Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive102

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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

Previous identical reverts:


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [10]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11].
  • Previous attempt to generate improvement that user had deleted: [12]
  • User:Mashkin's talk page before self-revert documenting a history of edit wars and problematic behaviou: [13]

Editing with Mashkin is very frustrating. 'Deletionist' is too respectful a way to describe behaviour of edits that he disagrees with. He has a history of edit wars, almost 3rr and 3rr, and a recent 48 hour block after which he returned to the Michael Ben-Ari page. Technically, he did not break 3rr this time, but his behaviour and attitude has not changed and even perhaps continues in violating BLP. On the Member of Knesset Michael Ben-Ari page, there are two issues he cannot accept despite sources being provided: A) that Ben Ari is a rabbi (RS source provided using the term though many 'partisan' sources are available on the net referring to him as a rabbi) and B) that an 'investigation' has been opened and this is the wording of the source from a RS in English [14] not something I made up. The user merely tries to defend himself by bringing OR (why this army department does not investigate anything) in defense of his deletes and claims non-RS even though this media organization is in fact an accredited body and widely referenced. There is never an attempt to compromise or suggest alternate wording. The user is set on making sure that this Member of Knesset's page not be improved. The subject of the article is not in the scope of the user's interest and his continued 'struggle for justice' (if I try to AGF) here is disturbing..--Shuki (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Please be more mindful of WP:BLP in the future. Shell babelfish 02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Page protected)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [15]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:74.248.89.30 reported by User:Bzuk (Result: )[edit]

Talk page cautions:

after continued edit warring, caution sent to user talk page.

This editor has a lengthy history of crusading against linkspam which is entirely commendable, however, the actions taken on one particular article have brought the editor into conflict with a number of other editors more actively involved in the development of the article. Other than edit comments and one "boilerplate statement" that did not deal with concerns that were raised, there does not appear to be consensus for the constant deletions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Sigh. This isn't 3RR because of the times. I was going to issue a stern warning about misusing vandalism in edit summaries, but I see you've made exactly the same mistake on the anons talk page. This is a difference of opinion as to content, not vandalism by either side. However removing linkspam - all new links must be addressed and approved on discussion page is clearly wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's blatant linkspam. Commercial spam links to online stores, a few MFA sites (Made for Adsense) to generate ad revenue, and most of those links don't even point to content specifically about the Red Baron. The other links removed should be moved to wiki.de and wiki.pl because they aren't in english. I know linkspam when I see it, Wikipedia is not a link repository. External links should add to the encyclopedic value of the article itself, and I intend to remove blatant spam links. 74.248.89.30 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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


Sorry for not strictly sticking to the established format, but I'm not sure who is to blame here, who is right, who is wrong and which specific policy should apply.

Basically since about 28 May, most of the edits to the Istanbul article seem to be centred around adding photos (by an editor), then removing (by another), then re-adding, then removing, etc. etc. etc. (ad nauseum) There seem to be more than two users involved.

This contant 'yo-yo'ing makes it very difficult for any other editors to come in and make useful contributions without getting involved.

This should be discussed on talk page, with info on which policy or policies are applicable and some sort of consensus on amount of photos, which photos stay and which go.

Some admin help here would be appreciated. Marek.69 talk 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Bombing of Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RutgerH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:07, 17 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Signficance in context")
  2. 06:31, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297033896 by Bidgee (talk)")
  3. 07:50, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297114776 by Bidgee (talk) You don't own this article")
  4. 08:26, 18 June 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 297118847 by Bidgee (talk)Get a consensus for revert or take action as suggested")
  • Diff of warning: here

The user refuses to keep the long standing version by adding what they want and refuse to stop reverting and keep discussing[21]. The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me[22].

Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:YellowMonkey. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the above discussion, Bidgee complained: The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me. I don't consider Rutger's comment to Bidgee to be any kind of a threat: Stop being petty and don't think administrators won't take the time to properly review the situation before taking action. (I am commenting here because I received an email on this subject). EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DoctorDW reported by User:Fuzbaby (Result:No violation )[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

This editer has repeatedly deleted the edits from 3 different contributers, basically taking out anything that mentions that physical therapists (or the more general non physicians) take care in clinical situations to not give patients the impression they are physicians. He also refuses to allow in any information that doesn't relate to physical therapists, even though its not a physical therapist page and the page discusses multiple professionals. First he just reverted pages (as you can see from first link, the page's edit history) which I restored, then to not leave a revert history on the edit history he simply edited the page to change it to the same thing, over and over, and refused to accept others' offer to compromise...he seems intent on blocking any progress on this page, even removing references that are linked to the new content. I attempted to rewrite things and add references thinking that would please him, but that was just deleted too. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, but in this case it appears that there is a dispute over content that involves multiple editors. The editor you reported appears to have tried several different things to resolve this dispute and is using the talk page; that's not edit warring in my book. Btw one of your links (the fourth) isn't a diff. Shell babelfish 02:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
fixed it; its the same as the last diff just the second time he blanked it. I suppose I could keep trying to restore the page once a day and leave more on the talk page, but I think its doubtful he will not revert anything that has references to clinical use of titles. Thank you for the advice. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Or you could cease the back and forth on the article and instead focus on finding a consensus on the talk page. If the small group of editors there can't find a solution, I would suggest involving the wider community through an WP:RFC or something similar. Shell babelfish 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Will have to I guess, if you didn't look, we've alread tried the talk page. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone reads these much after, but a similar pattern is happening on another page [[32]] Fuzbaby (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [33] (This was the first introduction of content in violation of WP:BLP)



  • Diff of 3RR warning: No formal warning given to this SPA sock of a probable banned user; fully aware of Wikipedia policies (see below).
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

This IP editor continually re-inserts the same controversial content into a WP:BLP after the sources have been revealed to be inaccurate and discredited. While this has been explained on the talk page, and this editor has been requested to discuss his edits on the talk page, he hasn't -- he just keeps reverting. He has broken the WP:3RR rule as well. I have not broken the 3RR rule yet, but I fully intend to as authorized by WP:BLP: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." - unless an administrator here wishes to explain why I should not do so. Semi-protection of the article is also warranted, as evidenced by the recent disruptive edits and vandalism by IPs and new SPA accounts.

(Note: At the risk of convoluting this matter, I strongly believe User:Pecker Checker = User:75.57.213.195 since they both are SPAs with the sole purpose of introducing this small bit of content into this article. Pecker Checker stopped editing after he was caught lying about his source.) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am User:Pecker Checker, I forgot my password, my apologies. Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring. If I am to be sanctioned for this, he should be sanctioned more severely. It would also appear that Xenophrenic is looking ot have the article place under semi-protection just as a way to enforce is edits. -PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The only misrepresentation has been your sourcing, and the discussion page reflects that. Every editor to comment has expressed concerns with your insertion. An additional level of care must be taken when editing BLPs. I'm requesting that an admin take a little additional time to look into this matter in more detail. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Not true in the slightest, you seem to be the only one bothered by the sourcing as the discussion page indicates. I would invite any adminstrator to verify this. 75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Result - 24h for User:Pecker Checker, who admits he is the same as the IP, and semiprotection since the IP is dynamic. The IP has violated 3RR. If there are any BLP issues here I don't see them as very significant. I suggest filing at WP:BLPN to get more opinions. Who is the 'probable banned user?' EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [39]


