Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive82

Jlone78 and 220.253.23.184 reported by Caspian blue (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User: ,


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-09-19T13:50:09


 * 1st revert: 2008-10-02T21:27:07 by 220.253.144.103
 * 2nd revert: 2008-10-03T02:35:40 by Jlone78
 * 3rd revert: 2008-10-03T02:48:45 by Jlone78
 * 4th revert: 2008-10-03T02:59:31 by Jlone78
 * 5th revert: 2008-10-03T03:24:37 by Jlone78
 * 6th revert: 2008-10-03T22:00:00 by 220.253.23.184
 * 7th revert: 2008-10-03T23:15:46 by 220.253.23.184


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-10-03T03:28:392008-10-03T22:26:12


 * By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, is obviously same as, , , all of which use (netspace.net.au) IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. . As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. . I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information with many minor edits for corrections such as,. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board and the biography board  for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. 220.253.23.184 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment from a partly involved administrator I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.  They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and ,)  Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that WP:BLP exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of living people (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989).  S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being reliable includes newspapers, and verifiable, doesn't mean that one has to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required. There are also problems understanding that we work by WP:CONSENSUS, that we need to discuss and  assume good faith about other editors, not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc. In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours.  In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--Slp1 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring now seems to have stopped. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

125.60.235.231 reported by PikDig (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides, , and as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: ). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: ). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [www.amadeus.net], [www.oag.com], and [www.flightstats.com].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the no personal attacks rule.

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:


 * 1st: (read his edit summary)
 * 2nd: (read his edit summary)
 * 3rd:

Thank you. pikdig (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know how this got missed, but it's now. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

189.104.65.1 reported by Husond (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:59, October 4, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:28, October 4, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:52, October 4, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:09, October 4, 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:47, October 5, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:27, October 5, 2008

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. Hús ö  nd  11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * — Satori Son 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rightandright reported by Cordless Larry (talk) (Result: No Action)
. : Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 09:58,  5 October 2008  (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
 * 2) 11:10,  5 October 2008  (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
 * 3) 14:30,  5 October 2008  (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
 * 4) 14:42,  5 October 2008  (edit summary: "minor")

—Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The first edit is not a revert.-- Koji Dude  (C) 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Emptv reported by ESanchez013 (Result: No further action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:23, October 5, 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 21:26, October 5, 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 21:40, October 5, 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 21:41, October 5, 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:44, October 5, 2008 (UTC)

←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User75.181.153.57 reported by xyl_54 (Result: Warned then Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)


 * 1st revert: undone by 75.181.153.57
 * 2nd revert: revert by Jackyd101
 * 3rd revert: undone by 75.181.153.57
 * 4th revert: revert by xyl_54
 * 5th revert: undone by 75.181.153.57
 * 6th revert revert by xyl_54
 * 7th revert undone by 75.181.153.57


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:75.181.153.57

This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content. The original version of this account 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008. It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses: The content added is highly POV, and editorializing.
 * 71.75.217.133 (Sept 06-Jan 07),
 * 75.181.159.63  (Sept 07-Mar 08 ), and now
 * 75.181.159.63 (Oct 08).

There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues.

The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.


 * This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — Satori Son 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring continued past warning. — Satori Son 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. CENSEI (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. CENSEI (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at WP:ANI. — Satori Son 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezistenta reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:14, 6 October 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:06, 6 October 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:03, 6 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:42, 6 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:58, 6 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:13, 6 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.

I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. Squash Racket (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments


 * Are you not ashamed lying in this manner, by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?


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


 * And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque Rezistenta (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please and keep it civil. Thank you. None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. Squash Racket (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for 3RR...it's incredible... Rezistenta (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I once again ask you to keep it civil please. There are no "involved parties", you call your own edits concensus and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
 * Once again: if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. Squash Racket (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. Squash Racket (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * n.b. - see . east718 //  talk  //  email  // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer26 reported by Abd (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.


 * 1st revert: 13:19, 6 October 2008
 * 2nd revert:  16:06, 6 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:10, 6 October 2008
 * 4th revert:  17:30, 6 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I warned both this editor and User:Devotus even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --Abd (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton reported by Wikidemon (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 19:06,  5 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
 * 19:07, 5 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (reverts this closure of discussion)
 * 1) 17:24,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (reverts this addition of addendum)
 * 2) 17:40,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today") (reverts this closure of discussion)
 * 17:41, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (reverts this addition of heading)
 * 1) 18:06,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 243476839 by Scjessey (talk)reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure)
 * 2) 18:29,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per WP:TALK section headers are supposed to be neutral") (reverts part of heading added here)


 * Editor warned about 3RR here. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current AN/I report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored and "disruptive"  indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. CENSEI (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. CENSEI (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page is under article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days.  If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on.  What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page?  3RR is an electric fence.  If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No action for now. Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at Barack Obama, and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- Noroton (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault?  My article patrol is just fine.  Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:143.226.27.72 reported by TimVickers (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:50, 6 October 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:08, 6 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:34, 6 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:59, 6 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:36, 6 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Also see discussion of the talkpage here where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:InaMaka reported by User:Therefore (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:


 * User:

Previous version

1st Revert: which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert:

3rd Revert:

4th Revert:

Page 6, the gossip column of the New York Post, has reported that Lara Logan is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. . InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: Lara Logan. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at Talk:Lara Logan and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at User Talk:InaMaka. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I corrected the revert links. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceOfCanada reported by User:G2bambino (result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:

Previous version 21:44, 6 October 2008

1st Revert: 22:59, 6 October 2008 (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: 00:00, 7 October 2008 (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both and myself are under a specific 1RR restriction initiated by  as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which   agreed (I was offered similar conditions, and also agreed.) --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). Tiptoety  talk 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. Tiptoety  talk 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel reported by Hellbus (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. Hellbus (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the content of their reverts.
 * This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to communicate with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
 * What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).


 * No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cory Malik reported by AussieLegend (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process. I even discussed this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate. I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to. To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.-- Jay M. Baxter-Payne ( talk ) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information, despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page. Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody wants to touch this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Berdov reported by Wikidemon (Result: stale, no action)

 * As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.  Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking.  Thanks.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'


 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 21:43,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
 * 2) 23:44,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
 * 3) 00:29,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
 * 4) 01:16,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
 * 5) 01:36,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
 * 6) 01:54,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)


 * The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that Commentary (magazine) is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. CENSEI (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an opinion piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the Red  2    03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua Muravchik is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. CENSEI (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere.  Grsz  X  03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. CENSEI (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we?  Grsz  X  03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the WP:BLP violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an opinion. Erik the Red  2    03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". CENSEI (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever actually read Commentary? CENSEI (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Berdov reported by User:Erik the Red 2 (Result: )
Same content as above report.

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the Red  2    02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell.  Grsz  X  02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of WP:3RR himself on the same material on the same page.


 * 1) 23:22,  6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
 * 2) 00:39,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a wp:rs?")
 * 3) 00:49,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
 * 4) 01:01,  7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * He's also edit warring in the above personal attack. If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation?  It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. CENSEI (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "reverted in the addition", so when was it there last? CENSEI (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the Red  2    03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No action. The reverting has ceased and the initial reporter has recommended taking no action. Blocking does not seem to be required here.  Sandstein  19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Soman reported by User:59.95.108.209 (Result: No violation; reporting IP blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Block him please 59.95.108.209 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --Soman (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has no other contributions and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No violation. The material being reverted was vandalistic, for which I have blocked the IP.  Sandstein  19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

76.224.68.237 reported by Arcayne (Result: Blocked 31 hours by User:Risker, may be lifted by any admin when editor agrees to discuss rather than revert)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:16, October 6, 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:49, October 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:46, October 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 9:20, October 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:36, October 7, 2008

Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:53, October 7, 2008


 * Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
 * Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:, Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here: and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly Thirty individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
 * Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ninety times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors.76.224.68.237 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers all edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here: yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
 * It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute.76.224.68.237 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: "Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop."76.224.68.237 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec x3) It is a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You learned your lesson? Here's still another editor from just last night, "Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. ... the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome.". You reverted me Thirty times in just this one day. And not once have you offered even a hint of substance as to why even one of the edits was wrong. All you've done is continue to claim ownership and revert back to your personal version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.68.237 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you broke 3RR because of me? Because I and no one else reverted you? Hmm, I am not sure that complaining about me is the best way to defend your breaking the rules. Sorry. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the user based on remarks on his/her talkpage, and on a post on the article talkpage. Will reblock if the user doesn't discuss edits. Bjelleklang  -  talk 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:CENSEI (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diff of 3RR Warning


 * 1st revert: 12:56, 6 October 2008
 * 1st revert: 18:16, 6 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:11, 6 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:40, 6 October 2008
 * 5th Revert: 00:46, 7 October 2008
 * 6th Revert: 13:49, 7 October 2008 granted, this one was made 24 hours and 55 minuets after the first cited one, but it establishes a pattern at this point

There was also another 3RR on the 5th:
 * 1st revert: 13:33, 5 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:45, 5 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, 5 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:05, 5 October 2008

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours and 10 reverts in 36 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the Obama Article Probation. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. If it was to stop the anon and SPA vandals, he could have just as easily askd for SP on the page. CENSEI (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * These are BLP-related reverts, patrolling vandalism and election-related WP:NPOV issues. As such, they are exempt from the three-revert rule according to WP:GRAPEVINE. Furthermore, I consider this to be a malicious report filed by an editor who has been known to do such against editors he has an ideological disagreement with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP reverts, thats certainly the story being advanced by Scjessey, but there is little or nothing to back that up. I think that 10 Reverts in 36hours speaks for itself. CENSEI (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Every edit listed above is either a BLP-related revert, a reversion of vandalism, or not a reversion. This is a necessary part of recent changes patrolling. I am considering filing a report at WP:ANI about this malicious report and your recent disruptive behavior. [Addendum] - I can see that this is not necessary, as an incident report already exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with Scjessey. Please close this. This was maintenance, not 3RR violations. And frankly, CENSEI has already been blocked several times for similar behavior, and currently has a report at WP:ANI already. -- Good Damon 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just another ploy. These reverts were vandalism and BLP reverts. I encourage the user who filed the complaint to remove it before doing more damage to himself.  Grsz  X  18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No violation; no action. Some of these reverts reflect a content dispute, but most are unproblematic reverts of vandalism or material not in compliance with WP:BLP.  Sandstein  19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we get a detailed response on which reverts were reverts and which edits were judged exempt under BLP? It would help understand what type of edits fall within the BLP exception in practice. Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too would be interested in seeing the breakdown. CENSEI (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jarajet89 reported by Protonk (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Arguably also User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 16:03, 6 October 2008
 * 2) 02:30,  7 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 13:41,  7 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:28,  7 October 2008  (edit summary: "")

Also, on 4 Sep,  on 7 Sep,  5 Oct.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:, . Other warnings were provided regarding removing this specific image but did not explicitly state that the user was on the edge of or had passed 3RR.

This is also pursuant to this ANI thread and various other warnings and request on the user's talk page to stop removing images without comment. Since it is clear that the user has reverted multiple times following clear warnings from uninvolved editors and that his lack of communication has been a problem in the past, I am recommending a longer block length than usual and I am also recommending that this not be excused as "stale" should this report take some time to process. Also, please do not kick this to AN/I as it appears to be an open and shut violation of 3RR. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Tack on a revert of the same content from an IP editor with very similar contributions. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. Looking again, one of the 7 oct diffs is not a revert.  It isn't 4 in 24 hours.  It is 4 in ~28-30 hours and 5 over two days and more over longer periods.  The operative problem is the continuing to revert even following somewhat even handed and unambiguous communication. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I affirm this report. While there's no technical 3RR vio, not quite, there is clear edit warring with absolutely no communication. Whether intentionally or not, the timing games the system. I can also find no evidence that there's any sort of copyright concern with the image being removed, which might mitigate this behaviour. Therefore, I believe a 24-hour block to be justified in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED reported by Avruch (Result: No action; editor self-reverted)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1:
 * 2:
 * 3:
 * 4:
 * 5:
 * 6:

See my reversion edit summary, RMHED describes his actions of reverting a bureaucrat on an RfA as "reverting vandalism." Avruch  T 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A small group of Users are trying to impose an experimental RfA on the community without consensus. That's fine if they want to follow the rules of this experiment, but they cannot insist that everyone else does. The default RfA process still holds sway. Therefore the removal of legitimate RfA votes is indeed vandalism. RMHED (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict:) For some reason the phrase "good faith vandalism by a bureaucrat" does not make sense. Icewedge  ( talk ) 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A good faith edit is never vandalism, and when a group of editors including administrators and a bureaucrat believe that you are wrong you should perhaps consider whether you ought to keep imposing your will above theirs. Avruch  T 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try and talk to RMHED. Could I request that other sysops defer on this report for a couple hours? There's no need to hand out blocks for something as petty as this. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to keep my vote on an RfA from being removed against process, but if this is how Wikipedia now imposes new process then I guess the consensus model has been discarded. RMHED (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is being "imposed"; this is a one-time only (at least for now) process that is purely an experiment. What harm will be caused if it's at least tried out? In the end, once Ironholds' RfA is over, it will be a benefit purely because we get to see what works, what doesn't, what we can implement, and what we can't. CL — 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, you regard your view of how the process should work as above those of everyone else participating. Nothing in the structure of this RfA limits your opportunity to vote - all it does is add a period of discussion and questions to the beginning of the request, with ample time to vote normally afterwards. By reverting everyone who thinks you are sabotaging an attempt at meaningful change (one which I personally don't think will be that successful), you are imposing your view against consensus and not protecting it as you seem to think. Avruch  T 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm following the correct RfA process, which as far as I can recall hasn't been superceded. RMHED (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically this meets all the 3RR requirements, but I don't think this is needed. Can we just remove this for now? It's better to discuss in fewer places and just let everyone relax instead of adding tension. - Taxman Talk 04:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you remove it, I won't revert you (/irony). I think the issue merits a more serious response, but if others disagree then I won't argue the situation. I may bend some ears about the philosophy of calling the situation petty when it doesn't strike me that way. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh it's never good to revert war and a block is certainly within process, I'm just saying I don't think it's the best way forward at this point. And I won't remove this, just wanted input. - Taxman Talk 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well whatever it is, it's stale and resolved now, fortunately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. RMHED removed his vote, after the discussion here. It is usually better to find a negotiated solution for a 3RR on a discussion page, and luckily one was found in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher reported by Politizer (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

