Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive79

User:76.105.246.26 reported by User:JuJube (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:30, 27 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:11, 27 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:46, 27 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:52, 27 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:59, 27 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:54, 27 August 2008

Is attempting to add an Encyclopedia Dramatica link to the "Criticism" section of this page. JuJube (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Comayagua99 reported by User:Miami area editor (Result: Closed)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:04, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:41, 27 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:44, 27 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:49, 27 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:56, 27 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:02, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:11, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:46, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:45, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:38, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:49, 27 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:51, 27 August 2008
 * The accused user is obviously just removing vandalism.Just as obvious is the sock-puppet that made the accusation - a sock created today. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain how putting a newer photo in an article is vandalism. The one who is reverting to older photos and lower quality photos (User:Comayagua99) is the true vandal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.46.16 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't reply to blatant sock-puppets.


 * Can an admin please protect the Brickell, Miami, Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickell,_Miami,_Florida&action=history please Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The request was submitted at WP:RFPP, which resulted in South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida being semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is closed off, then. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala reported by User:LokiiT (Result: 7 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:49, 26 August 2008 19:28, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:50, 26 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:07, 27 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:16, 27 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:44, 27 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:45, 27 August 2008 - Also has 3rr warnings from a long time ago on their page: 19:45, 4 March 2008.

I removed a map from an article, stated my reasons multiple times on both the article talk page and the image talk page, other users agreed with removal of said map, and now this user is accusing me of vandalism and "page blanking". LokiiT (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Avala reverted 4 times within 24 hours. However, Avala has made quite a number of edits since then and going mostly by the edit summaries my impression is that Avala stopped reverting the same material on receiving the warning. I added information in italics to the above report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: Oops: apparently the reason there don't seem to be more reverts is that the map has stayed in the article. In other words, it's stayed in the version preferred by Avala. Sorry, my above comment was not thought through. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result:No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:10, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:59, 27 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:36, 27 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:43, 27 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:38, 27 August 2008

Article is under probation, and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated 3RR on many occasions before. CENSEI (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No violation here. 3RR prohibits making the same revert (or one that accomplishes something similar) within 24 hours. These are different: the first one is removing a link to an impersonator, the second removed the phrase "caucasian hybrid" from the article, the third removed details about Clinton's endorsement, and the fourth had to do with electoral history. None of them are the same, or even remotely similar. Since the page wasn't reverted to the same version (there were lots of other editors in between who weren't reverted) this doesn't look like edit warring to me, just bold editing. Also, for future reports, please provide diffs for the reverts, rather than links to versions. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy. Kafziel, your interpretation of the policy is not correct. 3RR does not prohibit the same revert, it prohibits any revert. From WP:3RR


 * "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert."


 * I would like another opinion before this is closed as there were four reverts performed by Lulu and none of them to undo vandalism. CENSEI (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of 3RR is to avoid edit wars. The rule isn't intended to encourage people to push the limit, but it isn't intended to prevent bold edits made in good faith, either. That was the case here. As I've already said, if he had been reverting to a particular version then that would be a problem, but there were lots of other edits made that he didn't revert. For that reason I don't consider it an edit war, just an experienced editor working to improve Wikipedia. If it happens again it can be revisited, but this one is closed. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:122.135.163.183 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-08-28T13:10:43
 * 2nd revert: 2008-08-28T13:30:18
 * 3rd revert: 2008-08-28T13:46:03
 * 4th revert: 2008-08-28T14:11:36


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-08-28T13:51:40


 * Note The first edit is "revert", because the user with Japanese ISP BIGLOBE(mesh.ad.jp) has tried to remove some content without a discussion or consensus on 2008-08-11 with the accounts, and . Using sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is suspected like, . Block is quite in order. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors who intend to work on a hotly-contested article should move carefully and search for consensus. This IP, a brand new account who works only on issues related to this one article, does not seem to be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink Evolution reported by User:Onceloose (Result: Protected)
The above user was involved in a edit war quite some time ago apparently. The user has started adding material to For Life (Isis Gee song) falsifying the songs position in the eurovision song contest. The song came JOINT LAST and is listed as such. The user continues to add that it came second last which is incorrect as it is listed in alphabetical order as last place.

The user has been warned about adding the same information in the past but is still doing it.

From the talk page it looks like the user was blocked for this same naughtiness in July.

In order to stop an edit war please block the above user to leave the page as JOINT LAST.

Onceloose (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this case is cleared after this and this discussion. was wrong by official eurovision-song-contest-site and so you can't call his action just edit-war, you could call it vandalism, too. But per WP:AGF he just didn't know it and in future he won't act like this anymore (he already stopped reverting). That's why I think a block for Onceloose or the article is not necessary. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You added unsourced material to wiki about a no-existant 'tie-break' for last place. You are a serial vandal who has been blocked and involved in an edit war on this page. I believe your actions above are to start a new edit war. If you add a source for this 'tie-break' for last place other than the alphabetically ordered table of countires that came last I will agree with you. This has not been added.

ADMIN please look at the edit history of Pink Evolution for confirmation Onceloose (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm getting close to reporting Onceloose for disruptive editing. Both Onceloose and Pink Evolution have asked for my help and I rewrote the sections about their disagreement hoping that it would solve the problem. Onceloose feels that the article must say that "For Life" came in last place which is wrong since according to the official website [eurovision.tv], the 3 way tie for last place was broken and the song given 24th of 25. I noted in my rewrite that the song had tied for last, but Onceloose insists on it only saying that the song placed "joint last". His comments about Pink Evolution's past are irrelevant, she served her time and it should not affect every edit that she makes especially when she has stated where she is getting her info from. See my talk page for our discussions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note there is never a tie-break for last place in the eurovision song contest. I have properly asked for a source to prove there was a tie-break. In eurovision and all newspaper stories she came 'joint last'. I think Pink Evolution's past is very relevant. She has constantly added false material to this and other pages - even being blocked.

1. A number of sources state that Isis came joint last as per the rules of eurovsion ( last 3 entries placed as per alphabetical order).

2. PinkEvolution a user that has been blocked in the past for vandalism and was involved in an edit war has added new unsourced information related to a 'tie-break'.

As the information is unsouced and from a biased user I suggest you provide a source for this 'tie-break' as when I read the rule is expressly is for a winner of the competition. Loosers are placed joint last. I am loosing heart, one tries to protect wiki and all that happens is a serial pest adds falsehoods and wastes everyones time. I give up!

Onceloose (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good choice! Do you want to revert your nonsene by yourself or should I do it? I really hope you come back to us after you learnt how to write an encylopedia based on facts and not with evidences you personally would like to hear. --Pink Evolution (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I SUGGEST ADMIN LOOK AT PINK EVOLUTIONS EDIT HISTORY AND BLOCK FOR VANDALISM Onceloose (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For Life (Isis Gee song). There are no references in the article to establish the final position of the song in the rankings one way or the other. I will be happy to lift the protection as soon as anyone can add proper references to the song's Talk page. Since the standing is contested, please quote the exact text that you think applies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Andy_Bjornovich reported by User:KoshVorlon (Result:Discussion at WP:AN over this user generally which will supercede this report)
First report - please excuse any errors


 * Three-revert rule violation on - his "family tree" now located in User:Andy_Bjornovich/Family_Tree.

Time reported: 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: | Keeps reverting back to his family tree
 * Adding a 3RR when (a) the presence of his family tree is already being discussed with the user is a bit of a pile-on, to be honest. The sock is more likely to be him editing whilst logged out rather than deliberate socking. If he's going to be blocked for anything it'll be disruption generally arising out of the WP:AN discussion, so I don't think a 3RR report is beneficial at this stage. GbT/c 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: | 1st revert
 * 2nd revert: | 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert: | Looks like sock - note the edit summaries here!
 * 4th revert: | reverted another helpful user - same revert


 * Diff of 3RR warning: | 3rr warning given

User:Wikitestor & User:62.57.212.101 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result: Wikitestor 12 hours; his two IPs one month)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Roger Federer.

Wikitestor has admitted that 62.57.212.101 is a sockpuppet of his. See also his user page.

EDIT: It's not my sockpuppet lol, its my ip but I forget to login like I say on the talk page xD. Wikitestor (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Time reported: 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:07, August 26, 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:02, August 27, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:24, August 27, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:41, August 27, 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:03, August 28, 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:18, August 28, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:41, 28 August 2008
 * Blocked Wikitestor 12 hours. Since the two IP accounts that he acknowledges seem to heavily engage in reverts, I've blocked both of them for 1 month: and . Let Wikitestor use his main account if he wants to edit hotly-contested articles. It's not at all clear that Tennis expert has support on the Talk page for all his tournament name changes; I encourage him to build consensus for his ideas. See this Talk page link for a sensible effort at a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, just to say there's no point blocking my ip's for 2 reasons: first one dynamical ip (this means I don't have that IP anymore and moreover you're probably now blocking someone else innocent from Barcelona) and i've 4 kinds of IP ranges (2 ISP's contracted). I'm not vandalizing so no need to block IPs, but even if you tried it you couldn't do it, so unblock the IPs cause maybe you're blocking random people xD. another IP of Wikitestor. 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikitestor, if you don't want to be taken through WP:SSP I strongly suggest you stop editing with all IP accounts, since that is block evasion. Semiprotecting tennis articles is one option to consider if the abuse continues. The blocks will remain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean: you're blocking someone from Barcelona (62.57) and someone from entire Spain (81.184). 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LedRush reported by User:Laomei (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:49, 29 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:43, 29 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:49, 29 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:10, 29 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:33, 29 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 07:52, 29 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 07:22, 29 August 2008


 * LedRush is possibly a Sockpuppet or working in coordination with User:Asdfg12345. Upon reaching his 3rd revert, LedRush immediately began reverting, he has no previous history on the article or comments in the talk page.  User LedRush is claiming consensus on language as an excuse for excessive reverts, however there is no consensus or agreed language.


 * I have long been a contributer and watcher of China articles including this one. I saw an edit war in which Laomei had already broken the 3RR rule and thought I could offer a good compromise.  Instead, Laomei has resorted to personal attacks and stubborn refusal to talk about possible compromise solutions.  Quite honestly, I thought that my suggested edit would be considered a victory and a vindication of Laomei's position, but clearly I was wrong.LedRush (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article's history, I'm seeing five clear reverts. Someone else breaking 3RR is no reason for you to do so.  Kuru  talk  03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Laomei reported by LedRush (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:17 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 11:48, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */")
 * 2) 11:57, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Human rights */  Citations mention nothing in regard to this claim.")
 * 3) 16:15, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Human rights */  - see talk page, no supporting references")
 * 4) 16:16, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */  - see talk page, figures are not documented or verifiable")
 * 5) 17:24, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */  same reason as before for this, if you can find an original source for the data, in any official form from a 1st hand source with a definite number it can stay.")
 * 6) 20:26, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */  If you are going to claim the numbers of one side, then the numbers of both sides shall be included.")
 * 7) 22:23, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */  edit - there is no "consensus" here amongst anyone.  I am providing a neutral source which provides the full range of claims.  This is NPOV.")
 * 8) 23:06, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "undo rv, again there is no concensus, there is no need to expand a minor issue into an entire paragraph, there is no need to cite a source which adds nothing.")
 * 9) 23:22, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "There is no "agreed language" amongst anyone here, if you want to continue this, go ahead, but I suggest you take it to the talk page, where you will find there is no "agreed langauge"")
 * 10) 23:47, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "Please see talk page, issue has been addressed and this is an absurd edit war")
 * 11) 23:59, 28 August 2008  (edit summary: "Likewise, neither can I, you have no history on this page and have contributed nothing, you have violated 3RR and claim a non-existant consensus.")


