Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive84

User:Londo06 (Result: 10 days for edit-warring)
If you look at this user's (who has just recently got past a temporary ban for sockpuppetry) recent edit history it's out of control. He has misinterpreted some wikipedia guidelines at Captions and even edited them himself to suit his bizarre needs.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Refined to bring further clarity as someone clearly has a grudge here. Londo 06 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Please present this case in the proper format as given here.  Thank you, Metros (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

is a long-term productive editor who has been showing very strange judgment since 1 October. He has already been blocked twice since that date, once getting a week for sockpuppetry (WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf), and then 31 hours for edit warring.

The present case is one for edit-warring on figure captions, not a 3RR. You can see the problem by looking at his last 100 contributions (which cover just a 5-hour period). He has reverted to his own preferred language at Captions and then boldly raced through a large number of sports articles removing their captions, citing as a reason the policy language he has just inserted himself! (For instance, this edit in which he removes a caption). His last block for edit-warring was lifted by Tiptoety on 23 October with the note ''Per users agreement to not edit war. Please re-block if they continue.'' I am taking that advice to re-block, for a period of 10 days, thinking that escalation should continue upward from the one week that Londo06 received earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Historicist reported by Wikidemon (Result:24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
 * note - the section identifying the subject of the author, a Barack Obama contact, as a reputed Palestinian Liberation Organization "spokesman" was previously revert-warred into the article by at least two other editors, and removed among other things as a WP:BLP violation, e.g.. The editor's first insertion was therefore a revert, to re-instate the material.

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


 * 1) 13:33,  2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */")
 * 13:52, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
 * 14:32, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
 * 14:55, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
 * 1) 17:43,  2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 249222628 by G-Dett (talk)")
 * 17:44, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */ keeping this objective.")
 * 1) 18:03,  2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */  please stop slanting the page by removing an important job the man is documented to have held.")
 * 2) 18:18,  2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */ this was an important, well-documented part of the man's career.")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Warning asks editor to promise not to edit war; editor instead issues a malformed tit-for-tat cut-and-paste warning, canvasses one of the other editors who had been revert warring the material to "come back" (and presumably revert), and adds a POV tag with an edit summary that itself may be a BLP violation by re-asserting the poorly sourced claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

—Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Metros (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon reported by User:Historicist, November 2, 2008
Wikidemon has been arbitrarily and repeatedly removing sourced, sinificant material without discussingh it on the talk page or giving reasons.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist. He is very aggressive and is attempting to cover his inappropriate edits by flinging accusations at me for attempting to keep the page objective and inclusive of important nformation.Historicist (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist
 * Not sure of the point of this malformed tit-for-tat retributive report (see above re. a tit-for-tat warning). I have reverted the BLP vio (noted above) three times, not four, and though a BLP reversion does not count I will nevertheless not revert more than three times over it.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:70.13.117.97 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:34,  2 November 2008  (edit summary: "pls don't remove a cited a relevant part to this section")
 * 2) 01:33,  3 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 249297062 by Scjessey (talk) No violation of BLP here, just an instance of the controversy around him")
 * 3) 01:37,  3 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 249306989 by Scjessey (talk) its what he is most known for")
 * 4) 01:53,  3 November 2008  (edit summary: "3rd rv - though this time it seems two editors are coordinating their efforts")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor (who has edited this article exclusively) is adding material in violation of WP:BLP (since it is not biographical), ignoring warnings and ignoring/eschewing talk page discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * First Diff is not a revert but was an attempt to answer the request for a valid cite. Scjessey removed cited material saying the cites were dead.  That edit was including the material and two subsequent edits added new cites to replace the dead links. There hasn't been a discussion but more of a "you are wrong and must stop" conversation.  70.13.117.97 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Metros (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by Amwestover (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Warning Comment: The warning was removed by the user and the user's contribution log indicated that further Wikipedia editing was performed afterward.

Scjessey has been edit warring on Public image of Barack Obama, reverting edits made by myself and Britneysaints. Edit warring started when Scjessey removed two whole sections from the article, one which was recently added and another which had existed for about a week unchanged. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing content that doesn't belong in Obama's bio and "public image..." is a sub of it, (but if, then rather in his campaign article) is nothing more than maintaining the page. I comment here on this because if he wouldn't have beat me regarding the"Lipstick-issue" I would've reverted it in good faith. Just my 2cents about this as I'm going thru this page. Yes, I'm a curious one, hoping not to get killed like a cat.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was his opinion that the content didn't belong, and he somehow believes that he has a golden ticket with reverts because he claims they're all in the name of BLP. However, I didn't think any of his explanations were valid and judging by his talk page comments, to me it seems like he's using "consensus" as a way to block content that he just doesn't like. He made it very clear that he's biased in regard to the issue.
 * And regardless of all that, he was still edit warring which is all that really matters. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:147.52.67.230 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (Result: Malformed )

 * Three-revert rule violation on Long term edit warring by group of IPs. Returned after article was unprotected.

Time reported: 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * . Apart form the report being malformed, the reported IP has of now two total edits in the last 24 hours and it isn't obvious whether the previous Ip is same. Nom should watch for 3RR themsleves. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. This system does not catch long term edit warring. This IP has been edit warring for about a month now but, technically, it is not over the 3RR currently and only because I did not revert due to my 3RR limit since I had two IPs reverting at the same time. I had one blocked at WP:ANI due to incivility. As the one got stopped this took over. It is an absolute mess and very discouraging for legit users. This opportunistic edit warring, unfortunately, is not caught by the 3RR system as it currently stands. I tried WP:AIV but no luck there either. Dr.K. (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. Nevertheless, semi protection hasn't resolved the problem either. Hopefully, what you're trying now helps more.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your nice comment. I hope so too. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca reported by Damiens.rf (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Rebecca has recently received a "friendly reminder" from another admin about how, in an unrelated article, she had violated 3RR and was not blocked simply because her actions were overlooked. Now, less than a week later, she's back to edit warring. She's here long enough to know better.
 * Also, Rebecca is about to violate 3RR in just was well (she has just been warned about that). --Damiens .rf  16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * R has 2R at AM. Pondering the rest, including all parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on her bad faith assumptions on the talk page and the fact that she already ignored it after I reminded her, I'm not totally convinced she won't restart later on the same page...I'm going ahead with the block. --Smashvilletalk 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert137 reported by User:Airwolf754 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

this article was checked extensively and approved on August 6 by

Airwolf754 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the report being malformed, it seems to me that the first edit by Hilbert todat was not a revert, after whci I see two reverts for each side.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcechecker419 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The reverts aren't all exactly the same, but they are substantially the same. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This article is on probation and essentially under a "1RR" rule.  Digital Ninja  20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also - the editor in question attempted to delete this report. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally: Evidently, this user thinks this is a joke.  Digital Ninja  20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And not like this joke :)  Digital Ninja  20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear enough; 24h. Didn't check up the article 1RR policy as didn't matter in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

217.157.207.37 reported by Camaron (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Single IP engaging in an edit war with multiple users on Eurovision Song Contest 2009 over inclusion of content in a table, s/he has ignored requests to stop. I would normally block on sight as I am an admin, but as I am involved and I have reverted within 1RR I am requesting independent assessment. The above revert diffs are only the last four, the user has actually reverted more times. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a fair cop guv William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the speedy response. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

79.74.86.83 reported by O'delanca (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

His revertions have caused me to violate it, but as it is obvious vandalism, I hope I don't get blocked as well (I won't be editing for the next 19 hours anyway).--O&#39;delanca (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anon blocked for 48h for being a waste of time. *Please* mark anti-vandalism reverts with "rvv" or somesuch, or you risk being blocked yourself. Also consider reporting such to AIV rather than 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon removed sourced material for a third time reported by User:Historicist (24h for Historicist)
Page: Rashid Khalidi


 * 3rd revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 1st revert   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My most recent edit is the only one given in a 24-hour period. The old reverts were on legitimate BLP grounds and did not exceed 3RR either.  This is the second bogus report against me by a retributive editor, edit warring disputed content into a BLP, who was just blocked for 3RR and returning to edit war immediately after his block.  Please consider longer-term block for Historicist. (diffs coming in a moment)  Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I got caught up in a meeting and didn't have time to do the diffs. It seems moot at this point.  Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

--Smashvilletalk 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the page has now been fully protected for a week because of the edit war, Either way (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked H for 24h for vexatious litigation and edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

81.149.211.246 reported by BMW67 (Result: Declined and moved to WP:BLPN)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This article has been extremely damaging to my personal and business reputation.We have taken appropriate steps to edit/undo article each time but the user continues to redo.The original article is based on fact and the edits by the reported user are malicious and extremely damaging to my business.I request that this user be blocked and that some editorial lock may be included on this article to prevent a repeat. (Miss B.M.Walsh pp Mr.Duncan Campbell/Airlie James) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.251 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Malformed and no obvious violation of the 3RR rule. Rather long-term BLP relevant edit warring. Opened a thread at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the formatting of this report. See the new entry for this case at the BLP Noticeboard. The case was filed by an IP,, who identifies herself as (B.M.Walsh), a representative of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice, I was too lazy.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Opcn reported by Damiens.rf (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In the edit summary for his 4th revert, Opcn says "This is my third revert...". This appears to be so because he wouldn't count the removal of my comments on the 1st revert as a revert.

Also, he will sometime do minor changes to the reverted text (like strangely adding delete at the beginning of the deletion nomination so that it looks like a vote), and the revert may appear disguised. --Damiens .rf 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Opcn has been discussing his edits on this forum (warning: explicit language in offwiki attacks, etc). --Damiens .rf 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * either way (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that I mean I can undo his revert? It would technically my 4th revert... but doesn't this count as an exception?
 * Anyway, I would be glad if someone else could simply go there and do that for me... I would certainly avoid wasting some future time in explanations...--Damiens .rf 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Opcn's removal of others' comments from the AfD violates WP:TALK I have undone his last revert. I also left a note of explanation in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that. It seems Opcn is evading his block by using meat puppets and editing anonymously now, but I've already reported it to ANI and it will surely be dealt with there. --Damiens .rf 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Orkhan ankara reported by User:Aramgar (Result: No action - User stopped after warning)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Established version:


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

User persists in adding an unsourced flag and an unsuitable succession box, while declining to participate in talkpage discussions. I have offered several invitations on his talkpage  and provided pointed links in my edit summaries. I thought that there might be a language barrier, but this belated edit suggests otherwise. It is my belief that Orkhan ankara understood the 3RR warnings on his page.

I might add that while this editor exhibits characteristics typical of a new user, all of his comprehensible edits are tendentious and designed solely to aggrandize the Turks.


 * 1st diff of 3RR warning:
 * 2nd diff of 3RR warning:

Aramgar (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The user stopped after their second warning. Although they did continue after the first warning, any block would be used as a preventative measure, which does not apply if they have already stopped. TigerShark (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for looking into it. Aramgar (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (and see also ).