(these June 20 reverts are just the latest in a dispute of Brews ohare against the other editors, mostly me and Srleffler)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Actually, most of the talk page is about this dispute, which started when Brews showed up on the page on June 10. I've reverted almost everything he's done, but have kept a few bits and added a lot of sources, as Srleffler and I have tried to talk him into being reasonable. But he just keeps getting worse, and now even does a 4th revert today after we both warned him. He has taken the 7 KB article up to 20 KB by adding material that no other editor agrees is sensible, and that is mostly unsupported by sources or irrelevant to the topic; when he's challenged, he just adds more irrelevant detail and more irrelevant sources.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed one: [46]. Brews was already at four reverts when I warned him, and proceeded to add a fifth.--Srleffler (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Response: Many of these reversions did involve added sources and revisions, and so are not strictly reversions. They were made by editing the reversion in the text editor before doing the reversion, which may disguise their nature. That was necessary as the entire section and all subsections were deleted, leaving nothing in the article available for more limited editing. These changes never satisfied Dicklyon and Srleffler, who rather than propose sensible changes or deleting portions, simply made global deletions of entire sections I worked on, regardless of their relevance to the dispute, accompanied by derogatory remarks instead of commentary. Material I proposed for RfC was summarily deleted within hours, leaving no time for comments to arrive. References provided to support argument were not taken seriously unless they contained the word "wavelength' explicitly, even when the argument was of a background nature and had not yet reached the implications for "wavelength". Responses to their nitpicking (in the form of espousing specious innocence about basic facts) are categorized as "irrelevant detail", and result in deletion of entire sections. I have decided that I cannot spend any more effort making figures, finding sources, and rewriting text in this environment. I am one contributor against two others exercising rigid rejection regardless of content. Of course, this is just my rationale. However, I believe their actions are a high handed power-trip, and have little to do with improving the article. The material I wished to add to the article and repeatedly deleted by Dicklyon and Srleffler may be found at User:Brews ohare/Wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Result - User:Brews ohare blocked 24 hours. I consider his actions to be a form of disruptive editing, since he is edit-warring to add apparently non-standard material into a physics article about a well-known topic. Changes of this magnitude require consensus, and I don't see him waiting to persuade the other editors. I am warning Dicklyon that his own repeated removal of Brews ohare's material risks being challenged. He has the option of posting the matter on a physics noticeboard to get wider attention. Admins who think that the actions of other participants may require blocks can go ahead and do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice; where can I find this physics noticeboard? So far I'm unable to locate it. By the way, I did incorporate what I could of Brews's material over the last week and a half, but it wasn't much (what he added was much, but what was relevant and verifiable was little). Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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


  • Previous version reverted to: [47]


  • 1st revert: [48]
  • 2nd revert: [49]
  • 3rd revert: [50] – this one included the use of a vandalism tag when it wasn’t just vandalism that Xenophrenic was undoing
  • 4th revert: [51]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring.75.57.216.125 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to Admin: This is a retaliatory report submission. Please see related case, 2 entries above this one, and handle both at the same time. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Result - No action, per report above. If anyone thinks there are major BLP issues here, please post at WP:BLPN to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Grundle2600 reported by User:Disembrangler (Result: 48h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [53]



  • 3RR noted on talk page prior to fourth revert [58]; user had the cheek to claim a vandalism exemption (been around long enough to certainly know that couldn't be applied)

User has previously been blocked for edit warring. Disembrangler (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ...and admonished for edit warring and limited to one revert per week on Obama-related articles (which this obviously isn't). Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Grundle2600_admonished_and_restricted. Disembrangler (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All I did was change the article to match the sources. You can't just make stuff up and add it to articles. It has to be sourced. I explain this very well on the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment (by R. Baley): User Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to arbitration enforcement due to editing at the Obama page see:

  • Finding of fact (edit warring) [59]
  • Remedy for Grundle2600: Grundle2600 admonished and restricted. Which reads, "Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week. . ." Note that the remedy is broad, not just for Obama articles as noted (in the only objection) by NYB, "This restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to the Obama-related articles." diff.

I don't usually work in this area. But will look more closely and close this out if necessary. R. Baley (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [61]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] (as well as: [69][70][71])

User:Tide rolls was warned about the 3rr rule after his third reversion. I asked him to use the talkpage[72] and he responded by removing my comments from his user talkpage.[73][74] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no content dispute on my part. The user's first edit was to blank a section with a disingenuous link [75]. When I reverted that the user posted on my page in a challenging tone. I explained that I was reverting due the user's blanking sourced content. The user has known from the outset that I have no content issues with them or this article. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thanks Tiderolls 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If one looks at Tide rolls's contributions, you can see he is engaging in drive-by reversions. He jokes that he violates this policy 'three to four times a day'.[76] 173.66.36.76 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I watch Wikipedia:Recent changes...I do not engage in drive-by reversion. The statement the user refers to was not a joke, it was fact. Please note that I posted "tecnically". I will not be posting more replies as the user has resorted to ad hominum attacks. Thanks Tiderolls 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The changes appear to be unconstructive to say the least, I'm not sure how Tiderolls was at fault. Among other things, removing Karl Rove (just skimming through names, it was the first I knew right off the bat) for notable alumni and removing any reference to George Mason in its own history section. Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Viriditas reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result:48h )[edit]