 * I somehow suspect I have messed this up badly, but Laomei's actions are bad enough that I must make my first report. I have contributed to the article several times in the past and it is on my watch list.  I noticed an edit war and thought that I could intercede and make a compromise solution.  Laomei ignored me on the discussion page, has ignored the language that has long been in place and was the result of long discussions, and has made about 10 reverts.

Also, Laomei is aware of the rule as he reported me first.LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

—LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You will find that these "reverts" are edits furthering the evidence being provided while being ignored in talk by this sockpuppet of Asdfg12345 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei (talk • contribs)


 * These reverts are you changing accepted language to your point of view, with which no one on the board agrees. Your tactics here continue your habit of discourtesy.  I have shown that I have edited this article in the past (on the dispute concerning 3rd or 4th largest country by area).  I generally stick to articles about Rush, China, Bell and Pong and articles related to these.  Please don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet because I didn't fully agree with you in your dispute.  The other guy wanted to keep the language exactly the same, you wanted to change the language and add a new citation.  I proposed an alternative that was middle of the road, NPOV, and relevant.  I don't know why you think this makes me a sockpuppet as I have altered the discussion.  Your reverts (which clearly contradict wikipedia standards) are another manifestation of your reluctance to compromise or reach consensus.LedRush (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see no obvious support for the sockpupperty assertion, and that's an impressive array of reverts. Blocked for 48 hours due to just coming off a disruptive editing block.  Kuru  talk  03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 1 week block and 12h block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 21:37, 27 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:53, 27 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:12, 28 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:58, 28 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:41, 28 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has reported at least two other editors on this page, so he is well aware of this rule. (


 * If you look closely, as Gamaliel obviously did not, Croctotheface continued to add material sourced from http://dailyhowler.com, a weblog, which is a violation of WP:BLP,and as such 3RR does nto apply to the removal of such material.

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."


 * I may not have taken this issue to the proper authorities, but as the policy is quite clear on this, I have not violated 3RR. CENSEI (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you didn't just remove an offending source, your edits were clearly content edits. You also removed content sourced to The New Republic, which clearly isn't a blog. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didnt catch it the first time, so I will reiterate: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source . Thanks for the concern. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, remove the blog. Why remove The New Republic? Why no mention of BLP until now? Why no message on the talk page or the BLP noticeboard? You had plenty of words to taunt another user in the edit summary, but none to explain why material clearly sourced to a RS is supposedly a BLP violation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have raised BLP issues on articles I edit ... its what I am known for and what I like to focus on. And me taunt Croctotheface? Sorry, but I wasnt the user who was claiming that certain editors should be reverted on sight and that their opinion wasnt valid. Its not my job to fix Croctotheface's edits. He continually reinserted a flagrant BLP violation (something you are certainly familiar with) and I had every right to revert him. Considering that the family of a dead girl personaly asked you to stop turning their tragedy into political hay, you of all people should know that WP:BLP issues can effect real people's lives and we need to take special care with them. CENSEI (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response merely repeats BLP and attacks me, but doesn't address the substance of the issue at all. You had time to dig up and misrepresent a two year old AfD discussion, you have time to attack me here and Croctotheface in your edit summary, but can't find any time to explain an edit you made an hour ago. It's clear that you are just crying BLP after the fact attempt to avoid a block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whats there to explain? It was, by even your own admission, a BLP violation. Nothing more to explain .. it was obvious but I thank and commend you for your concern. CENSEI (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is everything to explain: why you removed The New Republic, why you made content edits and are trying to pass them off as removing a supposed BLP violation, why you didn't mention it was supposedly a BLP violation until you were called on it here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * for 1 week. Parts of the reverts have a possible BLP defence. However, other content is removed for which the sourcing is patently not problematic. It is for the repeated removal of this material, rather than the dubiously sourced material, that the block is issued.


 * is blocked for 12 hours for edit-warring to restore the material, some of which was dubiously sourced.
 * CIreland (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Asdfg12345 reported by Laomei (Result: No violation)
. : 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:27, 28 August 2008
 * 2) 00:27, 29 August 2008
 * 3) 10:06, 29 August 2008


 * Also, as this has drawn in more than one "user" with the same exact point and this is a trend which is ongoing, I would like to bring attention to the sockpuppet investigation which I have requested on Asdfg12345 as it is blatant and against the spirit of wikipedia. Talk pages have been ignored and ignorance is claimed, if a user is unable to explain why a change was made when requested, that change should not have been made.  I am requesting a Chinese-speaking administrator to settle this argument before it drags on for months, I have already agreed to abide by that decision and it has been ignored, once again in bad faith, by a user pursuing an agenda.

Laomei (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see no simple support for sockpuppetry allegations, and no violation of 3RR by this user. Kuru  talk  03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note--Tananka (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tananka reported by User:Biophys (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:48, 28 August 2008


 * This is his first insertion of this poorly sourced information to infobox
 * 1st revert, 17:58, 28
 * 2nd revert, 20:29, 28
 * 3rd revert, 02:19, 29
 * 4th revert, 03:06, 29.

This user warned several others about alleged 3RR violations, while doing the violation himself. The material was discussed at article talk page. This user as in minority but decided to enforce his opinion. Note the character of material he inserted.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this. I do not know however if this accusation of sockpuppetry is true. Look at edit history of this user. It looks suspicious to me.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first diff shows an edit made at 17:58 26 August, not 28 August. In any case, here are the four reverts: 19:37, 28 August 2008, 20:29, 28 August 2008, 03:06, 29 August 2008 (reinsertion of this) and 05:02, 29 August 2008. Blocked 24 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys and User:Ostap R reported by User:Tananka (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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

--Tananka (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Well, I made only two edits in this article today.Biophys (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As did I. Ostap 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion was attempted with editors, after whole additions were removed. Please check the Revision history and the discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Fighters_operating_under_US_flag.2C_or_how_not_to_delete_additions.2C_respect_NPOV_while_seeking_concensus.
 * WP:3RR

Discussion of actual material was refused, and ensued repetitive deletions by 3 users without debate. That's a real shame, debate is what's best. Note that I actually gave warnings to those two users, in the hope it could open balanced debate. Why can we not enrich the article? --Tananka (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we both provided arguments at article talk page, but you did not reply yet. That was actually you who refused negotiations (see my last comment made 3:19) no reply from you.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 3RR applies to individuals, not groups. There is no 3RR violation here, so no block.  I'll look and see if the page needs protecting.  Mango juice talk 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Discussion seems to be under way, and the level of activity over this dispute is not substantially disrupting the article.  Try Dispute resolution.  Mango juice talk 12:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Macgruder reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-08-28T14:50:47


 * 1st revert: 2008-08-28T15:18:05
 * 2nd revert: 2008-08-28T16:14:58
 * 3rd revert: 2008-08-28T16:44:30
 * 4th revert: 2008-08-29T04:49:53


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * Note The article has been under the ArbCom ruling, so the article is zero-tolerable over any edit warring. 1RR per day has been applied to any editor since October 2007, and Macgruder has been engaging in editing the article since early May 2007 He knows the rule too well because he participated in renaming and contributed in forming the ArbCom rules. These revert are not identical but all are lied in the same vein, disputing a caption of some image. His first edit is a revert of Masonfamily's edit with whom Macgruder has been disputing because Masonfamily inserted the image and caption on two days ago and edit wars began. This kind of disruptive edit wars are strictly forbidden to the article, so administrative actions would be needed.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update The user is already taken care along with Masonfamily by administrator, Future Perfect at Sunrise so the report goes null, I think.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24h by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:12.10.125.8 reported by User:Amatulic (Result: Page semi-protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-08-26 16:17


 * 1st revert: 2008-18-27 19:28
 * 2nd revert: 2008-08-28 14:03
 * 3rd revert: 2008-08-28 21:37 (editor was warned at this point)
 * 4th revert: 2008-08-29 13:06


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-08-29 01:13

Anonymous user apparently fails to understand WP:NOT and WP:EL, insisting that a large list of external links is necessary for the body of this article in spite of consensus against inclusion of these links.

It is disturbing to note that when a 3rd opinion and talk page consensus from three other editors began to form, this anonymous editor resorted to blanking the comments of other editors.

Based on editing pattern, this user appears to be the same as user who originally added the links. However, there has been no effort in the direction of sockpuppetry; it seems the editor just doesn't bother to log in when reverting and arguing.

