Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive88

PlainHolds reported by Warren (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:53
 * 2nd revert: 10:06
 * 3rd revert: 10:15
 * 4th revert: 10:38


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

New editor claims the article has no sources, but is repeatedly removing the sources which back up the statements made in the article.  Warren -talk- 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. —  Aitias  // discussion 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TinseltownCNK reported by User:PatriciaMeadows (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been invited to participate in the discussion of the Talk page, but has not done so. Also, see this revision for evidence that user represents Cinemark (use of first-person plural).

Would like to invite WP Admins to help resolve. Patricia Meadows (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Newbie. No reverts since your warning. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

80.217.202.212 reported by Plrk (Result: blocked/s-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is the same person as User:80.217.214.139, and has also been editwarring on the Swedish wikipedia (where the user has been blocked) Plrk (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked, s-protected. If he continues to evade the block, we can do a range block. --B (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LuvataciousSkull reported by Spinecraft (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Like most other edits that do not commend him, he has continuously removed the proposed deletion / speedy deletion tags placed upon his largely uncited, self-promotional vanity article (user LuvataciousSkull, the article's creator, is Larry West himself).


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Civil discussion was attempted on the article's discussion page, but no expressed points, from myself and others, were properly addressed nor contested. He has thus far been the sole arbitrator in the validity and necessity of this article, as well as his mentioning in the article Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007. Spinecraft (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:LuvataciousSkull has reverted only three times. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. In any case, this page is not eligible for speedy deletion, since it has survived an AfD. It is worth it to try improving the article's sources. If you can't find any, ask for help on the article's Talk page. If the editor you mention resists improving the article, you can follow WP:Dispute resolution. It seems that the article has a promotional tone currently, and the editor LuvataciousSkull may be the article subject, according to the Talk page. The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might be able to help you with that. If all your efforts fail, you could try a second AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ClaudioProductions reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 12:21,  6 January 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:10,  6 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 262293280 by Aktsu (talk)")
 * 3) 00:24,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 262382180 by Orangemike (talk)")
 * 4) 00:42,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 262422613 by Aktsu (talk)")

Ignoring consensus, see article talk and his talk. There is a thread about it at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, but no response from any admins yet. Thanks.

—-- aktsu (t / c) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 reported by Jeremy (Result: Editors warned about tags)
has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with disputed and POV-section tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of  for other histories of this user

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you provide diff links please? —  Aitias  // discussion 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Revert 1
 * Revert 2
 * Revert 3
 * Revert 4
 * Revert 5
 * Revert 6
 * Revert 7

There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as, and support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--Caspian blue 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per WP:Truce, and am working on a mediation request, etc..


 * Comment - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the 3R policy, his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to disruptive editing. The sum total of his behaviors is edit warring which is the problem we are dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.

Please note that I asked for a

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=260623905&oldid=259731575

Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute disruptive editing and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.


 * Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here[].Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be respected, but no-one is bound by it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point but this block of editors are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who are disagreeing with them and are revert warring, and stonewalling discussion in the talk page. This is why I suggested that we try to come up with a list of issues to be mediated and move this into formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support WMC's suggestion that if he continues, I think he should be blocked. This would imply that M2 would be blocked the next time he restores the tags. His commitment to WP:Dispute resolution is very hard to discern, given that he was the only one to reject the mediation. He seems to feel that he is entitled to do infinite reverts because mixed views were expressed in the last RfC. *Active* search for dispute resolution should immunize an editor from blocks for warring, but just sitting around and repeating the old reverts is not actively seeking consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just false. I have worked hard in trying to move the discussion toward dispute resolution protocols and have refrained from making changed to text or moving the subsection in the talk page. If you take a careful look in the talk page sections about Christ's mediation request, I explained that while I agree with mediation, I do not agree with the "issues to be mediated" listed in that particular request. I also proposed we take our eyes off the article in WP:truce and suggested that we work together on a issues to be mediated list TOGETHER and file another mediation request. That truce had worked and was in effect until Jeremy instigated this last spat of reverting. Unfortunately, the block of editors sitting on this issue are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who disagree with them(ignoring RfC results) and Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Melonbarmonster2, just promise that you would not persistently revert to include the templates from now until the dispute is settled. If the other two editors who support your view reverted to your version, you may have stood on a better positon. However, they just left their onions to the talk page. The content itself is not disputed, and you're against its "categorization". However, the templates serve for "content dispute". So please present your solution for the dispute rather than reverting at this time. Chris has tried to compromise with you as changing the header, Staple foods to Foodstuffs, but you have not shown anything to end the dispute. I think further insistence only may invite you a block.--Caspian blue 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually suggested that we create separate section for "fringe food culture" that includes dog meat along with other fringe foods to no avail. Instead of relevant responses all I've been getting is Jeremy and other revert warring and refusing to even bother consider that categorizing dog meat along with vegetables is factually inaccurate. I honestly think categorization and subsections qualify as being "content". I've been working hard to move this discussion toward a resolution and have held back making changes to the text of the article or moving the "dog meat" subsection without consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're currently shooting your feet. Drop it now.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The editor attempting to remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article, and his/her supporters, state that it's not eaten every day in Korea. Neither is sujeonggwa or many other dishes or drinks mentioned in that article, yet they are highly notable and worthy of mention. The section heading was changed from "Staple foods" to "Foodstuffs" at the urging of Melonbarmonster2, in an effort to generate consensus, but that still was not enough: s/he wishes all mention of dog meat to be removed from the article, despite the significant tonnages slaughtered and consumed per day, the thousands of restaurants, etc. We either aim to be encyclopedic or we do not. Excluding, or censoring content because it makes editors from certain ethnic or national groups feel bad about themselves due to being seen in a negative light by other cultures (ironically, this editor claims that s/he supports the legalization of dog meat consumption and sale) is not a business we are in at our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never asked for censoring or exclusion of content. But this is the strawman that this block of editors have created for themselves. Even in spite of my many explanations that this is not my position they've ignored my real position and have repeated this false mantra over and over again stonewalling any progress on this article. Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Badagnani is deliberately saying such the untruth from bad faith. It should be noted that Badagnani and Melon have made a long-term rivalry over one year which is indeed disruptive to the article. As far as I've known, Melonbarmonster never claimed to exclude the whole section, but the section should be moved to appropriate space. Unlike your false claim, Sujeonggwa is mentioned in the article (see Korean cuisine) Also your comparison is totally false. It has been sold in canned item for over 10 years, can be found anywhere in any grocery store, convenient store, or vending machine unlike dog meat. It is also irony that Badagnani was blocked for disruption at the article by Jeremy's report.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have said most of what I have wanted to say on the talk page for Korean cuisine. As stated I compromised and changed the heading for the "staple foods" to foodstuffs, which I actually agree was a good change.  Melonbarmonster2's argument is that dog meat is not equal to the other animal proteins as it is not consumed as often as they are.  I say, let's ask the Buddhists in the country then if they feel that any of the animal proteins should be consumed, they might argue that their version of Korean cuisine should not have any meat included in the Korean cuisine article.  The issue here though is not content dispute, it is the fact that Melonbarmonster2 is not actively discussing what he/she wants done to the article, only that they feel that dog meat isn't presented properly and continues to just repeat it over and over and over again while reverting the tags a multitude of times.  Maybe it wasn't in 24 hours, but as the policy states, multiple reverts outside of the 24 hour time period constitutes edit warring, which is held in the same context as the 3RR.  The editor refused to take part in the mediation I proposed, stating they did not believe the issue was represented properly, although all of the other editors agreed, and then their contribution to the Rfc was pointless as well as they made a statement, but made no academically sound rebuttal.  Instead he/she is just instigating edit warring, wehter intentional or not, they have been given ample room to expalin themselves and they have not. As I am involved with the content of this article, I do not feel appropriate in enforcing any Admin. responsibilities as it would be a conflict of interest.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I specifically stated that I agreed with the mediation but not the issues listed in that particular request. I've stated this clearly from the beginning.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think that this report should have been on ANI, not here. Well, Jeremy, Chirs and Badagnani reverted more than once (twice or triple) for the templates which are also edit warring.--Caspian blue 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree with how the mediation request was framed. What initiative will you take to reach the next step? Believe it or not, when there are more people on the other side sometimes that indicates that *consensus* is against you. ("Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.") EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, RfC results clearly show I'm not alone in feeling this categorization is factually inaccurate. I also proposed from the VERY BEGINNING in the first mediation request page that we should come up with a list of issues to be mediation that is acceptable by involved parties and file a new mediation request. But discussion is currently stonewalled, not by me, but the block of editors are refusing to move beyond strawman positions, claiming consensus in spite of at least 3 editors who have voiced dissent and refusing to acknowledge different views. They are not even acknowledging my good faith disagreement on the edit issue because they outnumber me and they are trying to push their POV through on technicalities. I really wish we could get beyond claiming consensus by ignoring dissenting editors so that we can move forward to dispute resolution protocols.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Melon, if you agree not to revert the article for your POV, this issue would be already ended. I think you're not currently acting wise. --Caspian blue 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy and willing to agree to stop edit warring on these tags. Specific edit issues on tags or other content should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop doing things that go against consensus, independent contributors have agreed that this is what is causing the whole issue.


