Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive83

A State Of Trance reported by DocKino (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Stable version of article before user's first edits in question: 23:08, 18 October 2008
 * User's first cut of invasion assessment passage: 04:58, 19 October 2008
 * User's first cut of human rights passage: 05:06, 19 October 2008

Subsequent revert cuts of invasion assessment passage:
 * 1st revert: 23:24, 19 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:43, 20 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:50, 20 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:57, 20 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 04:08, 20 October 2008

Subsequent revert cuts of human rights passage:
 * 1st revert: 23:24, 19 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:32, 20 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:38, 20 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:50, 20 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 03:57, 20 October 2008
 * 6th revert: 04:08, 20 October 2008

(Several of the reverts cut both passages, and so are recorded twice).


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:12, 20 October 2008
 * User was also warned in article edit summary: 03:47, 20 October 2008


 * User has now vandalized the Talk page of one of the editors who reverted him: 04:15, 20 October 2008

DocKino (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User:A State Of Trance seems to believe he is reverting vandalism with these edits. There is some question in my mind about the sources that the other editors are repeatedly adding back, and he is again removing. But I don't think we give exemption from 3RR to removals of sources that you question. This editor had two blocks in September. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc reported by Ottava Rima (Result: Blocked for 24 hours, Reporter warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: 11:16 - 11:52, 19 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:33, 19 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:56, 19 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:17 - 17:47, 19 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:35, 19 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is not the first edit war the user has been involved in on that page within the past ten days, but edit warred over the inclusion of the individual in the category "History of pederasty". The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory. The major scholars in the field feel that there is just not enough information for various claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the substance of all 5 edits was to the same purpose -- trying to recast theories or speculation on the part of sources to unqualified statements of fact -- I concur with this report. Haiduc is an experienced editor and is well aware of our policies, so he should have known better than to do this.  Nandesuka (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with this block. Haiduc's reversions were not of the same material, though they were all in the same "genre".  There's a bit of a discrepency here between Haiduc's actions (and he block) and Ottava Rima's actions (and no block).  Tznkai, would you revisit? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment on Haiduc's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing: 2nd and 3rd are plain reverts to parts of the first revert, looking to confirm revert 1, 4 and 5 are a bit fuzzier, but probably constitute edit warring. Reviewing other involved editors conduct now.--Tznkai (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its like opening a can of Pandora's personal leviathan catching worms in there, but Haiduc has definitely edit warred. Haiducs behavior here is troubling, but not vandalism, Ottava Rima is asked to be more careful with that particular piece of jargon, and the interaction between the two of them is very troubling, with several reversions from Ottava Rima as well. All in all though, Haiduc has crossed the edit warring line with both feet, while Ottava has not. Each of the first four cited edits is an example of edit warring by obvious reversion or by substance, mostly fighting over the word "speculate," the last is moderately lame, but not strictly speaking a reversion. Ottava Rima is reminded that this is not in anyway an invitation to use the next 24 hours to go on a reverting rampage.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Final comment: Ottava is at, by my count 3 reversions himself, and is warned that he is close to having violated 3RR himself--Tznkai (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, and I don't plan on reverting that page anymore, as hopefully this will draw enough attention to the page to snip this in the bud in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecemaml reported by RedCoat10 (Result: 48 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:56, 19 October 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:04, 20 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:20, 20 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:42, 20 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:29, 20 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:40, 20 October 2008 (a warning for edit-warring was also issued on 27 September 2008)

Despite calls for consensus and rational discussion by multiple editors (who have all requested that the article be returned to the 19th October version), the user has continued to revert and has now violated the three-revert rule. This is also not the first edit-war the user has been involved in on that page within the last few weeks. I think he needs to cool down. Thanks, RedCoat10  •  talk  17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Ecemaml for 48 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Westie Boy reported by Hi540 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Hi540 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * by  Tiptoety  talk 19:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah! Sorry, forgot to reply here. Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Liam2012 reported by Duribald (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Page: Natalie Portman
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Keeps adding non-notable info to Natalie Portman article. -Duribald (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Joecooooooool reported by Roguegeek (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is a pretty simple one. Since it's so current and there are a number of editors watching it, I have a feeling I'll be adding a 5th and 6th revert soon as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Joe for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:300wackerdrive reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 24 hour block )
. : Time reported: 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:53, 20 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:58, 20 October 2008  (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for these edits that you've made over the weekend.")
 * 3) 19:01, 20 October 2008  (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for the edits you made unilaterally over the weekend, LotLE")
 * 4) 21:00, 20 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Since we now have consensus, I am not edit warring. This is the new consensus version")


 * Diff of warning: here

—guyzero | talk 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked 300wackerdrive for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell reported by LoveMonkey (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

''Check to make sure that the reported user has been warned before their 4th revert (if the user has made more than 4 reverts, make sure that they've been warned before his/her last revert). This can be ignored at the admin's discretion if the user is considered "experienced" (erudite with policy) and/or if they have been blocked for 3RR violations in the past.''
 * Diff of 3RR warning: in leu of

Langdell has engaged in an protracted editwar on the article gnosis this the second time Langdell has engaged in a 3rr this appears to be a WP:OWN. User Langdell also abused WP:POLICY by placing WIKI warning Disruptive editing on my talkpage  and another editor's which appears to be an  attempt to frustate by using Vandalism to WP:Game the system. (LoveMonkey (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Malformed report: There is some edit warring going on between the involved parties but I can't seem to decipher anything. In some of the reverts there are restorations of grammatical errors and some apparent copyvio. I'll let another admin step in. Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for 24h, on the grounds of 3RR (maybe not strictly within 24h but close enough), previous form, and absence of talk William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever reported by User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:, (split edit, note Panama and Mexico)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

User has repeatedly added Panama (and Mexico) back to the list of countries recognizing the "Republic of Macedonia", despite a Hellenic Foreign Ministry announcement today refuting precisely that. User is well aware of the 3RR rule. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Balkan for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

71.62.25.129 reported by Yilloslime (Result: 8h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:40, October 18, 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:58, October 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:42, October 21, 200
 * 3rd revert: 15:52, October 21, 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:14, October 21, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (not a diff but a link to first revision of the page)

User also claims to have had conversations with the article subject, so there is possibly a conflict of interest here too. Yilloslime (t) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 8h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Modernist (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

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

The final revert came after discussion here: and here: and repeated warnings here including 3RR warning:Modernist (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor often behaves in a way that belies rationale discussion, he seems to own this article in particular...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not at all clear to me why the 4th "revert" is a revert. Please explain. Until you do, no vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically it's become an issue concerning this link:Frida Kahlo fan site that has been deleted repeatedly and currently is under discussion. As it stands now - you appear to be correct, - the last delete includes that link, and things remain on the brink. Thanks for catching that last revert...I can withdraw this as you have pointed out. Modernist (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gimmetrow reported by User:Malleus Fatuorum (Result: 8h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 8h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cubfan789 reported by Sesshomaru (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor has violated 3RR by continuously making the same nonsense edits more than three times, and has even resorted to leaving personal attacks on his/her talk page despite warnings. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not clear that the edits are nonense, but they are 4R, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for looking into it anyway. Do you think it's ok if I made a few tweaks to cleanup some of the user's unhelpful edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Best not to. I've just rolled it back; this doesn't express my opinion of the content, only that he broke 3RR in doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Curiosity kickin' up here: what happens if (s)he reverts once more after their block ends? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a 24h block so doesn't trigger 3RR. It would likely be considered edit warring; that would depend William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kd7iyt reported by ComputerGuy (Result: no violation )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

The user has been adding inappropriate and unreferenced content when I tell him not to do so. He revrets the real history of the Lakewood School District (Washington) article and adds unreferenced content that is unverifiable. I would like some admins to look at this user and do further actions if the user vandalizes anymore. This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * has not made a single revert today, and only one within the last 24 hours. The previous reverts were made over 3 days ago, and the current state of things does not really constitute a block. Tiptoety  talk 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

86.151.125.184 reported by Thegreyanomaly (Result: 24h all round)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1rd revert:
 * 2th revert:
 * 3th revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This POV vandal editor needs to be censured at minimum. They also need to be educated in WP:CIV. See the attacks s/he made on his/her talk page User talk: 86.151.125.184, User talk:Jehochman's and and my talk User_talk:Thegreyanomaly

All warnings were given in edit summaries. They continually have been making similar edits in several other Kashmir-related articles including Azad Kashmir, Wakhan Corridor. I believe the three above are the ones where 3/+RRs were violated. Give that they are a dynamic IP their vandalism is a little harder to detect.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for 24h blocking them, I hope they will learn their lesson, however I would just like to remind you that this user is a dynamic IP. 86.153.131.239, 86.158.239.198, 86.158.234.151, 86.158.177.195, 86.158.177.97, etc. are all him/her too. I believe a range block might be necessary because those other IPs are free for this user to edit under. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And I hope you do too. 24h. Sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins can clearly see that my edits are not vandalistic i hope the admins are less bias than William who only sees through one lense 86.162.66.35 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm reported by Kman543210 (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (gave additional warning after this but continued to revert even after warned and reported)

User made first edit on October 20 and has been reverted by several different editors for a few different reasons. There was a discussion on the talk page regarding the edits, but the user continues to insert the material against the removal of several users and not discussing on talk page. It looks like after user was warned on talk page, he reverted again without logging in with IP 84.21.34.232 (user acknowledged not logging in) and removed the warnings from his talk page.(Kman543210 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
 * --Tikiwont (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Londo06 reported by Tony1 (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I have made three reversions, I plan to make no further additions to that page within a 24-hour period. I had offered the option to come to the talk page which was declined. I plan to make no further ammendments to the page. Londo 06  11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Checked again; still only 3 reversions made by myself. Londo  06  11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Early today, the user announced at CONTEXT talk that s/he had made the change to the style guide, without prior discussion or stated rationale; the changes have been reverted by two users, one of them myself, asking in our edit summaries for discussion at talk. Tony  (talk)  11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can still only see three reversions made by myself. Londo  06  11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For edit warring, not WP:3RR. Tiptoety  talk 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker reported by PC78 (Result: gets lucky)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note: Edit war concerns the wikilink to United States in the infobox; this appears to be related to the report immediately above. PC78 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously in violation, but seems more in need of a Stern Warning than a block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ALR reported by Dogue (Result: go read the rules)

 * Page:
 * User:

ALR persists in deleting verifiable article sourced from the New York Times saying the NYTimes is speculating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DCEETA&oldid=246748310
 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Dogue (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rejected. Go read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter (result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:

Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already.

