Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive80

User:Diva411 reported by User:CMJMEM (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:18, 7 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:58, 8 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:35, 8 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:08, 8 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User has repedidld vandalized page. it is the only page that they are editing.CMJMEM (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This user could easily be the subject of the article, please try and communicate with them. John Reaves 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is customary to warn them before reporting them here. I was very close to blocking the reporter for edit warring as well. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: There is certainly an edit war going on at the page, but following the 3RR warning, Diva411 made two more reverts as seen . A short block for 3RR or refusing to follow procedure might still be in order, or perhaps a brief protection of the page. I've made one more revert and a plea to take it to the talk page for Diva411. Dayewalker (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Before I could get back there, an IP reverted DIva411's edits, which seems to be the work of the other editor. I'll leave this one as is for admin attention, thanks on advance. Dayewalker (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: probation by tznkai; user de-watchlisted)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 03:34,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG per long-running talk page discussion")
 * 2) 16:46,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */  NPOV again")
 * 3) 17:02,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")
 * 4) 21:08,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per WP:BRD, undue weight - see talk")
 * 5) 22:08,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")
 * 6) 22:09,  8 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")

Discussion
This is EW; both removing content without discussion, citing NPOV (or BLP, as yesterday) to win a content dispute; and now edit warring also to include an NPOV tag. Kelly needs to step back from these articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing this right now, but will also be reviewing all other users on that page.--Tznkai (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Inserting an NPOV tag is a revert now? Kelly  hi! 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Given the number of people attacking the Sarah Palin articles (6500 edits in the last 7 seven days, vs. 5500 for Obama for the entire year) if this rule is applied to editors defending these articles from POV and BLP the articles will soon descend into a basement of libel and wild inaccuracy. This is just like a denial of service attack.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How something is done is at least as important as why.--Tznkai (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've disengaged and unwatchlisted the Palin pages. Time to hand this off. Kelly  hi! 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say this is the oddest definition of 3RR I've ever seen. Any edit is apparently considered a "revert". ~:) - Kelly  hi! 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C)Like Tznkai said, the edits themselves may not be wrong, but the way they are being brought about is a different story and ultimately that is the whole basis for WP:3RR along with WP:EDITWAR. Tiptoety  talk 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * People can, and have, been blocked for edit warring over inserting or deleting NPOV tags. Even if that were technically to be considered a violation of 3RR, that seems a matter best worked out on the article talk page or if necessary a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule or a dispute resolution page.  Kelly is a good faith editor, trying to help with some exceptionally high volume editing articles, who has not been an edit warrior and shows no inclination to be, so I don't think a block would help the situation even if one disputed the wisdom of the edits (and most people would agree with them, probably).Wikidemon (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)In my capacity as an administrator familiar with edits in question, I am of the opinion the Kelly is a good faith editor. However, I have to be fair, and this is the second 3RR in two days. In an application of common sense I have made this offer--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Kelly has apparently agreed to the conditions I laid out and is on a topic ban for 24 hours from Sarah Palin related article space. Kelly is clear to make constructive comments on related talk space. If this ban is breached, default to standard WP:3RR block, and use your best judgment. I would also appreciate being notified via talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50 reported by Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

Time reported: 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): 11:13, September 5, 2008 (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 20:37,  8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 236575861 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
 * Remaining edits restore to the version of 20:50
 * 1) 21:06,  8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "stereotype")
 * 2) 21:17,  8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "USE the talk page")
 * 3) 22:51,  8 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk page contribus (dead example)")


 * Diff of warning: 21:11, September 8, 2008

—— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also came here to report this. User:Ramu50 is now at 4 reverts plus the initial edit. I left a specific 3RR warning  after the third revert. Discussion at Talk:Function (mathematics) is unanimously against adding this material. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing--Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported:Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comments Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise, his last revert would have been 12th revert. He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:


 * Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
 * 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
 * this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. Manacpowers (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.Kumdo, Club for Editing of Korean History, Baekje, Dojang, Second Manchu invasion of Korea. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--Caspian blue (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

24 hours????.too short .WHY??? He is too bad.
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3nd
 * 4th
 * 5th
 * 6th
 * 7th —Preceding unsigned.comment added by Bentecbye (talk • contribs) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) --Bentecbye (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocking for 3RR is intended to prevent edit warring, not to punish users. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Grayghost01 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Warning)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: In addition, a warning in an edit summary at  was also given.

This sequence is the result of conflicts between this editor versus myself and several other editors (one other has particularly been singled out by Grayghost) over several articles including Confederate States of America, Great Train Raid of 1861, and Winchester in the American Civil War. The editor repeatedly categorizes others' edits as vandalism both in edit summaries and by actual warnings placed on user talk pages. He identifies his particular POV a well as editing style at User talk:Grayghost01. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy.  Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it.  I posted a 3RR warning at 16:47 7 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The warning seems to have stopped the edit war; we'll leave it at that. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been busy on other wiki-topics, see my list of created pages and long-standing contributions of high-quality. The user User:North Shoreman, from Ohio, originally made the POV alternations to Virginia in the American Civil War, on off-topic news articles, and various details below the level of detail appropriate for the page.  As a Virginian, and member of the Virginia Task Force and Civil War Task Force, I stick to contributions of my locality.  North Shoreman has a POV on the Civil War that he wishes to put in almost every page on a Southern Locale.  Several times I have had to undo off-topic out-of-scope edits that North Shoreman has INTENTIONALLY put in only for the sake of being bothersome, not in the INTENT OF GOOD WIKI SPIRIT.  In my humble opinion, the Revert-Violator and well beyond 3RR has been North Shoreman.  I have called his attention to look at himself introspectively, to see his own conflict of interest on the topic (An Ohio-man with a POV editing Virginia pages, disputing with a published Virginia Historian).  In conclusion, there are both POV and COI problems here.  I have advised him that if he wishes to diatribe or blog on Lincoln and Fort Sumter to PLEASE ... PLEASE ... go ahead, but to do so on pages on THOSE topics.  As a retired instructor from Marine Corps University, and curriculum developer on topics such as this ... I'm frankly apalled ... but thus is the nature of Wiki to deal with bothersome folks such as this.  Good day, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a P.S. topic, as a resident of Winchester, Virginia, you will see in that page which I created initially quite awhile ago, a depth of information, content, graphics and quality not present in many other ACW pages. I have obtained free-release permission on many embedded images, as well as created many. My contributions are purely historically-topic in nature. I have added and cited many references. If the gentleman from Ohio, User:North Shoreman, honestly things he has something positive or valuable to contribute to these very localized articles Winchester in the American Civil War, Great Train Raid of 1861, Romney Expedition ... then by all means, he is welcome. However, as I mentioned previously, as a published author I do not agree with the nature, the content, the orientation, and the level of detail of North Shoreman's edits. In fact, they are intented to express his POV on the Civil War as a whole. By chance, I made a minor edit to the very high-level topic of Confederate States of America by merely adding a secession date for Arizona Territory (a well documented historic fact). Thereupon User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae proceed to war-edit on this page, and then delve down into other areas where I mainly work and contribute. I am merely a retiree, Virginia historian, spending free time on history packages, tours, and writings. I am local to this area, and work with local organizations, schools, etc. for the promotion of local history. My contributions (see my user page) are focused in Virginia and locally. I don't normally contribute to the high-level topics where User:North Shoreman and his compatriot User:JimWae like to edit frequently with their POV. I stand confident that any fair examination of these users vis-a-vis my contributions will reveal a very different tone and nature, and from my contributions you will find material which is organized, coherent, thoughtful, and attractive to wiki users reading on this topic. I hope that the admins and admin-helpers here are diligent in their examination, interested in the aims of Wiki, and take the time to exercise due course as necessary. Finally, I have invited these users to discuss on the discussion pages. They have had no interest in this normal forum, and simply undo, revert, and war-edit at will. Again, thank you for your time in the matter.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TL;DR. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Karvok reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:24 h)
. : Time reported: 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:07,  9 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 237214380 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
 * 2) 05:46,  9 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 237221562 by Aunt Entropy (talk)")
 * 3) 06:02,  9 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 237223177 by Hrafn (talk)")
 * 4) 06:12,  9 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 237225054 by Hrafn (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Kafziel did the blocking, just noting here.) Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Be Black Hole Sun (talk) reported by Andreas81 (talk (Result: Users warned )

 * Page: Roxette discography
 * User: Be Black Hole Sun (talk)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I don't want this user to be blocked completely but to stay away from the site Roxette discography. He erased information which was given a reliable source and that can not be accepted. so please could you please make this user stay away from this site or block him from editing this site. thank you. Andreas81 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay first off, most of those reverts are Secondly the  has never been warned (I have now done so), the warning diff you provided above is that of a warning issued to you from Be Black Hole Sun and I heed you to take that warning because you have caused just as much disruption as him. I am going to leave this open a bit longer and see what transpires, but I am thinking (and hoping) that no block will be needed here.  Tiptoety  talk 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, the edit war has appeared to die down and no one has edited the article after their warning. Tiptoety  talk 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh reported by Canadian Monkey (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: - this is a complex 3RR violaiton, invloving partial reverts.

describes it as "Restore material." - repeats many of the reverts included in revert #5
 * 1st revert: edit sumamry describes it as "partial rv"
 * 2nd revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237146162 by Hypnosadist" - simple revert
 * 3rd revert: reverts this edit by Raggz
 * 4th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undid revision 237168311 by Raggz" - simple revert
 * 5th revert: edit summary describes it as "Undo series of unilateral edits"
 * 6th revert: edit summary


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned about violations before

Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FN_P90&oldid=237187843


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Made a single revert after the warning and reverted my warning calling me a "perpetuator" of 'said war': --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:201.152.199.35 reported by User:WilyD (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: first edit


