for 3RR/edit warring on this article
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , on user's talk page , at AN/I , in collateral discussions on other user's talk pages . Swancookie typically responds by complaining about my "spouting policy," which he/she appears to believe to be a good enough reason to ignore the policy "spouted."

    User:Swancookie has been edit-warring for more than a week to reinsert various unsourced and unreliably sourced claims into a set of BLPs, including the article at issue here. Several other users, but principally me, have been removing these claims under WP:BLP and/or adding tags, as appropriate. In the instant dispute, Swancookie is removing tags and adding "references" to http://thelwordonline.com , a self-published fansite and to artistdirect.com, a retail site that is essentially a first-party source with no reputation for factchecking. The artistdirect link is borderline spam at best, since it links to a page hawking CDs for sale; if the claim involved is factual and notable, there would surely be a reliable third-party source. Given the user's recent history, and refusal to address the relevant policy issues, a renewed block is appropriate if not necessary. (Although WP:BLP authorizes the removal of such sourcing without regard to 3RR, I'm not going to inflame this situation right now with repeated reversion. Swancookie is edit-warring to further policy violations on a BLP, and the 3RR tripwire doesn't need to be set off for action to be taken. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    I was in the process of getting a third opinion when User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported me. Per my discussion here I was under the impression that the L word site was acceptable. "Some blogs and other self published sources are acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That is from WP:SPS. Forgive me, but I'm nulling the template (if you need more help, just post it again). Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)" I'm really trying to be civil but Hullaballoo makes it next to impossible. His uncivil behavior/ conduct is well documented. Please understand I am no vandal. I'm just trying to find references and am not 100% clear on what is acceptable. I can't trust Hullaballoo's judgement as I believe he has a bias when editing the article Jessicka. Swancookie (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    It should be noted per my post here about this issue, that indeed Swancookie has engaged in an edit war here. But it also takes 2 to war. The article history shows multiple reverts/revert edits by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) as well. As this content dispute isn't about controversial/disparaging content regarding the article subject, but about User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz believing a certain source isn't reliable, contrary to his claim here his reversions/edits are not exempt from 3RR based on BLP guidelines. It is my belief that they both should receive the same amount of "guidance" in regards to this report. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here 04:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree with ASE, especially considering Swancookie has already been blocked for edit warring on this exact same article. Soxwon (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    In defence of my editing, I would point out that WP:BLP restrictions are not limited to disparaging material, but apply to all sorts of poorly sourced material: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion And I think at the very least the repeated insertion of commercial links, like the buy-this-CD page repeatedly added as a "reference" to this article by Swancookie, qualifies as "questionable" and contentious. I also note that there is no plausible basis for believing that the self-published "reference" Swancookie has been reinserting qualifies under WP:RS -- this is a garden variety fansite -- so that Swancookie's lack of good faith is easy to infer, and his/her repeated removal of tags amounts to vandalism. I'd also note that Swancookie has repeatedly been informed that self-published sources are generally not acceptable Misplaced Pages references, but has repeatedly added such references in violation of applicable policies. If there is a consensus that the BLP exception to 3RR does not apply to the removal of unacceptably sourced favorable material, I am of course willing to abide by it, But, as I pointed out elsewhere in this dispute, the Wikimedia Foundation less than two months ago issued a policy statement concerning BLPs, stressing the importance of removing inappropriate favorable/promotional material from BLPs. "As the popularity of the Wikimedia projects grows, so does the editing community's responsibility to ensure articles about living people are neutrally-written, accurate and well-sourced. . I am, therefore, quite frankly baffled by ASE's suggestion that both sides in this dispute are somehow equally guilty. Note, in particular, that the administrator who blocked Swancookie earlier this week chose not to caution me about edit warring. Had he dones so, my response here would have been more guarded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    As I lurk around many of the articles that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is 'helping' to be more in line with what he believes wiki policy demands, I have seen a lot more than just the edit war on Jessicka he is also responsible for removing any links to her on other wikipedia articles , if not removing the articles themselves , he has acted underhanded on more than one occation (while slyly remaing within wiki poloicy), the greatest example of which (That I have seen) is that on the 19 of June Hullaballoo Wolfowitz added an image to Files for deletion , they then removed the image from atleast three articles , and , before any consensus could have been reached, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claim is that they believe the image does not belong to the uploader because it was used in an article on a website without mention of the uploader (or anyone else) as owning the rights to the image; but I believe that removing the image from all articles could have lead to a claim of it being an Orphaned image, which I'm sure Hullaballoo Wolfowitz knew could and would happen, this seems to fit into the behaviour describe by Swancookie. I have stated else where (to do with removal of content of an article that includes content refering to Jessicka) that I believe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to be using WP:BLP aswell as other Misplaced Pages policy as a sheild, to allow themselves to undermine articles, with no attemp to fix the problems, or allow others to do so. I understand that this is not against policy, but when they are accussing other editors of Vandalism for their edits that are done in nothing more than good faith, as an attempt to improve the article , , I believe someone is attempting to make someone else look bad. Please can someone find a way to settle all of this, so I can go back to quietly removing vandalism and reverting bad edits from a few select articles, without fear of being in the middle of a war between editors that don't know any better and editors that should know better.  Doktor  Wilhelm  08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Michael herc. reported by User:Emily Bernette

