Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Qampunen and User:Augusto_XXI reported by User:Krashlandon (Result: No action)

Page: 2010–11 Copa del Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qampunen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And Augusto_XXI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2] and [3]
• 2nd revert: [4] and [5]
• 3rd revert: [6] and [7]
• 4th revert: [8] and [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] and [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Users are arguing now.

Comments:Multi-day dispute with trash talking in edit summaries. Editors stopped warring after I warned them, but continue arguing on their talk pages. Likely to resume eventually.

Krashlandon ^(talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: Both users have settled down, so probably no further action needs to be taken. I will leave this up for admin review, though. Krashlandon ^(talk) 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Augusto has made seven reverts at 2010–11 Copa del Rey since Feb 27. The only 'trash talk' I could find is these two diffs by Augusto: [12] and [13], plus some overheated edit summaries. Qampunen makes the dispute harder to follow by deleting relevant messages from his talk, and he reverted the subject article 11 times since 25 February. This proposal by Qampunen appears calm and well-intentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Overheated:" That's the word I was looking for. Anyway, might I mention that Augusto appears to have created his account solely to fight Qampunen's changes, however unless they resume fighting, the warning is probably enough for now. I suggest possibly having someone verify the info in conflict or directing them to a neutral third-party, if Augusto hasn't just vanished, that is. Krashlandon ^(talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Augusto XXI has not edited since the warning, so there is no continuing dispute. If this restarts he could be due for a block. Qampunen should be careful with his own reverts and is advised to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi reported by User:Chaosdruid (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]

The wording from the quoted ref is:

• "Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that they indeed were not Magyars, but rose in the service of the Hungarian king"

This has been perverted to quote the ref as saying

• while other researchers support the view that he "was of Vlach (Romanian) origin...".

Clearly the ref says he was not a Magyar (Hungarian), but it does not say that he was Vlach.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] which I corrected to [21] after an (ec) and discussion with a cooperative editor in the same conversation who had caused the (ec). I have not warned him on his own talk page, adding "potential 3RR" notice as it seems the instructions wish me to [22].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

As well as on their talk page: [24]

Comments:

I have tried to keep the edits of various users NPOV on a much warred over article and talk page. There is a history of removing Hungarian and Romanian claims of ascendency from each side.

The problem is two fold. The reference was completely removed and replaced several times, and the quote from the reference has been corrupted. Previous edits by Iaaasi have sailed close to the warring mark on a few occasions, yet he still persists in misquoting the reference and reverting to the misquoted version. He has previously removed the reference altogether.

I removed the term "overwhelming evidence" as it was puffery and not directly quoted. I have pointed out in chat that the words should either be included in the quote, or dropped as puffery.

After asking for discussion the material was once again removed and the misquote replaced, I reverted and asked for discussion again as per WP:BRD. The edits were again removed and I reverted with a warning of 2RR [25]. I also added a sentence to clarify the literature source while the discussions took place [26].

Iaaasi agreed last night that there should be discussion [27] and then reverted this morning with no discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• As it can be seen, I did not break 3RR rule
• A text should be added to the article after reaching consensus, not before that. A popular poem can't be a reliable source, I think any admin will agree with that. I was glad to participate at the discussion, I did not refuse it, The only thing is that the status quo version must be kept until having a conclusion. The disputed content should not be inserted prior to the talk.
• The phrase "Although some Hungarian historians have tried to disprove that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin" seems to indicate very clearly that the author supports this theory. In addition the phrasing "other researchers state that overwhelming evidence supports the view that he was of Vlach (Wallachian) origin" was introduced by User:Hobartimus, not by me. The version supported by me contained the exact quote. I am sorry to say that Chaosdruid seems not to assume good faith. He is as guilty as me, because in an edit war there are two sides.
• I've put the words in quotes as requested
• I am one of the main contributors on John Hunyadi article (I have added both text and images), so it is sad that some people accuse be of disruptive behaviour (Iaaasi (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

The whole point of this is that the wording that you say you supported was exactly that which I was restoring. You then reverted it back to the incorrect quote again several times.

You had it at the exact quote days before the edit you just mentioned - here [28] and here [29] and here [30], but when I corrected it all of a sudden you edit war with me to leave it at the incorrect quote. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"The incorrect quote" was the creation of Hobartimus. You did not restore my old version, but only eliminated some words from the sentence (Iaaasi (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

That is not true - I have already shown three difs which show the quote I was restoring was the same as the one you had originally restored. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is senseless. The admin can check the diffs to see who is right (Iaaasi (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

If I understood it well, "According to H. Munro Chadwick John Hunyadi was "recognised as being Hungarian..." and "frequently called Ugrin Janko, 'Janko the Hungarian'." - this sentence is problematic. The source Chaosdruid presented is valid, but it is from an epic poem, as I once written on the talk page of the article in question, epic poems are poems - not facts.