His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism.


 * 1st revert: (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This isn't the place for reporting edit warring (no, I don't know what the correct place is). Your report is rejected on the grounds that it only contains 3 reverts. However, I looked at the edit history, which has at least 4, so Ig gets blocked anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter
[Note: the original report got hideously messed up with unsigned comments from Ig, who needs to learn some self discipline. It was impossible to disentangle, and I didn't try. The above is restored from the original filing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)]


 * Page:
 * User:

Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already. (An edit war assumes intent to force a POV. As demonstrated here the intent of the "3rd edit" which wasn't even a revert, was an honest mistake assuming that such an edit is a revert - which it is not -  and even then the addition not intended as an edit war since inigmatus clearly demonstrated his intent to self-revert the third disputed edit.)

(1st ban was for actual content dispute, second ban was for misunderstanding between two editors who one thought he was making a disputed change when in fact he was not and the other party was just reverting his edits because she saw his name in the history log and didn't bother reading the edits that were actually being made and assumed he was reverting disputed content. She got banned, and inigmatus got banned for telling the admin not to ban her for the misunderstanding).

His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism. (there is no obscuration, since the article fleshes it out already in detail.)

The 3rd revert was undone by a self-revert carried out by another editor. Please see: and  as attempts by Inigmatus to self-revert the change so as not to be in violation of 3RR. Last editor reverted before inigmatus could self-revert; and I personally find SkyWriter's constant harassment of 3RR on Inigmatus over various kinds of edits to change the article lede to be acceptable to all parties, to be willfully wikilawyering a disputed article, and I request that this 3RR warning violation report be removed since all other editors assume good faith, and have reached out even when there are multiple confusing 3RR issues between all editors involved. Currently a WP:MEDCAB has been created by Inigmatus in an attempt to resolve the dispute and Inigmatus's input in resolving the dispute is necessary to move consensus further. inigmatus (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
 * 2nd revert: (which clearly requests editors to not remove fact-tag because it is being brought to WP:MEDCAB's attention for resolution.)
 * 3rd revert: (not even a revert, so I am not even sure why this is included. "Jewish" was added because fact-dispute was not desired by other editors, so to be consistent with source the word "Jewish" was added since source says "Jewish/Christian movement." Why this edit is counted as a revert of the fact tag, is not understood and leads me to suspect this is 3RR wikilwayering beyond this point to ban a contributing editor to the article from commenting on the dispute.)
 * And then "3rd revert" is self-reverted anyways: but another editor self-reverted for him, and apparently this fact was ignored by the user reporting this 3RR violation.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenever an admin gets to this -- please look in the history for the actual report. It's getting mangled with unsigned edits from Inigmatus. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter can you please back off. There was no 3RR violation, and you are making stuff up. Besides, the "3rd" revert you posted change was about to be self-reverted anyways by myself before another editor got to it for me. Please look at your talk page. You refusal to dialog with me is proof of your bad faith concerning me, and proof that you are only here to wikilaywer me to oblivion, and I ask that you please quit your harassment. inigmatus (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diff's posted above, and looking directly at history at best there are 2 edits, 2 reverts, and one correction. This also has a MedCab request in place, as well as suggestions for compromise have been ignored by SkyWriter, and apparently NO attempt at dispute resolution by SkyWriter either. Which is in the instructions to be followed prior to using the Administrators Notice Board. I believe "3O" was prematurely pulled as this issue need outside objective review. I have attempted to do so as an editor and have received a purely antagonistic response. NoTsuris (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 reported by Wikidemon (Result: 1 week)

 * Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1) 03:53, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* More ACORN workers charged with forgery in new states in 2008 */ new section") - new section but was repeat of earlier proposal, hence reversion of a removal; not necessary to establish b/c editor is at 6RR anyway''
 * 2) 05:21, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ OK, you wanna just delete stuff and act like a spoiled child?")
 * 05:24, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
 * 05:25, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
 * 1) 11:54, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Stop your partisan whitewashing. Stop your campaign to WP:OWN the article. Declaring me "persona non grata" without community suppport proves you're trying to own it")
 * 11:56, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
 * 1) 15:20, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "GoodDamon and 300wackerdrive support this version. You do not have consensus for you removal of this well-sourcedd material. Please stop provoking an editwar")
 * 2) 18:45, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247223128 by PhGustaf (talk)")
 * 3) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247224430 by Bali ultimate (talk)")


 * No specific 3RR warning given; however, above are deliberate, tendentious attempts to edit war and not a mere technical violation. Editor is a prolific POV SPA and is well aware of prohibition against edit warring, having been blocked for it already.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008-10-23T19:15:41 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked WorkerBee74 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder reported by RetroS1mone (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Guido den Broeder has a history of disruptive editing. Guido is an activist for CFS disease and has a very fringe idea that CFS and ME are separate diseases. When Guido does not agree with some article a tag is placed without discussion and Guido fights to keep the tag even after issues are discussed and consensus reached. RetroS1mone  talk  22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 3RR clearly states "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" whatever he has stated on talk page that it does not - Blocked for escalating time of 1 month. Note: has placed an unblock request, as is of course entitled to, so look to his talk page for any further admin opinions on the block. David Ruben Talk 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ward3001 reported by wontonkok (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:

My apologies for being unable to decypher this form, I can't even figure out how to report this abuse any other way.

Yesterday and now today, Ward3001 has endeavored to engage in an edit-war, repeatedly adding information regardless of WP:NOT and the consensus of multiple users that the information he insists on adding is completely irrelevant.

Since it was first added on Aug 25, the information in question has been added and deleted numerous times, but until yesterday, it had been present for only 4 days out of the 53 days since its initial creation, or 2 days in the 51 days since it was first deleted.

He has repeatedly threatened me (see my talk page) with administrative action and has refused every single attempt (I lost count after 10) I have made to resolve the situation in some other manner than being attacked.

At his insistence, I created an RFC, which so far has come to the consensus that the information in question does not belong, yet he refuses both to abide by the current results and to allow multiple comments to be made, preferring instead to reinitiate another edit-war.

The informataion in question is completely irrelevant, makes judgments solely on heresay, and is potentially damaging to the reputation of the person it pertains to in the way the information is presented. (I realize that for you or I, being labeled "Republican" is no big deal, but for someone who works in a place where "conservative" is a dirty word, it is indeed damaging.) It is this third reason that I must insist that it stays off the main page until the conflict can be resolved.

In short, he is bullying, ignoring the rules he bludgeons others with, and his actions border on vandalism.


 * I trust an admin's judgment in this situation so I'll keep my comments to a minimum (but I'll respond to any questions). I wanted to acknoweldge that both Wontonkok and I are guilty of incivility, and I'll accept any consequences an admin decides is appropriate. I also wanted to correct some falsehoods and exaggerations by Wontonkok. I did not give him a 3RR warning; that was done by another editor. I have not violated 3RR, and I'll let an admin decide if either or both of us have edit warred. I did not insist that Wontonkok set up an RFC. I did not even ask Wontonkok to do so, although I do not object to his doing it. (Indidentally, the RFC was not set up properly, as it did not show up on the RFCbio list. I'll try to fix it when I have more time, unless someone else prefers to handle that). I have not vandalized or violated WP:BLP. I re-inserted one sentence in the article that is properly sourced and, by most standards, minimally controversial (attending a fundraising dinner for John McCain). It certainly is not "hearsay"; it's in a reputable source. The sentence had been removed several days previously without an edit summary; it was in the article when the RFC was set up. My only goal was to get the article as it was when the RFC was set up and then let the RFC run its course. But I can see clearly that Wontonkok will remove the information at any cost, so I don't care to continue this conflict, and I'll wait for the RFC to finish (after it is set up properly). I'll stop there and let an admin do what needs to be done. I'm happy to answer questions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * – for the record, both users are edit warring. That said, the text that was added is not supported by the reference, as the article says nothing about a donation; so, I understand the claim to the biographies of living persons policy (incorrectly sourced information is still unsourced information) and therefore the exception to the rule; for, unsourced information is better removed from the article than allowed to remain in it.  Since there is an ongoing RFC regarding this information, I highly suggest keeping it off of the article until the assertion matches the source; and, then, if there is consensus to add it from the RFC, then do so; if not, then don't.  -- slakr  \ talk / 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Thanks for your comments. If the statement said that she attended the fundraising event (nothing about donation), is that properly sourced? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: If the item in question is neither notable nor relevant, does it being properly sourced make it notable or relevant enough for inclusion? Wontonkok (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User: (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I have been monitoring the discussions behind the article The Syn. Bondegezou seems to have used the defense under Wikipedia Policy and banned the user Umbrello. However, if you visit Bondgegou's Web site, you will see his tone and bias. Bondegezou's reporting is one sided, biased, opinion based (specifically to fan related articles). If you need a first hand witness, we can provide that for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.192.90 (talk • contribs)
 * But this is not a case for this board anyways. Rather 24.47.192.90 seems to be User:Umbrellos IP and will be advised / warned, accordingly. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucian Sunday reported by Masem (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is a policy page; the user added text that was new to the page, and was reverted; he continued to add text, claiming to "Please contribute to talk", but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy. The reverts back to the former version have all come from different editors, regulars of the page. Given this is a predominate policy page, the WP:BRD cycle needs to be upheld, and this user has not shown that yet. --M ASEM 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor removed a 3RR warning from his Talk page, with the comment 'My God where do they get these people', which suggests he's not feeling too diplomatic at the moment. I have urged him to reconsider his actions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have self reverted as a precautionary measure]. I will comment further in a moment. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That comment was based inter alia on an unfounded accusation of Vandalism. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy". Please follow the link at 1st revert and 4th revert above. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was mistaken on the no discussion, however, you were told about how changes to pages to work per that discussion, and you did, technically, violate the 3RR rule. You've reverted back, so there's no need for further action unless you continue to make changes before seeking consensus on the talk page.  --M ASEM
 * You have accused me of Vandalism. Do you stand by that? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read Wikiquette alerts I made this comment on Masem's talk page. I believe he has failed to respond in an appropriate manner. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Since the editor self-reverted, and has stopped the war, there's no need to take any further admin action on this 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikitestor/User:Korlzor and his array of IP sockpuppets reported by User:HJensen (Result: Blocks)