User has declared his intention to continue reverting regardless. Orpheus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * either way (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Josephjames21 reported by Amalthea (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:, a revert to a revision from 26 October of the user, undoing 49 intermediate revisions.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

I have not explicitly warned the user of 3RR since I didn't realize at first that he reverted to one of his earlier versions of the article, and didn't just strip the article of some of its content and all of its references. He has though been warned and urged to explain his edits multiple times by several editors on User talk:Josephjames21 however. His only response was that the article as it was doesn't "make sense". He never provided any specifics, although asked to.

He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3).

Amalthea Talk 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that Tiptoety doesn't object if a different admin closes this case, which is related to the one below. Josephjames21 clearly went over 3RR and has a tendency to make large reverts without much explanation. In the future, consider WP:3O, WP:RFC and more discussion when conflicts occur. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. -- Amalthea Talk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea reported by Josephjames21 (Result: Decline )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

He also hoarsly lied and took things out of contex. "He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3) ." There was no bullying whatsoever, I was trying to get those users to stop reverting the correct version into the incorrect and badly worded verison. Having mispelled words, and fragments. There is also no wikipedian law that says you can try to stop people reverting to the wrong edits, by telling them that you will block them, if there is a law that says you can't do that, Amalthea did the same.November 2008 He was also very rude, and kept reverting to the wrong edits. I was urged to explain my edits only by Amalthea, and hadn't done so because the other editors had not done so either.

Josephjames21 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that both parties are engaged in a edit war neither have violated 3RR. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have both parties. Any further reverts/edit warring will be met with a block.  Tiptoety  talk 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quartus81 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Ben (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not within 24h, sorry. Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think (but can't verify) that and  were 2 more attempts, this time anonymous or perhaps not logged-in. DVdm (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another anonymous attempt:, immediately following some kind of threath : "One thing is very clear - the word "myth" IS to be removed". DVdm (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Arzel reported by 66.86.173.180 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249863412


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249666528
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249780169
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249843295
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=249866270


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User continues to work against talk page consensus, erased multiple warnings and has broken 3RR rule countless times in the past on a variety of articles.


 * What a bunch of BS. There is no consensus, and this anoyn is is not even bothering to discuss on the talk page.  The section in dispute is Original Research, and undue weight for the lead.  There are two editors which are currently discussing, both of which agree that the material does not have concensus.  The date stamps on the vandalism by the anoyn do not fall within 24 hours, and even if that was the case the Anoyn has made the same number.  I move that this bad faith submission be closed immediately.  Arzel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Submission denied. 66.86.173.180 blocked for 24h for 3RR/edit warring (not 4R within 24h but close enough). I decided that A's revert of 65.246.42.2, which he marked as rv vandal, was fair enough, given the anon's edit comment, even though the edit was removing exactly the same material as was at issue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PatGallacher reported by User:IronDuke (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynthia_McKinney&oldid=249672791


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert: (this edit reverts a different section than the other three, but still, of course, counts as a revert)


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PatGallacher&diff=249800252&oldid=247631999

Three reverts consist of removing a quote by noted scholar Alan Dershowitz, using an imaginative reading of BLP to say that negative material can be removed as long as you disagree with the conclusions raised by the source.

(FWIW, I have technically only reverted twice -- the first reversion I made was to undo the edit of a banned editor. I mention this only to emphasize that I like to keep reversions to a minimum.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talk • contribs)


 * IronDuke did not inform me that he had raised this complaint here. I consider that this was a case of removing a poorly sourced claim from a BLP, where the 3RR does not apply.  I am not disputing that Dershowitz said this, but his statement contained factual claims which were not and have still not been clearly sourced.  I would add that BLP concerns were even greater than normal since this article was the biography of a candidate in an important election on the day the poll was taking place. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure I buy the BLP stuff. For future ref: please make claims of BLP-exemption very clear in your edit summaries. However appears to be reverting anon vandalism (again, please be clearer).William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

70.248.192.203 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please see history where Malik is likewise reverting 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:African_American_ethnicity&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jmh649 reported by scuro (Result: no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

  
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There have been several long standing issues and attempts to engage this user in talk. Currently we are in a med cab but the behaviour hasn't stopped. The med cab has stalled and I have seen no post from the administrator in three days. The user continues to revert and use this as a tool to block material off of the article.--scuro (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its an excellent idea not to bother tell us which article the reverts occurred on. Its far more exciting that way - we can click through all 2M wiki articles trying to guess! (yes I know.) Or... you could actually bother to fill out the report properly William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it's my first attempt to do this and it didn't look right in the preview.--scuro (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. But thats only 3 reverts, the last of which was on the 3rd. 3RR warnings should be on the users talk page, normally, not on some medcabal page. And I can't see the warning there William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31 hours )

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


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:

Junije Palmotić


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

House of Bunić/Bona


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

Marin Bunić


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please note, first of all, that this is a Balkans related issue that falls within the scope of the ARBMAC decision. Ragusino is edit warring on these three obscure articles to ensure the primacy of the Italian versions of the surnames in question. He may in addition be editing while logged out to pursue this battle, see Special:Contributions/190.21.87.162. These edit wars have been ongoing for weeks. See, for example, the revision history of House of Bunić/Bona since 23 October. Ragusino's version is the one with 4,448 bytes; the consensus version (supported by me, User:DIREKTOR, User:Pip2andahalf, User:Edward321, User:Admiral Norton, User:JdeJ and User:Ivan Štambuk) is the one with 4,225 bytes. In the case of Marin Bunić, his reverting also removes its AfD notice. Enough is enough. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the time being I am not going to place any of the involved editors on any arbcom restrictions outlined here, as I am hoping they will not be needed. Tiptoety  talk 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

68.46.139.114 reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP that has vandalized a number of other articles ;. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP's claim that he is reverting vandalism is not credible. In any case, edit-warring to add contentious claims to a biographical article is never wise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The359 reported by Sennen goroshi (Result:no action taken)

 * Page:
 * User:

do talk pages not link on the 3RR report page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton

the talk page is where the possible violation occurred


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Hamilton&oldid=249240514


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

ooops I seem to have messed up which diff to show. the fourth diff should have been:
 * 4th revert:

the last diff was a strange one.. if I assume good faith I will assume that he only thought certain elements of my comment required removing. if I assume bad faith I will assume that he knew he had reverted me three times and decided to remove a small element in order to avoid hitting four reverts.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  not a warning to him, but a warning from him..does that count?

oh and this is about an article talk page, does 3RR apply there? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fourth revert isn't a revert at all; it's him adding a comment, Metros (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting.  There was no need to revert that discussion, Metros (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it had absolutely nothing to do with the article, which counts as off-topic discussion, and the point made by the first user was simply stated in the template that was added, that off-topic discussion didn't belong there. It's no different than vandalism not counting towards 3RR. The359 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with the IP's post to remind people to stay on topic. Sometimes people need to be reminded despite that box at the top.  This is in no way equivalent to reverting vandalism,  Metros (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I messed up the diffs, I have edited above to show which should have been the fourth diff - should I report this? I don't want to waste peoples time as it is only a small change. Well I guess I shall wait and see if people notice it has been changed or not.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be an ass, but can someone comment on this report please? It has been here for 4 days without a result. Thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What fun. In the future, Sennen, please avoid deliberately continuing when another user has asked you to stop. Antagonizing people never turns out well. Besides, he's right; talk page discussion should be limited to encyclopedic things. It shouldn't turn into a forum for you to express how contented you are. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  08:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is great fun, I find it a little ironic that an editor can blatantly ignore one wikipedia rule (3RR) just because he wants to enforce another - but hey, the world of wikipedia can be an ironic place at times. When someone nicely asks me to stop something, I will of course cease whatever action is upsetting them, but the above editor didn't exactly ask me nicely, he just reverted me and acted as if he was the be all and end all of wikipedia - that kind of attitude is never going to result in me puckering up and kissing anus. I am happy to take shit from people who have earned the right/power to give me shit - others have to use manners and treat me as an equal if they want a decent attitude from me. But whatever, I will remember in future that wikipedia is not facebook and try to keep my contented attitude well hidden. BTW thanks for taking the time to at least look at this, it was annoying to see it staring at me, doing nothing, every time I checked it Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

68.251.188.63 reported by TheFEARgod (Result:no action taken)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: reverts are not within a 24-hour period, and removal of original analysis doesn't seem to apply. --68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing report as it is stale. For the record, just because it isn't defined as edit warring doesn't mean it isn't. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  08:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

TheFEARgod reported by 68.251.188.63 (Result:no action taken)

 * Page:
 * User: TheFEARgod


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for reviewing admins: first diff is not a revert. It was the initial insertion of the disputed info. As you can see in the history, I'm not attempting a 4th revert. The three other rvs were not done in 24-hour period--TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing report as it is stale. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  08:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Dimitar2007 (Result:no action taken)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He repatedly reverts the sourced version, not giving precise explanation, simply commenting the other editors are not right or in his last same revert because of bad English. He also deleted the 3RR wornings on his talk page. Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale. Also, "bad english" is not a reason to revert somebody, and deleting 3RR warnings is allowed (it guarantees that the receiver has read them). Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:96.232.251.177 reported by User:AzureFury (Result: discussed with users)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 06:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please note that the above two users were involved in an edit war, with the IP removing another IP's supporting comment in an RFC while adding own opposing comment. See Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I warned AzureFury against edit warring. He deleted my warning and kept edit warring. 96.232.251.177 (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

diff of warning more diffs 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Please note that reverting vandalism (such as deleting another user's comments) is never "edit warring" according to policy.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 06:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review your edits. While you were restoring the OTHER IP's comment, you were also DELETING 96's comment, which was not vandalism. BOTH of you were at fault. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please, he deleted the other user's comments and added his own at the same time intentionally. I'm not going to bend over backwards to restore the comments of someone who can more easily restore his comments without deleting another user's.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * you deleted my comments and restored a vandals comments. you are at fault here. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Edit war on the talk page has ended as the IP user has stopped deleting or striking others' comments.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's up for a nice cup of tea? Honestly, let's all settle down and solve this maturely. I'll break it down;
 * AzureFury: Please don't be so biased against IP editors. Going into something with the intention of getting the other person blocked is highly bad faith and I wouldn't recommend it in the slightest. Also, please avoid calling other peoples' opinions useless, as every contribution is a contribution, regardless of whether you think so or not.
 * 96.232.251.177: remember that Wikipedia is not defaming anybody if we are just reporting on what sources have said. In this case the material you removed was sourced and therefore valid. Also, don't strike/delete/tamper with other users' comments.
 * FangedFaerie: While you have the right to politely ask users not to interact with you, please don't report them as vandals when they are not.

