Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive87

MeteorMaker reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24h block)

 * Page: West Bank
 * User:


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

Editor has been removing or modifying the phrase also known as "Judea and Samaria" for some time now (e.g. ). In the past few hours has gotten a bit "smarter" about his tactics, and is making complex reverts, slightly changing the wording each time, or removing it altogether, in order to mask the fact that he is reverting. Has been warned in two separate places that this is a 3RR violation, and asked to revert himself, but has so far refused to do so, preferring to wikilawyer. His talk page also shows many previous warnings for edit-warring, 3RR, etc. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. CIreland (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:76.124.36.24 reported by User:Rurik (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User replaced content on page with incorrect information, which was reverted. User then started a revert war to re-enter the incorrect information. Twice, on his user page, user was notified that what he was entering was incorrect and was reverted. User has ignored all comments on talk page, and many editors are also on verge of 3RR in reverting his edits. Rurik (talk)
 * Blocked 72 hours for flagrant disregard of rules --B (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

66.58.136.247 reported by Trupial (Result: S-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I'm very new to reporting these sorts of things. Trupial (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * S-protected and IP blocked. --B (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:63.3.22.3 reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: warning; semi)
. : Time reported: 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 2) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 3) 19:16, 12 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 4) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* External links */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Another diff by a possible sock of the above user.

*Everyone* one that page is reverting without talking. So I've put a polite warning on the talk, in the hope that sanity might prevail William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * another diff TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much profit in blocking IP-hopping anons, so have semi'd the page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this incident needs to be re-opened. Since the warning issued by William M. Connolley, two more reversions diff 1, diff 2 have been made to the page by two different editors with very similar IP addresses.  I have simply run out of warnings to issue in this case.  At this point, if I revert the links, its just going to get re-added.  TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon reported by User:Clausewitz01 (Result: no violation)

 * Page: 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute
 * User: User:GoldDragon

I dont know how to link to each of the examples because editors are taking it upon themselves to undo his edits in bulk now. So if I compare from before and after his edits, it is always going to be the same, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute&diff=257688860&oldid=257565499

There is long discussion about GoldDragon's editing bias here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#Gold_Dragon.27s_Edits

I'd rather just post that link instead of cutting and pasting all of the comments by all of the editors that have noticed his activity. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a technical violation of 3RR in either this report or the one below. This page is not a phase of the dispute resolution process. --B (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Clausewitz01 reported by User:GoldDragon (Result: no violation)
Clausewitz01 copied and pasted some contentious material from the 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute, without really explaining why it would be a wedge issue. Out of the editors from 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute that I am having conflict with, Clausewitz01 is the only one that gives a generic excuse "your edits are biased, you are POV" without any reference to the material. GoldDragon (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Page: Wedge issue
 * User: User:Clausewitz01
 * There isn't a technical violation of 3RR in either this report or the one above. This page is not a phase of the dispute resolution process. --B (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

74.13.109.25 reported by MikeWazowski (Result: Stale, both warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWazowski (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed report so it can be read, result TBD. --B (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale, both warned; if reverting continues, both will be blocked. --B (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gune reported by AnmaFinotera (Result: 72hr block for EW and incivity)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

An IP first addressed the issue of this list violating WP:NONFREE by removing the excessive individual images from the list. Gune reverted. He repeated, and another editor reverted as the IP did not use an edit summary. The IP user posted to the project about the issue, so I reviewed his edits, found them to be well done, and reverted them. Gune reverted this, despite the edits being appropriate. He continues attempting to restore the images inappropriately, and after I left him the 3RR warning, he left an uncivil message on my talk page,. This editor has a history of both edit warring and incivility. When I removed his message, he reverted that too.. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * for 72 hours for violation of the three-revert-rule and incivility. CIreland (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: talking?)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

3rr violation on the 12th
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Previous reverts from 8th and 11th which I reported even though they were not 3rr violations per se. They show a continued pattern of revert warring.[]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

The user has continued the same pattern of revert warring since my last report[] and has violated 3rr.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like (a) you're bother reverting and (b) you've both paused for the moment. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Paused for the weekend. But the report was made since the 3rr was violated by the user. I made a series of edit changes to the article revising a dozen different things all of which were not reverts but new edits changes. My reattempts at these edits after long discussion and third party comments in the talk page can be considered to reverts. Also they've been supported by other editors and consensus seems to have been reached. My reverts were not simply reverting back a single edit change back and forth with Badagnani. Neither has Badagnani actually. His reverts are mostly reverts of a new edit change that I would make to the article. It's just he made such reverts 4 times on the 12th and has showed continued pattern of revert warring instead of discussing in the talk page.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Faked his Death reported by User:dman727 (result:no action taken)

 * Page: Patricia Heaton
 * User:

Warning: link]


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

This particular user seems to be a SPA who's intention is to disrupt. I became aware of this disruption after reading about it on this particular website which he/she describe as "fun with wikipedia". See [] User probably also violates user naming rules. Dman727 (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only editing the truth. Why do you have a problem with the facts? Also, please explain how my USERNAME violates naming rules? Thanks for pointing out the revert rule. I wasn't aware of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Faked his Death (talk • contribs) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Faked his Death stopped edit warring after he was warned. Without commenting as to the validity of the rest of the report, I just wanted to make that comment.  Grsz  11  06:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeez, thanks for edit-conflicting me Grsz. Just kidding! And this report isn't properly formatted. :(
 * Anyway, there's no 3RR violation here. JFHD (as I'll nickname you for convenience, hope that's ok), please do not continue to edit war unless you can provide a verifiable, reliable source to cite your information with. Thank you, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm ... unb. --B (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Eisai Dekisugi reported by User:Thibbs (Result: IP hard blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: (this follows the same spirit)
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is but one issue which has seen edit warring by this editor. A review of the article history as well as a review of his edits on other pages such as Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Sunshine demonstrate that he has been doing this for a long time. This disruptive editor needs some time to cool down and review the BRD cycle. -Thibbs (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One quick additional note, it should be made clear that though the above diffs represent up to three different accounts, the IP accounts are clearly socks. -Thibbs (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have hard blocked the IP ( 24 hours. It is clearly a static IP with only the one person on it so there should be no collateral damage.  The IP is the only contributor that individually violated 3RR.  If Eisai Dekisugi is the same person, he/she will be covered by the hard block as well.  If there is more sockpuppetry suspected here than just one person editing while logged out, it may be a worthwhile endeavor to file a checkuser request, but really, if it's just a single account editing while logged out, they usually don't confirm or deny that. --B (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

64.9.76.165 reported by Marauder40 (Result: 48h / semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is a sockpuppet for numerous other IP addresses. Every week or two they come in an try to revert a POV edit. They has been warning many times my many different editors, they have been asked to come to consensus numerous times on the Talk page. Just a sample of other IP addresses include 204.186.88.252, 74.143.208.253, 74.143.204.130. I also requested page protection on the page protection vandalism page. Marauder40 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 48h and semi'd the page ofr a week in the hope they might get bored William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

213.16.145.34 reported by Roguegeek (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Anonymous IP is removing derivative and copyright violation tags. Has performed several acts of vandalism just in the last hour other than the 3RR violation. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours - please report flagrant vandalism to WP:AIV and it will be dealt with much more quickly. Reports here sometimes don't get noticed for a long period of time. --B (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

207.246.181.26 reported by EHDI5YS (Result: No violation)

 * Page: Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * User: 207.246.181.26


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

They have tried to Game the system to not violate the three-revert rule on Efrain Escudero by changing the flag in the Accomplished UFC fighters section of UFC with two different IP address, they did three reverts using IP 207.246.181.26 and one revert under 131.6.84.110. The way you can see how both were written by the same person is by the style of typing and the way they state their opinion (wording). I have also done three reverts myself, but I do not wish not to enter in to edit warring with this person over some thing this dumb! I have even tried to use dispute resolution by writing my views on the matter under the discussion page. Can some one help? --EHDI5YS (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation - even if they are the same person (doubtful since the IPs come from thousands of miles apart), 131.6.84.110's only two edits immediately followed one of 207.246.181.26's, so there is no fourth revert. I don't know enough about the material to know if it is a good faith edit or a bad faith one (obviously if it's vandalism, that's a completely different situation), but there is no violation of the 3-revert rule. --B (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sprogeeet reported by User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  00:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Smashvilletalk 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs reported by Reviewer100 (Result: Reporter blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: although he said "rvv", this is just a content dispute because the content had not been included in the artcle for a long time.
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

The content he added had not been included in the article for a long time.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Reviewer100 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporter blocked as an obvious sock of the blocked User:43.244.132.168. --B (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd reported by CobraGeek (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Violation of 3RR and continuation of an edit war over content that appeared to have been resolved with Admin involvement nearly a year ago. See Talk:University of South Carolina steroid scandal. User continues to revert edits that are contributing non-POV, notable and well-sourced content that is central to the article. User has been previously blocked three times for edit-warring (see [] including violation of 3RR on the article in question. Not sure what else to do here, dispute resolution will probably not be effective.  -- CobraGeek  Merry Xmas!! 03:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both blocked 72 hours - Seriously guys, you both should know better than this by now. Wikipedia is not an acceptable place to carry out your college rivalry.  Hundreds of us - Hokies, Wahoos, Longhorns, Sooners, Aggies, Gators, Tigers, Orangepeople, and college fans from all sorts of places manage to live in peace here.  If you continue with the puerile edit wars, it's only going to result in you both being banned. --B (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Betathetapi545 reported by JayHenry (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (casual warning)  (formal warning)

Looks like at least a 6rr violation (looks like some more in the history), including after being formally warned. Editors Smallbones and Mikco have backed off to avoid edit warring and tried to discuss and been met with the likes of this as well as hostile threats about banning.. I have no stake or background in the dispute. I saw this on Smallbones talk page and looked into it a bit to find a fairly one-sided refusal to communicate and 6rr violation. --JayHenry (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Tj terrorible1 reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: No action for now, consider all parties warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: User is continually readding a quote.