 * Page:
 * User: / and his array of IP sockpuppets


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (now under the Wikitestor account as the Nadal article has been semiprotected)

Obviously it is the same person operating under different anon IPs. He has even boasted towards an admin about his willingness to do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety#About_me_blocked_for_Nadal.27s_warring


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (not that it will ever be read)

The user obviously uses dynamic IPs 62.57.XX.XXX. and 81.184.XX.XXX and has alternatively previsouly been blocked as Wikitestor and Korlzor for disruption. In the meantime, he just carries on with his IPs. This will never end, and his behavior is going on all over tennis articles. It is really sad to watch --HJensen, talk 17:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did two range blocks 81.184.0.0/16 and 62.57.0.0/16 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours for ‎ (Edit warring: block evasion Kolzor). No opinion on the content or whether other users should have been blocked as well. Fell free to amend or correct this as i am not a rangeblock bwizard, as well as close this report in any way and drivee home the mesagge to the user that he has to stop now as a prerequiste for a review of the situation.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at The IP diffs, I somehow didn't consider the possibility that Wikitestor might not already be blocked. He has meanwhile been blocked by Tiptoety as sockpuppet.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just blocked as being a sockpuppet of blocked  whom is currently under a 12 day block. I am not opposed to  block being extend to indef though seeing as he has now abused close to 10 IP's and at least one account.  Tiptoety  talk 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - It appears has extended Korlzor's block to 1 month.  Tiptoety  talk 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Ferrylodge (Result: No action)
user:Ferrylodge has engaged in 3RR several times at the Sarah Palin article. user:Ferrylodge continuously removed a POV tag without consensus to remove, more than twice within a 24 hour period. He has also deleted material added through consensus between himself and a another editor, as a punitive move (against that different editor, or me, it's not clear) when I restored the POV tag. Please see:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

See talk for the first the second and third discussion about POV tag.Here's a relevant talk page or two related to deletions and POV: ,,.LamaLoLeshLa (talk).


 * The third and fourth diffs are identical. The fifth and sixth diffs show me reverting myself, so they have nothing to do with edit-warring, nor do they remove or insert a POV tag.  Also, none of the diffs are from today, so the matter is stale.  However, if anyone would like to investigate the article and talk page in question, they will find that LLLL's edits have been very problematic, for a variety of reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Malformed report; two DIFFs are identical; two DIFFs show self-reverts. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  13:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rickvaughn reported by JuJube (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (by User:WesleyDodds)

Reverting to add musicians who are officially only touring with Smashing Pumpkins and not members. (Cite the user later added was a Spin article from '07 and lead singer Billy Corgan has since refuted this.) Does not discuss on talk page as advised. JuJube (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Koji Dude  (C) 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two days. Both parties are well-intentioned, but there is not enough Talk discussion. Last entry on the Talk page was October 2. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Digwuren (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:

No "before" version; two of the reverts are partial and two are move reverts.


 * 1st revert: @2008-10-25T14:19:26Z
 * 2nd revert (move): @2008-10-25T17:17:51Z
 * 3rd revert: @2008-10-25T18:15:04Z
 * 4th revert (move): @ 2008-10-25T18:17:40Z

In addition, there's some botchage with his reverts, leading to and, both of which are partial reverts. All of this -- particularly moving away an article being edited -- is highly disruptive, not to say disturbing :-(

The user has been blocked for edit warring before.

ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins please take a look at the history of Digwuren first. His ONE YEAR ban for being VERY DISRUPTIVE EDITOR has just expired. My edits were all constructive, while his edits on a peaceful song's page were provocative. I just restored correct content. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See User:
 * See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatle Fab Four (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also note that 3RR was not broken by me even formally. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. To understand the extent of ongoing Digwuren's provocations you may look at his today's edit, where he writes that Russian partisan Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was "involving sabotage". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I absolutely do not understand why Digwuren was so pushy and made so ridiculous edits on an article about Russian song for children. First he adds absolutely unimportant info (he did it twice, ) about six-month prohibition of public performing for Estonian humorist (?!).Then he unreasonably changes capital letters to small ones in the name of the article . Then he claims that this Russian song is not Russian . Then finally suddenly changes English title to another (incorrect) one.

I have no reasonable explanation for his behavior (inserting deliberately incorrect content) except provocation. Looks like he didn’t learn his lessons. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While the repeated addition of a piece of trivia about an Estonian humorist being sanctioned for ridiculing this song may even be notable (perhaps more appropriate for an article about the humorist rather than for one of the most popular Russian children songs), the article moving spree initiated by Digwuren fresh from a year-long ArbCom ban was just trolling, plain and simple. He does not bother to say a word at the talk page and just suddenly moves a stable article that existed under the current name for 2.5 years without any discussion into a lower case name, a purely nonsense move. Further, when his move was reverted, Digwuren moved it again to yet another name (!), again without bothering to propose. Trivia about a humorist aside, these moves seem to me nothing but pure trolling. And what else but trolling is the removal of totally uncontroversial information that this is a Russian song, like here? Or is the song's language unimportant for the song article? Beetle clearly made a mistake though, taking a bait and allowing himself to be carried away by Digwuren's provocation. But I am disappointed to see Digwuren immediately resorting to his old disruptive ways for which he was blocked for a year. This is one of the most ridiculous edit wars I've seen. --Irpen 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the attempted move is not unreasonable, since the actual title in Russian is: Солнечный круг, which the new title would have corresponded with.. There was no way of knowing such a move would have been controversial, so it's not reasonable to expect a formal move request. Since this move has obviously been contested, the next step would be to make such a move proposal and this 3RR report should be closed. Martintg (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification Titles of songs may differ in different languages. For example ‘Those were the days’ vs ‘Dorogoy Dlinnoyu’. In English speaking world this song (undoubtedly popular around the world) has its own lyrics (by Tom Botting) and is called ‘May There Always Be Sunshine’. Even in Russia its informal name is 'Пусть всегда...' Anyway, it was me who noticed that the name of the song in Russian is Solnechny Krug . But then Digwuren immediately changes the name to the plain translation of the Russian title . Again, smells strange. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not commenting on the merits of the names. My point is that Digwuren's edits was a clear trolling: erratic moves to various names, failure to propose them at talk (no one asks for formal move requests), removing the basic fact that the song is Russian. This is ridiculous especially taking into account that this article is only about an innocent children song about sun, peace, mama and papa. True enough, unlike for simple vandalism, there is no clearly spelled out 3RR exception in the policy that covers reverting clearly trollish entries. Still, enforcing 3RR should not be robotic. Common sense is required. Even though Beatle should have still "played it safe", especially knowing Digwuren's block-shopping habits, and wait for someone else to notice this nonsense, I hope the closing admin would spend some time looking what nonsense this edit conflict is. But I am really sad that Digwuren resumed the exact same behavior which earned him a year-long ArbCom ban immediately upon its expiry. --Irpen 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Irpen. Insertion of the info of the humorist persecuted has its merits. The two unexplained erratic moves of the articles do not have reasonable merits and actually are im violation of WP:MOVE and look very much as baiting. I propose to move protect the article and discuss the better title on a proper WP:RM (if there would be still in interest in article movement). IMHO Digwuren deserved a warning for his violation of WP:MOVE and Beetle a warning for unneeded combativeness. I would not give blocks at that stage Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Alex or Irpen, I don't think this is a constructive approach. They are both Russian speakers with a history of conflict with Digwuren. I see no point in escalating this as further. The move attempt wasn't "trollish", nonsense or erratic, given the fact that it aligns with the Russian language name Солнечный круг, which translates to "Sunny circle". I've made a formal move request in Requested_moves, and discussion of the name should now take place here. As far as I'm concerned this now a content issue and this 3RR report can be now closed. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A group of consecutive edits by the same editor counts as at most one revert. Under this rule there are no more than three reverts altogether by Beatle Fab Four. Though the recent editing by both parties has led to a tense situation, it is not too late to have a proper discussion of the remaining issues on Talk. Notice that User:Martintg has opened a formal move proposal at Talk:May There Always Be Sunshine. All those interested should participate there. Parties are strongly encouraged to wait for the outcome of the move discussion before moving again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca reported by Damiens.rf (Result: Submitter already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

In the 4th rv, Rebecca also removed a complete section of the article (I would be ok with discussing this removal, but the point is that in the same edit, she also made her 4th revert (that may appear disguised)).


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)]

I have tried to communicate with Rebecca throughout the whole process, since her first revert, but she seems convinced that I'm incapable of helping the article. See talk here: User_talk:Rebecca. --Damiens .rf 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - before any closing admin thinks this is a one-off dispute, I ask that editors look at this page. JRG (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Submitter Damiens.rf is already blocked one week by Smashville. See an ANI discussion that mentions this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Saulores reported by 72.75.110.31 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor repeated removed the Db-band from the article that they created ... it has been tagged by multiple editors ... Happy Editing! &mdash;  01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Crazyaboutlost reported by User:Opinoso (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:12, 25 October 2008


 * 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008


 * 3rd revert: 20:15, 25 October 2008


 * 4th revert: 20:55, 25 October 2008


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:09, 25 October 2008


 * 2nd revert : 14:58, 25 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:16, 25 October 2008


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:05, 25 October 2008
 * 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:12, 25 October 2008


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:04, 25 October 2008


 * 2nd revert : 14:57, 25 October 2008


 * 3rd revert: 20:20, 25 October 2008


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:04, 11:52, 25 October 2008


 * 2nd revert : 25 October 2008


 * 3rd revert: 20:45, 25 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Notice that all his edits in Wikipedia are dedicated to reverte what I wrote. I already reported this user for being chasing my contributions, and he was warned by administrator Tanthalas39 to stop it, but he did not respect him. However, he keep reverting my contributions and he already violated the three-revert rule in 5 articles today.