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Two previous generic warnings today for disruptive editing.  and  Wily D  17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Robbo25 reported by Pfainuk (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (Came before the 3RR warning)
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I'm not involved here, just noticed it on my watchlist. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I checked out the article and the reverts - can't speak for all the diffs but in the last one he has certainly added a source and it cites exactly the information he claims it does. Porterjoh (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Was just about to make a correction. The source actually shows up in the fifth revert.  The source does appear to say what he says it does, but he's still edit warring over it. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "bankrolled" is being used pejoratively here, sourced or not, and if you look at previous edits you can clearly see this is the intention. Beve (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He has also continued to revert after the 3RR warning. I've lost count now. The user insits that anyone disagreeing is a vandal, which is hardly playing nice. The source provided is hardly great. A piece in a tabloid that uses the term once in a throw away fashion? I'm not sure it meshes with the other sourced info where his father was having towork hard to support Lewis' racing. Narson (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perry mason reported by User:24.147.84.127 (Result: User warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


 * Okay, first off this user was never warned in regards to this, so I have done so. Secondly, a few of the reverts are . If the user continues, I will block them (but understand that it takes two to edit war and if the IP continues they will be blocked as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:68.146.103.217 reported by User:Shootmaster_44 (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:

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. I resubmitted this report as the previous one I edited did not seem to be getting any further action. There have been some intermediary edits on the template during this edit war. The correct version should be However, the template asked for a correct version from before the edit war began, so that is the one listed above. Also, the user has progressed into making nonsensical edits to the page as demonstrated here, Ron Lancaster has not played for the Riders since the late 70's and does not belong on there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also,  Tiptoety  talk 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mooretwin reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There has been an ongoing discussion here, and they were told by two editors how the information could be introduced, but kept reverting anyway. Now they have again reverted, adding references which do not support what they want to say. We all know the term is used, just not by the Party itself. Now they are trying it on with this article, granted the last edit made me smile, when they cop what they are after doing, but that is beside the point. Likewise this seems to be the next article we can expect more of the same. A quick click of the link would have ruled out the need for a citation Ulsterisation. They seem to have a thing about reverting consensus versions? Thanks-- Domer48 'fenian'  13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Catiline63 reported by Arcayne (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:46, September 9, 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:24, September 9, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:01, September 9, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:02, September 9, 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:27, September 9, 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:16, September 9, 2008
 * 6th revert: 10:56, September 9, 2008
 * 7th revert: 11:08, September 9, 2008
 * 8th revert: 06:36, September 10, 2008
 * 9th revert: 09:35, September 10, 2008

Catiline63 is a fairly new user who sometimes fails to sign in before editing, (thus, the anon account: ).


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * -To the anon: 1, 2
 * -To the primary account: 3, 4

I've offered to counsel the fairly new user, and didn't report him yesterday when I discovered the seven reverts yesterday. I warned the user, and hoped (s)he would listen to the warning to stop reverting. The last two diffs indicate that the warning was ignored. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Has Catiline63 stated that they do in fact edit using that IP (if so, could you provide a diff, please)? Tiptoety  talk 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, sure did. Less than two minutes after the anon posted in article discussion here, Catiline67 signed in, and posted that the anon response had come from him here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, seeing as neither the IP or the named account has edited since you have left them a warning, and seeing as neither their IP or named account have ever been blocked for 3RR or edit warring before I am going to give them the benefit of doubt. But if they revert one more time I will block. Tiptoety  talk 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you giving the contributor another chance, but I respectfully believe that you might have the chronology backwards. The user was warned via his anon account at 11:17 and 11:24, September 9, 2008, and via the named account at 11:59. The 8th and 9th reverts occurred after that notice was made. During that notice, they were encouraged to ask questions before reverting. It did not happen.
 * Again, I don't mind the newbie (if they are indeed such) getting cut a little slack, but it is important to note that (s)he were told what the rules were, and the user reverted anyway. At least a small block or stern warning would seem to be warranted. If they are new, they need to know that we take our rules rather seriously. If they aren't new...well, same thing. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Durh! I guess I did not see the first warnings, just the second ones. As such I have  Tiptoety  talk 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PsychD11 reported by Yilloslime (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Graduate_Institute&oldid=237540713 (blank page


 * 1st revert: 18:10, September 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:16, September 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:20, September 10, 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:23, September 10, 2008
 * 5ht revert: 18:28, September 10, 2008 (as anon IP now)

Yilloslime (t) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: warned at 18:17, September 10, 2008
 * This looks like a run of the mill vandalism to me, and seeing as the account is clearly a SPA I have indef blocked it. Tiptoety  talk 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jamescp reported by Jagiellon (Result:User warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:42, 10 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:01, 10 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 10 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:48, 10 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: Apart from the above 4 diffs, user Jamescp has made more than 50 other edits to the article over the last 24 hours. The majority of his edits have been to delete existing material. The majority of these edits can therefore be considered disruptive, as they remove valuable information on the topic which has been added in the previous days and weeks by numerous other editors. Others have already pointed out to this user the disruptiveness of his edits (see for instance )   which nevertheless continued unrestrained afterwards with little or no discussion. Please pause this. The page is a controversial page which has recently been locked for similar edit warring reasons. Jagiellon (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left the user a message/warning, lets see where it goes from here. Tiptoety  talk 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 reported by Bignole (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version of the page: Revision as of 10:17, September 10, 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 11:36, September 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:34, September 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:39, September 10, 2008
 * Warning of engaging in an edit war with another editor and request to go to the talk page: Current revision as of 17:52, September 10, 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 18:23, September 10, 2008
 * Tiptoety talk 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm Rooster reported by Hobartimus (Result:stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [providing below]

Previous edit being reverted 12:51, 9 September 2008 inserting poll numbers Previous edit being reverted 16:53, 9 September 2008inserting section header religion Previous edit being reverted 05:26, 10 September 2008 Jossi inserting the section header again Previous edit being reverted 09:40, 10 September 2008
 * 1st revert: 13:14, 9 September 2008 deleting poll numbers
 * 2nd revert: 20:07, 9 September 2008 deleting section header
 * 3rd revert: 08:51, 10 September 2008 deleting different Poll numbers (Gallup Poll)
 * 4th revert: 09:06, 10 September 2008 same section header deletion as revert 2nd
 * 5th revert: 09:47, 10 September 2008 completely deleting what was just inserted


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:45, 9 September 2008

Further edits within 24 hours that could be potentially reverts, deletion of marathon info. And other deletions (could be reverting the person who inserted them). I think this case is somewhat similar to that of Kelly in that due to circumstances, some type of non-block measure should be used so the block log is not affected. Hobartimus (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am the only one here, but the diff's provided above do not link to anything, and I am having a hard time finding anything recent in the article history that has Phlegm Rooster's username linked to it. Tiptoety  talk 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 22:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Robbo25 reported by Beve (result: already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (note incivil edit summary)
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has returned to edit war on the article ten minutes after a 24-hour ban expired, against clear consensus of several other editors, whose reverts he labels as "vandalism". No intention to reach consensus by discussion, his last edit states "The discusion will continue forever and never come to a conclusion". If you look at the user's edit history, there is only one constructive edit that I can see, the rest is blatant POV at best and vandalism at worst. The user clearly has no intention of following the rules and will continue to revert against consensus ad nauseam. Beve (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * by for 72 hours. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DX120 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page: Dave Finlay
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Use has been adding a win which other editors including myself have removed. Only reason for gap between version reverted to and 3 reverts was a 12-hour block for disruptive editing. Also this personal attack. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For edit warring at multiple pages. --Oxymoron83 10:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing reported by Pyl (Result:warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The second 3RR warning link was given because the account in question admitted he/she was one and the same person as 67.71.16.7 (having 2 or more accounts). The admission is here. --pyl (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Correct me if I am wrong, but no three of the revert diffs are within 24 hours. As stated, I previously edited at an IP, and created an account upon being prodded; yet he filed a misleading sockpuppet report. All of this appears to have been done because User:Pyl has a particular position regarding ROC/Taiwan and has been unable to get his way on this article: this editor has engaged in edit warring throughout (whomever that may have been with) and has not used the article's talk page to compel or to get a consensus. In fact, the editor whom Pyl has accused of being the sockpuppetmaster (?) restored and reformatted references Pyl blatantly removed to further their viewpoint. So, if I am to be disciplined for edit warring, Pyl should also be. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I believe that creating an account to circumvent the no-3RR rule is a violation of the rules, even if these accounts aren't sock puppets/sock puppeteer (which I believe they are). I've only listed reverts under the Bosonic dressing account and the reverts done by your other account is not listed in this report. But the administrator is free to inspect the history of the article for further details.--pyl (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating an account is not an attempt to circumvent anything: you asked for the creation of an account to legitimatize edits, and now you have submitted a plethora of reports to distract and conflate. Whatever else you believe is, frankly, irrelevant.  And your long, drawn-out, dilatory responses, edit warring (including the removal of references pointed out above), and multiple reports regarding so simple a notion is inane and borders on disruptive.  I have no further commentary regarding this ... editor, or actions same. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets see where it goes from here. Tiptoety  talk 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat reported by Piotrus (Result: warned/stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Boody's version from Sept 3 where he started removing Piotrowski's and Lucas ref findings


 * 1st revert: Revert to revision as of 12:58, September 11, 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revert to revision as of 13:19, September 11, 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revert to revision as of 13:32, September 11, 2008
 * 4th revert: Revert to current revision as of 13:48, September 11, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user warned and blocked several times, list seen on this board few days ago... perhaps putting him on 1rr parole or something may drive the message through? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No sorry. The first entry cited above is clearly an edit of long satnding text, and not a reversion (if you look at what Piotrus is trying to pass off as a "reversion," you will see that all that was done on his edit was wikify a name--the edit I made was a correction of an error in long standing text--while leaving his wikifying alone). So in fact, both Piotrus and I did 3 reversions.
 * Piotrus' reversions


