Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive101

Mr Taz reported by O Fenian (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is part of an ongoing campaign of nonsensical disruption involving making up things that do not exist, and has already seen him blocked for three days, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542. O Fenian (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was originally inclined to take a dimmer view of Fenian's 3 undiscussed reverts, but Mr Taz was clearly the one being disruptive. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but they were not undiscussed as such. If you see the archived ANI report I linked to there was a link to Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8, and also this has been discussed on Talk:British Day. There are no such days as the ones he keeps adding. O Fenian (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer reported by Nuggetboy (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I might've blocked NH for this, but since the block would've been 24h and the infraction happened 24h ago, well... Black Kite 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sperezlaw and sockpuppet Nj.sexy reported by Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User: as the sockpuppet of Sperezlaw.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Invitation to talk:

Refuses to discuss anything despite an invitation to do so. Currently user is edit warring with three users one of whom is an admin. Dr.K. logos 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also reported by 3RR bot: Dr.K. logos 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was ignoring everything else, so not really a choice here. Indeffed his sock,. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Deacon. The problem is they reverted to their preferred version which substantially deteriorates the article lead, but I don't want to revert any longer. Can you please advise as to what can be done? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard. JeffG took care of that. Thanks again. Dr.K. logos 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

NicoBolso reported by Miacek (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:

Tedious edit-warring by Nicobolso, as evident from the page history, pretty much of one against all battle (read:POV-pushing aka WP:TEDIOUS)

Repreatedly removing Peronism from the ideology position from the infobox, with no rationale at talk page apart from personal sentiments. I've presentd some scholarly links for him to read, to no avail.

Instead, the user has added cn-tagged social democracy into the infobox (a patently nonsensical move, repeated a number of times, ), and even Fascism with such edits. Well, this is close to vandalism.


 * a typical revert, similar ones: , etc.

Note that he has not broken the 3 RR rule, but such pointless edit warring /personal POV pushing /OR warrants some sanctions.

It seems other participants of the 'dipute' have long given up, since there's no point arguing with users who fail to produce a single academic source to support their sentiments. -- Miacek (t) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Update on June 12: and he's going on with his pov-pushing: . I'm more and more thinking that we have a disruption only account involved here ;-) -- Miacek  (t) 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update vol. 2. Still non-consensual destructive changes with absolutely zero scholarly basis for so abrupt moves:, . -- Miacek (t) 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by User:Verbal (Result: prot)
. : Time reported: 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 11:12, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "rv; no consensus to include non-relevant data")
 * 2) 19:05, 10 June 2009  (edit summary: "rv to last version by Anastrophe (removing non-related data better suited for Violence article)")
 * 3) 16:07, 11 June 2009  (edit summary: "restoring to version by Anastrophe, removing non-related data")
 * 4) 16:54, 11 June 2009  (edit summary: "rv; total homicide data is irrelevant to gun violence; rm irrelevant data")

— Verbal  chat  17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-06-11T16:54:18 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs | block) m (13,858 bytes) (Protected Gun violence: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)))) - dunno why; you'll have to take that up with T William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing reported by TownDown (Result: 48 hours for reporter)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Rule violation in articles South Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo‎, South America, Sudan, Mauritania, Egypt. Also the user used words like "that is all", "acknowledged", "inexplicable styles", or "encourage you to get feedback" to me.--TownDown How's it going? 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann reported by 129.10.104.191 (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

And the list goes on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

This editor felt the need to remove everything from the page but did not give a reason or provide a source. Another * User: who has had his edits reverted, left a message for this one to come and make all these edits because I guess he figure (admins do not have to apply by the rules so he can get an admin to go his dirty work. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=295818592&oldid=295814185
 * Those edits are not reverts... they include a page move and editing his own version of the article. Doesn't appear to be anything to these claims. DreamGuy (talk)
 * Reporter doesn't appear to grasp concept of "reverting". Black Kite 23:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:129.10.104.191 is User:Gloriamerrier:, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rhyging reported by User:MatthewVanitas (result: 24h)

 * Page
 * User


 * Previous versions reverted to:

After I cleaned up and copyedited the article, removing NPOV comments, purple prose ("avenging angel", "unstoppable", etc), this user continues to revert WP-standard formatting and edits, with the third revert from an IP address. This is apparently his pet article (same as his username) and he's refusing to learn or follow WP conventions for tone, NPOV, format, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Cr*p report, BTW. Use the form William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Britneysaints reported by Ed Fitzgerald (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User:Britneysaints removed an image from the article Louise Brooks multiple times, citing an IfD discussion from December, the actual result of which was to keep the image. While one participant did express the opinion that the image should be removed from this article - that was not, however, the verdict of the closing admin. This was pointed out to Britneysaints in edit summaries, and in a talk page comment, which he was asked to discuss, but instead he reverted again. Britneysaints has a history of not discussing his edits and deleting comments from his talk page with dismissive and borderline-NPA edit summaries (see ,,, for example). Britneysaints is well aware of the 3RR rules, having been blocked once for edit-warring, and warned about it numerous times - but Britneysaints is apparently "not afraid of sanctions". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

24h. I believe that it is possible to interpret the references to IFD as meaning "I repeat my opinions there", but Bs should be joining you on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Gobananasman AND User:79.121.174.249 reported by User:79.97.105.2 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User: AND


 * Previous version reverted to: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_Group_(Marketing)&oldid=295956200


 * 1st revert: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_Group_(Marketing)&direction=next&oldid=295956200
 * 2nd revert: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_Group_(Marketing)&direction=next&oldid=295956840
 * 3rd revert: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobra_Group_(Marketing)&oldid=295964419
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

79.97.105.2 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor report (hint: user names are case sensitive), and very low quality edit warring. But the missing 4th revert above should be a bit of a hint to you. All sides cautionned to avoid edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: more info)

 * Pages:, ,
 * User:


 * 1st [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&diff=prev&oldid=295958376
 * 2nd [ink]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&diff=prev&oldid=295961291]
 * 3rd [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&diff=prev&oldid=295963262
 * 4th [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supermarine_Spitfire_operational_history&diff=prev&oldid=295964373

User keeps lying on edit summary: "primary sources removed" he says, in each revision he removes Pric, spick and other secondary authors


 * 5th: on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 page: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109&diff=295957814&oldid=295957510, removes Prien and Rodeike

User has been blaocked 8 or 9 times, three times recently for 3RR. Dapi89 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot see four reverts anywhere. Copyrighted images used without permission from National Archives, Kew, UK linked from a website were removed once and then reverted 2 times, and also because the article draws conclusion from these primary sources regarding which an administrator noted that such sources cannot be used in articles to draw conclusions based on them.
 * A sentence referenced to Green/Price, but actually being a forbidden synthesis as neither sources state the conclusion drawn in the article, was removed once and then reverted once. This hardly violates the 3RR. The issue is currently under BRD process on the talk page of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pft. None of that's true. People are not blind. They can see for themselves. And there is a BRD on the article because of your revert warring. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that the reporting editor has been blocked several times for edit warring and personal attacks against my person, and it is also visible from his 'edits' on the linked article. His reporting only serves as an other mean to pursue this purpose. Kurfürst (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Nine blocks for you Kurfurst, 4 or 5 for personal attacks "and harrasment"- once indefintely - you had this reduced to a month on the promise of better behaviour - who do you think you're kidding. If you think you are going to deflect attention from your 3RR you are mistaken. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the indef block was issued by an administrator who was involved in a heated DRP, and was revised by another administrator who disagreed with his decision; the original admin then apologized for his error and admitted he was too involved. The version told by Dapi89 is simply made up, as are his other accusations. Please also note that Dapi89 publicly admitted to stalk me, and this is exactly what he is doing here. Kurfürst (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Stalking? This individual has tried to get a recently created article, the Battle of Belgium deleted. This is stalking, and just demonstrates the vicious nature of his "complaints". Nothing he says can be taken seriously. As for the B.S about this apology, he was unblocked by other editors on the understanding that if he made the same violations again, he would be blocked for good. This guy cannot be believed - about anything. If you think you are going to deflect attention from your 3RR you are mistaken. Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another 3RR violation from the past day:, , , (at Bombing of Wieluń). And here's an almost 3RR violation from the same period at Strategic bombing during World War II (4 revs in 25h):, , and. I support a long cooling down period for this and other types of disruption. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can count only three reverts, not a violation of 3RR, and take note that these are additions of referenced sources (it is the consensus version formed on the talk page) some Polish editors continue to remove but refuse to take part in any of the disccussions. Also take note that Piotrious is trying tries to use the admins noticeboard to 'win' instead of trying to discuss it on the said articles talk page. Take note that there is a strong evidence showing coordination between these three Polish editors. Kurfürst (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not polish. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said you are, I am making reference to the editors Piotrious edits strangely coincide all the time: Loosmark, Radeksz, Jacurek. And lets see what 'edits' by them were reverted: removal of cited statements from secondary sources, removed only because they were not anti-German enough, commented like 'removed the nonsense POV', 'per Loosmark's edit summary' (ie. nonsense POV), 'UNDID Kurfürst's POV version'. Great, constructive edits indeed. Kurfürst (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not clear why the first edit is a revert. Nonetheless all sides (but particularly K) cautionned to avoid edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson reported by User:Debresser (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user has asked me specifically not to post on his talk page in this diff.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

The user previously changed the text of this policy as he saw fit, in a way diverging from emerging consensus on the talk page. I polished the English and removed the controversial part. Now this user has reverted me three times. Please also notice that I left an extensive explanation on the talkpage, to which User:William Allen Simpson has not replied (so far). Debresser (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) In this diff another user seems to agree with me (reverting the last revert of William Allen Simpson) and telling him in the edit summary that he doesn't own this page. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I might add that I have brought it to the attention of William Allen Simpson at more than one occasion, that he is trying to own certain parts of Wikipedia. (see e.g. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive541 near the end. Apart from that he has recently received a 3rd level warning for incivility here. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Aervanath and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_10 for a start of editors getting worried about other things this editor is doing without any consensus whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Amusingly, apparently Debresser was also posting here while I was preparing the following entry. This was not here at the time that I began editing my entry. Note that Debresser does not claim 3RR was exceeded by me, and has no referencing supporting his claim that he has followed procedure.
 * Surely you've exceeded 3RR now, after reverting the whole package of improvements yet again? At least come to the talk page and discuss like we've been doing, instead of turning this into an unnecessary fight.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He has now added a 4th revert:. Isn't it a defiance of all rules to make another revert after he has already been posted here? I will not undo his revert now, since discussion is ongoing, but I'd appreciate any outside editor doing so. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Debresser and Kotniski reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: hopeless)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: before Kotniski, after Kotniski


 * Previous version reverted to: before Debresser

Tag team warring by two editors against myself.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

The first user, Kotniski, made a series of 4 changes to this policy page a week ago, without prior discussion; promptly reverted (revert; do not change English language conventions, do not change capitalizations, do not remove html comments documenting previous decisions, and do not make changes without discussion!)

The second user, Debresser, made a change contrary to long established policy (the 1st revert listed above), apparently after a few hours of notice on the Talk page. Other minor changes were included that mask the major reverts.

The principle (and repeated) edit is changing "shall" to "should", and removing entirely:

The current policy was recently confirmed by discussion at WP:CFD. That discussion was also given concurrent notice on the Talk page, and a discussion over several weeks.

Kotinski took the opportunity to revert to his 4 changes of a week ago, and then continued restoring Debresser's changes after Debresser hit 3RR.

NOTE: Debresser made a considerable number of changes to administrative category names without bringing them to WP:CFD, including those for WP:CFD itself, and brought a complaint here to WP:ANI when responsible administrators reverted his changes. He has taken a strong personal interest in circumventing the naming procedures. Removing shall is just one part of his effort.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is a policy page, that specifies: If you wish to propose a new or modified category-related naming convention, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), while also publicising the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, Requests for comment, and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages.

Changes are almost always the result of extensive discussion at WP:CFD, with all significant changes also cfdnotice as described above.