The revert frequency is flying under the 3RR radar, probably due to editors residing in different time zones that result in one or two reverts per day. Therefore, a standard short-term block will likely go unnoticed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP engaged in edit warring, but even if you combine his edits with those of Sgoggins there are not four reverts in any 24-hour period. I've semi-protected the article to simplify future 3RR enforcement. If Sgoggins continues to revert under his own name, open a new report, mentioning this evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I note that the 3RR warning template does say that users can still be blocked for reversions even if they don't technically violate the 3RR rule. I have seen edit wars before where one user is in the U.S. and the other is in Asia, and each reverts the other once per day, for several days on end. I would still consider 4 reverts in such a situation a 3RR violation. The geographic situation doesn't appear to be the case here, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Google suggests the IP may be that of his employer, so blocking the IP is a live option to consider if no progress can be made otherwise. Let's wait to see if either Sgoggins or the IP responds to the messages left on their Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Winger84 reported by User:Hobartimus (Result:31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:58


 * 1st revert: 16:02
 * 2nd revert: 16:05
 * 3rd revert: 16:15
 * 4th revert: 16:30
 * 5th revert: 16:34
 * 6th revert: 16:41
 * 7th revert: 16:49


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:08

It's about neutrality/advertisement tags on the Sarah Palin article (currently linked from main page). Good overview to the contribs Hobartimus (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jwinius reported by User:216.93.231.149 (Result:Both blocked 24 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Check out the user talkpage. Other editors have complained to him about him owning articles. You can also check out his edit history. He calls edits pointless if he disagrees with what is being put in. Time for a blocking, this user needs to stop bossing other editors around. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jwinius appears to be justified in insisting on a policy of verifiability where absolutes are being inserted. Please do not edit-war and then complain about the party who's following Wikipedia policies.   Acroterion  (talk)  02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP for edit-warring by Tiptoey.   Acroterion  (talk)  03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked Jwinius too, seeing as he also engaged in edit warring. I am very much willing to unblock him though if he agrees to no longer edit war in the future, and instead take it to the talk page. Tiptoety  talk 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Musicmogul09 reported by Me-123567-Me (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User won't discuss his controversial edits before he makes them, and is creating an edit war. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 04:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:51, 29 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:14, 29 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:32, 29 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:41, 29 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:51, 29 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:44, 29 August 2008

This particular editor has a long history of edit warring. Earlier today, he started doing it on Baba. He stopped after I distributed a 3RR warning. Then targeted Saiyuki and, despite our past discussion on its talk page, he kept reverting until breaking 3RR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Query Is this still in force? CIreland (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not. I recently took my name off that contract . Don't know if Abtract did the same, but the fact that he is still hounding me remains. All I asked for was a simple talk, but he can't even do that correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have blocked both editors for 48 hours for edit-warring but this has gone stale due to not being handled since my query above. I see has left notes on the talk pages of both editors; that will have to suffice. I could speculate on why so few admins are prepared to deal with this kind of thing but to do so would not provide a solution. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

75.82.22.106 reported by Dúnadan (Result: Blocked 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please note that the section on Ethnography includes a small paragraph on "Amerindian contribution in the Argentine population", citing two genetic studies. The inclusion or exclusion of this paragraph has been extensively debated, and the consensus was to keep it. He was asked to stop reverting and to debate.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

-- the D únadan 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This user has reverted the page 4 additional times, and has been reverted by two other users. Why hasn't this issue been addressed? If this recourse to report 3RR is not working, please advise on any additional place to report this type of unacceptable behavior. -- the D únadan 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, my issue wasn't taken care of either. Both of our reports were made accordingly so I'm wondering why no sysops have taken action. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * for 12 hours. Would have been 24 but this report was late being dealt with. CIreland (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maurice27 and Mountolive reported by Benimerin (Result:Benimerin blocked 55 hours )

 * Page:
 * Users:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 20:05, 28 August 2008, by Maurice27,
 * 1st change: 22:17, 28 August 2008 removes Unbalanced.
 * 2nd revert: 06:23, 29 August 2008, by Maurice 27.
 * 1st change: 09:04, 29 August 2008, I recover my last editings.
 * 2nd change: 09:28, 29 August 2008, I made several editings.
 * 3rd revert: 14:32, 29 August 2008, by Mountolive.
 * 1st change: 15:16, 29 August 2008, I recover my last editings.
 * 4th revert: 16:48, 29 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 5th revert: 10:35, 30 August 2008, by me.
 * 6th revert: 11:10, 30 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 7th revert: 11:19, 30 August 2008, by me, and reporting here.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: About my editings, About the "Unbalanced" tag.

This article is always turned as "controversial" bacause of the manners and attitudes of these both users. User Maurice27 has been previously blocked already because of editwarring and breaking wikettiquette.--Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon examination, it appears that the reporting party is the one violating 3RR and has been blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Benimerin is blocked and has asked that the following content be added to this thread. I have no view as to its merits and don't endorse it. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * About the 3O and Catalan-speaking world templates:
 * 21:48, 8 August 2008 Maurice27 inserts 3O tag bottom of lead text.
 * 22:37, 8 August 2008 Mountolive removes tag arguing that it should be discussed first.
 * 1st revert: 23:35, 8 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 1st change: 00:53, 12 August 2008, I remove 3O tag.
 * 2nd change: [], I've made some changes, and add Catalan-speaking world.
 * 2nd revert, and last changes were lost: 14:16, 12 August 2008, by Mountolive.
 * 3rd revert: 15:23, 12 August 2008, by me.
 * 4th revert: 15:32, 12 August 200, by Mountolive.
 * 5th revert: 19:55, 12 August 2008, by me.
 * 1st change: 20:22, 12 August 2008, by me, adding info about a sign language.
 * 6th revert and last changes were lost: 12:36, 14 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 7th revert, recovering also last changes made by me: 12:36, 14 August 2008, by me.
 * 8th revert, removing Catalan-speaking world and putting again 3O: 14:18, 14 August 2008, by Mountolive.
 * 9th revert: 19:48, 14 August 2008, by me.
 * 10th revert: 21:03, 14 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * User Enric Naval made a mediation, and Catalan-speaking world stays in the article: 00:20, 15 August 2008.


 * About the Unbalanced tag:
 * 22:57, 17 August 2008: I've removed 3O, because the debate was stayed, and Maurice27 didn't wanted to participate more about this, see on this talk page.
 * 1st revert: 06:26, 18 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 2nd revert, 10:25, 20 August 2008, by user JeremyMcCracken.
 * 3rd revert: 11:23, 20 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 4th revert: 08:38, 21 August 2008, by user Xtv.
 * 5th revert: 20:15, 21 August 2008, by Maurice27. Replaces 3O by Unbalanced.
 * 6th revert: 15:29, 22 August 2008, by me.
 * 7th revert: 19:39, 22 August 2008, by Maurice27.


 * About the name of "Valencian Community" to "Region of Valencia" (and still about Unbalanced):
 * 1st revert: 20:05, 28 August 2008, by Maurice27,
 * 1st change: 22:17, 28 August 2008 removes Unbalanced.
 * 2nd revert: 06:23, 29 August 2008, by Maurice 27.
 * 1st change: 09:04, 29 August 2008, I recover my last editings.
 * 2nd change: 09:28, 29 August 2008, I made several editings.
 * 3rd revert: 14:32, 29 August 2008, by Mountolive.
 * 1st change: 15:16, 29 August 2008, I recover my last editings.
 * 4th revert: 16:48, 29 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 5th revert: 10:35, 30 August 2008, by me.
 * 6th revert: 11:10, 30 August 2008, by Maurice27.
 * 7th revert: 11:19, 30 August 2008, by me, and reporting here.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: About my editings, About the "Unbalanced" tag.


 * I've reported also a Wikiquette alert: 11:19, 12 August 2008 because of lack of civility from Maurice27. One response from him to my reasons given to Talk:Valencian Community is also unrespectful.

Peter Damian reported by Stifle (Result: Handled)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: No one specific version, but the reverts are all removals of deletion tags so it is fairly clear


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


 * Diff of 3RR warnings:, ,


 * Clear-cut case of removing AFD tag. Could whoever closes this please re-add the tag as I would break 3RR myself if I re-added it? Stifle (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Peter Damian reported me to WP:AN in connection with this. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've handled this by closing the AfD, adding that Stifle nominated the article only minutes after it was created and while content was being added. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Walterelyon reported by Shannon Rose (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Edit history is a mess due to relentless reverting day after day after day. Edit warring has been going on since the 25th of August. – Shannon Rose (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The 3RR warning is after the last revert. Walterelyon is a new user (editing since Aug. 25).  The diffs span more than 24 hours, (the first 4 on Aug. 28 and the last 2 on Aug. 30) and the 4th diff is by a different user, so no 3RR violation can be established using only these diffs.  The "previous version reverted to" you've supplied is simply the version just before the first diff. You should provide a previous version that contains the same material being reverted to, in order to establish that they're reverts rather than new edits.  You may need to supply a different "previous version reverted to" for different reverts if different material is being reverted.  You should state the time of each diff and the time of the "previous version reverted to".  Walterelyon has been participating in talk page discussion; I encourage Shannon Rose to also participate in that discussion rather than reverting without explanation. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale; the edit-warring's calmed down. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Concretecold reported by JAF1970 (Result: Both blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Development_of_Spore&oldid=234903246

Okay, this guy has been obstinate about reverting to a subject that is irrelevent to the article (stores charging $2 for the Spore Creature Creator. I've told him over and over that it doesn't belong; for instance, GameStop and Amazon's deals were not used because they're not relevent, either. He's created a username and has just been a general NUISANCE, and it's tiring. I warned him, he does a tit-for-tat and decides to warn me on my talk page. He's got loads of attitude and mod DMacks had said he'd protect the page IF this continues, but I'm not sure protection works anymore.

He has been obstinate and I finally reported him - which of course he tit-for-tatted and reported me, despite the fact I've already told him to take it up in the Development of Spore talk page. Then he tried to bargain his Spore (2008 video game) editing in exchange for Development of Spore (see Spore (2008 video game) talk page. Huh?


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

JAF1970 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe JAF has violated 3RR on the article as well. If Concretecold gets blocked for 3RR, then JAF should as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TipPt reported by Avraham (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&oldid=235019044


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=235068662&oldid=235022435
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=235221408&oldid=235208655
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=235402655&oldid=235384498
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=235417771&oldid=235411129


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been previously blocked for 3RR, and is ipso facto cognizant of the violation.

User is a single purpose account whose self-avowed purpose is to prevent physical great pain and sexual harm which he believes is caused by circumcision. The user's edits show a directed and concentrated focus on adding POV based edits to Circumcision and related articles. In the 40+ pages of archives of the talk page, consensus has been shown to be against this user on a regular basis. Regardless the user continues to try and insert improper, undue-weight kinds of edits to further his point of view and use wikipedia as a soapbox. The user's history of incivility is also problematic. An RfC/topic ban may be called for, but certainly I believe a block is needed to prevent further impropriety to the circumcision article. I would apply it myself, but having been recently incvolved with this user, I feel it more appropriate that other eyes investigate. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Berby reported by User:Traditional unionist (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * Users:


 * Previous version reverted to: diff at 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC); version at 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: (Ovlem)
 * 2nd revert: (Ovlem)
 * 3rd revert: (Ovlem)
 * 4th revert: (Ovlem)
 * 5th revert: 12:16, 1 September 2008 (Berby)
 * 6th revert: 13:51, 1 September 2008 (Berby)
 * 7th revert: 13:54, 1 September 2008 (Berby)
 * 8th revert: 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (Berby)
 * ''9th revert: 15:06, 1 September 2008 (MiddleEastlands)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:28 1 September 2008 (sockpuppet warning), 15:08 1 September 2008 (UTC) (3RR warning)

Two different accounts with obvious socking going on. Sock report pending, but disruptive editing continuesTraditional unionist (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even if no sockpuppetry were involved, Berby has violated 3RR. (non-admin opinion.)  Ovlem, Berby and MiddleEastlands are deleting the words "the Republic of" before "Ireland".  The revert by MiddleEastlands was the first edit on that account.  Four editors have been reverting in the other direction; Mooretwin may have done 4 reverts in 24 hours but perhaps this is excusable given the sockpuppetry; the others did only 1 or 2 reverts each. Ovlem has now been blocked by Jza84 for 48 hours for 3RR violation.  I've added two reverts and other information in italics to the above report. Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * for 15 days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

JimBobUSA and IP 76.173.161.184 reported by Professor Marginalia (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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

User:76.173.161.184
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warnings: ;

IP reverts over past 2 weeks by user:67.120.59.46 to same article follow pattern of user:76.173.161.184. I left earlier warning on 2nd IP involved in the slow speed edit war.