 * 1st revert: 18:35, 15 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:48, 15 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:00, 15 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:35, 15 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Did not receive a warning this time, but is an experienced user and serial edit warrior has been warned in the past several times: and he has been very sternly warned about edit warring and ownership of articles

Scorpion 0422 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not permission for reverting exactly thrice daily, which you have. I'm not overly inclined to block anyone unless the edit warring continues.  If it's still an issue, I can protect the page to facilitate discussion on the talk page, but nobody has reverted in 7 hours, so I don't think that's necessary.  So no action for now unless something changes. --B (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. He clearly violated 3RR and he has had many warnings and final chances. Take a look at the history of Barney Gumble, people would copyedit it and he would just revert back to his version. He has done this many times on many pages and all he gets is a bloody warning, every time. I didn't even get one warning before my first 3RR block. What is the point of the damn rule if violating users never get blocked? -- Scorpion 0422  04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative, not punishment. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WorldFacts reported by User:Narson (Result: 24 hours for edit warring)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: the last time he tried to get moorer in


 * 1st revert: Reverts in his preferred Moorer Report section. 21:19, 15 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: Reverts out ADL quote. 21:32, 15 December 2008 NB: Last revert war over this was way back here a month ago in November
 * 3rd revert: Reverts in his preferred Moorer Report section. 13:29, 16 December 2008
 * 4th revert: Reverts in his preferred Moorer Report section. 13:52, 16 December 2008
 * 5th revert: And again with the Moorer. 17:55, 16 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warned in November by Moonriddengirl

There is a general history of edit warring going on at the article and while many users are now talking or at least talking about talking on the article page, WorldFacts has "found that talking isn't productive". WorldFacts generally pops up every 2 weeks to revert things and then goes away again. There was an ANI about this that fizzled out with no action back in november. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. There is a very active discussion of the Moorer report and related matters on the Talk page; WorldFacts has not contributed at the article Talk page since November 12. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

HP1740-B reported by Grey Fox-9589 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (As to your 'report', I don't care)

Apart from constantly ignoring editing rules, this user has a history of edit warring on this exact page. I guess I'm the first one to report him, after months. Grey Fox (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all obvious reverts, but at least 4 are, and he has continued: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ganesh108 and User:Lawranceofarabia reported by User:Onorem (Result: 24 hours each)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

Take this as a 3RR report or take it as a notice of an edit war in progress. Either way works for me. Two relatively new users with no apparent desire to discuss continue to revert/undo each other. Warned each about 3RR earlier today, and both have since gone on to revert again.

No opinion on the dispute itself. Looks like the info is sourced, but how well and how undue it might be is a matter for another page. --Onorem♠Dil 00:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked 24 hours apiece. --B (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JpGrB and User:F-22 Raptored reported by User:Timmeh (Result: Page protected, users warned)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

Both have violated 3RR and are engaged in edit warring over the genres in the article. Each is removing the other's additions and sources and adding their own. Tim meh  !  03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've gone to bed. It's clear they are both edit warring, though. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Protecting the page and warning them both. If they go back at it they will be blocked. Protonk (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

207.246.181.26 reported by EHDI5YS (Result:with drawn)

 * Page: Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * User: 207.246.181.26


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Warning:

207.246.181.26 keeps changing the flag on Efrain Escudero in the Accomplished UFC fighters section of UFC. I have even tried to use dispute resolution by writing my views on the matter under the discussion page. But they are so sure on the facts over a Mexican flag that was behind him on the Ultimate Fighter 8 show! This was his statement: "tell that to the ufc when they had the Mexican flag shown during the "tail of the tape". When every one knows a flag in the background is no real proof, but I got real proof he is American! Two MMA web sites that call him American & even his own myspace account says nothing about Mexico, but all about Arizona! If you take a look at the myspace pics you can see personal pics of him that you wouldn't find on a Efrain Escudero faker myspace account.

My proof
 * 
 * 
 * 

Can some one please help? --EHDI5YS (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WLU reported by Guido den Broeder (Result: Page Protected 3 Days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: various


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps promoting his view that this disease, classified as neurological, is psychosomatic, and will declare any source that disagrees with his pov unreliable, etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to re-review, but isn't it not 3rr if I revert to "various" versions? If I'm reverting different edits for different reasons, I don't think that'd be 3rr, but I'm not sure.  I may have to pull a mea culpa.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the first two are reverts to the same version, to remove the same content (for a discussion now at WP:RSN). The third replaces a source that was removed for not being a reliable source when it's published by McGill-Queen's University Press.  The fourth removes a dubious source being discussed at WP:RSN.  I'd say these are separate reverts about separate issues.  I don't think this is 3RR, but it's not up to me.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be the same stuff. However, since there is other underlying stuff going on here, I'm going to ignore all rules and protect the page for 3 days instead of blocking you both (Guido is also in violation of 3RR). --Smashvilletalk 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

--Smashvilletalk 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not violated anything, thanks. You are now basically protecting WLU's reverts, encouraging him to do it again, so I'm not sure how we should proceed from here. Protecting a page can be helpful, but only if there is a follow-up in the form of dispute resolution. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should try discussion, Guido? Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention...I protected it at Guido's version... --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 03:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. For some reason, you wrongly keep assuming, without looking, that all my edits were reverts, too.
 * Scarian: please check the COI and RS noticeboards. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! Guido hasn't violated the three revert rule. There is absolutely zero reason for reporting. Please check carefully from now on before coming on ANI noticeboard WLU! Cheers dude (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ehm, WLU didn't make the report, and this isn't WP:ANI. One of us is confused, and I think it might be you. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! Perhaps I didn't read clearly. I'm a little worked up over WLU's behavior in terms of what I've seen in the interactions between he and Guido. My apologies again! Cheers Cheers dude (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns, take them to ANI, but I highly suggest you figure out what all is going on first before you jump to conclusions. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem here is that Guido keeps re-adding non-reliable sources (Nivel and Jason), and one of them Guido himself is one of the reviewers. And now because of this nobody can edit the CFS article for 3 days. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your contention is not supported on the RS and COI noticeboards. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr reported by tc2011 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous versions reverted to:
 * 
 * 


 * revert 1 (6 edits, 3 editors reverted):
 * revert 2 (2 edits, 1 editor reverted):


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This editor has been blocked 4 times due to 3RR/edit warring on this topic: block log
 * "Further edits of this sort will result in a block and topic ban discussion."
 * "Blocked: long-term edit warring gets you four days off. Your previous block doesn't appear to have encultured you properly, so I'm inclined to believe that this is a chronic problem, rather than a single incident of relatively poor judgement."

Errm... you're supposed to provide reverts by SB, not yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies... The "overall reverts" were by SaltyBoatr; the sub-points are the individual edits by multiple editors (4 unique) that SaltyBoatr reverted. I've trimmed the report down to just SaltyBoatr's reverts. --tc2011 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the rules. Its per-revert; not how many edits that revert removes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

While SaltBoatr has had some problems with edit warring and source use in the past, his current behavior seems perfectly in-line with our rules and the idea of WP:BRD. Checking the article history, two of his reverts are undoing vandalism. Two of his reverts undo drastic changes on two different days. He's made use of the talk page to discuss the article and explain his objections. I recently declined to interject as an administrator for similar activity, noting nothing wrong with SaltyBoatr's current behavior and encouraging the complainant to give discussion a chance. That complaint mentioned it was a GA article and that an independent review found no problems. However, SaltyBoatr put the article up for Good Article Review. The result is that the article was delisted for similar reasons to SaltyBoatr's concerns. I strong encourage the participants to seek assistance in settling the content dispute. Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:72.199.110.160 reported by Idag (talk) (Result: both warned) (New result:)
. : Time reported: 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on December 18

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

Previous edit warring on the edits in question:
 * 1)
 * 2)

3RR violaton on the 18th/19th
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Diffs of warnings:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * Attempts to engage user in talk page discussion of edits:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Evidence that user knows how to use the Talk page:

This editor has refused repeated attempts to get him to discuss his edits. He simply makes extremely controversial and POV changes to an already-controversial article and limits any discussion of those edits to his edit summaries. I cut this editor a lot of slack because he was new, but this is getting out of hand. I would also note that I have either violated or came close to violating 3RR, but I would ask for a good faith exception to be made because I made repeated attempts to engage this editor in a discussion, and this editor simply refused to respond to anything. I would have been happy to discuss the edits on the talk page instead of edit-warring, but it is impossible to talk to someone who refuses to talk to you. Idag (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I'd find you've both broken 3RR if I looked through the diffs. Mostly on the basis of K's comments on the talk page, I'm avoiding blocking either of you and warning you both: you against 3RR and the anon, who appears over-enthusiastic, on following K's advice William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat unorthodox, but, after receiving the warning, the anon is back at it again. He has again refused to engage in any discussion on the talk page and just keeps editing the article at his whim (his idea of a discussion appears to be edit summaries that are written in all caps).  Due to the warning that I received in this proceeding, I'm not going to revert him, but I would ask an admin to address this issue. Idag (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roy Ward reported by Siru108 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Version before that:


 * 1st revert: 13:53, 18 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:07, 16 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:44, 14 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:32, 14 December 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:31, 13 December 2008
 * 6th revert: 21:13, 11 December 2008
 * 8th revert: 21:00, 10 December 2008

Problem is that unverified or very poorly verified claims in this biography of a living person is reinserted when deleted. User do not want to participate in discussion, just undoing new edits (that can be verified). Same problem on Diamond Way Buddhism.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This isn't 3RR, its a content dispute. See WP:DR, or possibly WP:BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bedford reported by Sceptre (Result: Decline )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 01:53 20 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:11 20 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:45 20 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:50 20 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary; user was an ex-admin, so he knows he'll be going over 3RR.