Editors proposing even trivial changes leave a notice on the Talk page, wait 2 weeks until the discussion is over and archived by the Bot, and then make the change. For example, the very responsible Vegaswikian


 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to calm down and join in the discussion on the talk page instead of wasting your efforts on reports like this. It simply isn't the case that every trivial change to a policy page needs two weeks' notice. Such changes are made all the time, and are highly desirable, particularly on pages as badly written as this one. Reverting obvious improvements just becase consensus wasn't explicitly gained beforehand wastes everyone's time and smacks of WP:OWNership.--Kotniski (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is not badly written. As noted above, do not change English language conventions, do not change capitalizations, do not remove html comments documenting previous decisions. Policy pages are not your playground.

In my defense: I am not a team with User:Kotniski. This can be verified by examination of our talkpages. I must admit I felt a certain gratification when User:Kotniski unexpectedly backed me up.

William Allen Simpson likes to answer to complaints by filing a countercomplaint which is usually dismissed as baseless. See e.g. Wikiquette_alerts/archive64 where I complained about him (resulting in him receiving a 3rd level warning for incivility), after which he complained about me (for which he was scolded and summarily dismissed). He has brought me and other editors who disagree with his edits to wp:ani more than once. Somebody needs to explain to this editor that he doesn't own Wikipedia and that he can't have it his way every time. Likewise that making accusations is not a way to settle a disagreement. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the point: the point is not who is right. The point is wp:3rr.

As not to the point: William Allen Simpson has been making up all kinds of rules lately, which he then adds without consensus to guidelines and calls policies, and then starts imposing on other editors. In his present arguments the attentive reader will discern a few of them. Neither do I understand why he claims (by implication) that only he knows English, wp:mos and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I for one have shown him recently that one of his assertations was based on a misunderstanding of the text (which I assume with growing effort to be in good faith). Debresser (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't report teams, only individual people. And contiguous edits count as one. And you've broken 3RR yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jacobkiper reported by User:Hippo43 (Result: Already Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

As far as I can tell, Jacobkiper is only really interested in this article, and one other (Pat Forde, which also concerns the Courier-Journal). IMO, the material he wants to add is not consistent with WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to this recent incident and this newspaper's involvement. In my zeal to stop this, I have also got a little over-excited here, and have probably broken 3RR myself. --hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mifter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mifter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by Falastine fee Qalby (talk) (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 02:11, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "Not personal and not POV. You can check the section on Egyptian identity if you want to understand why these people are NOT Arabs (Egyptian idntity)")
 * 2) 02:42, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "I made a change and I gave you what the reason is, if you don't like it you can discuss it, and yes Egyptian identity does preclude Arab one, and this is what Egyptian identity explains")
 * 3) 04:44, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "very funny, maybe you should read the article about Egyptian identity again, The overwhelming majority of Egyptians have nothing to do with Arabs, and neither do these 2 people")
 * 4) 05:07, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Population */ Here are the real Arabs")

—Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The last one is clearly NOT a reversion. I left one of the disputed photos and replaced the other with another photo. --Lanternix (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lanternix (talk) edits are against common consensus. I reverted his initial edit stating my reason (which was that an Egyptian identity didn't preclude an Arab one). Instead of him discussing the issue on the talk page, he undid my revert. I suggested taking it to the talk page but he wouldn't. Other users reverted his edits but to no avail. He just wouldn't discuss the matter. After he was warned for the 3RR violation, he went and did a new revert on the page. That's 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. Xevorim (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the last changes are not reverts but rather new changes to the page. You and FFQ are the ones who are simply reverting all edits, including those aimed at reaching a compromise. And you are the one asking for a discussion, and thus the burden of initiating this discussion falls on you not on me. If you begin a discussion on the talk page, I will surely respond there. --Lanternix (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lanternix is continuing his edit warring.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Falastine fee Qalby is continuing his edit warring. I am only trying to come up with some sort of compromise by finding photos of people who would unanimously qualify as Arabs, rather than disputed people. --Lanternix (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts


 * 1) 13:00, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 296156606 by Xevorim (talk) vandalism? really?")
 * 2) 15:41, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Population */ even better picture")
 * 3) 16:09, 13 June 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 296184330 by Falastine fee Qalby (talk) rv obvious disruption abd edit warring")

—Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not reverts. These are NEW photos being added to the article. Nice try though!

--Lanternix (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why would anyone argue that undoing another editor's action is not reverting... I think you know very well those are reverts. You even said "rv obvious disruption abd edit warring"!-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Undoing another editor's action is reversion. Adding new photos to an article is NOT reversion. Continuously reverting another editor's additions even when this editor tries to reach a compromise is disruption, edit warring and hounding. --Lanternix (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is right, maybe you should stop doing those actions. I don't understand what you don't get about the 3rr rule? I know you are not a fan of using the talk page, but you must use it to propose your "compromise". It is the the most civil, easiest way to have your opinion counted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering the exact same thing about you. As for the talk page, it's certainly the most civil place to discuss matters. Maybe you should consider using it to explain your edit warring on Arab. --Lanternix (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

48h, obvious 3RR. If L is uncertain as to what constitutes a WP:REVERT, I advise him to err on the side of caution, ask an experienced admin, or better still prefer talk page discussion to resolve issues William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nurefsan reported by Arnoutf (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Note since that time incremental constructive edits were made by user:Dawud


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:
 * 17th revert:
 * 18th revert:

This is a rather complex case, where the article has been plagued by this same, highly POV version, filled with unreliable (propaganda) sources for almost a year. Most editors inserting the materials have been recognised and blocked as sockpuppets of Philscirel.

The current (new) editor, Nurefsan, most likely (in my opinion) is a Philscirel sock and has been reported as such on June 9th. However, no response is provided by the sockpuppet clerks, and the editor continues disruptive editing.

I have been reverting quite frequently, myself; but in the light of the articles history I think I am entitled to; in the light of the history of the article and its problems with sockpuppetry of this exact same type in combination with the history of Nurefsans contributions.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * My edits may seem edit warring in themself. However, on this specific page there has been an identical pattern of reinserting the exactly same old, highly biased version filled with unreliable sources has occurred before on this page. This has been done by sockpuppets of Philscirel for about a year. Nurefsan (as a new editor) chose as first ever edit to reinsert the last edit of a subsequently blocked Philscirel sockpuppet . Why would a new editor be familiar with a months old edit?
 * Editor Nurefsan has been reported as suspected sockpuppet June 9th, however that proces is very slow and has not yet yielded a conclusion 
 * Several efforts by me to start a dialogue have been made to no response on Nurefsans talk page 2 sucesive entries before filed as sockpuppet and the article talk page (4 entries). As of yet only one response (today) where Nurefsan takes the position that he is willing to cooperate, if only we take his version as the starting point for future edits see here. Arnoutf (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * - That said all parties should be aware that any further edits will result in a block. I encourage everyone to continue to discuss things on the articles talk page instead of reverting. Tiptoety  talk 04:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnoutf reported by Nurefsan (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Please see the edits from: to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

There have been 19 reverts by the user.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Response by accused party: See case above; only after I notified Nurefsan that I had opened this case, was this case filed against me (seems a bit like an effort for a suicide bomb - so I go out, so does my enemy). Yes, I have made many reverts (of which I am not proud, see rationale in case Nurefsan reported by Arnoutf). I did not make 19 though. Other editors (in good standing, with long histories without block log) also reverted these edits. Arnoutf (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Letmroll reported by HarlandQPitt (Result: )

 * Page:.
 * User:


 * Revision reverted to: [ 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 1st revert: [ 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 2nd revert: [ 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 3rd revert: [ 04:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 4th revert: [ 04:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 5th revert: [ 05:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 6th revert: [ 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 7th revert: [ 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 8th revert: [ 05:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 9th revert: [ 05:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 10th revert: [ 05:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * 11th revert: [ 05:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]

HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Arcayne appears to have WP:OWN and WP:POINT issues with this article - it's not quite a 3RR issue, as he's very careful to run right up the limits of the guidelines - as has occurred in other instances, he refuses to accept any interpretation but his own on this article. After removing info he disagreed with (but found in the film), he refused to see reason. When another editor finally supplied a reliable source, Arcayne decided to just remove the information, even though other editors obviously disagreed. Now, he appears to be blindly reverting my contributions to the article, many of which have nothing to do with the original point. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Arcayne continues to edit war on the article. Warned now, as he is at 3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mike is more than a little confused here. He seems to think that counting all the recent edits - regardless of the 24 hour period period - counts. Were that the case, Mike's had a few confrontational, edit-warring edits of his own (1, 2, 2, 3, 4). While my edits serve to improve the article, removing bad grammar, bloat, etc. Mike seems to be simply reverting all of his edits in. He's been asked to use the discussion page, and he has avoided that, except to take WP:POINTY jabs at me, and tossing disruptive template warnings onto user talk pages, and edit-warring with another user over that, as well. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arcayne's grasp of "truth" is tenuous. I added all the previous edits to show that this a pattern covering several days, and that he appears to be gaming the system in regards to 3RR. He's certainly fixated on one particular version of the article, and will stop at nothing to get it. His first diff was my initial contribution - technically a revert, but not part of a war. The second and third diffs are unrelated edits, not having anything to do with the subject of discussion. Fourth is a revert, and the firth is a fix to restore some copyedits Arcayne made that I agree with. So if you want to get technical, there's really only one revert between us, discounting the first edit I made. His edits today have removed every contribution I made today, out of what appears to me to be spite. I fairly warned him about his 3RR status, so that's hardly disruptive. I haven't engaged in any other edit wars, so that claim is false as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually mike, your grasp of what is truth, is tenuous, not his, as, in regards to the version stated to be reverted to, the first revert is unrelated, as is #3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.


 * Really, the reverts should be grouped together as they are together, not as the same material, which you make it out to be, when it isn't:
 * First Group:
 * First:
 * Second:
 * Third:
 * Second Group:
 * First:
 * Second:
 * Third Group:
 * First:
 * Second:
 * First(slight deviation in edits):
 * Second:
 * So far, the only spite appears to be coming from your end, Mike.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[chit-chat removed]

No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Storm Rider reported by DoyleCB (Result: )

 * Page: West Ridge Academy
 * User: user:Storm Rider


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In addition to engaging in an edit war, Storm Rider appears to have WP:OWN and WP:POINT issues with this article - it's not quite a 3RR issue, as he's very careful to run right up the limits of the guidelines - as has occurred in other instances, he refuses to accept any interpretation but his own on this article. After removing info he disagreed with (but is still referenced and citable), he refused to compromise with those who he is personally attacking on the talk page. When another editor finally supplied a reliable source, Storm Rider decided to just remove the information because he found it to be irrelevant. Now, he appears to be blindly reverting my contributions to the article, many of which have nothing to do with the original point. Storm Rider admittedly does not like when editors try to point to a Mormon connection with West Ridge Academy, something all of his reverts and edits have reflected. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs (like this), not oldids. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB reported by User:Storm Rider (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1) 1st revert: 01:21, 13 June 2009
 * 2) 2nd revert: 10:58, 13 June 2009
 * 3) 3rd revert: 14:15, 13 June 2009
 * 4) 4th revert: 14:57, 13 June 2009
 * 5) 5th revert: 15:01, 13 June 2009

In addition, when this User was warned, they responded by placing warnings on my user page:
 * 1) 14:17, 13 June 2009 First warning abuse
 * 2) 14:26, 13 June 200 Second warning abuse
 * 3) 14:34, 13 June 2009 Third abuse
 * 4) 15:02, 13 June 2009 Fourth abuse


 * Diff of 3RR warning: first warning
 * Diff of 3RR warning: second warning
 * Diff of 3RR warning: third warning

This behavior is perceived as harassement. As you review the archive of the article talk page and the edit history, it is evident that this editor ignores all efforts at consensus building and/or discussion. I have enrolled other editors to assist, but nothing stops this editor from disrupting the effort to achieve consensus. --Storm Rider  03:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Norw73 and Mariomassone reported by LeaveSleaves (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * User: ,

For Norw73
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: and numerous others

For Mariomassone
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: and numerous others

Mariomassone reported the issue at help desk, but did not stop the edit war.