Professor marginalia (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse reported by The7thdr (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I have left messages on the users talk page and comments on the articles talk page but the user insists on reverting wityhout discussion here The7thdr (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see no set of reversions occurring within a 24 hour period. Kuru  talk  22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcelite reported by All Hallow's Wraith (Result:Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:07, 29 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:30, 30 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:08, 30 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:17, 30 August 2008


 * Already blocked for 3rr before


 * User:Mcelite has spent most of their time at Wikipedia adding "is of Native American descent" and the "Native American" categories to as many pages on African-Americans as they can seemingly find. I don't know whether the information is true or not, but it is never properly sourced. Sometimes Mcelite adds it without any sources at all (i.e. the article in question, Joanna Hayes -, stating in their reverts "find a source or remove (every cat.) that isn't supported", "biased", "be helpful and fin[d] one then"), and sometimes citing IMDB biographies and trivia that were written by unknowns (and many of which were similarly amended to say "of African American and Native American" descent by the same IMDB user, freemca, who is almost certainly Mcelite themselves). When adding these IMDB references, Mcelite usually titles the reference "Amazon.com" (as if that would be a reliable biographical source) and states in her edit summaries things like "printed by Amazon. with credited writer", when of course, the reference is to the IMDB. Sometimes they cite one of seemingly millions of random celebrity websites that get their trivia from the IMDB or Wikipedia and never credit writers or sources, i.e. "Celebrity Index" here. Sometimes they give misleading edit summaries, like "it's been cleared" or "that's common knowledge" . User:98.206.111.54 (contributions) is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and indeed Mcelite has been blocked for sockpuppetry before, as well as for 3rr, a personal attack and "Repeatedly inserting uncited information that contradicts article" (block log). They've certainly been warned about adding reliable sources, i.e. . Anyway, Mcelite violated 3rr again on Joanna Hayes, continually reverted the "Native American" categories back into the article without any indication of a source. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mcelite has violated 3RR in my opinion, doing 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. However, in the past few days it's been only these two users editing the article.  All Hallow's Wraith has done 3 reverts in 24 hours, 5 reverts in 48 hours.  There is no discussion on the article talk page. I suggest putting arguments there to support your edits, referring to policies and guidelines such as for example general categorization guidelines points 7 and 8 in particular; Categorization of people; Naming conventions (categories) and Verifiability, etc.  You may also find it useful to use  dispute resolution such as third opinion.  Please don't use this noticeboard page for discussion. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both editors, Mcelite for 31 hours seeing as he has a history of edit warring and All Hallow's Wraith for 24. Tiptoety  talk 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mcelite reporting All Hallow's Wraith
All Hallow's Wraith is not being helpful. I've been trying hard to find reliable sources for numerous articles and it's been extremely hard. One source I did find was completely legit and useable. An expert clearly talking about people that clearly have Native American traits not African nor European. All Hallow's Wraith just removing it saying it's opinionated when this is an expert clearing things up. Also he will only remove Native American categories, and will not remove African American or other categories that are not sourced either. Then he has the nerve to say well the source doesn't support this and that when if it doesn't apply to native heritage than it shouldn't apply to African heritage either. I added the AFrican American categories and the Native American categories for LL Cool J. He removes only the Native American categories so I said why are u doing this and not removing the other categories since he obviously has a problem with them. He doesn't even try to help find sources stating people having other heritage. Aaliyah is very well known to have both African American and Native American heritage. However, it's been difficult to find that information from quote "a reliable source". Also i'm not socketpuppeter he's guessing.Mcelite (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable source Mcelite is talking about is a writer who says that "You can see" the "Native American features", which results in Mcelite's Wikipedia edit stating "is of both African American and Native American descent". Turning the speculation in that reference into fact was already discussed with Mcelite by another editor, a comment Mcelite promptly removed from their talk page. This page (LL Cool J) is in fact another 3rr violation, 20:58, 29 August 2008, 07:29, 30 August 2008, 18:07, 30 August 2008, 18:22, 30 August 2008). Oh, and as for the sockpuppet, 98.206.111.54 they would appear to have the same penchant for adding IMDB references that were titled "Amazon.com" . All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That person is an expert one of the main complaints on an article that is currently being worked on. The expert clearly states that he has features that are Native American clearly. You can't get those traits mixing African American and Caucasian together. It's so simple and All Hallow's is making this a big fight. He has added things were people have called someone African American and the person didn't call themselves AFrican American the interviewer did which isn't better than an  expert that works on the subject consistently pointing out features that are Native American. Therefore if that source has to be removed than I say All Hallow mush remove information from a article which the person herself doesn't state she is African American but the interviewer does. That's like me interviewing James Earl Jones saying the African American actor when he is of African American, Native American, and Irish descent. Also IMDB is not independent they are owned by Amazon therefore they fall under Amazon's copyright.Mcelite (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007 reported by TAnthony (Result:24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I am almost embarrassed to call attention to such an inconsequential "dispute" as this (disagreement over a date), but despite all advice and warnings this editor insist on constant reverts without edit summary or discussion, in several articles, over totally unimportant factoids. The bulk of his recent edits actually involve this article and List of One Life to Live cast members (also fraught with, in my opinion, bad-faith reverts). Nearly all of the activity in these articles lately has been back-and-forth edits like this. I do not even know who is "correct," and another editor is usually involved, but Onelifefreak2007 seems to be the one not acting in good faith. I'm not an expert with the rules, but I certainly can recognize inappropriate behavior, language and attitude. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

69.158.149.30 reported by Deor (Result:72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Deor (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is regarding the simple BOLDING of America in the lead of the article of the same name (Americas), something which is prevalent in Wikipedia. Deor points me to the Manual of Style as a reason not to do it, but it doesn't support his position and then said user doesn't clarify, and reverts as well.  BS.  69.158.149.30 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Already blocked by for 72 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

68.40.196.41 reported by Road Wizard (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Road Wizard (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear-cut case, with zero discussion of the text removal. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:43, 1 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:37, 2 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:58, 2 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:52, 2 September 2008

There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced
 * Warning

Collectonian has shown an excessive use of the revert "tool" without engaging in discussion on the talk page, only responding to a challenge on her own talk page. Edit summaries were somewhat dismissive. No attempt at compromise (for example she might have allowed one mention of "flopped" especially since she admits its validity | here. Abtract (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * This person has a very well known history of stalking and harassing me. This report is just another attempt at doing so. He was told during multiple AN/I reports to stop this behavior, and has been blocked for it repeatedly. As expected, he lied about "leaving" Wikipedia, while continuing to find ways to be harassing. The fact that he even filed this report, when he has never had any dealings with this article, shows that he is continuing to stalk people. Also, this report is false. The second "Revert" is a vandalism revert and has nothing to do with the flipped/flopped issue. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see three clear reverts. I don't know the subject well enough to be sure if the second revert is in fact of vandalism or just of poorly written text. I'm not immediately inclined to block, but I am inclined to remind Collectonian that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts a day and that it would have been better not to revert this many times. (Other admins: this isn't really a result, so feel free to come up with a more solid one without being bound to anything I've said.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its both, and unrelated to the other reverts. 3RR does not generally include different, unrelated reverts. If it did, many editors would be in a constant state of block because of the amount of daily vandalism on some articles. I know the bounds of 3RR very well, and also reminded the other editor of BRD. This is nothing but a report in this editors sick, lengthy harassment campaign. Check his blocked log. Eight blocks behind this mess so far, yet the admins just keep letting him do it. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR policy page explicitly says that reverts don't have to be of the same material to count. Again, no comment on whether that revert was of vandalism or not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4 days should do it. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that the edit war died down earlier today. Any admin should feel free to unprotect without reference to me, and if the editors of this page can agree to stop reverting I will do it myself. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We already did on my talk page while the project discusses this unexpected issue over the term through nice, fairly civil discourse User talk:Collectonian. The only reason this became an issue at all is because Abtract is, once again, harassing me and hoping to get me into blocked. It is something he has done multiple times before. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Zxcvlkj reported by LedRush (talk) (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:45,  1 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 03:03,  2 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:08,  2 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 235800021 by Phizzy (talk)")
 * 4) 21:13,  2 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 235894123 by Scorpion0422 (talk)")
 * 5) 23:09,  2 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 235895069 by Scorpion0422 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—LedRush (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 01:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

24.93.236.98 reported by Jclemens (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please see this user's user talk page for discussion of additional issues, such as deliberate factual errors and original research. User was previously blocked for 12h for this same behavior.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has not discussed a signle edit, nor has s/he responded to a single message on the IP talk page. Multiple other editors, like User:Zythe and User:Paul730 have also reverted this user's repeated edits against consensus as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked by another admin for 48 hours. MastCell Talk 23:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:28, 1 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:19, 3 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:04, 3 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:11, 3 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:58, 3 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 1 September 2008, since erased along with all of this editor's other warnings.

This fella has been edit-warring for days now over this text, which is opposed by a consensus of other editors. He's turned down invitations to the talk page and now is just rapidly reverting. MastCell Talk 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

--SmashvilleBONK! 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Simon Bar Sinister reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is tendentiously editing an article despite clear consensus on how the article (a child article to the main Walt Disney World Resort article) should be laid out. Further, no citation has been provided in any of the edits to back up his claims. User appears to have already been warned and was blocked while this was being prepared, so this may be a moot point.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. Incidentally, though, you (the reporter) are actually at 4RR right now. I'm not going to do anything at this point, but you could well have both ended up blocked. Take it to dispute resolution next time, before you hit your 4th revert. MastCell Talk 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See also a previous 3RR report about the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:cityvalyu (Result:No violation) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)))

 * Page:
 * User:


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

There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced..anyway he reverted his own user page twice to erase the 3rr warnings (he erased the warning not once but twice: contempt at 3rr?}..even after that he reverted a (3+2+1) sixth time(see attention diverting tactic explained below)
 * Warning

the user has used REVERT OPTION atleast four times within 24 HOUR time frame in the same article..please see proof of each of his 4 reverts within 24 hours

Revert 1
revert1:please compare similarities between |this and | this ..both his versions differ from intermediate edits which are better referenced, neutral, balanced and rearranged into appropriate sections(most of content retained but rearranged logically)..see |this to know better


 * 1)  04:56, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (83,882 bytes) (rv mass destruction of the intro. Guy, learn to use talk page!) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 04:22, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,404 bytes) (ref added.. rearrange) (undo)

Revert 2
revert2 please note the bytes as an easy guide PROOF:


 * 1)  08:46, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes) (such gross changes should be discussed on talk. Deal with it!) (undo)


 * 08:45, 4 September 2008 117.193.37.23--(cityvalyu dynamic server number without registering) (Talk) (79,402 bytes) (restored clean up) (undo)


 * 06:04, 4 September 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes)

Revert 3
please note the bytes as easy guide:revert3 PROOF :


 * 08:59, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (please don't destroy the article) (undo)


 * 08:55, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,416 bytes) (Undid revision 236198029 by Kober (talk) you too can use talk to develop consensus on MASSIVELY reverting twice..see edit summaries) (undo)


 * 08:50, 4 September 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (semi) (undo)

Warning
Warning deleted by user:Kober after 3rd revert with disdain repeatedly: proof:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * DIFF OF 3RR WARNING DELETION:

Revert 4

 * 4th revert even after warning ; obvious motive: to feign good behaviour..

please note the bytes as easy guide:revert4 PROOF :


 * 09:57, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,856 bytes)


 * 09:49, 4 September 2008 Raphaelhui (Talk | contribs) (75,978 bytes)


 * 09:33, 4 September 2008 Treybien (Talk | contribs) m (75,856 bytes)


 * Comment

the user does not read edit summaries before reverting to his favourable version..blatantly violating 3rr in this article alone..although i tried to revert his reverts, i didnt want to violate 3rr and hence stopped short of reverting thrice ..but once i realised that he is rampant reverter (see also his reverts in international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the same date of sept 4, 2008) i am forwarding him here for he deserves a big ban..may be he hates the edits because of user hatred..since all my edits were made with citations and step by step so that anyone can understand that article was cleaned up to a better wp:point and rectified wp:unbalanced wp:undue clauses..irrespective of the edit conflicts, he has violated and deserves punishment since he is an EXPERIENCED user.. i hope admin will take appropriate actionCityvalyu (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh! It seems to me Cityvalyu has attributed all edits done today to me. This is ridiculous. I did not violate 3RR. I twice reverted an apparent destruction of the article, one by an IP, and the other by Cityvalyu (sockpuppetry?). Even after that, I reverted myself.  --KoberTalk 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Kober has reverted himself, I do not see violations here. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User didnt revert the first 3 edits..he intentionally made and reverted the fourth edit to score brownie points to divert attention from previous 3 reverts..see the time when he deleted the warning messages and compare with the diversionary fourth reversion..Cityvalyu (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, your report is very hard to follow, Cityvalyu. Please use the link "Click here to add a new report" at the top and bottom of this page which provides a convenient template. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I HAVE rearranged..hope you are not saying this to act blind and be lenient with him..(i am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as i am assuming good faith)Cityvalyu (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to wade through the report to determine exactly what's gone on, but in the meantime, Cityvalyu, (i) users can remove warnings from their talk page if they wish, as it's a prima facie indication that they've read them, (ii) to then repost the warning constitutes disruption, (iii) don't template the regulars, (iv) you're hardly an innocent party in the on-going edit war, and (v) "I am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as I am assuming good faith" doesn't bode very well should the result of this report go against your views. GbT/c 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * what all this hoopla!!! this guy has used revert option more than 4 times in this particular article alone within 24 hours(even without considering other reverts done in tha same time frame)..yet you guys want to find fault with me!!! i need to think a lot about wikipedia's application of moral standards...Cityvalyu (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly difficult to find fault with you, since you're clearing edit warring against consensus, and continue to do so. I don't think that there's been a breach of WP:3RR by, but am pretty certain that your edits constitute a breach, so consider yourself warned accordingly. Take it to the talk page - any more edit warring and blocks will almost certainly be on the cards. GbT/c 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * kober is georgian..everyone knows about double standards of western nationals..so, compare previous bans and this exemption..well, the handling of iraq invasion and handling of kosovo with respect to russia speaks a lot for these 'stooges"' dubious motives...that explains why the four reverts this guy made within 24 hours is not even condemned..no wonder the reporting party gets harassed..And as expected of "stooges", kober carries on...i suggest you guys award an appreciation to kober for reverting more than 4 times within 24 hours since he is georgian vandalising abkhazian pages..117.193.33.157 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you say "I don't think that there's been a breach of WP:3RR by, "shall i assume that such behaviour will be tolerated if i experiment with similar 4 reverting (with 3 massive reverts) within 24 hours..are you setting a precedent here?? you have not stated the reasons too (may i point to you that your integrity is questionable!!)..you have not found fault with the indisputable proof on display too..please judge your own conscience before coming here to exempt blatant violators for ?? motives...117.193.33.157 (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fipplet reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:52, 1 September 2008


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

(Original report by RolandR 11:33 4 September 2008)

Previous version reverted to: 13:38 3 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:50 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 21:03 3 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:21 3 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:56 4 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:09 4 September 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:58 4 September 2008
 * 7th revert: 15.16 4 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:, 02:37, 4 September 2008 (I forgot to use "subst" -- CT)

This is about the capital city as displayed in the infobox. Fipplet's reverts are replacing "Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)" with just "Ramallah" and a briefer footnote. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page and Fipplet has some good points; however, please work things out via discussion, compromise and use of WP:NPOV and reliable sources, not with repeated reverting of the article. This article is under the Arbcom sanction on Palestine-Israel articles. Fipplet is the sole editor reverting to that version, opposing four established editors reverting in the other direction. I've added information to this report, replacing the list of "reverts" with essentially the same list in a different format. I left off the first revert in order to make the "previous version reverted to" more obviously similar to the reverts. I'm an involved editor on this page. Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have just added today's seventh (or eighth, depending on how you count) revert. Someone please take actoion against this disruptive editor. RolandR (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an uninvolved editor. I warned Fipplet about the ArbCom sanctions (logging my notification) and he was subsequently warned about the reverts (on user page and Talk). Though he's a newbie, I would recommend a block at this juncture. HG | Talk 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although Fipplet's ideas about the status of Jerusalem should be carefully listened to on the article Talk page, he is clearly edit-warring to force his view into the article. He has reverted the same phrases back into the article over and over again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pulsifer reported by Mike R (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (This is the article after the first instance of Pulsifer adding this info, which I am not counting as a revert.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Technically he added the info once, and then reverted 3 times, so there is no 4th revert yet, but at least one of those reverts happened after he was warned. And content similar to that he originally added had previously been removed by various editors. Mike R (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself, there is no 4th revert. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider per User talk:Mike R and User talk:Coppertwig. Mike R (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. The purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent an edit war from continuing. Since the page is protected, it is not possible for the edit war to continue. Blocking Pulsifer would serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After the protection is lifted, if Pulsifer inserts the material on the Alaskan Independence Party yet again, without finding support to do so on Talk, I suggest that Mike R should file a new 3RR report at that time and mention this one as evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

115.130.2.169 reported by FisherQueen (Result: Handled)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Technically I could do this block, but I'm not comfortable blocking him since I've been reverting him, so I'm submitting it here instead. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * by Exploding Boy. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:115.130.2.169 (also editing as User:115.130.14.75) reported by User:Exploding Boy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 

This is a single-issue editor apparently using 2 IPs. He shows no signs of backing down. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He's gone far beyond 9 reverts at this point. Despite repeated warnings.  I'm going to block him  even though I edit that page, and will post on WP:AN for review.  Exploding Boy (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that he/she seems to have taken on a user ID - - and has continued the revert-war.  Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WesternPacific has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:CENSEI (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:49, 3 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:09, 4 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:12, 4 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:21, 4 September 2008

Article is under probation, Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. CENSEI (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (had been previously blocked in April) -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a bad block and a bad faith wikigaming report. Will contact blocking admin directly.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, looking at evidence, there is no evidence of edit warring. This is a bad block request.  Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is under probation for a reason: editors like Wikidemon and Scjessey edit war and revert any other editor who makes an unauthorized contribution to it. Scjessey has been warned about this before. No one owns articles around here, and they should stop acting like they do. CENSEI (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, this isn't a forum. I'm just providing a pointer that we can discuss this bad block elsewhere.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:74.210.87.84 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is persistently making edits against the consensus established on the talk page and has broken the three-revert rule despite prior warnings. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --SmashvilleBONK! 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:71.15.88.28 reported by John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This may look like a good faith edit to someone unfamiliar with the subject. But it's vandalism. John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:189.87.58.52 reported by ThuranX 03:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)(Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Multiple, see talk.

this was refused as not being tendentious editing, vandalism, or anything else. ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - Kevin (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuebie reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.
 * Three-revert rule violation on.
 * Three-revert rule violation on.
 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dojang
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Korean swordsmanship
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Gaya confederacy
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Tribute
 * Previous version reverted to:

He was warned of 3RR violation in August. But he kept reverting edits without replying to anyone no matter how many times we try to talk to him. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer, This is a malpresented 3RR report by . I've watched the edit warring between and, and it is true that Kuebie violated 3RR at Dojang. However, Michael Friedrich deliberately included the above several cases as if Kubie violated 3RR over all articles. That is not so true. Although edit warring over multiple articles is disruptive, Michael Friedrich should have not reported the case like this manner.  is as much guilty as Kuebie, because he reverted 3 times over all mentioned articles. Bentecbye has only kept edit warring with other editors, I'm wonder how the report omits the fact. Anyway, Kuebie violated 3RR on dojang, so he gets what he has to get. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:86.143.159.186 reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Orpheus (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher reported by 98.222.196.27(Result: malformed request )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


 * Tiptoety talk 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually, CalendarWatcher didn't violated 3RR, but 98.222.196.27 did. FisherQueen has blocked 98.222.196.27 for 24 hours for editwarring on this page. 98.222.196.27 was repeatedly inserting an "in modern literature" trivia section, ignoring requests to discuss it on the talk page first. (involved editor) Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:134.241.28.252 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:

User keeps adding contentious material and ignoring the discussion on the Talk Page.

Dp76764 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both  Tiptoety  talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bentecbye reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-09-01T07:14:44 04:51 10 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 2008-09-05T01:29:47
 * 2nd revert: 2008-09-05T02:56:26
 * 3rd revert: 2008-09-05T03:14:54
 * 4th revert: 2008-09-05T03:19:33
 * 5th revert:2008-09-05T19:47:50


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-09-05T03:19:442008-09-05T03:21:15


 * Please look at the above 3RR report on filed by  : WP:AN3. The user in question has been edit-warring with Kuebie over multiple articles, who also violated 3RR and was blocked today morning. Well, regardless of the two warning to prevent his 3RR and the opponent's block, Bentecbye violates 3RR at this time. So a block is in order, I believe. The first edit is also revert because the dispute is all the same one occurred on August 10th.  --Caspian blue (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't violat 3rr rule.Is this revert?--Bentecbye (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You made 5 edits in total on the article, and I included all reverts by you. Please read WP:3RR, because you edit warring up to 3 reverts on Tribute, Korean swordsmanship are also not excusable.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * edit is revert?4th revert: 2008-09-05T19:47:50Your report is mistake.--Bentecbye (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, you first edit is revert because it is the same dispute over the content on 2008-08-10 by another editor, Findings of typical Japanese tumulus and jades in this area are proving the theory today.  - Same content and same revert.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * my 1st edit.I added the source.What is a problem? is this 3RR? I obey judgment of Administrators.--Bentecbye (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The five reverts listed are all reverts, in my opinion. Each revert removes the words  "is widely rejected even in Japan" and inserts a lot of other words. I had noticed earlier today that Bentecbye had violated 3RR, but I figured that Bentecbye had stopped reverting on receiving the warning.  Apparently not: Bentecbye has done a fifth revert, after the warning.  Bentecbye, I don't understand why you're saying you didn't violate 3RR.  Look at the five diffs listed above.  Discussing on the talk page is good, but you are still not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.  You give diffs for some other edits.  They make no difference.  Even if you also did other edits, you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you remove words that someone else had put in, that's a revert, even if you change some other things too.  I've changed the "previous version reverted to" in this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Energiie reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:Page deleted)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236575038&oldid=236572485


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236572794&oldid=236572517
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573289&oldid=236573086
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573621&oldid=236573571
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573683&oldid=236573637


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Energiie&diff=236576159&oldid=236574170

This user reverted three times further past what is on this report. The speedy delete tag is currently on, rolled back by me. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Tiptoety has removed the page per the speedy delete tag for reason A7, however, this doesn't change the fact that the user has committed a policy violation. Miquonranger03 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Since the page no longer exists, there is no need to do anything to prevent editwarring on it. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this, I simply reported this because this is evidence of a user who aggressively edit wars on their pages to the point of seven reverts, and the fact that it was a speedy delete template being removed makes it all the worse. I added the report under Blocking_policy as edit warring is grounds for a block. However, I value the opinions others on the same level as my own, and there is always a large chance that my actions are incorrect. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :D
 * Closing with no action per Coppertwig. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

70.74.213.1 reported by Miquonranger03 (Result:blocked for vand)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_6&diff=236582085&oldid=236578857


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_6&diff=236582723&oldid=236582098
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_6&diff=236583104&oldid=236582733
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_6&diff=236583163&oldid=236583116
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_6&diff=236583302&oldid=236583177


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.74.213.1&diff=236583854&oldid=236583180

This is being echoed across a few different pages, including Miley's own, in addition to the entire Walt Disney Co. article being blanked and replaced by it. A Google search for "miley cyrus death" turns up nothing of significance, but I truly hope that this isn't another Benoit scenario. Miquonranger03 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Already blocked 31 hours for vandalism, which this appears to have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat reported by Tymek (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: see below


 * 1st revert: 23:09, September 3, 2008 (Boodlesthecat removes info about prisoners and Piotrowski's reference)
 * rewriting the article: Boodlesthecat rewrites the lead, this edits includes weaseling of Piotrowski'ref, this version will be reverted to)
 * 2nd revert: 13:39, September 4, 2008 (restoring older lead version seen in his rewritten version and weaseling of Piotrowski)
 * 3rd revert: 13:51, September 4, 2008 (removing a para referenced to Piotrowski)
 * 4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2008 (removing ref claim that "more Poles than Jews have died" and restoring unnecessary weaseling/attribution of Piotrowski)
 * 5th revert: 01:06, September 5, 2008 removing information about Poles being killed in the event, restoring alleged info about Polish officers
 * Diff of 3RR warning: user blocked for 3RR previously several times, familiar with policy

This is a 3RR violation, or two - with first four or last four, depending on time frame. This user has violated 3RR before, and it is really difficult to edit the article with him reverting this or that all the time. He should know better, shouldn't he? Tymek (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can somebody explain to Tymek the difference between edits and reverts so he will be more careful not to use this forum for harassment in the future. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pure WP:BURO case. Since when removing false information such as "more Poles than Jews have died" (this was finally acknowledged by original contributor of this incorrect fact ) is an offence? Correction of the mistakes makes Wikipedia better, not worse. And it is a part of the editing process, which was very intensive at this article. Boodles contributed significantly to this article, which was expanded more than 5-folds during the last couple of days. M0RD00R (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced those are reverts. Also stale. Another admin can feel free to review but no block from me. I'll be watching the page though and expect protection is there is more edit warring. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9 reported by Rudykruger (Result: Page Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

On September 5, it was widely reported that Peter Garrett rejected Waratah Coal's $5.3billion project in QLD, Australia - a project that the QLD government itself recognized and declared to be "Australia's largest coal project" on July 15, 2008. Timeshift9 felt this was an uncited edit, and despite subsequently adding a Marketwire link to this event, the user repeatedly reverted the edit on the basis that he disputes this. If rejection of a $5.3billion investment in QLD is not a significant event here, what is?

Well, this request was done improperly, and investigation proved a two person reversion war. Page protected for two hours, or until participants settle down. Could someone clean up my formatting here? I'm not sure on the new procedures. --Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done: added the AN3 template to the beginning of your message. Coppertwig (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I left a note for both parties, since they are both on the edge of a violation if they continue to make similar edits after the protection expires. I hope there will be a proper discussion on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both.--Tznkai (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers reported by User:Michael Friedrich (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-08-27T19:58:47
 * 2nd revert: 2008-08-30T19:40:01
 * 3rd revert: 2008-08-31T20:19:46
 * 4th revert: 2008-09-05T22:35:32 (actual first revert)
 * 5th revert: 2008-09-05T23:09:11 (actual second revert)
 * 6th revert: 2008-09-05T23:29:26 (actual third revert) Note: The time records and the actual descriptions are added for clear examination.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This is the actual 3RR warning today

Comments
 * He never replys to me no matter how many times I try to talk to him. He just keeps reverting edits. He reverts edits which he dislikes, saying that there's no source, even when they are actually sourced.  He sometimes even remove s and call my edit an original research even though he's removing s without showing any sources.  It does not make any sense at all.
 * He has no intention of avoiding edit war at all. He has been blocked three times already for edit wars and keeps doing it again and again.  I don't think only-24-hour block will do.  --Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.
 * 1. you redirected article title without any consensus. also your reason of article move is "Wrong". you still do not said, any justifiable reason.
 * 編修 is not only means "Compilation". don't make dictionary by your own convenience.
 * 2. My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
 * Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user Manacpowers (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mispresented 3RR report by Michael Fridreich again There is no 3RR violation on the article at this time, and Michael Fridreich knows it too well per his 3RR warning.. However, intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file because it is quite obvious that Michael Fridrich has been rather gaming the system to block anyone with whom he has been disputing on other multiple disputes. Michale Frideich also reported a malformed 3RR file on another editor yesterday as if the user violated 3RR multiple times, but that is totally wrong. This kind behaviors from bad faith are disruptive, and he is also not a saint either to quote others' history per his block and continued edit warrings within Wikipedia. Of course, Manacpower should behave properly, but Michael Fridreich should not be gaming the 3RR policy. This place is not to report Wikietiqutte.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by Manacpowers (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:51, 5 September 2008

Kumdo
 * 1st revert: 06:43, 6 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:37, 6 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, 6 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:42, 6 September 2008

Club for Editing of Korean History
 * 1st revert: 06:59, 6 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:45, 6 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:05, 6 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:00, 6 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:59, 6 September 2008

He(Michael Friedrich)'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit. but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.Manacpowers (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Any admin who review these three consecutive reports, please block the both users in dispute for the 3RR violations and continued disruptions. (they all violate 3RR)--Caspian blue (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Unreported case with same editor, same page, can be seen here, here, and here. Also warned at that time in edit line.--Gregalton (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User has deleted 3RR warning, so evidently aware of existence of rule,. Or doesn't care.--Gregalton (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * — Satori Son 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

76.117.6.149 reported by magidin (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The link added to the page was considered irrelevant and spam by three different editors, independently, and removed twice by two of them (I was one of the two). The user was warned before his latest revert (the sixth time he added the link to the page). The user has been adding a link to the same page to numerous other pages; it has been reverted in some, in others not yet. For example: (Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything),  (Apprentice (software)),  (The New Atlantis), and  (Bacon's cipher).


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Magidin (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User has been warned to stop spamming. There are a couple legitish, test style edits in there in places, maybe.--Tznkai (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The user just added the link to Squaring the circle yet again . This is his sixth revert. And he continued to add the link to other pages where it does not belong: e.g., even after being warned. Magidin (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And again. Magidin (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Made a final warning. Use my talk page if it happens again--Tznkai (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Emetman reported by Pinkadelica (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (2 warnings)

User has an apparent COI concerning the article and has repeatedly removed sourced content in the article's controversy section in what I guess is an attempt to downplay the incident. User has also taken to adding unneeded information and poor sources (AOL videos, blogs, etc) to back it up. Two other editors (besides myself) have been reverting this guy and his associated IPs for the since late last night. This user has actually been POV pushing on this article for awhile. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * for two days. Charges of COI editing are floating around. Consider opening a complaint at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The talk page here is very short considering the huge volume of edits here in the last two days. I suggest that editors try to reach consensus on some of the disputed matters on Talk before the protection expires. Blocks will be issued if edit-warring continues after that time. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to vandalism, is necessary to be present. Why is there so much Agro details ? These so called editors are I believe all the same, or relevant individual. Any proof at all of COI ? Simply biased individuals.

I have proposed language settlements on the 5W edit page - Lets settle it there today and call it a day and leave the page alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These individuals are posting ad naseum against all 5w entrees on other pages. Its clear bias and Mosmof and others should be banned.12.103.203.218 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion at Talk:5W Public Relations. Anyone who is very concerned about this article who doesn't yet have a Wikipedia account, please register. IP editors who don't edit outside of the 5W article do not start from a position of great credibility, when they suggest that others may have a COI. If you make such charges, then you should be willing to say whether you yourself have an affiliation to the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reported by Tony1 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Note that the first edit was not a revert. That was the first time I added the POV-section tag.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, the three actual reverts were restoring a NPOV tag that was removed with personal attacks as justifications, such as calling me "feisty" and requesting my concerns be placed on the talk page after they had already been placed there. Another called me "queruous" and said I placed the tag because of "individual idiosyncrasies". -   - My attempts to address the issue on the talk page have met with little response to the issues with the article, as Tony1 has repeatedly chosen to attack me personally instead. -  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, this was his original posting of the NPOV tag. He has posted it five times now. Tony   (talk)  05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, rather than tag the whole article, I tagged only the lead.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:AzureFury

(e.c.) Aggressive behaviour not conducive to collaborative editing; disregarding of reasonable calls for cooperation by other editors. Four reverts replacing his NPOV tag, a tag that is regarded as quite inappropriate by other editors. Previous blocking for 24 hrs and calls for improved behaviour noted on the offender's talk page. Tony  (talk)  05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not a warning, he is informing me that he has reported me here.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's arguable whether this was a 3RR violation or not. AzureFury posted a "npov" tag at 08:53 6 September, and after it was reverted, posted a "POV-section" tag at 09:08.  If posting that second tag counts as a revert, then there were four reverts and a 3RR violation.  The last three reverts were re-posting the POV-section tag.  On the talk page, 3 editors oppose the tag and one other editor seems to support having the tag. Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As the edit war over the tag is finished, blocking etc. would serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 15:42, 6 September 2008 Previous version reverted to: - he reverted addition of: "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." from "Original definition" section.
 * 2nd revert: 19:39, 6 September 2008 Previous version reverted to:
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 6 September 2008 Previous version reverted to:
 * 4th revert: 06:52, 7 September 2008 Previous version reverted to: - he removed addition of: "In contrast to these two camps..." from introduction.