Moreover, the user continuously call me a "vandal", which is a personal attack. Opinoso (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinoso is a well known vandal from portuguese wikipedia. He has been blocked from portuguese wikipedia for three months for disruptive behaviour, ofend people, prejudice and so on. If you take a close look, you will se that my editions are valid.
 * Wheres is the source to claim that snows every year? Acctualy it does not snow every year. (And if I'm not mistake, it shoud be "snow falls").
 * There's a source proving what is said there.
 * That's a opinion. There's no source to prove that.
 * He had erased the source. I put it back
 * Opinoso suppressed that Carmen was portuguese. Some people in Brazil believe that she was brazilian, and do not handle well with the fact she wasn't...

Crazyaboutlost (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop posting here please guys. Let an admin deal with it now rather flying insults back and forth. Scarian Call me Pat!  21:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

24 hours, and a warning to both of you that continuing to engage in edit wars over multiple pages are going to lead to negative results in short order. Please discuss rather than throwing "vandal" around, no edits here were vandalism. If you can't discuss things civilly, mediation might help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinoso is disrupting Wikipedia, several other users complained about his behaviour. He keeps disrupting articles to state his own opnions. By the way, his very username, "Opinoso", means opinionated, someone who is certain about what they think and believe, and who expresses their ideas strongly and often, usually in an aggressive manner. Someone needs to stop him.

--Mhsb (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GreekParadise reported by Hobartimus (Result: Declined )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 14:35, 24 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge */ nice try, POV-pushers, but Palin's quote about bridge IS relevant to bridge section. Consensus for 2 months includes quote; don't like it? use talk page")
 * 2) 14:47, 24 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge */ added back Knik Arm/beluga whales study by National Marine Fisheries Service")
 * 3) 14:20, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 247392770 by LedRush (talk)")
 * 4) 14:36, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 247584799 by Paul.h (talk) it's related to the Knik Arm Bridge -- see talk")
 * 5) 14:53, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge */ per talk page, detailed benefits and negatives of Knik Arm deleted -- I'm OK with returning it, as long as both sides are represented")
 * 6) 15:08, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 247589163 by Collect (talk) no. Palin's view on bridge is always relevant. Please GO TO TALK BEFORE CHANGING AGAIN")
 * 7) 16:26, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge */ undid Threeafterthree's changes without talk page discussion; citations accurate; please make no further change without talk page or at least edit summary")
 * 8) 19:17, 25 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bridge to Nowhere and Knik Arm Bridge */ reinserted palin's well-documented support for Knik Arm; if you want sentence removed, you must give reasons why on talk page")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:He knows about 3RR well, If you revert it a fourth time, I will sadly be required to report you to administrators for punishment and temporary banning from wikipedia. As Kelly has rejected my proposed compromise, I will proceed to file a 3RR complaint against her for her 18 reversions in 48 hours. I'm very sorry, Kelly, you chose war over my peace offer. Very sorry

The edit summaries are self-explanatory with the many "Undo" and "added back" "reinserted" indicating clear and admitted reverts, and considering previous 3RR vios (not all was blocked for but commented on, Greek, you have 1 hr to file your report before you are blocked for 31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting- Admin Tznikai and Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again- Admin Doug the user is eminently aware of the 3RR rule even as shown in the warning section. Listed all the reverts for evaluation even if minutes outside of 24h in case of some blocks, in light of the previous admin comments as something needs to be done here. Hobartimus (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was all ready to block quite a few editors involved in this most recent dispute when I looked at the involved editors talk pages. I noticed that none of the involved parties reverted after they were warned/asked to stop, and for the most part took it to the talk page. Now, this does not mean I am unwilling to block if this edit war keeps up, so please everyone stay away from the mainpage for a while and move to the talk page. Tiptoety  talk 06:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

90.199.99.144 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: Blocked for 1 week, semi-protected the article.)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is us reverting him.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has been blocked before for his edits to these same specific articles. If you look at the IP address and what he's adding to the article(s), you'll see that it's the same person. Reasoning with him is impossible, as evident by his previous warnings and his other 3 month ban. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 10:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked 1 week and the article was semiprotected by admin Nandesuka. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Various reported by Chez37 (Result:No violation )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247248217 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247377666 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247747925
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247255005
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247255005
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&oldid=247747925
 * 4th revert: [link]

There have been three attempts to cite a recent CNN article on Robocalls which is extremely relevant and important, mainly because it mentions StopPoliticalCalls.com, a non=-profit, non-partisan organization providing a free method for citizens to opt-out of the Robocall system. There is no money being made here, and I have no affiliation with this organization or either party. This is not spam in any way, shape, or form. In the last insert, the added section actually contained no the link to the StopPoliticalCalls.com website at all, merely cited the recent, relevant news reported in CNN. But, apparently, some very biased people out there are on a mission to hide this information from the public.

Would you please re-add this passage and then LOCK THE PAGE? Thank you:

In 2008, the political campaigns of John McCain are making heavy use of Robocalls to attack Barack Obama. Obama's campaign responded with Robocalls of their own. A non-profit, non-partisan organization called Stop Political Calls was set up to allow citizens to opt-out of receiving them.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robocall&action=history


 * No violation has occurred here. No single user has reverted more than three times in a single 24-hour period.  This is not a place to have people carry your desires in a content dispute.  Please discuss on the article's talk page about the inclusion or removal of this content, Metros (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, next time you add a report, please follow the directions given, format this properly, and be sure that they have violated the 3RR rule (see WP:3RR for the guidelines). Metros (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta reported by User:Man with one red shoe (Result: no vio; warning)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is revert-warring, he was already banned for 3RR three times already from what I can see. man with one red shoe (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: The first version is from 1 day before therfore this is a joke and it's not reverting, who was I was reverting ? this is simply adapting of content Rezistenta (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4st revert: How is this one reverting ?Rezistenta (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced that 1st is a revert. Assuming you're arguing about R's removal of Români then how come your prev-version  contains the word? And as R says, not at all clear that #4 is a revert, either. Its edit warring though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute your ruling, but I want to understand this, why is the 1st edit not considered a revert? From what I read in 3RR is about changing the edits of other editors 4 times in less than 24 hours, I think the first edit qualifies. As for the 4th edit again as I read in the rules it doesn't have to be a whole revert "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" I consider that he reverted my edit at least partially because he clearly said in talk:Romanians that it's either no "Români" there or it should be like he wants it to be (basically his 4th edit) basically blackmailing editors to accept his edit (fortunately another editor has intervened and reverted him). Thanks for your time. man with one red shoe (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Man with one red shoe reported by User:Rezistenta (Result: No Block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Link to a version from before all the reverting took place: 12:41, 24 October 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:37, 26 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:02, 26 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:04, 26 October 2008


 * WarningHe was aware about the rule but he ignored it by saying Admins are not Gods (..) I will revert back

Insults and direct atack against an Admin user:Theresa_knott by saying I don't have much respect for Admins when they show lack of judgement and he is disrupting romanian related articles like he did in the article Bucharest where he is ignoring the consensus by an admin and several other editors and removing content here Rezistenta (talk)

This is WP:3RR. You need to show *4* reverts for a block William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked recently this rule. Citing from an earlier version "The rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or reverts in a 24 hour period"... but Thx for the answer. What about the personal atacks towards admin user:Theresa_knott ?Rezistenta (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you know all this about the "electric fence" how can you justify that your 4 edits in a row don't deserve a punishment for the same rule that you want to use to punish me for one less edit? I also see that you make frivolous 3RR reports and you try to stick a so called "personal attack" from my part against an admin that I don't even know by twisting something that I said generically into a personal thing. You were 3 times banned for 3RR and this time you escaped because only because of a technicality or because of the indulgence of the admin, why don't you stop here before you attract more attention to your person and your edit warring? man with one red shoe (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have did only 2 reverts like it was shown but you had clearly made 3 revertings in a single day, this is the difference, as for your false accusations and asking me to stop my report, you should had tought to this before you started. As for the personal atack there is clearly without doubt that the insults were aimed against that admin, I have proved with diffs every word of my raport Rezistenta (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page or to dispute resolution, please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yemenreform reported by MrOllie (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:53, 26 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:23, 26 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:50, 26 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:48, 26 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Tiptoety talk 03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

EvilAvatar reported by Commandar (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Avatar&diff=245270885&oldid=245169770
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Avatar&diff=245366799&oldid=245284569
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Avatar&diff=245270885&oldid=245169770
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Avatar&diff=245937579&oldid=245828504

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Avatar&action=history


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is the owner of the site this article is covering and has been continuously reverting all changes made to the article for the past several weeks, regardless of content. He has been repeatedly asked to take the discussion to the article's talk page before making major changes, but has ignored these requests as well as revert war and conflict of interest warnings made on his user talk page. I am somewhat confused as to whether this is the proper venue to pursue this problem, and apologize if this is the wrong place. Commandar (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems to be an edit warring complaint, not 3RR, since nobody has gone past the 3RR limit recently. I've asked EvilAvatar to respond here and also to answer the suggestion that he has a conflict of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Warned. EvilAvatar has not returned since the notice was left on his Talk. I left him an extra-scary COI warning and hope that will get his attention. It's hardly reasonable to issue blocks in COI cases unless you've been able to get the affected person to join a discussion. COI is even harder to explain to new users than 3RR. Re-open this complaint if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the help. As someone whose past contributions have been limited to minor edits, navigating the dispute resolution process is rather confusing. While it's a different user name, the article has been reverted again by IHapsMom. I suspect strongly this is an alternate account for EvilAvatar. iHap is the alias of a former user of the Evil Avatar website and I think this new user name is supposed to be some kind of backhanded troll. If you could point me in the direction of who I need to talk to pursue that, I'd be much obliged. Commandar (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Osteocorrect reported by Verbal  chat  (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:45, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in the United States */")
 * 2) 05:54, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in the United States */")
 * 3) 15:05, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in the United States */")
 * 4) 15:07, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in Canada */")
 * 5) 20:46, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in Canada */")
 * 6) 22:30, 26 October 2008  (edit summary: "/* Osteopathy in Canada */")


 * 1) Diff of warning:

plus more ... Has been asked to discuss edits and warned on talk page. Usually pairs of edits were made, and I was unsure which to list here. User is also edit warring on related pages: List_of_osteopathic_colleges where 3RR has also been broken. — Verbal  chat  23:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h. Doesn't seem to want to talk; I've asked him to. Side note: this edit summary is dubious; POV pushing yes, vandalism... probaly not William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies - pressed the wrong twinkle button. Verbal   chat  09:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:86.129.127.155 reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