I have warned both the users, but they are way past 3RR anyway. Leave  Sleaves  12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: ,

Impressive high-speed edit warring. 24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Berean Hunter reported by User:R4Rvolunteer (Result: reporter warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is the text in dispute: ''' In 1987, Allen Collins met Bill Massey, Jr., and together they co-founded Roll For Rock in loving memory of Ronnie Van Zant. Both young men had been paralyzed in the prime of their lives, and they wanted to help other people. Roll For Rock hosts benefit concerts and wheelchair sports events to raise awareness about spinal cord injury and to provide opportunities to those facing physical challenges. Roll For Rock also participates in medical research that is seeking a cure for spinal cord injury. Allen's dream was to use music as a way to educate all people about ways to flourish in life despite a physical challenge.[6]'''

This is factual information, it tells the world that Allen Collins was more than a drug fuelled degenerate, that he actually tried to right some wrongs before he died. Barean Hunter is accusing me of promoting, spamming, and using popups, I am doing NONE of those things. I simply want the facts on Allen's page and he has reverted my edit more than 12 times in 24 hours! Thank you very much for your help

R4RvolunteerR4Rvolunteer (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks to me as though you are being reverted by multiple established editors. Please be warned that you risk being blocked; indeed you probably would have been if you we're so new. Please discuss this on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis reported by jd2718 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: This is user:Xenovatis' own version of January 12, 2009.


 * 1st revert: 14 June, 11:58 (marked as "restore")
 * 2nd revert: 14 June, 14:20 (marked "rv")
 * 3rd revert: 14 June, 16:28 (marked "don't remove WP:RS", restoring "Kanto" ref and phrase "of centuries or milleninia...")
 * 4th revert: 14 June, 16:48 (marked "added back WP:RS", restoring the same ref and phrase, while adding other mateiral)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is the first time I have encountered this editor, but he seems to have a significant history of skillful edit warring. In preparation for this report, I reviewed his recent contributions. Earlier today he added nice bit of turkish folklore an image of questionable sourceing, which he himself uploaded, of severed heads into Turkish Armed Forces, then edit warred, with inaccurate and insulting summaries (rvt mindless vandal, rv turkvandal, next time you will be reported and banned, to keep it there. I suspect I may be at the wrong noticeboard. Is there a better place to report this sort of edit warrior? Jd2718 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Js21658 did on several occasions remove WP:RS from the article in question. He then attempted to divert attention from this behavior by engaging me on a completely different article in which he was not hitherto involved and which he only accesed through shifting my contribution file after he began his edit war against my contributions to the article in question. Further editor Jd2782 did not warn me, as of this writting of his report.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: added time stamps and descriptions of reverts to above report. Confirming 3RR vio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not a violation of 3rr since it was (1) not a revert but only a partial edit of only a part of the article, (2) it was the readdition of WP:RS removed from the article in clear violation of WP policy. Can't say I am surprised to see FP here though.Xenovatis (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jd2718 and Xenovatis got into a dispute here but then Jd2718 brings it here instead of continuting the edit war. Xenovatis argues it is not 3RR; whether or not it is, he continued the edit war rather than trying to solve it; to the point of claiming it wasn't edit war/3RR. Users need to keep in mind that a lead is summary and hence if well written will need few if any refs and details. Refs and details go in the body. Result: 24 hour block on Xenovatis for edit warring.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mets0907 reported by Darth Mike (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user seems to only exist to place this image in the article. The user has been blocked for this behavior before:. The user refuses to discuss the changes with either edit summaries or talk pages. I have specifically asked the user to explain why they continually edit war and they are completely non-responsive. This is why I am reporting this before an actual three revert violation, but there is no doubt that the user will continually revert anyone who challenges them. The image in question is also a copyright violation and has been deleted a few times from commons already (and currently tagged for deletion by myself).--  Darth Mike (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing, 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 3RR violation on The Sergeants affair, reported by User:Mashkin

 * Page: The Sergeants affair
 * User:


 * Disputed sentence: has been changing "an attack of an Arab bus" to "a failed attempt to destroy a bus carrying Arab civilians"


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

Mashkin (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning and request to revert that was ignored:

Shell  babelfish 01:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43 reported by Wrestlinglover (Result:Page protection )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Alright, I did not place the diffs of reverts above because there are so many of them. Almost every edit by this user has been to undo my edit or remove something I had just placed in. I started a discussion with this user on his talk page at User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/June. Also another discussion is under way at Talk:TNA X Division Championship. With this article being under a FAC review and was under a GA review. I would rather discuss all edits instead of being bold since this user clearly was not familiar with professional wrestling. Seeing as several edits done by this user violated the jargon, fiction, etc polocies. To not cause an edit war or problems. This user insisted to not just discuss and instead continued to edit after all messages in which I asked him to stop. I have notified the project which the article belongs to about this problem at WT:PW. Maybe not in the correct matter I notified them, since my message was I guess too personnel, which was not my intention, I was in a hurry. Anyway, each time he stated certain guidelines allowed him to continue editing and not notify anyone of edits. Which he is correct about. But with controversial material he should quit after starting an edit war. I have also been involved in this edit war and if I have to be blocked as well. Then so be it. I am guilty. Also, the seeming edit war between myself and my friend user Bullet. That has been taken care of. He and I have come to an agreement on MNS to include the usage of world in the article. He is in the process of writing the sentences in a neutral matter while I'm in the process of finding extra references. For the entire edit war, please look through the history of the championship article here: . Also, some of my messages may violate WP:Civil]]. I've been in a bad mood recently and have taken it out on the wrong people. Hopefully that doesn't effect the decision much. I hardly ever mean to be uncivil.-- Will C  23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion between us started here - NORN. My only motive since then has been to remove a few cases of unreferenced commentary and original research. In our discussions, Will has been consistently patronising, though not really offensive. He has clearly put much work into this article, but seems to have ownership issues with it. He has asked me several times to seek his approval before making changes, which I'm not prepared to do. I don't really see it as an edit war - the discussion at the article talk page has been quite constructive As I've said elsewhere, if he can supply references for his statements I have no problem with the material in principle. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell  babelfish 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given references multiple times but he does not either believe they are reliable, they are true, or wants more information than is possible to give so he removes them, and that is when I ask for him to ask someone who is knowledgeable in the field first i.e. me, the person who expanded the article from almost nothing. Whether the belt is a world title. Multiples titles do not have world in their name but are considered world championships. The belt is a prop and there is no higher power within wrestling, so the promotion gives world status. It has to only be called world championship once to be a world championship. It has also been defended world wide numerous times so it isn't like it isn't true. I have given an offline source for the first statement and if I knew of more statements I would also source them. A reliable ref directly to the company but he doesn't believe that is enough so he continues to remove it and the reference with it. As for the discussion he directed too, may I remind everyone that there was no consensus reached there that section was OR. Another article passed its GA review based on the same subject. I also opened a section at WT:PW that talked about that section and all users who involved themselves in it agreed it was not OR. I do not have ownership issues. I have issues that lead to the article having to fail its FAC review because the above user would not discuss all his problems, instead removed them continual and caused the stability to fail the criteria. That is why I seem a bit patronising. Two months of work on an article which lead to it having to wait two months for a GA review, then having your writting criticized. Afterwards having the article to fail a FAC on something you could not control, you would probably be as well. Though that was no reason for me to not remain civil I admit. Also none of the discussions have lead to anything good IMO.-- Will C  01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit war has now moved onto the List of TNA X Division Champions article. No dispute resolution is done. Just constance reverts by myself and Hippo. Best to just block us both and protect both articles now. This isn't going to end I fear.-- Will C  03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have both been  Tiptoety  talk 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dario D. reported by Atama (Result:)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I hesitate to fill out this report but I think at this point it's best. This behavior has taken place during a content dispute at iPhone, where Dario D. feels that it's necessary to insert a criticism section into the article. That discussion is currently taking place on the talk page, but in the midst of this discussion the editor inserted his criticisms into the article. There is actually no objection to his entire edit, but the placement of the criticisms and the inclusion of a Moconews reference has been questioned. So far he has reverted the changes made by 3 different editors to his writing. As I write this he has not yet reverted the last change made but he has still continued to be antagonistic.

On the iPhone talk page Dario D. has shown aggressive behavior. He has called people who disagree with him "deliberately ill-natured" and despite the fact that a discussion was ongoing, stated early on that he was "going to put the IPhone crits back up once I've worked on them more, and added important things" with the explanation that he was "making the changes because I'm plenty convinced enough that your side of the argument has ALL of the explaining to do".

When I left the 3RR warning on his page, stating that at the time I wasn't planning on reporting him to this board, and asking him just to not edit-war while we were still trying to come to an agreement about the content, he replied on my talk page stating that they were "the most biased actions I've seen on Wikipedia to date". Indeed I didn't want to notify this board to avoid the appearance that I was trying to "shut up" someone who was disagreeing with me, and didn't want my actions to be seen as biased. I replied to him on his page trying to explain why I left the warning and again expressing my desire to come to an understanding. His response was to call my words "BS" and to challenge me to report him. He furthermore accused the iPhone (and iPod Touch) article of being an "Apple investor hangout" and saying that everyone who disagreed with him was "ruthlessly hawking this article since at LEAST early 2008". He went on to accuse another person who disagreed with him as getting involved as "retaliation for making you look like an absolute moron on IRC".

I'd rather just get this matter settled but this edit-warring is getting in the way, and frankly so are the accusations laid against anyone who disagrees with Dario D. I'm no longer convinced that an amicable agreement can be reached here. --  At am a chat 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would refute these points, except that I actually think all of my quotes here help make the case that I have a LOT of valid things to say about every aspect of this. I'm absolutely certain that any administrator here who looks into the dispute will side with me (not talking about the 3RR thing. I've never even heard of that). That's why I encouraged Atama to file this complaint in the first place; because the most frustrating part of all of this has been trying to get unbiased outside opinions, from people who don't hawk the IPhone/IPod Touch articles. I filed for ThirdOpinion, and RequestForComment, and got 1 neutral POV, and one person who commented on something else, then left. - As for 3RR, I've never known about a revert-limit, except that I was/am/and-will-continue-to-be convinced that my reverts were justified, because someone axed what I wrote without any kind of solid explanation, and I had one... and then they STILL tried to pretend that *I* had the burden of proof.-- [ Dario D. ]  20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * H2H has 4 clear reverts. D has 3 today but one well past 24h. He is nonetheless cautionned to read and understand WP:3RR; none of the defence above is valid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intent to get H2H blocked for 3RR, though I suppose that going by the letter of the rules I understand why you did it. However, I'm confused; does Dario D.'s behavior not clearly show uncivil behavior and an unwillingness to compromise as outlined on WP:3RR? My understanding is that the Administrators' noticeboard wasn't supposed to simply count reverts like a scoreboard, but to help prevent disruptive editing in content disputes. Either way of course I accept whatever decision you make. --  At am a chat 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the issues I have with Dario... I've dealt with the likes him several times through the years I've edited Wikipedia. And all of them can easily be summarized the following way: One-issue advocate. Doesn't have a deep history of editing on either the subject matter at-hand or in any articles that are part of the related WikiProject itself. Will grasp words like "discouraged" and will kick it up a few notches in order to mean something much more extreme, and work to the advantage of his cause. Will attempt to change the policies and idealogy so that they work in his favor, rather than to work under the guidelines and the spirit of the WikiProject. Will take WP:BOLD to the extreme level, and not work within the WikiProject. And, is usually screwed somehow by either the product or company, which is why he is so passionate about the issue. Earlier, we had one editor who wanted to re-define what a camera phone was, just so that the iPhone can be left out. I believe Dario either purchased the iPod touch, or know of someone close to him who did, and later found out first-hand his problem with the battery. I think he's treating Wikipedia as a soap box, which BTW WP:NOT does not allow.


 * Even if Dario was right, his people skills deserves an "F-minus". I cannot believe that he claims to be a web page designer, because the content design concepts he keeps spewing out are totally wrong. He's basically treating Wikipedia articles like a tabloid web page he wants people to read and get out within just a few seconds; bring up the web page, read only the bad things about a product, and then walk away without actually understanding anything else about the product. As he claims that an article about a product should be different, let me remind everyone that even Consumer Reports does not write in the style he's pushing - and I'm a subscriber to that publication.