Gregalton reported Misessus for edit warring on the same article (diff). -- Vision Thing -- 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The information provided doesn't establish a violation: the first and fourth "reverts" may not be reverts, leaving only two reverts. The information "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." has been there at least since August 23, and you haven't provided a "previous version reverted to" which doesn't contain this information.  You say the last revert deletes information, but actually it only moves it from one part of the article to another, and again you haven't provided a "previous version reverted to" that would show that this is a revert. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The information "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." has not been in version 16:18, 24 August 2008 (version I listed), and as for forth revert - by moving content from introduction to other section he partly undid action of other editor, and such action is considered a revert by our definition. -- Vision Thing -- 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he's kept on edit warring this evening, so Stifle (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, unblocked as two of the reverts had nothing to do with edit warring - one was in fact a clear case of vandalism.--Gregalton (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:76.109.150.169 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Yopie 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not appear to be 'vandalism' as claimed by IP. Blocked for 24 hours.

User:Verdadeverdadeira reported by User:The Ogre (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:24, 3 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:58, 5 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:19, 6 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The Ogre (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing "more than three" reversions, nor do these occur within a 24 hour time period. I'm also not seeing any reversions after the warning (which you placed one minute before reporting here).  Kuru  talk  15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Needlepinch reported by Fugu Alienking (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page: Mikael Ljungman
 * User: Needlepinch


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

We've just had a deletion discussion for this article, with the user in question being the only one in favour of keeping the article before the discussion was closed as no consensus. They are now reacting to the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced content (such as unverifiable resume details from LinkedIn) by removing other content which they don't like, and restoring the unreferenced content, despite two other editors requesting that they discuss their concerns on the Talk page. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User has been previously alerted to the 3RR rule. Blocked for 24 hours.  Kuru  talk  16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

98.209.199.182 reported by dunkerguy89 (Result: Incomplete report)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)&action=edit&section=13 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)&action=edit&section=13 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)

He continues to change the characters with no proof and does it more than 3 times a day! Also check out his history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.209.199.182 he changed playable character 5 times on auguest 30th and i've tried to warn him but he doesn't answer back
 * Comment: Assuming the other IP edits are different users, there doesn't seem to be a violation. If two consecutive edits count as one edit, then 98.209.199.182 has had only 3 edits in a recent 24-hour period; it takes four reverts to violate the 3RR rule. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is anyways.  Tiptoety  talk 04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Last version before Arilang1234 started making revisions and reverting attempts by other users to revert Arilang1234's changes:


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

This user's additions are not childish vandalism but are incoherent, incorrect, largely irrelevant and on the whole bizarre. In the course of the last 4 days this user has made over 150 changes to this article. These changes have been reverted by various users (including me) only to be reverted in turn by Arilang1234, a few of (Arilang1234's) reversions are listed above.

84.74.150.48 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Factchecker123 reported by User:Journalist23 (Result:Malformed )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User is constantly removing information calling it unfactual, even though the information is verified in a news article that is referenced. He/she also keeps putting. false information that the show has been postponed indefinitely, when there is no verifiable reference for his/her claim.
 * Tiptoety talk 05:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:68.146.103.217 reported by User:Shootmaster_44 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only three reverts given, and I'm not seeing a fourth in the page history. If I'm wrong, please link to the fourth revert; otherwise no vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops I reported it one edit too early. However, the 4th edit is now done, so I guess the user falls in violation correct? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly reported by MastCell (Result: Declined because of lack of consensus)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:07, 6 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:21, 6 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:26, 7 September 2008 (undoes immediately preceding edit)
 * 3rd revert: 08:39, 7 September 2008 (undoes immediately preceding link)
 * 4th revert: 16:33, 7 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:37, 7 September 2008
 * 6th revert: 18:52, 7 September 2008 (undoes preceding edit)

is at 6RR (!) on this article, which was just unprotected because of... edit-warring. These are not vandalism reverts and they're not BLP issues - this is just edit-warring about a content issue. He's an established user and well aware of 3RR and its exceptions. Given that Kelly has been around awhile and has done good work, I was going to simply remind him that he'd hit 6RR already and ask him to take a break. However, another admin (User:KillerChihuahua) already warned Kelly that he'd been edit-warring, and Kelly's response was defiant personalization of the dispute, concluding with the constructive phrase: "If you would like to block me, bring it." I've therefore left this here for an uninvolved admin to deal with.

Note that has also gone well over 3RR, though they appear to be a new account and have not been warned about 3RR. I leave the appropriate response to the reviewing admin's discretion. MastCell Talk 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this article has just been unprotected? It is possible that the admins here were not aware that it had gone from full protection to semi-protection. I'm also seeing reverting of different bits of content. I know that this is still reverting under WP:3RR, but is this a straight "no edits without talk page consensus" edit warring? Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At first blush, Kelly's response alone deserves a wrist slapping. Reviewing diffs now.--Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a closer look too. It seems that the sections sourced to an article in the Independent ("Palin: the real scandal") was being edit warred over. I agree that Kelly has also made unconstructive comments on the talk page. On the other hand, that there is discussion ongoing on the talk page is a good thing, and possibly things are calming down now. Jossi said a block would be punitive. I've also left a note at Kelly's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KC and I are nominally friendly from waaaaay back in the day, in the interest of fulldisclosure. And I'm not going to start throwing blocks, but I am considering a 1 hour cooldown protection for the page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is KC? (Oh, KillerChihuahua?) I'm not going to do anything here either, but someone does need to tell Kelly to back off. The ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate, and I'm about to say that in the user talk page thread. Editors need to work together here and explain any edits and reverts they do, or request protection (I know, I know, there is an arbcom case about that at the moment). Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The status quo is not acceptable. A few days ago, September 4, Kelly hit 6RR on the page and I didn't report it (5 of the reverts happened in 20 minutes). On September 6, the article was protected because of edit-warring, which consisted largely of Kelly removing material and incorrectly claiming a BLP exemption. Now he's back at 6RR again. He's continued to revert since this report, again erroneously claiming a BLP exemption). I was willing to cut him some slack, but his response to KillerChihuahua indicates that there's a serious problem here. If you think talking to him will more effectively address this egregious edit-warring and combativeness as opposed to a block for repeated 6RR violations, then go for it, but something needs to change. MastCell Talk 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that Kelly reverted again, after the warnings given. This is not simply a "mistake" but a pattern of disruption of an unprecedented scale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Jossi's one to talk about making disruptive choices in editing these articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Uninvolved administrators are welcome to get involved, but I intend to deal with this in the morning.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Strict enforcement of WP:BLP is not disruption, I'm sorry. I'm heading to bed now, hopefully by tomorrow this will all have blown over and we can work forward constructively. But a read of Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin will explain the problem well, if anyone has time. Kelly  hi! 04:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not BLP violations as per Mastcell and many others that have warned you. This is getting simple out of hand. Where s the admin that would do the right thing and block this editor for blatant disruption? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't fight on AN pages.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have been looking into this for a little while now and here is my (uninvolved) opinion. What Kelly is doing seems to be a bit controversial, but at the same time barely within the scopes of WP:BLP and based simply on that reason he should not be blocked. But then when you look at the way he is going about it, it is clear that it is disruptive and is causing un-needed disruption to the article, and based simply on that reason he should be blocked. I like Jossi am a bit biff'd by the fact that Kelly reverted again after being warned, but think a block would cause unnecessary drama and so for the time being I think it best the article left protected and everyone left unblocked. Tiptoety  talk 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the reversion? How can you call that material, sourced to the Washington Times to be a BLP violation? Or should I copy here what is considered to be a BLP violation? I was instrumental in making BLP into policy way back with other editors, I monitor BLP/N, and I am not buying that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but her disruption and WP:BITE of newbies is making these new editors to trip as well on 3RRs. This has to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We all know you are having a spat with Kelly jossi. This is NOT the proper location to continue your crusade against him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not make this report, three other admins warned her/him. And I do not have a crusade against her/him. And your comments here ignore the facts and are most unwelcome ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot! Its the pile on Kelly show. I'll just go edit List of edible fruits. Being supportive of someone who's done a shit ton more to keep these articles NPOV than all the administrators of wikipedia jointly is a crime. I forgot. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kyaa, consider this your only warning, and further uncivil comments will result in a block. Unless you are here to discuss the article in question and the edit warring going on, do not comment at all. Tiptoety  talk 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point the report is getting stale and a block would not be preventive anyway, so perhaps that ought to be off the table. Kelly and a few other editors are, and have been, patrolling Sarah Palin-related articles and talk pages, aggressively reverting and removing edits, discussions, comments, etc., that they feel violate BLP, WP:NOT, and so on. These routinely go beyond 3RR in a technical sense because they do more than 3 clean-ups per day. On the one hand they are (in my opinion) often over-zealous, dismissing things out of hand and reverting productive discussions on dubious BLP claims that can start to look a little bit like article ownership, biting, or even a touch of POV in the form of avoiding content with controversial implications. On the other hand, these edits are all in good faith, mostly uncontroversial, and tend not to be edit warring - usually the reverts don't overlap. Do we really want to enforce 3RR in a way that chases away people doing article patrol? If so we need more people to watch the articles because the bad edits are coming fast and furious. I don't know the statistics, but something like 90% of all edits to any article on Wikipedia are bad edits - simple mistakes, perennial things that have already been decided, B from BRD, test edits, and so on. When an article is edited dozens of time per day there will be dozens of edits per day to revert. If Kelly doesn't do six reverts we need a second editor to do the other three. Anyway, I think people have to make the decision if 3RR is to be strictly applied for making unrelated reverts while uncontroversial patrolling of high-volume articles. If we make that decision, why not simply thank Kelly for the good work, ask to slow it down and be friendlier with the edit summaries, and leave it at that? If you have an issue with an established editor isn't it best to ask nicely instead of threatening a block? Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For disclosure, I am one of those editors that is trying to remove questionable material from the Palin talk page, ie forum discussions, rumors, links to blogs, straw man aurguments, you name it. I also agree that "maintenence" of talk pages is essential and requires more help. Right now, it seems like that page is in the Wild West phase, where anything and everything is a go. --Tom 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lack of consensus on whether these edits were appropriate. This is more complex than a 3RR vio edit war.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 reported by Hawkins1969 (Result: Editor warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is the last "good" version of the article from August 31st. Since September 3rd user Arilang1234 has made over a 150 edits to this article. Various people have tried to revert back to the August 31st version to remove Arilang1234's changes only to have those reverts reverted by Arilang1234. Arilang1234's edits are now so numerous in the edit history that people are beginning to attempt corrections of Arilang1234's version of the article rather than seeing they can achieve the same thing by simply reverting to the August 31st version.