NB: User has previous edited (and been blocked for 3RR) as. Despite being an IP user, has significant time on Wikipedia and should know better. Discussion regarding the content is ongoing on the talk page of the article, but the user has not contributed yet. Orpheus (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h. Are you without sin? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In danger of descending, I'd say, but I am committed to the talk page rather than the revert link. Orpheus (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Oxygen305 reported by User:Hiro Antagonist (Result: benefit of doubt)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Won't respond to talk page comments. Wants to remove reliably-sourced evidence of a homosexual relationship. Hiro Antagonist (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to view the reverts up to as reverting "BLP" violations, and thus immune from 3RR (OK, so he's dead, but only just. O was reverting unsourced and inappropriate additions from 90.231.2.252. Doing this by breaking 3RR wasn't the best of ideas, though). That leaves only 3 reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Xrxty reported by Wikidemon (Result: warned)

 * Note from submitter - probably not worth blocking, but maybe a notice this time. The editor is a brand new account.  After I posted this, the editor stated on my talk page that he did not further revert after my warning, and has started to use the article talk page.  I would not have posted this if he/she had done that - I try to give editors a few extra chances before filing a 3RR report.  Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Page:
 * User:
 * Also: (seems to be the same account, because Xrxty begins by acknowledging


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

72.192.216.42
 * 1) 23:25, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "Removing libral bias and adding better sources")
 * 2) 23:33, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248085250 by Priyanath (talk)")

Xrxty: Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop reverting I found 3 sources back up the statement.")
 * 2) 23:58, 27 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Uh.. Yes they do? Did you read them?")
 * 3) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "It is biased the way it was before")
 * 4) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "please stop edit warring and pov pushing biased")


 * Diff of warning: here

''Note - Xrxty is at 4RR even without counting the IP, but the IP is clearly the same editor as Xrxty. At 23:53, 27 October 2008, xrxty left a message on an editor's talk page, "why did you revert my edit as vandalism"  However, at the time xrxty had made only 3 edits to the encyclopedia, none of which had been reverted.  He must have been objecting to the reversion of his IP account, 72.192.216.42.

Warned, per request William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossthets and Cukiger reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: n.a., complex reverts, see list.


 * Crossthets:
 * 1st revert: 27 Oct 23:06 (reinstating a contentious statement about "Ottoman census" continuing a previous edit war (cf, [IP is known to be same editor]
 * 2nd revert: 27 Oct 23:26 (reinstating previous edit)
 * 3rd revert: 28 Oct 01:02 (different issue, undoing immediately previous edit by Cukiger )
 * 4th revert: 28 Oct 01:34 (same rv as #3)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: n.a., not a new user, and is aware of the 3RR

Case falls under WP:ARBMAC. Crossthets is a thoroughly disruptive POV-pushing account who has also repeatedly used personal attacks (almost every talk page contribution contains some repetitive jibe against "FYROM nationalists"), stalking, disruptive repetitive ranting on talk-pages (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, see , ) and canvassing. Has two previous blocks for harassment and disruptive editing on the same issues. Consider further sanctions under ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Cukiger added to this report, now also beyond 3RR. Cukiger is already under a 1RR parole under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cukiger:
 * 1st revert: 27 Oct, 23:21 (marked as rv of immediately previous edit)
 * (new edit) 27 Oct, 00:18 (new edit, not a rv)
 * 2nd revert 28 Oct, 01:23 (reinstating the previous)
 * 3rd revert: 29 Oct, 01:53 (ditto)
 * 4th revert: 29 Oct, 14:15 (ditto)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha reported by Peter cohen (talk) (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 11:50, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "re-edit sentence")
 * 2) 21:41, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "re-edit sentence")
 * 3) 22:14, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "I have made changes to improve the sentence with every edit. You have only reverted to the same version which had removed content.")
 * 4) 23:43, 27 October 2008  (edit summary: "trying still another version")
 * 5) 11:33, 28 October 2008  (edit summary: "re-edit")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Peter cohen (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of dare to report him here.


 * Every edit I made was a serious attempt to improve a disputed sentence. What I was doing was editing, not edit warring. I also do not appreciate Peter cohen trying to spin my words by calling it a "dare". Why would I "dare" him it do something that carried not risk to him? In any case, that accusation indicates something less than WP:GOODFAITH. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that admin reviewers visit the article talk page. Other editors were proposing wordings there. Others were trying to explain things. Malcolm was reluctant to engage in a proper bold-revert-discuss cycle instead editing with only slight rewording. His reply to CJCurrie when given a 3RR warning demonstrates a classic "I'm being a constructive editor/you're edit-warring" dichotomy and the lack of WP:AGF that he claims I display. Anyway visit the talk page and see what is there, including discussion of 3RR, and form your own opinions.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Malcolm for 48 hours: It was an obvious attempt to game his way out of the system. Scarian Call me Pat!  12:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deusveritasest reported by Mike Searson (Result: 24h)
Article going through FAC, this guy keeps pushing his agenda despite many months of debate and consensus.


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Catholic Church:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:

Roman Catholic Church:
 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Blocked 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Maiden City reported by Blowdart (Result: Indef )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:36 28 October, 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:48, 28 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:25, 28 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, 28 October 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:48, 28 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:01, 28 October 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:43, 28 October 2008

I'm suspicious that the user has also been engaged in edit warring as 78.33.101.58 previously.

All edits/reverts against consensus at WP:IMOS --Blowdart | talk 16:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, as it was called in an edit summary by Blowdart, but a content dispute regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Both users are discussing it on the talk page. Maiden City has done 5 reverts; Blowdart has done 4 reverts. I suggest that rather than editwarring, that the users discuss this issue at WT:IMOS. I added information to this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * by  Tiptoety  talk 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu reported by MBisanz (Result:24 hours block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

See also Requests for comment/Hemanshu and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu and RFAR. Requesting a 24 hour block.  MBisanz  talk 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear 3RR violation, compounded by a failure to engage in discussion with other users on talkpages. I note that the diff linked to for the 3RR warning was in fact a warning for vandalism and not for 3RR. However, as the user in question is an administrator, I take them to be familiar with our policies on edit warring. WJBscribe (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Amwestover reported by SmallRepair (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User objects to the use of Keith Olbermann as a source of criticism of the subject stating (accurately) that he isn't neutral -- i.e., has a POV. Discussion on talk page has attempted to explain that NPOV allows for properly attributed POVs. User instead edit warred claiming that the BLP exception protected him. SmallRepair (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a biography of living person. The material is poorly sourced and also biased; and therefore an exception to the 3RR rule. I have tried to explain this to SmallRepair and have provided links to policy in explanations. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:I have kept open discussion on the talk page. The user is aware of 3RR as this will be the second time he would be blocked. And he/she has just done their fifth revert along with a sixth and seventh by anon IP. 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This user seems to employ anon IPs to do even more reverts and I think this needs to be taken care of. User insist that their violations are somehow "just". --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns rejected. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

CFIF reported by Amwestover (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User CFIF has been overturning reverts that I and other editors have made because of violations to WP:BLP. The material being reverted was poorly sourced and biased. CFIF has also exhibited bad faith in his edit notes and on the talk page Talk:Barbara_West_(TV_news_anchor). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: There are no "other" editors. Why would a bunch of IP's with their first edit happen to revert back to a version of the page which you preferred? Finally the page has been semi-protected to prevent your obvious sockpuppeteering. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:YesYesY'allBanger reported by User:Hello Control (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * 1st revert: (see below—1st revert was partial (a large part) and spread over 6 edits in 20 minutes)
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

This edit-war-in-the-making started with partial reverts (spread over 6 edits in a 20-minute period) of edits I made, including the reintroduction of copyvio material. After dropping the 3RR note on the user's talk page, directing the user to the article's talk page, the user continued to revert. The user also left me a note on my talk page asking why I am being "bothersome". Apparent ownership issues. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

please check passawuth vandalism of Preah Vihear contents....Alert to all administrators....to take immediate action against this Thai nationalistic pest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulalongkorn (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Card Guy reported by User:Modernist (Result: Warned/Declined )



 * 


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


 * 3RR warning here:

This editor is engaged in an Edit War here and also here:1960s Topps. This has been going on for Months...both articles uselessly dominated by this endless edit war. appears to be obsessed with -. They are both involved in this case against each other here:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps. ...Modernist (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Comment fair enough - thank you..I replaced the image deleted......Modernist (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, one user has been While the other stopped reverting after receiving a waring so I think blocking would only be punitive at this point. If either one starts up again, please re-report.  Tiptoety  talk 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The images were ok'd for use. I replaced the images so as to prevent them from being deleted which is why my edits were approximately a week apart. BCG's edits however were more immediate usually within 24 hours. Libro0 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Another Libro0 lie! The images were never approved. It was suggested to Libro0 use something else, but she persists to use this and then keeps adding this back as part of her campaign to get me banned. This is just another personal attack by Libro0 in her campaign of hate. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

87.198.250.198 reported by User:Fifelfoo (Result: Page semi-protected)

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

And earlier, sadly.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * and so on and so on and so on back to the first I found at:
 * 

Repeated insertion of the phrase, "Dermot Sreenan is a former mental hospital patient." in such a way that its effectively a reversion to a preferred version. Attempts have been made to discuss this in terms of verifiability notability or sources, warn the user, and warn the user regarding vandalism.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Protection against IP users may be a suitable solution to this issue, as the reverting editor in question appears to have access to multiple IPs.

This page / mechanism badly needs integrated automation.

Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (semi) for a couple of months. The user seems quite persistent so if he/she returns with an autoconfirmed account, report to WP:AN or WP:BLPN. This is really a vandalism/defamtory content issue. CIreland (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust reported by Wikidemon (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 23:40, 28 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. */  Quit erasing or archiving discussions you don't agree with")
 * 2) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 248488550 by Wikidemon (talk) Quit closing and erasing all my edits")
 * 3) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 248489443 by Wikidemon (talk) Just live my stuff alone - you dont' own this article")
 * 4) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Then tell me how I'm being disruptive - it seems to me like you are being disruptive by preventing new sources from being discussed")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Note - Editor is re-opening disruptive discussions (1st 3 reverting me, 4th reverting another editor after 3RR and disruption warnings); is very close to block / ban for behavioral issues, and returned to this immediately after a 1-week block for the same behavior. Background is that page is on "article probation" (Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation and is supposed to be at 1RR; many disruptive discussions are quickly closed to keep page stability) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My ban was over a week ago and so your statement that I rushed back to be "disruptive" is just plain false. Not only that, it was a bogus ban based on your wikilawyering. In fact, most of the discussions that I reopened led to the article being improved with better sources. The fact of the matter is that you patrol all articles related to Obama, act like an administrator, and close/delete conversations you don't agree with (within minutes of them being opened) - backed up by your usual group of friends too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussions based on failure to read your own sources and fringe theories about Barack Obama are disruptive, and do need to be closed. This is an open-and-shut case. Let me be blunt: You are not allowed to turn biographies of living persons into attack articles based on obvious partisan motives. You are a single-purpose account, whose presence in Wikipedia has entirely consisted of acting as a proponent of partisan talking points at the Barack Obama and related articles. You have been warned repeatedly. That you took a week off before starting again does not lend you any credibility. -- Good Damon 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR is 3RR. The rest is just background to show it was no accident - as the editor's response clearly shows.  The editor did in fact return to fringe theories and revert warring closed discussions on the Obama talk page immediately after returning from the block. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks. User breaks 3RR (on a talk page) almost immediately coming off of a one week block, this is totally unacceptable. Khoikhoi 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau reported by Andrew Lancaster (Result: 3h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert:
 * Text re-moved: As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia. E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, are two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both in the Near East.
 * Compare to:


 * 2nd revert:
 * Revision as of 20:11, 26 October 2008
 * Text re-moved: As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia.
 * Compare to: (part of a bigger edit)


 * 3rd revert:
 * Compare to:


 * 4th revert:
 * Compare to:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Causteau is a repeat reverter on this article since he started paying attention to it about May 2008. His rapidly expanding Talk Page seems to indicate very similar problems on other articles. The number of reverts is much lower than it could be on E1b1b because Causteau makes explicit threats to revert any attempts to change his good faith edits, because he understands, or claims to understand, that by definition any such edits are bad faith edits, and may be reverted. Strangely, attempts to get admins involved in correcting this impression have never led to any admin telling him this is not so. As a result he now feels even more justified in making reverts. So part of the problem is at least presented as a misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules, which however he claims to be defending. Therefore as an attempt to get someone with enough authority to say something clear about policy, a Wikiquette alert has also been launched. See these example explanations from a discussion the E1b1b Discussion Page:


 * Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to communicate about content on the Discussion page are frequently met with full length reproductions of Wikipedia rule pages concerning things like Verifiability - over and over again - implying that if something is verifiable, no one may try to improve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I also made a report on this but self-reverted when I saw this one. The following is copied from my report: User denies incident. This is a repeat offender, in spite of the clear block log. Last 3RR violation at The Jerusalem Post was much clearer, happened last week within 3 hours, was also denied by the user, and was never reported here or sanctioned. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, regarding that old, long-resolved 3RR violation over at the Jerusalem Post -- which I openly admit to -- where I was restoring reliable sources that were being repeatedly removed for no valid reason by User:Hans Adler in tandem with this now blocked user, I have already been warned about it on my talk page by a very reasonable administrator. What Hans Adler unsurprisingly fails to mention above is that he too was warned by the same administrator for his part in the dispute. The administrator in question realized that the Jerusalem Post affair was just a garden variety content dispute, a dispute which Hans Adler has since for some inexplicable reason been doggedly attempting to resurrect and metastasize into something much more serious.

As for User:Andrew Lancaster's charge that I've violated WP:3RR over at the E1b1b article, that is completely untrue. Please verify for yourselves the page's recent history and avail yourselves of its compare function. See first hand whether I've gone over the limit. You will quickly notice that I only twice reverted his edits (1, 2), both times because he was personally interpreting for readers a portion of a direct quote from a reliable source that does not support or indeed even mention anything pertaining to his personal interpretation. Causteau (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment An informal mediation about this article was started in August. Some comments by the mediator can be seen on the article Talk page here. Does anyone know if that mediation is still active? If the two participants are following this discussion, can they say if they are still willing to participate in the mediation? EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. The mediation did take place and that particular dispute was resolved. The current issue involves a 3RR claim that is patently false and which a simple look through the E1b1b article's recent history readily disproves. Causteau (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the mediation did not really ever get off the ground. I notice that the admin Elonka tried prodding the mediator into action, as did I. The dispute was only resolved in the sense that edit wars on this article do eventually stop when warnings start getting sent by admins. But the underlying attitude of Causteau that his reverts can be justified by various interpretations of Wikipedia rules (e.g. that edits to something with good sourcing are never "good faith") leads to continuing problems since May, when Causteau started to give his attention to this article. The only admin who has had any repeated role here is Elonka, who seems to watch over Causteau's edit wars. She has been very wary of getting involved because she thinks the problem must be some highly technical content dispute, which it certainly is not. Causteau's habit of posting long quotes over and over into the middle of talk page discussions possibly helps scare away third parties. So Causteau's repeated twisting of the rules gets little comment yet from admins, although there have been a few comments made which had a temporary effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This page is for potential 3RR breaches not for any other issues. The reverts listed above don't seem to be the same edits, therefore no action should be really be taken here. However all parties should be reminded about using dispute resolution and to use the talk page to discuss article content not in edit summaries. -- neon white talk 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a potentially dangerous reading of 3RR, and I hope it's not correct:
 * Editor A tries something, editor B reverts. Editor A rereverts, and so does editor B. Repeat 2 more times. Editor B can be blocked for edit warring, and editor A may get away with just a warning.
 * Editor A tries something, editor B reverts. Editor A tries something else, hoping to find a compromise. Editor B reverts again. A tries yet something else, and B reverts. And once more. Now this isn't a 3RR violation because A worked towards a compromise instead of edit-warring?
 * I just got a 3RR warning for 3 reverts, one of which was partial, and one of which was unrelated and not even controversial. I think the proper interpretation of 3RR is somewhere in between. – Moreover, I can see no need to remind either party to use the talk page. Did you even look at the talk page and its numerous archives? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain what you mean by "don't seem to be the same edits". As I understand it partial reverts are still reverts. Please make your point about this very clearly, because this repeat edit warring, and also threatened edit warring, will not go away while the editor involved thinks his reverts are somehow justified by Wikipedia rules he has interpreted so as to justify reverts. He has a history of choosing to read moderators and admins writing too quickly as having taken his side. See the following which define Causteau's "policy":--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also please explain why you said on the Wikiquette page that this should be handled as a 3RR case, and here you say it should not be? I can not claim to have much experience in such things, but this seems a little odd.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A 'revert' is not the same as an edit. A revert is returning the page to a previous state, however if info is readded after beingis reworded, reworked etc then it cant be considered the same edit even if it may contain some of the same text. We have to assume that it may be being reworded to address the issues leading to it's initial removal, this is part of WP:AGF. However in this case, even though the edits involved the same info, they were not the same edits and the second only reordered a passage it didnt add or remove any. -- neon white talk 12:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The way you are reading the rules seems at first sight to mean that all you have to do to not be counted for a revert is to edit another part of the article at the same time? So for example, you reinsert a deleted sentence, (or delete a new sentence) in one place, and at the same time put a comma in a neighbouring paragraph (not within the reverted edit itself). Please let me know if I misunderstand. Perhaps you can explain with the real examples. There were during the same one-sided edit war many other edits of the type I think you really mean, where for example a reinserted or re-moved sentence is now different than it was before, (change being really within the reverted edit) but I did not intentionally count any of those. BTW I see no reason to use a rule of thumb such as assuming good faith when we are not talking about something invisible like intentions, but actual real edit reverts which we can all look at. That's not a criticism of that rule of thumb of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, thats not what i said. If a passage is reworked and changed, it isnt the same edit. Whilst reverting is not necessarily limited to simply pressing the undo button, if a passage is being developed it's very different to edit warring. The third edit and fourth edits here are not the same as the first two. --neon white talk 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean to assert what you intended, but to ask. Given your explanation, I'll explain how I understood it:
 * The third revert is a simple revert, small but nevertheless insisted upon, in one whole paragraph, wherein two sentences had been joined (giving a certain implication and interpretation of a source) and they were then split back up again. Actually I don't even see a token change apart from the revert?
 * The fourth revert has a lot of edits between it and the edit which was reversed, but actually it also seems to me to be a case where the reversion was straightforward. That particular passage had not changed at all in the meantime.
 * In both these cases I think all other edits going on at the same time involved distinct passages?
 * As I understand it, even if there are minor changes, 4R can still be adjudged if they were clearly only token changes aimed at gaming the system. Or edit warring can be adjudged, even if there is no formal 3R. Not that I think it was necessary to consider such details in the present cases. I only remark this here so that Causteau will later cite you as a reason that his reverts were actually according to Wikipedia policy. There is a history of such things. See for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed its 4R. 3h token block, since fighting seems to have died down William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. See new case. Also see my notes at Wikiquette board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Insearchfortruth reported by Opiumjones 23 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User already warned by User:RepublicanJacobite.

This has been on going and furthermore see

See also

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Insearchfortruth has exceeded 3RR but is ostensibly unaware that his or her edits constitute reverts . I have notified the user that they are, and that he or she needs to read WP:3RR. I also posted a final warning. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By . User:Insearchfortruth still claims his/her edits do not constitute reverts . I explained 3RR, and warned about it, again . User:Insearchfortruth reverted again and I have blocked the account for 24 hours. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dimitar2007 (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

Dimitar2007 reverted Burusho 2008 October 29 at 04:36, 15:37, 16:49, and 17:15. He only discussed it on the talk page with his 4th revert.