 * The type of people who come to a web site looking for the bad stuff are those who have an agenda, such as an extreme right-winger looking at the Barack Obama article for only the negative stuff, or an Apple fanboy looking at a Microsoft Windows article and walk away thinking only about the security flaws. The spirit behind WP:CRIT is not to allow Wikipedia become a propaganda piece. Wikipedia does not exist in order to feed these kinds of people. The many blogs Dario keeps citing - those are the places people will go to read the criticisms about a product - NOT Wikipedia. Let the blogs spread the propaganda, and leave Wikipedia out of it.


 * As long as he keeps incorrectly believing how people read and use Wikipedia articles, this problem will not be solved. I feel this one issue is the butt of the problem. [[Image:Groink-bowling.svg|25px]] groink 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I just got unblocked (by expiration). I would like to point out that William M. Connolley wikilawyered 3RR: I had only reverted Dario twice, but was blocked for unrelated, non-edit warring reverts of unhelpful anonymous edits. (And just after I had un-semied the page, too!). I argued that I had not broken the spirit of 3RR, and they said, "too bad, you edit warred anyway". Which would be fine - Atama suggested 1RR - except the blocking was inconsistent. Dario reverted three' times, but was he blocked? No. I was not blocked for edit warring, as 3RR is meant to do, I was blocked for being helpful: . I would like to know where I went wrong (i.e., more than unblocked Dario). HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * they said, "too bad, you edit warred anyway" - no: I said what I say to anyone who asks: agree to stick to the rule in future and leave the article alone for your block and you can be unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did offer me that opertunity, which I chose not to take. My point was more basic: after exposing that I had not violated the spirit of 3RR, the block was not lifted as erroneous, so there must have been reason to keep it in place. Asking me to "stick to the rule in the future" implies that a rule was broken.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to throw in my two cents here as someone who has watched Dario D. and the situation with the iPhone article unfold. The aforementioned user seems to be the troublemaker here.  While absolutely having no other users agree that his agenda was appropriate or that his edits should be used in the article, Dario D. has refused to accept that he is clearly going against consensus.  HereToHelp has been doing nothing but enforcing that consensus (in conjunction with removing unrelated junk edits and vandalism from the article), and I fail to see how his actions have warranted a block. Brian Reading (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think I found the problem. We used the wrong noticeboard to report this problem. The issue we have is NOT an edit war. The issue we have is a misunderstanding, on the part of Dario, of the policies and overall concept of Wikipedia. The 3RR business is just a byproduct of the misunderstanding. This is why WMC is only looking at this issue from a 3RR perspective. We should probably open an issue at WP:VILLAGE, and let the admins and others there tell Dario and the rest of us how articles should be structured. groink 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I take full responsibility for any mistakes made. I have never used the Administrators' noticeboard and I felt that Dario D. was in violation of everything being mentioned at WP:3RR. But as it looks like this was not the correct place to report this misbehavior I seem to have erred. Dario D. has not had any activity since this notification was posted and I can only hope that when he does become active he won't repeat what he has been doing. --  At am a chat 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

124.104.126.130 reported by Martinlc (Result:Blocked 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There was a temporary block imposed on 11 June but user has continued to revert.

The reason for others removing the user's content has been given on the article and user talk pages without response.

Martinlc (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No apparent communication to warnings; nothing but reverts from this IP. Appears to be non-portable so block is unlikely to have collateral damage.  Blocked for 1 week. Shell   babelfish 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

203.171.99.99 reported by Magnius (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Disputed sources have resulted in an edit war. Resolution regarding the sources has been sought at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and user was requested to cease editing until a consensus could be reached, however user proceeded to revert once more. I have to confess that there is a possibiliy that I have breached 3RR myself, so accept adminstrator action against me if deemed appropriate, however, in my defence I have ceased editing and sought resolution via noticeboards. magnius (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 13:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

74.97.136.225 reported by Sesu Prime (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: first edit


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The IP user reverted the removal of an image containing four separate video game box arts and an additional image (Pokémon Crystal box art) twice, then reverted the removal of the Pokémon Crystal box art twice more. The IP user was told in an edit summary, "that violates WP:NFC, if you want to contest this, take your issue to the talk page". IP user ignored the non-free content violation warning and the invitation to discuss the issue on the talk page. The IP user was asked twice more in edit summaries to discuss the issue on the talk page (, }. The IP user has yet to discuss this issue on any talk page and blatantly ignores Wikipedia's non-free content policies, a possible copyright violation. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)



User:Jar1945 User:Jar1945a reported by User:Mrdthree (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Ginsberg&oldid=132163493


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:

Basically keeps adding the unsourced sentence: Ginsberg left the organization when he felt that his point on freedom of speech in America had been made.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No single 3RR event occurred; edit war has taken place over years.
 * First attempt to discuss (no response):
 * Notify of edit war resolution to Jar1945:
 * Notify of edit war resolution to Jar1945a:

I worked to write a consensus paragraph with other editors: . first post to discussion: In my edit notes and on a note to the user on his discussion page I have tried to get him to engage in discussion. I requested a citation for his claims. Jar1945/Jar1945a refuses to take part in discussion and keeps adding the unsourced statement: "Ginsberg left the organization when he felt that his point on freedom of speech in America had been made." Jar1945 persists in making the claim despite contrary evidence from the cited source. Mrdthree (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest using dispute resolution. Shell  babelfish 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud reported by MuZemike (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Edit warring over the addition of poorly-sourced material from a Wikipedia mirror to Ochre. MuZemike 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See also the ANI discussion at

—Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have added she has warned me also, but unless I've miscounted, I'm not at 3RR, something I try to avoid. So I shall probably leave her latest bad edit there for a while. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And despite the fact that her talk page and mine make it clear she has been told several times she must not copy and paste from other articles without attribution (discussed at ANI recently also), she continues to do so which was lifted from History of religions. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cush reported by Lisa (Result: No violation)

 * First:
 * Second
 * Third

The comment on the second revert demanded that I produce a source. When I did, he reverted again anyway, calling the source "an interpretation". However, that source is given in Yam Suph, and is not an interpretation. Furthermore, the article in question is called Passage of the Red Sea. Given two possible translations, it stands to reason that the one which is consistent with the article should be used. -Lisa (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider discussing the issue instead of continuing the edit war. Shell  babelfish 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Amir mousavi reported by Kurdo777 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Despite several warnings from several users, this user continues edit-warring to add original research, unverifiable/poorly-sourced statements, and libel claims to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, in violation of [WP:BLP]. He has also violated WP:3rr several times over. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reddi reported by Yilloslime (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: now reverting removal POV tag


 * Block log indicates user should be well aware of restrictions on edit warring.

There's not a technical violation of the 3 revert rule here, we're looking at something like 5 or 6 reverts within about 2 days, BUT this user has a long history of warring as indicated by his block log, so think some action is warranted here. There is a strong consensus (5 editors by my count) against the changes that he alone is trying to force. Yilloslime T C  18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears to have stopped after the warning and is now discussing on talk. Leaving open for now and would suggest a lengthy block (based on block log) for any more reverting. Shell   babelfish 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheTennisObserver reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h each)

 * Article
 * User


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

Edit warring over the insertion of the text that Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player ever. This has been running for several days. Other editors' behavior is also poor but this is the first clear 3RR violation I spotted, there may be more. He posts explanations to the talk page but does not participate in discussion or seek consensus. Thatcher 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-06-09T20:01:58 Redvers (talk | contribs | block) m (70,333 bytes) (Changed protection level for &quot;Roger Federer&quot;: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) - wouldn't be my favoured solution; you may want to contact the protecting admin if you'd prefer blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His comment on ANI is to allow time to sort out the possible sock puppets. Hopefully someone will do that.  Ordinarily I would prefer to block the individual accounts as well. Thatcher 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read ANI, unprotected, blocked, and left a note to R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Zohair9034 reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h)

 * Article
 * User

Edit warring on Roger Federer with TheTennisObserver. Same diffs, just follow the history. Thatcher 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * by another admin. &lt;em style=&quot;font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC&quot;&gt;Nja&lt;/em&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;em style=&quot;font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4&quot;&gt;247&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unprot; block. See above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)    

NoFortunateSon reported by MastCell (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:39, 14 June 2009


 * 1st revert: 17:08, 15 June 2009
 * 2nd revert: 18:13, 15 June 2009
 * 3rd revert: 00:06, 16 June 2009
 * 4th revert: 02:13, 16 June 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:25, 15 June 2009

New account, promoting the use of water ionizers (subject of significant spamming in the past), rapidly violating 3RR despite numerous other editors objecting to the material in question on the talk page. Busily accusing everyone else of edit-warring (,, etc) while racking up his reverts. Numerous notes and warnings on User Talk:NoFortunateSon have gone unheeded. MastCell Talk 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:68.61.156.4 reported by Socrates2008 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 2009-06-16T08:23:01 Wangi (talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.61.156.4 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

98.194.124.102 reported by Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 72h)

 * Page:, and


 * User:

These are only today:


 * Stephan Rosti


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


 * Omar Sharif


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


 * Hala gorani


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

I and many others have given him the 3rr warning, he have removed them: He was blocked here by an administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=292355651&oldid=292340029

I have given him 5 edit warnings today and 1 yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.194.124.102&action=history

User 98.194.124.102 has removed my sources in the articles above and replaced them with no sourced material. I have provided references to everything while he keeps deleting them, on the Stephan Rosti I had a link from imdb showing he is Italian, he replaced it with a link to arabic wikipedia, as if this is some kind of source.

In the Hala Gorani article he removed that she is Syrian-American and he removed her Syrian roots in the biography section although I clearly stated to him that there was a reference where she said: "my roots are 100% Syrian" "I visit Syria frequently. I was there last month for work. I also went to my hometown of Aleppo and slept in my grandmother’s house. I love visiting Syria."

In the Omar Sharif article I had a source showing both his parents are Syrians, he removed that link and claimed that he might be Palestinian or Greek or Lebanese and had no source, instead he linked to a book on amazon.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 72h. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )
User:Faustian
 * 1st []
 * 2nd []
 * 3rd []

My placing a warning on Faustian talk page: []

An inappropriate warning placed on my page by User:Ward3001: []

User:Ward3001
 * 1st []

These two users are attempting to sensor content from Wikipedia: []

Excellent work has been done by User:Xeno to address this issue: []

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an extension of the dispute that I reviewed - I determined that consensus held the true inkblot image should be in the top of the article. Now it seems that some users want to add all the images to the article and Faustian/Ward (among others) are objecting (likely from an harm-prevention argument as has been used throughout the debate). I am recusing from action against individual users however I may elect to apply full protection if the edit war continues. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me address a lie made by Doc James: I made one revert. I have not edit warred. Doc James, on the other hand, added images without consensus, and then reverted their removal twice. I'll let an admin decide if that is edit warring. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody violated 3RR, Ward3001 had just the one revert, and if edit warring in general is being reported the list of people involved would be longer. Probably best for everyone to just walk away and discuss, with page protection if necessary, but as of yet no individual can be singled out as worse than others. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is now protected as there have been multiple parties in this edit war. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your "lie made by Doc James" I have only ever said you made one revert. So I am not sure were the lie part comes in?-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One revert does not constitute edit warring. Read policy. The lie is making an edit warring report when I did not edit war. If anyone edit warred, it was you. You made one edit without consensus, and then reverted twice. Ward3001 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Boksi reported by User:Bosonic_dressing (Result:No violation )
Diffs:
 * *
 * 
 * **
 * 
 * 

Notice of 3RR warning: (also see various edit comments and article talk page)

Comment This user continues to restore a prior map of the territory, in place of a map recently created/added by me to be consistent with other European locator maps (e.g., Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland). A discussion on the talk page is taking place, which I was not involved in initially, but there seems to be a consensus (or at least strong opinion) developing to somehow note Kosovo on the map; there has been no cited objection about the style of the map I recently added. Strictly speaking, one link provided (*) is not a revert and another (**) was a correction of a botched revert; nonetheless, this editor has reverted without any comment or edit summaries despite repeated warnings (see notice and my edit comments) It is also interesting to note that the perpetrator is Serbian, as a glance at their user page will reveal in prominence. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has since commented (on the article and my talk page); however, I believe this discussion will prove fruitless. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Work this out on talk. Shell  babelfish 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by DePiep (Result: No violation; all editors asked to use talk page)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