While this user only technically made three "reverts," his edit before the reverting was essentially a revert (information was deleted by User:LedRush and Bobby Fletcher reinstated it in another part of the article), and he did 3 reverts yesterday at Age requirements in gymnastics, as well as many other instances of general edit warring. User has been warned multiple times, on his talk pages and on multiple article talk pages, and has repeatedly ignored requests to discuss before reverting; when he does come to the discussion page, he ignores what other users have posted and merely repeats himself. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the first edit is considered a "revert" for the 3RR. Also, there is a clear history of edit warring.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the time of the report, Bobby Fletcher has reverted a fourth time. He has been continually disruptive, ignoring the consensus of the editors (even though it has only been 3 others editing) and ignores all pleas we make to discuss the items on the talk page. We have made repeated overtures to him to respect the editing process and accept some type of compromise language, but he will not. He is often abusive to other editors as well, making false accusations.LedRush (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the latest revert as #4. If LedRush (above) is correct that his first edit is also a revert, that would be 5 today (the first revert is ). The user's reverts to Age requirements in gymnastics are as follows:, , and .  He has also been making fairly hostile accusations at WikiProject China.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you will find this relevant to your investigation or not, but if you look into Bobby fletcher's contribs, you will see that since August 25 he has contributed to nothing but articles about these Chinese gymnasts (with the exception of one post on the talk page of the article about Hu Jia, the imprisoned activist), and has made close to 200 such contributions. I know there's no rule against that kind of editing, but it does illustrate that this user is clearly on some sort of mission.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Admin, please read the background information on this.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:He_Kexin#Disputing_Editor_LedRush.27s_Removal_of_He_Kexin.27s_Parent.27s_Reaction
 * Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because Bobby Fletcher has not posted in the last 12-plus hours, he should still receive a short block for breaking the 3RR and edit warring. He has a long history of edit warring, disruptive posting, misleading/lying about the facts, and misusing wikipedia to push his POV. For only one example of this, please visit the "Comments to Age Controversy" at the Wikiproject China page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China LedRush (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As LedRush is saying, even though Bobby Fletcher is not online at the moment, his history of repeated disruptive editing does warrant some kind of action, and either a short block (as LedRush suggested) or some sort of community ban (on editing articles related to this controversy) is the sort of solution I have been hoping for. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:85.232.205.214 reported by User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The information provided by this user is unsourced, is not NPOV, is not factual, is inflammatory, and is essentially an opinion or original research. I tried to explain on his/her talk page, the article talk page, and the article history summaries why I was reverting his/her edit. I did not revert the last edit because I think and administrator should step in and help explain the situation to the individual and/or help correct his/her behavior by blocking. Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, repeatedly adding material that ostentatiously violates WP:NPOV. This user should find another outlet for his personal editorials. Not a conventional 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:44, 8 October 2008, removed introduction sentence added in prior edit
 * 2nd revert: 12:38, 8 October 2008 removing content may be NPOV, but is hardly vandalism
 * 3rd revert: 17:18, 8 October 2008 self explanatory
 * 4th revert: 17:23, 8 October 2008 removed Fox Story added in prior edit
 * 5th revert: 21:01, 8 October 2008 removed this prior contribution by Wallamoose
 * 6th revert: 22:19, 8 October 2008, removed this prior contribution by Wallamoose again


 * User warned of 3RR:

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was found to have violated 3RR on this article only a day ago (see above) but since the violation was stale, there was no action. Clearly he is at it again, and with 6 rv's there seems to be little chance that he will stop his edit warring on this article and needs a lengthy break considering his history of edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins, please see CENSEI's other 3RR report above for some context. The first so-called "revert" is not a revert at all, it's a perfectly normal edit. The second edit looks like a mistaken attempt to revert vandalism; the prior editor, an IP editor, deleted an entire paragraph with the edit summary "non-notable". It sure looks like typical page-blanking vandalism at first glance. The third edit is an unrelated revert of a completely different IP address editor, and accidentally placed some vandalism back in. See a pattern, here? Please close this. This is just wikigaming. -- Good Damon 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, GoodDamon characterizes this exactly correctly. Sadly, one of my edits was indeed meant to fix a vandalism, and I somehow restored some bad content rather than what I meant to do (I think maybe it was an edit-conflict I didn't realize).  In any case, other than the one bad-but-not-a-reversion edit in the middle, this is six completely different edits I made, to different sections of the article; they have nothing in common other than having occurred in near proximity in time.  LotLE × talk  02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, also FWIW, I was never notified of this report or of alleged 3RR until after CENSEI filed 'two (incorrect) 3RR reports on my edits to the the same article. LotLE × talk  02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The summaries I left above speak for themselves. Also Damon "typical page-blanking vandalism" usually involves you know blanking the page. If the removal of a paragraph of objectionable mater is now considered vandalism, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters would be guilty of lots of vandalism.


 * The more that users like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters are allowed to edit war and flagrantly violate 3RR, the less meaning the rules regarding edit warring will be. CENSEI (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation. I'm really not seeing any 3RR violation here. Also, to CENSEI - Blanking is defined as removing any section of a page, not just the whole page. An accusation of blanking can be made when someone removes an AN/I report about themselves, for instance. Report creased. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelo_De_La_Paz reported by VeryGoodBoy (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

keeps reverting all indication of dispute in the article without resolution of the dispute and without any discussion. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed your report; for future reference just "user" will suffice (e.g. ). -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * by . CIreland (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Namszo reported by Baseball Bugs (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: The second one is from immediately before. The first one shows the disputed text, re-posted by another user after yet an earlier reversion by the same user Namszo.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 days. Anyone who is concerned about abuse of multiple accounts ought to file a checkuser; I can't decide from looking at behavior alone whether there are any socks involved. One party from each side has gone over 3RR; the term 'vandalism' doesn't apply here as a defense against 3RR. While the page is protected please continue the Talk discussion. Search for parallels in other political articles, if you can, that establish when it is reasonable to mention conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk reported by Hexagon1 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I should note I am involved in the dispute. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reverting it to the state before User:Hexagon1 continously vandalised it with his imaginative interpretation of Slavic historical linguistics. Later another user joined the bandwagon, claiming further that Old Novgorod dialect "descended" from Old East Slavic, which I have refuted on the talk page and reverted his subsequent reversion of mine reversal. User:Hexagon1 continuously keeps accusing me of some alleged "original research", ignores any kind of productive discussion on the matter (on which he appears to be largely ignorant), and furthermore tries dirty tactics such as reporting me for "edit warring" here to push his bizarre theories which have no support in the literature (and reality). He is the one that should be blocked for wasting other ppl's time. Before the consensus is reached (i.e. before User:Hexagon1 tries to engage the actual discussion), the template must remain in the original state, and that's what I've been doing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would welcome any administrator to come, read over the debate and if they have the time (and patience) mediate it. I am still hoping for a mutual resolution but it is looking less and less likely. The editor has since reverted a fifth time. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've simply reverted the hierarchical grouping to the state before your butchering, as there was no consensus reached on the issues your scheme induces, and you appear to ignore any kind of discussion saying that everything I write is "irrelevant" or "original research". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva reported by skyemoor (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Apteva has been pushing his own lede without support from other editors, who themselves have an (albeit small) consensus. Apteva has a history of disruptive editing at Solar Energy, such as this sock puppet investigation, the prior this RfC, and other incidents such as this ANI. Months of disruptive editing are confounding progress on this very important topic. And any time we change anything he has inserted, he badgers us about "edit warring", which he clearly understands. Your help is requested. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation at Solar energy per the four reverts listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DBerriman reported by Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This account's only contributions have been to edit war on this page. Likely a sock, but that's a seperate issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TigerShark (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover reported by Aspects (Result: No action this time)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:58 October 9, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:52 October 9, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:40 October 9, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:15 October 9, 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:15 October 10, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:13 October 9, 2008

Also see the sections on our talk pages, User talk:Wrestlinglover and User talk:Aspects, how the editor felt he had not already violated the 3rr with his four reverts. Aspects (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm allowed to interject here or not but I feel I must state my case. The matches I removed were not sourced. Impact! is taped and there is not reliable source that those matches were announced. TBA is not a very common term. I was having it linked as a result. Referees and others of the short are capitalized in pro wrestling ppvs. I violated the 3RR as a result of there being no source. Per WP:SOURCE and WP:Ignore all rules.-- Will C  03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Both parties here seem well-intentioned, but Wrestlinglover went over 3RR. His above justification makes no sense, so I hope he will become familiar with WP:3RR and not repeat his mistake in the future. Future tolerance may not be so great. The edit war seems to have quiesced, so there is no urgency to admin action. Additional reverts in the same article may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you I had the best intentions in my actions and was trying to improve the article to make it accurate and up to date as well as follow the guidelines set by WP:PW. I will try to make sure it will not happen again.-- Will C  00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultrateslan reported by User:neitherday (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

May also be previously warned as

-Neitherday (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

71.196.249.209 reported by Tassedethe (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP has had an anti-vandalism warning but continues to add bio to dab page (page protection declined WP:RFP) Tassedethe (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:VeryGoodBoy reported by User:Angelo De La Paz (Result: Stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 2:48 AM


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I have not reverted any edits on contents. Instead, I kept reverting or adding dispute templates and tags that Angelo De La Paz keeps reverting without discussion and resolution of the dispute. I have provided explanations in the talk page whenver I added dispute templates and tags. Angelo De La Paz didn't make any responses and kept on deleting those dispute templates and tags. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&oldid=242889916