The problem is a section on nationalistic nonsense that possibly doesn't belong on wikipedia at all, but which I thought would be okay as long as we use NPOV sources and report them evenly. Both Greece and Macedonia are establishing ties with peoples in the Hindu Kush who claim to be descendants of Alexander, in order to bolster their claims to being the cultural inheritors of his civilization or ownership of the name "Macedonia". A Burusho prince was invited to Skopje and the red carpet was rolled out, but according to the Financial Times article we're using as a source for that, the Macedonian opposition ridiculed the visit, after which several events were canceled. Dimitar2007 has been deleting any mention of a negative reception, bizarrely claiming that it's not supported by the article. I came in to clean up the article some time ago, as similar nonsense has been going on for months, and so I don't want to block Dimitar for 3RR myself.

At the least could someone revert the article to either the version without any of this nonsense, or the version that reports the negative side to the reception in Macedonia? kwami (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h. Superbly malformed report, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

204.210.94.81 reported by DCGeist (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User was offered a generous compromise:, which he rejected:

---I would like to make comment here by DCGeist, I agreed to the compromise, just DCGeist worded the edit differently


 * 13th revert;
 * 14th revert:

Single-issue ip troll attempting to take over Talk page concerning issue discussed at length and resolved (Talk:United_States/Archive_32). Note previous attempt to revive (Talk:United_States).

User has also vandalized editors' Talk pages with deceptive warning tags, e.g., (Kman543210, the subject of this attack, reverted just a single time);  (DocKino, the subject of this attack, reverted just a single time).

Various warnings:
 * Unconstructive edit warning:
 * IP 3RR violation alert:
 * My personal warning:

DCGeist (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Veritas-truth101 reported by Snappy56 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Tried to discuss on talk page but Veritas-truth101 was more interested in personal abuse and sopaboxing Snappy56 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Dufour reported by Therefore (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User thinks the section isn't "fair" and has deleted all but two sentences. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: I corrected one of the reverts that was an error. This report is only for four reverts. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 20:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones 23 reported by Insearchfortruth (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User Gyrofrog  and User: RepublicanJacobite  and  User:Conti have been deleting information I have added and which is based on a reliable source. I have received warnings which I have politely thanked, accepted and discussed but they insisit o deleting the information I'm adding, calling it "irrelevant" because it is of a historical nature. Opiumjones 23 argues that the entry must be entirely based o biographical info, whereas some other historical references the users mentioned above have added are still kept16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)insearchforthruth (talk)


 * Comment Note that none of the edits refered to above were made by this user! This 3RR request is therefore spurious and meaningless.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: See previous section "Insearchfortruth reported by Opiumjones 23"; User:Insearchfortruth is now blocked. User:Opiumjones 23 is complying with a topic ban and has not been editing the article in question. (Also note that this entry, including diff links implicating User:Insearchfortruth, was copied from the previous section.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By  Tiptoety  talk 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the heading, reads: Insearchfortruth reported Opiumjones23. But the content explains why, that is to say, "user Gyrofrog and user [User: RepublicanJacobite]]  and  User:Conti have been deleting information I have added" and Opiumjones23 is, despite the fact that he never made "the edits refered to above",   in charge of giving me the reason why they did it: because the information I added is "not relevant"[]. I know this is not the place to discuss the entry, but it occurs to me that if one is to say that Burroughs kept his homosexuality hidden, it is neccessary not only credit it to his family relationships, but also to the historical context where he grew up. At least just make a flamboyant allusion to an iconic figure or event of the time as it is done when the historical context of Austro Hungary or the bombing of Hiroshima is mentioned. All this is just to say, that I never reverted anything, adding information that in no sense contradicts what has been previously written or re-establishes a previous version of an entry, is completely different to adding information that reverts previous editings or restores older versions, I'm sorry for being redundant but i don't know if my English is really bad or simply that you are in  hurry and do not read carefully what I write..
 * 'Comment

And yes, I copied the diff links implicating me from previous section, that was intentional. I just wanted to leave clear that I'm just adding, not reverting.Anyway.Good luck. insearchforthruth (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau reported by Andrew Lancaster (Result: Both editors banned from the article for one week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * Compare to . (This revert reverted two related edits.)


 * 2nd revert: (This revert reverted two related edits.)
 * Compare to


 * 3rd revert:
 * Simply revert of the last two edits.


 * 4th revert:
 * Simple revert of the another edit:.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is probably borderline case, which I leave others to judge, because one revert covers two separate but related edits in the same sentence. However there is clearly an edit war building up, basically immediately after a recent case by the same editor in the same article. There will obviously be more. This has gone on and on since May. Most important to me is not to take action against this editor - but that someone let's him know that his selective use of Wikipedia policies is not fooling anyone. Also see my Wikiquette notice (moderators a bit unsure what to do it seems) on this subject:, as well as this discussion about the current reverts, and the editor's reactions to both the previous 3RR response, and the Wikiquette response. What I mean to point at is that the editor feels he can explain his actions as a defense of Wikipedia policy, even now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 & 2 are the same William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The events of October 30 on this article suggests to me that both parties are edit warring. The main reason for existence of this noticeboard is to bring edit wars to an end, and there are crude but effective ways of achieving that. Administrators don't have all afternoon to count every byte in the edit history and see who is slightly less diplomatic or slightly more revert-prone. I'm strongly tempted to propose a voluntary one-month article ban for both editors. If you don't like this, give us a better option. If no ideas are forthcoming, I'd suggest a week of full protection, or matching blocks for the two editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One editor only is using reverts, since May, as his basic tool of editing, and one editor only is taking aggressive positions on all attempts to edit. It is not that there are only two editors in the dispute. Others appear on the discussion page (and in my e-mail) that don't dare edit. Because that taddle-tale version of events is actually the truth, I don't know what else to suggest than what I have already suggested, which is that third parties should confirm that such revert justifications as presented in this and this do not fool anyone and are not valid. If it is true that admins must block editors indiscriminately without first checking what really happened then I can't do anything about it. Causteau is gaming that very well by filling the discussion page with extended and repeated quotations of himself and random WP pages, and every potential moderator seems to run away thinking this must be a sign that the dispute is a content dispute. Anyway, editing is not working well now. See this discussion initiated by another editor whose position, I believe is the same as mine: . Here is another complaint on the discussion page about a passage Causteau won't let be changed: .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does appear to be stuffed with excessive detail. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you and Causteau would both agree to take a one-month break from the article? Then the editors that you believe have run away due to the edit war will come back and improve the article in your absence. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article could certainly handle it and I would be very happy if more editors returned. But what happens after the break, and don't you think all the editors who lurk around the article ask the same question? What is achieved? Please note my concern about the on-goingness and importance of Causteau's Wikipedia policy theories concerning revert justifications in all of these problems. In my opinion, and from what I see also of other editors who have tried to work with him on other articles, that is really the core of the problem. If that would be resolved most other problems would hopefully disappear, but it is so hard to find moderators who'll get involved in such discussions. If it is not somehow resolved, then problems must continue, and that has nothing to do with whether I edit the article again ever. I don't see how your proposal though - which is focused on one article and uses the often-practical tactic of treating two people in a dispute as equally at fault - addresses this very specific issue. Of course (to repeat) if you say you have no time to check if you are being correct and fair, then I can not respond with much to that can I?
 * The problems in the article are not just to do with excessive detail. They are very specifically the result of attempts to avoid being reverted, as Efweb said when she complained about the sentences this evening, setting me into action. This is leading to strong tendencies: redundancies, extra footnotes, long sentences, etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is yet another instance of me restoring reliable sources that User:Andrew Lancaster either a) manipulated or b) outright removed for no valid reason whatsoever. In short, User:Andrew Lancaster's edits are simply cases of him either manipulating or outright removing reliable sources for no valid reason whatsoever, and me consequently restoring said reliable sources. His disruptive edits represent clear-cut cases of bad faith editing (the final one, in particular) and thereby more than qualify as vandalism. Per WP:VAND: "Addition/Replacement/Removal: Adding new information to a page, or replacing or removing existing content in bad faith." And according to WP:3RR, reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule: "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond." Causteau (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits labeled "1st revert" and "2nd revert" above are a case of me restoring the phrases "occurs commonly and is distributed" and "all of Europe" that User:Andrew Lancaster manipulated in the case of the former, and outright removed in the case of the latter. Those words were taken directly from the opening paragraph of Cruciani et al. 2006, a reliable source in the field in question. By contrast, Andrew Lancaster's edits are not supported by the Cruciani et al. 2006 source. Here's what the statement in the E1b1b article that's supported by the Cruciani et al. 2006 source originally stated: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) occurs commonly and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. ". And here's what Andrew Lancaster changed it to under the pretext that the English was "awful": "E-M78 male lineages are common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe. ". Note that, although he retained the Cruciani et al. 2006 footnote tag, Andrew Lancaster's alleged "good faith" edit removed all reference to the fact that E1b1b is distributed in all of the aforementioned regions, plus all of Europe -- the very points Cruciani et al. themselves make and the very words they themselves use (which makes the "awful English" charge all the more absurd)!
 * The edit labeled "2nd revert" is another case of me restoring the same direct quotes from the same Cruciani et al. 2006 reliable source that Andrew Lancaster again removed for no valid reason. Only this time, however, he completely replaced the direct quotes from Cruciani et al. 2006 with a phrase from an older, less up-to-date study also from Cruciani -- the exact same author whose "awful English" he complained about earlier. Here is what the E1b1b article originally stated: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly and is distributed in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe. ". And here's what he changed it to: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) lineages are "frequent in Africa" . They have also "been observed in Europe and western Asia". ". Note again that his edit removes all reference to the fact that E1b1b is distributed throughout all of the aforementioned regions including all of Europe. He literally replaced perfectly valid direct quotes from a recent study with a less specific, older study by the exact same author ostensibly just because the latter do not mention the fact that E1b1b is distributed in all of Europe! Outrageous!
 * The edit labeled "4th revert" is yet another case of me restoring a reliable source that Andrew Lancaster yet again removed for no valid reason. In this edit, he literally removed not only a direct paraphrase of a reliable source (Coffman-Levy 2005), he also removed an entire paragraph quoted directly from the source as well as the source itself -- reference, coding and all! In the process, he orphaned the statement (viz. "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.") that immediately preceded the phrase/paragraph/reference he removed, thereby rendering that statement unverifiable to readers and therefore of uncertain credibility.