- Discussion on Talk was started soon after the second revert, some hours before the third. No or unexplitive editsummaries. -DePiep (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RE by reporter User:DePiep on this judgement:
 * : Although there appears to be a multilateral edit-war in progress, no one editor appears to be out front in terms of violating 3RR. GHcool is at 3 reverts. There appears to be at least some discussion on the talk page; I would strongly encourage that path. If the edit-warring continues, I'll protect the page and/or block specific editors who persist in edit-warring over this. MastCell Talk 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request an (admin-)review of this conclusion (A better way? Talk please).
 * The 3R:
 * 1st edit: "(cur) (prev) 00:55, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,686 bytes) (rv - The picture depicts the ad hominem appeal to emotion described in this article) (undo)"
 * 2nd edit: "(cur) (prev) 06:45, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,733 bytes) (rv - WP:CENSOR) (undo)"
 * 3rd edit: "(cur) (prev) 16:31, 16 June 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (15,935 bytes) (restored illustration of the fallacy) (undo)"

That's 3R by GHcool within 16 hrs. 3RR applicable. A block if we'd stop here.
 * "There appears to be at least some discussion on [talk]": No. I started the talk on this at 0800 hrs, after GHcool's 2nd revert. No move by any of the involved editors, deleters nor inserters. The discussion is on other subjects and sections (and going well, thank you).
 * "multilateral edit-war": I did not find this at WP:3RR as an argument or weighing factor, please explain.
 * WP:3RR does not point to this way of solving.
 * "all editors asked to [talk]" Well, inserters (I saw 2) did not Talk and did not write any serious editsummary. Deleters (I saw 2) did extensive editsummary or started talk. A 'please all cool down' is -- I don't know now. Offensive to constructive editors/not even/not in 3RR?
 * And, on personal motivations (not an argument): it takes a lot of energy to compose such a report (all the links, and probably a diff would be better than a link somewhere, but alas). It is not pleasant to read a rejection on, I'd say, new and vague grounds. This does not invite me to report a --to me-- clear cut and dried case again. Of course this is not an argument pro or con, but it supports this request to review this No Violence-judgement. -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur with MastCell. Users may be blocked for violating the 3-revert-rule or persistent edit-warring. I cannot find evidence of either by GHCool nor has any such evidence been presented. CIreland (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh?

first revert: "00:55, 16 June 2009 GHcool",

third revert: "16:31, 16 June 2009 GHcool" (see above and links). Inbetween: 15.36 hrs. WP:3RR says: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, (...)". Please explain: what do I not see? -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You arent seeing the more than three reverts. You have 3, not 4. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nableezy, at last. Feel fooled by this I-know-3-is-max-user. Might be beack here on the "persistent edit-warring"-entrance. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad taste. I discovered that Nableezy (admin above who answered clear and correctly) is also involved in multiple edits with both deleting editors in this topic. Makes me feel creepy: is there a following, an admin included? Why not an unrelated admin? -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Axamir reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * previous version: 15 June, 05:46
 * 1) 15 June, 20:00
 * 2) 15 June, 20:27
 * 3) 16 June, 19:45
 * 4) 16 June, 20:41

Stubborn nationist edit-warring to monopolise an article with a single national POV, denying even the existence of a notable territorial dispute. Long-term problem with this user, who has edit-warred on the same article for over a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

66.67.66.55 reported by 24.176.191.234 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:

First, I am not very good at all this. So I'm trying to give all the info needed. User has been warned repeatedly about 3RR violations in changing Lindsay Monroe to the uncited Lindsay Messer and the other vandalism in CSI: New York, List of CSI: NY characters, and possibly using other IP's in episode summaries and other CSI: NY character pages such as Danny Messer and Aiden Burn.

This has been reported, nothing has been done. If you check this user's history, I believe you will find they repeatedly violate 3RR and should be blocked, preferebly for more than 24 hours.

Thank you for your time. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48 hours for edit warring. This IP was blocked in May for vandalism and his talk page is full of warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: misc prot)

 * Page: and
 * User:


 * Oleg Prudius
 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No warning, but as his block log shows, he is well aware of 3RR (actually, considering how many times he has been blocked and still edit wars, perhaps he's not). He did also receive an edit warring warning yesterday

It's not clear cut vandalism, so it's a content dispute. Even when one assumes good faith, this user has violated 3RR on two seperate articles within 24 hours. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This report looks like someone trying to settle a grudge. Anyway, Seddon (talk | contribs | block) m (8,844 bytes) (Protected Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC))))  and I've semi'd the other William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Boatduty177177 reported by Nableezy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Introducing disputed terms and changing the meaning of a fully cited sentence without any discussion. I asked the user to take his concerns to the talkpage, both in edit summaries and his user talk page, editor just reverts again. Nableezy (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The user is now showing up reverting my edits with no explanation in a few different articles including Israeli West Bank barrier and Gaza War. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * three of his first four edits were reverting my sourced edits on three different pages. i smell a duck.  untwirl (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor has stopped and appears that the last edit was to finally use a talk page. If it starts up again, re-open or even drop me a note on my talk page. Shell   babelfish 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * is a new account; the first edit was on June 15th. It's clearly an experienced editor, though. I encountered them at Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League.   All edits involve edit controversies over Israel-related articles.  Possible sockpuppet/meatpuppet, but too early to say. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from shell's talk - but if he isn't around can someone else handle this?)
 * he is currently at 5 reverts in addition to those 4 (counting consecutive edits as one) on this page. please block.  untwirl (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't said anywhere that I was a new user. I used to edit a little on Wikipedia with my IP and I also used Wikipedia for information source for a while. Now I decided to join because I feel there are many users who are against the state of Israel who are forcing their opinion on this encyclopedia, that is supposedly neutral and fair. For example, the user untwirl that is reporting me for a 5th edit and that is wrong because the last one I was adding things not reverting, and in spite of him not having anything to do personally with me on the article, he is only supporting the other users who appear to be against the state of Israel. For example, this user untwirl is having an revert war on Hamas where he is trying to impose anti-Israeli point of view. So the way I see things is that those users not care about the good of this encyclopedia. They only care to support one another and drive away any other users who disagree with them, one by one. It is easy for me to stop editing on Wikipedia as Boatduty177177, but I can always go back to using different IP addresses. If this is the goal of all those users ganging up against me, please tell me. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is not an appropriate was to resolve differences - please see the ideas at dispute resolution. Shell   babelfish 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:doncram (Result: No violation)

 * Page: Various NRHP historic district articles in Connecticut


 * User:


 * Explanation: In 5-10 separate articles over several months, Polaron has edit warred to wipe out new articles I have created on NRHP-listed historic districts in Connecticut.  Some of these resolved okay eventually.

Recently I have had cause to create new articles on CT NRHP historic districts in this area, and to forestall edit warring, I opened explicit discussion about those cases centrally at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut.

On a similar matter of names for NRHP articles in CT, i had already opened discussion with Polaron at User talk:Polaron, in which I noted our disagreement in perspective and that I would try to create central discussion and call for others' input. I posted neutral notices calling wp:NRHP and wp:Connecticut editors to comment, and they have been commenting about both types of matters (names of CT NRHP articles, and articles for CT NRHP historic districts separate from articles about villages in which they may be included). Polaron has participated tersely in discussion, but has primarily or supplementarily acted by wiping out the separate articles and redirecting. In most or all recent cases, this is after I had opened and requested discussion at the central forum. He has repeated his edits after I reverted with explanations. I provide diffs for a number of Polaron's edit warring edits at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut

He has not explicitly reached 3RR limits, but in the context I believe his recent actions are clearly wp:disruptive and dismissive of the consensus process. Administrator comment at the central discussion area, and as you judge to be appropriate directly with Polaron, would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram is the only party that seems to be against my merges and continually reverts me. It takes two parties to edit war so whatever applies to me also applies to him. --Polaron | Talk 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result- No violation. It looks to me that Polaron's side of the debate may be winning more support at User talk:Polaron. All participants in that debate seem to be knowledgable and well-intentioned. Doncram, if you don't agree that Polaron's view has consensus, why not find an uninvolved person to close the discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was returning to note, before edit conflict here: I previously reasoned with Polaron at User talk:Polaron and Talk pages linked thereto.  I notice also some disputes about Polaron's edit behavior mentioned at User Talk:Polaron and User talk:Polaron and User talk:Polaron and User talk:Polaron and User talk:Polaron in no particular order.  In my recent effort to create a central discussion about CT NRHP issues, I was and am honestly trying to uncover good information for building the wikipedia.  I am getting frustrated with Polaron's ways, despite my best efforts.  This argument above, that his and my edits are equally warring, is annoying.
 * So, is that it, no action? I am not very familiar with process and practice here.  I think that at least some direction to Polaron should be given.  Please note, in the discussion at the CT NRHP talkpage, there are many separate open matters and I am open to them being settled in various ways.  It is fine with me if Polaron's original view prevails in a given case.  What i object to is Polaron's edit warring elsewhere that both undermines the discussion and is seeking to win by edit warring rather than discussion. doncram (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a very strong case for edit warring presented in this report. You need to give a lot of diffs, and show that the person has no intention of following consensus. Consider opening an RFC if you think no progress is being made in a particular case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The edit warring continues, with now this edit of the Georgetwon Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) article by Polaron
 * How many diffs do you need? Here is a set of diffs that I tried to include here by previous mention of discussion section (edited down somewhat from discussion:
 * For the Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) article, Polaron initially redirected in this first redirect, then repeated in this diff, then repeated today.
 * Also I noted that Polaron today edited to create Southport Historic District (Connecticut) as a competing similar name to redirect to his preferred target, apparently trying to get readers to bypass the Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut) article
 * For the Georgetown Historic District (Georgetown, Connecticut) Polaron, redirected to his preferred target, by this edit today. That in fact struck out the a merger proposal request that was supposedly under discussion.  Polaron's previous edits to remove this article are this reversion, and this reversion.
 * There is now, at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut, some comment by Orlady that she agrees there is edit warring, but, as I comment there, I think some differential evaluation by an administrator about who is playing by the rules and trying to build, would be warranted and helpful. doncram (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read Orlady's comment, at 02:44 on 17 June, it says that both of you are in an edit war and you *both* risk being sanctioned. This is a content dispute. You are an experienced editor and you know about WP:Dispute resolution. Open an WP:RFC and frame a specific question about one of the historic districts, for example Georgetown. Since Polaron has commented in this discussion, he should consider himself notified that he also risks sanctions if the two of you continue to revert without getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:89.242.184.16 reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:15, 16 June 2009


 * 1st revert: 11:18, 16 June 2009
 * 2nd revert: 13:32, 16 June 2009
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 16 June 2009
 * 4th revert: 20:55, 16 June 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: It is obvious from this edit summary that IP is aware of 3RR.


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * First two reverts are by IP, however according to 89.242.184.16's admission they are the same user. Also, two other users are concerned that this might be SPA , who uses dynamic IP to push for his preferred version. -- Vision  Thing -- 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm the IP against whom the complaint has been made, and I would make the following points.


 * I am not in breach of 3RR, because one of the diffs cited by Vision Thing above relates to a different section of text to the other three. I understand how 3RR works, and that whether there has been a technical breach is not the only thing to be considered, but I simply make the point.
 * There is an edit war scenario in the article. An admin (KrakatoaKatie) is aware and has said she will keep an eye on it.
 * Other editors involved, including me, have asked Vision Thing to explain and discuss his edits in talk, but he declines to do so. He did, a while ago, make some minor objections (which IMO do not justify deleting a whole paragraph of text). I indicated a willingness to compromise but he has not responded. I would suggest that the best thing for all concerned would be for Vision Thing to engage in the discussion on the talk page, and not just keep making unexplained or (IMO) poorly justified deletions of text.
 * A ban would affect users of a number of big UK-based ISPs.
 * I deny being an SPA, but would suggest in any case that that would be something to deal with separately.


 * Many thanks. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User behind this IP has been reverted by three editors in the last 24h: Mamalujo, Soxwon and me. Also user Collect disagrees with his version. -- Vision Thing -- 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. There are four genuine reverts here within a one-day period. I still advise User:Vision Thing to make more use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Profsherman reported by User:Paul H. (Result:31 hours)
There is an edit war going on at Robert Sarmast, where User:Profsherman deletes material documented by peer-reviewed research in sources that are footnoted as being "conjecture". He / she also insists on posting material that has been demonstrated to be completely false that either lacks any source at all or any credible source. The only citation that he lists is a 1975 article that has been completely and utterly discredited and refuted by literally several dozen peer-reviewed articles in the 34 years since it was published.Paul H. (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Profsherman's input at the article in question is entirely unsourced and is only editorial commentary and not encyclopedic content in any interpretation of that term.

Base:


 * 1st insert of editorial comment:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Warning to stop adding editorial content:

Warning of 3RR:

This user is clearly engaged in an edit war as the reverts are within seconds of removing the unscientific content. He/She is engaging in no discussion on the Talk page nor is there even the minimum justification in an edit summary. (Taivo (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I find it curious that User:Profsherman claims to be the source and owner of a figure,  that is officially part of Sarmast's "Discovery of Atlantis" web page and a very personal photograph of. Both suggest that he or she might be closely affiliated, i.e. Sarmast's personal staff, with Robert Sarmast in some manner and the edit war might be a direct result of a major conflict of interest concerning the Robert Sarmast article.Paul H. (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In reading Profsherman's edits they sound more like worshipful adoration than NPOV description. (Read the Biography section, which is entirely Profsherman's contribution, for a taste of the adoration.)  (Taivo (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Hopefully this editor will start responding on his talk page or the article's talk page - given what I've seen looking at the Difs, I'm not going to bet on a sudden change in behaviour. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help :) (Taivo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

User:SallyFord reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: diff preferred


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff (user then self-reverted and began nitpicking article)
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * 6th revert: diff


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link (on Honey in the Rock) and link (on Naruto Uzumaki)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

As noted in the the dispute attempt thread for larger issues. With the issue of Naruto, user added the OR statement that the character was Japanese. This was removed. She continued reverting multiple other editors, arguing that because she is color-blind, it needed specification (that he is blond is already in the article). At her third revert, she self-reverted then began finding new things to nitpick in the article, tagging the lead with a fact tag, then edit warring over its removal. Then edit warring over the spelling of blond/blonde. While she technically did no more than 3 specific reverts, as a whole, it is a clear pattern of edit warring that can also be seen in her activities on Anime Pulse and Honey in the Rock. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear why #1 is a revert. #2 is. #3, as you say, is self-reverted and hence irrelevant. Why is #4 a revert? #5 and #6 are reverts. You have found 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * # 1 is a reverting of the removal of her adding "with blond hair" she just didn't put back in "Japanese". #3 is only somewhat irrelevant as she only self-reverted because that value isn't supported by the template. #4 shows a continuing tendency to just edit war, by randomly adding fact tags to the lead after other editors continued removing the blond thing (a pattern shown in the other edits noted above). While she hasn't done 4 exact reverts, she has continued reverting repeatedly rather than discussing (despite the on-going on in the project), and basically descending to nitpicking when she was unable to get her way on having the lead state the character was Japanese and blond. Basically a pattern of edit warring behavior, also supported by the other two articles and the edits there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, she is continuing to act in an edit war manner. She changed a phrase in one part. Three editors have disagreed with her rewording, but she continues reverting rather than discussing. She also used a mildly uncivil edit summary during these edits, continues making accusations that the 5-6 editors who disagree with her are "power tripping" and leaving insults in edit summaries, making false claims about non-existent new policies (see thread), and some summaries seems to indicate she thinks this is all a fun game. In the discussion, she posted a Japanese phrase which had nothing to do with the discussion and consistently declines to sign her posts. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for Blood+. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 05:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:The C of E reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neither editors have made any attempt at discourse on the talk page

User:MusicInTheHouse is also involved in this edit war but has said they will stop after notice of 3 RR warning given but The C of E reverted after notification, thats why I have started with them. BigDunc Talk 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by User:Verbal (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:07, 15 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Homicides by country */ fixing table per RfC consensus on talk page") Reverting against RfC and consensus to pre-protection version
 * 2) 15:16, 15 June 2009  (edit summary: "fix the header before putting this column in; it is misleading to put it under "Intentional Firearm ..."  header") Second revert
 * 3) 16:30, 15 June 2009  (edit summary: "restoring RfC consensus version (see talk)") Third revert (warning placed)
 * 4) 16:59, 15 June 2009  (edit summary: "/* Association with Urban Areas */ identifying population density problem") Reverting tag removal
 * 5) 18:21, 15 June 2009  (edit summary: "adding tag (see talk page)") Reverting tag removal


 * Diff of warning: here

Also, series of personal attacks, accusations of "massive POV" editing, misrepresenting an RfC, and general WP:TE. — Verbal  chat  18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this user was previously reported here for breaking 3RR, but the page was then protected (See above). Verbal   chat  18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "1." was not a revert. It was formatting data, removing columnar data that the RfC consensus indicated should be removed, into a table format that did not ever exist previously, having been suggested during the RfC -- an RfC which I started, incidentally, to establish consensus. When the RfC consensus broke down, I tagged the sections as  to identify remaining problems.  Hence, "4." and "5." were likewise not reverts, the edits being simply used for identifying POV problems.  Hence, the lack of "Previous version reverted to" links in this "report", since most of these edits were not actually reverts.  User:Verbal is now continuing to disagree with RfC Consensus through wiki-stalking.   Yaf (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2, 3 and 5 are reverts. It isn't clear to me why 1 and 4 are William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my memory failed with 1. It isn't a revert, just unjustified page blanking. Verbal   chat  20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It therefore seems that this editor has been quite careful in going up to the limit twice (if not beyond on the first occasion) in recent days. I'd appreciate a note from a neutral party placed on their page, and a reminder that the second R in 3RR isn't "Right".  Verbal   chat  20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: I have plenty of experience with Yaf and involvement in 3RR sanctions, his and mine. There are megabytes of history to read, so I can save you some time by pointing to this explanation by Yaf on his talk page following his third block, that he views his revert warring technique as necessary to his POV battle on gun related articles, and that his being occasionally blocked for that revert warring is "collateral damage" in his gun advocacy work.  The point here being is that Yaf explains that he fully understands that "even one revert can be viewed as 'long term edit warring'" and that "Ultimately, it's all about preventing disruption".  The standard to consider here is 'long term edit warring' and whether there is a possibility to prevent further disruption.  I am not convinced that preventing disruption is possible with an editor like Yaf who feels that receiving the occasional 3RR block is simply nuisance "collateral damage" in a POV war because blocks for Yaf are not a disincentive.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear intention to edit war against consensus and despite ongoing dispute resolution that could be used. Shell  babelfish 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention to edit war, but instead my intention was/is to work towards an NPOV article. I never violated 3RR. Rather than work to reach consensus, Verbal lied about my edit #1, above, which clearly was not page blanking, but, rather, was per the the original consensus of the RfC that I had started and worked. Then, when this was retracted by Verbal, SaltyBoatr, long a POV warrior, even brought up ancient history from over a year ago that was unrelated to the present edits to try and admin shop until someone would block me. SaltyBoatr even awarded a "Bash YAF" award to Verbal here to encourage tag teaming editing to support his inclusion of article text that was not supported by a cite. The pertinent ongoing discussion was here. The lack of Admin understanding of the issue here is astounding, and shows a complete lack of respect for Wikipedia policy requiring editors to stick to the sources. I am deeply disappointed with the total contempt against Wikipedia goals that was shown here. Yaf (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps intention was the wrong word to use here - clearly you did edit war and as this is your fourth block for edit warring you can hardly claim to be unfamiliar with the concept. This is not about who was "right" but about discussion being the correct way to resolve your content differences. Shell   babelfish 04:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So, perhaps the block was unwarranted, too, as it was issued with "intention" being the basis for the block. OK. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the pertinent ongoing discussion here, discussion has proven itself incapable of resolving the issue, as honest dialogue from both parties was needed, but clearly did not occur. The earlier attempt at dispute resolution with SaltyBoatr resulted in a failed MedCom attempt, followed by an attempt at ArbCom, which was not granted cert, to address SaltyBoatr's inability to stick to the sources.  When one side fails to communicate in good faith, as demonstrated by SaltyBoatr in this discussion, which resulted in me being blocked for 48 hours, what recourse is there?  I was attempting to mark the problem with a POV tag, and to work the issue. Yet, you failed even to understand the issue.  Discussion ad nauseum, is not the way to resolve such issues.  ArbCom sanctions would address the issue.  It is worth noting that the 4 blocks for "edit warring" have all been with trying to keep this one editor to stick to the sources.  My 3rd block was for a single edit, not 2rr or 3rr, but 1rr.  This one was for trying to uphold Wikipedia to a higher standard, too, rather than to allow the same old editor to insert new article text that was not supported by the cite.  Discussions are good, but fail when one side fails to communicate honestly or in good faith, and does not stick to the sources.  I would rather be "right" than waste my time expending additional megabytes in discussions with this one editor who feigns to not understand what is being stated.  I wish that there was a notice board to use to report when an editor lies about what a cite says, to implement sanctions, after dialogues such as the one noted above, much as the 3RR noticeboard. (Incidentally, in case you don't know,  SaltyBoatr has multiple accounts.)  Yaf (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody gives you the right to revert whenever you are unhappy with the outcome of a discussion. There is a policy on WP:Dispute resolution. While your above complaint focuses on SaltyBoatr, there were at least three other participants in the discussion. If you find that the other editors don't agree with you, you could let that point go. Another possibility is to ask an uninvolved editor to judge the outcome of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

24.15.125.234 (Result: Already blocked)
edit warring on Recent African origin of modern humans, and Multiregional origin of modern humans Probably the same as recent blanking Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result- is already blocked by another admin. Multiregional origin of modern humans has been fully protected by Rodhullandemu. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Q102josh reported by User:Drmargi (Result: 24h each)
User:Q102josh has engaged in a series of edit wars at various ER-related pages, principally John Carter (ER), Luka Kovac, ER: Season 9 and now ER: Season 15. He refuses to seek consensus or acknowledge any requests he not revert edits and instead engage in discussion to reach consensus. His edit warring and failure to seek consensus have been discussed repeatedly on his talk page, but he rarely responds to posts there except to tell another editor how/why they are wrong with regard to his edits and/or behavior. User:Jerkov initially attempted to work with him; I entered the process when he began making petty edits to the Luka Kovac page. Part of the problem is his seeming belief that he knows all about ER and his lack of understanding of WP:OR as well as the consensus process. User:Arcayne has recently taken an interest, and we three agree his actions demand attention.

Recently Qjosh102 requested temporary protection for three pages: John Carter, ER (season 9) and ER: Season 8. We hoped the two-week protection period would bring the warring to a close. Instead, he used the time to find minor bits of dialogue he feels support his postion, all taken out of context, and resumed edit warring once the protection expired. He has now requested the indefinite protection from Luka Kovac be removed for the purpose of resuming an edit war to remove one word. Examination of the histories of these pages, and the lack of any participation in discussion on their corresponding discussion page or responses to posts on his own will make clear that his actions are as described, and that some sort of sanction is in order. Drmargi (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on John Carter appears to have begun here:
 * 

Throughout User: Jerkov attempts to get User:Q102josh to engage in consensus building, but gets no response. I joined the fray in an attempt to add another voice and get the war ended - I'm not even particularly interested in this character and had not done any meaningful editing to the page prior to this time. The war stops during the page protection, but Q102josh immediately resumes, ignoring warnings by three editors, as soon as protection is off. Some of the problem arises from Q102josh's not understanding how a medical resident becomes an attending physician. He assumes it's an automatic change in title (such as from intern to resident) rather than a job title that comes with a position for which a physician is hired.