Userspace exemption of 3RR may not apply as the material he is reintroducing - a thinly veiled metaphor/accusation of rape - is a personal attack on several contributors and is therefore a violation of BLP. Sceptre (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While WP:3RR has been violated, the page is now protected making a block at this point clearly punitive. Like I stated earlier, this whole situation can be resolved without the need for blocks. So please, Bedford and the rest use a talk page, head to ANI, and come to some form of agreement. Bedford - it is really not that hard, take it down, move on. Tiptoety  talk 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nextvital007 reported by Ericdn (Result: not here guv/I'll sort it out)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alla_Pugacheva&oldid=257636414


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alla_Pugacheva&oldid=257922825
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alla_Pugacheva&oldid=258213645
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alla_Pugacheva&oldid=258451448

This user and I have been going back and forth on this issue for a few days, and it has simply degenerated into a daily undo effort by both of us. This user includes information presented as "factual" (per his statement on the article's talk page), yet this information is, in fact, nothing more than personal opinion, as I have stated in response on the talk page. What can be done? It certainly isn't beneficial to anyone to have this issue continue back and forth on a literal daily basis. --Ericdn ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading the talk, its clear this is a question of Reliable Sources or not. The source used appears at first sight to be reasonable, and your deletion of it may be incorrect. The proper venue for this is somewhere over at WP:RS or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

- I would like to say that talk keeps warring and brought back his personal highly contested edit with no other justification as the same lie - calling the official statistics data as "my personal opinion". Moreover, on the talk page the above mentioned user said he will simply not stop warring. I am not the author of the official statistics, so I do not see any other reason as a deliberate lie from the side of talk to call my edits where I insert official data as "personal opinion". At the same time, please take note that the edit with which talk replaced mine bears all characteristics of what one may reasonably call a personal opinion.--Nextvital007 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try and work with these guys, William. I guess if we teach just two people out of thousands to look beyond their differences on Wikipedia then I think life isn't so bad afterall. Scarian  Call me Pat!  00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately user Eric keeps on pushing through his personal opinion, calling in turn my official statistics as "personal opinion". Isn't there really anything to do about the mess of his in the article? It seemed to me we were supposed to reach consensus or something, but all what happened is that Eric keeps spilling dirt on me. By the way, please see how many times this user reverted and brought back his exact edits. May be I should report him here or somewhere else?--Nextvital007 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the appropriate place to have this discussion. Please discuss it on your personal talk page or the talk page for this article. --B (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

-Please, take into consideration one fact. User Eric renders his clearly personal oinion as the "ultimate truth" by posting a note about me as an edit warrior, whereas User Eric himself, edited more than 3 times, and the only goal of "complaining" (falsely) about me was to legitimize his own personal opinion.

There was suggested to look for a consensus. However, all what happened, and User Eric even explicitely confirmed it by saying "I will not stop this war", is that User Eric keeps reposting his highly controversial edit, entirely colored by his personal vision.

These are the sources I provided. http://www.gallup-international.com/ http://romir.ru/en/ They clearly say, who has the iconic status in all fo the former USSR and Eastern Europe and is considered as the most popular singer. It is Sofia Rotaru.

As for Alla Pugacheva, she is clearly less popular and popular only in Russia, that's it.

I hope Wikipedia is not a place for lies. Please, help bring some objectivity on Wikipedia, and this article in particular. Thank you.--Nextvital007 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear reported by Hudavendigar (Result: No violation )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This disruptive editor has been engaged in edit warring for a while reverting and removing wholesale any contributions I have made on certain topics dear to him. There is no evidence of any good faith displayed by lack of any genuine discussion or even an argument against. The reverts are usually within minutes. Particular paragraph I have added is obviously very essential to the theme of the article. How can one discuss at length Turkey-Armenia relations without a single mention of dozens of Armenian rebellions, some which are detailed in articles right here in Wikipedia? There must be a way to contain such disruptive and overtly pov behaviour so destructive to everything Wikipedia stands for.--Murat (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "disruptive and overtly pov behaviour" is all from Hudavendigar. Though Kansas Bear should probably explain his edits in the talk pages and be careful about 3RR. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

These diffs span several months. Please read WP:3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I picked just one article... the reverts are continous over a whole range of topics and some even totally unrelated. Is stalking condoned?--Murat (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Meow, I know even you are appalled, maybe even felt a tinge of guilt at times by the rudely pov behaviour of some your pen pals here, but when there is no good will, there is little else.--Murat (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Maziotis reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked Maziotis)

 * Page:
 * User:, aka , aka


 * 1) 15 December, 11:16 (Maziotis)
 * 2) 15 December, 14:46 (Maziotis)
 * 3) 15 December, 15:15 (Maziotis)
 * 4) 17 December, 16:59 (Maziotis)
 * 5) 17 December, 17:48 (Maziotis)
 * 6) 18 December, 19:42 (Maziotis)
 * 7) 18 December, 21:52 (IP)
 * 8) 19 December, 13:57 (IP)
 * 9) 19 December, 15:24 (IP)
 * 10) 19 December, 16:03 (IP)
 * 11) 19 December, 19:53 (IP)
 * 12) 19 December, 21:27 (IP 89.180.117.11)

Warning: 15 December

User:Maziotis has shown the behaviour of a single-purpose account in pushing this particular POV link into the 2008 Greek riots article (see talk sections here and here). He's been waging a slow edit-war over it at least since 15 December. Today, an IP (obviously he, for nobody else has ever re-inserted the link) took up his edit-war and broke 3RR. I request a block both on the IP (probably dynamic) and the account (per WP:DUCK) (Add: there's now a second IP, both from the same geographical region, still evidently the same person). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Today, I blocked Maziotis following his fifth reversion of the same edit. See my rationale here. The registered account is blocked for 24 hours. Perhaps: could a more experienced admin take a look at the other accounts and my handling? Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. As for the IPs, I say leave them unblocked. If they choose to continue the edit war then they too can take a break from editing. Tiptoety  talk 06:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Martorell reported by User:Maurice27 (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:28, 19 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:52, 18 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:39, 18 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:29, 18 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:56, 16 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user keeps trying to impose his POV on a matter which is an extremely controversial issue, as proven by the thousands of kilobytes written in the talk- page for years now: (here, here, here, here and here (notice that this very same user was already involved in March 2006 in this dispute). He is even participating in a user's talk-page right now in another debate about this same issue. We are talking about more than 10 users giving their opinion and no one has agreed to make those changes.

I have asked him in the talk-page to wait to see if a solution is reached before making changes, but keeps doing them at the cost of breaking the 3RR. For this reason, and not willing to break it myself, I ask for mediation or warning. Thanks. --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User was warned, and has not returned to edit warring since the warning (indeed has not edited at all since being warned). Should we perhaps hold off and see what happens after the warning?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; now stale William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

PiCo reported by Taiwan_boi (Result: Page Protected 3 Days)

 * Page: Noah's_Ark
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 02:51, 21 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:11, 21 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:11, 21 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:16, 21 December 2008

This is an ongoing dispute of at least 6 months duration (see here for examples). PiCo has refused requests to take the issue to mediation, and has refused to explain why he won't use alternative wording to convey the same meaning. I have documented his months of tendentious editing here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for 3 days. Both PiCo and Taiwan_boi are engaged in an edit war which has not been helped by Taiwan_boi's comments at Talk:Noah's Ark about sabotage or indeed by the comments of several other editors in the last 3 days. All involved need to calm down and consider their own behaviour as well as that of other editors. dougweller (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug, is there a erason why you don't view PiCo's repeated revert behaviour over the last few months as disruptive, and why you choose to overlook his repeated personal comments? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another question, if I breach 3RR will you block me or excuse me as you excused PiCo's breach? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are at 3RR, Pico at 4. I could have blocked him but protecting the page seems the best way to get you all to sort out your differences, something that can't happen if I block one of you. Blocking is not meant to be punitive, please remember. If any other administrator wants to block Pico they are free to do so, but I don't see how that will help in this situation.  It is not a matter of 'excusing' anyone, but of the best solution to the problem. Yes, I could have blocked Pico for up to 24 hours, but then he'd be back and the edit war would only have been postponed. As to your other points, I'm not happy with the comments made by several editors including you but don't see any of them as a reason to block anyone at the moment. He is not the only one making personal comments on that talk page, and you yourself started a section with the word 'sabotage' in it which surely can't be seen as helpful. This noticeboard is for action over activities in the last 24 hours, there are other venues for other problems. As for whether I would block you if you exceeded 3RR (and you are at 3RR now), you can't as the page is protected. And if you had, I still would have taken the same action I think, protected the page rather than blocking anyone and just postponing matters. dougweller (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that blocking is not intended to be punitive. What I want to understand is how you think that permitting him to keep reverting whenever he wants, even if he breaches 3RR is actually going to contribute to moving the article forward.  It is certainly not going to stop him reverting, and it is not going to encourage him to discuss the issues.  As it stands, the article reads the way he wants it due to his last edit (which you have approved), so there's no reason for him to enter into any discussion.  I have asked him repeatedly to discuss his edits, and asked him repeatedly to enter into a process of mediation to settle our disputes through a third party, and repeatedly he has ignored these overtures.  Yet you see no reason to ask him to cooperate.  I don't understand why.
 * I have contributed over 40 reliable sources to that article, I have spent countless hours on research to improve it, I have scrupulously followed Wikipedia conflict resolution management, I have held polls, discussed matters with other editors, sought and acquired consensus, and contributed constructively to discussions involving other warring editors. A comparison of PiCo's edit history with mine will demonstrate clearly which of us has the article's quality in mind.  What concerns me is that none of this is ever taken into account, and that you remain oblivious to his actual edit history.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have NOT approved his last edit, I protected the page, which as you should know is always the WP:The Wrong Version - if you had reverted just before I protected, I wouldn't have blocked you but protected the page and you wouldn't be complaining. I had just come in from a day's agility and dealt with what was presented to me. If you wanted more than the current problems to be dealt with, you have complained at the wrong place. |A block of 3 to 24 hours on Pico would not have solved what you see to be the problem. dougweller (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You linked to a page which doesn't exist. Furthermore even if you had protected the page after a revert of mine, I would still object.  A block of PiCo would be the first real indication to him that his editing behaviour is unacceptable.  You chose not to send that message, which is why he will continue his editing behaviour in the sure knowledge that an active administrator who is observing the article will not object.  Locking the page doesn't actually achieve anything.  PiCo will wait three days, and then keep editing the article the way he wants.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sbrown146 reported by Bidgee (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&oldid=259012142 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney&oldid=259287826 (after adding more reliable sources).