I'm not going to block anyone. However, if you keep edit-warring, a trigger-happy admin could easily block you two for edit-warring. Don't give them reason to. Questions are welcome on my talk page. Thanks, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a very nice person. I'm glad Wikipedia has good people running the site. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Arcayne reported by 75.49.223.52 (Result: reject)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Strangely this began after I agreed with Arcayne. This user is exceptionally abusive. The matter has been discussed and has Community Consensus., that Community Consensus can be overturned is of course true - but it must first be discussed and overturned before the changes are made. Not exactly a contentious point on my part.75.49.223.52 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Arcayne here. Perhaps the anon (who has been blocked numerous times before as an abusive IP farm gaing the system and stalking my edits) should have pointed out that after disregarding current consensus, (s)he decided to edit-war and remove cited information from the article that both meets our standards for inclusion and enjoys a current consensus amongst the editors working the article. What the anon also failed to mention is that after being appraised of their 3RR limit for the day, they disruptively ported out of six-month old archives a prior consensus and posted it as a defense. They do not listen to discussion, and seem unwilling to actually listen to anyone but themselves.
 * Oh, and reverts 1-3 are simply my reverting the removal of cited information from the article itself. Reverts 4-5 are removal of the multi-line posts from April, 2008, inserted into article discussion. No 3RR was actually committed.
 * If I seem "exceptionally abusive", it might be due to the fact that I have to deal with this particular user once or twice a month, and they usually file baseless ANI, 3RR and wikiquette alerts (this is #10, and all the prior attempts were dismissed out of hand). I have my own personal Grawp with this anon user, and I am bored of having them toss mud whenever they want, praying that something sticks. Can someone just ban the anon's particular range and be done with it? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP account should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this is but a new account, the old one being . Note the SPA nature of the accounts. I can present almost two dozen of the prior IPs used. The user specifically uses anons so as to be able to claim that they did not see a warning, or that any misbehavior is the first such occurrence. Of course, this is pretty much old news to anyone having interacted with the user before. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That I have a dynamic IP does not make me a "sock farm", Arcaynes Wikilawyering notwithstanding. My edit was honest and clear, it defended consensus and agreed with Arcayne's position at that time to not label the film as propaganda. I have edited this article for nearly a year, never have I pretended to be more than one editor - ever. My edits in this article precede Arcayne's. He followed me to it after I made an edit to one of his pet articles, I had merely hyperlinked his project to this article.75.49.223.52 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a way for you to avoid such suspicions IP. You should create an account. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GD, (s)he's been told that about two dozen times, as well. The anon pointedly refuses to. If they were out and out egregious, I would ask for a checkuser, to check if they are an actual banned user (which is what their past behavior and familiarity with wiki procedure would suggest).
 * Here's a better suggestion: since range-blocking would remove the rest of the folk unfortunate to live in their proximity, maybe just ban them from posting to articles I contribute to. There are millions of articles to choose from; they can simply avoid the 2-3 dozen that I am active in. I certainly don't go seeking out the user. The solution neatly resolves the wiki-stalking and conflict. -   Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to the Administrators, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reject, obviously. There are only three reverts. The talk page is a different page. 3RR applies, as it sez, to *one* page. If you (A) care to provide evidence of vexatious litigation on the part of this anon, please do. Anon: you are advised to get an account William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Masonfamily reported by John Smith's (Result: 1 week)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 5 November 2008 (Yamato period)
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:13, 1 November 2008 (Yakiniku)
 * Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 5 November 2008 (Kumdo)


 * 1st revert: 04:57, 7 November 2008 (Yamato period)
 * 2nd revert: 06:54, 7 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:03, 7 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:14, 7 November 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:12, 7 November 2008 (Yakiniku)
 * 2nd revert: 06:47, 7 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:00, 7 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:24, 7 November 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:12, 05:39, 7 November 2008 (Kumdo)
 * 2nd revert: 15:05, 7 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:33, 7 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:30, 7 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:21, 7 November 2008

This user clearly has broken the 3RR rule and has tried to hide his last reversions as not being reversions, even though he is still reverting by removing material and replacing it with the same thing/similar text. He knows the rules, having been blocked twice in the last few months. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he has now reverted for a fourth time on the Kumdo article. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous block log and deliberately deceptive edit comments; 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (with minor changes)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: - reverting parts of this edit, with edit summary to match.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User was blocked for 3RR a couple of days ago, made first revert here 3 hours after block expired. Fourth revert isn't the same material as the first three, but WP:3RR doesn't seem to require that and the edit summary puts it clearly in the spirit of 3RR. Orpheus (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:43, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring image
 * 2nd revert: 22:00, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
 * 3rd revert: 22:16, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "First Nation and Inuit" phrasing
 * 4th revert: 22:18, 6 November 2008 - revert restoring "Europeans first arrived when the Vikings settled briefly at L'Anse aux Meadows around AD 1000" phrasing
 * 5th revert: 15:21, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image size, "The French colony of Canada referred to..." etc. phrasing
 * 6th revert: a series of reverts restoring previous version of history section:
 * 15:29, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring image
 * 15:32, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring position of image
 * 15:35, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements..." etc. prhasing
 * 15:43, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The English established fishing outposts..." phrasing
 * 15:47, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "However, internal unrest errupted..." etc. phrasing
 * 15:54, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The desire for responsible government..." etc. phrasing
 * 15:57, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "The signing of the Oregon Treaty by Britain..." phrasing
 * 16:00, 7 November 2008 - revert restoring "Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's Conservative government..." phrasing


 * soulscanner is a well established user and is aware of 3RR; the above edits are part of a strange content dispute at that article. soulscanner also seemed to be in breach of 3RR at the same article earlier, but this was not reported.


 * 1)  01:16, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
 * 2)  01:36, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
 * 3)  02:26, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by WilyD
 * 4)  05:49, 1 November 2008 - edit that also removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino

--G2bambino (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this; instead of a constant revert-then-tell-other-person-to-discuss cycle, you both actually discuss. This way you're both on the same playing field (yes, I'm aware of your previous pasts; no, those don't factor in right now). That doesn't mean that you can revert seven ways to Sunday, Bambino; nor does it mean that you can own the article, scanner. It simply means that I want you guys to discuss this as if you didn't have any previous conflicts. No veiled threats, no contempt from either of you. This way we can get some consensus.


 * So, to sum up:


 * No editing the page until you've agreed on the issues above;
 * No pointlessly pushing points if there is consensus against your edits
 * No antagonizing.
 * Use common sense; just because I haven't specifically told you not to do something doesn't mean you can go ahead and do it. Please be reasonable.


 * If this all goes according to plan nobody gets blocked and no pages get locked. Sound good? :D If you have any questions I'm open to replying. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It all sounds well and good. However, there have already been attempts at discussion; in fact, the last series of edits by soulscanner undid everything that was done to address the concerns he expressed at talk. I'm at a complete loss, and I look forward to an explanation from him. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've simply asked that you gain consensus on edits before making them. Do you agree to this? --soulscanner (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually I don't agree. Not only have you not adhered to the same restriction yourself, WP:BRD allows us to be bold. If someone reverts, then we discuss. Discussing minor punctuation and wording changes seems rather a waste of time, though. --G2bambino (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you don't agree, then I can't help you. You appear to be more interested in getting your way on the edits, which were made to make a point about my saying that the article was too long.  --soulscanner (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that progress can only be made within the bounds of your own rules, then I fear that things will not go well. Making baseless accusations about points, when the person you are accusing was only trying to address your concerns, is really not very impressive, either. We will get much further if that type of behaviour ceases. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Respecting consensus is not my rule. Refraining from editing to make a point is also not my rule.  You used my saying that the article was too long as an excuse to delete content. You were editing to make a point, which is against wiki civility conventions. You deleted  content without gaining consensus: that is against wiki conventions. Restoring deleted consensus content is not a 3RR issue. Just agree to gain consensus on the discussion board before deleting content and we'll be fine. --soulscanner (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please either stop making accusations without merit or establish them to be true with evidence. Please also show where respecting consensus doesn't apply to you, where BRD doesn't apply to me, and where 3RR excludes restoring content, or cease claiming they do. I put a fair amount of effort into compacting the history section in order to address your concern about its length, and this is what I get in return. --G2bambino (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Any changes should be discussed on the discussion board first and gain consensus before they are made. --soulscanner (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a little side note. I have been dealing with the Roux/G2bambino conflict for a little while now. Something I have come to learn, is that simply telling G2B that he needs to stop and or take something to the talk page very rarely actually results in that. I feel at this time that there needs to be some form of administrative action taken, seeing as G2B's two editing restrictions seem to not work and I continuely see violations of said restrictions, not to mention basic en.wiki policies. Because I consider myself "involved" I will not take any action, and will leave that up to a reviewing administrator. Just my 2 cents. Tiptoety  talk 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino won't accept the compromise. Soulscanner has already agreed to it. I suggest that the admin who closes this issue should impose a 1RR per day on G2bambino on Canada for a one-month period, if he chooses not to sign on to the same restrictions as Soulscanner. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed, G2B is already on editing restrictions that limit him to 1RR, please see . Tiptoety  talk 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That claim is completely false; I said very clearly that MoP's proposals were fine. --G2bambino (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm an inactive editor but I still check up on Wikipedia articles every now and then and checking the Canada talk page and by chance I came across these issues with Soulscanner and G2bambino. In my experience Soulscanner is an incredibly difficult person to work with and he is unwilling to compromise his position or accept other viewpoints. He reverts you like crazy and will not stop at all if he disagrees with your position. If you look at the articles I have worked on, he is extremely antagonistic against any notion of the Quebec nation and people and takes a hardline federalist approach which has a distinct anti-francophone bias. If you look at Talk:Canada you will find other editors supporting G2bambino and questioning why Soulscanner keeps reverting his otherwise legitimate edits.

The fact that Soulscanner has broken 3RR numerous times (again check my edit history, I have reported him before, and this going back to last year!) and reverts anything G2bambino does is incredible! Admins should not place all the blame on this person. Soulscanner is a major problem and he unfortunately seems to be getting away with everything as he did last year in his opposition against me and User:Mathieugp.

BTW this is all coming from someone who disagrees strongly with G2bambino's politics! Laval (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And had a grudge against me. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner has also used sockpuppets for malicious purposes: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soul scanner. Again this is from last year. His behaviour has not changed incredibly enough. Laval (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is false. Those are my IP servers. Please retract this statement. --soulscanner (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1RR broken on Canada?

 * I don't see any obvious vio of 1RR by G2B William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by EdJohnston. I'm seeing a violation of 1RR by G2B with the following edits:
 * He repeatedly adds a 'fact' tag to the statement:
 * The Canada Act 1982 refers only to 'Canada', and, as such, this is currently the only legal (and bilingual) name
 * This tag is a frequent subject of dispute. G2b wants it but other editors revert it.


 * G2b restored the 'fact' tag in his edit of 02:39, 6 November 2008


 * G2b next restored the 'fact' tag in his edit of 13:46 on 6 November.


 * The above two reverts are on the same day, so they break 1RR.
 * This is not the first time has broken the 1RR limit on Canada. There is a previous block by Hersfold dated 1 November, 'Edit warring: violation of 1RR restriction at Canada - see talk page.'


 * If other editors agree this violation is real, then I think a block should be discussed. (Worthwhile attempts at diplomacy, tried above by other admins, seem to go in circles). G2b won't agree to Soulscanner's proposal: I've simply asked that you gain consensus on edits before making them. Do you agree to this? (see above). If we can't get any progress by negotiations, then maybe we can go forward by carefully counting reverts and giving out escalating blocks.