  • Previous version reverted to: [77]


  • 1st revert: #1 -- June 20, 22:05 (see race equality section & Lede)
  • 2nd revert: #2 -- June 21, 10:21 (see Lede)
  • 3rd revert: #3 -- June 21, 19:18 (see race equality section & Lede)
  • 4th revert: #4 -- June 21, 21:26 (see race equality section, Overview section & Lede)
  • 5th revert: #5 -- June 21, 21:44 (see race equality section & Lede)

Notes:
(1) This editor was already warned by this board after violating 3RR on the talk page of this same article, here.
(2) Note that the last three edits are such blanket reverts that they include actually replacing the correction of typos and grammar.
(3) The edits, while involving multiple sections, usually involve entirely false accusations of "POV-pushing" or "Plagarism" (absolutely none exists for either, not that that matters). Note re the false plagarism charge re one quote in the Lede, that was just one sentence in the Lede, while all of the other changes exist in at least 4 of the 5 reverts above, and I think that is thrown into the edit summary to attempt to get cover for all of the changes from 3RR -- not that that's the rule. For example, 4 of the 5 also involved reverts in the racial equality section -- if you want an easy thing to look at (large changes), just look at the continuing deletions in the "see also" tags in the Racial Equality section -- 4 different times the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was deleted from the See Also tag (just one example, but it's an easy one so you don't have to look through the whole thing). (4)This is actually just an extension of multiple reverts from the prior day as well:


Nothing is complex, but 4 of the 5 reverts are massive and tough to read. As stated above, if you don't want to read through the large diffs, just look at something simple like the "See Also" tags in the Race Equality section. For example, the original insertion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the "see also" tag is deleted in 4 of the 5 reverts above.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]


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

I have blocked Viriditas for 48h. He was edit warring against two users: Mosedschurte and Biophys, he has done more reverts, he was the only one doing blind reverts Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Oleola reported by User:64.56.248.185 (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [79]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]
This user has now simply deleted my attempt at discussion on his talk page so I've moved it to [86]

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

User:24.98.228.92 reported by User:Qqqqqq (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [87]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [94] (in the edit summary, at least). I did explain on the user's talk page that continually reverting to remove copy-editing and cleanup templates as part of a content dispute was considered vandalism that could lead to blocking.
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]


I don't think I'm guilty of violating the 3RR rule, as it's pretty obvious to me that this user was vandalizing, rather than merely disagreeing on content. But if I am also guilty, I so accept. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

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


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

Result - Blocked 48 hours. 78.30.173.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: )[edit]

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:Mintrick reported by Law Lord (talk) (Result: )12h[edit]

Template:User_en-gb-5 (edit | [[Talk:Template:User_en-gb-5|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mintrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: [96]

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)[edit]


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



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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

  • [diff] [diff]

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

  • The DVD chart is inaccurate. The third dates are for Hawaii and Alaska. Even if Canada's release dates were infact as you incorrectly state the date they are. Quoting (Canada) in brackets is unnecessary and crowds the chart. I agree with User:PhilthyBear edits. He/she linked the DVD region code which you erased for unknown reasons. You are just as much at fault if not more than he/she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.42.217 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User is already blocked for 24h. Black Kite 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [101]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [106]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

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


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

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)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [107]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [113]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114] 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)[edit]


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



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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcentrex (talkcontribs)

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:94.195.86.16 reported by User:TechOutsider (Result: No vio)[edit]


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



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Pictogram voting x.svg 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)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [122]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [n/a see below]
  • User had 4 reverts already when I reverted (had no idea that it was already a violation). User proceeded to revert a 5th time and then argued after being asked to revert. User keeps reinserting what appear to be WP:BLP violations by making contentious claims and referencing them with blogs. I'm wondering if I should take this to BLP/N, or would that be forum shopping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talkcontribs)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)
  • Just to be clear, I reverted this when he appeared to be unfamiliar with WP:3RR. I then readded it when I realized he's been here for more than a year. Soxwon (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
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. [129] 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. [130]

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 [131] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [132] 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:Slatersteven reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result: more info)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [133]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [139] (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, disagr