 * You will need to do the following:
 * Stop posting the tags;
 * Actually engage in the conversation as opposed to stating your opinions over and over;
 * Stop parsing words, in the case of the mediation request join in and put your reasons why you disagree out there. Ask that the proposal be modified to address your concerns if you feel something is missing from the request, and tell us why;
 * Please insure that your reasoning meets the standards of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:PSTS. Also, please do not engage in WP:OR.


 * and finally:
 * Accept that your position may not be the winning one, and let the result stand.


 * If you had done this from the first, none of this would be going on. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More claims of consensus in spite of RfC results and multiple editors expressing dissent... This is why we need mediation. Jeremy broke the WP:Truce and instigated this last spat of reverts. You need to take your own advice and stop your disruptive behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I made no claims. I am stating what we expect of you: good behavior and civility. What I am saying is that if things do not go your way, you will be expected to live with it. Can you do that? Can you work well with others? Can you assume good faith that what my purpose here is to help the article? --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When you tell people to not to "go against consensus", you are assuming consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Close? I suggest this thread be continued elsewhere, perhaps on the article Talk. In the near future, if any dispute tags are changed on the article without consensus to do so first being obtained on the Talk page, I suspect that one or more admins will take action. We won't know for sure until that happens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, the only editors who have been "changing" dispute tags have been Jeremy and his friends. Their position is that there is "no dispute" and I am not respecting consensus(ignoring dissent of multiple editors) and so the dispute tags are inappropriate. That is why they have repeatedly removed the dispute tags.
 * I admit to my part in the revert war. But Jeremy and others who have left comments here have been fully engaged in revert warring. Progress to discussion has been constantly stonewalled due to Jeremy and his block of editors who are refusing acknowledge, respect the dissent of other editors and are reverting dispute tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We should know, Dog meat is not considered as normal Korean diets, most Koreans don't even try Dog meat. Even Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos all consumed more dog meats than Koreans but they don't included in their cuisine topic. I think we all know person who edits Korean cuisine to includes Dog meat is to make mockery on Korea. --Korsentry 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
 * I am closing this report with the result, Editors warned about tags. Anyone who adds or removes tags, after first explicitly verifying that that there is a consensus on Talk:Korean cuisine in support of their changes, has nothing to worry about. Those who have not yet found a consensus but revert anyway may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Stealthound (Result: Link removed, no 3RR vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