 * Please give me your thoughts, so we can close this complaint. If another admin wants to close it, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first edit highlighted above (02:39, 6 November 2008) placed the maintenance tag for the first time. The second edit (13:46, 6 November 2008) did not replace it; that was done at 13:16, 6 November 2008 - one revert of the tag within a broader edit. The unsourced statement was later removed by another editor . Even still, 1RR refers only to Canadian monarchy and related subject matter; the Canada Act and its relation to the country's official name does not fall within that scope. Lastly, soulscanner's request is lopsided in his favour (noted as such by others), and to a request like that I feel I must disagree. What I approved of was the recommendations of MasterOfPuppets, an uninvolved admin. --G2bambino (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing. On 1 November, Hersfold left a block notice in which he asserted that Canada falls under your 1RR restriction. However, it's true that your 02:39 edit of 6 November seems to be the first time you added the 'fact' tag to that sentence, so it is not a revert. I'm closing this report without any action against G2b. However, my own analysis of the history of Canada shows four reverts by Soulscanner between 21:20 UTC on 6 November and 16:11 on 7 November so I'm blocking Soulscanner 24 hours. (I wasn't able to use G2b's tabulation above). EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that this matter is closed now, and thanks for your attention to it. However, I just want to state that my impression of Hersfold's comments (in combination with some discussion on the matter among admins on other talk pages) was that the government section of Canada falls under the restrictions (as it relates to the Canadian monarchy), but not the rest of the article (or, at least, none of it that relates to monarchy); I hope I'm right in that interpretation. Of course, there was only one revert anyway, as you noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed. That means that you would be very unwise to push the envelope, or even attempt to find out where its boundaries are by experiment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

74.248.89.84 reported by Hello Control (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:18, 6 November 2008 (slightly changed version of 07:21, 29 September 2008)


 * 1st revert: 06:30, 7 November 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:36, 7 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:51, 8 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:24, 8 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:11, 8 November 2008

IP continually replaces non-notable names in list, falsely characterizing my edits as vandalism. Claims to be supported by Wikipedia guidelines but declines to provide the specific guideline. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Control has been removing sourced material from the Latin Hip Hop article, and engaging in an edit war. There's no justification for the removal of cited material, and he refuses to produce a link to any Wikipedia policy that supports his deletions. 74.248.89.84 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP reverted four times in 24 hours, but Hello Control did not. For the future, I suggest that someone open up a discussion on the article talk page as to whether bands with no Wikipedia articles should be included. I'm aware of many articles that don't allow that. Of course entities with no articles can always be mentioned in regular text, if editors agree, but this was in a section of the article that looks like a list. EdJohnston (talk)

Xophorus reported by HJensen (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The editor has been kindly notified previously by several editors that the editing activity was not appropriate.--HJensen, talk 23:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I already blocked this user before seeing this report. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

138.251.242.178 reported by Bongomatic (Result: 72h)

 * Page:


 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * New page showing 3RR warning:

Multiple deletes of notability, refimprove, and COI tags. I commented in the article's talk page to describe why I thought there were article issues, but no reply. The editor would seem likely to be the same as the owner of the following user account, just not logged-in: Linoesilva (talk,contributions, who has the CoI. Bongo  matic  01:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You realize that you have violated 3RR on that article as well, right? Protonk (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 2008-11-09T04:21:24 Tanthalas39 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 138.251.242.178 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts) (Unblock) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

74.130.250.170 reported by TRTX (Result: no vio; warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The anon-IP appears to be making revisions based on this dif, choosing to edit a previous version instead of reverting. WP: Good Faith leads me to hope he isn't doing this maliciously to circumvent the 3RR, but I have my doubts to him repeatedly using the version linked vs. using an undo. -- TRTX T / C 03:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: User has performed a 5th revert (2nd since recieving warning) -


 * no vio; only 3R in 24h. Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User has performed a 6th revert. This has clearly become a case of an IP user skirting the 3RR. -- TRTX T / C 17:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit war included more than one IP. User:CIreland has full-protected the article for 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cischelalocuat & User:Cischelalicuat reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 8h)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:27
 * 2nd revert: 17:46
 * 3rd revert: 20:32
 * 4th revert: 21:16
 * 5th revert: 2:35
 * 6th revert: 3:57


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This one was so close it baffled me for a few minutes. This user appears to be using two very similar IDs to edit war on this article. He has been instructed to go to the talk page on multiple occasions and has made comments there, but in doing so has not stopped his reverts. Dayewalker (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 8h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:WestAssyrian reported by User:The_TriZ (Result: 8h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The user has previously been not only warned by different users for his edits, but I've also talked to him about this. He keeps violating against Wiki policies and rules and ignores this. The TriZ (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not been warned by any user and Ive not violiting looked at my edits and then discuss I have just edit back your propaganda at the assyrian pages! you have only edit and destroying the assyrian pages without discuss first --WestAssyrian (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence of a 3RR warning. Although one is not required, it would be more productive to warn at, say, the second revert rather than waiting. There are civility issues too, so I've given an 8h block as a gentle hint William M. Connolley (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and may I remind you to be cautious yourself. You have 3 clear reverts, and one unclear one . Someone inserted that text, sometime: removing it is implicitly a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kmccook reported by Alexnia (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lonewolf BC reported by G2bambino (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:

This is not a 3RR violation report; this is an edit warring report, brought here as instructed at WP:ANI.

Lonewolf BC has been carrying out a months long edit war at the above mentioned template. Admittedly, I engaged in this poor behaviour as well in earlier months (and am presently on a 1RR restriction regarding Canadian monarchy related articles), but he is now continuing to war against two other users besides myself, User:Roux and User:GoodDay. Consistently requested to discuss the matter, Lonewolf BC has offered little in the way of discussion, usually refusing to acknowledge the majority opinion and only repeating that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the material he removes. I am not 100% clear on what constitutes edit warring, however, what is going on at the template is definitely disruptive, and I would like a more knowledgeable person to have a look at the situation. Lonewolf BC is an established user, and has already been blocked three times for edit warring, so he should be aware of what he is doing. --G2bambino (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[Add]: I see that for some reason the template talk page does not link above; I'll add an easy link to it here: Template talk:Ca-residence
 * I am looking into this now. Tiptoety  talk 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino, can you provide me with a link to the ANI thread? Tiptoety  talk 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my wording wasn't clear enough; what I meant by instruction at ANI was the boilerplate at the top of the page there that states "To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard." No other report or notice about this matter has yet been made. --G2bambino (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am thinking a block of both Lonewolf BC and GoodDay would be in order here for tedious editing. Though, I would appreciate another administrative opinion. Tiptoety  talk 06:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a 3RR, but it looks like Lonewolf should get an edit warring block for constantly reverting to the version that only he favors, according to Talk. I don't see the case against GoodDay. Regardless of whether G2bambino correctly summarized the various positions on Talk, there is no possibility that edit warring against several others who disagree with you is the right way to get a consensus outcome. EdJohnston (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just looking over it a bit more closely and while it takes two to tango, Lonewolf appears to be the aggressor here. (Note: G2B was just blocked). Tiptoety  talk 06:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict ... gah) I'm going to second this, lonewolf has caused most of the problems here, however none of the editors there are completely innocent. ——  nix eagle 06:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Was just going to block Lonewolf myself but Tiptoety beat me to the punch. Lonewolf is clearly the instigator of the edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone else sees fit to block the other participants, I have no objections. Tiptoety  talk 06:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If ya'll feel blocking me, will help end the dispute there. Then I'll accept that block (i.e. I won't protest it). Though personally, I would've preffered a warning first. Anyways, it's up to yo guys. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad you didn't block GoodDay. Both he and I have tried to get Lonewolf to engage in discussion more than once. [ roux  » x ] 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you didn't block GoodDay, too. He's a buddy of mine & it would've been difficult to edit without him. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maurice27 et al. reported by Xtv (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

History

 * For a long time, the article Catalonia was introduced with the original names in the official languages, being Catalan the first one, and Spanish the second (i.e: Catalunya - Cataluña)
 * Examples:
 * An edit from Maurice27 in August'08 in which he didn't bother for this order
 * Edit from Maurice27 in May'08 in which he actually reverts vandalism on these names, and again, he respects the previous order
 * in August'07, once more he did not have any problem with this order
 * etc...


 * September 10th: an anonymous user changes this order (now: Cataluña - Catalunya).


 * October 19th: also an anonymous user reverts this change (Catalunya - Cataluña).


 * October 19th, two hours later: Maurice27 reverts this change (after many many time, it seems now he finds the order important. Now: Cataluña - Catalunya).


 * October 21st: reversion by Vilarrubla to original version "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * October 21st, 3 hours later: Maurice27 reversion to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * October 23rd: I revert to "Catalunya - Cataluña" : I ask to discuss this change first in talk page
 * October 23rd, 7 hours later: Maurice27 reverts to "Cataluña - Catalunya" and asks me to start the discussion
 * October 24th: I ask Maurice27 not to start an edit war and I ask for the reasons of his change, and I beg him to continue the discussions he left open (here there is one example)

After this requirement, he does not answer, he does not continue the open discussions, he does not give the reasons for his change but he starts...

The Edit Warring

 * 30th October: anonymous to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 30th Oct, 9 minutes later: Kman543210 to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 6 Nov: anonymous to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 6 Nov, 1 minute later: Kman543210 to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 6 Nov, 3 minutes later: anonymous back to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 6 Nov, 6 hours later: Maurice27 back to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 6 Nov, 18 hours later anonymous back to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 7 Nov (19 hours later): Maurice27 revert to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 8 Nov 10:09: anonymous to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 8 Nov 11:09 Kman543210 to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 8 Nov 16:46: anonymous to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 8 Nov 19:20: Maurice27 back to "Cataluña - Catalunya"
 * 8 Nov 19:57: anonymous to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 8 Nov 22:22: Kman543210 to "Cataluña - Catalunya"

New item in the war: Maurice27 wants to make a major change deleting one paragraph
 * 9 Nov 8:23: anonymous restores the paragraph
 * 9 Nov 10:18: Kman543210 deletes the paragraph, without discussion
 * 9 Nov 11:23: anonymous restores paragraph and changes to "Catalunya - Cataluña"
 * 9 Nov 12:36: Reversion by Maurice27
 * 10 Nov 0:22: reversion by anonymous
 * 10 Nov, 6:43: reversion by Maurice27


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Maurice27 has already been blocked several times including, among others, because of 3RR.

Comments
3RR has not been technically violated, but as an experienced user, Maurice27 shouldn't have continued with this edit war. He should have asked for a page protection, discuss in the talk page or whatever (in fact, I make this report hoping that Maurice27 finally answers me and he stops making reversions without giving an answer in different talk pages).

Maurice27 and Kman543210 seem to be acting as a team, making the "3 legal reversions of the day". Even though Kman543210 is aware of the existence of the 3RR (s)he has never been previously warned and therefore I have not included him in this report. However, I think (s)he should be warned to avoid edit warring in general (not only 3RR).

All anonymous users who also made reversions, should be also warned (or even blocked?). I have absolutely nothing to do with them and I allow a checkuser to proof that my ip is not related with any of them.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an edit-warring case, not 3RR. I suggest this case be left open for a while to allow article editors to participate here. This does not rule out that an admin may issue one or more edit-warring blocks after all the data is collected.