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


 * So I'm afraid this latest attempt of Piotrus to use the 3RR process for edit warring doesn't fly. It's also the second harassing 3RR complaint in a week. Its getting annoying. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Boody; you have removed part of the article four times within few hours. The fact that my previous edit was, as you point out, not a revert, only means I've not violated 3RR, it doesn't say anything about you. It is quite possible for one user to violate 3RR and the other not to. You should be familiar with WP:3RR, you have done that thing before (reverted four or more times within 24h) and you should now the consequences. PS. And yes, your edit warring and habitual breaking of 3RR is getting annoying. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, first one was clearly an edit. And since you are being scrutinized right now in your Arb for this very sort of misuse of the system for edit warring, I actually would have expected that you would have known better. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverts are edits, yes. You removed something four times. That's a violation of the 3RR (just as adding something four times would be). In that case it's the same something and your violation is easy to see (and similar to ones from your past). And yes, I am sure that ArbCom will take your continuing history of edit warring and 3RR violations into consideration when they get around to issuing some rulings.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No the reverts start from the point where you reverted my edit, not from my edit (which is not a revert). Come on, you should know these things. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see if the closing admin agrees that you can remove something from the articles 4 times within 2 hours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok first off both parties here have violated WP:EDITWAR, but seeing as blocks are not punitive and the edit's in question are a bit stale, I am going to leave both editors unblocked. Tiptoety  talk 00:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: clear 3RR by Boodlesthecat; I would've blocked him and warned Piotrus if I had seen this report fresh; it is now being moved to a separate venue, though. Black Kite 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceOfCanada reported by User:G2bambino (Result:both blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 10 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:34, 11 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:41, 11 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 11 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:17, 11 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: edit summary

This breach comes not eighteen hours after he was let off of a block for 3RR after making a promise to the blocking admin. --G2bambino (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The '1st revert' was not a revert, as there were intervening edits. The mischaracterization of the promise is poor form; I promised not to edit at G2bambino's talk page, not promised not to edit anywhere else. Prince of Canadat 19:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

snlfan reported by Ward3001 (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:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reverted 8 times after 3RR warning. Was also given a vandalism warning. Probably made same revert as anon IP here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Securing reported by User:Gimme danger (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:

Gimme danger (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * by  Tiptoety  talk 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Igny reported by User:Biophys (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:37, 11 September 2008


 * 1st revert:18:17, 11 September 2008
 * 2nd revert:18:24, 11 September 2008
 * 3rd revert:18:32, 11 September 2008
 * 4th revert:18:35, 11 September 2008
 * 5th revert:02:29, 12 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:19, 11 September 2008

Note a repeated insertion of reference to Jamestown Foundation in some reverts. This article was a subject of an edit war. However, all other users left this article some time ago. Only this user continued edit warring in spite of the warning.Biophys (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 6th revert:02:59, 12 September 2008.

He just made 6th revert! He is not waiting for reply at the talk page, just reverting again and again. He said: "I will keep fighting" and "From now on I will consider pushing this POV as a vandalism and will rv that without further explanation. I think I can not make myself any more clear". Please see this diff. That is how he discusses issues.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An update. Please see his reply to an attempt to negotiate the issues.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 03:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EHSFFL2010 reported by jere7my (Result: Blocked, 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

User warned in history. Account was created (apparently) solely to edit this article, and all but the first few edits have been reverts.


 * for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Icedaddycool reported by User:RainbowOfLight (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Is in an edit war with User:59.189.40.49. Rainbow Of Light  Talk  10:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * user has not reverted since receiving the 3RR warning. CIreland (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User 77.125.8.158 reported by User:Lawrencema (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: previous version


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This vandalism has occurred repeatedly in the past. This user is obviously a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Hisham 5ZX. Lawrencema (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The three-revert-rule prohibits making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. CIreland (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

41.245.142.230 reported by Cradel (Result: Decline)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Has been warned, maybe nor for 3RR but for vandalism twice -- C D  15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * for now. User has not reverted at Illyria since receiving the 3RR warning. CIreland (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.211.119 reported by Guyzero (Result: Already protected)
. : Time reported: 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:58, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:14, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 3) 17:30, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 4) 17:37, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 5) 17:39, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 6) 17:41, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 7) 17:43, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 8) 17:44, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 9) 17:45, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 10) 17:46, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 11) 17:47, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 12) 17:48, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 13) 17:49, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 14) 17:49, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 15) 17:52, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 16) 17:54, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */  Both sides should be added, but the Palin new is worth adding for context.")
 * 17) 17:56, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today.  Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.")
 * 18) 17:58, 12 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is at worst a dynamic IP (going by the fact that there have been different contributions a while before this), even if blockable you should explore any means of blocking through WP:ANI, not WP:AN3 given the mass nature of the edits which have been conducted. You may of course wait for an admin response here, but this is just a suggestion if there isn't any soon. Cau  lde  20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The user only has a single edit outside of the reverts to Bush Doctrine. If I had submitted the report at 3 or 4RR rather than 17RR, it would've been OK here, but since I spotted it at 17RR it should go to ANI? I opened a thread last night on AN with regards to this article (which has been semi'd for a week, which basically solved the problem.) Though I'd appreciate additional admins watchlisting the article, I'd hate to open yet another thread about it as it seems 3RR, RPP, and AN should be plenty. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is already semi-protected for one week by GRBerry. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

213.202.164.162 reported by Guliolopez (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is involved in disruptive and warring behaviour on this and other pages, using this and other IP socks. Already reported on WP:ANI, but puppet master ran out of socks, and is now in breach of 3RR as well. Guliolopez (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To admin who gives response: I'd also evaluate the purpose of the edits that the IP has, there is at least 13 reverts on numerous articles within an hour period earlier today. I'd suggest a 36/40 hour block. Cau  lde  20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * for sockpuppetry by  Tiptoety  talk 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Misessus reported by Lawrencekhoo (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User Misessus is disruptive and by his own words, he edits based on WP:TRUTH not verifiability. Some of his comments on truth: ("truth is not told in any textbook, of course.") (This is an encyclopedia and it should give truthful information, not politically angled information.) Misessus was sanctioned for breaking 3RR on 6th September.

He broke 3RR again on 9th September (as shown above), was warned and responded by reverting again. He also responded with a personal attack on the talk page, adding to several personal attacks already made.

On 10th September, Misessus made another 3 reverts on the Inflation page. Shown below:   

EDIT: Misessus has just made another two reverts, even though consensus on the talk page is overwhelmingly against his edits:

 

As these reverts appeared just over 24 hours after the last 3 reverts, I believe he is aware that he is edit warring, but is purposefully trying to game the system to avoid being sanctioned for breaking 3RR.

For more context on this issue, please refer to these discussions about POV pushing by 'Austrian school' editors:
 * WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics
 * WP:ANI


 * Comment. Endorse this request for reasons stated.JQ (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Endorse this request for reasons stated. Furthermore, user Misessus has continued to make his reverts, despite large consensus to the contrary, on Sept 12. radek (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reverts listed above cover more than a 24-hour span, so you must be trying to cite him for an edit-warring violation, not a regular 3RR. If he continues to revert the same material without making a good effort to find consensus, open up a new report and cite this one. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I just want to note that Misessus did break 3RR. He reverted 6 times within a 4 hour period. The 1st revert listed above occurred at 01:02, 9 September 2008, the 6th revert at 04:35, 9 September 2008. He reverted another 5 times on September 11th, but was more careful to avoid technically breaking 3RR, waiting to go over the 24 hour period by a few minutes. lk (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: to the warning, User:Misessus has responded with a flurry of essentially attack posts, detailing his disdain for editors, admins, the process, and WP guidelines. See lk talk page: "Untill then, lets ban and cencor all other scientific approaches." (accusations of censorship); insults to another editor "if you don't get Austrian econoimcs, then maybe you should read a little? "; comments to admin: "LK and his sockpuppets are the ones doing the edit warring", "I'm getting sick of this pathetic slandering ", "Their deletions have no grounds whatsoever, but are done only to promote their own political views and nothing more. But hey, as long as you're friends with the admins, who cares right? They've already acchieved legendary status for bullying out other editors, who clearly are much more knowledgeable than them", "Seriously, Ed, are you and Satori Son really completely blind to what is going on here? Satori Son certainly is. Do whatever you want. I'm going to keep restoring at least some sort of logic and scientific level to the inflation article. Read the damn talk page and judge for yourself who should and shouldn't be editing economics articles."; "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Quiggin&diff=prev&oldid=238108878 more attacks and threats]: "Who are you really and what the heck are you trying to acchieve. If you got a problem with me, state it on my talk page. I'll kick your ass in an economics debate anytime, anywhere and twice on Sunday. But you already know that, don't you? That's why you want the ban.". This is in addition to previous edit warring, insults, and rejection of the consensus and editing process.--Gregalton (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hellis reported by D'Agrò (Result: warned/stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:42, September 10, 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 06:24, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 12:16, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 14:54, September 11, 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Instead of provided evidences stated in the talk page coming from printed sources scanned, the reported user keep revert to a POV version.