the source is. It uses google's cache to circumvent the blacklist filter placed by Wikipedia. It additionally fails Verifiability and Reliable Sources. This source is discussed in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive133. Please help. Stealthound (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have asked Badagnani to undo his last edit, the one where he restores the Associated Content link to the article. He is only at 3RR so far. If he puts the link back again he would be at 4RR and possibly in violation of WP:SPAM as well. A block would be logical at that point. There are ways of getting a link put on the 'local whitelist' if you can show it is appropriate for a specific article. Associated Content as a whole is blacklisted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, that's the only source I can see that has much information on the subject. Discussing the issue on the talk page would have been a good thing, although there was some back and forth in the edit summaries. Is there a question about the accuracy of the content provided in the source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to bypass the Spam blacklist without getting approval. The page about Douglas Spotted Eagle, while informative, is hosted on a forbidden domain, associatedcontent.com, that has been used for spamming. You can request approval for individual links. See Talk:Associated Content. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Associated Content links Fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Additionaly, Associated Content articles;
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Would think that repeated reinsertion is disruptive per policies.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the Linking policy on Restrictions on linking, See #2. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. However, with the other prominent content issues, there is little chance it will be whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Result: Link has been removed, there was no 3RR vio. Thanks for cooperation, and thanks Hu12 for policy advice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

83.254.20.63 reported by Curtis Clark (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 edit warred on Clade as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24 hours - this user's IP seems to be semi-static. If he evades the block by moving on to another IP, please note that here or ping an admin so that the next IP can be blocked and the articles can be s-protected. --B (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Article is being restore from a redirect. He's adding more of the old page as he's reverting. First attempt is here.


 * 1st revert: 19:20, January 6, 2009
 * 2nd revert: 19:32, January 6, 2009
 * 3rd revert: 19:34, January 6, 2009
 * 4th revert: 23:22, January 6, 2009
 * 5th revert: 23:36, January 6, 2009
 * 6th revert: 23:43, January 6, 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, January 6, 2009
 * User violating 3RR on Yumi Ishiyama as well. warned again here. This edit, this one and this one are the first three. At least 3 more reverts after that. prashanthns (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 31 hours - looks like 8RR on two different articles. That's an accomplishment. --B (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tanninglamp reported by User:Baseball_Bugs (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has evidently been in a long-term edit war over this one item he keeps trying to insert into the article despite consensus and BLP concerns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 72 hours --B (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanninglamp has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly 2 years now: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm considering upgrading it to indef. Anyone interested in opining can take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tanninglamp.  If he were making all of these edits from a logged in account, we would have indeffed him long ago, but unless we're going to range block his IPs (don't tempt me) incentivizing him to edit from dynamic IPs is only going to make it tougher to track him. --B (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to indef based only on the logged in edits. User has 3 blocks after only 44 edits made with this account. Only motivation here appears to be to post negative information about Rick Reilly and Keith Olbermann. --Onorem♠Dil 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm convinced after fully reviewing everything. Indeffed. --B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully support the indef. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, even if it's spread out over almost two years. And we'll deal with the fallout like we always do: one sock at a time. — Satori Son 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully support the indef. He's a classic POV warrior, unwilling to listen or discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:SmoothFlow reported by Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:56,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "sorry, couldn't sleep.")
 * 2) 12:36,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "Subheading")
 * 3) 17:40,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* Research */ why does this person keep reversing my addition?  That makes, like, three times in a day!")
 * 4) 02:05,  8 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry */ I am talking - are you listening?")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more information. User:SmoothFlow appears to be a single purpose account editing Syracuse University. Some of their edits, such as this one, are borderline vandalism to an article undergoing an FAC. I would suggest an extended block for more than edit-warring, but also for disruptive vandalism. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a revision to this in that User:SmoothFlow is still at 4RR within the 24 hour period, including two reverts after the warning. Can someone please deal with this disruptive SPA? Thanks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to discuss SmoothFlow's behavior with him, but I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere. Subsequent to the reverts OrangeMarlin posted above were these three edits, which contained a partial revert and a copy/paste from a source website.  I am an involved administrator so I cannot make a block myself, but I do suggest that this seems to not be heading in a helpful direction. --B (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. I am leaving it to some other admin to decide whether Orangemarlin ought to be sanctioned as well. (See the matching 3RR complaint below). As I stepped through all the edits, it was hard for me to believe that SmoothFlow was making a good-faith effort to improve the article. Orangemarlin must have believed he was reverting vandalism. I know the feeling, but these edits are not exactly vandalism by Wikipedia's definition. The article is up for consideration as a Featured Article, and SmoothFlow was adding eccentric stuff which seems (to me personally) unlikely to assist in its reaching that status. Numerous people were reverting his changes, not just Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow was hardly making much of an effort to persuade others to support his view on the Talk page. I am making this 48 hours due to Smooth's extreme persistence, after being reverted, and his apparent lack of clue regarding the opinions of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with this and with no block of Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow I think is acting in good faith, but he seems to be around 14 and so his edits just aren't very useful.  (Apologies if I guessed wrong and this isn't to say that all 14-year-olds are too young to edit Wikipedia, other disclaimers as appropriate .) he is very inexperienced and his edits are not helpful. --B (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edito*Magica reported by Garion96 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I am involved since I removed the templates in question. But this is getting to 5 or 6rr by now. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the only instance of this editor's edit warring. He is imposing his idiosyncratic style onto various articles about British sitcoms. Delving into his history shows similar disputes with other editors. The JPS talk to me  22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Anthonykimfan reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: blocked for spamming)
. : Time reported: 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 02:38,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 2) 16:45,  5 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 3) 20:49,  6 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 4) 23:06,  6 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 5) 02:59,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 6) 15:24,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 7) 20:16,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 8) 22:31,  7 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 9) 00:19   8 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthonykimfan has been blocked for spamming in response to my WP:AIV report. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla reported by Oakshade (Result: Protected one week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has been attempting to change the opening sentence to this article very much out of consensus and has now broken 3RR in doing so.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected one week - both sides violated 3RR and could be blocked (translation: don't whine that the other party isn't being blocked). This has been going on for a while and is a lame argument.  Talk it out on the talk page.  Figure something out. --B (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Backin72 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