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243542836&oldid=243537135
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243549717&oldid=243543798
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243760043&oldid=243555967
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243766768&oldid=243764657
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243990388&oldid=243824563
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=244024438&oldid=243824563
 * 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=244026827&oldid=244025250


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEuroHistoryTeacher&diff=244010484&oldid=243998070

User has repeatedly been asked to use the talk page (as the text he is changing is longstanding) but is ignoring requests and reverting. Also, I should point out that the user is engaging in personal attacks. Their shortlived edit history (and apparent dislike of an editor) would suggest this is not a newbie who is unaware of the rules. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Slipinski| reported by User:Silly rabbit| (Result: Stale)

 * Page: }}
 * User: }}


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Persistently adding reference to an article on a "new theory of gravity" presumably written by the editor in question in blatant violation of numerous policies, chiefly WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CON. Recommend blocking and reverting back to the consensus revision.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: User:Slipinski has changed his name to User:Gravityforce. siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dexter prog reported by Utan Vax (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * No diff of 3RR warning; he's been around pratically for 2 years, knows better than to fight over something trivial. Utan Vax (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And a fifth one here just a little while ago. Utan Vax (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Utan Vax should engage in productive discussion on the article talk page rather than reporting here. This user has tried to explain their position, but others ignore and revert without discussion. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

212.73.143.231 reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Two IPs three months as socks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of vandalism warning:

Obviously the same person, there can be no discussion about it. They use the same reversion approach, they edit one and the same article the same way, and they both spell vandalism as vandalizm. Todor→Bozhinov 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both IPs, for abuse of multiple accounts and long-term edit warring. One of them does nothing but revert to his preferred version of Stara Zagora, month after month. The other IP assists him in performing the same reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will contact you if any more of those socks appear (which I'm pretty confident will happen). All the best, Todor→Bozhinov 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.42.70 reported by User:Man with one red shoe (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Anonymous account involved in revert war, pushing unsourced unencyclopedic info. man with one red shoe (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No action for now. In future please cite diffs with the normal server and not the secure server, as they take many multiples of time longer to load. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:76.83.5.195 reported by ChrisP2K5 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page: Jury Duty (TV series)
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Reddi reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Two warring editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (each reverted to a slightly different version)


 * 1st revert: 16:04, October 10, 2008 revert to 15:49
 * 2nd revert: 16:28, October 10, 2008 restoring the same information in a different place
 * 3rd revert: 16:46, October 10, 2008 (2 edits) revert to 16:36
 * 4th revert: 17:02, October 10, 2008 same
 * 5th revert: 07:12, October 11, 2008 revert to 03:45, except for removing the dubious


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:37, March 25, 2008 (actually, that's a diff of a 3RR block notice)

User as had multiple 3RR blocks, and was warned for edit warring on this article, although I can't find the exact date. Unfortunately, may also have violated 3RR, also having 5 edit sequences since 16:19, October 10, 2008. I think one of the sequences clearly isn't a revert, and another reverts one version of Reddi's nonsense to another version, but I'm not sure about the 4th sequence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reddi 7 days, NJGW 1 day. Both went over 3RR, but Reddi also has a pattern of reverting his own preference back into the article against the apparent consensus without providing sources. Reddi also has a very extensive block log. NJGW should wait for assistance without taking it all on himself to restore the consensus version. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly provide diffs to show that NJGW violated 3RR? I was not able to count 4 reverts.  Thanks,  Hi DrNick ! 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There were NJGW had 5 edit sequences, and I'm pretty sure at least 3 had reverts which were not self-reverted. That's why I mentioned it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, on further review he did only have three reverts (edits 1, 2, and 5). Why not just call it the two-revert rule then, if good-faith editors who follow the rules working in the interests of the encyclopedia are going to be blocked all willy-nilly like this?   Hi DrNick ! 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking over the five edit sequences:
 * 11:19 is a revert
 * 11:38 is a revert
 * 11:48 is not a revert; NJGW moved Reddi's contribution to a different place in the article and rephrased it slightly, maintaining the same sense.
 * 12:22 is not a revert, merely rephrasing.
 * 22:51 is a revert.
 * It does not seem that NJGW's edits violate the three revert rule. A mistake has been made by the admin here, and should be reversed.--Srleffler (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the situation is murky, I have unblocked NJGW. His 11:48 edit (listed above) added a citation needed tag, which was in turn reverted by Reddi. NJGW's edit was technically a revert only if there was a cn tag on that statement at some time in the past, which would take too much study to figure out. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A reminder to all here that yes, editors can and frequently should be blocked for edit warring, regardless of whether they exceed three reverts in 24 hours (which is really just an arbitrary threshold that happens to catch a good deal of edit warring). I don't know that it needed to be done here, but at any rate, blocks will sometimes be needed even where there's no technical 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes Tzimiskes reported by jd2718 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (NO THEY WEREN'T DISCUSSED.YOU DECIDED ON YOUR OWN.) 10:54, 9 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:18, 9 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:06, 10 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:12, 11 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 12:45, 11 October 2008 (after this report was filed)


 * older revert (Aris and PAOK are two of the most succesfull in history of greek basketball.That's a fact.) 16:31, 12 September 2008
 * older revert 08:23, 13 September 2008
 * older revert 19:15, 14 September 2008
 * older revert ("The YMCA introduced the sport in this city first in Greece, " woh, quality editing) 17:06, 16 September 2008
 * older revert ("Iraklis BC was the first team to win the Greek championship and both Aris BC and PAOK" Does this make sense?.Really do you know english?) 07:36, 26 September 2008
 * older revert ("From 2004-8 the volleyball team of Iraklis has had national and international success and Europe " ???????? And it's not since 2004.Iraklis emerged in 2000 as power.) 07:43, 26 September 2008
 * older revert 09:07, 3 October 2008
 * older revert 14:13, 6 October 2008
 * older revert (Undid revision 243451519 by Jd2718 (talk)) 08:06, 7 October 2008
 * older revert (Discuss the alleged errors in talk page show where is the POV) 10:46, 7 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:33, 11 October 2008

The letter of 3RR has not been broken. Ioannes Tzimiskes has reverted four five times in 48 hours. However, that makes 15 14 15 times to the same version since September 12, and with so sign of discussion.

This has been a slow revert war. Ioannes Tzimiskes will only return to his preferred version; has refused to engage on the talk page, despite being asked, and asked and asked , and implored to ; he's responded angrily  and ; when he's come to the talk page it has only been to complain about the editing being done to his version, and to complain about the other editors   and  and  and after the 3rr warning. See also: Talk:Thessaloniki and Talk:Thessaloniki and Talk:Thessaloniki.

When I warned Ioannes Tsimiskes about 3rr, he templated me in return. Maybe a serious warning from an admin, rather than a block, would be better at this point. But somehow, he needs help getting it. Jd2718 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These are blatant lies. Stduent7 and Jd2718 keep reverting my edits since i first edited (as it's my right) the sports section to their own preferred versions. I repeatedly asked them to point their disagreements to no result. They only pointed out to my alleged wrong use of 2 words (department and much)!!!!!!!! and they changed the whole section as they please. In this process they reverted my edits no less than 20 times combined (so that no 3rr warning could be made on them).

Note that i simply edit the section and have reverted less than 5 times since September 12 while they only revert my edits. So i don't brake any law while they do certainly. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It also seems to have stopped for now. Consider requesting page protection if the edit war kicks back off. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As I wrote in filing the report (above) The letter of 3RR has not been broken. I also wrote Maybe a serious warning from an admin, rather than a block, would be better at this point, and I still believe so. The editor is well-intentioned, but does not understand he needs to collaborate. A message from an uninvolved admin might help. Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Chaldeaan reported by Londo06 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Blocked Chaldeaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) for 24 hours. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While the block seems right, I also had protected the article due a request for protection elsewhere, and not being aware that anyone had yet taken action here. It seems reasonable to leave the protection in place for a while anyway, and I've written to two of the most active editors to see if they will explain on Talk:Arabian Peninsula what the dispute is about. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor reported by Apteva (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

The first two reverts, Skyemoor is acting as a meatpuppet for Mrshaba, arbitrarily reverting to an inappropriate edit.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

After Skyemoor their self suggested using a sandbox to develop an agreed to version of the article, they immediately reverted the setting up of that sandbox and going back to a previously agreed to version.
 * 3rd revert:

And then they evidently think that it is ok for every other editor to edit the article other than the one who is working to resolve the differences by setting up a sandbox.