 * Comment. For somebody that would have us believe that he/she appeared at Wikipedia for the first time yesterday, User:D'Agrò has a remarkable knowledge of our policies, rules, terminology etc. It may perhaps be worthwhile to peruse the currently open Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (6th) and the related Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove while, or, ideally, prior to, adjudicating this case. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked myself for a CU. I'm not anyone else but me, unfortunately for you. BTW, from where are you got the idea that I'm in Wikipedia for the first time yesterday? Im I stated that somewhere? Did you ever thought that I could be on Wikipedia from longtime on some others wikipedia-projects and/or languages? You, AlasdairGreen27 (talk), had included me in that "Happy brigade" Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (6th), providing FAKE AND WRONG evidences, as I already proved and wrote to you in your talk page here. Until now, you weren't so honest to admit that your "evidences" to include me in that "suspected sockpuppetry" are wrong (in case you were in good faith) maybe fake (if in bad faith...) and to  recognise that ad remove them. IMHO you are only trying to intimidate me (without any results, thought) to be free to erase entire section on the Giovanni Luppis page and pushing to force your POV. I ask the Administrator to not stop this 3RR violation procedure. Thanks--D&#39;Agrò (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets see where it goes from here. Tiptoety  talk 22:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User appears to have stopped for now, along with the fact that most of his reverts are . Please re-report if the user starts up again. Tiptoety  talk 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid but the user it's back as 83.254.6.139. Could an administrator block the page? Thanks--D&#39;Agrò (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JSR reported by User:Anpersonalaccount (Result:No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * No violation. 1st revert was days before others. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JSR reported by User:Anpersonalaccount (Result:72h for Anpersonalaccount)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Pleaseh help me out, this guy is trying to make a POV pushing by reverting and removing soured information over this two articles, I had no idea what to do with him. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

After he had redirect Sushruta Samhita to Sushruta, the edit war are still on-going over the Sushruta, and there will be soon for any reverts. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I had provided my source twice at here and here, which he claimed I didn't. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reporting user is the one who violated 3RR: 1, 2, 3, 4. JSR's reverts are spaced days apart. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black and User:BigGator5 reported by User:Hires an editor (Result: AMIB blocked & page protected )

 * Page:
 * User: and User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:BigGator5 and User_talk:A Man In Black

I was contacted on my userpage by User:BigGator5 asking if I'm an admin. Of course, I'm not, but thought this appropriate. I find that I agree with User:A Man In Black, in his points, but not the way this has transpired. Hires an editor (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shocking and I'm inclined to block them both for edit warring. AMIB knows better and can sit out Wikipedia for 24 hours. BigGator5 appears to be a new editor who has not previously been warned for 3RR. I'm not going to block him but will leave final warning. I'm protecting the page for 24 hours so the blocking of one side of the dispute does not give the other an advantage. Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - report listed for review at ANI as this could be considered a contentious block. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

67.190.39.160 reported by ServoTOL (Result:No block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238172214


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238172214
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238171480
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238169637
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238169274


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

67.190.39.160 & user Mksmothers keep changing the entire article as well as adding errors. Please help. Thanks! ServoTOL


 * Improperly formatted. Reports require diffs, not page versions. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mksmothers reported by [[User:ServoTOL] (Result:No block)

 * Page:
 * User: {{userlinks|Mksmothers


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238175921


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238175921
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238175793
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Enyart&oldid=238172646
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

complete vandalism of the article.


 * Improperly formatted. Reports require diffs, not page versions. 3RR is not dispute resolution. Kafziel {{sup|Complaint Department}} 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta reported by Squash Racket (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:26, 12 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:47, 12 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:22, 12 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:30, 13 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:33, 13 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:44, 13 September 2008, he had already been blocked for 3RR before.

He started edit warring at the article John Hunyadi and reverted even an administrator. I made two reverts, one of which was to the administrator's version until disputes are settled on the talk page. He doesn't seem to stop. Squash Racket (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing that these are the same reverts. Can you clarify this please? Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: this IP also belongs to Rez. (according to himself), so this is more than just 4 reverts (at least 5 in 24 hours).
 * You can see at least one source disappearing at all the diffs provided above. Squash Racket (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those weren't reverts and the last one was a vandalism attempt and personal atack by calling other romanian editors Nazis, and cannot be framed as revert. By the way if you were good mannered you could leave a pm on my talk page and inform me about this..I see it's not the case 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have to leave a message, this is not an incident, but a technical violation. You were warned in advance (even though you know the rule), so don't tell me you didn't see this coming.Squash Racket (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * according to you not with Wikipedia rules, and I didn't say it's imperative, well at least not for those without good manners Rezistenta (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, I have issued warning to both editors separate to this thread and in response to private complaints regarding their behaviour. This may be a factor in any administrator taking action here. Anthøny   ✉  19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: the private complaints seem to have come from Rezistenta himself (ahem), admin Anthony has withdrawn the warning from my talk page advising DR. This report seems to be stale by now and should be closed by an uninvolved admin. Thank you, Squash Racket (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, I think Anthony mixed my comments with those of anonymous IPs (like that one) I have nothing to do with. Rezistenta and the IPs were issuing personal attacks on each other, but I did NOT participate in that. Please check the diffs in the article's talk page history and read the thread yourselves. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I think you must reconsider your accusations I am in the same position as you the IP was the one who made personal atacks but I didn't responded, can you give me the diffs where I was bickering or where I was breaking any wikipedia rule ? Rezistenta (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Examples:

"HAhahahaha Catholic Encyclopedia written by hungarians says his family is ethnic romanian, you hungarian guys must be driven insane :D Rezistenta (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)" "Hahahaha so now they're obscure sources (...) Rezistenta (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)" "Is Squash Racket a proffesor ? Rezistenta (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)" Who gave "romanian dacian mighty sources" on this text you wannabe funny guy ? They are neutral sources by the most capable historians of that time (...)                   84.3.249.33 I know you guys are finno-ugric-turkic-sumerians you don't have to explain me your history Rezistenta (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Squash Racket (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And what are these ? which wikipedia rule do they break ? Consider them very moderate replies in comparsison with the personal atacks and insults of the opposite part Rezistenta (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

41.245.141.56 reported by SparsityProblem (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_(disambiguation)&oldid=237541887


 * 1st revert: 09:21, 13 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:44, 14 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:46, 14 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:52, 14 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:59, 14 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:40, 14 September 2008

Two other anon users on the same subnet: and  -- also made similar edits, so they are likely all the same user. At least the first two have been warned have been warned (41.245.165.107 was warned copiously) and the edit summaries from the editors who reverted this user's reverts all point to talk page discussion and/or policies, which the anon user either has not read, did not understand, or read and ignored. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tinbin reported by DanielEng (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

DanielEng (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:JavierMC reported by 67.169.190.247 (Result: Article already semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

ProWesternUkrainian 67.169.190.247 (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I warned this editor several times on their talk page User talk:67.169.190.247 to provide sources for their edits, which were ignored resulting in a lvl 4 warning being issued. The reverts were for continued vandalism.  It now seems they have created a user page. --  «JavierMC»  |  Talk  00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits to Banach were discussed many times on the Banach Talk page. Many references were provided both in the discussion and in the article itself. Despite all this, and despite the 3RR warning, User:JavierMC continued to revert the article. During these reverts, User:JavierMC was deleting the newly added references to Banach's works. User:JavierMC is in an obvious and clear violation of the 3RR rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.190.247 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See this diff where the editor makes a change and then adds a "?" as if they are unsure of the changes veracity.  Here unsourced change is made .  The two diffs  and  show a complete removal of sourced material and replacing with their own material and sources.  There is no current discussion concerning these changes at the time they were made by the editor.  The last posting of anything on the talk page was 24 August 2008.--  «JavierMC»  |  Talk  00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:JavierMC : Please read the complete Discussion, including the archived sections. You will find a wealth of well-researched and sourced information on the subjects in question. Your arguments in no way can justify your obvious violation of the Wikipedia 3RR . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.190.247 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IP, there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the talk page, rather just your reversions on the main article space. If you're saying this has been discussed before, please provide DIFFs to show that. Dayewalker (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The reporting editor, User:ProWesternUkrainian, seems to be a sockpuppet of User talk:98.210.14.5 and User talk:67.169.190.247. There seems to be a long history of this kind of abusive editing by these accounts, including blocks, for inappropriate edit warring and NPOV violations. Now, while vandalism patrolling, I get caught up in the mess.-- «JavierMC»  |  Talk  01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article already semi-protected 3 months by User:Alex Bakharev. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous editor haunts Banach (and a few other Polish mathematicians) articles with a near-vandalistic nationalist edits. I completely agree with non EdJohnston here: no reasons to punish Javier Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:71.248.62.143 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:

Constantly reverting cited material on article. Ignores discussion on Talk Page as well as appeals on personal Talk Page.


 * 1st revert: 17:29, 9 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:36, 9 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 3:25, 9 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:36, 10 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:14, 10 September 2008
 * Tiptoety talk 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User has reverted again, soon after block expired: 14:54, 12 September 2008 Or should this be reported as persistent vandalism (or edit warring?) instead? Dp76764 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 00:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but block (#2) expired and user promptly reverted the same content again.  Dp76764 (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

TheSickBehemoth reported by Dude527 (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
 * 1st revert: 21:24, September 13, 2008 - Originally capitalized something that shouldn't have been, so it got removed and he got told why, but he reverted it anyways.
 * 2nd revert: 21:29, September 13, 2008 - Re-capitalized the same material
 * 3rd revert: 15:13, September 14, 2008 - Re-capitalized the same material
 * 4th revert: 15:37, September 14, 2008 - Re-capitalized the same material


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link - Editor removed the warning, so I must link to its history.

Editor wasn't reverting the edits of simply one user, but a few. -- The Guy complain edits 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has stopped reverting. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

the above user has claimed that BLP protects her from 3RR - however the above edits are nothing to do with BLP. This is an editor who was warned about 3RR recently on the article that I have reported on. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, are any of those edits even the same? Kelly  hi! 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rr - Um, no those edits are not all the same. They are however all reverts on the same article, within a 24 hour period. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Removing unsourced claims and restoring content blanked by drive-by anons is not "revert warring". So far as the animal pictures that you insist on having in the article go, I am not the only person to remove them, and there is a discussion on the talk page. Please take your comments there rather than attempting to use process to eliminate your opponents. Kelly  hi! 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake. Protecting the article until I get confirmation that these knuckleheads know how 3RR and edit warring policy works.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Outdent) - 1 thing needs to be made clear here - according to the 3RR warning template left by Jossi, If you edit again AFTER receiving the warning, you may be blocked. The warning was left at 20:46 on 5th September- from what I can see, via the revert diffs above,  Kelly abided by this warning, and did not revert again after the 3RR warning.