 * 1st revert: 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is using maps as a source which don't even show the location of Sydney and hasn't sourced any content that states what they think. The user has also gone against the consensus on Talk:Sydney. Bidgee (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahmetsaatalti reported by Namsos (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

"This article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert on this article (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war." User has reverted 2 times more than the limit.--Namsos (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DrHerbertSewell reported by jpgordon (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:05, 21 December 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 02:24, 22 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 259421658 by Galassi (talk) not frivolous")
 * 3) 03:28, 22 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 259460501 by Galassi (talk)")
 * 4) 03:36, 22 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 259462164 by Jpgordon (talkPlease let someone else comment before removing this tag, as you are not objective)")
 * 5) 03:41, 22 December 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia reported by Walkel01 (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<Mr Garcia is promulgating biased, novel information. He refuses to be neutral in his editorializing. (Walkel01 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)) here -->Walkel01 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: Walkel01 has been making highly prejudicial edits to articles, such as this one to a Supreme Court case article, where he tried to unnecessary list various graphic and brutal details of abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stenberg_v._Carhart&diff=259110331&oldid=259105957 . He removed thousands of characters of material from the Clarence Thomas article unilaterally and has repeatedly ignored calls from me and an administrator to achieve consensus via article talk pages. He may be a sock of banned user Wallamoose. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik0 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Clarence Thomas: Edit warring / Content dispute: This is the third edit-war in just 3 months. Please, discuss changes on Talk page. ([edit=sysop] (expires 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) (rollback | undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DCGeist reported by User:Str1977 (Result: page protected, warned, no blocks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:58, 20 December 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 18:49, 22 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:13, 22 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 09:22, 23 December 2008
 * 4th revert: Current revision as of 09:37, 23 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DCGeist's block log indicates that he knows about the rule.

DCGeist also engages in condescending personal attacks like "buh-bye" and "stop o\your silliness, child". Str1977 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. There is a clear 3RR violation here (and I acknowledge that this user has a block log showing 3RR violations 4 times before).  However, User:DCGeist has contributed massively to Pulp Fiction (film), and I can somewhat see how a difference in opinion on an article that one has worked a lot on can lead to terseness when changes are made.  I encourage discussion on Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) specific to choosing between these two revisions.  If this has been discussed before in the talk archives, I ask User:DCGeist to link to the discussion.  Finally, separate to the 3RR report, I will give a WP:NPA warning to User:DCGeist regarding the edit summaries -- Samir 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe violations should not be reported anymore if all that happens is that the culprit is "rewarded" by having the result of his crimes be enshrined via blocking. I also see that you appear to subscribe to a sort of ownership principle. No matter how much he contributed, he should have the courtesy to explain his edits instead of insulting me, and he certainly should not be excused to rules applying to everybody - I have been guilty of 3RR too, including on pages I heavily contributed to and I was justly blocked for such violations. There is nothing tough about this case at all. Take also into account that my edits were clear cut formatting improvements, nothing controversial. Str1977 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frustration, Str1977. The edit summaries directed against you were not polite.  However, I think this matter can easily be resolved by discussion on the talk page of the article (i.e. a link to previous discussion on formatting, if it was discussed) -- Samir 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You also caused my frustration by your incomprehensible actions. I am not hopeful for any discussion, given DCGeist's history. Why should he change if he is rewarded for his violations. Ah, and BTW, you have not - contrary to your claims - have warned DCGeist for anything. You merely informed him of your post on the talk page. Str1977 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The warning is weak. I will strengthen it. But lack of discussion on talk from *either* of you is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC) And they have both been edit warring without discussion at McCarthyism too William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been edit-warring on McCarthyism. I made a content edit and a formatting edit. DCG reverted me on both. I did not restore my content edit but merely tagged a questionable bit. That's not edit warring. Str1977 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Knotslanding reported by Either way (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been reverted about 5 or 6 times in the last 25 hours. Additionally, the user has been uncivil on the article talk page, and borderline uncivil on his own talk page. He believes that he is in the right because he believes 3RR only covers reverts on the same content, and not on different content in the same article as the rule actually states. either way (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked user for 24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

EmpMac reported by Josh the Nerd (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note that EmpMac sometimes labels the edits he/she is reverting as vandalism, even though they are clearly not vandalism. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically one user reverting everyone else and calling it vandalism for soapboxing about Windows7 copying ideas from Mac OS X. There's a thread on the talk page as well. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked user for 24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 17:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

70.234.147.98 reported by Binksternet (Result: S-protected)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * November 2, 2008 stable article prior to edit warring.
 * December 11, 2008 article containing worthy contributions from User:70.128.102.146.
 * December 21, 2008 article with inline patent cite template added by User:Binksternet to paragraph in question.


 * 1st revert: December 10, 2008 edit by User:70.128.102.146 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 2nd revert: December 17, 2008 edit by User:71.153.163.186 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 3rd revert: December 17, 2008 edit by User:70.234.126.249 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 4th revert: December 17, 2008 edit by User:70.234.148.18 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 5th revert: December 18, 2008 edit by User:71.153.169.28 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 6th revert: December 18, 2008 edit by User:71.153.169.28 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 7th revert: December 19, 2008 edit by User:71.153.169.28 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 8th revert: December 23, 2008 edit by User:70.234.147.98 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.
 * 9th revert: December 24, 2008 edit by User:70.234.147.98 from the Tulsa, Oklahoma region.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Edit warring notice for User:70.234.147.98
 * Edit warring notice for User:71.153.169.28

The IP editor from Tulsa, Oklahoma has been consistently deleting one particular paragraph, a paragraph about multiple entry horn technology which happens to hold three out of four references contained in the article. The IP editor has occasionally engaged in Talk:Horn speaker discussion saying that the article needs to have additional paragraphs added in order to make the article balanced in viewpoint. I, too, would like to see the article expanded to contain more horn speaker technologies, and I suggested the tried-and-true chronological framework for introducing each important new horn speaker development, its time frame and its inventor. I made an initial search in patented horn speaker inventions and listed this on the talk page as a source for some of the future article expansion. The IP editor from Tulsa, however, has not wavered from insisting that the paragraph about multiple entry horn technology should NOT be in the article until full expansion of the article has been reached. I see no compelling reason why the paragraph can't remain in place during the expansion process. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * S-protected - dynamic nature of the IP makes it impossible to issue a block without substantial collateral damage. S-protecting instead. --B (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

64.255.180.58 reported by Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: Caution issued)
(possibly an user with a dynamic IP address)
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The page was split about a week ago, and now this user keeps reverting to the pre-split version. Doesn't answer to explanation requests on his talk page, or anywhere else for what it matters. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've issued a final caution at User talk:64.255.180.64. The edit warring was small in quantity and appears to have been made by an anonymous and relatively inexperienced editor who is ignorant of our site's policies; my caution should bring him up to date with our communal norms on edit warring. (Side note: In the event of further edit warring by this editor, I would advise a preventative block&mdash;with the rationale being previous warnings would seem to have had no effect.) AGK 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophaniti reported by Landon1980 (Result: 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

See block log, user has been blocked pretty recently for edit warring, one block was for edit warring on this same article I believe. These diffs are just in the past 24 hours, it has been going on for a few days. Prophaniti is reverting my edits, another user's, and an IP's. The IP is also edit warring. Landon1980 (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked User:Prophaniti for 3 days. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IP adress 154.20.40.205 reported by Elbutler (Result: Blocked for evasion)

 * Page List of Martha Speaks episodes


 * User: 154.20.40.205

IP adress of recently blocked Simulation12 (blocked for harrassment and edit-warring), the IP was only blocked for a month originally. Repeatley re-adding candaian airdates ignoring the discussion on the talk page, just saying that it should be a candaian show, and that's "she making fair for everyone". Elbutler (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for evasion - has been indefinitely blocked and is not permitted to edit Wikipedia.  If he/she wishes to appeal that block, then he/she may use the unblock template, email the blocking admin, email unblock-en, or contact the arbitration committee. --B (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation (Result: Warned, Lame)
Discospinster has reverted my edits more than three times in the following article, despite warning:

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

This is in violation of the Three-revert_rule. The proper course of action would be to find someone else to revert the edit(s) if it/they were so wrong, to achieve consensus. He has done this belatedly, but do note the inflexible nature of such violations - it is a gross violation of Wikipedia conduct. --82.5.174.194 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * . This anon, was sweeping through multiple articles, making controversial changes without discussion, and also passed 3RR themselves at V. I recommend that everyone take a break at this point, but if there any further reverts, an immediate block should be imposed. --Elonka 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You violated the Three-revert rule on this article as well:


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


 * What do you expect me to do now? — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 22:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A few other articles were affected as well, see User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations‎. Since both editors passed 3RR, but both seem to have voluntarily stopped, I don't think a block of either would be useful at this point.  But if there are any further reverts, a block is definitely warranted to protect the project from further disruption. --Elonka 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lame. Really. --Deskana (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oresteia reported by Tb (Result:24 Hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is oddly familiar with Wikipedia terminology for a brand new editor. Also engaging in apparently non-good-faith edits at Episcopal Church (United States), Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and is now chasing my edits around wikipedia reverting them. See Psalms, James the Just, Order of St. Benedict (Anglican), etc. Tb (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See also a violation now on Anglican Province of the Southern Cone: Tb (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 