I am not asking that Skyemoor be blocked, as that is disruptive. I am asking that the following revert be reverted and Skyemoor warned against edit warring, and that if they continue after being warned, that they be blocked for their disruptive (and oddly chameleon) behavior (suggesting a sandbox and then reverting it being set up).
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is not a "tit for tat" complaint. Mrshaba started the edit war, even though they were warned immediately (in the edit summary), and Skyemoor continued it. It is an attempt to resolve it. Apteva (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you work with the other parties on the Talk page to try to get a consensus. I see lots of reverting, but not much discussing. You have not recently been a model of diplomatic editing yourself. Why not set a good example for the others? If there is an intractable dispute, try an WP:RFC or mediation. You could also ask for a peer review of the article which could bring in outside eyes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A little help would be appreciated. Apteva (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL reported by 77.253.71.235 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (Result: No Violation)
User LUCPOL is Vandalising an article about the History of Silesia. Just today he reverted 3 edits of this article. He is deliberatly trying to delete the word "Poland" from the headings as if Silesia never was a part of this country. He naturally has no objections to other countries names such as Germany, Austria, Prussia. What is more he threatens other Wikipedians (in Polish becouse his English is rather poor). He actually said that if User:Space Cadet, who is trying to stop his reverts, will edit articles concerning Silesia he will revert his work in 3 of his edits. Thats an outrage LUCPOL has no monopoly on editing the Silesia articles, and threatening other wikipedians is something unberable. Please help. Best wishes 77.253.71.235 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Badly formatted, but it appears there are only 3 reverts, so it's not a technical violation. Report here if it's really vandalism.  If you want to make an edit warring report, please assist us by reporting specific diffs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Badly formatted, but it appears there are only 3 reverts, so it's not a technical violation. Report here if it's really vandalism.  If you want to make an edit warring report, please assist us by reporting specific diffs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Badly formatted, but it appears there are only 3 reverts, so it's not a technical violation. Report here if it's really vandalism.  If you want to make an edit warring report, please assist us by reporting specific diffs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:77.253.... reported by Lucas (Result: No action)
This IP (77.253....) allowed many edit war. Request and warning do not help. 100% of his edition this edit wars/reverts. In this matter necessary - checkuser (presumably sockpuppet) or block pool IP 77.253...... This user alters IP (about 5 minutes), blockade one IP has not sense.


 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:

Page: History of Silesia

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

Page: Silesian Piasts

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * To get all those IPs I'd need to block a /17 range, which is a bit much on this level of disruption. Consider requesting protection for the affected pages instead. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noticing that Stifle left it open whether protection should be used, I have semi-protected both articles. The sockpuppetry and revert-warring are against policy regardless of who is correct in the underlying dispute. Those interested are urged to make their argument on the long-neglected Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

CieloEstrellado reported by Melromero (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This account's only contributions on this page have been an edit war. Even though the arguments have been provided on talk page and are long-standing for the content, he is trying to impose his own version without regards for truth. I have not listed all his others reverts that fall outside the 24-hour rule, but they have been happening for a few months already at regular intervals. --Mel Romero (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gppande reported by Haukur (talk) (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:04, 10 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244434927 by 92.37.64.167 (talk)")
 * 2) 13:45, 11 October 2008  (edit summary: "DO NOT REMOVE !!! THIS IS BIG IN MEDIA")
 * 3) 15:18, 11 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244568369 by Rodney Boyd (talk)")
 * 4) 16:02, 11 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Causes */ DO NOT REMOVED _____ HOW CAN I EXPLAIN THIS BETTER ____ READ TALK PAGE")
 * 5) 16:05, 11 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244586907 by Ttony21 (talk)")
 * 6) 16:10, 11 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244587816 by Ttony21 (talk)")
 * 7) 07:12, 13 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Effects */ adding the eBay section. Read Talk page first before acting foolish.")
 * 8) 09:13, 13 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244951197 by WAS 4.250 (talk)")
 * 9) 09:43, 13 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244956477 by Haukurth (talk)")
 * 10) 11:04, 13 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244966640 by Haukurth (talk) This is second time you did this -")

—Haukur (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This case seems pretty clear-cut to me: a great deal of reverting, with the last four reverts given constituting a literal 3RR violation, with previous reverts only making the situation worse. Furthermore, the user was warned well in advance about the rule, so I've blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:X CheshireCat x reported by User:Snowded (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:40, October 10, 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:37, October 13, 2008

The above user is inserting in appropriate material at Lancaster University and is refusing invitations to discuss the changes on the talk pages. Now effectively at 4RR. I have left a warning and a request for them the reverse, as well as indicating that the talk page should be used on each edit. -- Snowded  TALK  13:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:99.231.108.255 reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * . The first two diffs are part of a sequence of edits by the same user and do not count as reverts, and there is no indication what the previous version reverted to is. In future please use the link at the top or bottom of the page to leave a new report; this provides a template for you to use which ensures all the required information is provided. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Phlembowper99 reported by Aboutmovies (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Also likely a sockpuppet as tagged. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Several more reverts since. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:76.83.5.195 reported by ChrisP2K5 (Result: Incomplete report)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Continued flaunting of 3RR rule after 24 hour block. All of anon IP's edits have been to the Jury Duty page, and although he has been warned twice and blocked once he continued to change the page to his edit. Request infinite block. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On top of that, IPs are pretty much never blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffs cited above in other report made against this IP. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For which he was blocked for 24 hours. He hasn't violated 3RR since, and while Wikipedia doesn't have a double jeopardy rule, reblocking him would be grossly unfair. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ALL his edits thus far have been to the Jury Duty page and all have been reverted by either me or Mrschimpf as disruptive. If it doesn't merit an infinite block then at the very least it merits a second block. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Travelling Tragition reported by noit (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: It's been ongoing(see below)


 * 1st revert: [link]I'm not sure how to do this. The history of the article is full of it.
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: He reverted my warning

Travelling Tragition has been in the center of a long term edit war regarding the release date of this future GNR album. I had attempted to find a solution that might appease all parties, but this has become impossible do to Travelling Tragition. He has taken ownership of the page, and has even reverted back to his own edit from a week ago, negating anything done during this last week. I've tried to warn him, but he reverted my warning. I'm tired of seeing this at the top of my watchlist every single time I check it. noit (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The diffs aren't properly filled in here. But in any case, Travelling Tragition has reverted four times on 14 October but it only counts as three reverts, since one of those times he was reverting vandalism. So there is no 3RR here. I would welcome any comments as to whether there is a pattern of long-term edit warring by Travelling Tragition. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I must confess I know TT, but I can vouch and say that if he is edit warring, then he is doing it totally in good faith. He's been around for a while and knows better than to openly edit war. But that's just my subjective opinion. Scarian  Call me Pat!  00:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though Travelling Tragition does sound uncompromising from time to time, there is a large amount of reverting going on with many participants and a variety of viewpoints. There has been no actual 3RR violation. I'm protecting for two days in hopes of encouraging a better discussion on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The history here is that there are two sides. On the one side is a bunch of people who want a growingly popular release date rumor to be stated as fact, and TT on the other side who doesn't want the rumor present at all. Earlier I sided with TT and reverted edits as frequently as him, but as time moved on, more media outlets picked up the story and more and more people were editing the page to reflect it. Eventually I switched from keeping the rumor off, to trying to appease the community by incorporating facts about the rumor with the clear designation that it was a rumor. I began making progress in that direction after TT disappeared for a few days. To my surprise, when he came back he reverted the page to his last edit from days before. Which is basically how the page stands now. He is lording over the article, making it impossible to find a consensus on anything unless it is the TT consensus. Maybe the TRR page isn't right for this discussion, but the description mentioned ongoing abuse, so I thought it was appropriate. I should also mention that personally, I don't care what ends up on the page. I just don't want it to be different every three or four hours. noit (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show TT reverting against a Talk page consensus? Is it not clear that the Talk page has coalesced around any one verdict. Can you even tell if User:Tasoskessaris agrees with you on the date policy?  There is a lot of room for having a more focussed discussion on the Talk page. Try to gather the opinions. If the dispute is intractable (which is too early to tell) you could try an article WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

189.91.120.3 reported by Aspects (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor has constantly made the same edit, removing an album review from the article, about twelve times over the past week without an edit summary or using the talk page. The editors' edits have been reverted by at least four other editors. Aspects (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for 48 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

125.160.196.145 reported by Esemono (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Stifle (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hapsala reported by Cretog8 (Result: 8 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This dispute goes back a day or so earlier with edit-warring between User:Hapsala and User:Radeksz. I came in with a third opinion that mostly agrees with Radeksz, but Hapsala keeps reverting. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Inigmatus reported by User:LisaLiel (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 20:52, 13 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:37, 13 October 2008
 * - User stopped reverting after they were warned. Tiptoety  talk 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the user's 4th revert was 15 minutes after the warning. He couldn't have avoided seeing the notice that he had a message on his talk page.  I removed the "result" note because adding the 4th revert makes this a new report.  I hope that's okay; the instructions weren't clear on what to do in that kind of situation. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it appears that he made another revert after I declined this case. AS such he has been Cheers!  Tiptoety  talk 22:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. User was previously blocked for 3RR.  It was a while ago, but, although there doesn't seem to be a templated warning, one would hope that a block would provide time for reflection.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by Cumulus Clouds (talk) (Result: Decline, diffs are BLP exempt)
. : Time reported: 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

gap here - rest of results provided by toolserver
 * 1) 17:37, 14 October 2008
 * 2) 13:58, 14 October 2008
 * 3) 09:35, 13 October 2008
 * 4) 08:42, 13 October 2008
 * 5) 08:29, 13 October 2008
 * 1) 15:01,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "Keating Five is not properly part of Keating bio first paragraph, and is totally unsourced here.")
 * 2) 15:02,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later */ added NPOF info")
 * 3) 21:07,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Failure of Saving & Loan, the Keating Five */ Keating Five ius a stand-alone article and is now adequately summarized here per "summary" rules")
 * 4) 23:02,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 244005641 by TJRC (talk)")
 * 5) 23:03,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 243999669 by Cumulus Clouds (talk)")
 * 6) 23:03,  8 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 243999436 by Cumulus Clouds (talk)reversijkon as stalking is reportable")

User has engaged in lengthy edit wars across numerous articles as they attempt to introduce a strong conservative bias into several articles, including Charles Keating, Dino Rossi and Sarah Palin. Users only edits on this encyclopedia have been to these and a small handful of other articles for conservative politicians or public figures. Largely they have been to remove sourced text and other negative information about those people. They have been unresponsive to requests for third opinion or the input of third parties and have reverted edits across several pages from many editors. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Viewing diffs 1-5 above, every single one is exempt from the three-revert-rule because it removes unsourced controversial biographical information. CIreland (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CC has repeatedly threatened 3RR reports, even for a single revision. Every revision is accompanied by specific notes on the Talk page. Je repeatedly adds unsourced information, and insists "2007" is the same as "recent" ... I suspect he has a sockpuppet or meatpuppet "Arizona Biltmore" currently. Collect (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see User_talk:Lar (permlink: ) where Collect laid out the case for AB being a sock/meatpuppet of CC. I concurred the diffs presented justified a CU investigation, which I carried out. I found no technical correlation, but agree the diffs are at least suggestive of communication. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

202.72.213.22 reported by Esemono (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is using various IPs:
 * 3 reverts using 202.72.213.22 and
 * 125.160.192.40

I've tried to get him to reach a consensus but he refuses to listen and blanket reverts a number of points in the article. Most of the points that he erased he refuses to talk about. -- Esemono (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second revert is by a different user. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same user but using a different IP but that is beside the point as 1st, 3rd and 4th edits are by the same IP. -- Esemono (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How can I know it's the same user? Without that revert, the three-revert rule isn't broken — only if there are more than three reverts is there an issue. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, you, as closer, should have made a checkuser request. It's stale now, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there have been yet more reverts since the above decision was taken, I have fully protected the article for three days. Would welcome review. There appears to be a genuine content dispute here although there could be puppetry on the IP side. If the IPs collectively go over 3RR in the future I think semi-protection should be considered, since even a bona-fide dispute doesn't justify puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that per below 125.160.196.145 and Esomo had already been blocked. After the blocks I advised Esomo and the Ip now at 125.160.193.79 and certainly they see it as genuine content conflict going much into detail of the available sources between two editors with 125.160.192.0 - 125.160.207.25 a dynamic IP range and 202.72.213.22 a different location. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yaneleksklus reported by True Steppa (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Before this day:   and the page was protected
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Yaneleksklus, 86.57.141.1, 86.57.143.146 and 93.85.49.66 (has been blocked today for another edit war!) are the same person (all have absolutely identical edits). Yaneleksklus was already reported two times:. He is reverting back to his refs which is not consistent with WP:RS and WP:V (please check the full article history and talk page!) --True Steppa (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A persistent revert warrior who never participates on Talk, and uses IP socks (all of which are from Belarus, according to WHOIS). He ignored a request to use the Preview button to avoid clogging up histories. Two IPs have been blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * hi guys, this user is back under anon IP 93.85.48.186, same articles, same M.O. --Kaini (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked by User:FisherQueen a few minutes ago. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * back again :( 93.85.51.220 --Kaini (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and again under 86.57.205.66 --Kaini (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about semi-protecting the article? Beve (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2-step garage has been semi-protected. Any others needed? EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps dubstep, dark 2-step, maybe UK garage and doo-wop too, as a preventative measure. this user's edits are pretty widespread. but really, it's your call. --Kaini (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep us informed, but I don't see any abusive edits on those four articles since October 15. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

wow, i admire this guy's tenacity. could i get a checkuser, please? oh, and now he wants to talk :) --01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaini (talk • contribs)
 * Discussion at Talk:2-step garage is good. So long as the talk continues, let's put off any more admin actions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly but he is not only discusses at Talk:2-step garage, see his talk page. --True Steppa (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gune reported by Goodraise (Result: 31 hour block)

 * Pages:, , , , and
 * User:


 * Previous versions reverted to for Nami, Zoro, Robin, Sanji, and Chopper


 * 1st reverts on Nami, Zoro, Robin, Sanji, and Chopper
 * 2nd reverts on Nami, Zoro, Robin, Sanji, and Chopper
 * 3rd reverts on Nami, Zoro, Robin, Sanji, and Chopper
 * 4th reverts on Nami, Zoro, Robin, Sanji, and Chopper


 * Diff of two warnings by other editors on unrelated matters: and

-- Goodraise (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * --Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Uky123 reported by 124.185.148.41 (Result: warning)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (although he logged out first - violating WP:SOCK)


 * Diff of warning:

The guys is obviously a Slovene nationalist. He's going around to pages regarding Serbs, Croats, and other former Yugoslavs and doing things such as lowering population numbers, removing their achievements etc. At the same time he is going to Slovene articles and increasing populations, making up stories, and saying that famous Serbs/Croats are actually Slovenes. He's also changing Austrian and Hungarian names of cities/places to Slovene ones. 124.185.148.41 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But you were far far too rude, so he gets off with a Stern Warning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Illyriandescendant and User1389 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: threat)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Illyriandescendant's Previous version reverted to: <---saying that the Šarplaninac originates, etc from Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia
 * User1389's Previous version reverted to: <---saying that the Šarplaninac originates, etc from Serbia

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

User1389:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

This slow-moving edit war has been going on for a month or more; these are just the most recent 4 reverts for each user. Neither has recently reverted more than three times in 24 hours, but they've reverted each other probably dozens of times in total, without any attempt to discuss.