 * Lack of discussion. You've given the history of the dispute very thoroughly, but there is silence on the Talk page. No posts there at all since early September. So an editor coming to the article for the first time has no idea of which form of 'Catalonia' ought to be the first, and according to what sources. Do you think you could write a summary of the rationales for both positions, if you understand both of them, and leave it on Talk? To get the attention of the anons, you could make a post on the Talk page mentioning this 3RR discussion. I see you've already notified the registered editors. If you agree, I suggest we leave the 3RR case open until you've had time to do this. Suggest closing this case in 48 hours at most. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply By Maurice27
I would only ask for the following doubts I have:


 * What are the real reasons for user Xtv just to include me and not the anon user or user Kman543210?
 * If two registered users consistenly revert an unjustified edit by an anon user, isn't it because they are probably right?
 * What wikipedia guideline are user XTV or the anon user following to support that Catalan should go before Spanish on the translation?
 * What is user Xtv looking for bringing my block log to attention?
 * Why hasn't he participated in the article's talk page in order to get a solution before posting this report?
 * If there is no rule breaking, what is the reason for this report?

As I already said to him in his talk page, he is only trying every single opportunity he has to get me blocked again and again and again.

About the edit war, the anon is making unjustified edits (any wikipedia guideline states which language should go first) and there was a consensus some months ago in the talk-page that languages should be displayed in alternate order throughout the article (the order in the infobox is different than the one in the lead paragraph) as to keep everybody happy (as both languages are co-official in this region).

May I remind user Xtv that WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries (from which user Xtv is an active member was part of that consensus. --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Kman543210
I reverted anon user who had no edit history and made this change without any edit summary. User removed the long-form name of ‘’The Autonomous Community of Catalonia’’ as well as changing .net to .cat in one of the references and the order of the languages in 2 different places (again, no reason given) (I should have checked the domain because checking it now shows that .cat is the correct domain and .net redirects to that one).

(a week after previous revert) I reverted another anon user who had no edit history and no edit summary as to why was making the change

(2 days later) I reverted another anon user who had not given another explanation because a long-time user had already explained this was something decided in talk and the anon user did not given any addition information for the change nor did the user go to talk

This was my last revert I did regarding that particular edit (Even though there was technically no 3RR violation here, I realize that maybe I should have put something on the talk page at this point)

Not only was this revert the next day, but it was regarding a completely different edit and user than the previous. I just happen to agree with Maurice27 that the information was duplicated from another section, but this was hardly an edit war at the time I made my revert and edit summary, and I did not make any further edits to that since then.

I have no connection to user Maurice27 and am in no way on a team with him/her. 2 of my reverts were in response to a lack of reason or edit summary from an anon user (a week apart). I am very well aware of the 3 revert rule as well as edit warring, but I haven't had any warnings on this for a reason: I don't make it a habit to get caught up in silly edit wars. Since last April, I have over 10,000 edits (all manual edits with dialup) to almost 5,000 unique pages; point being that I have no political or personal agenda to my editing (other than a personal interest in Romance languages more than others) and don't have time to edit war. Kman543210 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion by WMC
There is no vio here. M27 has belatedly begun a discussion on the talk page. Anyone reverting without joining in will get blocked. If the anon refuses to talk the page will probably get semi'd. M27 is cautioned not to use "rvv" for edits which aren't reverting vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies and comments by Xtv
First of all, I want to say I have already warned some anonymous and I left a comment to the talk page. So, if now another anonymous reverts again, I suggest to semi-protect. The last anonymous, however, reverted before my warning, so I think the page should be reverted again.

Reply to EdJohnston : Yes, there were no posts in talk page even thought I had explicitly written to one of the warring's main characters to explain his point. I'm glad to see that this report has found at least an preliminary answer. Let's see if we are now in the good way.

Reply to Maurice27 :
 * What are the real reasons for user Xtv just to include me and not the anon user or user Kman543210?
 * As I said, in my opinion anon ips and Kman543210 should be also just warned, because thy hadn't been previously warned. I already suggested it in my report. I see your case, however, quite worse: you have already experience and you shouldn't permit yourself to participate in an edit war.


 * If two registered users consistenly revert an unjustified edit by an anon user, isn't it because they are probably right?
 * I got once an 3RR warning without having made even 3 reverts to unjustified edits. I complained and the answer was "I'm right and s/he's wrong" isn't an exception to 3RR.". So, that's it. Being right isn't an exception for an edit war. If you disagree with the anon, you ask for semi-protection and you discuss in talk page. War is not the solution.


 * What wikipedia guideline are user XTV or the anon user following to support that Catalan should go before Spanish on the translation?
 * As before, the point is not who is right, the point is that you participated in a war in which you shouldn't have taken part. Said that, there was (apparently) no rule in no direction (why Catalan? why Spanish?) and therefore the most logical rule was leaving the current status quo. I do not know the consensus you mention, and if you show me it, I'll be delighted to accept your version. The worst part of it is that when I asked you it, you didn't answer until I reported you. Sad, very sad.


 * What is user Xtv looking for bringing my block log to attention?
 * I had to show you were aware of the 3RR and your block log is a perfect example to show it.


 * Why hasn't he participated in the article's talk page in order to get a solution before posting this report?
 * I asked you directly for the answer and you, having the solution (this consensus that we all wait for) didn't answer me? Anyway, I've been out of Wikipedia a lot of time, and when I come back, I see an edit warring involving an experienced user. I think this is intolerable. The report is not just for the lack of answer: if there would have existed a discussion in talk page and there was an edit warring, I had reported it anyway.


 * If there is no rule breaking, what is the reason for this report?
 * Again, the 3RR warning says clearly: "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule.". 3RR was not broken, but there was a blatant edit warring, which is never allowed.

Reply to Kman543210 : I sincerely think you were acting in good faith, but this does not exempt that you took part in a edit warring. Therefore I didn't include you in the case, but I left you a message because you were involved in the case. I think you just should be more careful next time you revert and that's all.

Reply to WMC : I had already mentioned it: there was no 3RR vio, but there was an edit warring vio. Anyway, I'm glad to see that talk page is working again. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing. Thanks to all for participating. I believe that this issue is closed per WMC as No Violation, unless another admin wishes to comment. Remember that admins will be watching the discussion at Talk:Catalonia and are prepared to block registered editors who revert the article without participating on Talk. WMC has semi-protected the article for one week to deal with an anon who will not participate on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hassandoodle reported by &mdash; Scientizzle 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: on Nov 7 & again today

Self-explanatory edit warring of someone displeased regarding a consensus against their proposed inclusion...&mdash; Scientizzle 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Brand new user creates an account on November 7, jumps right into hotly-contested articles, shows knowledge of advanced wiki-formatting. Might conceivably be a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodmorningworld reported by Roux (Result: warned - will block of they continue)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is removing essay tag from an article. Tag has been added by two different editors, user keeps removing. He has been asked more than once to replace it until the issue is resolved. He hasn't broken 3RR yet; I think an admin note dropped on his page would be a good idea. [ roux  » x ] 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Response: I believe this is more properly a matter for the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No vio, obviously. There are only 3 reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.. but there isn't a separate EW noticeboard, so I put it here hoping, as I said, that an admin would drop by and explain a few things to him as efforts of myself and another user have been fruitless. [ roux  » x ] 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because they did not make three reverts does not mean they are not edit warring. Clearly this situation needs some administrative assistance, and simply saying "no vio, move on" is not really helpful. Tiptoety  talk 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jmanjmanjman reported by TEB728 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

—teb728 t c 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic reported by User:Milomedes (Result: cool it)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This format looks really odd with the confusing talk page inclusions, so I've omitted the links to prevent inclusion. Maybe someone should check it?

I posted to Will Beback about this, but I don't know why he protected the article page that had no edit war, and didn't protect the talk page that did have the edit war.

There's also no content dispute to work out as Will wanted. This isn't a content dispute.

My 8 posts are still deleted by this 4RR violator, and I can't put them back without becoming an edit warrior like him. So how do I get them back?

Here's the version that has my 8 missing talk posts and consolidated discussion formatting in it. Milo 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't reformat other editors' comments. That is silly behavior and not useful. Rather than block you both for a lame edit war on talk, Will has intervened and protected the article to afford you and Semitransgenic some space to pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, minor reformatting is a routine part of talk page discussions, and this edit war deleted eight of my posts with 4RR, which is NOT lame. I know you very well, and I can just imagine how you would react if Semitransgenic had deleted eight of your posts.
 * Jossi, given your non-neutral history toward me, I ought to report you to WP:AN for even suggesting that you might block me . You will never block me without losing your adminship for misuse of tools -- and as you know, you have so many WP opponents that you would never get it back. Leave. Milo 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, cool it, Milo. I did not suggest that I will block you, so cool it. Maybe walk away from that article for a while? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just recording that the suggestion of "cool it" seems to have worked. Perhaps the protect of the article page helped. Who knows William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry the Dirty Dog reported by Mjroots (Result: peace has broken out)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning

The five reversions quoted cover a period of 20:05 on the 10 November to 21:59 on the 11 November. However, the last four reversions cover the period 16:07 to 21:59 on the 11 November. The removal of the accident to Ryanair flight 4102 have been on the grounds of non-notability and no consensus.

Notability - the aircraft involved was substantially damaged. Ryanair have stated in a press release that both engines were affected by birdstrikes. Whilst that in itself is not all that unusual, an accident resulting from it is. The accident has been widely reported in the media, and thus meets WP:V. I believe it also meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines.

Consensus - the addition of the accident to the article by five separate editors indicates that there is consensus that it should be included. There has been no reversion of the addition of the accident to the Rome Ciampino Airport and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles. Mjroots (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is required to add an incident. I have been working on the talk page to establish that consensus. The points that Mjroots raises have all been answered (for exam ple the fire chief on the ground says that only one engine was affected although both were struck). Mjroots has shown a lack of understanding of the incident, frequently needing to be corrected. Several editors have also removed the section and supported me on the TP, but Mjroots and another anon editor have simply gone ahead with adding the incident before waiting for consensus. I have consistently said that if notability can be shown, it should be included, so I am not blocking consensus. The other editors seem to want to add it regardless.


 * As to the Rome Ciampino Airport article, I showed good faith by working with Mjroots to achieve an article that we both (and presumably others) find acceptable. It clearly states that the incident is notable as far as the airport is concerned because of the lengthy closure.


 * As to the 3RR, two of my reversions were on the evening of 10 November, and three in the evening of 11 November. I at no time made more than three edits in any 24-hour period, and I stopped reverting after my third edit on 11 Novermber to avoid breaching the 3RR, even though my edit was again reverted.