 * 1st revert: Benjwong reverts Arilang1234 edits of the last 2 days restoring August 31 version.
 * 2nd revert: Arilang1234 reverts Benjwong's revert.

In the course of 3 edits user Transparent1 reverts most of the changes made by Arilang1234:
 * Edits:

User Arilang1234 reverts these edits:
 * Reverts:

User Transparent1 again attempts to remove Arilang1234 material:
 * 

User Arilang1234 reverts this:
 * Revert:

User Enochlau reverts Arilang1234's revert:
 * Revert:

User 76.103.204.232 attempts to edit out Arilang1234's work:
 * Edit:

User Arilang1234 reverts this:
 * Revert:

User 76.103.204.232 then reverts again:
 * Revert:

And Arilang1234 reverts again:
 * Revert:

User 91.171.113.10 attempts to remove Arilang1234's changes:
 * Edit:

And Arilang1234 reverts this:
 * Revert:

I (as 84.74.150.48 before I acquired a user name) revert Arilang1234's changes:
 * Revert:

These are reverted by Cluebot and Arilang1234 makes further additions:
 * Edit:

User Enochlau again reverts Arilang1234's changes:
 * Revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I believe the user's contribution is well intended but not the stuff of a coherent encyclopedia article. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant.

The bulk of the changes consist of the addition of a few new sections near the start of the article which add no value and are poorly phrased.

The apparently minor changes made to the rest of the existing article reflect a revisionist sino-centric view of history which aims more to serve modern political purposes than fact and would be viewed by many as distasteful (and by that I don't just mean an in-vogue Free Tibet set).

Attempts to revert the article to its state before Arilang1234's edits are being quickly reverted by the user. Enforcing a particular set of opinions and beliefs in this manner does not seem appropriate.

Hawkins1969 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have warned Arilang1234. Due to his his recent Talk comment, it seems possible he has got the message that cooperation with others will pay dividends. Thanks to Coppertwig for explaining matters to a new editor who appears well-intentioned, but whose work has led to a war-like situation on this article for the last two days. If he resumes editing without trying to achieve consensus, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

86.158.238.188 reported by Bogorm (Result:Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * The user is identified by User:Soman as being banned (visible on the second and fifth link) and indulges in launching repeatedly menaces to me (i promise to you that your mission of POV will be killed) and derogatory statements to other users and expresses intent to editwar for 70 more years here on this topic Bogorm (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Further disruption

 * The user erases my comments and launches intimidating summaries, which is defined as vandalism. Mine intrepidity is being incessantly challenged and is in peril of evanescing if this pestering persists... Bogorm (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Bogrom has also threatened by saying "pakistani editors can throng" hes continuing to abuse me also 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They actually have... on the Wikipedia discussion page. Here one expounds uniquely the three-revert-rule, which I have never trespassed, therefore refrain from inserting minutiae. Bogorm (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"no matter how many Pakistani editors throng hither to impose its deltion here" this is the qoute from Bogrom in the AFD page so hes to blame too he also made several controversial edits to muzaffarabad without consensus and with a POV redirect to the POK page 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The 70 year thing was a clear joke hes just weasiling his way in and please check his POV edits on the POK page claiming india has the right to call it what ever they want hes a nationalist 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are trespassing WP:NPA - I do not sojourn in Asia at all. Bogorm (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither do i but your pro indian stance is undeniable86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not interdictory. Cease distracting the administrators by deviating their cogitations from the three-revert rule, this is ineffably, extremely ineffably superfluous!. Bogorm (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogorm you didnt mind when your chum kashmir cloud broke the three revert rule or where you just letting him off your bias is seeping through your veil of big words 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * that was a deserved retort to "this POK article will be deleted no matter how many indian editors flock to this page". Forbear from underscoring deviating minutiae. Bogorm (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was not abusive freind your big words just dont suite your behaviour please leave you biases away from talk pages 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely with Kashmircloud - PaK is not used by India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis have their version - Azad Kashmir, so must the Bharat version be present too in order to prevent one-sidedness! As eluidated by him and other users, POK does not include only PaK, but a much wider territory, do not mislead the readers. Bogorm (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC) This comment clearly shows his POV based mentality 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Defamations concerning my mentality are not to be committed neither here, nor anywhere in Wikipedia, cease trolling! Bogorm (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trolling around on talk pages and provoking editors with your baseless claims is also no desired on wikipedia so please keep your philosophical rants about POK and pakistan to yourself unless you wish to stir more trouble as you are by provoking me 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I implore you, block him, he relapses anew into indulging in personal menaces, this is an incontrovertible intimidation essay, please elevate your attention thereto. I do not know which Wikipedia rule he has not yet tresspassed: WP:3RR(explication above), WP:NPA, Harassment, WP:Sockpuppet(according to the user), WP:CIVILITY, it is escalating into unambiguously minatory insults! Bogorm (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)This provocation of Bogorm is bread out of anger because i have challenged him on the POK talk page this is what drives his unrelenting bias accusations towards me 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed is that this users talk page was a red link and no communication had been attempted. I have left the IP a warning and will block if they continue. Tiptoety  talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

68.52.36.127 and Sox23 reported by Neo16287 (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

It was at this point the two editors began adding spaces to a section simply for the purpose of posting edit summaries to one another, as shown below:


 * Version before edit summary war:


 * 1st subsequent edit:
 * 2nd subsequent edit:
 * 3rd subsequent edit:
 * 4th subsequent edit:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been notified of 3RR on talk page. No response as of yet.

An edit war has ensued on the page, from time index 19:28, 7 September 2008 to 21:56, 7 September 2008 (all times UTC). Any assistance would be most helpful. Thank you. Neo16287 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bogorm reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This user is aware of the 3rr rule, because above this section he's trying to report someone else.

This user blows 3rr away and is extremely hard to deal with (he can't be convinced of anything). Most of the reverts are self-evident.

Grey Fox (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment and reporting vandalism
The proponent for my blocking has committed severe vandalism ("Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." - the only thing in the summary is mistrust for Russian and Iranian sources, but he erases Ukrainian and American ones as well; "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content" - the character of his actions described pretty discernably in WP:Vandalism) by blanking a whole section which was provided with sources:
 * here
 * and here. The section was obviously inconvenient for the user, since on the talk page he blames the Iranian and Russian source and utters derogatory comments towards established medias as Press TV, overlooking that there is one Ukrainian and Israeli corroborating the information, and ostensibly being reluctant to search for refuting sources in lieu of disparaging the available ones.
 * Here he offends three renowned Russian sources (RIA Novosti, Vesti.ru and Russia Today) simply for being Russian and and blanks the section. Since vandalism needs not to be present 4 times, but only one for a complaint, I would like to complain against Grey Fox's biased and offensive edits for at least four renowned medias which he erases. Bogorm (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "is extremely hard to deal with" - this is considered (hopefully not only by me) as Argumentum ad hominem. Bogorm (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've violated 3rr Bogorm, 3rr is like an electric fence. I've given valid reasons in the summary, always referring to the talk page where you didn't respond. You've been reverted by multiple users on inserting dubious material consisting of exceptional claims completely based on dubious sources, so to pull that off as "vandalism" is absurd. Grey Fox (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bogorm, not only you made 3RR violation, but you also accuses another user of "vandalism", which is against WP:CIV and only makes things worse. That was obviously a content dispute, not a vandalism. This user considers Russian sources unreliable because Russia was a combatant side in this war, and because those media are state-controlled and involved in extensive propaganda campaign. So, he actually wanted to remove something he perceived as garbage. Please always assume good faith.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But according to him Israel is not involved, and according to every sensible person neither is Ukraine, but he removed Ukrainian, Israeli and US source, how about that? Bogorm (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I accuse, since he blanked a whole section simply by belittling the sources, and I even do not know whether he at all knows Russian to remove them! How about if I now begin to remove every, let's say, turkish source with no knowledge of the language, simply because I do not like the content, would that be vandalism???? Your "valid reasons" are but a disgust for every Russian and Iranian sources, and I'd rather desist from drawing a conclusion (for reverence for ¨WP:NPA), but it is obvious. Bogorm (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what it comes down to Bogorm I advice you to adress my arguments more carefully. I've also asked you multiple times to read source guidelines more carefully. I'm also not just removing sources because they are from said countries, but because you misinterpretate them and add a lot of original research. For now let an admin judge. Grey Fox (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogorm, let's assume that you are right, and the sources are valid. Then you should discuss this matter at the article talk page, ask for 3rd opinion, or post this problem to WP:RS. But making 3RR violations and claiming that another user is vandal is not the method to resolve this, and you suppose to know that.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (To Biophys) Thank you for the assumption, may I be permitted to ask for yours(see below)? Besides I quoted two sentences from ¨WP:Vandalism, elucidating the question of vandalism. (To Grey Fox) Well, but your reticence about my question about the knowledge of the Russian language is rather aggravating. Biophys speaks it and can verify if I have committed any wrongdoing in quoting and recapitulating them in English, which I declare I have not. If I had indulged in purging large amounts of Turkish sources and the sections based on them from articles without any knowledge of the language, I would not heva been surprised, if one who is knowledgeable accuses me of disruption. Bogorm (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to look into this and am currently working on a resolution, until then I ask that there be no admin action taken (though comments are welcome). Tiptoety  talk 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reporting calumny from Grey Fox
Claiming that the sixth edit was arguably revert is a flagrant calumny, since it only removes one word, where there is no previous edit, inserting only and exactly this one word - it has been inserted by this edit, to which the 6th quoted here is obviously no reversion! All other edits besides one have been restoration of light-mindedly erased sources and not only Russian and Iranian, but German, Ukrainian, American and Israeli - it is obvious that the persons who deleted them, erase even not only Russian sources, but inconvenient for their POV and if one seeks more assiduously, would reject them as reversions too - reversions to what (no previous situation quoted)??? (two summaries of the second person who erased them are against the sources (German and Russian) ! ) Bogorm (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion of texts supported by sources, which are considered by user X unreliable (for whatever reason he explained at an article talk page), does not represent vandalism but a content dispute.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)