 * Diff of 3RR warning for Illyriandescendant:
 * Diff of 3RR warning for User1389:

User:User1389 has not reverted since my 3RR warning; however, I am including him/her here since he/she has been an enthusiastic party to the edit war and I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is.

keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've warned both, and attempted to start a section on the talk page. Hopefully these are newbie edit warriors who just don't know they can talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

124.185.148.41 reported by Uky123 (Result: 24h for incivility)

 * Pages: and
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

and
 * 1st revert: and
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: )
 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of warning by other user:

In first page, there are claims without source and he removed it without any sources. In second case, source was clear: Population 	4,800,000 in Croatia (1995). Population total all countries: 6,214,643. He changed it withuat any reason. Now they simnply removed this source... He also insult me [], [], --Uky123 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is AN3, we don't care about facts. As it happens, I blocked for incivility anyway, but it was probably 3RR too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

69.203.77.71 reported by Floridianed (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * All reverts at user contribution page. Persistent in inserting the same material over and over again. Warning given on user page and in my last edit summary here . --Floridianed (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a well-formed report ;-). Blocked anyways, for 12 hours only. I hope it drives the message home. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Sorry for the short report. It was a "quicky". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Inigmatus reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: rejected: numeration failure)

 * Page:
 * User:

This user has already been blocked for disruptive editing on the Messianic Judaism page for edit warring against consensus. As soon as he was unblocked, he has resumed the edit warring. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First instance:
 * Second instance:
 * Third instance:

As can be seen from the nature of the edits, he is trying to use edit warring to support a citation AGAINST the intention of the source. I have attempted to explain this to him on the talk page, to no avail. 

The source does not and CANNOT support what he is trying to force it to say. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you count? Rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd reject it as a 3RR, but block as edit warring. But I think I'm involved, so I couldn't do it.  If his first edits coming out of the block are continuing the edit war, reblocking seems to make sense.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

70.152.184.189 reported by Kmaster (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Constantly pushing his POV, rejecting a consensus made using sources, before he came by the editors of the article. His edits has been reverted by 2 editors so far, me and The Haunted Angel

The sources completely support what the editors involved are trying to express. He claims that those sources are not reliable with no explanation at all as seen on Disussion:  --Kmaster (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No violaion: not 4 reverts within 24h. This isn't a page for reporting generic edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But he has done that before. --Kmaster (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And what should we do now, wait for him to do 4 reverts within 24h? Is there another place where I can report this kind of behavior? --Kmaster (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Talk page at Talk:Metalcore is hard for outsiders to understand. You could try to summarize the controversy there in a more clear way. See if you can get more editors who know about the music to take a look. For example, you could post on the Talk page of a related WikiProject and get their opinion. To find out whether a source is reliable, you can ask at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus reported by LisaLiel (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is attempting to label Messianic Judaism as a sect of Judaism, as opposed to a religious movement that makes that claim. Understandably, it's a contentious issue. But he has reverted changes to his claim three times so far. This 3RR is a continuation of his edit warring of 13 October, which resulted in a 31 hour block. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes its a vio, user has form, 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nontrickyy reported by FactStraight (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Note that the last 4 reverts fall within the 24 hour time frame. I warned him not to violate WP:3RR twice. My edit summary stated my reason for reverting: The article violates WP:BLP and WP:OWN, specifically "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" and "Ownership examples...Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version". I had the edit summary refer back to my comment on the Talk page documenting this violation. Since the article remains in violation due to Nontrickyy's relentless ownership of the article, and since he continuously adds more anti-Michael propaganda to make the article even more heavily anti-Michael -- and therefore more out of sync with prevailing written assessments of Michael I in English, reverts of those edits are in order, and I made some of them. He continues to add more anti-Michael verbiage after his 3rd revert, claiming in the edit summary that he is merely compromising, not reverting. When I invited him to delete his 4th revert -- quoting the WP:3RR rule that says partial reverts are also forbidden -- or I would have no alternative but to pursue the matter, he threatened to accuse me of vandalism if I reported him. I am hereby reporting him. Please warn and block this violater, since he is obviously gaming the system by violating WP:3RR and denying that he has done so. I have refrained from violating WP:3RR. I have reported similar violations by Nontrickyy before, both on the Talk page and at what I thought were the correct complaint sites, but have gotten no response because of the vast, complex edits used and my unfamiliarity with the use of diffs. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the last 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, only 3 are actual reverts, the 4th (9th in the above list) is not a revert, but a different edit trying to compromise both of our differing views. After all, this is what Wiki users are invited to do -- reconcile their views and compromise to reach a consensus: "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." I went even further in the compromise than the 4th edit shows and fully included his views as proven by this last edit. But no, this user does not want or care for a "mere compromise" (to quote his above post): he wants a total, personal victory by banning me under this 3RR pretext. He does not care about the betterment of Wikipedia or its consensus rules which advocate compromise: no, he simply wants to have me banned by way of 3RR. It is, thus, a personal vendetta, not a fight for the sake of Wikipedia. This is my 1st proof of his bad faith.
 * Notice, please, that his reverts are sheer vandalism (deleting my well referenced statements and including his own peculiar speculation that has absolutely no references behind) as they do meet this criterion: "Adding new information to a page, or replacing or removing existing content in bad faith." (Types of vandalism) For what else but bad faith can make somebody to delete well referenced edits and replace them with sheer, unreferenced speculations?! He claims to be a pro-Michael or at least unbiased editor (by opposition to a presumed anti-Michael editor, i.e. me), but deletes references in which King Michael's own words support my edits?! This is a 2nd proof of his bad faith.
 * Please, also check his Talk page out -- this user has a long history of aggressively pushing his own peculiar views bordering on vandalism on multiple articles, with or without references to support them, by reverting others' well-referenced edits. More of the same on this article... Yes, I did threaten to and will, indeed, report him of vandalism on the appropriate boards. I am just too tired at this late hour; will do so later on tomorrow.
 * Last, but not least, my reverts comply with the BLP rules requiring removal of unsourced material. Nontrickyy (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gurray reported by ApprenticeFan (Result: Stale. User warned)).
Three-revert rule in violation of:


 * Pages:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Reverts:
 * America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9
 * 1st:
 * 2nd:
 * 3rd:
 * 4th:
 * 5th:
 * 6th:
 * 7th:
 * 8th:


 * America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10
 * 1st:
 * 2nd:
 * 3rd:
 * 4th:
 * 5th:
 * 6th:


 * Anya Rozova
 * 1st:
 * 2nd:


 * Whitney Thompson
 * 1st:
 * 2nd:
 * 3rd:

Edits were considered false information. ApprenticeFan (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor has meanwhile stopped editing. Will issue a warning as they didn't receive one.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

82.95.108.221 reported by NoCal100 (Result: Article protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP vandal, has been blocked before for 3RR. I suspect this may be another sockpuppet of [[User:Bilinski], who was making the same edit prior to the IP, was blocked for edit warring, and subsequently resumed his edit war via at least 2 different IPs.