    Version Before Revert ] Version After Revert ]


    • 1st revert: link: ]
    • 2nd revert: link: ]
    • 3rd revert: link: ]
    • 4th revert: link: ]
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    link 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Leonard%5EBloom#toc link 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett link 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Michael_herc

    Reporting false and wrong information provided by Michael herc. this is on the behalf of my changes and that of Bkonrad and Avery_player2011 as well who have posted the page with truthful infromation. Bernette 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Turkish Flame reported by User:Bosonic dressing (Result: )

    Version before revert: / Version after revert: /

    • Diffs: (...Asia) / (...Europe)
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This entire section on the Asia talk page (which I initiated) deals with the issue, and has been linked to from a number of other related articles for wider input.

    Comments: The edit warrior (whose alias is very telling regarding position) has maintained that the entry for Turkey should be included in the Europe articles since all confirmed infections have reportedly taken place in Trakya; this despite the fact most of the country's area and population are in Asia (e.g., Europe/Asia). After I solicited for wider input, a number of editors have since supported the entry's inclusion in the Asia article. The edit warrior has since resorted to ad hominem attacks (e.g., unproven accusations of sockpuppetry, referring to me as 'sly') to discredit opinion/consensus in favour of including the entry in the Asia article. I apologise if I have apparently contravened 3RR, but will refrain hereafter; however, discussion with this editor seems futile. Bosonic dressing (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Bosonic dressing thinks Turkey should move to the Asia article because vast majority of the country lies in Asia but he keeps Russia, whose vast majority too lies in Asia, in the Europe article. The WP community first put Turkey, Cyprus, Russia etc. to the Europe article but Bosonic moved all these countries except Russia to the Asia article without a consensus. . When I came to the article, I realized it and classified countries per WHO's country classifications. But I didn't move Israel and Central Asian ex-Soviet states because I predicted Bosonic would never approve this move.
    He didn't want to accept that cases in Turkey are in European part of the country. Then he canvassed. I said you are canvassing but he denied it. Later an IP user with no edit history came and edit the article with the same edit pattern with Bosonic. (See Special:Contributions/84.142.78.222) He thinks this IP user (maybe a sockpuppet) is a respected user and counts him in his side although he didn't express his/her thoughts on talk page. Another IP user came and said we should move all transcontinental countries to the Asia article, including Russia, but Bosonic only understood the IP user only wants to move Turkey to the Asia article. Then we couldn't reach a consensus and I suggested the usage of the real geographical borders of the continents. He first didn't accept it but later gave up moving Turkey to the Asia article since 22 June. He is now edit-warring again. --Turkish Flame 09:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    As explained on the talk page, I boldly made edits to the articles that weren't contested (e.g., per the UN geoscheme (which includes Russia in Europe, given its population and capital), and a wealth of other sources) and then since ONLY by this edit warrior, who made these changes anew using his 'new', unique, unannounced scheme: this edit warrior moved some countries like Turkey per the WHO scheme but not others (e.g., Israel) and would've had no idea of editorial reactions to this or that since we have had no prior interaction. As well, throughout discussions, this edit warrior has made numerous false accusations (e.g., about canvassing (I asked an uninvolved administrator to monitor and weigh in), sockpuppetry (the IP is in Germany, I am in the Americas, and I reiterated this) simply because this editor has been unable to garner additional support. I gave up previously as part of a cooling off period, and frankly because I was sick and tired of talking to a wall. Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    Categories: