Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive100

User:AlexanderXVI reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;


 * Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user:

User made several reverts, and according to other users he removed references from the article., &lt;b&gt;&lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#151B8D&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT FACE=&quot;comic sans ms&quot;&gt;B@xter&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt; &lt;FONT COLOR=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;9&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. User:PZJTF too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:38.97.74.254 reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;


 * Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user:

User continually reverts article to include unsourced, speculative information. Gage (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)    


 * 24h. Not that it will work, unless he is a complete bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

TheCondor24 reported by PassionoftheDamon (Result: 24h both sides)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I recognize that I violated 3RR in this edit war myself and am prepared to accept whatever punishment may be imposed. In my limited defense, I was dealing with a POV pusher who resorted to sock puppetry, routinely blanked statements supported by proper citations, and has made no contributions to this encyclopedia outside the edits in question. Initially, I thought reversions of such edits and editors were exceptions to 3RR. I later learned that this was not the case, but allowed myself to get caught up in this edit war anyway. For my own role in this matter, I apologize.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology. Im afraid you get 24h anyway, as does TC24. This really is an absurd level of reverting. Next time (which there won't be, of course) bring it here much earlier William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * resorted to sock puppetry - not obviously. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Balkanian`s word reported by User:Athenean (Result: 55 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been sanctioned 4 times already for nationalist edit-warring, twice under his current alias and twice under his old account. Edit warring accompanied by incivility (shouting). Highly experienced user, knows what he is doing, treat with severity. --Athenean (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain the circumstances of this a bit more? Also, it does not appear that has always reverted to this version... — Aitias  // discussion  22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing debate in that article concerning the last sentence of the lead in Talk:Illyrians. Basically, Balkanian keeps re-adding  the clause about Albanians being the direct descendents of the Illyrians, which other users keep removing (for good reasons).  His first two reverts   are identical, while his third revert  includes a couple of other items in addition to the disputed clause but is nonetheless a revert.  His fourth revert  is identical to the first two.  The first, second and fourth revert are partial reverts of this version .  All four edits were performed within the space of two hours, indicating clear edit-warring bahaviour.  Particularly disingenuous is his admonishment to other users to bring sources, as is this is a question of WP:UNDUE instead of WP:RS.--Athenean (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. — Aitias  // discussion  22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:216.249.207.77 reported by Xmacro (talk) (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * : Time reported: 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * : Time reported: 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:07,  2 June 2009 (edit summary: "")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmacro (talk • contribs)
 * 2) 23:10,  1 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 22:20,  1 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Official Clans */")
 * 4) 22:08,  1 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 22:10,  1 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 17:30,  31 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 293816728 by Xmacro (talk)")
 * 7) 23:10,  30 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 293816728 by Xmacro (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

User does not use log-in, rather they visit Earth Eternal page solely to advertise their in-game clan; user has never visited Discussion page or attempted to talk about their edits. Earth Eternal is a game currently in Beta testing, so no Player-clans have been created. Furthermore, the game developers have stated they will not created official clans, but will leave it solely to Players to create their own clans once the game is released. Thus there are no 'official' clans to speak of, and any Player-created clan can wax, wane, and die. I've asked user to stop repeatedly on game forums, but my request was met by the re-addition of their clan into the article 3 times more, which prompted this report.

Even the World of Warcraft article does not list player clans, nor should the Earth Eternal page. Finally, there are about 20 or so Player-created 'clans' that have sprung up before the game has been released, yet user did not add any of them to the list. All of the clans are unsourced, unofficial, and exist solely on the forums of an un-released game Xmacro (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Likebox reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:30, 1 June 2009


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 04:35, 2 June 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:39, 2 June 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:27, 2 June 2009
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 16:43, 2 June 2009

This user has recently been blocked for violation of the 3RR rule twice before the last time 20:01, 5 April 2009 so the user does not need a reminder.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

PBS (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy, this is likebox. I am trying to resolve the dispute in question. I did not revert as many times as it seems, I just don't know how to "roll back". I should have saved a version in my user space, I put it in the talk page instead. I don't think that this is an edit war, because I tried to find new wordings each time, and discuss.
 * The subject in question is the Tasmanian genocide debate, which I was trying to add mainstream sources to. The sources and the versioning, along with comments, are on the talk page. The current version is dominated by a certain fringe movement which is not mainstream within Australia.
 * I hope that this debate can be resolved with discussion. PBS has not been willing to discuss the changes in detail, and has erased each of three slightly different versions I put up without comment.
 * The points are on the talk page, but they are simple to understand. The Australian history wars regarding Tasmania are not reflective of an international debate, within academia and outside australia the events of 1806-1835 are widely acknowledged as genocide. I believe that undue weight requires this to be said prominently within this section of the article.Likebox (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add, I don't like to be editing this page at all. I feel that I have to, because the sourced material is so biased right now. If someone else would like to take up the editing, that would be great. I'd rather never see or read anything else about this subject ever again.Likebox (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When (s)he was blocked before, Likebox has used a similar type of argument, "I was not edit warring. I just don't know any other way to save the text, which is a pain to type up. Now it is in the talk page.Likebox (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)"


 * Further (s)he implies that this is just him/her and me, yet in the last 24 hours 3 different editors have reverted his/her changes. --PBS (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clear enough 4R; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:5150pacer reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:21, 26 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:25, 26 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 3) 16:29, 26 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 4) 19:08, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 5) 19:01, 29 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 6) 19:02, 29 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 7) 19:06, 29 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 15:57,  1 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 9) 15:29,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 10) 21:33,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 11) 21:34,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 12) 21:35,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
 * 13) 21:45,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 14) 22:04,  2 June 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Onorem♠Dil 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Continues edit war to add unsourced original research against several editors. Recent edits to my talk page make it clear that they intend to continue with these edits. --Onorem♠Dil 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * — Aitias // discussion  23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

R7604 reported by Cactusjump (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Jon & Kate Plus 8


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

Disagreement to add a See Also section in the article pointing to related article Kate Gosselin, User:R7604 reverted three times without discussion. Attempts at discussing with user were met with a curt reply. I notified user that if he made no attempts to discuss, I would get a WP:Third opinion, and gave him 3RR warning on his talk page. Also filed WP:Third opinion. Cactusjump (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * — Aitias // discussion  23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

194.124.140.39 reported by dave souza (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warnings: 29 May 3 June

IP repeatedly deleting an increasing amount of sourced material. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Zntrip reported by Alan (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The article is a list of circulating currencies. On 2nd June 2009, I made an edit, in which I provided more information about the special situation of the Hong Kong dollar. As I have been living in Hong Kong for a long time, I am confident that I am quite familiar with the Hong Kong dollar. However, Zntrip, who has no knowledge about Hong Kong, immediately deleted my contribution to the article, and replace my contribution with one short (factually wrong) sentence. He then insisted on invoking an edit war, with no sincerity for any discussion on the talk page. This is clearly a violation of the three-revert rule. I suggest that disciplinary action be immediately taken. - Alan (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you warn the user? I'm not seeing any sign of a warning, and we usually don't block users who haven't been warned at some point about the rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just jumped into the content dispute here, so needless to say, I'll not be taking any admin actions here. Whoever else wants to close this, be my guest and don't be prejudiced by what I've said. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you guys look at the contribution history of Zntrip, you will find that he started editing Wikipedia as early as in 2004. He has been proficiently using a lot of administrative tools like Files for deletion and various portals. All these facts demonstrate that he is a very experienced Wikipedia user. It is very unlikely that he "does not know about the three-revert rule" as some may suggest. Anyway, now he has been warned about the rule. I think disciplinary actions should be taken immediately to stop him from deleting other users' contributions without discussing on the talk page. - Alan (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Zntrip is clearly at four reverts, Alanmak is at three. Neither party has reverted again since being given a formal warning. I'd wait a few hours to see what happens next. If the edit war is over, blocks are not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I will admit that I violated the three-revert rule, but I don’t think it is fair to place the blame solely on me. We both engaged in reverting each other’s edits and I felt that Alanmak ignored obvious facts and failed to address my explanations in my edit summaries, as can be seen here. The extent of his explanation was, “There's nothing called 'ho' in Hong Kong. Are you even from Hong Kong? If not, shut up.” I felt his edits contradicted information in the article Hong Kong dollar, which I communicated. I didn’t open up a discussion on a talk page because I believed the explanations in my edit summaries were sufficient. I think it should be noted that it was him, not I, who failed to communicate, however I apologize for failing to adhere to the three-revert rule and I would be happy to resolve the dispute, which appears to be a misunderstanding, on the article’s talk page. – Zntrip 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action. These editors are strongly encouraged to work the problem out on Talk. It would be surprising if an exchange of edit summaries would be enough to sort out such a confusing issue. Change the article after consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:86.147.217.61 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User: /


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Same behaviour as always from this IP range (previous case here), no communication, only edit summary left when there is one is 'rv v'. Also active on The Thing (film) page. Geoff B (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to semi I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jpate86 reported by Aktsu (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1th revert:
 * 2st revert:
 * 3nd revert:
 * 4rd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Somewhat of a sad situation because what he's trying to add is true, just not reliably verifiable. -- aktsu (t / c) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May want to hold off a little, user seems to be discussing so a block might not be necessary. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action, since reverting seems to have stopped. File a new report if the problem resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Denise!A2009 reported by Verbal (Result: 24h all round)
. : Time reported: 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:28,  3 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
 * 2) 16:50,  3 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
 * 3) 18:00,  3 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
 * 4) 18:12,  3 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 18:47,  3 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 294218743 by Verbal (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Verbal  chat  20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for both sides (I can't see any reason why you expect to be exempt, and you haven't offered one) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek reported by User:Kurfürst (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: May 22
 * 2nd revert: May 24
 * 3rd revert: May 26
 * 4th series of reverts: May 27 Bad faith edit - removal of 'unreferenced' sentence - ref clearly given in next sentence
 * 5th series of reverts: June 3 Most recent reverts, editor again removed a mass of referenced information, replaced them with unreferenced statements etc. and

Continued personal attacks on article talk page:


 * Request to stop removing of sourced information: and, warning by 3rd editor on talk page to enter cooperation, and refrain from personal attacks.
 * Personal attacks and incivility- accusation of holocaust denial, flat out refusal of cooperation or discussion, similiar incivility, accusation with 'historical revisionism', sarcasm and characterizing referenced statements as 'clear Nazi propaganda'


 * Diff of 3RR warning: on personal talk page, [removed from talk page by editor with comment: 'Troll comment removed']. On article discussion page Warning by another editor.

This user's behaviour was characterized by continued, repeated reverts in the last two weeks to removed verifiable, referenced information from reliable secondary sources about strategic bombing in Poland during World War II. Absolutely no attempt was taken to find a sort of consensus, engage in a discussion or to refrain from incivility despite requests by several editors. Previously the user was repeatedly blocked for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jacurek 'Editwarring. Blocked previously without effect']. Despite allowing some one week 'cooldown' period, and offering mediation, even suggesting on the 26 May that on my behalf I will stop editing the disputed article, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=292551478&oldid=292551360 the editor only saw this as a 'green light'] and an new opportunity to continue removing referenced statements from the article the next day. The last series of 'edits' early in this morning shows the situation is deteriorating, instead of improving.

Kurfürst (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To the admin. looking at this case: User Kurfürst just comes back from the block for Edit warring on this article and records this false report. Please check his block log. His controversial edits (Joseph Goebbels diary as a source for example or citation pretending to be a source etc.) are also against consensus with all other editors. Please check the talk page on Strategic bombing during World War II for more info. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits show which referenced statements you have repeatedly deleted in the past two weeks. None include Goebbel's diary, simply because Geobbels diary was simply not used as reference at any one time in this or any other article. The references come from largely Hooton, ER, Willmott etc. These are all published, and well regarded sources in aviation and general WW2 history. Moreover there's no real 'consensus' in the article, the case is that there was a sudden influx of Polish editors suddenly starting removing referenced sources, after the first editor declared that the references from Hooton are 'German war propaganda'. It seems to me coordination, rather than consensus. Moreover it does not explain why there would be a need for repeatedly removing cited, reliable secondary sources, without any attempt to discuss it. It appears to me that your edits were revolving around removing certain pieces of referenced information, not actually contributing the article, for example by pointing out conflicting sources and attempt to discuss them. I note again you have personally refused to discuss it, stating you will not discuss 'Historical revisionism' with 'Holocaust deniers'. Your edits speak for themselves - it is these which are under scrutiny here, not how you perceive the referenced statements, or the reliability of the references themselves. Also, continuing Nazi-accusations of the same flavour here is ill-placed. Kurfürst (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no 3RR violation or even edit warring by Jacurek there - those long series of diffs are in fact mostlu one edit, one after another, which is defined by 3RR as one edit, not several. On the other hand, Kurfürst behavior seems to violate DIGWUREN, I'd suggest placing him on a formal notice in order to put an end to the creation of further battlegrounds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say nothing more here than Piotrus is involved, as Jacurek is a POV-buddy of his and Kurfürst a POV rival, so the advice is as tendentious as the report. Having said that, the behaviour in this particular content dispute doesn't really merit involving any admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Deacon of Pndapetzim but I'm nobody's "buddy" and I don't appreciate your comment. If you really think that you should comment on this one, please focus on the bogus Edit warring report instead. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. To the reviewing administrator. Please also take a look at this Kurfürst report from today.[]--Jacurek (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As Deacon of Pndapetzim noted, Piotrus is deeply involved in the matter. Moreover, Piotrus seems to use ANI [to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Historical_revisionism his POV rivals blocked], or his POV buddies unblocked. Kurfürst (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus is right: Jacurek edits in small increments, and per WP:3RR, consecutive edits are considered a single edit. Jacurek made 2 edits on May 27, 1 edit on May 30, and 2 edits on June 3. Making a small number of edits every three to four days hardly seems like edit warring. — Malik Shabazz 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote Edit war : ''The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring may take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits.'' Note that these reverts are going on for two weeks, they remove referenced sources every time, and were always the first resort against disagreeable edits, with discussion flat out rejected, after numerous warnings. Kurfürst (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurfürs, I may be wrong as far as your motives here but I'm afraid that you simply don't like my edits and after being blocked for edit warring on the very same article, you are now looking for some kind of revenge. I don't think this is fair not only to me but also to admin. involved who will have to spend all this time now to examine the issue. --Jacurek (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I only dislike you repeatedly removing well referenced cited information, engaging in incivility about my 'motives' (which is to improve the article with reliable, referenced sources - and yes there is room to note if an event is controversial), and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. Yes I don't like this kind of behaviour, but you should note that this kind of behaviour is exactly what is incompatible with wikipedia rules for editing on multiple accounts. At this point I think you would need to show some proof to convince the admins that you will refrain from removing references over and over again without discussion, and showing some GENUINE willingness to discuss it on the talk page. As you can see, I am adding sources to the talk page, but not including them into the article yet. You should join in this discussion. It would also show your good intents if you would voluntarily restore the referenced statements you removed - note well that those are not MY opionion, or MY statements - they are merely quotes from historians, and I spent a lot of my time researching them, and typing it into wikipedia. Then we can discuss it on the talk page (it is for that after all) and find a compromise. Kurfürst (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Malik above there is no edit warring violation here. I can see Kurfürst bringing this matter to RfC or asking for 3O on the disputed article but this appears to be just filing a 3RR report simply because one was (rightly) filed against him right before this.radek (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Take note of radek first edit in the article, titled: (rmving German war propaganda - if it didn't have the policy how did it happen (in 1939)? Also policy different for East and West which at the very least should be clarified. This was followed by several other mass-deletes of sourced material. Kurfürst (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurfürst, are you "reporting" user Radeksz now also?--Jacurek (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noting he is involved in the dispute. Radek seems to me as much more cooperative, and although he did a number of mistakes, I see no reason to report his behaviour. Kurfürst (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are reporting lack of my "cooperation" with you. Are you sure that you are in the right page?--Jacurek (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you must have misread it - I am reporting your confrontational, and uncompromising attitude that manifests in a series of deletions of of referenced sources over the past two weeks, refusal to discuss, and your incivility during that period. See above for definition: "Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute." A behaviour that, as evidenced by this very page, has not changed at all. Kurfürst (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but these were the patterns you have followed and you were blocked for it. You also among other things cited Joseph Goebbels as a reference and questioned the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Poland - I refused to discuss with you. Now you are still running into conflicts with other editors [].... Anyways this is not a place to discuss this. Please respond on my talk page if you want.--Jacurek (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I count 2R in June. Doesn't look like a vio to me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this case, but please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538 and Talk:Battle of the Denmark Strait for some background information. --PBS (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

EastOfWest reported by Evilarry (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User is forcing random low quality image on article that has already had open discussion on image for article. Evilarry (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * EastOfWest did not receive a 3RR warning. I have notified him of this discussion, to see if he wants to comment on the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: the image in question is a likely copyvio, pending deletion on Commons. Powers T 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No action on EastOfWest since no 3RR warning was given and his account was only created May 30. I urge him to participate on Talk, since there is plenty of image discussion there. The recent warring about images on this article is noted. Resubmit if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if this Evillary Character is so intent on having his way with the Rochester skyline picture that he's willing to crush any other proposed photos and describe excellent, professionally taken pictures as "low quality" and the like, then I'm not going to stop him. Frankly I just don't want to make the effort. End of discussion. For the record, I'm not quite sure why i'm on the Edit Warring page, I only reposted the photograph once because i thought I must have done something wrong the first time, once this persistent Evillary character informed me that he didn't want any other picture, I stopped posting. EastOfWest —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

User:98.183.80.244 reported by 30flavors (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Hi, I hope I've filled this form out correctly. Basically this IP address has repeatedly (3x) added references and a link to the critical opinion of a 17 year old "movie reviewer" on YouTube. He or she has been warned that this was not a proper Wikipedia source each time the content was removed. 30flavors (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this report is not quite correct. First, we need diffs, not oldids (like this). More importantly, though, I only see three diffs, and you need more than three for a 3RR vio. I also don't see evidence of a warning for the user, without which many admins won't block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've just fixed those oldids, I think at the same time you posted this.  This person was told by two different users in the edit summaries when his content was removed that it was not proper Wikipedia content.   I don't know how else to warn or contact an IP address without a user page? 30flavors (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anon IPs have talk pages, just like logged-in users. In this case, it's here. This appears to be no vio, since there are only three reverts, though, one way or another. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll warn the user and wait for the inevitable 4th revert, thanks.  30flavors (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You need 4R in 24h, not 24d. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

71.70.253.135 reported by Marauder40 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User was notified by different editors that their comments are POV. Editor reverts without comment. Also doing the same changes on the Raymond Arroyo page. Marauder40 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Catterick reported by User:Snowded (result: 48h)

 * Page Brittany

[Last stable version] 1st revert: 2nd revert:  (a series of edits) 3rd revert 4th revert 5th revert 6th revert {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brittany&diff=294428433&oldid=294426579] 7th revert

Warning issued and deleted within minutes

The Editor holds eccentric views relating the various issues connected with Britain, Ireland and Brittany (as well as various historical areas). In addition to the edit warring above the editor frequently misuses tools by reverting edits they are unhappy with as "vandalism' and there are multiple examples of a failure to follow WP:CIVIL across a range of articles than can be researched if necessary.  However the reversion history above should be enough.

I think most editors involved recognise that we have an "eccentric" here so there has been general tolerance despite the constant assertions that the editor is being wikistalked etc. etc. However the behaviour is now disruptive. If someone could give this editor advise it might help. -- Snowded TALK 19:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Form; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:

User:Cryptonio is basically a single purpose account that has spent most of his Wikitime edit-warring at Israel-Palestine articles. During April, he was blocked twice for violating 3rr.

More recently, User:Cryptonio has taken upon himself to edit-war and remove content relating to allegations that Hamas violated international law. Despite facing a clear consensus supporting the inclusion of the text, he has run a solo mission, edit warring over the last week, ignoring a warning, continuing to delete the content and the sources. A breakdown:


 * May 27
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=292680543&oldid=292503157
 * May 28
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=292960516&oldid=292883421
 * May 29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293130057&oldid=293118698
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293142971&oldid=293138037
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293188522&oldid=293146148
 * May 31
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293529114&oldid=293528831
 * June 1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293775018&oldid=293716985
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293780590&oldid=293776147
 * June 2
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293948230&oldid=293913331
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=293956709&oldid=293951270
 * June 3
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=294206888&oldid=294198735
 * June 4
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=294394692&oldid=294379791
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War&diff=294397165&oldid=294395528

In total, he has removed the same exact content 13 times in the last 7 days. He has been the only editor removing the content and his deletions have been reverted by 4 editors across the "political spectrum." (User:Eleland; User:Nableezy;User:Brewcrewer;User:Sceptic Ashdod).

I considered asking for page protection, but it is clear that Cryptonio is impervious to talk page discussion on this matter, and will revert this material ad infinitum, as soon as any protection is lifted.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything here is part of WP:BRD. Brewcrwer has not said a word on this matter.  Nableezy did not addressed the concerns brought by me.  And Sceptic swears everything that he does should be accepted.


 * I have been editing this page with great care from almost the beginning. No one in the page can say that I'm pro one side or the other, unlike almost everybody else you find there.  No consensus was ever reached on this matter, just a statement that two editors decided it was oka.  That is not consensus, and then again, I offered an acceptable compromise that was reverted.


 * And to top it all, I have been editing, but it does not constitutes 3rr violations, if we care to count. Cryptonio (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. While you learned not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, it is clear that are now simply gaming the system, continually edit-warring out this material while skirting the 3RR restriction.


 * Addendum: Another revert since this report was filed. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two reverts since this report was filed.


 * And User Eleland was not part of any discussion and just showed up to the page for that one single edit.


 * I am not sure how to label Brewcrewer, but he is as partisan as they come. He was very close to another user who got banned, probably knew that the user was a sockpoppet, and said nothing to the community.  The only side he sees is the Israeli side, and he will lend blind support to any user who also is here to make Israel look a certain way, as is the case of Sceptic.  I repeat, he will blindly help fellow editors that work, not in a pro-wiki style, but in a very pro-israeli mantra.  Yet, he has not been called to our attention, because he has not violated 3rr, but that would be very difficult since he never discusses anything, doesn't even improve any articles, he simple comes in once in a while and reverts erring on Israel's side.  Cryptonio (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have yet to learn how to contribute to Wiki in a meaningful way. You accuse me of being a single-purpose user, but have you learned to label yourself in any other way? You are not the person that should be telling me about single-purpose account.  You accuse me of gaming the system? you don't respect the system, so I doubt you even care about not gaming the system.


 * Brewcrewer you have not been helpful to this project at all. Your edits(all of them) are always to revert someone you don't agree with, specially someone who disagrees articles should always be Pro-Israel.  You don't care about the system, all you care is about Israel.  Well then, who's gaming the system? Cryptonio (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring; form; 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

216.73.149.66 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:57 3 June 2009 Added "biting the brown".


 * 1st revert: 16:18 3 June 2009 Re-added "biting the brown".
 * 2nd revert: 16:30 3 June 2009 Took slang term out of a prose list and put them in a bare list.
 * 3rd revert: 20:29 4 June 2009 Re-added "biting the brown".


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

After the 3RR warning user posted See you tommorrow! showing intent to re-add the phrase. If you scan the talk page for the article concerned you will see that for some lame reason this phrase has attracted fierce debate (I know everyone should have something better to do). As it is consensus has been to keep the phrase out, and adding it has been reverted back out for months. This IP deliberately waited for the 24hrs to pass so as to not get caught in the strict sense of 3RR, however their comment after the 3RR warning shows that they only intend to make this one edit.

I'm not going to revert rather leave that to another editor. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The anon has 3R, and so do you. If they come abck and keep going against multiple editors, then fine we can semi the page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[98.127.123.161] reported by [208.5.87.224] (Result: talk)

 * Page: and Humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, roundtail chub
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [link]

Both versions contain some factual material, but this user presents biased information that is intended to mislead and misrepresents what is going on. Some of the info is factually incorrect and contradicts scientific research.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Impressively badly formatted report, well done, but I've seen worse. No vio, of course. I recommend that you try to discuss this on the article talk page and then come back if you get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for nearly two years, but with the IP address different each time, and often months in between reversions, so it's been a minor nuisance. Stan (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Diete003 reported by Rjanag (Result: 31 hr)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * A: Previous version reverted to:


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


 * B: Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This edit summary, and

Diete300 has been engaging in WP:OWNership and incivil editing. The first set of diffs above is him reverting a change I made, repeatedly, and refusing to engage in discussion after repeated requests to provide a rationale for his editing. The second set is borderline vandalism, Diete300 was editing a "dablink" at the top of the article telling readers to go to an external website and implying that this article is not "proper". At the beginning of this interaction, after I asked Diete to use edit summaries (using {{subst:uw-summary}} at his talk page), he left this edit summary on the article. It's pretty clear that he needs to be blocked for both edit warring and incivility (he has been warned for edit warring in the past, and his October 2008 issue also had plenty of incivility), but I don't want to do it myself since I am already involved. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is an even more troubling statement . Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 31 hours for edit warring, 3RR violation and incivility. Nja 247 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus111 reported by Folantin (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Folantin (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:BufordTJustice reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua reported by User Sarandioti (Result: no action )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Partial revert
 * 


 * 3RR warning:

He just keeps reverting versions from 4 different users. --Sarandioti (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The above (Sarandioti) user ignores systematically our discussions, makes unhistorical pov claims and abuses a number of users. and there hasn't been an 3RR off course, only partial reverts of unclaimed and unsourced sentences.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Alexikou, that's not entirely true, because this is sourced (though I can't comment on its accuracy). This, though, isn't a revert, but an attempt to make a compromise. I count three reverts from Alexikoua. It's four only if this is a reversion to some previous version I haven't seen; so probably No 3RR vio from Sarandioti either, unless he's editing as 12.106.250.211. So there'll be no action here. As to the dispute itself. Albanian was clearly a common spoken language of the region in this period according to my sources, even if Greek was the elite and dominant language; comparisons with Turkish and Latin are silly. You guys can sort this out in a less confrontational and tendentious manner. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

brutaldeluxe reported by bloodofox (Result: Both editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: N/A

This template doesn't seem to apply to my case and if I remove it and post this it seems to act pretty wacky, but this seems to be the right place. So anyway, I've got some guy deleting stuff out of the introduction of a bunch of GA Norse mythology articles I've written in retaliation to Talk:Triskelion. Check his contributions to see what he's up to exactly, it should be pretty obvious. Just so we're all on the same page here, lead sections don't contain references, they are a summary of the article. I've linked him to the appropriate policy a few times, and at this point he's just trolling. bloodofox: (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Neither party has behaved well, but it seems that a dispute which started at Triskelion has overflowed and User:brutaldeluxe is now going around to articles that User:Bloodofox has edited to remove what he considers to be unreferenced material. At Triskelion, the reverting went well beyond the WP:BRD cycle. By now both of you should know how to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If these editors continue to revert one another without making a serious attempt to get outside input, they may both be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining how I've "not behaved well"? I fail to see where I've done anything out of line here. bloodofox: (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice you making much effort to find consensus at the Triskelion talk page. WP:BRD suggests a 'discuss' stage in which you wait to see if you can get support from others. Brutaldeluxe, rightly or wrongly, got upset because you removed material from Triskelion for failing to meet a standard of referencing that was not shared by all the other participants on that talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get something straight: WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:PROVEIT is a policy. I requested a source for the information, none was provided, evidently none could be provided, and therefore decided to go and delete a bunch of lead sections of articles I'd worked on in the past. bloodofox: (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:EnDaLeCoMpLeX reported by Garrettw87 (Result: )
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Page:
 * User:

"12"
 * 1) 17:35, 27 May 2009
 * 2) 18:05, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292706396 by 209.247.23.40 (talk)")
 * 3) 18:11, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Adam Lambert */")
 * 4) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 292712657 by Kyuko (talk) Adam's didn't chart.")

"sortable"
 * 1) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */")
 * 2) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ fix")
 * 3) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */")
 * 4) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "no.")
 * 5) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "See WP:CHARTS.")

"26/27"
 * 1) 16:30, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ now at #26 on Adult Contemporary chart")
 * 2) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294198200 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) rv chart position not based on sourced provided")
 * 3) 14:59, 5 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Chart performance */ it's at #26.")
 * 4) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294585493 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) rv chart position not based on sourced provided")
 * 5) 01:20, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "that source is outdated, maybe you should check for yourself.")
 * 6) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294698456 by EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) No source has been provided to show the song has reached #26")


 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs / PM) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mets0907 reported by Darth Mike (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user seems to only exist to place this image in the article. As you can see from his talk page, I tagged the image for deletion at commons and it was deleted but the user readded the image and reverted the page again. The user has no talk page comments.--  Darth Mike (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel reported by K5 users (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:

Gamaliel has reverted RUSTY FOSTER several times and refuses to use first hand sources as canon. In the article, RUSTY FOSTER is the founder of KURO5HIN. When we're talking about biographical information, there is no better source than the person themselves, which is posted on KURO5HIN. Gamaliel's objection (and subsequent revert pissing contest) in the RUSTY FOSTER biographical article is not only baseless but it's counter productive. His objection that KURO5HIN is "a message board" is irrelevant since it's is RUSTY FOSTER's messageboard where he discusses topics as they relate to him.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

98.237.1.240 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * G is, I think, correct to be reverting the material on BLP grounds. But he should be discussing it on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: Warned)
Not strictly over 3rr but he seems to be pushing the envelope. I think a warning from someone with the power to back it up that he should desist and that further reverts will be blockable will do the trick (engagement on the talk page is what i'm after). Reverts: 19:42 june 4 13:18 June 5  18:37 june 5  11:19 June 6  16:40 June 6. Newish user doesn't want to use the talk page, where a discussion is underway on his proposed edit (3 other editors opposing here . User notified of the concerns here and he has participated in a discussion of his conduct here at AN/I. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User:
 * Result - WilliamJE has been warned that if he restores his list of guest stars at Hawaii Five-O one more time, before getting consensus on the article talk page, he will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin reported by User:MusicInTheHouse (Result: 48h / 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I made a few edits on the page all unrelated to each other and User:Mooretwin continuously reverted every change.  M I T H  18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) >


 * Noooo... you made a number of reverts, some under deceptive edit summaries. This is all part of the tedium of Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard and stuff, which looks doomed to sink into the bogs. Anyway, you both get blocks proportionat to your previous William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User 69.207.66.238 (result: warned 24h)
Please can you keep an eye on 69.207.66.238. He/she keeps removing some text from Battle of Mogadishu (1993), which he/she describes as from enemy sources (it from the Washington Post).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has now deleted the same content on the following ocasions:
 * 6 June 2009 21:01
 * 6 June 2009 18:17
 * 6 June 2009 15:28
 * 5 June 2009 20:44 and 20:52
 * 20 May 2009 16:37


 * Some people can't take a hint. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DTMGO reported by User:Cretog8 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The edit warring here is echoed by that at Economics, although there's enough changes in content there I'm not sure it positively qualifies as 3RR. Oddly, DTMGO also persists in labeling all edits as minor, and often provides insufficient or misleading edit summaries, in spite of requests to do otherwise. C RETOG 8(t/c) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Student of philosophy reported by Guettarda (Result: 1 wk)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: 08:27, 6 June 2009 (re-inserts undue, which he has edit-warred over in the past, e.g., with this edit )
 * 2nd revert: 09:11, 6 June 2009 (a revert of this edit )
 * 3rd revert: 14:56, 6 June 2009 (re-inserted undue, as before)
 * 4th revert: 17:29, 6 June 2009 (reverts this edit )
 * 5th revert: 19:37, 6 June 2009 (reverts this edit )
 * 6th revert: 19:44, 6 June 2009 (reverts this edit )


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (among others)

Fresh off a 3RR block; the last complaint is still active at the top of this page. (See this edit for evidence of connection between editor and IP). Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - One week for 3RR violation, directly after release of the IP's block for edit warring on the same article. Since this editor and 194.124.140.39 are the same person, both are blocked 1 week, escalated from a recent 72h block of the IP. Evasion of the previous block has also been taken into account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

70.106.219.216 reported by Jolly Janner (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User doesn't not communicate and I have also discussed the matter of overlinking on Portal talk:Current events/2009 June 5.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend that you look in the mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have discussed the matter with the user on their talk page and on the article talk page. The user has not communicated with us and I believe my actions are in line with policy/guidelines.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NB user's IP address may have changed to 71.244.167.96 per this revision.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now 71.244.168.61 per this revision.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Catiline63 reported by User:TruHeir (Result: no vio )
Editor keeps tempering with


 * Page:

Editor added a bust of a roman solider as Hannibal which was removed but the editor continues to bring it back I reverted his/her edits and left a warning on his/her page (the 2nd warning about this particular page) and her unconstructive edits but the editor continues to add that image. The image in question itself clearly stated that it may not be authentic (what a surprise) but this editor has changed to writing and has added illegitimate "sources" to try to justify it. These sources however do not even support the image of the roman solider. He/she is trying to pass of as Hannibal.


 * There may be an edit dispute which needs addressed, but the user has not exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I'd actively seek discussion with them on talk pages. Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further note that the reporter has been forum shopping, and the reportee has in fact sought discussion on the reporters talk page. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Sander Säde reported by User:PasswordUsername (no vio)

 * Page: Kaitsepolitsei
 * User: Sander Säde


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

(More discussed below.)

User:Sander Säde keeps removing sourced material, then coatracking the article with WP:SELFPUB sources about the Kaitsepolitsei's hunt against the Communists in Estonia, reinserting his own material per what he thinks is and is not WP:SELFPUB, in spite of my explanations to him of what the policy is (no claims about third parties). He repeatedly edit wars over anything unflattering to Estonia's image.

PasswordUsername (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First two reverts are separate from third and fourth - related to PasswordUsername insertion WP:OR opinion that the Estonian Security Police operating during Nazi occupation is the same as before Soviet occupation of 1940 (note: when Soviets occupied Estonia, they disbanded the organization and all employees were deported from Estonia before World War II started). I've asked him to provide source for this claim (on the talk page), he has not replied in any way. As for the third and fourth reverts, he seems to be mistaken, as third is an addition of material, existing in the source cited - and last is additional source, for which he asked for when he removed the passage. -- Sander Säde  08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR concerns exceeding three repeated reverts to the same page, not the same material. (Note that the WP:OR claim Sander is accusing me of making was explained to him in the edit summary, although obviously not to his liking: (1)). The WP:OR performed here is by Sander Säde: first he does an apologia at the Kaitsepolitsei page about why Communists were targeted for repression by the Kaitsepolitsei (2), claims a self-published source (the KAPO itself) for why that is (3), then when the inadmissibility of self-exculpating justifications relating to third parties are pointed out for him per WP:SELFPUB (4), he claims to know when SELFPUB rules apply or do not apply – bringing in an unrelated source about the Soviet communists per WP:SYNTH (5). All this through four reverts to the article page. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no words. First PasswordUsername tries to paint Nazi German Politische Polizei to been an Estonian Security Police (unsupported by any source whatsoever), repeatedly inserting that obviously false information, then he says I did an "apologia" although it is present in the original source and was omitted before for unknown reasons, possibly as an attempt to paint Security Police as some kind of repressive organ. He dislikes the source, so I get a secondary source about the activities of Soviet Union, which now becomes "synth". Sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. If you want more sources about the Soviet Union, then that really isn't a problem, Terrorism by the Soviet Union lists plenty. And perhaps, PasswordUsername, you should re-read WP:SELFPUB - "books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets". The website of Kaitsepolitsei is really not any of those, it is a site of a highly regarded governmental organization.
 * Also, do note the lack of warning. I did not break WP:3RR at any point (I dislike edit warring immensely, however, I will remove misleading information), moreso I was willing to discuss - something that PasswordUsername obviously wasn't interested about.
 * -- Sander Säde  10:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the source I provided in the article says:"Among the Estonians the most important suspects were Oskar Angelus, who headed the Estonian Department of Internal Affairs and organized the Estonian Political Police which carried out the murder of Estonian Jewry, Hugo Okasmaa and Leonid Laid who both served as officers in the Political Police in the Tallinn-Harju Prefecture and Vladimir Tiit and Arkadi Visnapuu who served as officers of the Estonian Security Police. Efraim Zuroff" Now, I said that the Political Police was different during the Nazi era - and this is attested to by what I provided just above here. This was indicated in the article. Still, you went on to revert-war, reverting other material not to your liking. I already explained how you presented WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUB as legitimate material, although the issue here is the edit warring, which should not be bypassed by your subsequent allegations against myself. Accusing others of being guilty of one's own faults is the oldest trick known to man.
 * Now, the website of the Kaitsepolitsei, as it were, seems like a website: "books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets." (WP:SELFPUB - thank you for point this out.) So there are multiple issues of content related to your warring here. However, I am asking for an administrator's opinion on your edit warring, not the content dispute. As for the warning, let me take care to note that you also reverted Offliner's edit here: 5. I left this out of the above summary, so chalk this up as your fifth revert. You've been blocked for the very same thing prior to this:.
 * PasswordUsername (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So Kaitsepolitsei website is a "personal website"? I think that really doesn't need further comments, but if this is the case, we can safely discard any source from UN... well, *any* source whatsoever.
 * As for the Estonian Political Police - like I have been repeatedly pointing out, it was a branch of Politische Polizei. If you want to create an article about the Estonian Political Police of the Nazi era - do go ahead. But do not synthesize it to be the same as Kaitsepolitsei. It is not, despite how much you may wish it to be. No source associates the two. Why are you insisting to insert this tidbit into the article, I really don't understand - do you have a personal agenda?
 * And as for the murder of Estonian Jewry, it was started by Soviet Union (roughly 400..500 out of 4500. Rest were killed by extermination squad Einsatzkommando (Sonderkommando) 1A - please see Holocaust in Estonia for a whole lot better sources and review then an off-hand remark by Zuroff.
 * -- Sander Säde  10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous: "So Kaitsepolitsei website is a 'personal website?'" No, it's the website of the organization you are citing about third parties relating to itself. This is not acceptable per WP:SELFPUB. The things you named were just examples: note "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[nb 3]... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1) the material is not unduly self-serving; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4) the article is not based primarily on such sources." You understand this – I'm very, very sure you do. Already, you've been told that this is not the issue here. Stop bringing content disputes into concerns regarding edit warring. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rv 2 and 3 are contiguous and so count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername reported by Colchicum (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous versions reverted to: See below


 * 1st revert: to  (readdition of the category Secret police)
 * 2nd revert: to  (readdition of the category Secret police)
 * 3rd revert: to  (removal of the words Communists were supported by the Soviet Union...)
 * 4th revert: to  (removal of the words Communists were supported by the Soviet Union...)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The user is perfectly aware of this rule, see his report right above.

Colchicum (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactly is it that I am reverting to another user's version in 1 when my version is completely different from his? Take that if you want: WP:3RR still states that consecutive saved edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user are considered one revert, so your example of my "edit warring" (158) is not an example of reverting here. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should know best, you lectured Sander Säde on the issue of 3RR so impressively right above. But here is it for you: You version is very far from being completely different. Radeksz removed the contentious category Secret police (9:47), and you restored it in your "first" revert (10:42). The "versions reverted to" are here for everyone to look at. I may understand your desire to hijack the report, but there is really nothing to add. Every of the edits is a revert, and every single one of them is separated from the others by edits made by other users (thanks, I've refactored the diffs to make it absolutely clear). Colchicum (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, although I've reverted unsupported edits by other editors, I did not exceed three instances of reverting per WP:3RR. You can have the fact that the category I added was the same as Offliner's – I'm willing to concede that bit all you like. All of the edit history is indeed well documented. Enjoy. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Result
Bit of a mess, I have no idea about the content, but looks like 3RR from PU but not SS. SS also gets some credit for using the talk page, and PU demerit for not doing so. And may I remind people not to discuss content or sources here - BLP can be an issue, but no-one is claiming that William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that SS has indicated on his talk page a willingness for an uninvolved admin to review his lack-of-block; I'm happy too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Sander Säde requested a review of the case in order not to get accused of favoritism. I can understand why: it seems to me that User:Sander Säde has clearly made at least 6 reverts in 24 hours. Indeed it seems a bit unfair if the other party gets blocked by the other doesn't. Hope this helps. Offliner (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (reverting part of this by removing "Bäckman")
 * (marked as revert)
 * (marked as revert)
 * (undoing this edit by removing "organization was resuscitated...")
 * (reinserting "communists were...")
 * (same)
 * I agree that this looks like a 3RR violation by SS as well. I've proposed a resolution of the case based on a mutual editing restriction over at User talk:Sander Säde. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the responses is that both Sander Säde and PasswordUsername have agreed to the one-month restriction from editing the Kaitsepolitsei article. The ban will run until 17:12 UTC, 7 July 2009. They can still contribute on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Since UsernamePassword and Offliner keep their conversation regarding this to themselves, I'll make the comment here. The article has been the target of obvious Wiki-lawyering, for example deleting: "Communists were supported by the Soviet Union, who had publicly accepted the principles not recognizing the parliamentary order, seeing terrorism as a legitimate activity" according to "Observe WP:SELFPUB: Material by the KAPO can only be used to discuss the KAPO so long as it "does not involve claims about third parties"". It makes no sense to have an article which states that Communists were targeted, and then delete  why  they were being targeted. Without the additional sentence, it makes Estonian actions appear little more than a phobia of Communists. Recall Stalin attempted to topple the Estonian government in a putsch that failed. This is nothing but deletion of relevant content hoping that appropriate restoration of content can be used to block shop. Those tactics are apparently succeeding here. "Swell?" Hardly. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User Sarandioti reported by Alexikoua (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

95% of his contributions from the first day (few days from now) he appeared are of the above kind:, deleting and adding specific parts, without discussing seriously and ordering the other users to make adjustments ('add it', 'move it', he is not an 'rs' he is a traveler etc.).

On the Despotate of Epirus he kept reverting, until administrators arrived (suggesting that what he try isn't exactly right). From his contribution I believe it is obvious that he will continue that kind of action.Alexikoua (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation at Sarandë. The question of who is right about all the WP:NCGN issues needs a patient discussion on an appropriate talk page, not a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Benson Verazzano reported by User:Bali ultimate (Result: 24 hours)
is now at 4 or 5 by my count over inserting an external link to the myspace page of a defunct band in the body text of an article about an Australian singer. 5:49 June 7 (restors myspace link removed days earlier). I'm at 3 so can't deal with this anymore. The issue has been explained to him at his talk page both by a bot and by me. I have asked him to engage and seek consesnsus on the talk page both in edit summaries and in a talk page post. He has responded, but given the tone of his comments and that he has carried on with the disputed edit, i am not hopeful.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5:49 June 7
 * 15:44 June 7
 * 15:48 June 7
 * 15:55 June 7
 * 16:02 June 7
 * 16:08 June 7
 * 16:41 June 7
 * 16:47 June 7
 * 17:02 June 7

As i discussed on the talk page, the article is about Blasko and the link is to Blasko's early work, unable to be heard anywhere else. It fits the WP:EL criteria. I'm not reverting, I've made new links to try and compromise on the issue. Going from an inline citation, to an external link, to retoring another external link that kept getting reverted along with the Acquiesce link, to adding a published reference (which got deleted) to fixing wording on her notability. It's duplicitous to present my edits as being repeated reversions of the same thing.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in the discussion at Talk:Sarah Blasko, and I've pointed out to Benson Verazzano that the link he keeps re-adding does violate the WP:EL guidelines—and that since it's disputed, he should wait until consensus is gained before re-adding the link. I've also just left the templated warning on his user talk page because of the frequent reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, here are the reverts pertaininly only to the MySpace link:
 * Initial revert, inline placement
 * Revert of XLinkBot after link added to EL section
 * Revert of Bali; edit summary notes addition of links
 * Again reverting XLinkBot; bot noted the MySpace link in its edit summary
 * Again reverting XLinkBot
 * Reverting McSly
 * Reverting me
 * Well above the 3RR related just to the MySpace link. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

83.24.123.224 reported by Samboy (Result: page semi-protected )

 * Page:
 * User:

Super Audio CD has recently had a lot of problems with disruptive editing, which has resulted in three accounts recently being blocked for their edits there:

The disruptive editing continues from IPs starting in 83.24, which had had to be reverted by three different established Wikipedia editors:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Note that this IP is being dishonest in their edit summary; I have discussed the IP's changes in Talk:Super Audio CD and on User_talk:83.24.123.224, which they have chosen to ignore.)

Note that there are usually slight differences between the IP's reverts.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Samboy (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the page for three weeks. Krakatoa  Katie  00:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Samboy (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Piano non troppo reported by Special:Contributions/96.27.38.63 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:

Editor user:Piano non troppo is repeatedly reversing addition of link to article by removing largest coney chain's homepage National Coney Island. He is doing so ostensibly because the link is a violation of WP:SPAM but oddly enough leaving a half-dozen links to other restaurant chains. In the most recent reversion, he is acting as user:User:Blurpeace (note that blurpeace is on wikibreak until June 19) either gaining access to account or in violation of WP:SOCK.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Note that this user is being dishonest in their edit summary; I have discussed the IP's changes in Talk:Talk:Coney_Island_(restaurant) and on User_talk:Piano_non_troppo, which user has chosen to ignore.)  Also, note that user apparently reverted his 4th revert at  in an apparent quick reconsideration of his actions.


 * 1) There's has been no discussion on for weeks. I.e., 96.27.38.63 seems to be confused.
 * 2) I answered editor 96.27.38.63 within a few minutes of each of their comments on my talk page.
 * 3) I'm not Blurpeace. Therefore I didn't revert four times.
 * 4) My first edit was using an anti-vandalism tool, reverting only 96.27.38.63's addition. On inspection, each of the links that I did check were WP:SPAM. I then made the same edit twice, removing them.
 * 5) TastyPoutine just made similar edits to mine. (I'm not TastyPoutine, btw.)


 * Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No violation of 3RR has occurred here. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My response:


 * 1. The only link deleted was my own; the balance of links that could run afoul of WP:SPAM were ignored, creating an assumption that the deletion was focused on the specific link.
 * 2. National Coney Island redirects to Coney Island (restaurant).  Since this redirection was created (and some time ago), persons querying the specific restaurant should be able to link to the home page of the restaurant searched, a la McDonalds or any other restaurant included in the database.

96.27.38.63 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not an issue for WP:AN3. Try discussing it on the article's talk page. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Autonova reported by User:NRen2k5 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The first 'revert' is actually his first edit, whilst the other three are reverts. He therefore did not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have asked me. I was watching that page, also, and had seen the same count as Nja did on investigation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr reported by Anastrophe (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence&direction=next&oldid=295016873


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_violence&diff=prev&oldid=295016873
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASaltyBoatr&diff=295089510&oldid=295089216

editor Saltyboatr, a long-time disruptive edit warrior, chose to use real chutzpah here. i've been discussing changes to the article Gun violence on that article's talk page, with another editor. i stated my intention to make some changes conformant to the discussion. i made the changes. editor saltyboatr reverted my changes, with the rather generic (and evasive) edit summary "NPOV edit" (carefully being sure not to draw attention to the fact that it was a reversion). i reverted the article back to my changes. Saltyboatr then put a warning on my page that i was possibly edit warring, advising that i should discuss the matter on the talk page. while yet he has not even bothered to discuss his rationale on the article talk page. chutzpah! editor saltyboatr has been blocked on three previous occasions for multiple days for disruptive edit warring. i on the other hand was blocked once about a year and a half ago, for about a half a day, while dealing with a throwaway account that was adding material violative of BLP to an article (that account never before nor since having made a single edit, other than the three days it was active). i am making this notice on a single revert because it is part of a very, very long term pattern of disruptive editing by Saltyboatr, and i'm tired of being spuriously warned by him when i make edits he doesn't like - but that he also doesn't feel like discussing. hell, his abuse of the warning templates alone merits sanctions, when he pre-emptively tags people he is reverting. Anastrophe (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Anastrophe doesn't like comments on his talk page, and since I bumped in to him here (see above where I had to deal with a disruptive editor in Super Audio CD), let me take the liberty to say hi. Hello, Anastrophe, since you're anonymous and don't like talk page comments, I just want to let you know that I'm working really right now on the code that will become the next version of MaraDNS.  I'm rewriting the DNS decompression core, and can understand why DJB left rather dark mutterings about DNS' "sophomoric" compression in the DjbDNS comments.  It's a lot of work, and I hope it's something you can appreciate.  Anyway, if you want to leave a comment about MaraDNS, feel free to do so at my geek blog.  As for gun control, that is a very hot wire issue with a lot of very passionate people on both sides of the debate.  Sort of like how some audiophiles are passionate about Super Audio CD.  Anyway, I hope you're doing well, take care and good luck resolving this editing dispute!  Samboy (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely request advice as to a better way to collaborate with Anastrophe, take a look at the history, for no lack of trying and to no avail this has been extremely hard to do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No warring today. I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process if you're having trouble working with the user. Thanks. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

HAl reported by Scientus (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5rd revert:
 * 6threvert:

also silencing claims that a Microsoft run website is not a reliable source for Microsoft-sponsored OOXML:


 * Page:


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

The article cited clearly states in the first paragraph "Microsoft is joining other industry titans such as Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Sharp and Samsung that have recently taken steps to eliminate their use of polyvinyl chloride plastics, otherwise known as PVC or vinyl, in the packaging of their products."


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Scientus (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h each. Edit warring and gratuitous accusations of vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper reported by Richardshusr (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Diff 1 -
 * Diff 2 -
 * Diff 3 -

Hi, I need some advice on how best to handle a disruptive editor who is deleting sourced material from the article on the Roman Catholic Church. This article has many editors involved and the text is often discussed in detail with wording chosen based on a consensus of editors with multiple POVs. There is plenty of POV-pushing and I don't argue that the article is necessarily as neutral and balanced as it could be. However, most editors learn quickly that this is not an article to be bold but rather one where seeking consensus is the way to go.

The editor in question (User:Haldraper) has been deleting material without adequate discussion on the Talk Page and often against consensus. We have invited him multiple times to discuss on the Talk Page before making substantial changes and he has engaged in some discussion but he has continued his unilateral editing rather than working to form a consensus first. Multiple warnings have been left on his Talk Page but he seems to be ignoring them or otherwise not getting the message.

See [warnings left on his Talk Page]

The result has been multiple edit/revert cycles over several days and the net effect is disruptive.

There have been six edit/revert cycles in the last four days. The diffs above provide evidence of three of them. The rest can easily be found by looking in the edit history of the page.

As an involved editor, I am reluctant to take administrative action and I'm not 100% sure what the best path is to follow. Normally, I prefer to protect pages rather than block editors; however, in this case, a block of User:Haldraper seems in order. Could an uninvolved admin take a look and take the appropriate action if any? Please leave a message here or on my Talk Page so that I'll know what decision you made and why. Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for disruptive edting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alanraywiki reported by Alansohn (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: at 11:26
 * 2nd revert: at 11:27
 * 3rd revert: again at 11:27
 * 4th revert: at 11:30


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Alanraywiki is far from the only editor involved in this edit warring, but appears to be one of the most egregious of the non-IP editors in making repeated reverts to this article in violation of WP:3RR. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I considered my edits to be reverting the vandalism of an IP editor who was removing sourced content and the entire references section, which is more than just a content dispute. I noted this was a controversial article from the talk page and was putting it back into the more neutral version and restoring the references section. If my actions are not considered reverting of vandalism but rather inserting POV edits, then I apologize and will lay off the article. That was not my intent. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * *I* don't know whats going on, and for the moment I can't be bothered to find out, since I'm wet. So I'm wimping out and semi'ing for a couple of weeks. I note that User:Good Olfactory semi'd it but then backed off due to complaimts of involvement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nhev114 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: sock)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note that there might also be a sockpuppetry issue - Nhev114 is reverting back to the same version as blocked users Veutourou and Koeschoe, and probably others. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sock: 2009-06-08T17:59:34 Jclemens (talk | contribs | block) blocked Nhev114 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Hybernator reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: 24h all round)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: see my edit summary for fourth RV

This user is reverting a template that properly belongs. The fact that Burma is sometimes considered South Asia is well cited on South Asia. After moving the Template:Countries and Territories of South Asia to its currently title (previously it was Template:Countries of South Asia), I began to fix the template title on all South Asia country/territory articles (under both the "Sometimes Included" articles and core definition articles). I noticed that Burma, at some point, had had the template removed, so I readded it. At this point Hybernator started a revert war. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional Note: I have not yet reverted Hybernator's last revert, as doing so would put me at four reverts also. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) have now Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a dispute about inclusion of a template in the Burma article, yet I do not see any comments by either editor at Talk:Burma. I suggest that whichever admin closes this complaint should warn both editors that they may be blocked if they continue to revert without discussing at the Talk page. The only other option is to block both editors, since none of these reverts are of vandalism, and both editors are already at 4RR for June 7. If either or both users promises to stop revert warring, this might be considered in the closing decision. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR My first revert was at 05:59, 7 June 2009, my fourth revert was at 18:31, 8 June 2009. I had well over 24 hours between my first revert and my fourth revert. After my first revert, I accidentally reverted my own edit, and promptly undid this accident. Unless, I am mistaken (please correct me if I am), this accident does not count in the 3RR Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made comments on Talk:Burma and Talk:South Asia.

Also, keep in mind that it is well cited (on South Asia) that Burma is often considered to be part of South Asia. Hybernator kept removing the template, even after I made it clear (see my edit summaries) that it is cited. This is just the case where a user does not like cited content, so they continually remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the following reverts at Burma regarding the South Asia template:
 * Thegreyanomaly:
 * 4:07, 5:59, 22:59 on June 7, 0:16 and 18:31 on June 8 (four reverts in 24 hours)
 * Hybernator:
 * 04:23, 11:23, 23:49 on June 7, 02:29 on June 8. (four reverts in 24 hours)
 * I suggest that any editor who will promise to stop reverting at Burma until a consensus is reached at one of the Talk pages should not be sanctioned. I'll notify Hybernator of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) 24h for both. But feel free to revise / unblock if they promise not to be naughty again William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I Pakapshem reported by Alexikoua (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

(the first 3 revs are exactly the same) He is a new user and unfortunately any effort to discuss things leads to nowhere. He cooperates with the recently unblocked (yesterday, 24h ban) User:Sarandioti 95% of his contibutions is of that kind-reverting specific parts for non encyclopedic reasons as he also claimed (about names of towns and cities).Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Page being warred by many different parties just now, so let's see if some time will something of it out.

AdamB4417 reported by Planenut (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Over the past 48 hours, AdamB4417 has been making major un-encyclopaedic changes to the article. AdamB4417 is believed to be the same IP editor who made several un-encyclopaedic edits a few days earlier - 84.68.157.242 & 81.79.159.10. Attempts to address the issue via Talk:AirAsia_X#Fleet_Edits & User_talk:AdamB4417 have been ignored. Rgds. Planenut (Talk)  02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's give another chance to see if this user is prepared to edit this encyclopedia in a productive way. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hayden4258 reported by bloodofox (Result: socking indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User attempting to insert AD/BC over BCE/CE for apparent personal distaste for BCE/CE (as evident in diffs above), though article has been at BCE/CE since 2003. bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the reported user. All the references for the article and even the images within the article use BC/AD notation. WP:DATE specifies one system per article. It is therefore correct that the article use BC/AD notation, in line with the references and images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayden4258 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that was just permanently blocked: . bloodofox: (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd reported by Radeksz (Result: bored)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Note that 1) There probably are also one or two more violations that can be gleaned from history although Skapperod's editing style (lots of frequent, consecutive edits which mix minor changes and moving stuff around with reverts) make it hard to catch and 2) in the 24 period preceding the one given with diffs above, Skapperod either also violated 3RR or came very close to it (I can find 3 definitive reversions and a few borderline - again editing style makes it hard to check). Either way, it's evidence of edit warring.radek (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that Skapperod continues to edit war even after this report has been filed:  I think this would make it either a 5th (or even 6th) revert in 24hrs, or 4th revert in a slightly different 24 hr period.radek (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod's certainly been around long enough to be aware of the 3RR rule.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reply by Skäpperöd
I did not violate 3RR. In fact, I am the only one who added useful and sourced information to the article. User:Radeksz is recently following me around reverting me since a wikifriend of him got blocked for socking because of an SPI case I filed. The trouble then started whith Radek's wholesale revert of all my editions to the Police (town), Poland article which before my edits was poor and c/e-tagged. Then he followed me to the Kolobrzeg article, and now he followed me to the Middle Pomerania article. The latter had been turned into a redirect in 2006, I stubbed and sourced it again , Radeksz wholesale reverts to a 2006 version before the article was redirected. Note also that Radeksz' campaign against me, at the Police (town) as well as at the Kolobrzeg article, has been joined by Piotrus, Tymek, and Poeticbent - exactly the team who defended against being a tag-team in the Piotrus2-Arbcom, and look at the edit history of the Kolobrzeg article : Poeticbent has joined today, removing sources because he is not able to verify them. This edit resulted in the removal of the page numbers in the source, the removal of sources from several sentences that now appear to be unsourced, and the removal of a complete sourced sentence. I reinstated the sources and the removed sourced sentence just to get reverted again.
 * 15:23, 6 June 2009 Tymek shows up for the first time
 * 15:35, 6 June 2009 Piotrus shows up for the first time
 * 16:20, 6 June 2009 Radeksz shows up for the first time.

Note that neither one actually added anything constructive to the articles in question, the only exception being Piotrus who added information from the Kolobrzeg website. Now while WP:SPS are fine sometimes, if the information is contradicted by all available sources, that makes it fringe.

The evidence presented by Radeksz underlines that pretty well.
 * First diff : Was nothing but the restoration of sourced material that was deleted by Piotrus with an edit summary "c/e, some cite req"
 * Second diff : Not a revert, just switched two paragraphs and added sourced material to the second one.
 * Third diff : removal of fringe
 * Fourth diff : Tymek removed "German era" with the edit summary: "what does German era mean? Kolobrzeg was also a vassal of the Danes" I reverted that with the edit summary "Danish until 1227, town founded 1255".

So the diffs Radeksz provided do not constitute a 3RR violation, and this whole thread is nothing but the continuation of what I regard his harrassment towards me. Actually I was myself close to bringing this whole case to administrator attention but decided against it. I would really really appreciate if that would finally stop and Radeksz would - if his edits actually are motivated by a newly discovered interest in the history of Pomerania - get in touch with me in a normal way. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC); corr Skäpperöd (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I did not follow you around. You just decided to launch major rewrites on four (that I can see) Polish cities on my watchlist. In each case the pattern of edits was the same. The question of who added what (and I did make additions to this article as well as the other ones that were under your editing), whether some sources are "fringe" (they're not - so this is a clear content dispute) and "what does German mean" revert (should have answered question on talk page) are all reverts. 3RR board is not a place to decide content disputes but to determine whether a user is edit warring. And despite your charges of "tag teaming" (asterisk) you are the only one on that page who is reverting everybody else, hence edit warring. Same thing goes for harassment charges - the fact that you choose to edit the same articles as I do does not constitute harassment and this isn't a place to discuss that (if you really feel that way then yes, bring it up at the appropriate venue).


 * (asterisk) This accusation comes up everytime that more than one Polish editor has the "nerve" to edit the same Poland related topic. It is spurious. It is insulting. It is a violation of the assumption of good faith. It is disruptive. And it is usually a futile attempt to divert attention from one's own wrong doing (in Skapperod's case, edit warring) to someone else.radek (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably add that in case that Tymek, Piotrus or Poeticbent show up at this case it'll probably have nothing to do with "tag teaming" but rather with the fact that Skapperod brought them up himself with his accusations.radek (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that, contrary to Skapperod's assertion above, my name is not mentioned anywhere at Piotrus2-Arbcom (so again, Skapperod seems to just have a problem with Polish editors having the chutzpah to edit Poland-related articles), and to the extent that Tymek and Piotrus are mentioned it is precisely to state that they are NOT tag teaming - so Skapperod's flipping the matter on its head here.radek (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reverts were not about the same issue, and all the reverts were either corrections of obviously false information contradicted by all scholary sources presented (diffs 2,3 and 4), or the restoration of sourced material that was deleted without any reason (diff 1). That is not edit-warring. That is expanding articles based on good sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per []: "whether or not the edits involve the same material" - and you know this very well as you've been around for quite awhile. Whether or not the relevant text was "obviously false information" is a CONTENT DISPUTE, as is putting back in text objected to by others. In fact, it is your opinion and given the relevant discussion over at reliable sources on using webpages of cities, it's not even one supported by consensus.radek (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Removal of a scholary source and the restoration of this source is not a content dispute. And if all modern archaeologists and historians, Polish and German, agree that the area was not settled before the 7th century, and that the first burghs were built another century later, and then comes a guy who writes a town's website claiming in this town a burgh existed already in the 5th century - this is not an actual content dispute either. It just means that the town needs to maintain her website better and not that we act on wikipedia as if the scholars and the website had an actual dispute. This is a prime example of WP:FRINGE. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is because you are the only one editing the article currently who thinks that certain sources are "scholarly" and others are "fringe". In regard to town's website - see the discussion that you yourself participated in on RS board: and . Obviously whether town's websites are RS or not depends. You cannot make a unilateral declaration here and proceed to delete text based on that basis. Anyway. That's a matter for RS board. What matters here is that you were edit warring and violated 3RR. I don't get to declare that some source used in the "Expulsions" article is FRINGE and then edit war away for as long as I please. Please re-read the guidelines on 3RR again.radek (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Poeticbent
Skäpperöd is a problem user misrepresenting facts to fit his agenda, on top of being totally uncooperative. Above, he accused me of removing his one source from Kolobrzeg which in fact I just reformatted using the "ref name" tag in order to de-clutter the reference section. I was reverted at an instance. It is impossible to work with someone as combative as this. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now, all the cite-notes lack the proper page number. And I don't have an agenda, I have profound knowledge of Pomeranian history and I am able to provide good sources. And I can be very cooperative if I just get the chance. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that you're willing to discuss does not mean that you're actually willing to discuss. Over at Szczecin article after I've discussed each topic in turn and provided English language references you went ahead with your reverts anyway. I have not reverted them back as I actually DON'T want to get in an edit war with you. Furthermore, the fact that you continued to revert people's edits at Kolobrzeg even after I've notified you of this report and the fact that you are denying that you have been edit warring by claiming that you were only deleting FRINGE sources (a false claim, btw) does not suggest that cooperation is possible unless a stricter action is taken.radek (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted any source you added in the Szczecin article. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's possible to split hairs here. You did not remove the source, you just moved it and rewrote the text to ignore what the source said: - at issue, as was being discussed at talk was whether Boleslaw "regained control" or "subjugated" some territories and I inserted that source precisely to back up the "re-" claim as my edit summary makes clear: . So not only are you edit warring here but you are also trying to be sneaky in hiding your reverts of other editors changes.radek (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Skäpperöd (2)
I have read the 3RR page closely, and I actually have violated the 3RR rule technically if the restoration of deleted sources/sourced information is counted as an actual revert and not as reverting obvious vandalism. In my defense I claim that I have been WP:BAITed and WP:WIKIHOUNDed, as outlined in my reply 1 above, and I that it was not my actual additions (including the reverted deletions) that harm the project.

Anyway, I acknowledge that I took the bait. I will withdraw from editing any article on en.wiki until Friday, starting now, but I sincerely hope that this case is not decided based solely on revert-counting but that - within the time I am logged out - the preceeding behaviour of Radeksz et al is also looked upon. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction: The second diff provided by Radeksz is not a revert, I updated my first reply accordingly. But I reverted Poeticbent and this diff has not been includeed in Radeksz evidence. However, I explained this revert also in my Reply 1 above, and the revert obviously is nothing but the removal of, at best, good faith vandalism. Please have a close look at the revert. Nothing was done with the revert but reinstating sources and the deleted sourced material. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Skapperod. And the good folks who make decisions on this page. Please listen. Reverting another user's edit because supposedly it's "at best, good faith vandalism", when it clearly is not (nm the PA), does not make it a "non-revert". There's a content dispute here. Skapperod thinks certain sources, which s/he likes, and which are German, are fine and should be inserted everywhere in the article. And other source, which s/he doesn't like, and which are not German, are "fringe" and should be removed from all parts of the article. But that is an opinion which makes this a content dispute, which makes Skapperod's action a revert. One out of at least four of them if not more. In just that 24 period, preceded by similar 3 or more reverts in the 24 hrs period before that. I think I've already said this at 17:18, June 8 and probably somewhere before and after that. Which must surely mean that I'm stuck in a Wiki version of a Jorge Luis Borges novel. This has happened before and it will happen again. Unless somebody closes this case.radek (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Request: Since I nevertheless will stick to my self-chosen temporary exile, will someone please re-revert the second revert of Poeticbent, as it contains the unexplained removal of sources and sourced sentences. Please analyze the diff closely to find the sentences from which the references were removed and the material that was removed altogether - Poeticbent's edit is not the mere "reformatting" it appears to be at first glance. I also doubt that the removal of page numbers from the sources constitutes a valid action. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you weren't baited or hounded into anything. On the 4th of June you began a major rewrite of Kolobrzeg article, without discussing any changes, and have been edit warring on it since. A little later you began doing exactly (major rewrite without discussion + subsequent reversions) the same thing on Koszalin, Szczecin and Police (town), Poland (and perhaps other pages that I haven't seen). You reverted (almost) all changes that other users have tried to implement on those four articles, violating 3RR on this one (and probably the only reason you didn't revert more on the other three is exactly because other editor tried to AVOID (at least I did) getting into a revert war with you so you didn't get the opportunity). Here are the relevant history pages (diffs would be too complicated here):, ,  and . So the pattern of edit warring extends beyond this single article, this single 3RR violation.radek (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Err, it's the other way round. Radeksz has been actively edit warring in 30, 40, 50 edit wars in the last few months already (funny also that the same people involved on one side in today's AE party - Radeksz, Piotrus, Poeticbent and Tymek - are also involved in this edit war ... ), appearing anxious not to ever miss out on any revert war. Also, Skäpperöd has never been warned about 3RR before while Radeksz was warned too many times. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sciurinæ, you forgot to mention that Radeksz, Piotrus, Poeticbent and Tymek where actually right at what you sarcasticly describedAE party Just look at the outcome of it. Now...why you are dragging this case into this? Please focus on the problem of 3 revert rule violation by Skäpperöd which clearly occurred. This is unfortunate because Skäpperöd is actually a good editor and I respect him. He just makes sometimes mistakes not only editing but also reverting too many times, just like this time. P.S. I hope you will not attack my person now because of my comment here. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sciurinea, you can make up all sorts of things you like but that doesn't make them true. If I have been actively edit warring in 30, 40, 50 edit wars then for God's sake, why didn't you report me? The way you put it almost makes me want to report myself. The truth is that while I've been actively editing many articles in the past few months and have had a few disagreements, as is to be expected, I haven't edit warred at all. Let me check my block log. Nope, just that one borderline block from more than 6 months ago and two mistaken blocks with apologies from the admins including one for me reverting a Polish nationalist Serafin. I don't know if Skapperod has been warned for edit warring before or not but in this particular case he waged a full scale one. And what in the world does an AE case have to do with any of this?radek (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me you are not heavily engaged in revert warring always supported by Piotrus and co for months basically in every Polish-related dispute throughout. And would you mind explaining how it happened that all of a sudden, on such an isolated article, Poeticbent, Tymek and you all appeared without ever having edited this article or it's talk page, in just one hour's time? It's no coincidence that those suddenly-appearing figures are the same set of users of today's AE party to support each other there too. As far as the revert war is concerned, no user involved so much as touched the discussion page. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sciurinæ, there is nothing unusual about it. Polish editors often watch the same pages (Poland related) and often follow each other. Just like German editors do for example. You ended up here following Skäpperöd :).--Jacurek (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will tell you that I'm "not heavily engaged in revert warring always ..." because I'm not. If I was, I AM SURE you'd report me. And I will also tell you how it came about so that me and the three others have all edited the "isolated" article on a "major" city in Poland. Well, you see, it happens that I am Polish, that Poeticbent is Polish (I think, or has lived there or something), Tymek is Polish and Piotrus is Polish. We are all Polish editors. And as Polish editors we put Poland related articles on our watchlists. And when some particular Poland related article gets hit very often with POV pushing, we all, or at least I, start keep an eye on that particular element of my watchlist. And then we actually edit it! The Poland related article. Edited by Polish editors. Crazy, I know. (Might as well note that at this point I should probably ask Sciurinea how he came to this report, cast aspersion on him, and make all sorts of insinuations but I'm just not gonna!)radek (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With 376 edits of which 66 were from Skäpperöd, I consider this article relatively isolated (only 9 edits on the talk page). In my view, a city with 50K people also does not count as "major" but barely a city at all. Strangely, neither Tymek, nor Radeksz, nor Poeticbent have edited the city's article ever and within one hour had jumped into the dispute to support one another as everywhere. If all Polish editors had it on their watchlists, why do always the exact same people, who also today made the commotion on the AE page, appear? And why did they all appear within just one hour's time? Why did no one else appear in all the other hours following it?
 * In this revert war, Skäpperöd has not been warned of 3RR ever before, Skäpperöd said that he will not make further edits, none of you saw the slightest need of solving the issues via the talk page and indeed your general edit warring needs further attention. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, this endless repetition of completely false accusations and groundless insinuations is getting boring and this really isn't a place to debate whether Kolobrzeg is a "major" or "isolated" city. Edit warring. 4+ reverts within 24 hrs. 3+ reverts in the 24 hrs preceding that. Failure to stop reverting other editors well after notified of this report.radek (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing further, let's just keep it as this: Skäpperöd has promised you that he "will withdraw from editing any article on en.wiki until Friday", is that not enough for you? (Independent from this, I am going to take notes of your past revert warring, especially coordinated edit warring.) Good night. Sciurinæ (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hay is that? A cease-fire? You're not supposed to edit war in the first place and he hasn't made any assurances that he won't resume the same pattern after Friday.radek (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sciurinæ, please.... you can take as many notes as you want. Your accusations against Radeksz are groundless and you know it. This is why your "threat" sounds a little funny. Let’s stop this nonsense. I know that Skäpperöd will learn from all this. Just like I did some time ago. After all, as I said before, in my opinion he is a good editor and I personally agree with many (but not all) of his edits. He just made a mistake here, that is all. Let administrators decide what to do and I also hope that the punishment will not be too harsh. He should be honest about it, so hopefully there will be no punishment at all. Cooperating together we can make the article about Kolobrzeg/Kolberg very good. Fights and German POV pushing on this Polish town (German before) leads to nothing but further conflicts which are totally unnecessary. Thanks and good night.--Jacurek (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Observation by Deacon of Pndapetzim
It's very difficult to see if there were four reverts here, but Skapperod is very interested in medieval Pomerania and was article building here, rather than edit-warring, which is what the editor-group trying to get him blocked does regularly. He has been performing like 20 edits a day transforming this article, and he probably didn't see that 3 or 4 of those edits included reversions of material. He has apologized and withdrew from the article, so any block would be purely punitive. It's illustrative btw that alleged reverts, like this this, are almost entirely pure article building utilising reliable material. Compare these reverts with those of Poeticbent, who with much charm urges [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ko%C5%82obrzeg&diff=295211374&oldid=295205317 please don't stuff the reference section with numbing repetitions of the same mysterious book, over and over. We get the message anyway] while removing crucial page references that would have allowed the reader to trace the claims in the book, while also removing relevant well-cited material that for some reason isn't to his liking. Sigh. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. "Uninvolved administrators" are turning up. Someone please close this.radek (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I have been mentioned here several times, I want to make a short comment. User Skapperod finds it weird that Polish wikipedians are involved in Poland-related articles. Well, I have to switch my attention to Papua-New Guinea, or Cameroon, and leave Poland-related topic to experts from Germany or uninvolved administrators from Scotland. This should be a perfect solution, I guess. Tymek (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to close this interminable discussion. All advised to caution on the article in the near future William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng reported by Emptymountains (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and  and  and

This user was also reported yesterday for repeated BLP violations on the talk page:

Emptymountains (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably some magic second sight allows you to deduce that 94.192.139.167 is Y. Please share your insight with the rest of us William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see in the archive: and  and . Emptymountains (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

72h per Y's talk. Please don't expect us to remember pre-history, that is your part William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarandioti reported by Alexikoua (Result: sock block)
I made 4 reverts on Paramythia article, BY MISTAKE. And that is why I am reporting it myself. So please when you see this do not add 24h block. --Sarandioti (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He was already aware that he would have been reported ([]. (on 11.06 today by me) he insist on that kind of action though yesterday blocked for same reason) Also claims that he is member of a group called LRK (in Albanian 'national rebirth': []. url is here: []. Well:


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

He insists on deleting the medieval name (although it has an rs citation) of the town (for some reason he finds it offending). There is also a combined action by him and two other users (via msn communication) on similar articles. Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-06-09T14:35:15 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Sarandioti (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: XXxLRKistxXx.) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Trhonya reported by RCS (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--RCS (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He has 3R, so do you. Why should he be blocked rather than you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he erases valuable content, maybe? --RCS (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sumeet 92 reported by This flag once was red (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-06-09T16:25:18 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs | block) m (172 bytes) (Protected Diana Vickers: locking redirect ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user account creation 17:00, 25 October 2008 [He knows - WMC]

The problem with this user's edit is that (apart from removing some names) he repeatedly changes "Királyhágómellék" to "Oradea" in the section title, to make the article claim Tőkés was bishop of Oradea. According to the talk page "Királyhágómellék is the official name of the ecclesial unit, Tőkés is simply not called Bishop of Oradea". "Oradea" is translated as "Nagyvárad" as a glance on it's article confirms, not as Királyhágómellék. Hobartimus (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: User removed widely accepted German and Hungarian city names (like: German Grosswardein, Hungarian Nagyvárad, Kolozsvár, Klausenburg, Temesvár) from the article, according to neutral and reliable sources (Encyclopedia Britannica),  B@xter 9 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dikstr reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2009-06-08T22:53:53
 * 2nd revert: 2009-06-09T10:16:00
 * 3rd revert: 2009-06-09T16:24:11 On what planet is dissagreement between peer reviewed publications NOT the essence of active research (the 'flat' Earth, perhaps?)
 * 4th revert: 2009-06-09T19:09:48 Lets have some reasons for peddling your AGW POV here


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user has removed previous warnings:

Note the increasingly incivil edit summaries William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a debate with real technical content, but one party is clearly at four reverts and his edit summaries do not reveal a spirit of cooperation. is at 3RR and should be more cautious to avoid sanctions himself. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Advice taken :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rerutled reported by J (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * revert one:
 * revert two:
 * (updated) revert three:

Over the weekend, User:Rerutled began an effort to change the lead of the article for Montréal to include language that Kinshasa is a larger "Francophone city." (Discussed several times in the past, see here and here for starters.) Consensus has held that reliable sourcing indicates Montréal is the "second largest primarily French-speaking city." Rerutled believes differently, and despite the fact that there has been no consensus to alter the heretofore stable lead to his preferred language, he has now reverted twice more to include his lead, with no support for doing so from the ongoing discussion. Given his two reverts this morning, it looks like he now plans to enforce his change to the lead, regardless of consensus or lack thereof. (I have not warned the user against edit warring, as I suspect he will not accept it as sincere or objective coming from an involved editor.) user: J  aka justen (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned for now. Update if needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an editwar ongoing on this article and I suspect that the three-revert and possibly the six-revert rules (if they) exist have been broken in the last two 24-hour periods. Can I suggest that the article is 'locked' to prevent any reversions until some agreement is reached on the talkpage. The argument is a (trivial) matter as to whether a city is 2nd or 3rd in a list under a given criteria. Unfortunately both editors sides appear to have ignored, for what they regard as valid reasons, the 3rr.Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think two reverts in the last three days, with consensus, and with several attempts to cajole Rerutled into discussing before he reverts further is anywhere near ignoring wp:3rr, so I'll try to assume you're referring to another editor. :P  user: J  aka justen (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the latest comments made above, I have rechecked the article's history. Sorry I seem to have got it wrong, only one editor appears to have broken the 3rr. However, what I should make clear is that 'both sides to the argument' have made four reversions today. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that full protection may be helpful to help a clear consensus develop. user: J  aka justen (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unclear why protection would be needed. The only person who is unlikely to prefer the current version of the article is Rerutled, and he is already at 3R, about to go over the edge if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rerutled clearly considers that the information quoted is incorrect; did discuss the changes on the article's talkpage; and the changes made by that editor were WP:verifyable, with in-line citations. Despite what is stated above, the "consensus" information given in the article is not WP:verifyable; and it is inadequately referenced for a GA-class article, although they have promised to properly cite the reference. It appears to have been taken from a chapter in a book edited by the authors quoted, but not necessarily written by those two editors. Books matching that description appear to have been published in 2003 and 2005; although Rerutles has posted information stating that this currently undated (in the article) source may go back to 1971. I have no idea whether Rerutled is right or wrong, but if the information is of 1971 vintage, then the "consensus" claims may become invalidated. Either way this impasse needs to be resolved; and not by preserving improperly cited references.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...the 'consensus' information given in the article is not [verifiable]." I'm sorry, you're wrong on that point, and you could well be providing fuel for continued edit warring for those who may not be as familiar with policy.  I can appreciate that you tend to hold articles under good article review to a higher standard, however, wp:v is clear in that an incomplete citation does not make a fact "unverifiable."  The work referenced exists, the exact page is cited.  We need to get the exact author information for the section in question, but that, by far, does not make the reference "unverifiable."  I urge you to use greater caution before stating something as policy, incorrectly.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have made two accusations of "lack of good faith" on my talkpage. The reference that was given in Montreal was " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy‎, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, C. George Benello, p.292." This is hardly verifiable. User:Rerutled has kindly changed this unverifiable reference to one that is far more verifiable, i.e. " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292. ISBN 1551642247,1551642255 (paperback)." However, there remains a question mark as to whether the information in that particular chapter dates from the 1970s or the early 2000s.Pyrotec (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, just saw this thread, I'm fairly sure I would qualify as an "other side" and possibly also an edit-warrior in upholding the existing consensus. This stuff has been hashed out to death and my own contention is that simple math backed by sources already in the article lead bears out the statement. As noted at WP:RSN, how many reliable sources do we need to confirm that 2 > 1? In any case, it now appears that Brussels is a new contender for the supposed "crown" of second-place, so here we go again. :( Mayhap we shall all reappear here shortly, my kindest regards in that eventuality! :) Franamax (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, User:Thedarkman, a long inactive account appeared today to reintroduce User:Rerutled's preferred revision. User:Thedarkman has since been blocked for exceeding wp:3rr, while User:Rerutled took the opportunity to again begin reverting to his preferred revision, still without consensus (and I guess this means he's given up on the suggested course of dispute resolution).  I've given up trying to convince him his edits require consensus.  I intend to open an RfC shortly.  In the meantime, his ridiculous version of the lead can stand unless someone else cares to do something about it.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just did see that and reverted. I really don't want to be a warrior, but the message is not getting through that we can actually discuss. Seeing dormant accounts spring to life is a little worrisome, I was working on the assumption that we were dealing with a newish editor unfamiliar with general procedures. I'm being somewhat disabused of that notion in light of these recent red-editor developments. Curioser and curioser... Franamax (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mlaszlo reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 48h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

If we count reverts made by suspected sockpuppets, we can also count the following reverts:,. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48h (then unblocked after accepted request), and sock handled. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:79.114.47.213 reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Another user with unknown IP keeps reverting/removing information (widely accepted German and Hungarian city names (like: German Grosswardein, Hungarian Nagyvárad, Kolozsvár, Klausenburg, Temesvár, according to neutral and reliable sources (Encyclopedia Britannica), from the article. Possibly the same user who has been blocked (but from anotother IP) for 24h by User:William M. Connolley B@xter 9 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: I think he is the same user, but i warned him.
 * Result - Article semiprotected. If it can be confirmed that the 79.114.* IPs are socks of User:Iadrian yu, the latter's block should be extended. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Newyorkborn reported by 208.120.47.96 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:39,  9 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 10:22, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 13:31, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 13:47, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * alleged "new user" who is pretty familiar with wikipedia policy and has been making a number of personal attacks in his short time with this new username.

—208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

already warned for personal attacks as well. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article protected for 24 hours. Both editors are edit warring and could be blocked. Please take this to the talk page of the article. Review of this dispute by other editors and administrators, while discussing this content dispute with these two parties, is preferable to the edit warring. Risker (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mifter (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * by Risker. Mifter (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tryde and Max Mux reported by Phoe (Result: mess)

 * User:
 * User:

The edit warring between the aforementioned User spans over several articles:


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User:Tryde:
 * 1st revert by User Max Mux:
 * 2nd revert by User:Tryde:
 * 2nd revert by User:Max Mux:


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User Max Mux:


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User Max Mux: and


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User Tryde:
 * 1st revert by User Max Mux:
 * 2nd revert by User Tryde:
 * 2nd revert by User Max Mux:


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User Max Mux:
 * 1st revert by User Tryde:
 * 2nd revert by User Max Mux:


 * Page:


 * 1st revert by User Max Mux:

So far 3RR was not explicitly broken, however I think the number of reverts generally speaks ítself. Phoe talk  16:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already reported User:Tryde at Wikipedia:VandalismMax Mux (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. I checked your contributions. Also, that wouldn't be the right place to. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done it.


 * I've warned you before about misusing that word, Max. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?Max Mux (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism means this. It has a very specific meaning, and Tryde's actions don't fall under that. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Max Mux now also seems to be trying to foment an edit war on User talk:Jakezing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to leave a statement here? Tryde (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. 12h each to get them to cool down William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Chamberikore reported by Rjanag (Result: all warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Chamberikore is repeatedly removing a graph of GDP growth from the Economy section of this article and replacing it with a decorative picture of a cityscape with fireworks; he has not given any rationale for this removal, although from looking at his contribs I believe he thinks the graph is inaccurate. I left him two messages asking him to go to the talk page and post the reasons why he thinks these images need to be changed, but he has refused to discuss and keeps reverting. He did leave one message on my talk page, but did not address the concerns, and has not gone to the article talk page at all. 3RR may not have been explicity broken yet, but this is clear edit warring nonetheless. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like you've broken 3RR yourself. Read WP:DR. Don't just revert, find someone else to give an opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did stop reverting, that's why the most recent edit to the article is his. I have also posted messages at both his talkpage and the article talk page. It's tough to do dispute resolution when someone refuses to engage in discussion (note ""I don't think I need to discuss"). Must I wait for someone else to revert him and then re-report when he keeps on warring? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It also should be clear, if you look at Chamberikore's talk page, that I didn't "just revert". <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

58.37.245.164 and ViperNerd reported by Fyyer (Result:Blocks/Protection )

 * Page:
 * User: and

I'm neutral on this issue, I just noticed it happening while Recent Changes Patrolling   Fyyer    05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the involved IPs for a period of 24 hours to stop their disruptive editing and abusive sockpuppetry. Also, to stop any further disruption to the article in question, I have protected it for a period of 31 hours. Tiptoety  talk 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The entry the IP user included was not very encyclopedic nor had a proper reference. I'm not sure on it's accuracy either, this might need to be checked and fixed/removed.    Fyyer    05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a discussion for the articles talk page, not here. Tiptoety  talk 05:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Finnbjorn reported by 137.205.222.236 (Result:no vio)

 * Page: Body mass index
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Wikipedia is not a forum for original research to be conducted on article talk pages. There is already a controversy section in the article, and this user is simply using the talk page as a soapbox. This user ignores all warnings and appears to enjoy edit warring. 137.205.222.236 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No technical vio, since the reverts are not within 24 hours, though if the user continues this, I wouldn't be averse to blocking on just plain edit warring grounds. At present, though, it's looking like it might be a bit stale, so I think we should leave it for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald reported by DR2006kl (Result:no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&diff=295566354&oldid=295544388
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&diff=295624371&oldid=295592902
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Lenin&diff=295657823&oldid=295647981

I have looked at the guy's page and he is clearly actively engaged in disruptive editing elsewhere. And he clearly failed to comply by the 3R rule.
 * As I noted on my talk page, this is three edits, not more than 3; the middle edit is completely unrelated to the first and last; and in the last edit, I provided a citation from a reliable source in response to DR2006kl's concerns about Lenin's atheism. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, no 3RR vio since there are only three reverts and no argument given for any sanction based on just edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can someone please look at Lenin? The complaintant has just gone and changed the disputed entry again.  It seems rather unfair to drag me to 3RRN and take advantage of the potential onus it places on me, to then sneak in your own revision, feels a bit like gaming the system. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian reported by Dream Focus (Result: No violation, article protected)

 * Page:

I assume that reverting someone's edit with an undo, is the same is erasing the entire page manually and adding in your original content again. Otherwise people could get around the rule rather easily. We have clear edit warring on a page by a user who tried to have it deleted by prod, and when that failed, eliminated the page anyway placing a redirect there. There was no consensus to merge, those on the other page already agreeing none of the minor characters belonged on that list, nor did she try to merge any of the content, with no apparent intention of doing so. I undid her redirect three times, and she has four times put it there. She is clearly edit waring, refusing to discuss this.

 D r e a m Focus  14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Her first time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Zatch_Bell!_minor_characters&diff=295781604&oldid=295755546
 * Her second time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Zatch_Bell!_minor_characters&diff=295783561&oldid=295783190
 * Her third time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Zatch_Bell!_minor_characters&diff=295784504&oldid=295784077
 * Her fourth time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Zatch_Bell!_minor_characters&diff=295785297&oldid=295784992


 * As usual, DF who has a long history of following me around, misrepresenting facts, and refusing to understand basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies (yes, sometimes a merge is just a redirect, and yes AfDs that close as merge can also be a redirect, and that just because he disagrees with the consensus doesn't make it less valid), is misrepresenting the situation. The minor character article was prodded. As soon as he saw that I had endorsed the prod, he deprodded it. The article was then redirected instead since after seeing the merge discussion I noticed that it was possible some content had been merged so GFDL would apply. DF, of course, came behind and undid this redirect (his first revert), which I undid and pointed him to the original discussion. He has since reverted twice more. My last revert of his revert makes my third. His saying I refuse to discuss is also a blatant lie. A note was left at the anime/manga project requesting further eyes, and he was repeatedly pointed to the existing discussion (to which he tried to add an oppose months later and claim that made consensus not to merge). I left him a 3RR warning for his third revert, so he retaliated by filing an spurious report here. Also the norm. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * appears to me both editors have violated 3RR looking at the 10 most recent edits. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing three reverts for both editors.
 * Dream Focus
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert


 * Collectonian
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert


 * Technically, this is also a revert by, but I believe that deproding does not count towards four reverts. --Farix (Talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing a prod is not a revert. A revert is changing something the same way time and again, as she has done.   D r e a m Focus  14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I look at your link, two things a month apart. What is this?  Why are you linking to something I wasn't involved in, and how would anyone consider that a revert?   D r e a m Focus  14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, removing a prod from an article after it has been applied is a revert, the question is whether it counts towards a 4R violation. That is why I listed it separately from your other three reverts and let an administrator decide. As for the "two months" apart that was the last version of the article before the prod tag was applied. When you removed the prod tag, you restored the article to that version. --Farix (Talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. I hadn't even noticed, since I don't normally check history of an article two months before.  You are grasping at straws here.  What she did was deliberate edit warring, moving away from consensus, and trying to get around the rules, using a redirect to eliminate an article she didn't like.  Lets not distract from that issue.   D r e a m Focus  15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm presenting evidence on both parties. Consensus does it immunize one side or the other in a 3RR violation. The question is whether either party violated 3RR. If this was left to me to close, I would say that there is no violation by either you or Collectonian, at least not at this point. But I'm not an administrator and the administrator who does review this case by view your reverting of the prod tags as part of a 3RR violation. --Farix (Talk) 15:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice she claims I am following her around. I check the [deletion sorting project for Anime and manga] and found it there. I seldom see her elsewhere. Libstar, my previous edits involved deproding the article, and remove the word "are" which was added out of place. She is accusing me of bad faith, once again. And I filed this before noticing the ridiculous 3rr message she left on my talk page(I had already mentioned it was my third revert in the edit summary). The discussion for merge  had two against it, one for it, and one who didn't say definitely one way or the other.  That's why no one there merged it. There was no consensus.   D r e a m Focus  14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither editor has violated the letter of 3RR, as pointed out above. However, the article has had the tag now for six months without any action being taken, and since all the information in the article is unsourced and shows no evidence of notability, then a redirect is technically the correct action; anything that can be sourced and shown to be notable can always be merged over later on. However, the standard action after a deprod, especially one such as this which gives no policy-based reason for doing so, should be to take the article to AfD. I have protected the article for three days in order to let discussion on the talkpage take place. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, given that you called Dream Focus "clueless" among other things on your talk page, I strongly urge you to recuse from closing such a thread started by him for the same reason why in the off chance I was an admin (no, I am not going to try any time soon) I would not close one started by anyone I ever publicly criticized. Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have closed a thread resulting in DF being blocked. However, this one was fairly clear-cut and uncontroversial. There is no violation, by either party. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Black Kite, you kept anyone from reverting the redirect back to how the article was. Seems like it should've been locked at the previous version.  If the information is useless, then it should go to a AFD and consensus form there.  That's why AFD exist.  By going around the AFD process, by destroying an article you decide shouldn't be there for whatever reason, even if others clearly disagree, and putting a redirect there instead, is wrong.  Why bother ever nominating things for AFD at all, when you can get rid of them by doing this tactic instead?   D r e a m Focus  19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was no AfD necessary? Because the article has not been deleted. I know you know this, it has been explained to you many, many, many times before. pablo <sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">hablo. 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ... which is what I said, no? Either take it to AfD or discuss it on the talkpage.  Endless revert wars are solving nothing. The fact that it's locked in this state for 3 days doesn't mean that it can't be un-redirected at any point if consensus is to do that. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gloriamerrier reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

. : Time reported: 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) 21:25, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * 1) 15:06, 11 June 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * 1) 15:17, 11 June 2009  (edit summary: "lnked refs to the article")


 * 1) 15:26, 11 June 2009  (edit summary: "")

Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the 3rr was not my intention. As the edit show a number of people have edited this page recently. I am not the only one who has done more than 3 edits. Someone placed the refs in the article without linking it and I did linked it. This editor who is reporting me destroyed wikification by removing the properly linked refs and reverted it back to the not so properly linked verison, that is what led to so many edits I had to restore the page.Gloriamerrier (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You were warned. After you were warned you placed vandalism notices on my page and that of another editor, although there was clearly no vandalism, which I think was probably a response to my warning. You weren't just wikifying, you were changing the content and references in a substantial fashion, and in fact broke one of the old references. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change any refs and the edit history shows that.I linked the refs that were added. I'm very sure if you wanted to know why I made the edit you would have at least try to talk to me about it 1st. A very large amout of information on that page was randomly removed yesterday by you and another editor (including refferenced information) that is changing the content and references in a substantial fashion, (not what I did). Also the Admin who intervened reverted the edits made back to the one that I DID on yesterday, however the person who made the edits provided references and thoese where the references that I LINKED. I guess the edit history will reveal what we all did. if you have reported me for "3rr: how is going around telling the other editor who along with you removed most of the information from the page is helping anything. I did not know wiki was just a game of tattle tell. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=295818592&oldid=295814185Gloriamerrier (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BehnamFarid reported by Patrickneil (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:44, June 11, 2009 Equilibrium007 (incumbant --> incumbent)


 * 1st revert: 13:51, June 10, 2009 "Restored external link."
 * 2nd revert: 09:04, June 11, 2009 "Restored external link. Object to the unilateral action by Patrickneil (who compares the video at issue with one about making "falafel"); words fail me to describe my astonishment at this level of ..."
 * 3rd revert: 12:00, June 11, 2009 "Corrected vandalism by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.100.5.135."
 * 4th revert: 12:09, June 11, 2009 "Rv. Your apology does not render your unreasonable action reasonable! Keep to the rules and settle the matter in the appropriate manner! I have asked User:Khoikhoi to look into the issue."


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:11, June 11, 2009 " please do not engage in edit wars, you've just passed three reverts"

The user persists in adding a series of YouTube videos to the article. Three editors, myself, User:Boud, and 128.100.5.135, have perceived them as being only tangentially related to the topic of the article, and have attempted to explain the problem on the talk page section without success. BehnamFarid has called other users prejudiced, attacked their credibility, and edited other users messages on the talk page. I am concerned that there may be a language barrier as part of the problem, but I don't know how else to explain Wikipedia's standards. This is not the first time this user has been cited for edit waring. With this election beginning in a matter of hours, emotions, and vandalism to the article, are understandably high.--Patrick «» 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h. No diffs for the talk page misdemeanours William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)