User:75.51.76.94 reported by Foofighter20x (talk) (Result: Note left)
. : Time reported: 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:57, 24 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 2) 17:00, 24 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 3) 17:01, 24 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 4) 17:01, 24 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 5) 02:59, 25 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 6) 03:01, 25 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 7) 15:34, 25 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")
 * 8) 01:43, 26 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")

I know this may seem a little ridiculous, but this guy keeps edit warring with Sinebot. It added his sig to a comment, and he keeps removing, even after people have asked him not to do so. — Foofighter20x (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This one is a toughey! But his comments do seem to be overly aggressive anyway. I'll leave him a welcome message and ask him if he'd like any help, and I'll leave a gentle note about the four tildes. Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've left a welcome temp. and a note. Hopefully AGF'll solve this one. I wouldn't want to block or prot, obviously, as this guy is clearly relatively new. Message me if he comes back again. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! Foofighter20x (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Spotfixer reported by Schrandit (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

I'm in the middle of what is on track to be a pretty epic edit war. I've been going through some categories and tagging something things for references and deleting unsourced material. At some point Spotfixer objected to what I was doing and started reverting my edits. I then left him a few messages and changed most of them back then he left me some messages and and re-reverted the most of the edits. We're probably both at fault here to some extent I'd just like to preempt an all-out edit war, clarify as to the legitimacy of the edits and move on. - Schrandit (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Schrandit has been engaging in wholesale violations of NPOV by attacking any article that goes against his conservative religious beliefs. He's abusing the citation request mechanism and generally showing extreme bias.  I am proud of the corrections I made and will continue to make them.  However, I have no edit-warred so far and will not begin to do so, either. Spotfixer (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything that I removed had been tagged as unsourced for a reasonable amount of time and was removed in accordance with WP: Unsourced material. Leave my religion out of this. - Schrandit (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will if you will. Your editing has been religiously motivated. Spotfixer (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know me chief? Do you know anything about what motivates me? - Schrandit (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are three reverts more than three reverts? No. Thus, I can't see a violation of the Three-revert rule. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ITSENJOYABLE reported by Squash Racket (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:09, 26 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:49, 26 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:00, 27 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:09, 27 December 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:51, 27 December 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:51, 26 December 2008

The user reverted the article about six times in a day against four(!) different editors. Clearly doesn't want to stop, he even deletes referenced material from Britannica and arbitrarily changes what the references actually say. I have not made a single revert in the past 24 hours. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. --B (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 reported by Ashley kennedy3 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I warned NoCal100 and NoCal100 considered the warning as trolling here. As NoCal100 does not appear to want it taken seriously I've reported it hereAshley kennedy3 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I've broken 3RR, as I've only made 3 reverts, but to remove all doubt, I've self-reverted. NoCal100 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation --B (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashley kennedy3 reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex reverts - a previous version is provided for each revert, below


 * 1st revert: - reverts the following edits by CasualObserver'48:
 * 2nd revert: - reverts the following edits by NoCal100:
 * 3rd revert: - same as previous one
 * 4th revert: - reverts the  following edits by Gatoclass:  (undoes the insertion of "eventually")


 * Diff of 3RR warning: per the above report, the user is well aware of the 3RR, and has been blocked for edit warring before. NoCal100 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation - fourth revert is EXTREMELY ticky tacky and there was clearly no intention to edit war. --B (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thrindel reported by Nilzy (Result: Reporter blocked)

 * Page: Talk:Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I have repeatedly tried to bring this to a discussion rather than a revert war or a request for intervention, but have frankly grown weary of trying to keep a level head on this and am requesting intervention after putting forth my arguement on both the page in question, the user's talk page and my own. Nilzy (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide diff links rather than those above? :) — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked - Thrindel's removals are covered by the BLP exemption. --B (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good call. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ArabH reported by Iamawesome800 (Result: Indef)

 * Page: Jerusalem
 * User:


 * Previous Version

'


 * There's a total of 7 reverts located at:
 * 1st Revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

He's been told multiple times by multiple users to not keep redirecting the page and he's also been warned for this edit war.--  Iamawesome  800  19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ArabH has been blocked indef by Aitias as a vandal-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic reported by David Gerard (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page: WP:NOR
 * user:


 * Previous version


 * Four identical reverts, in quick succession, to a policy page no less:    - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user for 24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:212.32.112.75 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: 21:25
 * 2nd revert: 21:38
 * 3rd revert: 21:43
 * 4th revert: 00:00
 * 5th revert: 00:16


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:07

Even if the first one wasn't a revert, which I think it is, all the others were to the same version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon reported by Damiens.rf (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Various editors (like Nishkid64, Smashville and BradV) have tried to explain KoshVorlon about the inappropriateness of his edits on his talk page, but he insists on reverting back to his revision. --Damiens .rf 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. --B (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku reported by Caspian blue (Result:blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-08-23T21:31:26


 * 1st revert: 2008-12-28T17:31:37
 * 2nd revert: 2008-12-29T15:19:45
 * 3rd revert: 2008-12-29T15:22:18 (consecutive revert)
 * 4th revert: 2008-12-29T15:37:53
 * 5th revert: 2008-12-29T15:38:39
 * 6th revert:12-29T15:54:57 (consecutive revert)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The user was recently blocked for 3RR violation and gaming the 3RR system.


 * Bukubku clearly has acknowledged the 3RR rule given this. This whole edit warrning was initiated by Bukuku because he has misused WP:Primary sources without confirmation procedures by disputers and disregarded WP:Consensus. He has also deliberately inserted WP:Original research and blanking information anything unfavorable for his taste. More problem is that he also has inserted the same unconfirmed sources to other related articles Joseon Dynasty, House of Yi, Miura Goro, Woo Jang-choon and others. Some of his such malpractices can be seen at Talk:Woo Jang-choon#Don't delete " {"{fact}"}" and "<"references /">" . Talk:Woo Jang-choon. Thus, he has tried to rewrite history to divert the blame of the assassination of Empress Myeongseong. Also he has mispresented book and web sources to other articles such as Talk:Imo Incident. This kind of practices is extremely harmful to our project; building the constructive encyclopedia. Since his latest block does not change him a bit, a longer block would prevent this ongoing disruption. --Caspian blue 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Historiographer reported by NAZONAZO (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link] Because it is too complex, I'm not able to conclude what version is appropriate.


 * 1st revert: 2008-12-29T15:12:54
 * 2nd revert: 2008-12-29T15:15:30
 * 3rd revert: 2008-12-29T15:15:46
 * 4th revert: 2008-12-29T15:16:00


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Caspian blue do warning.

Sorry for poor English.

Though Historiographer know that there are Korean assassins, he say "Most of them are Japanese." and delete "Koreans" or add only "Japanese". Therefore, it seem that there are only Japanese assassins. It is POV. And he reduce number of Koreans who are related to the assassination. It is unfair.--NAZONAZO (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

31 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 19:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709 self report(Result: 12 hours)

 * Page: Adolf Hitler
 * User:


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

Attention, Cynicism: I've done everything I could, but it just isn't enough. A historian has written a controversial, but good book about Religion in Nazi Germany, where it is among many other things pointed out that Hitler can be classified as "nominally Catholic". This is explain in a great detail on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Of course, to paraphrase that historian himself, that Hitler as the world-historical metaphor for human evil and wickedness should in some way have been a member of a Christian Church can be regarded by many only as unthinkable, but it is fact. I patiently and, I hope, skilfully, explained this to the editors who removed it repeatedly from the article, but I have not achieved anything. Accurate scholarship can unearth the whole offense from Luther until no that has driven a culture mad; find what occurred at Linz, what huge image made a psychopathic god, but Wikipedia will not be able to present the result of this scholarship. Steigmann-Gall certainly is a reliable source on Nazism and Religion, and I can not leave the last edit summary comment standing as it is. I know that it is likely that I might get banned for formally breaking the 3-revert-rule, but I have to revert. (Zara1709 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Since this editor reported himself here at the noticeboard, no 3RR warning is needed. I think any admin should unblock him if he agrees to wait for a Talk page consensus before restoring the claim about Hitler's Catholicism to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED reported by 62.103.147.54 (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:15, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "Asserts imp/sig")
 * 2) 22:17, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 260754299 by 62.103.147.54 (talk)There are several assertions of imp/sig")
 * 3) 22:29, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 62.103.147.54 (talk) to last version by RMHED")
 * 4) 22:58, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 260760880 by 62.103.147.54 (talk)I have given my reasons for removing the CSD several times.")

Seems to keep doing this in similar cases, such as Prof._Dr._Rahimi_Tabar. and others that can be found in his contributions page. From his talk page a couple of other users seem to have been unhappy with similar reverts as well.

Thanks, Anthony

—62.103.147.54 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

48 hours — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat and User:Amwestover (Result: being discussed at ANI)
This edit war has been going on for about three months. The two users named above will not let it die and have filled the article talk page with sniping and accusations. They have been warned and warned and warned and warned. The page has been fully protected twice because of this dispute. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Now it is protected for the third time. It didn't work the other two times. As soon as the protection expired, the war started again. I'm not confident it'll work this time either. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. They deal with them here now and a topic ban is most likely.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's defer this issue to the wisdom of our colleagues over at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dylan0513 reported by Sesshomaru (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is very much aware of the discussions at User talk:NuclearWarfare and Talk:Katara, but continued to restore the article to a disputed revision. Has violated the 3rr, and even resorted to name-calling. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

48 hours due to edit warring and incivility. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jros83 reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user removed the category from the article. It was reverted and taken to the talk page and no consensus has been reached for its removal. BarretBonden (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:S3884h reported by User:Gerardw (Result: No violation 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Sorry, I just don't know.