 * Result - I have prot'd the article for 1 week. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive reported by LuisGomez111 /Outcome / no vio (yet)

 * Page: Paella
 * User accused of violation: user:Mountolive


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Mountolive keeps reverting (three times within 24 hours) a simple and well-cited fact in this article: that many people in Spain's Valencian region speak Catalan. LuisGomez111 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User LuisGomez is pushing for having his preferred wording "the dish has become ENORMOUSLY popular" (despite lack of citation for "enormous", which is a peacock term which I removed) and "it enjoys moderate POPULARITY", which I changed into "acceptance" just to avoid being redundant with the immediately preceding sentence (which includes the word "popular" already). All in all it seems like a sulky revert by someone who won't accept the very nature of wikipedia. Please look into this which I posted to explain my changes (without comment from him).
 * User LuisGomez does not bother to discuss my reasons (he just claims that "they dont make sense to (him)", and, according to this looks like he was willing to report and not being reported, while getting away with it in the end.
 * As for the Valencian case, the convoluted wording "Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan, often refer..." is a really clumsy one, which, unfortunatelly, happens to be also of his preference, despite "Valencian speakers refer..." being much more easy-reading, synthetic and plain. At the Valencian article it is already explained in detail the filiation of Valencian and its status regarding Catalan. Needless to say that it is at the language article where these comments belong best, not at the paella article.
 * I dont think he is understanding the nature of the 3RR. That does not serve to impose your point of view, but he should be commenting my reasons.
 * All in all it looks like obvious wp:wikilawyering and wp:own case to me, and one of the most non-sense and stubborn reverts I've seen...but you may have seem worse, probably...
 * I hope he is sanctioned for trying to put good-willed users into trouble with no other reason than his personal preferences. This kind of users are the very ones which make the wikipedia experience distasteful and break any given sense of community Mountolive   le déluge 21:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing - no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation and some discussion on the talk page would undoubtedly resolve what looks like a very lame edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Farcaster reported by Gogino (Result: Both editors blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is experienced but behaves often against WP:Etiquette and defies all rules. He removed a notification of speedy deletion from his talk page. I complained and others did too:. But nothing helps. He threatened me in the edit summary: "If I have to, I will post your talk page here and neither of you will edit on wikipedia again." here. Gogino (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , Farcaster for 31 hours (because of additional threats) and Gogino for 12 hours who as requester has been edit warring as well and actually violated the 3rr rule as well.. The difference in the last edit is marginal. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Closedmouth reported by User:Dexter_prog (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is filling the article with wrong data (the band has not split up, but is on a hiatus) and continues to revert every edit made by any other user --<span id="Dexter_prog" class="plainlinks" >Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count ) @ 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi for two weeks. Closedmouth has been reverting an IP vandal who was removing a large section from the article. The four 'reverts' above are not in the form of actual diffs. If the hiatus issue is important, I'd expect to see more discussion of it on the Talk page. Please continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanazollo reported by Everyme (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Stanazollo has been edit warring on Zeitgeist: Addendum about referring to The Venus Project, a project promoted in the Zeitgeist:Addendum, as communist in nature. This is a claim the website of the Venus Project itself disputes, yet instead of discussing it on talk, this user instead continually reverts the main article back to his/her preferred version. This user has even blanked the section I started in talk to discuss this and left "no point in discussing this here". Thanks, --Phirazo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, duplicated a report. However, I would like add another revert diff:, --Phirazo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just came here to do the same. Added to list above as fifth. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation plus removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

70.68.174.22 reported by Coppertwig (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:56, 18 October 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 10:39, 18 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:01, 18 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:17, 18 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 11:21, 18 October 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:49, 18 October 2008
 * 7th revert: 12:28, 18 October 2008
 * 8th revert: 12:39, 18 October 2008
 * 9th revert: 21:44, 18 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:07, 18 October 2008

70.68.174.22 (70) added several paragraphs in good faith to the Circumcision article, the first one beginning with "Circumcision of males represents a surgical ‘‘vaccine‘‘ against a wide variety of infections,..." However, 70 is continuing to re-add them against warnings and without talk page discussion (23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)). Circumcision has the Controversial template on the talk page to ask editors to discuss on the talk page before adding material. Other editors are reverting to the longstanding version, which is supported by myself, Pinkadelica, Pwnage8 and Jakew; no one other than 70 has expressed support for 70's version. Pinkadelica has reverted once; Pwnage8 has reverted 8 times and Jakew has reverted once. Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize: 70 did participate in article talk page discussion. I'm sorry that I hadn't noticed. However, the other things I said still stand. Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know 8 reverts may seem excessive and irresponsible, but I was the only one keeping an eye on the page at the time. After Pinkadelica reverted the anon's edits, I was alone for a few hours and unsuccessfully tried to get the anon to discuss the changes before adding them. Even the warning messages didn't scare him away, and I had filed a 3RR report, but it just sat there gathering dust, while he continued the disruptive behaviour and I had no choice but to revert back to the right version and try to get him to discuss. Thank goodness Accuzier came along and gave him a warning, since I don't think the anon took me seriously because I was the only one. After that the anon stopped and I withdrew the 3RR report, partly because I was afraid of being blocked as well, and since blocking is a tool to prevent disruption, not punish editors. I guess RFPP would've been a better venue? I hope whoever reviews this case understands that I didn't want to revert so many times. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 days full protection. Editors should try to get consensus on the Talk page before making large changes to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marc Spector reported by Wknight94 (Result: Stale/Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Standard single-purpose account POV pushing, blindly reverting, discussing nothing, pushing some political agenda on several political bio articles. Have a funny feeling a permablock is at the end of this road. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A paradoxical case. A single-purpose POV-warrior, the guy is technically over 3RR, received a timely warning, but has not continued to revert since 03:58 UTC on 19 October. So a block is deserved, but would not be preventive, and the edit war seems to be over. It seems that he may have been persuaded to stop by a discussion on his Talk page. I'll let someone else close this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User has gone dormant apparently, refile if it comes up again--Tznkai (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I left him a real final text warning. Telling him that I won't block just as long as he no longer edit wars. Scarian Call me Pat!  20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Forayhoray reported by Mike Doughney (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Single-purpose account pushing modifications to opening paragraph of article; previous version reflected consensus built over a number of weeks; this particular change, frequently attempted by anonymous contributors, has been consistently reverted by various editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - New account, seems to actually have stopped after taking in the 3rr warning. maybe a semiprotection or an in depth analysis would help.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One day. Forayhoray is a relatively new editor who stopped reverting after the 3RR warning. The article itself is being chaotically reverted by all and sundry. There have been sixty article edits since the last Talk posting; most edits are reverts. Please take the active disputes to the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a semi-protection suffice? This blocks out virtually all editors because of the actions of a few mainly IP editors and apparently one relatively new editor.  Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To justify semi-protection it helps if you can show vandalism, socking or strongly POV editing from the IP side and not from the logged-in editors. Do you believe that is the case? EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some recent diffs from IP editors that have been reverted: ; ; and . The editors with user names that were reverted were new accounts.  Thanks for your consideration, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, reduced to semi-protection, with a duration of one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover reported by dave souza (Result:blocked for 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In this BLP of Joe Wurzelbacher, the editor was repeatedly deleting the subject's own words as reported in an interview with a reliable source, KARE11, October 16, 2008, Copyright 2008 by NBC. I've therefore blocked the editor for 12 hours. dave souza, talk 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did you just report your own block?--Tznkai (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I realise how procedures are tending to be tightened up and put the reasoning behing the block here. You're welcome to review it, I notice that a request for unblock has been declined. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Was just confused, not suspicious.--Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were, only trying to explain myself. Just being cautious about a block in connection with a bit of a hot topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Longhair reported by User:BrianBeahr (Result: Reporter blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

The User Longhair has only started making minor changes and editing the information I added to the St Kilda Football Club article after I added something that was a valid piece of information to a template some articles that longhair edited uses. The St Kilda Football Club article has been being edited by me for months without Longhair even touching before and jnow they keep chaning back to an inferior version they copied and mademinor changes to – despite the fact that I have been adding new information. Clear case of adding a dot to another persons article to attemptto get more comtributions listsed that are actually made.



The above link is the version of the page before contribution accumulators started changing dots to increase their contribution numbers.

BrianBeahr (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually reverting your poor edits, which everyone else agrees are below standards. -- Longhair\talk 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. Longhair, as you're involved in the situation you really shouldn't have blocked. Regardless though of the COI, I endorse the block. Scarian  Call me Pat!  00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never added one drop of content to the SFC article. My involvement goes as far as reverting the nonsense edits to this article. -- Longhair\talk 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't matter about content. And any involvement is still involvement. The pure fact that you consider his edits "nonsense" indicates bias. I won't challenge the block but I'm just pointing out for your future reference. :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:AFL. It's not me who considers the edits as nonsense, it's a collective of the WikiProject members saying so. My role is keeping the article clean per what the AFL community actually wants, not forcing my preferred version, but theirs. Anyway, you're kinda right. From now on I'll just report this chap and let another admin do what needs doing. He's worn out my keyboard as is. -- Longhair\talk 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)