• Ex: By Serbian epic poem Prince Marko could smash ten enemy solders by just looking at them :-). Should we include that in the article about him as a fact that he could do that for real ?

As for this edit war/mix-up I think both users should take it easy and talk (while the pre-edit war version of the article is present). Adrian (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is not the poem, but the author who is analysing the poem and other works about his origins [31].

The discussion here is about a different quote though [32]. My point is that after Iaaasi restored the correct version several times over several weeks, he entered into an edit war with me when I restored it. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed-up the quotes then. I thought that was the main problem. Adrian (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, discussion is still continuing on the Hunyadi talk page about Munro Chadwick's "analysis" and "conclusions". Chaosdruid (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the fact that whether Iaaasi is in a violation of 3RR or isn't, two things are certain that the reviewer administrator needs to know:

• Once already Iaaasi was blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing from editing Wikipedia, who got a second chance for the return.[33] It was because of a magnanimous gesture of good will and a very long and steadfast IRC canvassing with which he greased a second chance.
• Administrators have no authority to deal with resolving content disputes, and whether an edit is edit-warring has nothing to do with its content (such as whether it is justified according to a guideline) and everything to do with the circumstances under which it is made.

--Nmate (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

??? And I was blocked several times, you too... What does that have to do with anything here? After all block logs are public.., and how does your comment here help in this discussion? Adrian (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

None of us was blocked for indefinite time. And if anybody is a second chance type of user, then an increased caution is needed for lest the user be found to edit disuptively again ,basing on the fact how long the duration of his/her block could be next time. And Iaaasi got his second chance not earlier than 3 months ago. --Nmate (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say that User:Nmate did in the past the thing he accuses now of. He reverted me on the motivation that there wasn't a consensus about those edits. The situation is very similar with this one, where I undid User:Chaosdruid's disputed changes(Iaaasi (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

The conflict was extinguished, so we'd like to ask for the closing of this thread [34] (Iaaasi (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

• Result: No action. Both parties have agreed to the closing of this report. See Iaasi's comment above, and notice Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Withdraw report or early closing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by J Milburn (talk) (Result: protected)

Page: Dustbin Baby (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (perfectly aware of the 3RR, as warned me in relation to it a matter of minutes ago)

Time reported: 15:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:23, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "Links to commercial sales sites are absolutely not allowed. WP:ELNO, WP:NOTADVERTISING")
2. 15:28, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "As before -- we CANNOT link to sites that sell the DVD, Also, footnotes and other reference links do not get mixed under "References". Either put those links in EL, or separate "References" & "Footnotes"")
3. 15:44, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "Call for an RfC: Two editors now have removed your commercial lilnks. Your insistence on adding them, when journalistic sources exist, leads on to question why these particular commercial sites")
4. 15:54, 2 March 2011 (edit summary: "Please respect the RfC process. You have now reverted me three times. Once more and you are in WP:3RR viiolation")

—J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Response from Tenebrae: No 3RR

My first edit, at 15:23, 2 March 2011, was not a revert of anything. It was a simple, ordinary edit. User:J Milburn then reverted my edit three times so far:

• 1st: 15:25, 2 March 2011 J Milburn

• 2nd: 15:29, 2 March 2011 J Milburn

• 3rd: 15:50, 2 March 2011 J Milburn

In each instance, he is adding commercial sales links that drive traffic to sites selling DVDs.

In addition, I had called for an RfC earlier in this process, to help curb an edit war, and he refused -- putting a note on my talk page, declaring, "no, we don't need a RfC." I began one, and was notifying him when I found this. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are in violation of 3RR. WP:EL refers to the external links policy, not to references. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS your claim that we cannot link to commercial sites is bogus, we have 111 different pages that link to amazon.com that are all in the article space, for the most part we avoid linking to commercial sites but it is allowed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

example #2 another article that has a very similar link. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you're meaning to suggest that you're "allowed" to make the edit four times, while I'm "allowed" to revert it back to the stable state in which it has been since the FAC only three times? Right. I said we did not need a RfC for the simple fact that you were quite clearly misunderstanding the guideline you were citing, which, despite the fact you now recognise that it does not say what you claimed, you continue to cite. Whether you are right or not (which, I can assure you, you are not) is irrelevant here- you have still breached the 3RR. If you had any respect for the procedure here, you would have iniated discussion after the initial reversion, not forced your preferred version of the article in until I stopped reverting for fear of breaching the 3RR. (For anyone following the conversation, that's the reason Tenebrae's version of the article is now there...) J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm the one who's not sure of your meaning. I don't recognize that it's OK to add links that drive traffic to commercial sales sites. Common sense dictates that if we have a policy of not allowing ourselves to be used for commercial purposes, then we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used for commercial purposes. I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is an editor's insistence to keep linking to two particular commercial sites, rather than even trying to find journalistic sites with this information. Why would any Wikipedia editor want, indeed insist, on driving traffic to a certain sales site or other?