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


 * User:S3884h is edit warring regarding the title of the TV show Meet The Press. The page was recently locked by User:Feydey with a request to achieve consensus. Talk:Meet_the_Press Three editors, User:Warren, myself User:Gerardw, and User:Bwilkins agreed "Meet The Press" the correct title and the first 2 of us provided references. I posted a request on the user's talk page User_talk:S3884h asking for contribution on the talk page and was, in reply, accused of being a sockpuppet. User:S3884h did not contribute to the discussion, but rather again reverted Warren's edit.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * No violation as of yet, but the S3884h's claim about the name of the show seems wholly unsupported. "Meet the Press with David Gregory" gets zero g-hits on site:nbc.com so I kinda doubt that's what they call it. --B (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe this has progressed to being a violation.
 * Dec 30th edits by :
 * 14:04, December 30, 2008
 * 19:33, December 30, 2008
 * 21:04, December 30, 2008
 * 21:18, December 30, 2008
 * And the user was previously warned about 3RR: above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So it has. Blocked 24 hours.  This is silly. --B (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins reported by Tavix (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This all started with a question I had for User:Bwilkins about a comment he had made to WT:NCSP. Instead of answering my question, he assumed bad faith and simply removed the comment. I reverted that decision and added another comment telling him to just answer my question and to stop removing my comments. He went right back and reverted my comments, assisting that I am not good enough to have my comments on that page. Instead, he tried to deflect it back at me by trying to put it on my talk page. He went right back to reverting my contributions as vandalism no matter how many times I tried to reason with him about the situation. I am currently talking to him on my talk page, but that is besides the matter. He thinks that I am a vandal no matter how I try to reason with him, which is being impeded by the fact that he doesn't even want to talk to my on his talk page. Tavix (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His conduct is incredibly rude, but reversions within your own userspace are exempt from revert limitations as a general rule. It isn't a 3RR issue, but it certainly isn't very polite. --B (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it is his user talk page though. The exception (unless I am reading it wrong) would cover his userpage and subpages. Tavix (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, reverting your comments as vandalism is not very appropriate of course. However, the policy says:


 * “Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.”


 * Therefore I don't think this is a violation of the 3RR. Perhaps it's better to take this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I? — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll take it to ANI. Thanks for your help. Tavix (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Incredibly rude"?? Pardon me?  I asked him to keep this discussion on his own webpage, and to continue the discussion on his own talkpage only.  Thanks.  ♪  BMW  Δ  21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is incredibly rude conduct... I'm taking it to ANI, you'll hear from me there. Tavix (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Tavix (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:89.214.175.137 reported by User:Eight88 (Result: Protected)

 * Page: {{article|E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)}
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Also impacting Mariah Carey discography. Also page blanks own talkpage. Moved to : User talk:89.214.29.173
 * Protected by Tanthalas39 --B (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Eight88 reported by User:JuStar (Result:No violation.)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Also impacting Mariah Carey discography.
 * Please refer to all the page blanking on User:JuStar talk page. This User is consistantly refusing to accept any editors amendments or citations. Eight88 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Admin please note User:JuStar may also be using user 89.214.175.137 as a sockpuppet. Springnuts (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

CoreEpic reported by Wikiwag (Result: No violation, 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I have attempted in good faith to caution the user about the quality of his edits, here, here, and here. Unfortunately, he has rejected my pleas and has escalated matters to include personal attacks here, here, here, and here

Many thanks for your help.

- Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation, but as a single purpose account whose only mission here is to publish unsourced accusations about living people (which presumably the school's administrators are), I do not predict a lengthy editing career. --B (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His response to me warning him about BLP was to blank the article. That's not a positive sign. --B (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He continued to revert war, so I have issued a 24-hour block. --B (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald reported by DreamGuy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:

This one is easy -- pull up the history of Casablanca (film) and you'll see a whole long list of edits by User:Ed Fitzgerald in the past day and a half. Every single edit of his excepting one (where he says "adding to alleviate "undue weight" concerns") has been a revert back to a previous version. He has summarily full reverted every edit of four separate editors (three of them have been working on three different parts of the article, and I have agreed with all of them). The reverts happen so quickly that people trying to undo his reverting get lost even trying to figure out which one should be reverted to. Now I can't restore User:Fifpasshix and/or User:Clarityfiend 's edits without undoing User:2005's edits -- would need to open them all up and take the various changed parts out by hand and merge them again.

No official warning given until most recent edit comment by 2005, but Ed Fitzgerald has been around since 2005 (the year, not the editor) and surely must know about 3RR policy by now.

I'd give separate diffs but his reverts aren't a simple one and one of the previous, but older ones skipping over intermediary edits (also reverts) are difficult to provide links for, as you can't just pick the last link. But his edit comments make it clear that they are reverts. I also don't know which 24 hour period to select, but he's got 'nine reverts in less than 48 hours, so it's pretty clear cut.

DreamGuy (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours ---B (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

98.122.108.47 reported by Will Beback (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Submitted by:   Will Beback    talk    19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * I blocked 24 hours...although looking at his talk page, probably won't be long enough. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Dru79 reported by User:Smashville (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex - multiple reverts over same page


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User's comments on talk page show no intention of stopping. I would have blocked him myself, but I reverted his edit on the page. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gingerboy06 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Indefblocked)
. : Time reported: 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:27, 28 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
 * 2) 22:23, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 260489481 by Bob98133 (talk)")
 * 3) 22:24, 29 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
 * 4) 01:11, 30 December 2008  (edit summary: "Edit was undone as no citations and only POVs were made.  Worse some morons will use info such as bait animals to train their dogs to fight.")
 * 5) 01:13, 30 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */ cleaned up grammar and spelling")
 * 6) 03:47, 30 December 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 260797646 by Bob98133 (talk)")
 * 7) 03:48, 30 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */")
 * 8) 07:08, 31 December 2008  (edit summary: "/* Bait animals */  This should not be reverted unless someone can cite a conditioning programme or keep recommending the use of bait animals.")
 * 9) 01:16,  1 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 261062548 by Bidgee (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked - nothing but unsourced POV pushing from this account. --B (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Eight88 reported by User:LauraAndrade88 (Result: 24 hours, both for the reporter and the reported user)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex - multiple reverts over same page


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

24 hours, both for the reporter and the reported user. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Down Home In Suntlay reported by Dr.K. (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User: WP:SPA keeps inserting a single trivial and uncited fact over past few days. Keeps insisting it happened yet no citation is provided and did not reply to my comments on their talk page. WP:BLP may also apply since inserted material is added to critcicism section and it refers to controversy involving Dowd while being uncited. Dr.K. (logos) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Not quite 4R; warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you William. I agree with your estimate and your action. I reported at 3R because even though both the 24 hr period and the 4R limit were not quite satisfied, the momentum for more reverts was there, in my estimate. Hopefully now they will heed your warning better than they did mine and this will prevent further disruption or need for further action. Happy New Year and take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (logos) 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

User:Bayrak (result: semi)
This user is on a lengthy break after receiving a short block for edit warring, then using two named socks. []. He now appears to be using an IP range to carry on the edit war - User:212.43.10.1 User:212.43.15.1 and User:212.43.4.1 so far. Here are two examples of "Bayrak" edits [] and []. These are identical to the ones made by Bayrak, then his two socks. Happy new year.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * B is now very blocked (2009-01-01T05:30:58 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Bayrak (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion: user:Sovgin and user:Wandalis.) (unblock | change block); 2008-12-31T12:36:44 Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Bayrak (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (straight back to edit-warring off a block) (unblock | change block)) but there is little help in blocking dynamic IPs; will semi the articles for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Slow edit-war over what was originally a spammed link, added 11:47, 16 December 2008 by Aestheteka
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:38, 18 December 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:01, 29 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:23, 29 December 2008 At this point, two editors had removed the link. His edit summary is, "I read the linked article. It is thoughtful, and concerns Thunder, Perfect Mind. It is a relevant external link. If you remove this again, I may report you to WP:ANI)"
 * At this point, the three editors begin discussing the matter on the article talk page.
 * 3rd revert: 21:35, 31 December 2008 With the other two editors arguing against the link on the talk page, he reverts it again with the edit summary, "Revert personal vendetta against another user. See talk" This is what caught my attention in my watchlist, so I stepped in to try to deescalate the situation.


 * In response to my effort to deescalate the incivil edit-warring, Timeshifter has assumed bad faith on my part and threatens to continue edit warring writing, "I will return the link in a few days when you two have cooled off."


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:37, 31 December 2008

Ronz (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is some history between us. Please see this diff: . I have not done 3RR, and have no intention of doing so. Please see also the discussion in context: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind. I have this problem once a year it seems with Ronz. See WP:Wikihounding. He acts alone, or sometimes tag teams with another spam-fighter, concerning some external link that he notices has been spammed by some newbie with a WP:COI. I then add the link myself and Ronz or another spam fighter gets mixed up about Wikipedia guidelines, and thinks I am spamming the link too. Neither of the spam fighters have usually done any editing of the article in question previously. So they mostly ignore or badmouth the merits of the link, or wikilawyer about guidelines until they wear out the regular editors of an article. Since they don't really care about the content of the article I can usually come back days, weeks, or months later, and add the link if it is a good external link. Some external links are bad, and I don't add them. If they continue to give me a hard time I don't add the link. Even if it is a good link. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see that Timeshifter holds grudges, and uses them as excuses for his misbehavior. Looking at his talk page history, I see that my last discussion with him there was over a year and half ago, over his edit warring 21:31, 18 June 2007. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