 * Still, if I am in the wrong here, I apologise. My only concern is to ensure that WP policies are complied with. And like the others involved, I undertake not to edit this section again until consensus is achieved one way or another. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog <font color="0000FF">WOOF 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish to point out that I hadn't seen the talk page before I added the accident to the article. I have also stated that I will not re-add the accident to the article myself. The accident may not be the worst suffered by Ryanair, but I and others believe it is sufficiently serious to warrant inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously like 3RR to me (contact my talk if you want the gory details) but you seem to have embarked on the novel course of talking to each other and promising not to edit war, so I see no need for any blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiscribe reported by User:Obahliskh (result: 12h each)
I first added a map of world skin colors on the Olive skin page here. He/she then reverted:
 * here, claiming it was not sourced. So I gave a ref.
 * However, they reverted here, arguing how a map of world skin color distribution was irrelevant to world olive skin color distribution. For obvious reasons, I reverted and warned about 3RR.
 * But yet again, they reverted, and without any comment or discussion, either in their edit summary, or on the talk page. So I tried to reach a common ground, by including the map, but taking out an unsourced sentence.
 * But then, the user reverted to the same argument of the map not being relevant, so I left a comment on their talk page asking them to discuss their changes and again warning of 3RR.
 * But, to no surprise, they broke the revert rule again.

I do not know how to deal with this user. I tried to be lenient, assuming they did not know about the 3RR rule, but it seems that they are well aware of it, after their comment on edit warring. I hope that an admin will be able to deal with the issue, after they have now reverted 5 times. Cheers. Obahliskh (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User Obahliskh also violated the 3rr rule and made no effort to have a disscusion on the talk page about adding a controversial addtion to the article[]


 * Au contraire, I raised the discussion on your talk page, and even gave warnings via edit summaries, but to no avail. Obahliskh (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i gave summaries also you had violated the rules also two wrongs dont make a right and you just took it to my talk page right before you reported me not exactly the honorable way to do things your just trying to get people blocked in that fashion shows bad faith--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have certainly not assumed bad faith at any point. I even went as far as to not report you straight away because as I mentioned on your talk, I thought you may not have heard of the rule before, and allowed you to go two reverts over. It is in fact you who is in bad faith, stating openly you believe I am trying to get people blocked. Nonetheless, I am not going to continue your petty arguing here, as it is not the place, and will await the review of an admin. Obahliskh (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * hey i know i was wrong and am propared for whatver the admin sees fit but at the same time you also know the rules and violated them but you try to play innocent by stander you did not try and resolve the issue in civil way either one more thing i never accused you of bad faith edits but trying to make it seem like you came to my talk page to resolve the issue from jumpstreet is bullocks you came to my page to give me a warrning than you proceded right to admin board to make your report look better and also i could have reported you as well being you violated rules and protocol as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You are bickering like children. 12h each. Use the article talk page, don't edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

141.219.230.23 reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: 19:27, 12 November 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:36, 12 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:57, 12 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:06, 12 November 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:17, 12 November 2008
 * 6th revert: 22:22, 12 November 2008
 * 7th revert: 22:31, 12 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:27, 12 November 2008

Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422 22:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a Featured Article that is on the main page. We'd rather defer any more protection until it's off the main page. Sorry that you have to keep reverting. Maybe you could leave center vs. centre alone for the duration. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor you cited has been blocked 12 hours by User:Maxim. There is a slight problem that other IPs are continuing the nonsense. We may have to wait to deal with them; there are too many different ones. We will need to wait for the semi-protection for that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Block'em all. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By User:Maxim. There are  too many throwaway IPs to be worth blocking them all. Take it to WP:RFPP, or WP:AIV if the problem continues.  The IP vandalism has dropped since the article left the main page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:208.59.112.152 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

Version reverted to (more or less)
 * 18:44, 12 November 2008


 * 1) 22:55, 12 November 2008
 * 2) 23:37, 12 November 2008
 * 3) 01:35, 13 November 2008
 * 4) 01:52, 13 November 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 251467239 by Martinphi (talk) this version is actually much more accurate and clear")
 * 5) 02:30, 13 November 2008


 * Diff of warning: 01:57, November 13, 2008 permlink, as it's the first entry on the page

Comment: All the edits add essentially the same incorrect and unsourced lead, replacing the stable (but unsourced) lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CentralMind reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * While technically CentralMind only made three reverts, they were still edit warring in a disruptive manner, and as such they have been  Tiptoety  talk 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastairward reported by User:NotAnotherAliGFan (Result: 24 hours (both) )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This person keeps stalking my edits and stubbornly removing them - while some cases may have been semi-justified (lack of proper citation), in this case it's a sheer edit war. Although he doesn't like this particular reference, it has every right to stay as long as it does not violate any WP policies. WP isn't anyone's private property, no one can go around removing whatever he feels like - which he persistently keeps doing, much to the dismay of users (proof will be provided upon demand). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I only counted three myself from the edit history. I'd also like to know how I've been stalking you, I mainly edit South Park articles, I've not followed you around your other edits. I explained why I removed the cite on your talk page (you left some charming comments on my own).
 * Besides, the edit history seems to indicate that you you already reverted my edits three times. Here, here and here.
 * I can provide my own proof if you need it on the type of editor who seems to object to my edits. Alastairward (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not your room and you can't rearrange the furniture to your liking. Show me how I violated a policy and you can remove the cite. Otherwise, stop these annoyances at once! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, while bringing me here you have reverted the article in question again. So that's four reverts for yourself, here, here, here and now here. Am I to beleive that this policy only applies to me and not you?
 * As for the cite I removed, I removed it because it doesn't add anything to the article. It's a blog, that doesn't source it's own cites. A better cite, an interview with the actual writer of the episode superceeded it. We don't need the blog as it adds nothing.
 * A quick check on your own talk page shows that even an admin asked you to stop adding unverified material to article pages, just so we know where you're coming from. Alastairward (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, there appear to be two edit warring going on here at the same time. One involving a IP adding a trivia section and the other involving this citation. Both users have engaged in edit warring, and as such As for the IP, they have been  Any further "reverts" or addition of the trivia section within the next 24 hours will result in a block.  Tiptoety  talk 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

66.194.214.194 reported by Chaoticfluffy (Result: warned; reverted 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP editor, probably linked to user:ChristineCar (who commented once on article talk to request the link be added), warring to replace link to fansite (IP's own site, if IP is ChristineCar). IP does not respond to article talk or user talk. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Warning postdates last revert. Will block if reverts again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * IP re-added link minutes after your reversion and warning. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:

User is an established editor who is aware of the 3rr rule but is edit warring (even so not the only one), pointing in his edit summaries to the Obama talk page as there where consensus, which there isn't [for two different issues at the same article] and ignored editors who made him aware of this in their edit summary. He also is or should be fully aware of this as he is contributing to the talk page. I'm filing this report now because I've just was becoming aware of his continues reverting. I've left out previous reversions of the same since there where not within the 24 h limit. I would like to add on that a warning only and no block would be fine with me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 18:45, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "per talk")
 * 2) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk, this is being discussed there...")
 * 3) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "rv per other Presidential bios....")
 * 4) 16:59, 13 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "see talk. This is how other Pres bios are.")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Regretfully find the need to file a report.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like a ongoing issue, let's hope a short block will help. Tiptoety  talk 20:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * wow. I didn't expect that outcome at all. Maybe I missed something?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What was the outcome you were hoping for? Tiptoety  talk 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The one I mentioned above but I didn't went to his history besides the one at the Obama article so it's not that I'm questioning your ruling. By now I also saw the block-reason on his page what explains this "harsh" decision. I'm not second-guessing your block, if that is your question.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dfener91 reported by Journalist 007 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:13, 11 November 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 11 November 2008
 * 2nd revert:18:19, 12 November 2008
 * 3rd revert:21:13, 12 November 2008
 * 4th revert:23:12, 12 November 2008
 * 5th revert:00:01, 13 November 2008
 * 6th revert:18:48, 13 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:27, 13 November 2008

I've noticed edit war between Dfener91, Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills, and I have placed 3RR warning on their talk pages. When I searched through their edits, I realized Dfener91 is the only one not ready to make compromise, who violated 3RR twice. On the other hand Krusko Mortale and Jonathanmills are old users who are trying to improve article and make compromise. I think this radical behaviour should be sanctioned for at least two or more days. Journalist 007 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand this is not a open invitation for the other involved parties who are not blocked to continue to edit war. Tiptoety  talk 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Card Guy reported by User:Libro0 (Result:No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 

The image BCG is taking down was said to be a non-issue on the Mediation Cabal by TEB728. The image was declared suitable for use on Non free content review. Apoc2400 also replaced the image after BCG took it down stating that it was accepted for use.


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

BCG was previously warned for noncompliance here.


 * either way (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:SteveWolfer reported by User:Jemmy Button (result: wrong forum)
The article is Property is Theft!, which is currently protected. This is a long-standing edit war. Previous RFC result was not to include material, however, SteveWolfer claims that "Consensus favors inclusion". SteveWolfer persists in reverting without discussion. Extensive explanation on talk page meets with no response. His position is basically demolished in the talk page; his comments there never substantively addressed those of others. Enormous effort has gone into this already, and it is now obvious (at least to any who read the talk page) that the issue will not be resolved without administrator intervention. See Libertatia's comment for a summary.

So, please, HELP!—Jemmytc 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No vio, wrong forum. You want WP:DR I think William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the forum for edit-warring, right? Sure, there is not 3RR, but there is no non-3RR edit warring forum, and the WP:DR page makes that forum seem only less relevant to this case.  We need admin assistance here.  I have already put way too much work into this.  I have talked too much already, writing hundreds or thousands of words to an unreceptive audience; talk has proved futile.  There is no way for me to get anything done now.  The only way to "make a better encyclopedia" is with administrator assistance.  This is an edit-warring user.  The fact can be verified with some effort, although much less effort--hour upon hour--than I have put into trying to reason with someone transparently unwilling to listen.  Please, help!  I can't do it!  I simply don't have the power!  Anything you ask me to do--short of pointing me to a forum where admins offer to intervene--is something that won't work!  —Jemmytc 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but you really are at the wrong place. Looking things over, it looks like Coren is familiar with the your case. He's a genuinely helpful admin, and reasonably harsh when harshness is the appropriate remedy. I would take your appeal directly to him, and then follow his advice about proper dispute resolution.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

XX-V-i-V-Xx reported by HairyPerry (result: 12h)
November 13: November 14: Is this edit warring or just poor judgement of genre placement and capitilization of genres. I left a short notice on this persons talk page and then told them not to edit that anymore and made one more edit (the last edit) after that. <font face="Kristen ITC"> Hairy Perry  19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Warning:


 * 2008-11-14T19:39:38 Nixeagle (Talk | contribs | block) blocked XX-V-i-V-Xx (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=251819878#XX-V-i-V-Xx_reported_by_HairyPerry) (Unblock) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, <font face="Kristen ITC"> Hairy Perry  19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nomad2u001 reported by User:Mattisse (Result: 48 hours)

 * Warnings: ,
 * Reverts today alone:
 * November 15:
 * November 15:
 * November 15:
 * November 15:
 * November 15:
 * November 15: (possible sockpuppet as this address has one edit and is removing the same material.