QuackGuru is a chronic edit warrior (see his block log) and abuser of talk pages with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The first two reverts are part of an ongoing effort by some editors to push the "pseudoscience" label as far as possible, no matter whether the sources meet NPOV's pseudoscience labelling policy. The last two reverts appear to be tit-for-tat; regarding the just-mentioned debate of label-pushing, I've been objecting on the talk page to some of QuackGuru's sources, so now he is reverting the NPOV inclusion of mainstream groups like WHO and NIH to balance out the opinions of advocacy groups like CSICOP. Thanks for your time, --Backin72 (n.b.) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not 4 reverts. Making consecutive edits are not reverts. Making false 3 RR reports is not productive. QuackGuru (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Backin72 has not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. I have asked more than once how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience label without any direct reply to my question. The article should not turn into a dumping ground for irrelevant non-specific references. QuackGuru (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected on the "consecutive reverts", but hold that your two rapid-fire reverts that followed, taken together with your history, still violate the spirit of WP:3RR and deserve sanctioning. "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." As for the relevance of the sources to the article, that's for the article talk page;  whether or not an editor is "right" is never an excuse to revert war.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Backin72 it is sanctionable for making reverts. Backin72 has made several reverts within the last few days. Backin72 has vanished but has returned to Wikipedia with his old account. When Backin72 thinks it is santionable he thinks he should be santioned because he has made many reverts. I hope Backin72 is not using his old account to try to get editors blocked. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My (in-process vanishing) on WP is irrelevant; I've got a couple loose ends to tie up, and that's my prerogative. Your insinuation that I'm gaming by using my old account is baseless, and I request that you retract it (unless you can produce evidence).  Furthermore, linking me to my old handle is harassment, and you should stop it immediately.  As for sanctioning for edit warring, your block log is awful, which justifies a block for edit warring.  I've never been blocked because, although I'm not perfect, my mistakes are minor and infrequent. --Backin72 (n.b.) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence is that your still editing with an old account. I thought vanished editors were not allowed to continue editing using old acounts. If you believe reverts is sanctionable then you believe you should be sanctioned. QuackGuru (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. I changed accounts, and am free to edit with the new one; once I've tied up some loose ends, I'll leave.  What is relevant:  I reiterate that your block log shows chronic edit warring issues. --Backin72 (n.b.) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) P.S.  The accusation re my editing with my old account is false, and QuackGuru has produced no evidence (because none exists).  --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR was not violated, but the edit-warring must still stop. As a reminder, the list in question falls within the scope of Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which means that any uninvolved admin can place discretionary sanctions as needed.  If the reverts continue, restrictions will probably be placed, so please, cut it out, and just stick to the talkpage, or try to make compromise edits, rather than just reverting back and forth.  Remember, edit-warring is completely ineffective in terms of making longterm changes to any article on Wikipedia.  A much better way to proceed is to engage in discussion, and try to find a compromise, which will lead to much longer lasting changes which are of better use for our readers. Thanks, --Elonka 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing as no violation per Elonka --B (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Portayla and 68.111.15.230 reported by Agricolae (Result: Portayla indeffed, 68.111.15.230 not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Portayla:


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

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Word being restored by User: Portayla was originally placed in article by a sock-puppet of banned and blocked User: Yorkshirian, who has previously used sock-puppets to violate 3RR on this page. Pattern of edits and edit summaries suggest Portayla may be another Yorkshirian sock. Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser requested at Requests for checkuser/Case/Yorkshirian. If Portayla is Yorkshirian, then reverting the edits of a banned user is an exemption from 3RR.  Decision deferred until then. --B (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Portayla indefblocked as a sock of a banned user. The IP is not blocked as reverting edits of a banned user are exempt from revert limitations. --B (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 3 Jan


 * 1) 4 December, 22:51 ("reinstated old...")
 * 2) 5 December, 01:44 ("data ... reinstated...")
 * 3) 5 December, 14:05 ("undid...")
 * 4) 5 December, 21:36 ("rv...")


 * Earlier version reverted to: 3 Jan
 * Earlier (semi-)reverts to the same passage: 27 Dec, 27 Dec, 9 Dec, 8 Dec, 12 Nov, 12 Nov, 11 Nov, 11 Nov.

Experienced user, no warning necessary.

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology with a nationalist agenda. Has been pushing this agenda for years. Long previous block log, please treat with utmost severity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Has form; incivility. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "extremely problematic POV editor", "pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology", you are not talking about yourself, are you Fut. Perf? ...Walnutjk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.250.22 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for playing "Give Deucalionite A Free Vacation" (sponsored by Krinos Foods). Deucalionite (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin reported by SmoothFlow (Result: Not blocked)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Like:

One - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262404627&oldid=262400461

Two - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262476875&oldid=262472517

Three - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262548885&oldid=262527491

Four - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262572860&oldid=262570551

Five - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262572860

Six - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262574114

Seven - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262576756

Eight - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=prev&oldid=262660797 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmoothFlow (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I try to add something, this person keeps removing it. Plus he's reporting me now, apparently. What can I do about this? SmoothFlow (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like he is reverting your edits because they are about 20% useful and 80% unhelpful. For example, "it's funny" is not a good reason to add nonsense to an article. --B (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See the case one above this one, unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'm just going to close this. (Nobody has touched it in the nearly 24 hours it has been here.)  3RR is about deterring edit warring, and OM was not edit warring.  At this point, this is stale anyway. --B (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Doktorspin reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Protected by VirtualSteve)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: - after he first changed the dates to BCE/CE. The article was previously stable as using BC/AD, until someone added text using BCE/CE. After this was changed to conform, Doktorspin changed the whole article to BCE/CE without discussion, and has reverted to this version 9 times so far.

Note the edit summaries! (rolling reverts, with the first & last 4 of the 6 both within 24 hrs. Warned after 4th revt.)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

The same revert has been made a total 9 times since December 25th, lastly today. There has been extensive discussion with several editors at the talk page: Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus


 * Diff of 3RR warning:, and by uninvolved admin ("another editor" was not me btw). After a lull of 3 days, he has reverted again today.

Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected by VirtualSteve - why a British/American solution won't work here (BC/AD in Christianity articles, BCE/CE everywhere else) is beyond me, but in any event the article has been protected so nothing else to do. --B (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be dealing with the issues involved. --spin (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Carl Bunderson reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Quite a tag-team combo. Nice communications, boys.