I have not breached 3RR. My first edit was not a revert of anything or anyone. It was an ordinary, simple, good faith edit. As for procedure, I did suggest an RfC after my second edit of your reverts. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit, I am completely guilty of not searching for sources for this article. All I managed to do was take it from creation to appearance as TFA a couple of days ago- I should have probably spent more time looking for sources. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this- you are citing a guideline that does not exist. Now, seeing as you like to play the lawyer, you did revert- "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." You undid my work in removing sources I added. You reverted me in the first edit, and we agree the other three were reverts. As such, you reverted me four times, and should be blocked. Of course, there are plenty of other good reasons to block you, but we'll stick with this one for now. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that this be closed. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected (edit conflict) A third editor has joined the dispute, so this is the best way to douse the wildfire before it spreads to even more editors. Tenebrae, you could, and maybe even should have, been blocked for this, I'd advise you in the strongest possible terms to not do this to any more articles until and unless the RFC runs its course and finds consensus on your side. Courcelles 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:WWEJobber reported by User:NiciVampireHeart (Result:24 hours)

Page: Florida Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWEJobber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Comments:

• Checking the history, there's a lot more than just these four reverts, but I believe they serve to illustrate the point. Mikeymike2001 (talk · contribs) has also been edit warring with WWEJobber (talk · contribs), but has not reverted since I warned him. This dispute also seems to be occuring/spilling over onto the List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel article, although I haven't actually looked closely at that. NiciVampireHeart 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I already told her that I reverted it before reading her message. It was just a mistake, not a vandalism or a bad faith thing. The other guy reverted the article after he was warned too, but he do it using another login account. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by 24.184.232.19 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]
• 5th revert: [45]
• 6th revert: [46]
• 7th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already blocked twice for violating 3RR previously. Notified here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

User:Trust Is All You Need keeps reverting to the phrase "but support for the ideals of communism and Marxism-Leninism continued to be evident, even on the eve of his death". He first reverted back to unsourced versions, then to versions purportedly (but not really) supporting this. 24.184.232.19 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours and 24 hours respectively Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.19.84.216 reported by TMCk (Result: Blocked by OrangeMike )

Page: Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.19.84.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58].

Comments:

BLP-vio. Several warnings were given including to IP 206.180.38.20 which was used before for the same warring (some are blanked).

User:99.19.84.216 reported by User:Rodhullandemu (Result: Blocked by OrangeMike)

Page: Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.19.84.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence of edit-warring and warnings here

No attempt to discuss on article's Talk page.

Comments:
This is not the only editor edit-warring here, and whether a block of this IP is appropriate or not, semi-protection of the article to persuade the combatants to go to the Talk page would seem to be indicated. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2017 Asian Winter Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Comments:
I have no idea with this man, not first nor last, always revert with nonsense reason. Just hit "undo" without view and always jabs on grammar. So fedup. --Aleenf1 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am more fed up with you!! She This user has reported me at least 10 times, because and I have never been blocked. Why? because he is wrong. Go look at all those edits there are grammar mistakes for all edits this editor has made. Also he has removen stuff that is needed for the article, such as "participating nations" and replacing it with "participation" when the standard is the former one. Considering he has reported me many times, I think he is doing this on purpose as he goes and edits articles immediately after I have posted something. For example, this editing war had started after I had posted the "participating nations" part [61], and Aleenf1 less then a day after edits it with grammatical errors. Is that accpetable, changing a good enough grammatically paragraph do one filled with errors? And certainely my reasoning is justified, please take a look. I also took the time and put in the reference template he used as well as re word my sentencing so it seems like they for sure will particpate, but rather they are planning on (which was his concern). Reference tempalte changed [62] and wording moved around, [63] Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is already 4th times, time to justify. 3RR violation, already, you just revert everything i change, civil? --Aleenf1 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work." - that is the defintion of the 3RR rule and all those edits were at least 24 hours aprat, certainely not 3 in 24 hours so again you are wrong. And if I can add, that warning was questioned by Aleenf1 on the issuer's talk page, [64]. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No violation 4 reverts were over a 5 day period. --Selket ^Talk 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Wrestling0101 reported by User:WWEJobber