Update: Knowing full well that I can't at the moment do anything about it, User:Andrew Lancaster has once again just removed the word "distributed" from the direct quote from Cruciani et al. 2006 under the pretext that it is "non-functional". See what I mean by manipulation of sources? Causteau (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the above two descriptions of the recent editing are a very good way of seeing the real problem and why it will repeat under the solution proposed by EdJohnston. Trying to make an awful sentence less awful is in principle never going to be accepted by Causteau, if the awful sentence is verifiable and it is one Causteau has his heart on. The words "occurs commonly and is distributed" come from an academic abstract at the top of an article. Words from other articles were tried, and they were reverted also (hence I am supposedly also in an edit war). Causteau's position is that it must be exactly these words, and any attempt to change that is "vandalism"/"bad faith editing". I honestly do not know what more I can say or do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Result. Thanks to both editors for responding here. My decision is that both Causteau and Andrew Lancaster are banned from editing Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) for one week. My request to the other admins is to impose a 24-hour block for edit warring if you see either one editing there between now and 22:57 UTC on 6 November. The alternative would be to give out an immediate 24-hour block for edit warring to both and I think this result is better. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it suggested that we keep away from the Discussion page also, or just editing the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just from editing the article. The Talk page is still open to both of you. Consider trying to bring in other editors to participate in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That was what I was thinking of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User: 90.196.3.246 reported by User: Deavenger (Result: Page protected by MoP)

 * Page: Islam and Sikhism
 * User:90.196.3.246


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

<!This IP has shown under 2 different IP addresses. He has been removing valuable information because he says its an insult to Islam. We already tried to have discussions with him as you can see by Talk:Islam and Sikhism. And each time, he starts a new topic accusing us of being sockpuppets. Many users have asked him to stop deleting valuable information. I went to an Admin User:Master of Puppets for advice, and he has left a warning on the first IP address that was being used. Today, even after the warning was issued, and I have told him that an Admin had gave him a warning, he still keeps on deleting valuable information on how Sikhs view Muslims, and how Muslims are represented in the Sikh holy book. We have tried discussing with the IP on 3 separate occasions. Each time, he as basically ignored our explanations and accused us of giving out Sikh propaganda and being sockpuppets on both of his accounts of User:90.196.3.246 and User: 90.196.3.37Deavenger (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC) -->
 * User:Master of Puppets has protected the page and is in discussion with involved parties.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson reported by 2008Olympian (Result: self-revert saves you)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He removed the warning talk:Chrisjnelson&diff=next&oldid=248774554 with the comment that he is "well aware of 3RR". I would also like to point out that violations are common with this editor.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 07:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For some reason I thought I'd only reverted three times. I have since reverted to User:2008Olympian's previous version.► Chris Nelson Holla! 14:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've self-reverted, so are saved. In penance, please start a discussion on the talk page as to why your version is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dimitrisdad reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

After a reworking of a section on the article discussing his book, which removed issues related to WP:BLP, this editor popped up to take issue changes other than the book section and continues to revert with only minor wording changes, and contends that there is no bias or BLP, has made minor personal attacks and although makes small stabs at discussion, regardless continues to revert. Prior to tonight, the person has edited on 13 days out of the past year+, on 6 articles, with a total of 121 edits. I've tried to explain the issues but he does not seem to grasp this. He has been asked to stop, warned about 3RR and BLP policies, but he ignores it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h. Please be cautious about 3RR yourself. In general, it is unwise to rely on the BLP immunity to 3RR (in this case I'm judging your extensive reverts fall under it) and better to get other editors involved William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Emerson7 reported by DionysosProteus (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * User has repeatedly removed information and added factual inaccuracies, despite being offered sources as evidence to the contrary. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No vio; has to be within 24h. But you're both edit warring, which I hereby warn you about William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Masonfamily reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: User:Masonfamily blocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

5 reverts within a 24 hour period. the user was made aware of 3RR and after their 4th revert, I suggested that we take it to the talk page of the article in question - this was responded to with the users 5th revert

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi delete edit warning message without reason. Masonfamily (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked Masonfamily for 72 hours. Still looking the entire episode over to sort out who was doing what. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, I just noticed a 3RR violation on another article by the same user.


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict - the user has just been blocked, perhaps the second report is overkill?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

216.207.226.175 reported by E8 (Result:blocked for vandalism )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This is the second user in as many days to repost this information. Numerous request were made to both users to correct the information to make is suitable for Wikipedia; much of the addition is politically-charged and very biased. Neither user has responded to any of the requests.--E8 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The user was blocked for vandalism for 31 hours several days ago, Metros (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

125.238.246.105 reported by Ms. Sarita (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * User blanked their talk page of all warnings:

I have reverted this user's edits multiple times, asking for a citation, which s/he refused to do. In his/her reverts, this user has also deleted the citation templates for the section.

I was going to go the Dispute Resolution route, but this user chose to vandalize my talk page here, telling me to "get cancer".

I realize that I violated the 3RR policy as well, so feel free to block me if you deem it necessary, for fairness.

Please advise. Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also reported this IP to AIV, since what he's edit warring to add to the BLP is nonsense and appears to be a reference to the subject's portrayal on Family Guy. He's just here to be disruptive. Dayewalker (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's nothing constructive about this user. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. There has been a bunch of vandalism of this biographical article in the last two weeks from a variety of IPs. This IP was already blocked 3 hours at WP:AIV. Note that whenever negative unsourced material is added to a BLP, it is reasonable to ask for a block at WP:AIV, and they will give a quicker response than this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus reported by Bko79 (Result: no violation )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user has been warned by many editors to stop reverts
 * I never edit anyone's talk, I respectfully leave other's comments alone. Why can't others do the same?

Hobartimus' contributions to Wikipedia consist of reverting edits and destroying intellectual property. Talk pages are for opinions and no one has the right to destroy valid opinions added by any user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bko79 (talk • contribs)


 * Decline. First of all, please follow the proper format in the future by providing links to the diffs of the edits (to highlight the changes they are making) rather than the resulting versions like you did.  Second of all, I do not see him reverting anyone more than three (3) times in one twenty-four (24) hour period.  Third of all, what he is reverting is, essentially, vandalism which is an exemption from the 3RR rule. Metros (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC Radio 2 by TheRetroGuy (result: not by me)
Repeated reversions. User reprimanded for 3RR violations earlier in week.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

81.242.6.21 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this is part of an ongoing wikistalk against me by an editor who I outed as a sockpuppet a couple of weeks ago. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Melody Perkins for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 200.182.65.22 blocked by Toddst1 because of this I'm disinclined to block you for breaking 3RR, though you clearly have. Others may well disagree. If this anon keeps going, you need to take it to ANI, not here. And you've lost freekmighty's spelling fix, go fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies for losing the typo correction. I'll take a look at it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:71.238.20.192 reported by DavidWS (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:26,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:29,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 19:25,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:38,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 21:44,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 21:46,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "")

—DavidWS (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thetoxicdump reported by Metros (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (4 edits in one diff, restores larger images)
 * 2nd revert: (4 edits in one diff, again restores one larger image, also removes the other image I had modified in infobox)
 * 3rd revert: (3rd restoration of larger image)
 * 4th revert: (removes unreferenced section tag I had added here)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Submitted, Metros (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Page protected for 3 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Chensiyuan reported by A State Of Trance (Result:no violation )

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Game was already over and user kept reverting back to old, outdated version of the page. I don't know why the user did this but it appears he did this to get credit for adding the win to the page. He reverted my edit and changed it from 2 to 3 in the same minute. He continued to edit war thus violating the three revert rule. Note: I accidently signed as another user because I copied the warning from the above 3RR complaint. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: \
 * He also removed another this warning to stop his vandalism.

Submitted, A State Of Trance (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He then responded to the 3rr warning with this confusing comment on my talk page: link and by removing the warning from his talk page: link. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another user warned him on his talk page for calling me a child: diff. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He then proceeded to call me a child again and the user that added the civility warning to his talk page, prompting the same user to add yet another warning to his talk page: link. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation has occurred here. The user has only reverted there three (3) times in a 24 hour span.  3RR is for going over three reverts in a given 24-hour period.  His civility is another issue, however, that will be dealt with elsewhere, Metros (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following two comments were moved by Metros after they were left in the middle of the above report. Only the reporter should edit the report section (unless someone is attempting for help fix a format error). 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The game was not over when you made those edits. Compare the time stamps. The game was still in running when the declarations of victory were made. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The odds... Chensiyuan (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere reported by User:Slipgrid (Result: No violation)
User:Kaiwhakahaere

One Two Three I was cleaning up factual mistakes in the article when I was reverted without discussion. I asked for discussion and reverted to continue my changes. I was again revered, and I plead for more discussion as I continued my accurate changes. I was then revered a third time by the same user. Slipgrid (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's three reverts, not four, and the user reporting this "violation" has been blocked for edit warring, as they have been POV pushing at the article. Thanks, Verbal   chat  09:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No currently unblocked party has yet broken the 3-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:158.143.181.94 reported by Escape Orbit (Result:31 hours )
. : Time reported: 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:31, 28 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 00:39, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248270782 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 3) 15:17, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248587840 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
 * 4) 17:39, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248629825 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 5) 03:59, 31 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248673115 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
 * 6) 18:45, 31 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248788680 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
 * 7) 04:35,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248884158 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 8) 16:39,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248967644 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 9) 18:27,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Srushe identified as vandalism to last revision by 158.143.181.94  . (TW))")


 * Diff of warning: here

. : Time reported: 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:32, 28 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248009436 by 80.42.108.177 (talk)")
 * 2) 00:38, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248440225 by Cosmic Latte (talk)")
 * 3) 15:18, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248590258 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 4) 17:38, 30 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248629689 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 5) 18:45, 31 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248789862 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
 * 6) 04:35,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248884531 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 7) 16:39,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 248967699 by Srushe (talk)")
 * 8) 18:28,  1 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 249020159 by Srushe (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

This IP editor is a POV warrior who is ignoring a number of other editors' attempts to get him to discuss or cite his changes. Edits on both articles are essentially the same and reflect the editor's opinion of a complex and generally unrelated issue. User has avoided 24 hour 3RR, but contributions in the last 4 days have been to repeatedly revert without discussion. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While, normally, I would say "oh, he hasn't edited since the 3RR warning" or "he's not active right now," this is clearly a continued pattern of disruptive editing and, as such, I have blocked for 31 hours, Metros (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)