'''I refer to the administrators instructions for dealing with a 3RR: 2.1 (2) - Check to make sure that the reported user has been warned before their 4th revert (if the user has made more than 4 reverts, make sure that they've been warned before his/her last revert). '''

Therefore, at least in my opinion, I consider this 3RR report out of place. Kelly was not warned before her last revert, and stuck to the warning when it was given. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  There are certain exceptions as far as 3RR is concerned - none of your above claims however fall into that category. Please assume good faith, this 3RR report has nothing to do with me "attempting to use process to eliminate your opponents" - it does however have something to do with your seven''' reverts within a 24 hour period. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

outdent) Just chimming in :). I advised user Sennen goroshi not to revert with the edit summary rvv when in fact he was having a content dispute over inclusion of animal pictures in this article with a few other editors. I have not weighed in either way for including images even though I am a minimalist but there does seem to be some consensus for not having the images but of course I could be wrong :) --Tom 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you most certainly could be wrong. If you don't like my edit summary, please go to my talk page - if you have something to say regarding the content of the article in question, please go to that article talk page - if you have any comments relevant to 3RR violation, please leave a comment below mine. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly Sennen goroshi, don't you know that adminstrators are exempt from the three-revert rule?  Hi DrNick ! 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, damn. I must be 200% silly then. I didn't realise that anyone involved was an admin, neither did I realise that admins were able to ignore the 3RR rule. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was sarcasm and Kelly is not an admin from what I can tell. --Tom 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I just couldn't tell. - well apart from her not being on the admin list, only having the account since march, not having admin anywhere on her user page, and not having any admin tasks listed on her log - I really thought she was an admin. :) Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did. I assumed that someone who's dodged so many 3RR rule blocks in the recent past had to be.  Oops.   Hi DrNick ! 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who knows? maybe she is some sort of secret undercover double-agent with sly block evading skills. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Tznkai has stopped the edit war by full-protecting the article, perhaps we can get him to close this 3RR case as well. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well considering 3RR reports etc are designed to prevent conflict and not as punishments, as the person who made this report, I have no issues with this 3RR case being closed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

--Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WLU reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Version before WLU rewrote the article
 * Version after WLU rewrote the article:
 * Net result of WLU's edits: Some of the edits were improvements, but he made a number of mistakes, too, including a terrible one implicating that advocates were happy with her death. Note that here already he changes ME into CFS, not sure if that counts as a revert.
 * Version after some of WLU's mistakes were corrected and one good source returned: (the good version)
 * Diff between the two versions:


 * 1st revert: WLU removes good source and wrongly changes ME back into CFS (follows single revert by me, asking WLU to read the sources which does not happen)
 * 2nd revert: WLU instead again wrongly replaces ME with CFS
 * 3rd revert: WLU does the same in other places, and adds pov that ME and CFS are synonymes despite long discussion elswehere that he lost (follows appropriate tagging by me, so that dispute resolution can start, and questions from me to WLU on talk)
 * 4th revert: WLU does not respond on talk but removes the tags (follows single revert by me, and a warning on his talkpage)
 * 5th revert: WLU ignores warning and removes a tag
 * 6th revert: WLU removes another tag
 * 7th revert: WLU reomves another tag

Note that this is not the only ME or CFS page where WLU is editing. He seems to be on a campaign to remove any indication of the existence of myalgic encephalomyeltis, and keeps at it despite a complete lack of consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW there's currently a discussion on whether CFS and ME are exactly the same thing or not. Based on the sources I discuss here, they are.  Guido's objections don't include relevant sources to rebut.  This is a bit of a content dispute.  For a bit more context on Mirza specifically, see here.  The sources used on SM directly support my use of a single term (CFS) explicitly.  The tags used were to state that there were problems with how the prose summarized the sources.  The problem with that is that the sources explicitly supported the use of CFS and the equivalency of ME and CFS.  The use of tags really looks like a WP:POINT violation.  It could equally be argued that GDB has wrongly injected his own bias against CFS in the article by repeatedly using his preferred term.  But whatever.  My "terrible edit" to make Mirza's death a joyous occassion was corrected by Guido, and has stood ever since.  Yeah, it was a poor choice of wording, the current is better.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not be officially reviewing this report given previous interaction with the parties. I will note that several of the diffs listed as reverts by Guido are in fact contiguous edits by WLU and not separate, individual reverts. That said, it appears to me that while the sources favor WLU's interpretation, he is at 4RR while Guido is around 3RR. Since there is discussion ongoing at the talk page, my preference would be for WLU to undo one of his reverts (perhaps replacing the dispute tags) as a gesture to the letter of 3RR, for both parties to cease edit-warring as a gesture to the spirit of 3RR, for discussion to proceed on the talk page, and for outside input to be solicited as necessary to break the deadlock. Again, I'm commenting in an informal capacity; I will leave the final disposition of this report to the another admin. MastCell Talk 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, many of these edits are contiguous. WLU has made 4 blocks of consecutive edits in the last 24 hours, one of which (the earliest) was, which was not a revert as far as I can tell.  I'm actually starting to feel that any warring or tagging over specific instances of referring to CFS or ME as the other are much like edit wars over British vs. American spellings: pointless and disruptive.  Mango juice talk 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Returning the tags is fine with me - for now. But WLU will have to show willingness to listen to other editors, and needs to stop making changes that he knows beforehand that he has no consensus for.
 * @Mangojuice: the difference between ME and CFS is essential when it comes to e.g. interpreting research outcomes. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll replace the top tag. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All the tags, please. And you are already threatening to remove it, too? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to this section, I'm not threatening to remove it, I'm asking what we have to do in order to get consensus to remove it. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:84.205.177.180 reported by Lucas (Result: 48 hours)
This IP (84.205.177.180) allowed many 3RR. Request and warning do not help. Almost 100% of his edition this edit wars/reverts. These are examples from last 20! hours:

Page: Silesians

 * Page:
 * User:

Time reported: 8:20 PM


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

Page: Silesian language

 * Page:
 * User:

Time reported: 8:20 PM


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Page: Slavic languages

 * Page:
 * User:

Time reported: 8:20 PM


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * There is an ongoing discussion whether (Upper) Silesian is a separate language or a polish dialect, both claims have some linguists on their side. I may add that majority of Silesians declared polish national language, therefore sharing view that it is a polish language. The pages about Silesia and slavic languages, edited by political activists like LUCPOL, were not informing about it. They were only or almost uniquely informing about that Silesian is a separate language. My changes were to balance this. My edits included both informations, that Silesian could be regarded as a language or as a dialect. LUCPOL kept reverting them, leaving only the information about Silesian as a language, so I was reverting his destruction of my contribution. He describes himself as someone who wants independant Silesia, which would not be supported by a slightest margin of citizens of the region, including indigenous Silesians. He treats wikipedia as a place to promote his personal views without any will to make concessions to someone else's opinions. I did ask him to compromise (see talk pages), but he did not want this. He claims all Poles are biased by the virtue of being Poles, he intentionally misinterpretes facts to fit his opinions (ISO recognition). He obviously contributed more to wiki than I did, but the pages containing information about Silesian language need balance. They need not to take side in this conflict. That's why I was informing about it being considered a language by some, and dialect by some, while my view is that it is a dialect. I was at least trying to be obiective, LUCPOL did not, at all. I did do many reverts, but so did he, and it is him who kept reverting my changes, not me - his. I take confidence in that this will be judged fairly.84.205.177.180 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote already for you: long ago (time of communist - to 1989 - and postcommunist years - '90) part of Polish linguists were to treat this for dialect, but in July 2007 Silesian language was recognized by an international organizations: ISO, SIL International, Library of Congress etc. Polish linguists' opinions before July 2007 are not actual. Let Polish linguists verify their opinions (skipping fact - opinions from Polish linguists are incompetent because no Pole would want the acknowledgement of Silesian language).
 * You to make many 3RR - this is fact. It is not subject to discussion here. Officially you break principle of Wikipedia - 3RR, despite requests, warnings and disscusions !!! There is no explanation here.
 * LUCPOL (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Silesian was considered a polish dialect long before communist times, and not only by Poles, but also by Germans, in XX, XIX centuries and earlier. Enough to see census polls to see that.
 * SIL is a private institution, without any linguistic authority. ISO did not recognise Silesian as a separate language, but merely assigned it ISO language code, like to many ethnolects not being considered separate languages (Silesian dialect of german language, for example). Library of Congress assigns ISO (correct me if I'm wrong, I may be), so separating them is artificial and only a trick to give some weight to your claims.
 * You did that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.177.180 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP has violated 3RR on more than one article, and almost his whole history since Sept 1st is edit warring. When he says "opinions from Polish linguists are incompetent" it doesn't inspire confidence in his good faith . This action is not a judgment on who is right about the underlying issue, which we hope will be resolved in a calm discussion on one of the Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC). Struck out part of my comment above; misread the original statement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dapi89 reported by User:Kurfürst (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert + personal attack in edit notes :
 * 2nd revert + personal attack in edit notes. User was warned earlier for NPA :
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

There are some earlier revert-frenzies from this user I have omitted. I simply do not want to go through the page for this nonsense.

Dapi89 was asked to support the claims being with citations to work out the edit differences. The response is here, titled 'BS'..

Also this editor has a history of personal attacks and generally ad hominem approach. See here, over talk pages here, openly admitting edit warring here

Dapi89 has been already warned to refrain from personal attack by and administrator on his talk page. So far his behaviour and attitude has not improved at all, now he seems to take other editors contributions to 'his' articles as some personal blood feud. Reverts are made automatically by him, and the edit notes are always peppered by accusations of falsifying etc. See earlier personal attacks and edit warring, and then again.

It would appear there is simply no possibility to cooperate with this editor. Kurfürst (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 4th "revert" above does not appear to constitute a revert as such; but the incivility is indisputable, especially after a prior warning. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jclemens reported by User:EricDiesel (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Re- “Controversies” Section at Wasilla Assembly of God - User:Jclemens has made repeated deletions, recently being accused of vandalism and becoming involved in edit wars with numerous other editors for this article, as the various sections on "edit wars" on the User Talk:Jclemens talk page indicate.  User:Jclemens objected to the “Controversies” section under the Wasilla Assembly of God article and deleted the section.  User:Balloonman undid the User:Jclemens deletion of the entire content of the "controversies" article section, writing “undo Jclemens edits, I don't like the version, but let's work towards one that works rather than simply deleting”.  User:Balloonman wrote an extremely well balanced context for the “Controversies”.  After warnings by many regarding multiple reverts, User:Jclemens again deleted content from the “Controversies” section, more than three times.
 * It appears that Jclemens is confusing “controversy” as used in Words to avoid, which pertains to a controversy involving a “dispute” as to whether something is a “fact”, with the church itself being involved in controversy over its own controversial sermons and speaker financing practices. I do not think User:Jclemens is misunderstanding in bad faith, just that User:Jclemens is incapable of understanding the difference between a controversy as to whether a fact is disputed to be included or not in an article, and the subject of an artilce reported to be controversial in the press.  In any case, the 3RR policy has been repeatedly violated, today and in past days (see multiple edit wars on User:Jclemens talk pages).
 * Possibly a coincidence, the User:Jclemens account was created at about the time the account for Wasilla Assembly of God, under User:Waaog, was closed, after making repeated deletions of edits on its own article, and the deletes were of the same material repeatedly deleted by User:Jclemens. EricDiesel (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... re: your last claim, was actually created in August 2006 or so. MastCell Talk 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I created an account back around January 31, 2006. I didn't edit for some time after that.  But at any rate, to answer the stricken accusation: I've never edited Wikipedia under any other username, and only accidentally do I ever edit while not logged in. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence from the accused. Since EricDiesel's fairly new, I thought it appropriate to contribute a more succinct report of my reversions on the page in question.
 * Revert 0 08:44, 14 September 2008
 * Revert 1 17:03, 14 September 2008
 * Revert 2 08:08, 15 September 2008
 * Revert 3 11:03, 15 September 2008
 * I preformed no 4th revert within any 24 hour period, no repeated revert of the same material, accurate edit summaries for all actions, am currently engaged on the talk page, and proposed a 3O before this report was filed. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not perceiving four actual reverts in 24 hours. Please see the definition of a revert at the top of this noticeboard: A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Aggressive editing may be happening on this article and I urge all parties to restrain themselves if they don't want a lengthy spell of full protection. WP:3O isn't appropriate when more than two parties are involved, though an RFC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

89.149.1.34 reported by Cretog8 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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

There were several other reversions in here by other IP's, then today:


 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: ,

C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since three different IPs seem very determined to identify Paul Krugman as Jewish, in the opening sentence of his article, and are reverting against a number of different logged-in editors, I'm semi-protecting the article. Semi-protection should do the job, and blocking throwaway IPs doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimintheatl reported by User:Arzel (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has continuously added a blog reference to this article without consensus to do so. He has been warned previously regarding this same edit but continues to edit war regarding the issue. In addition he is working on concert with another editor user:Noian with what would appear to be WP:OWN
 * This editor had a previous block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

71.239.229.11 reported by UtherSRG (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_(genus)&oldid=238440903


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_(genus)&diff=238705926&oldid=238626861
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_(genus)&diff=238719567&oldid=238710602
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_(genus)&diff=238747847&oldid=238747679
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_(genus)&diff=238769923&oldid=238766565


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.239.229.11&oldid=238771682

This anon appears to be well intentioned, but doesn't yet know how to play well with others. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) They have also engaged in similar practices on multiple articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Already blocked 24 hours by Tiptoety. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

69.110.68.30 reported by Tbsdy lives (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Van_Halen_song)&diff=next&oldid=238318781


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Van_Halen_song)&diff=238336609&oldid=238318781
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Van_Halen_song)&diff=238474033&oldid=238344537
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Van_Halen_song)&diff=238785986&oldid=238781245
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_Now_(Van_Halen_song)&diff=238787161&oldid=238787021


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.110.68.30&diff=238790372&oldid=238787994

The user believes that the section is trivia, I have taken the article to RFC to bring this to the wider attention of the Wikipedia community. Please note that the anon has reverted another editor as well as myself. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring; aggressive language in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 68.204.214.55 reported by Blaxthos (Result: no blocks )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:02


 * 1st revert: 03:31
 * 2nd revert: 03:39
 * 3rd revert: 03:47
 * 4th revert: 04:32


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR Warning

There is a section on the talk page that already explains why the wording is used, along with a consensus to do so. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3RR warning was left over two hours after the fourth revert, and the IP hasn't made any further edits to the page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian reported by Hexhand (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * 1st revert: 14:55, 16 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:56, 16 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, 16 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:42, 16 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:44, 16 September 2008

These are edit-warring efforts to hamper the improvement of the article, as the editor had repeatedly deleted the article (1, 2, 3, 4 itself a 3RR violation), seeking to redirect it back to the main article as non-notable, and has since sought to have it deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(Pilot)_Fringe 4). Clearly, Collectonian doesn't think the article is notable, though many others appear to disagree with him. He appears to be gaming the system to get the article removed.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The user is a long-time user with thousands of edits (and a previous block for edit-warring). It appears that the block did not have the desired effect on Collectonian's behavior; she continues to edit-war in articles, going right up to - and in this case, past - the electric fence that 3RR represents, and the rules for BRD that guide them. - Hexhand (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

- Hexhand (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The first set isn't reverting at all, its call cleaning up after a merge Hexhand himself did, with another major contributer agreed with. Hexhand, however, reverted everyone's edits seeming to feel that only his are good. As for the second "set" Hexhand himself merged the article and asked for the AfD to be closed as such (which I did with #s 1 and 4 that he put above, out of order and falsely claiming the four were done BEFORE the AfD, when only two were), yet HE is now blocking the redirecting of his badly named article to the properly named one that he himself merged his article too despite his saying to do it??? How the hell is that 3RR? I closed the AfD on good faith that he would actually allow this to happen,[ but now he is calling it 3RR just because he doesn't like me? Gravy! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec x2) Actually, I didn't ask for the AfD to be closed. I did merge the content, as the other article was older than mine, but that was independent of the AfD, which you closed yourself when you saw it was about to fail. People thought the content was notable.
 * And this isn't about liking you - before yesterday, I didn't even know you existed. 3RR is a guiding principle for all of us, and can only be carefully performed in the removal of vandalism and such. It doesn't matter what you were reverting - you don't get to do it more than three times in a day; if you think it is an abortion and wrong, trust that one of the other thousands of editors will come along and catch it. Your behavior is edit-warring. You were asked to stop and you chose to derisively ignore it. This is what happens afterward. - Hexhand (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you speak the truth for a bit? Direct quote: "As per Justen's comments, I have moved the content from the (Pilot) Fringe article over to the Pilot (Fringe) article. I did title mine wrong, and the subsequent de facto merged article is better off for it. As the merge is essentially complete, might we finish this AfD?" You did ask for it to be ended. I ended it as the articles had been merged, not because "I saw it was about to fail" and the renominated the single merged article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked for the AfD/gaming the system nonsense to be concluded. Removing the different articles from the equation didn't conclude the AfD but delineated the actual problem you seem to have with episodic articles. As the AfD had four different editors suggesting merge (and keep) to your lone voice seeking deletion, I would say that your closure of the AfD was premature and a fairly clear attempt to reframe the question more to your liking.
 * Either way, 3RR is still 3RR - are you arguing that you were fighting vandalism or some such? If you were not, you broke 3RR. It seems pretty clear that you were edit-warring your preferences against the article led you to 3RR. Maybe you are better off walking away for a bit? - Hexhand (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin, this same editor claiming I "broke" 3RR is refusing to allow anyone to edit Pilot (Fringe), quickly reverting anyone's edits to the page to his own version. I'm not the one with edit warring issues here: reverting edits from two different editors (including myself) and reverting multiple edits from three editors (again including me) - these edits he reverted without reason included sourcing, clean up of wording, etc. His second revert also inappropriately changed the AfD template to the old one not the current one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, fairly nice job at trying yet again to reframe the question, Collectonian - 'I know I am worng, but they are wrong too?' You've been here long enough to know that we trust the other editors to fix problems - we don't break 3RR to do it. I am unclear why your behavior is so abrasive, but it is mightily disruptive. Requests to discuss your repetitive edits failed, and reminding you of 3RR didn't work. Thus, the complaint. - Hexhand (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't wrong. I didn't break 3RR despite your false claims. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you are unwilling to admit you were wrong, how about simmering down and allow an admin to sift through the diffs? I'll reorder them to reflect the proper chronological order. - Hexhand (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The listed reverts were not tabulated correctly. A group of successive edits counts as at most a single revert. In any case I don't perceive a continuing edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

71.239.229.11 reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and here

Also edit warring on Kebara Cave and falsely claimed consensus on last revert; Dating methodology (archaeology),Human evolution,Recent African origin of modern humans, Rhodesian Manaccused me of racism on my talk page  and insults others in edit summaries. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sgroupace reported by User:Phpulse (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Submitter:


 * Previous version reverted to: DELETED[link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Am new to Wikipedia. Was adding my MVC framework to other listings of MVC frameworks. Users spotted it and started removing it and removed my page. I reverted it and asked him not to do that as he marked me as a spammer, he did it again and asked 'what is MVC?' and then before I had a chance to revert, he deleted it entirely. He has been actively wiping all changes I have been making and targeting me and my changes.

I have done nothing wrong. My changes accurately reflect a project on Sourceforge.net active since 2001 (and on Google code) and I was merely making sure that it was represented alongside other MVC frameworks in Wikipedia.

This guy is being a total dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Since the article you were working on, PHPulse, has been speedy deleted as a G11 there is not much we can review here. If you believe this topic is notable enough for a real article, try starting work on a new version of it in your user space. For instance, User:Phpulse/PHPulse. To avoid criticism of your user name, consider starting over with a new account. To create an article that will be kept, it is essential for you to include reliable sources that have commented on the importance of the topic. There were none in the article that was deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

78.49.72.245 reported by Maxschmelling (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User: and  and  and  and  and


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * note the IP editor's style is typically to add a series of short edits in quick succession, so, by necessity, the diffs below are mostly the combination of a series of small edits by the same user.