Page: Florida Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrestling0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrestling0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68]

• 1st revert: [69]
• 2nd revert: [70]
• 3rd revert: [71]
• 4th revert: [72]

Comments:

• The user Wrestling0101 (talk · contribs) keeps adding wrong information that are not reliable. The official website is used as a reliable source, but he insists to add unreliable data. And he keeps lying about the TV show to state his version. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked Wrestling0101 for 48 hours as his second EW block; WWEJobber for a week as the second edit warring block this week. Courcelles 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Medeis (Result: )

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

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

• 1st revert: [73] describes comment as aside not appropriate to lead
• 2nd revert: [74] asserts comment is not true and commands me to stop adding it
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76] falsely describes my restoral of various information, which he reverts wholesale, as "BLP violation" (BLP warns against "self-published" sources by third parties which this is not, and specifically allows biographical statements written by the subject himself - which the source is.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] (also in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaron_Lanier&diff=417172197&oldid=417162161 edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This subject was previously discussed on the talk page. Viriditas archived the relevant talk page rather than comment. [78] My comments were explained on his talk page and in my edit summaries.

Comments:

I realize that the verbiage may be controversial. What matters is reflecting the source with accurate verbiage, not censoring it from the article.

Note that each one of my restorals was highly selective, retaining edits Viriditas had made in the meanwhile, and each attempting new verbiage (retired filmmaker, former filmmaker, onetime experimental filmmaker) on my part, and answering his concerns: (1) that it was an aside by (A) shortening it on my part, (2) that it was "untrue" with (b) restoral of the sources he had deleted noting the comment's notability and verifiability and (3) that it was "poorly sourced" with the fact that Lanier himself published the information (in effect a statement against interest.)

Note that each Viriditas' edits was a wholesale reversions. Note that his rationale for the reversions - an aside, untrue, unsourced, BLP violation have nothing in common excpet "I don't like it".

I ask that Viriditas be admonished for violating wp:3rr, that the last edit be revereted, and that the matter be referred to the talk page, so that if the matter is found better to be addressed elsewhere, that some such consensus be reached. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained to Viriditas the BLP policy and offered [79] to drop this complaint if he reverts his lat edit. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs above show no such 3RR violation. On the contrary, Medeis has been edit warring and obstructing non-controversial cleanup on Jaron Lanier with blanket reverts that restored poor sources (A Cato promotional bio and a primary source interview that Medeis has chosen to interpret) and BLP violations without any discussion on the talk page.[80][81][82] The user has been invited to use the talk page twice, once at 22:58, 4 March 2011[83], at 23:37[84], in each case ignoring requests for discussion, and continuing to edit war and add BLP violations that the subject of the article himself has complained about, both on Wikipedia[85] and online. According to Lanier,

My Wikipedia entry identifies me (at least this week) as a film director. It is true I made one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago. The concept was awful: I tried to imagine what Maya Deren would have done with morphing. It was shown once at a film festival and was never distributed and I would be most comfortable if no one ever sees it again. In the real world it is easy to not direct films. I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me. Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I'm turned into a film director again. I can think of no more suitable punishment than making these determined Wikipedia goblins actually watch my one small old movie. Twice in the past several weeks, reporters have asked me about my filmmaking career. The fantasies of the goblins have entered that portion of the world that is attempting to remain real. I know I've gotten off easy. The errors in my Wikipedia bio have been (at least prior to the publication of this article) charming and even flattering.[86]

Lanier voiced these concerns in May 2006. It is now March 2011 and Medeis is still at it! I have explained to Medeis on his talk page that we 1) base BLP's on reliable secondary sources, and 2) that we use the article talk page to discuss issues. Both points continue to be ignored by Medeis, with my comments explaining my edits on the talk page at Talk:Jaron Lanier#Cleanup completely ignored by Medeis. If Medeis wishes to engage in disruptive editing while gaming the system and blaming me for his bad behavior, that is his prerogative, but BLP's must be written very carefully with attention paid to reliable secondary sources and I stand by my edits. Further, there has been no 3RR violation whatsoever and diffs do not support his claims. Frankly, it appears to me that Medeis should not be editing this article at all, as his edits appear to show a complete misunderstanding of how we use sources to write BLP's and a complete disregard for the opinions about these disputed edits voiced by the BLP himself. There are no reliable secondary sources that refer to Jaron Lanier as a film director, filmmaker, or retired filmmaker, and it was this continual misrepresentation of Lanier that the primary source discusses, which Medeis is deceptively using to justify calling Lanier a filmmaker in the lead section! This is disruptive behavior with purposeful intent to mislead. It should not be tolerated. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)