 * User talk:Nomad2u001 has been removing sourced material on the Physician assistant article. This has been going on over a time period, starting in August, 2008. User talk:Nomad2u001 has been removing sourced content without adequate explanation in his edit summaries and will not engage on the article talk page or his own talk page. There are several attempts at communication on User talk:Nomad2u001's talk page. Thank you, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:EmpD++ reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result: indef)

 * Page: Pyrrhus of Epirus
 * User: User:EmpD++


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Tsourkpk


 * Blocked 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: Indef, as obvious sockpuppet of User:Emperordarius. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Luka Jačov reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:

Old version: 15 October (first 5 rv); 09 Nov, 12:10 (subsequent rv's)


 * Rv : 6 Nov, 17:26
 * Rv : 6 Nov, 23:46
 * Rv : 7 Nov, 09:40
 * Rv : 7 Nov, 17:35
 * Rv : 7 Nov, 27:57
 * Rv : 9 Nov, 13:01
 * Rv : 10 Nov, 12:41
 * Rv : 11 Nov, 14:11
 * Rv : 11 Nov, 18:21
 * Rv : 12 Nov, 23:40
 * Rv : 14 Nov, 08:11
 * Rv : 14 Nov, 16:39


 * Warning:

Not a literal 3RR vio, but slow protracted revert-warring over many days, sterile 1+ rv/day. Note that warning was also given under WP:ARBMAC; general sanctions like revert paroles etc are possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this were closed as a simple (non-3RR) edit-warring case on any random article, a 24-hour block would be justified. Since the topic falls under WP:ARBMAC, I would recommend no block, but instead a one-month topic ban from all articles related to Greece or Macedonia. I notice that one-month topic bans have been previously given out to other editors, as listed at the bottom of the WP:ARBMAC page. If no other admins comment, I'll proceed with this later today. Since this is an edit-warring case we are under less time pressure, so I've notified User:Luka Jačov of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; if I may add a (sort of involved-perspective) opinion here, maybe a revert parole might be better? This is a relatively new contributor who I have the impression has some legitimate things to say and ideas to provide, but he needs to find a way of doing so without revert-warring. Trouble is, his English is also rather poor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This guy has been around longer than I have. While not the best of evidence; his block log contains numerous blocks for 3RR. I have gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. The reverts have been going on for a while now and he knows that he should use the talk page and not edit war. Anyone can feel free to unblock and proceed with other ways of reducing the damage though if I have been over-killing the situation. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for 48 hours. Made the identical revert at Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia directly after his previous block expired. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony May reported by User:ESanchez013 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * by Yamamoto Ichiro which, to be frank, is pretty lucky for the edit warriors since I was about to block at least two of them. CIreland (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiteur reported by Discospinster (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been changing British terminology on article Quantum of Solace despite being directed to WP:ENGVAR and the note on top of the talk page. ... disco spinster   talk  03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - However Discompinster, I should note that you are not totally in the right here. The first two edits were edits against the prior consensus (I'm going on a wing and saying that the talk page note was put there as a result of a prior discussion. I did not actually check). However the other two edits are simply removals of the link, not changing from uk english -> us english. So... your report here is only half right, and in reality I think you could have backed off and let him have the word delinked while discussing it with him on the talk page or his userpage. ——  nix eagle 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh geeze, you gave him vandalism warnings! I don't see a single comment asking him to discuss his changes on the talk page. I'm not quite sure that Wikiteur is a vandal, merely misguided. ——  nix eagle 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I first left a note (not a warning) on the user's talk page here and I also requested that user see the talk page in my edit summaries here and here. ... disco spinster   talk  05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well aware of the 3rr rule, his last block lasted two weeks for herassing the same person he's been reverting now.


 * And there's more edit warring from Russavia besides the ones that broke the 3rr, you'd only have to check the article history. Apart from that he's being very hard to compromise with, more drama on the talk pages of the users


 * Yes, this user has been repetedly warned about edit warring:Biophys (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a WP:BATTLE happening on the article, but may I say that 3rrs are meant to prevent battles rather than punish the combatants. I would rather recommend for the article to be returned to pre-battle condition, locked and guide the parties through WP:DR than blocking anyone. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How nice it is that I get advised of this. The 4th revert is not a revert at all, it is called copy-editing. Additionally, don't forget that both Grey-Fox and Biophys are clearly acting as a tag-team on this article, as can clearly be seen from their edits both on the talk page, and the various talk pages -- not to mention that either they are following each other's edits, or there is off-wiki communication going on. I have attempted to discuss this article with these editors, but Biophys has continued to insert WP:BLP information into the article in an non-NPOV way; in particular claims that Putin is a paedophile. Notice, I have taken discussion to the reliable source noticeboard, and also notice the thinly veiled warning given by Grey-Fox on the article talk page. Gaming the system in order to settle disputes is not the way to go, and as there is clearly tag-teaming going on here, as well as unfounded continual accusations by Biophys both here and via other linked venues (see link below), any block for 3RR clearly needs to be dished out equally, when it is evident these two editors are not acting independently of one another, and I suggest that any admin look at the entire discussion and associated articles to show that there is an unacceptable level of ownership, and any attempt to discuss or implement necessary changes to balance NPOV is called "harrassment". Anyone who is going to insert WP:BLP claims in an article can be sure that that particular edit is going to be harrassed. Note in the discussions that Biophys was adamant that the "paedophile" claims must stay in their former WP:BLP state, but as soon as a WP:NPOV version is inserted (which includes information from sources which attack the veracity of Litvinenko's claims), all of a sudden this is no longer relevant. It is clear what is happening here, and I will also pursue this at the relevant arbcom of which Biophys is involved. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rr is like an electric fence Russavia, you've clearly violated, which is unfair because another user like Biophys is also not allowed to violate 3rr. I of course deny the ridiculous accusations that I work as a "tag-team", I only participated on the talk page discussion and not in revert warring. The single edit I made was completely independent and not made by anyone else before. Grey Fox (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not a punishment, its a rule to prevent edit wars and WP:BATTLEs, although there is a potential satisfaction of having your opponent banned, does it really solve the content disputes, it only freezes them. Again I repeat what should be done, article restored to status quo and locked, WP:DR process initiated. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And my revision of Biophys is completely independent of revision of yours - two completely different issues at play. And I stand by my tag-team comment, or are you both going to explain how you both have managed to find not only all of my posts (such as the BLP board, the RS board [on two occasions now], etc - who's stalking who?), and also how Biophys managed to find this post, when a quick check of both of your contribs just now shows no evidence of any notification to Biophys that this has been placed here by yourself. WP:GAME clearly comes to mind, and you are both clearly involved in this, and it has to stop. Also, it is generally regarded as courtesy to advise editors that potential administrative action against them is being requested, and I see nothing on my talk page alerting my to this fact, and it is wasn't for an editor shooting me off an email (and no, it wasn't Kuban_kazak to quell that conspiracy theory right now), I wouldn't have been aware of this sneaky attempt by yourselves to punish an opponent. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid to disappoint you, but that is not the case, 3RR is 3 reverts max, irrespective of what is reverted and how. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Russavia has gone over 3RR, and the BLP situation is unclear, I propose that this case might be closed without a block if Russavia would agree *not* to edit Alexander Litvinenko for one week. All editors, including Russavia, would be invited to continue the discussion over at BLPN. If after discussion it is clear that any genuine BLP violations remain in the article, admins would ensure that they are removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed, give me an hour and bit to respond to that would you please. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that Kuban, and I can handle the punishment on the chin, so long as it acknowledged there is Gaming and Tagteaming occurring here. One need only look at the discussion page, and other venues such as Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to see that there are such conditions here. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look Russavia I don't want you to take it personal that I report you for 3rr, I've reported many people for 3rr and I've been reported for 3rr myself too in the past. It's nothing personal and I hope you won't take it as such. It has nothing to do with "punishment" but there are certain rules that we need to follow because otherwise wikipedia turns into a mess. I'd say wait for an admin to pop up and rule about the 3rr violation, and if you get temp blocked or not, I invite you to co-operate with making good articles and discuss disagreements with users as well as seek compromises. And no I really do not operate as a "tag team" or anything, I specifically tried to avoid editing that article because I saw you were already engaging in a conflict with biophys, so I tried to participate only the talk page discussion to create some sort of compromise and only made an edit after you already broke 3rr. Grey Fox (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but that was actually Russavia who repeatedly inserted a defamatory information about a living person . So, the BLP rules can not justify his 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston: I can not agree to such a restriction, whereby it is placed on myself and myself alone. As you are an uninvolved admin here, you will be able to look at this objectively, and act accordingly based all of the available evidence. And this should be regarded as an official complaint to an admin from myself as well; the venue of the complaint should be unimportant.
 * Comment, I think also violated 3RR in the diffs.--Caspian blue 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. I made only one revert if any: . That was removal of a defamatory information about a living person when Russavia complained to Kirill and BLP noticeboard that I allegedly violate BLP rules. Note that I also made a self-revert. My last edit was not revert, becasue no one edited this segment for a long time). I would be reported immediately by Kazak, Russavia or others if I violated 3RR rule anywhere.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about what's going on between you and the other users' history, but the diffs clearly are revealing more than 1 revert too. Well, those are well referenced (I was shock about Putin's kissing...as reading the contents and sources).--Caspian blue 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can admit here that I inadvertantly breached WP:3RR. It was an error on my part. And now why I can not agree to such a restriction. I have acted in good faith with all of my edits relating to this particular article. For this I refer you to Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko. The article in question at the time I reverted it stated the following:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45]. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds.[46][47][48] Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."

You will note that this has been presented as fact (i.e. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia), and lacks any critical response on the subject from other sources. But the fact that this was presented as fact. The claim was only removed after consulting other venues previous to removing it. The quoted thread above was then immediately posted to the talk page, with very clear reasons as to why, and linked to policy and an ARBCOM from May with further information. And then opened it up to discussion. Whilst discussion is still going on, disregarding both the policy and arbcom decision, Biophys inserts the BLP back in, but in a different section. That's blatant BLP violation No. 1. I remove the BLP information 24 hours later with quite an apt edit summary, and I mention this to Biophys on the talk page. By this stage, we have all agreed that this information should be placed into the article, and I state that I would work on an NPOV version for discussion on the talk page. Which I did Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko and opened it up for discussion. At the same time, I also left a message on User:Ezhiki's talk page, asking him for outside opinion; I regard Ezhiki as a knowledgeable admin and editor who is neutral.

After 2 days, and based upon Ezhiki's assessment of it being NPOV, I placed an NPOV version into the article. We all agreed remember that this claim should be in the article, but aside from presenting the claim, and Putin's denial (which was not in response to Litvinenko's accusations at all), it also included critical information from non-primary sources on the making of the accusation in the first place. And this is where the problems started. Biophys then removes said information claiming consensus on talk page was to remove it. But consensus was that we should include it (from above). That is Revert #1 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys. Please note edit summaries as well. Biophys then reverts me. That is Revert #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys again. Biophys immediately reverts me. That is Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts himself immediately after. Still on Revert #3 for Biophys. He then reverts his own revert, but this is an interesting edit, for if one looks at it, it isn't just Revert #4 for Biophys, but also includes the original BLP that was the problem in the first place. That BLP violation #2 for Biophys. I then revert Biophys' BLP violation. I then add information back into the lead which was removed previously. It should be noted that the part that removed previously read:

He also made a wide range of other claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

That sentence was in the lead before I got to the article, and it was unsourced. As this version from August will demonstrate. This stayed in the article for all that time, until I tweaked it as such:

He also made a wide range of other unproven claims against Russian secret services and Putin through interviews and articles he wrote.