— <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Striking out my decision above per this. I don't see edit warring here, but another admin opinion would be appreciated. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added comments to the second and third diff listed above, and indicated when the talk page discussion began and when I joined the dispute. Apologies for any confusion it may cause. --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz left multiple messages on my talk page today. I kept removing them, but he kept adding more. See my talk page history:. On an article talk page a long time ago I asked him to stop wikihounding me. I can hunt up the diff if necessary. I had to repeat the request today on his talk page. See the diff I left in my previous comment here:. The "personal vendetta" I mentioned in the edit summary and on the article talk page concerned the seeming grudge against the newbie that originally added the link in conflict with WP:COI. As I said earlier I am not wedded to the link, "even if it is a good link", and I have not committed 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted in the definition at the top of this page, "Edit warring features a confrontational attitude." I got involved in this because of the accusations of a "personal vendetta" in an edit summary (noted above with the 3rd diff).  I believe these edit summaries and the comments he's made on the article talk page demonstrate quite clearly a confrontational attitude that is at odds with WP:CON, WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wikilawyering. Here is the diff from October 2007 that I said I could hunt up: In that article talk page comment I asked you to stop wikistalking me. Wikihounding is now the correct term. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You assume bad faith of me over a year ago, and that justifies your bad faith today?
 * Let's get this straight. I hadn't made a comment on Timeshifter's talk page in over a year and a half, and have interacted with him little if at all, as far as either of us can tell, in well over a year.  But because of this, Timeshifter feels justified in responding to my attempt to deescalate his misbehavior  with personal attacks and threats to edit-war further.  Note that I only commented on Timeshifter's talk page AFTER he made these comments.  Yes, there does appear to be some personal vendetta's here, all held by Timeshifter to justify his continued problematic behavior. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not deescalate anything. As in the past you threw around a lot of misinterpreted guidelines. This time you piled on multiple messages in a row on my talk page. But getting back to this noticeboard, I am not edit warring. I am not wedded to the link. You jumped into the talk page saying that the link was a spam link AFTER I pointed out that I had added the link, and therefore it was no longer a spam link. See this diff of your first comment: . it shows that you were piling on without understanding or acknowledging my point. How is that deescalation? There is no edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The immediate context for this noticeboard incident can be found at The Thunder, Perfect Mind. Timeshifter added an EL which myself and another editor consider spam, and the situation then escalated. Ronz then entered the fray, and Timeshifter seems quite defiant and obstinately unwilling to acknowledge that consensus mightn't go his way. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You again insulted my by saying that I am adding spam. You might say that an article is not worthy of being added as a link to a Wikipedia article. But an article is not spam. The act of adding an article by someone with a WP:COI is spamming. Then the article is spam. But since I am not spamming, therefore when I add the article the article is not spam. This is the fundamental problem here.


 * New info: Talk:The Thunder, Perfect Mind. The 3 spam fighters are indirectly insulting a published book author (more than one book, too) in their quest to punish this evildoer newbie for making the mistake of going against WP:COI. I bet User:Aestheteka is Edward O'Toole. But hey, I am not wedded to the link. I do think the 3 spam fighters owe Edward O'Toole and User:Aestheteka an apology, though. Maybe a better use of this noticeboard thread would be to copy the whole thing over to the Spam WikiProject as a lesson. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article violates WP:ELNO, I consider it spam. I am not calling you a spammer, I am calling the article itself spam. It is not my intention, I repeat, to insult you.
 * Nor are we insulting O'Toole. He has repeatedly spammed WP, and his repetition in doing so is inexcusible. He was hastily indef-blocked today for his actions. The ice will melt in Dante's ninth circle before I apologize to him for defending WP against his shameless self-promotion and spamming, after he had already been warned against it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hastily" is the correct word. He has no user contributions since Dec 16, 2008 when he was warned about WP:COI. See his user contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aestheteka --Timeshifter (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what you find objectionable about the haste nature of the block; the admin is to be commended for his action in blocking him so quickly. He is a spammer and used socks in an AfD debate. Nothing beneficial was going to come from him. This was a good move to pre-empt future vandalism from him. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * His user talk page says he was blocked for his username. It doesn't say anything about sockpuppets in an AfD debate. If that is true, then of course he should be blocked after being warned. Was he warned about socks? Socks are allowed in some circumstances. And all of this has nothing to do with my addition of the link. You can call it spam when you think an article link I add violates WP:ELNO, but you would still be wrong. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the socks to demonstrate the sort of user you uphold; help show others your judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you are insulting my judgment through guilt by association. I don't uphold the user. I just pointed out Wikipedia guidelines about warning users first. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Knowingly adding a link that had been spammed is indicative of poor judgement. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not logical. One does not follow the other. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of supporting spammers is good? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a spammer. I do not support spammers. Adding a link is not spamming when there is no WP:COI. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the link of a spammer (User:Aestheteka) is supporting spammers, even though you yourself are not a spammer. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not logical. There are lots of overenthusiastic fans of various people, topics, movies, you-name-it. We don't block articles and links about all those things just because of some crazed fans. You guys really don't get this, do you? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no infallible method to decide whether a particular external link belongs in the article. There is only consensus. Timeshifter seems to be in the minority on the article's Talk page. If he doesn't want to accept this particular consensus, he could initiate dispute resolution. One possible step is an article RfC. He has actually suggested he might take it to the Spam WikiProject, a curious choice because that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here. I think we need to hear from Timeshifter as to how he will pursue dispute resolution. If he won't do this, and won't accept the local Talk page consensus, he could indeed be edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am curious to know how another spam-fighter such as yourself happened to pop in here. I agree I am in the minority. I don't mind being in the minority. I might take this thread to the Spam WikiProject because I believe some spam-fighters are more reasonable than others. Therefore they might learn some lessons from this thread. You have pointed out the heart of the problem though: "that set of folks is unlikely to sympathize with a link to O'Toole, who has promoted his own work rather widely here." That is not a justifiable reason to block a link I add. Because you don't personally like the author of an article. By the way, there is no wikipedia requirement that I accept the article talk page consensus. I am not wedded to the link, though, and will not add it while there is significant opposition to it. People change their mind over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, I'm an admin who often closes cases at this noticeboard. I'm unlikely to take any action in this case, since I know Ronz. I still don't see how you escape the charge of edit warring, since you are unwilling to accept the Talk page consensus, and you've made no commitment to follow dispute resolution. The modus operandi that you outlined above, whereby you reinsert a disputed link into an article later, apparently hoping that people will not notice, does not sound like a good-faith effort to find consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually it is just one spamfighter or 2 who oppose the link mainly because it was originally added by a spammer. Later, or even much later, one of the regular editors of the page decide to add the link back as an external link or reference. The other regular or newer editors of the page go along with it. This is not edit warring in any way. It is evolving consensus. And as I have repeatedly said I am not wedded to the link, and will not add it as long as there is significant opposition. One person opposing is not significant opposition, and can be overruled by multiple editors. As I am being overruled now. You don't go to dispute resolution just for a single external link. The only reason I am wasting time here is because Ronz went forum shopping rather than waiting to see if there really was a problem later. If I had added the link in a couple days after people cooled off (a common occurrence) and there was still opposition, then I probably wouldn't have wasted any more time. Spam-fighters are ruining Wikipedia for many regular editors of articles.


 * Since you have threatened me with a block, then I flat out say that I will never add that link to any Wikipedia page. Happy? This intimidation by spam-fighters is totally insulting to the Wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I initiated discussion about all this here:
 * Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Intimidation by spam fighters --Timeshifter (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has broken 3RR, strictly interpreted. Both sides have edit warred. I can't care much whether the link is in or not. Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, no one is claiming 3RR has been broken. If other editors are at fault for edit-warring, let's add them to the report.  However, it seems we have some real problems here with actually dealing with edit-warring, or at least defining what it is. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR is clear, and not very subjective. Edit warring is not. You will find both kinds of reports here. We certainly have problems defining edit warring. Its not clear we have any great problems dealing with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dismissing a edit-warring report because 3RR has not been broken is a real problem. I agree, though, it's not a great problem since this board has been 3RR only until recently.
 * I'll take Timeshifter's edit-warring problems to a different venue the next time they occur. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship reported by kjaer (Result: Not blocked for now)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261333082


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261333695
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261334899
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261334899

Also suspect below user:abrhm17 may be sockpuppet, refered to admin:


 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261337968
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&oldid=261338828


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user was warned on article talk and in summary as well as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343260 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&oldid=261343765

CABlankenship reported by Alcmaeonid (Result: Not blocked for now)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both sides have violated 3RR, but they seem to have stopped for now and are talking it out on the talk page. No need for a block for the moment unless they start reverting again.  Of course, that all changes if the checkuser comes out positive. --B (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of the 3rr rule until the warning was posted on my page. The logs will back me up on this.  I immediately stopped reverting the page after I saw this rule.  CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress reported by User:Taivo (Result: Article protected; warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted from:


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

My edits (above under "Previous version") were a compromise to end an edit war over whether or not to include Malta in the list of countries. I took advantage of the Language Infobox option of using |region instead of |states to solve the problem. One of the participants in the edit war accepted this as a reasonable solution. The other did not have a chance to respond before the reverting by Middayexpress began. I suspect that Middayexpress' reverts are the result of a confrontation we had in Swahili language. His only arguments for his reverts on the Talk page have to do with what happened on the Swahili page and not on the merits of the Region designation on the Arabic language page. (Taivo (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Both sides violated 3RR, but the reverting has stopped and it is being discussed on the talk page. Work it out there. --B (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck reported by Piotrus (Result: seven days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (itself a revert)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Blocked for a week and final warning for an indef block Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

71.178.193.134 (result: no vio)
This IP has gone to 4rr today (i think) on the Open Voting Consortium article. I've tried to talk on talk, not getting anywhere. Full disclosure, did not warn before coming here. Latest diff is: [] piors are [] [] [] []