The fourth and fifth are not identical to the first three, but are fundamentally the same project by the IP editor
 * 1st revert:
 * 2st revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: all intermediate revisions are by the same user +  again a sequence of small edits by one editor
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

The IP user is most likely the same person as User:Eurominuteman who was blocked a year ago for very similar edit warring on the same Translation page. maxsch (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is being disrupted by probable socks of Eurominuteman (six different IP addresses). Semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:68.33.170.109 reported by User:Husond (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Good faith yet persistent insertion of false info. Hús ö  nd  00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gutza reported by Xasha (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 20:27
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 2nd revert: 21:30
 * 3rd revert: 21:43
 * 4th revert: 22:11


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is admin, so I suppose warning is not needed.


 * Gutza tries to impose his POV on readers through a non-sequitur, by mixing facts that, while individually factual, presented in the fashion he does direct the reader to a certain interpretation not supported by sources (i.e. a violation of WP:SYNTH). His last revert was of a template that requested external input on the subject. He contends he is supported by a source, but this is not the case, as you can see in his message on my talk page .Xasha (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both editors seem well-intentioned, but they are revert-warring. Protected two days. I don't see any discussion of the contested issue on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Xasha. --Gutza T T+ 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dodo bird reported by DanielEng (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (after warning)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Repeatedly reverting and adding unsourced information/BLP vio to article, despite being warned and alerted to specific concerns. Simply blanked 3RR warning with a snarky comment. DanielEng (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether convinced that the material constitutes a BLP violation — non-English sources are acceptable — but I've protected the page to de-escalate the edit war. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mokele reported by Papa Lima Whiskey (Result: 8 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Stifle (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:77.101.64.48 reported by User:Ipinkbear (Result: article protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Hi.

I'm taking care about FIFA 09 article and i have a problem with anonymous user 77.101.64.48, who make edits to the article.

He changes the Italian football league name, which is not correct and that's why:
 * Full league name is "Lega Calcio Serie A TIM", while it has a page name Serie A in Wiki and this name is also used everywhere in the world.
 * When he changes the league name - it breaks the link to the Serie A article.
 * There is no need to use "Serie A Italia", because we use flags in the article to identify the coutry.

I'm also offended by the way of discussion this user hold. He does not respond to my warnings on his talk page, while use offensive language |in the article. Ipinkbear (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article was protected in the interim. Locking thisoffensive ip out of the article is a better outcome anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007 and OLTL2002 reported by TAnthony (Result: Both Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Users: ::


 * I believe the first change was here, and the info was reverted and forth numerous times over several days.

The most recent (last 24 hours): More warring after this report:
 * 1st revert (OLTL2002):
 * 1st revert (Onelifefreak2007):
 * 2nd revert (OLTL2002):
 * 2nd revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
 * 3rd revert (OLTL2002):
 * 3rd revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
 * 4th revert (OLTL2002):
 * 4th revert: (Onelifefreak2007):
 * 5th revert (OLTL2002):
 * 5th revert: (Onelifefreak2007):


 * Diff of previous 3RR warning (to each individual): and

These two users have been involved in a slow edit war in One Life to Live for a while now over this same small fact; I am not sure who started it or who is "correct," but the bulk of recent changes to the article (spanning days) involve this item. They have had similar disagreements on similar articles, and Onelifefreak2007 was even blocked for edit-warring with OLTL2002 here and here. As a longtime observer of this rivalry, in my opinion OLTL2002 edits in good faith and has a better understanding of policy and convention, but allows him/herself to get caught up in these "battles." Not quite a new editor any longer, Onelifefreak2007 remains slow to acknowledge advice, warnings and policy, often flatly refusing to follow rules. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say, slow edit war. Breeching the spirit of the 3RR if not the actual word. I think a coiple of the reverts are outside 24 hours but the intetent to disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring is there and clearly they both need a firm message. I have left Onelifefreak2007 a fairly stark warning about the future. Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User: (Result: Malformed report)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

There is someone who keeps putting erroneous information about the site, a lawsuit and other information that is not neutral in any way. For instance, the case was dismissed the second time, but the person who keeps changing the page wants to make people believe it was not. There is an order from a judge concerning this dismissal. I'd like the editors to look at this one for the neutrality, and erroneous information.

Whenever the information is corrected, the person at IP - 209.213.203.235 keeps reverting it back and posting the same erroneous information. If it's going to be an editing war, then the information should simply be deleted.
 * Sign your comments. We can't tell who you are or what article you're trying to report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Astutescholar reported by Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Newbie is likely a sockpuppet of User:PigeonPiece or User:Obscuredata and likely knows how this is supposed to work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR on Oxford Round Table, COI editing, possible sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

121.135.161.242 reported by Michael Friedrich (Result: Warned all editors)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper Wikipedian.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * malformed report. and, technically, it is not a 3rr rule violation, It is a atricle development. anyone can fix article many times. i'm not revert same edit again and again. however, YOU revert same edit gain and again. 121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a place for a quarrel, but I never reverted the same edit... (see ) 121.135.161.242 seems not to have even read my edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Result. I had previously blocked the IP cited here 24 hours for edit warring on a different article. If an admin believes that other participants in the dispute should be blocked as well, please add your decision here. Protection might be the best option for this article, but it is undergoing an AfD discussion, so that's unwise. I'll leave a warning on the article Talk that further violations of 3RR will lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by 121.135.161.242 (Result: Closed with no action per agreement)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (This is a diff. 121.135.161.242 doen't understand the rule.  And this edit is very reasonable, removing YouTube link and added information from a more reliable source (Weekly Shincho).  This edit cannot be any reason for me to be accused of anything.)


 * 1st revert: (actually a normal edit--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
 * 2nd revert: (actually a normal edit--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
 * 3rd revert: (actually not a revert as you can see from this diff .  I only modified some strange words used by 121.135.161.242, such as "a one company" and added some words.)
 * 4th revert: (This is a revert but this was because 121.135.161.242's edit was too strange.  He removed sourced information and made the article ungrammartical.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
 * 5th revert: (Who calls this edit a revert..????--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He is a POV user. S/he keeps making vandalism too. S/he cannot be a proper Wikipedian.121.135.161.242 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like 121.135.161.242 does not understand what 3rr is. This one is not a revert but a normal edit.  This one is not a revert either but a normal edit.  This one isn't either.  This one is a revert but I reverted vandalism.  You can see that if you read it carefully. [ This one] is not a revert at all.  Information I added is sourced and information 121.135.161.242 is not sourced.  121.135.161.242 is only imitating me without the knowledge of the rules of wikipedia.--[[User:Michael Friedrich|Michael Friedrich]] (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even if you explain your edits on the talk page, Michael Friedrich is quick to revert them, claiming that there are either vandalism and that there is no consensus - please block as this user who apparently does not understand how content disputes are resolved, that is by discussion on the talk page and not by reverting. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did the same act(quick to revert),too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propastop (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to be blocked by discussion on talk page? BlueSalo talks as if opposing to him is vandalism. This is a "content dispute," not vandalism. Every piece of the information listed in the article was sourced. I call removing it without consensus is vandalism. Reverting your edit cannot be the reason for blocking.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue Salo cannot accuse me of reverting because his/her edit was too big. I think s/he went a bit too far to removing the whole list without consensus. S/he says s/he did it per the discussion on the talk page, but it was only 24 hours since s/he posted his idea. It cannot be said there was consensus. S/he talks as if the information on the list were not sourced, but actually they are. S/he talks as if I edited the article, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but the discussion was started by him/her and closed by him/her within a day. Reverting his/her edit cannot be the reason for blocking me. The discussion page cannot be the reason for blocking me either. I did no vandalism or no 3rr violation.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, however there is no consensus to keep the list either. Actually, if the article is cleaned up, well, the article would not be accused for WP:SYNTHESIS like this. You reverted 4 times along with the anon but BlueSalo did two times (his first edit is regarded a revert based on the article history). The anon and BlueSalo's removals are content dispute, not vandalism. I'm just saying about fairness and equality since the one side is blocked.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a malformed 3RR report, and the anon obviously does not understand 3RR policy. Michael should've added not to make admins confused when they read the report. However, well, the anon and Michale both violated 3RR and here is the report. Even if the reverts are not identical, Micheal reverted 4 times, so I think both are responsible for the edit warring.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to


 * 1st revert 2008-09-19T12:32:49
 * 2nd revert 2008-09-19T12:42:25
 * 3rd revert 2008-09-19T13:57:35
 * 4th revert 2008-09-19T14:07:20

This is an arbitrary interpretation. The 1st edit the 2nd edit are not the same and I made the article grammartical. The 3rd and the 4th are the same but different from the 1st and the 2nd. The 3rd and 4th are made because the whole list was removed. They are actually like this. I am not violating 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st edit 2008-09-19T12:32:49
 * 1st revert 2008-09-19T12:42:25
 * 1st revert 2008-09-19T13:57:35
 * 2nd revert 2008-09-19T14:07:20
 * Comment. I don't have all day to study the edit history of this article and figure out who is right. I've offered not to block Michael Friedrich if he'll voluntarily abstain from editing this article for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I will.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Closed by agreement, without any sanction. This is already the second 3RR case about this article. If the general edit war keeps up, full protection may have to be imposed in spite of the current AfD discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, EdJOhnston, Michael clearly violated 3RR, and even his edit summary states "RV". However, the anon seem to violate 3RR over two articles, so I have to respect your judgment.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you a complainer? You often go to the talk page of Administrator and protest it.stop this act--Propastop (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange. How do you magically know that I often go to the talk page of admin and protect it? Because you're newbie with just one edit contributions before the AFD was open. Your first edit is also to give 3RR warning to somebody whom you did not encounter. Very interesting. Why don't you stop your behaviors first? Here is for 3RR report and the anon and Michael are reported for their 3RR violation. So admins should look at the report and that is no business of you.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Prophaniti reported by Ibaranoff24 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has repeatedly added inaccurate genre terms and removed text from this article. Will not listen to reasoning and insists that there is no sourcing for the genres he removed when he never looked at said sources, which are clearly listed in article. User also removed notice that advised against editing genre-related elements of the article without discussion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Comment: Prophaniti has done 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. It takes 4 reverts in a 24-hour period to violate the 3RR rule. I posted a message with a link to the 3RR rule to Prophaniti's talk page at 00:26, 20 September 2008. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Coppertwig, there are not four reverts. I don't perceive any consensus on the Talk page as to how to describe the band's genre. I suggest that the two editors ask for a WP:Third opinion. Whether MusicMight is the final word on genres is a legitimate question; aren't they just one of many criticism sites? Need to get input from more editors. Consider asking for comments at WT:WikiProject Rock music. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking my previous close, since two hours after that comment, Prophaniti added his fourth revert. The issue of this editor gaming 3RR across a range of articles was noted at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardonicone reported by Magioladitis (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User denies to make creative edits to improve an article about a fictional character even after I gave him specific parts of the Manual of Style (Writing of Fiction). Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I posted a 3RR warning to Sardonicone on 22:58 19 September 2008. I also reverted the page to Magioladitis' version. Sardonicone has done 3 reverts. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support to this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sardonicone has reverted three times, while four is required for a violation. Consider pursuing WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead reported by Goingoveredge (Result: Both editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 15:25, 19 September 2008 (partial revert to version trying to discredit peer reviewed source
 * 2nd revert: - 21:17, 19 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: -  22:06, 19 September 2008
 * 4th revert: -  22:46, 19 September 2008
 * 5th revert: - 03:35, 20 September 2008  vandalism (removal of tag that was put)
 * 6th revert: - 04:00, 20 September 2008 same as fifth revert
 * 7th revert: - 04:10, 20 September 2008 same as fifth revert


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:34, 19 September 2008 

User:Roadahead and ideological meatpuppet User:Princhest have been blocked for edit-warring in tandem and against consensus on this article before. The ideological goal is Khalistani theocratic and sectarian historical revisionism (negationism) from Non Resident Indian Sikh militants (Air India Flight 182 and Gurmit Singh Aulakh). Article talk page is pepperred with failed mediation, consensus violation, racist hate-speech, incitement to violence against Hindus, promotional of holocaust denial websites, and liberal amounts of inflammatory Godwinning by the Khalistani trolls.Goingoveredge (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first revert (at 15:25) can be considered a revert because it deletes ", an Indian Christian named", and because it deletes the word "defamatory" from a sentence that had been added. Counting that, Roadahead did 4 reverts within a 24-hour period, violating 3RR; the last revert was 12 minutes after the warning.  Goingoveredge did 3 reverts in the same time period. (I added the time of the warning above.) (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Khalistani trolling has extended to other articles, including the main one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (a key Khalistani Bête noire, which, to date, has been thankfully been kept free of Khalistani trolls), and other revisionist claims made (without any support) here .Goingoveredge (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Goingoveredge's conduct is absolutely outrageous. This 3RR report is not the first place where he is violating wikipedia policies but he has been himself stubbornly reverting and deleting content even after repetitive requests of discussion. Please note RFC on Goingoveredge for more information. Here in 3RR he mentions another user Princhest being blocked just to create negativism against others while he smartly hides that user:Goingoveredge was himself blocked from editing and the admin blocked user:Goingoveredge for longer duration. Here again user:Goingoveredge is involving in personal attacks by calling me and other editor as bombers of Air India Flight 182, militant, sectarian and what not. He even goes on assuming me and other editor as Non Resident Indians without having any information at all. Just like always, Goingoveredge has again gone by leaps and bound picking words from wikipedia and using them unwarantedly against me and Princhest to create prejudice. It is expected that the admins spend little more time understanding the issue at hand and user:Goingoveredge's approach so far. A little research by any admin will clearly show that user:Goingoveredge was repetitively requested to take part in civil discussion but he not only avoided that and kept reverting, but also deleted the discussions of other editors from the article talkpages. Its really obnoxious that he has repetitively deleted content from talkpages not letting any discussion to take place, while he puts his own views on the talkpages of the articles. He even deleted messages left on his talkpage without responding. Please see [RFC on Goingoveredge] for a glimpse of his activities. He has made impossible for any civil discussion to take place. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also look at this post by established admin User:utcursch regarding the racist and incitement-trolling of the Khalistani revisionists . Also, this response when the Khalistani militant trolls engaged in ad-hominem personal attacks against User:utcursch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goingoveredge (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The substance of the original report looks on target thus far, but the conduct on this page suggests a two way edit war with a dispute thats gone personal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * looks like a nasty two person edit war. Also recommending both of them consider WP:DR.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edit-warring is all on User:Roadahead's part. WP:3RR states that 3rr rule does not apply when reverting vandalism. In this case, the vandalism is the removal of OR tags without discussion.Goingoveredge (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The OR tags is a content dispute, not vandalism. It is neither the technical definition, nor does it fit the spirit of WP:3RR. This is not a court of law where we argue about definitions of specific lines. It is immediately obvious from a glance at the article history that you are in an intense content dispute, and are edit warring over it.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise reported by Kelly (Result: Substantiated but determined block would be punitive)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Warning: Most recent 3RR warning of several. Also, user has been previously blocked for 3RR.


 * Reversions in last 24 hours:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)


 * Previous version reverted to:

Reported by Kelly  hi! 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The user just made another revert 01:16, 20 September 2008 marked explicitly as "undo" in edit summary. Could go into a long list here but instead I just say that this user's activity is completely unfair to all the other editors who play by the rules (not just 3RR). Hobartimus (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction the above is already listed in the original report as revert 6, sorry(I was confused by the timestamps the additional revert I added was 01:16, the report submission dated to 00:48 seems it was amended). Other part of my comment stands. Hobartimus (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are other editors engaged, as well as possible tag teaming. I will provide diffs in a minute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 00:51, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Federal funding */ earmarks iterated everywhere? seems POV at his point")
 * 2) 14:11, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Political positions */ corrects "abstinence only" self-contradiction")
 * 3) 21:16, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* "Bridge to Nowhere" */ restoring title which was not changed by any consensus")
 * 4) 21:38, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* "Bridge to Nowhere" */ Discussion is under way -- do NOT revert again")
 * 5) 22:56, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge controversy */ editorializing in caption")
 * 6) 22:58, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge controversy */ reverting is turning into vandalism by readding non-consensus material previously deleted")
 * 1) 22:58, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge controversy */ reverting is turning into vandalism by readding non-consensus material previously deleted")


 * 1) 22:09, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "no consensus for this")
 * 2) 22:45, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "once again, no consensus for this, take to talk")
 * 1) 22:45, 19 September 2008  (edit summary: "once again, no consensus for this, take to talk")

So... a revert war while there is an open RFC.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If other editors besides Greek Paradise violated 3RR, then they ought to get the hammer too, because this is a very high-profile article that does not need the abuse. That said, I only see two diffs for Kelly, and no warning for Collect.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I count six non-consecutive reversions by Kelly in the 7 hours from 00:39, 15 September 2008 to 14:03, 14 September 2008, including a comment by Dstern1 asking her not to get in an edit war. I count eleven non-consecutive reversion by Kelly in the 24 hours preceding 22:32, 13 September 2008.

On Kelly's talk page, I have made her an offer: "no edits to the main article by me in the next 24 hours; no further insults by you of me or me of you (and I will keep this from now until eternity if you don't insult me again); withdrawal of your complaint; and I won't file mine against you or Hobartimus."

For this reason, I have yet to file a complaint against Kelly while I await her response.GreekParadise (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As Kelly has rejected my proposed compromise, I will proceed to file a 3RR complaint against her for her 18 reversions in 48 hours. I'm very sorry, Kelly, you chose war over my peace offer. Very sorry. I consider this a tremendous waste of time, but so be it.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC) :Greek, you have 1 hr to file your report before you are blocked for 31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting, for example: "(and I will keep this from now until eternity if you don't insult me again)"
 * No more. 3RR is going to be enforced to the letter and the spirit on Sarah Palin.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn: deferring to Doug.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

- Substantiated 3RR violation but user had taken action to undo a reversion and may have misunderstood what constitutes a reversion (even though previously blocked, but for a clearer violation), user has refrained from editing articles since the report. For this reason, a block would be punitive and should not be implemented. However, I requested the user to review WP:3RR in detail and apply 0RR until the policy is clearly understood. Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again. Insufficient diffs to properly investigate nominator and related parties. No prejudice against a 3RR complaint against those parties by GP or another user if warranted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Flatterworld reported by User:CENSEI (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:27, 20 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:32, 20 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:51, 20 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:52, 20 September 2008

Strait forward enough violation, but I would add that all four content reverts took place within an hour. CENSEI (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - The third and the fourth are a single revert. This is not the first false 3RR report this editor has filed in support of his content position.Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * – multiple editor content dispute. -- slakr \ talk / 18:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR, and has been blocked in the past for edit warring.

Skinwalker (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe one of those was removing a BLP violation and the final was done with the support of talk page consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Levine2112 has not explained which revert he thinks is a BLP violation. I do not see any BLP violation and there was no consensus to violate NPOV policy. All his reverts were wrongly marked as minor.  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one seems to me to be removing a BLP violation, and the 4th is correcting a typo. The last revert (after #4, but to a different revision) was per consensus, although it would have been better if someone else had done it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The firsr revert was marked as minor and never mentioned any BLP problem. The last edit reverted to an old version that went against NPOV. Ludwigs2 has not explained why he removed the well sourced text and references.  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I had blocked Ludwigs2 for a week prir to seeing this report. His edits to a contentious page were rather disruptive. The edit summary of one revert was marked minor and was complaining about the previous editor's marking the removal of a comma as minor. Vsmith (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)