Which I added a reference to here. Biophys reverts that, to remove the entire sentence from the lead, with an edit summary of "if you tell about accusations in introduction, you should mention what the accusations were about". Why was this one sentence included in the article for months, yet I come in an put in one word, and provide a reference, and all of a sudden this has to be removed. Also, note the edit summary; this is a WP:GAME and WP:BLP attempt by Biophys to include Putin paedophile claims back into the lead of the article, as it was for some time many months ago. Additionally, this is Revert #5 for Biophys.

Given that Biophys has reverted 5 times and nothing is mentioned for him, and because the most serious and blatant violations of BLP, which is a bannable offence, if I will not agree to not edit the article for one week, as it is evident from Biophys' own actions of reintroducing serious BLP information into the article, not once, but TWICE, after being advised what is wrong with it, if I were remove reinsertion of BLP information of what is a blockable offence, and one which an uninvolved admin needs to look at seriously as per BLP, I would be held to task and blocked for it. That is the primary reason why I can not in good conscience agree to such a thing. Additionally, in regards to Biophys' ridiculous accusation above, one can clearly see that I have not committed a WP:BLP violation, but have rather taken a real WP:BLP violation, and presented it in an WP:NPOV way.

Further info on Grey-Fox and Biophys together to follow, so I would appreciate a little indulgment of time to get that ready -- I shan't be too long. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I might as well print out all that and read it in bed. Anyway I'm willing to redraw the 3rr complaint, and ask an admin to just lock the article for a while, given that the reverting already started 2 days ago. Grey Fox (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected one week. We can't take forever to close a 3RR case. Endless debates belong over at ANI, not here :-). Russavia is definitely over 3RR, Biophys is probably over 3RR (not confirmed in detail). Both editors may, or may not have BLP justification for some of their reverts. Please try to reach a consensus on the Talk page for a neutral version that doesn't violate BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah... well we've crossed, I just blocked R who is definitely over 3RR. Hmmm William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection, since a block is formally justified, and BLP policy is pulling so many ways it's unclear that there are any 'pure reverts of defamation' to be excused. Do you have an opinion on whether Biophys also should be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If Russiavia would just say "I follow your suggestion not to edit the article for a week", then this report would be wrapped up soon, and he would've not earned the block; quite silly decision. Biophys is also almost equally guilty of 3RR violation in the situation.--Caspian blue 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would revert myself to any version you tell, but the article was protected. I am ready to follow any your instructions, but I did not do four reverts during 24 hours in this article. Sorry for disruption.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins (EdJohnston, William?), why not to cool down Biophys too? He’s just a mirror of Russavia. Putin is absolute good vs Putin is absolute evil... Why not to eliminate these two incorrect views from WP simultaneously at least for a while? And, moreover, look, Biophys continues undoing Russavia edits just 5 minutes after this case “is closed”. Here and here. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at Russavia's talk page. Tiptoety  talk 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Result. After three admins took a shot at this, we have a harmonious verdict: Russavia blocked 24 hours, Biophys warned, and the article unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the admins who were involved in this block case, I am alerting you that Biophys has entered evidence into an active arbcom case, which you can view here. The decision was made to block myself for WP:3RR, but only warn Biophys, even presented with evidence of breaches of WP:BLP and violation of WP:3RR. I have no idea who did or didn't make that decision, but this will now be asked about on the arbcom. It was mentioned at above that the decision is harmonious, and on my talk page that the discussion is a relic (for the record, I stand by all of my comments in that particular section). As one can now see, it is not harmonious, nor is it a relic. I was going to post a message on your talk pages before the arbcom development asking as to why there is "one rule for some, and one rule for others" and enter into discussion that way, but given the arbcom development it is now necessary for me to address this, what has now become an issue, on the arbcom. Sorry about that, but I don't believe there is any other way, and do not perceive this as a revenge or anything of the like because it is not, I am actually trying to sort these problems out outside of resolution structures. Anyway, this is just a heads up to advise you that I will be entering into evidence at the arbcom the relevant 3RR case and everything thereafter, so you may wish to put it on your watchlist, and respond to it if and when appropriate. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

ShareHare reported by Ebyabe (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

12h for SH and T2D4 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Redking7 reported by User:Kransky (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&oldid=249726400
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please see Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland

Redking7 argues that because Ireland does not have diplomatic missions with Taiwan, Diplomatic missions of Ireland should either (a) not list a quasi-Irish government office in Taipei which performs de facto governmental services, or (b) list the office with a disclaimer about Irish non-recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty and exclude the Taiwanese flag. I have also said that we name countries according to how they identify themselves (although I said I would not pursue the matter since it was a rule that was not consistently upheld).

I have repeatedly told Redking7 that we include such unofficial missions in these articles as they essentially perform the same duties as diplomatic missions and take direction from Governmental authorities. Whereas I had first considered that the office perhaps was not directly supported by the Irish Government, another editor then provided a link to the office, and it appeared to have some de facto legitimacy (eg: visa form downloads, the same phone/fax numbers as those listed by the Taiwanese ministry of foreign affairs).

I repeatedly asked Redking7 to discuss the changes on the category page, including the principle that quasi-diplomatic missions are excluded from these articles. I said I had an open mind on the matter, but any rule applied here should apply to all other articles in the Diplomatic Missions by country category, and not just for Taiwan but for other states with recognition or nomenclature issues. I warned him that if we were to keep these articles consistent to I would need to make several chagnes that could lead to other people expressing countering views. He said to the effect it was none of his business what went into the other articles. In turn I said it would be unreasonable for a new editor to drive a signficant policy change, but not put in the hard yards of making all the substantial edits that would be required - and to defend them when others will inevitably complain.

This attitude makes it hard for me to believe he is editing in good faith. No doubt he has similarly negative views about me. But I think we both would like some guidance on the matter. Kransky (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. This is not a 3RR case, but an edit-warring case. Though Redking7 appears stubborn, so does Kransky. (They are the main participants in the edit war). Any block for edit-warring would have to be given to both. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. For instance WP:3O or WP:RFC. Since the question of how to deal with diplomatic missions in quasi-countries is of wider interest than just Taiwan, perhaps you can find a WikiProject to get advice from. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Since Redking7 continued to revert even after the close of the original 3RR case, and in spite of an explicit warning to stop, he's been blocked for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree with RedKing that this is not a subtle change; even though on inspection it might seem trivial, there are a whole host of sensitivities attached to whatever decision is made. I have been careful to avoid these articles becoming battlegrounds for people with different agendas concerning the names or sovereignty of certain places (as I have seen on matters relating to Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo, Macedonia and Abkhazia).   Wikipedia's self-identification principle provides some procedural cover to the convention of treating states according to how they identify themselves, thus stopping tendentious editors making errant changes or claiming bias when encountering views from opposing editors.


 * I must emphasise that the decision does not end with the Diplomatic missions of Ireland article, it will affect all articles featuring countries of which sensitivities exist. Consequently I have moved the debate to Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country, and have alerted WikiProject International relations.


 * I will keep an open mind on whether non-sovereign states should be included or excluded. My prime goal is to ensure consistency - a non-negotiable Wikipedia requirement.

Kransky (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

201.31.242.162 reported by Smalljim (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (He made minor changes, but it's still a revert)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:.

He also had a 3RR warning on his older IP address: User_talk:201.52.40.246, under which he reverted several editors during October, for instance:, , ,.

He has a predilection for the version that begins "Although uncommon to be eaten today in the United States…" I'm obviously too involved in this lame edit war to consider blocking him myself. (How did I get sucked into it?) —S MALL  JIM   10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * for edit warring. Tiptoety  talk 20:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Debona.michel reported by User:AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 12h. You managed to confuse me by posting a warning that post-dated the reverts. However there was an earlier one too William M. Connolley (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Resess reported by Zigger (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 2008-11-16T14:27:06 UTC [ reverted] to [ 252147426] by Resess
 * 2nd revert: 2008-11-16T15:12:45 UTC [ reverted] to [ 252158449] by Resess
 * 3rd revert: 2008-11-16T23:37:23 UTC [ reverted] to [ 252227935] by Resess
 * 4th revert: 2008-11-17T12:48:47 UTC [ reverted] to [ 252294668] by Resess


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [] 2008-11-16T23:52:25 UTC

Related: AFD, AN, checkuser

-- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 1st revert should be []. -- Zigger &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As such a block at this point would be clearly punitive. Tiptoety  talk 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW. the page was protected shortly before I listed this, so it was not the "result". My concern was that the user was then editing related articles with similar history. The account has since been indefinitely blocked due to other abuse. Thanks to all who assisted. -- Zigger  &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pinkman111 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First version reverted to: 02:08, 11 November 2008
 * Next two reverts to: 17:10, 17 November 2008
 * Last revert to: 18:20, 17 November 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:01, 17 November 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:57, 17 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:18, 17 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:30, 17 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:16, 17 November 2008 (Given after 2nd revert)
 * Tiptoety talk 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:88.110.202.50‎ reported by SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version:


 * 1st revert: 15:42, November 17, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:28, November 17, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, November 17, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:42, November 17, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP has previous recent warnings about edit warring on other articles, and has made no attempt to discuss on talk in any case. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours by WMC. Moreschi (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I blocked the anon for 24h for incivility and edit warring. I didn't actually check your lovingly prepared 3RR report. Sorry. But if I had, I wouldn't have been convinced that rv1 is a rv to the prev version you've given William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Admit that 3RR reports mystify me, particularly the "previous version" thing. IP added the same text four times; previous version is something I've never understood how to report.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the block. The anon's current attitude isn't welcomed on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Van Briggle Pottery
Please could someone have a look at this article. I have made efforts to improve an article, especially removing overblown claims that were unsupported by references. The response has not been welcoming and the discussion pages are now slipping towards abuse (I'm not innocent in this, but I'm only human and I was reacting to what I received). The big issue about the article is the subject is known to be a significant influence on Art Nouveau in the United States - this is accepted and supported by the given citations. But editor/s have tried to extend this to being a significant influence globally. This is incorrect, unsupported by the citatiosn and impossible given the dates when active. I will try again (!) and flagged up the 3RR. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle. I am sorry you are not prepared to asssit simply because as I am unfamilar with a non-user friendly procedure. I was trying to help ensure Wikipedia is not damaged; I didn't realise this required a detailed prior knowledge things called "template reports"


 * And there you have a small sample of the belligerent behavior that 119.224.42.88 is displaying. He seems to feel discussion and proper Wiki procedure and etiquette are not warranted, as his decision on any topic is final and indisputable. If he senses you are crossing him, he gets mad and insulting. He seems to have reserved it to himself to be the arbiter of what is allowable or not, and his discussion skills seem to end with his one-word reasoning: "no." 72.11.124.226 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

80.4.33.59 reported by JD554 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:17, 17 November 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:21, 17 November 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:26, 17 November 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:19, 17 November 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:48, 18 November 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:00, 18 November 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:33, 17 November 2008

I also attempted to engage the anonymous IP into a discussion on the issue with this notice on his/her talk page: 15:38, 17 November 2008 and this notice on the article's talk page: 15:35, 17 November 2008. --JD554 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a fifth revert. --JD554 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By MBisanz. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)