The dispute appears to be that a name of a subsidiary of a company called Diebold referenced in a 2004 article was later changed, something the IP (which seems to be an elections-systems focused SPA -- go figure) knows; but that wasn't true in the time period refered to. At any rate, i think i'm at 3rr myself or so (i always get confused on what counts).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * An appallingly badly formatted report. Doesn't look like a vio to me, and since you are now both talking on talk I think thats the way forward William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In future, what would be a better format (unless you've used "format" to mean i was wrong to come here on the substance, in which case i understand your meaning)?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see up top the link that says, "Click here to add a new report". You should click on that link, then follow the instructions therein. --B (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Untwirl (Result: No action)
A single purpose user, and perhaps a sock, has been edit warring on Self-hating Jew. I moved the disputed material to the talk page for discussion, but Untwirl continues to return the material to the article, and to make other changes that need discussion to resolve the problems. I left a notification, but for some reason it did not seem to take on his user page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is at WP:ANI now. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring has stopped, no action taken for now. All parties should remember that a topic like this is going to invoke some high emotions and care should be taken to respect the views of others and discuss contentious issues on the talk page. --B (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

my "single purpose" is to provide NPOV. i invite other editors or administrators to examine this dispute. another editor added germaine, sourced material which was removed wholesale by malcolm schosha. in addition, the definition of "self-hating jew" restates the term rather than explaining it, and he refuses to respond or make other suggestions - he just reverts anything i attempt to change. i would appreciate the involvement of other editors.Untwirl (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree (Result: BLP removals are exempt from 3RR)
This user is removing comments from the talk page of Joseph Farah rather than responding. He's reverted my posts three times now:   

I can't revert or else I'd also be in vio of 3RR. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He also removed my warning to him from his talk page. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being cited by a racist website does not make someone a racist. Your claims about this individual are incorrect and are to be immediately removed from any page on Wikipedia.  If you continue to add them without valid evidence, you will be blocked. --B (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't presume to tell me that my claims are inaccurate. I expect more out a Wikipedia administrator. You're either agenda-pushing or incompetent, possibly both. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that must be it. Either that or your claim is utter nonsense. --B (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with B, especially on the latter assumption. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should reread BLP. There's a whole section about the talk pages of BLPs. You're applying a policy aimed at artices to a talk page, even though there's a whole section of WP:BLP that is much more germane to this discussion, and that my edit was in accordance with. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Read further down on WP:BLP on "Talk pages": Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). --M ASEM 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I was just posting that, good work. IP, please stop. If you want to discuss the issue, bring proper sources and discuss it on the talk page with NPOV language, otherwise, it will be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC) (EC)
 * I hold that the information I posted was both poorly sourced and contentious, but not especially problematic. It's neither a telephone number or libel. It is, at worst, a POV. As such, the policy does not provide for the blanking of my talk page comment. 24.160.240.250 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is both contentious and libelous, and multiple editors have reverted you and discussed the matter with you here. Again, please stop. Dayewalker (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously ... this has gotten silly and has wasted far too much otherwise useful time. --B (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a word of thanks to the folks who got my back on this. Cheers! --Tom 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice reported by Inclusionist (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor has a rich history of being blocked 3RR violations.
 * 1) User:Seresin  deleted some racially strong words I had cut and pasted from the mainspace to discuss.
 * 2) User:Deeceevoice  reverted this.
 * 3) User:AniMate then deleted the comments again.
 * 4) Reverted by Dee once
 * 5) Attempting to create a compromise, I then restored the comments, but put the comments in a collapsible table three times, which Deeceevoice deleted three times. travb (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can come up with a darned good reason not to, I'm inclined to delete this thing under G4. There is an ANI discussion going on now about this, by the way. --B (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it, and I will happily withdraw the 3RR complaint.travb (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on how this 3RR complaint should be closed, an AfD on Stereotypes of Jews is running here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is pure unmitigated bigotry and I have removed it from the talk page. If Deeceevoice restores it again, further violating 3RR, he/she should definitely be blocked. Unless/until then, I offer no opinion and will, obviously, not handle this one myself. --B (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Deeceevoice reverted again. This is getting ridiculous. AniMate  talk  22:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any uninvolved admin, please note the above. --B (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:VulgarKeynesianMilitarism reported by Lucian Sunday (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert

I have been reverting the above banned editor ([Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking]]) . He has been reverting back & has exceeded 3RR. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really belong here as a sock block, but I've done it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lou Sander reported by Dlabtot (Result: warned; reverted)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Dlabtot (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning postdates last edit. Re-warned; reverted article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reported by User:dayyanb (Result: No violation)

 * Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectuals_and_Nazism&action=history
 * User: multiple


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Dayyanb (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No violation that I can see or stale. You need to clarify what the problem is. --B (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Karnak666 reported by Tennis expert (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is edit warring about whether Andre Agassi has Assyrian or Armenian ancestry. Have a look at his discussion page, particularly the allegations of racism and other incivil activity. Tennis expert (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring and incivility: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BalkanHistoryExpert reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has arrived here on some kind of self-professed crusade, expressing contempt for reliable sources , with legal threats for added pzazz. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for 4R. Didn't do anything with the legal threats William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cliché Online reported by Falcon9x5 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:

(much else has changed since then, the problem is the resolution section in the infobox)
 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Wording varies, but intent is the same.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has repeatedly added 1080p as the native resolution to Metal Gear Solid 4, despite comments within the article, on his talk page and on the article talk about what constitutes a verifiable source. Native resolution is a tricky thing to find, as it's the resolution games are rendered at by the console before being outputted to the TV. Between the render and the TV there's a process called scaling which changes the rendered resolution into something the TV can display.Current-generation games generally use 720p as their base display resolution, and this is usually assumed to be the native resolution too, unless proved otherwise. As an example, Halo 3 is rendered at 640p, but outputs in 720p, hence the article states the native resolution is 640p. For this reason, what TVs display, back of game boxes etc aren't reliable. Establishing what the native resolution is is often done by "counting pixels" (examing how many pixels make up an image displayed on a screen).

Beyond3D forums are a decent source for this (meeting WP:V I feel), with recognition in Joystiq - it's also used as a roundabout source on GTA IV (for the PS3's native res - PC World->PS3Fanboy->Beyond3D Forum) and Ninja Gaiden II (N4G->Beyond3D Forum), the second of which User:Cliché Online himself added as the source.

Also a ridiculous number of personal attacks, on the article talk, his own talk and edit summaries. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond3D's used as a source in Project Gotham Racing 3 too. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h, due to form William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

195.210.193.193 reported by Taivo (Result: Rangeblock 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

as User:195.210.193.238 as User:195.210.193.3 as User:195.210.193.210 as User:195.210.193.33 as User:195.210.193.197 as User:195.210.193.32 as User:195.210.193.197 as User:195.210.193.193
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Here is the history of this page so you can see the pattern: []


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This anonymous IP is continually stripping the Talk page. He has been warned and the page has been semi-protected several times by User:Kwamikagami. As soon as the semi-protection expires, the anonymous IP is right back to deleting information on the Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Range block 195.210.193.0/24 for 1 month. Please notify me of any collateral damage. If this doesn't work, I recommend six months of semi-protection for the Talk page. This has gone on for too long already. (Another admin tried the same range block back in August, though for just one week). EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Defender of comic justice reported by Geg (Result: 3h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: After this, it's noted that the subject of the edits has already been discussed in the article's discussion page before, which the user ignores.
 * 3rd revert: After this, the user is warned about the 3RR.
 * 4th revert?: I have to assume that this is the same user attempting to bypass the rule since this anonymous user made the same edit as Defender of comic justice and hasn't made any other edits. If it's not the same person I guess this can be ignored. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

I also suspect that this account is a sock puppet of User:Dragonmaster88 due to using the same emoticons in edit summaries (such as =^-^=) and similar edits on The Spirit (film).


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I understand that we're both in violation of 3RR now, but I've made several attempts to move the conflict to the discussion page and have been ignored each time. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry guv, but You're the one who was warned. Please stop changing the article and take your complaints to the discussion page as an edit comment doesn't count. The talk page shows no attempt to discuss this since december. This looks like a really silly war so you get a really silly block each, but keep it up after that and it will be longer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan reported by D.M.N. (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Not being reverted to anything, the user is adding material in violation of WP:RECENTISM, which several users have reverted.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not 3RR, as you say, but disruptive. User appears to have got the message; will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:71.191.7.3 reported by Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:50,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ updated material related to cannabinoids: deleted theoretical considerations, incorporated results of recent RCT")
 * 2) 17:14,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 262119076 by Orangemarlin (talk) go for 3, sherriff.  Git'em!")
 * 3) 18:21,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 262131049 by Orangemarlin (talk) that's 2...")
 * 4) 18:34,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* Investigational medications */ More fun on the wiki-playground; only now the bully has called the monitor...")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

117.98.112.224 reported by Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Old, boring question: some anonymous user keeps reverting the same page and doesn't even want to discuss this with anyone. For more informations, please see Here. (Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Stale - Lone edit from this IP is a week old. --B (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

68.197.235.233 reported by Kravteacher (Result: Page protected 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I have tried to seek help only for it to result in the page being protected under the last version an unregistered contributor has reverted to. I only tried to add some additional informational pages in good faith and now I am being punished for following someone's suggestions? I did unknowingly break the 3RR myself, but when it was pointed out to me, I did not do any other reversions. How is this neutrality? --KravTeacher (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another revert after being in clear violation of 3rr rule and asked to use edit summaries. . ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both parties broke 3RR, but let's assume good faith for the moment. The page has been protected for 24hrs and all and sundry encouraged to seek consensus on talk page. A resumption of edit warring has failed to take part in talk page discussion. Euryalus (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely accurate. Once both editors were apprised of the 3RR rules and asked to discuss, one editor did so. The other editor continued to revert without comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At ChildofMidnight's request, please note this was originally two reports, one by him/her and one by KravTeacher. I combined them into one as they relate to the same set of edits. On the issue at hand, I have warned the IP about edit warring but not warn KravTeacher as he stopped when asked. The brief page protection will give both parties a chance to discuss this content dispute on the article talk page. If discussion fails there will always be an opportunity for further action. Euryalus (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

80.217.214.139 reported by Plrk (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has been temporarily blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia for similar problems in the Swedish version of the same article. (The blocking admin was yours truly.) See. Also, please revert the article, as I'm afraid of violating the 3RR rule myself. Plrk (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 15:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the closure of this report, the IP went ahead and did a fourth revert within 24 hours. I've blocked him on that basis. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)