Similarly, although not nearly as heated, the edit war on Luka Kovac begins here:
 * 

He began by removing one of the character's positions, then changing it from the correct term to one that is used as shorthand in dialogue. This is the basic problem here. He hears dialogue and assumes that's correct terminology. He also doesn't understand uses of titles and descriptors for many of these medical positions, and persists in removing Physician from the job title Attending Physician because he sees it as redundant with the character's job description, when what we have is two uses of the same word. IN both cases, it's small stuff that could easily be resolved with consensus building. Instead, he requested the page protection from this page be removed. it was denied once, so he requested it again and by luck-of-the-draw, got an admin who removed it, allowing him to resume another edit war.

Similar issues on the ER season pages:


 * Season 15:

He begins editing based on his perceptions of one actor's status on the show, long after consensus was reached on the main article page regarding the actor's status, necessitating this page be consistent with the main article.


 * Season 9:

This begins with his WP:OR description of Carter as "acting Chief Resident" something that never happened. By definition, a Chief Resident extends his/her residency in order to take the position and remains under the employment of the medical school. He cannot also be an attending physician, and in the story, we never hear any dialogue suggesting the character has ended his residency and been hired, just that he cannot get an attending postion. Again, here's a place where discussion and consensus building is the only route to solving the problem. User:Jerkov tries, repeatedly, to get him to do so, and as before, I enter the discussion as a means of adding a voice to press the issue.


 * Season 8: [

Again, WP:OR as Q102josh attempts to describe Carter as an attending during Season 8 based on no evidence. There is no foundation for this edit, and the character was not hired as an attending physician during the season. Q102josh's (erroneous) OR argument is that it's an automatic change of title and we're back to edit warring. As with the others, the only solution is consensus building, something in which he refuses to engage.

The persistent edits and lack of any willingness to work within the WP guidelines is pervasive across the diffs provided. Jerkov, I and and two impartial editors have tried to engage him in consensus building, including adding warnings to his talk page with no result. Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmargi has basically claimed ownership of all the ER pages. With regard to the John Carter page, until about a month ago there was a general consensus.  User:Jerkov initially started reverting the page and i only reverted back, but has since seems to have backed off.  User:Drmargi keeps reverting edits on multiple pages claiming he is right but offering no support other than his opinion.  With regard to the carter pages, the dialogue in the show itself proves his theory wrong but he obviously feels his opinion trumps the writers of the show and he continually reverts back despite all of the evidence that shows his opinion is wrong.  Additionally he engaged in an edit war with me on the Luka Kovac page over one word that would be redundant and inconsistent with all of the other character pages.  Examining the histories of these pages would show that a consensus was met before User:Drmargi started making edits.Q102josh (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt User:Q102josh sees it that way, and I could certainly make a comparable claim of ownership of him were I inclined to. I've never claimed anything, just attempted to add a voice requesting he stop warring and seek consensus.  Ownership of a page is easy to throw around but hard to prove which is why I chose not to make that assertion in his case.  As for consensus prior to his edits, nothing in the edit history suggests this is the case, and he has willfully ignored a significant number of requests he engage in consensus-building.  Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I imagine there must be some reason why Drmargi thinks she is immune from 3RR, but I've no diea what that reason might be. So you both get 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:78.3.245.128 reported by User:124.185.196.182 (Result: Semi)

 * 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:
 * 11th revert:

User insists on reverting to a POV version of the lead section. It's been explained to him why his edit is unconstructive on the talk page, and why his edit is also largely irrelevant (his main point seems to be "ethnic group" needs to be mentioned in the lead, and it already is). I've also broken 3RR myself, but I think my actions are not block worthy, since I was reverting POV vandalism, but if this isn't the case, then block me as well.

Regards, 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S, it seems another editor has become involved as well, but has not broken 3RR. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * P.P.S, other user has now reverted more than 3 times as well. The reported user has reverted 11 times now, with no signs of stopping, and has posted several racist/xenophobic personal attacks on user talk pages (though, written in a language other than English).124.185.196.182 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now noticed this report, and he has reset his IP, Its is now - he even responded on his previous talk page -. 124.185.196.182 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert: - User has now broken 3RR with his new IP address.
 * 17th revert:
 * 18th revert:
 * 19th revert:
 * 20th revert:
 * 21st revert:
 * 22nd revert:
 * 23rd revert:
 * 24th revert:
 * 25th revert:
 * 26th revert:
 * 27th revert:
 * 28th revert:
 * 29th revert:
 * Result - Semiprotected by User:Dekimasu. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ObiWan353 reported by User:PassionoftheDamon (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

USER:SOPHIAN reported by User:Wapondaponda (Result: 48h)

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


 * Warnings
 * 1)
 * 2)

Other Moved Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe to Recent North African and Near eastern Admixture in Europe Somewhat absurd behavior, the user has requested for adminship after only 40 edits Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN and solicited support. The user also used the move feature to change user name. In just one day the user has been welcoming over 100 new users with the five pillars. Ok, that may be courtesy, but the user says he is trying to become famous or popular. I admit that I have edit warred with the user, but the behavior is just too absurd to take very seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48 hours for edit warring. Wapondaponda also made a large number of reverts, if it were not for the rather eccentric behavior of SOPHIAN, they would also have been sanctioned. In future, you should report at once and leave the article temporarily in a bad state if necessary. SOPHIAN is very close to a block for disruptive editing, so I'm looking forward to their speedy reform. They can put off their application for adminship for a little longer. SOPHIAN does not seem to be a brand-new editor. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wapondaponda reported by USER:SOPHIAN (Result: No action, see other report)
Would not stop reverting edits (Broke the 3RR ). 23:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Infact he went beyond that see how many reverts he did at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wapondaponda he even used popups at times sometime that I did not do SOPHIAN (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Result- No action, see report above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Discedit reported by Omar Rodriguez(Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&diff=295652883&oldid=295624911 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&action=history

Guy keeps reverting the page, mainly the tracklist. Now the tracklist layout I have chosen seems to be widely used on wikipedia and I think more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. With the grey and white lines instead of just being blank. Also put song lengths on for the songs that are available. But this guy keep reverting it. The layout should stay, and I don't see a problem with the track lengths staying because that is how long they are. I don't know why this guy has some problem with that.

Tried asking why and disputing it with him but got no response. So?
 * Result- No edits by Discedit since 12 June, so there is no continuing edit war. Resubmit, with a link to this report, if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 4th revert:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 5th revert:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 6th revert:

Note: Page history is complex and confusing, as Yamanote and Shitamachi were separate articles that were history-merged today. Of the above, reverts #1-3 were done on Yamanote, #4 on Shitamachi, and #5-6 on the new merged version, all within 24 hours, so I presume this counts as at least 5RR.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is a former admin, and I'll note this edit (see the edit summary) without further comment. Jpatokal (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bump to stop this from being archived until there's a response... Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Stale. I have no comment on whether there should have been a sanction if this report had been answered earlier. Ryulong has not edited this article since 15 June and there are many edits by others since then, so there is no continuing edit war that I can see. I observe no comments by Ryulong on the article's talk page. If the problem continues, resubmit and link to this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:76.234.135.47 reported by User:Jimmy Lavoie (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

An IP user is adding content on the article, as everybody explain him on the talkpage why it's wrong. He seems to do politics (as we can see by his messages on the talkpage) and doesn't want to understand anything. I did not revert him at the very last as it seems to be an edit warring. He interpret what the government says and add it in the introduction. Well, I hope you can do something against a non collaborating user. It seems to have started on June 9, but he uses different IPs with the same range. Hope you can look at that. Thanks a lot, Jimmy Lavoietalk 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * for 3RR violation. The second IP mentioned, 76.226.179.1, has not been active since June 11 so there is no reason to block it. Semiprotection is not needed unless block evasion occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The information added was correct and properly sourced. The editors that keep removing the information are French speaking individuals who do not seem to understand English. Hiding information just because it puts your government or views in bad light is not reason to censure. The user Lavoie even mis-translated some of the statements in order to justify removing the correct alternate name. I admit that I had not capitalized the word city originally, but this was a mistake that I corrected, and even documented.--76.226.62.84 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Roddna reported by Best O Fortuna (Result: 24h)

 * Article
 * User

Edit warring of the article: Monte Montgomery. The only article that User:Roddna has ever edited is this one. Account only setup to push point-of-view and personal agenda. Always changes external link, and keeps removing disputed live CD, Live at the Caravan Of Dreams (the artist didn't want it come out, but legally had to let it). Another user had left a message on the article's talk page, and yet another user added said CD in discography. Since then there has been a edit war to either keep the CD in or out. This user will not discus it, just reverts to what they want, right or wrong. I would like someone to get some communication from this user, and if failing that to block their account and give the article low-level protection for one month. Please help. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 15:46, 18 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (Undid revision 297098051 by Best O Fortuna (talk))  (top)
 * 15:04, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 15:04, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 15:03, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 15:02, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 15:02, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 15:00, 17 June 2009 - m Monte Montgomery ‎ (→Live albums)
 * 21:01, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎
 * 20:35, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 20:34, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 20:08, 9 June 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎ (→External links)
 * 21:12, 18 May 2009 - Monte Montgomery ‎
 * 18:18, 10 July 2008 - Monte Montgomery ‎


 * Repeated removal of:
 * Live at the Caravan Of Dreams


 * Repeated push of user's preferred website:
 * http://montemontgomery.com/
 * Edit warring at Monte Montgomery. This may be a new editor who doesn't fully understand our system, but the behavior has been going on for quite a while, and he was adequately warned. If he will agree to participate in discussions and explain his edits, any admin may unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Sarandioti (Result: No violation)
Continuous edit warring in different articles

Sarandë [] [] [] history log: []

Cham Albanians [] [] []

Pelasgians [] []

Gjirokaster unjustified removal of IPA: [] []

removal of alternative names in various islands, nationalist POV-pushing: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] --Sarandioti (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The user Sarandioti is a newcomer in wiki (ca. 2 weeks), however he has been blocked 3 times. His third block has been just expired and still continues an aggressive activity on specific topics. His contributions are very characteristic of a low level nationalistic activity.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You were also blocked for that issue Alexikoua, so accusing others for the same actions you have been blocked, is a bit impolite. But here we are not talking about me or you(we got blocked and we probably deserved it), but for Athenean. Facts are facts, and his edits show what he's been doing all these days. --Sarandioti (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is your last contribution [], you say that this is 'rephrasing'? Actually it's a change of meaning (or how to make an npov approach pov).Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And you changed it back, and I didnt change it again, just added citation needed  I see no problem in that. Please do not disrupt my report, if you want to talk with me, go to my talkpage.--Sarandioti (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for reporting explicit 3RR violations. Where did one occur by this user? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

These edits happened between 17-18. Today is 19. Today I had the chance to report him for his edit-warring to the border of vandalising(see removal of names on all these articles). Before doing all these reverts he was warned for edit-warring but as you see he continued, just a couple of hours after the warning. --Sarandioti (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the pages you linked to, and I do not see any 3RR violations by Athenean. Since this noticeboard is only for 3RR violations, I am closing this request. If you wish to request that someone investigate whether edit-warring is occurring, please go to WP:ANI. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Board mistake--Sarandioti (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Multiple repeat offender


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussions with User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! at Talk:British Isles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly disruptive editor, with numerous attempts to remedy his behaviour having been ignored. Previous blocks of 2 weeks (20 April 2009) and 1 month (11 May 2009) have failed to have any effect. Longer block now required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The user is being baited by a tag team of editors intent on not allowing his referenced edit. No rational explantion is given by them for their actions. LevenBoy (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LevenBoy's comment shows a flagrant disregard for the facts, as can be confirmed at Talk:British Isles. There is no consensus for including AVDL's proposal - indeed, a strong consensus opposed (or, at least, failing to understand the need for it).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't just a case of one editor edit-warring against consensus (which is unclear). I've protected the page to allow the involved editors to discuss the matter.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a reaction when didn't get his way . I don't want to see Armchair blocked, but he should be asked to tone down his persistence, and remarks. The consensus is against adding the 'britania/major/minor' additions to the article. Consensus is "clearly against" Armchair's edits. Tfz     15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, AvD should be blocked yet again. It's not just a case of the previous blocks on his current account; he has a long, long, long list on his previous account (User:ArmchairVexillologistDon), and a long history of disruptive and tendentious editing on the talk pages of British Isles, Canada, and other such pages under his accounts and his IP addresses. We've given this guy a lot of slack over the years, probably because his actions have tended to affect discussion pages rather than their associated articles. While I can't condone the actions of others in this particular edit war, AvD has once again pushed well past the boundaries of what is acceptable. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that ArmchairVexillologistDonLives should be term-blocked again, or article banned. I thought AVD was a new editor, and was prepared to give a second chance, but the editor has been quite ugly with remarks on several occasions. Also I would like to ask SheffieldSteel to get a grip on the situation, as he has protected AVD's edits, thus technically joining with AVD in an edit war. Tfz     20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to say that Sheffield is "joining" AvD in this or that he should "get a grip"; after all, not everyone is aware of the past history or the previous account. (For the record, AvD ran up a series of blocks under the old name, but had to abandon the account for unrelated reasons as he lost the password. He then edited as a self-identified IP until establishing the current account.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He did support AVD's edits, and then locked down the page. I actually agreed with Sheffield for I thought he was a novice editor, but maybe Sheffield thought that too. I still wouldn't like to see a long block, but consensus in editing is important too, and AVD should understand the reasons for that. Tfz     01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:HAl reported by User:HAl (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * reported in last edit warring report
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * continues to make same edit
 * 5th revert:


 * Yes I made only the one same edit since then. One edit does not make for edit warring. In addition to that I have also added a section on the talk page about the anti-MS vandalism by user:Scientus who is been repeatedly been removing sourced information. hAl (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Hal is trying to slant this article as fully pro-Microsoft, when 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."


 * user:TeaF also reading the source:
 * 1:
 * 2:


 * The user:Teaf account has only been used for about a week and seems to have been editting only articles that the person reporting this (user:Scientus) has been editting as well and with similar edits. How conveniant of that user to do so ?!. Restoring fully sourced information back into the article is not slanting the article and I resent such comments. I have added a section on the talk page of the Microsoft article about the removal of the sourced information by user:Scientus hAl (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He is also trying to continuously re-insert information, that when the sources are checked, is not supported.
 * 1:
 * 2:
 * 3:


 * The information was in the article before the arrival of user:Scientus who tried to remove the information while the source does verify the information he repeatedly removed. I have added a section on the talk page of the Microsoft to reflect that it does. hAl (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it is not 3RR, however user:HAl is edit warring.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * previous edit warring report showing old edit warring that was not discontinued


 * user:HAl has had a history of disruptive behavior Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33, block log


 * Edits have reasons, text of article was in page making thing very clear.
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Scientus (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * - One new edit does not a return to edit warring make. I would strongly suggest that HA1 pursues some kind of dispute resolution instead of performing any further reverts.  If HA1 does continue reverting, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Shell   babelfish 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thx. some after-discussion here and here Scientus (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result:Declined, no diffs given )

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:Slatersteven


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nick_Griffin

This user seems to enjoy raising the most petty points he can, ignoring my attempts to help him. He continually reverts (but falls short of 3RR) material that is well sourced, does not use proper citation templates in an article that is currently at WP:GAN, ignores my arguments on the talk page. Its all quite frustrating and detracts from my attempts to make a balanced and interesting article on a notable figure in British politics. I'm at a loss as to what exactly I do now, so would appreciate input from a more experienced admin. I can't really provide diffs, the history shows plenty of reversions, but the edit history of the article is complicated. The most contentious issue is "is Nick Griffin's loss of an eye personal information, or career information? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I fail short of 3RR I fail to see why the number of reverts i do matters (by the way have you broken 3RR, indeed you have edited (and reverted) far more then me). You have made no attempt to help me (such as pointing out how to properly cite, nor even raising the issue until this report). Nor did you issue a 3RR warning, thus this is not the place for this dispute, as some one so kken on correct actions this seems odd. I do not ignore you arguments, I merely disagree with them (some of which rely on OR and interpretation).The article does not say career it says political. I even susgested that the edit history was getting unwieldy and that perhaps a slow down was in order a sugestion that Parrot of Doom said was not needed (it now appears it was) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parrot_of_Doom&diff=prev&oldid=296954524.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 1:31, 1 June


 * 1st revert: 22:45 19 June 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


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

User:Collect has a 0RR limit per Requests_for_comment/Collect. When I removed the renominal title "Sir" for the fascist leader Oswald Mosley, Collect replaced it with "Baronet". When I removed "Baronet", he reverted it to "Sir". This cannot be a mistake because we discussed the matter at Talk:Fascism and in other sections.


 * I removed the prenominal title "Sir" 4:10, 2 June 2009


 * Collect added the prenominal title "Baronet" instead 12:43, 15 June 2009


 * I removed the prenominal title"Baronet" 22:35, 19 June 2009

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sir" was used per RfC as TheFourDeuces well knows.     I suggest this is pure baiting at this point, and is not a valid charge on his part.  The MOS and all the others indicating knowledge of use of titles for the first appearance of a titled person's name concurred.  " BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)"  should be sufficient to show what a tempest in a teapot TheFourDeuces is attempting here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)   I further submit that calling this a "revert" is a gross abuse of process entirely, and asked that TheFourDeuces be strongly reprimended for wikigaming. Collect (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Note: I deleted the "Sir" as it appears to be a major item to the other editor. Collect (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)  is the diff for the self-revert.  Collect (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)  Lastly a person who has edited once in 5 days by adding three letters is not really a good edit war example -- compared with the complainant who has multiple reverts during that time.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even by the loosest term of the word revert I can thing of, I don't see how this qualifies. Its not realistic to expect editors to review every revision to ensure they aren't violating their revert parole. Shell  babelfish 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * TheFourDeuces has been chasing me around trying to find a revert/ edit war complaint to file. I am actually sick of such behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lanternix and User:Rklawton reported by User:Xevorim (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * Users: and

Both editors have ignored the WP:3RR.


 * User:Lanternix

diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 

This user has a known history of edit warring and he was just blocked for edit warring in the Arab article.


 * User:Rklawton

diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

In the talk page, this user suggested that muslims be banned from editing on the disputed issue! And in one of his edit summaries, he accused who opposed his edits of being a handfull of muslims ashamed of mentioning the disputed matter! And when things didn't work out his way, he went back to edit warring.

Both users refuse to gather consensus for their edits and have been reverting all reverts to previous consensus. The dispute is regarding Aisha's (Muhammad's wife) age at consummation of her marriage.Xevorim (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's nice. While both users you are reporting are providing references and sources for what they said, you have failed to do so, and are only reverting referenced material because you don't like what it says. Wikipedia is not about you. As for your 3RR rule, I suggest you read the rules again:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.
 * Did you read that? It says more than three, not more than two! Not so hot for a neurosurgeon! --Lanternix (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't get things your way, you use a very aggressive tone and edits and personal attacks. As for your references, there are other references stating otherwise. You tried to change the article against common and previous consensus and you failed...so stop edit warring.Xevorim (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One, I was not the one who came up with the change, I was merely supporting it. Two, there are many people, as evidenced by the page's history, who disagree with your point of view. Three, if you want to disagree with me, I suggest you stick to non ad-hominem talk; don't get me to start insulting you on Wikipedia like you are insulting me; discuss the change not the changer. Finally, just to borrow your own words: Just because you don't get things your way, you use a very aggressive tone and edits and personal attacks. Think about it. --Lanternix (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I never attacked you personally! I was just referring to your previous reply. And if you want to insult me...go ahead! Xevorim (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The nominating editor is reminded that talk page discussion is preferable to reverts, especially in the case of more than one editor disagreeing with your edits. Shell  babelfish 01:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ttonyb1 reported by User:Cherry1779 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * User keeps asking for the page to be deleted as the page is being designed [diff preferred, link permitted]


 * 1st revert: [diff] Keeps deleting content relating to lily. Deletes sections as they are written
 * 2nd revert: [diff] same thing
 * 3rd revert: [diff] same thing
 * 4th revert: [diff]  same thing

He has repeatedly flagged it as deletion. It is a work in progress. Evertime a piece is added he deletes it.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User has done this to others in past. I am also the person behind the page.
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

This guy has done it to others. The page should not be deleted. It is a person who is part of MSN GAMING zone article.
 * Result - No violation. This is a page that has been recreated repeatedly, after speedy deletion for A7 (lack of notability)and G11 (advertisement). Consider working on a new version in your own user space, and get feedback before putting it back as a real article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Braincomputerguy reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Material added by IP


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article users talk page: and.

Obviously I could block them or protect the page myself but that would just leads to claims of abuse or COI. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for editwarring for 24 hours.--Slp1 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ckatz reported by User24.176.191.234 (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

I am not very good at this, so I am trying to provide the information to allow this to be investigated without much trouble. User:Ckatz has repeatedly replaced the name of Vanessa Ferlito, who formerly played Aiden Burn on CSI: New York - but died in the second season and is no longer on the show. I think (but am not sure) User has been warned - they surely see the notes when someone reverts reminding them character is dead - but continues to revert edits back to their preference to see this person in the main cast listing. This has happened 6 times since June 9th, and many times before that date. I do not necessarily wish this user blocked unless Powers That Be find this should happen, but I would like to see a semi-stern warning issued - then a block if they repeat the behaviour. I do believe the majority of this user's edits are in good faith, but they do not seem to understand a dead character does not belong under "Main Cast" unless they are currently appearing as a spirit every week. I have read some of the archives of Ckatz, and they are counseling users as an apparent admin. Perhaps they believe if they don't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period it's okay. Thank you. Trista (unable to log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3rr issue, but part of a common misunderstanding regarding the Television project's guidelines and the way in which we address fictional subjects. (Newer editors tend to insist on removing actors if their character dies, as well as changing "is" to "was" when a show ends.) I will attempt to explain it to the user. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for the above user on the most recent IP talk page here, as well as a similar note on the CSI:NY talk page. Hope this helps. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested the Wikipedia Guidelines that say this is the way it truly is, as I do not understand why a character who is no longer starring in a show is still listed. Whatever it says, I will follow - as I want to be a good editor. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:92.12.195.143 reported by User:OfficeGirl (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User: 92.12.195.143 (talk)


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

The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) Removed the tag for original research HERE IN FIRST REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297374396 It was Restored by User Thibbs HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297374396 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) was the next person after Thibbs to edit and he removed the tags HERE IN SECOND REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297389955 After a series of edits by the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) I came to the page and I tagged it for a few things including the same ORGINAL RESEARCH tag HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297535151 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN THIRD REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297554371 I reverted ONCE to replace the tag HERE and placed a general note on the talk page for the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) about not removing tags without proper reason http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297563828 The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk)then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN FOURTH REVERSION http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297563971

On the Talk page for The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 92.12.195.143 (talk) there is a tag noting that someone suspects the address is being used by an indefinitely blocked user by the name of Samlaptop85213 (talk) On the talk page for Samlaptop85213 the blocked user has requested to be unblocked and as an argument for his reinstatement he pleads that his edits on this Bop It article using an IP address should be considered in unblocking him.

I think this warrants Admin attention.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A92.12.195.143&diff=297570903&oldid=297183590


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

His discussion of the matter was merely to state on the article's Talk Page: "No!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL NOT FIX THE ARTICLE!" as he removed the maintenance tags on the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297560180

Thank you for looking into this. OfficeGirl (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - As another admin has noted, 'Block evasion isn't usually considered a reason to unblock.' IP was warring to remove tags. Article has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Drork reported by User:Rami R (Result: 12h block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: not actually my attempts: talk page section.

 Rami R  19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 12 hours and notified of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. CIreland (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Drork (Result: See above)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: reinserts picture removed by User:Supreme Deliciousness
 * 2nd revert: reverts my removal of picture
 * 3rd revert: reverts SD's second removal with caption of "I see an edit war in the horizon"
 * 4th revert: reverts my second removal


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This is in a thread on Drork's talk page started by Supreme Deliciousness in response to Drork placing a warning on SD's talk page accusing him of starting an edit war. I deemed Drork experienced enough that mere mention of 3RR sufficient for him to understand the consequences.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see [WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues] Although it might seem at first glance that I am acting as a tag team with User:Supreme Deliciousness, he isn't someone I normally agree with. Indeed I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation about him recently. It's just I think he's right on this issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See thread at [Talk:Israel#Mount_Hermon_picture_must_be_removed.21].


 * See above report CIreland (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)