People who prefer to maintain errors by exploiting rules while overlooking aims and purposes of the Wikipedia institution are themselves violating the spirit of learning. So Johnbod has himself undone the dating system change three times, yet invokes the 3RR rule. Ironic.

He cannot provide a rational response to the three reasons provided why the change to BCE/CE is necessary and improves the quality of Wikipedia. Briefly,


 * 1) BCE/CE is the scholarly system;
 * 2) BCE/CE is not biased against other religious positions; and
 * 3) BCE/CE doesn't have an inbuilt error (Jesus being born in 4 before himself).

If one cannot deal logically with the argument for the change, one shouldn't engage in edit warring. It is merely abuse of the system. The notion of aiming for scholarly standards should be seen as improvement and should not be shunned.

To understand the scholarly situation one should consult indiscutably scholarly sources -- such as peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see what they do.

Ignore All Rules simply and specifically says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --spin (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should see my comment in another report - the article was protected; both sides violated 3RR so complaining that the other party wasn't blocked is not a good idea. --B (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I normally go about my business of trying to improve Wiki. I'm not up with all aspects of Wiki management. I merely thought perspective on the issue would be useful. I said nothing about the other party not being blocked. --spin (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My 3 reverts were over a period of 2 weeks, so I have not reverted 3RR. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. But then you had Carl! Getting reason out of you two was impossible. --spin (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

216.165.3.44 reported by RolandR (Result: Blocked for other reasons)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

RolandR (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

216.165.3.44 reported by Pedrito (Result: Already blocked.)

 * Page:
 * User:

IP-User keeps trying to remove category tags established by consensus.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The edit summaries are a good indication that this user knows Wikipedia policies well. Perhaps a case for Checkuser? Cheers,  pedrito  -  talk  - 08.01.2009 11:11
 * We know the user's IP, so what could checkuser do? For some reason, my identical report above, which appears in page history and which can be edited by clicking the section link, does not display properly . And the user has been blocked following my ANI report of edit-warring on several articles, and abuse on my talk page RolandR (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A checkuser might ferret out what account the user originally used, but will probably be declined on the magic pixie dust ground. Anyway, . Stifle (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan


 * 1) RV 1
 * 2) RV 2
 * 3) RV 3
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist .There are enough proofs show this user is against Albanians and Kosovo (Evidences: ). Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only 3R and has indicated (qualified) willingness on talk not to revert further. Will warn. Might I further remark how heart-warming it is to see you making full use of the talk page to discuss your reverts and diffuse the situation? Its so common for people to neglect to do this in the heat of passion. Or, put another way, consider youself warned too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttll reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result: 12h each)

 * Page: Middle East
 * User: User:Mttll


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I tried resolving it on the talk page, but all I got was unsourced opinion and personal attacks about my "agenda". --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're both edit warring on a sensitive article. Take a brief break and let someone else deal with it for a bit. 12h each for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arthur Kemp reported by User:Wuhwuzdat (Result: no vio / warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

4th revert was on another page, but is of the same nature, removal of a COI, or Autobiography template.


 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

All of Mr Kemps contributions have had to do with either his own article Arthur Kemp, or another Clive Derby-Lewis, which mentions him. His edits seem to be somewhat self serving, with a serious potential for Confict Of Interest, and poor potential for Neutral Point Of View. Mr Kemp also seems to have a serious issues with COI and Autobiography tags. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its per-page, so he has only 3R. Newbie, will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

83.254.20.63 reported by Why Not A Duck (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:

83.254.20.63, apparently the same individual as indef blocked user Consist, is edit warring again. On Clade, Monophyletic group, Holophyly, and Paraphyly. Recent edits on Clade are minor but they're at the "heart" of the dispute. I'll also point out edits at the page Paraphyly. Was blocked yesterday for 24 hours (note: some of the diffs I refer to above are from before the block; as far as I know he isn't up to 3RR today) and has returned to it again. Has avowed that he'll keep it up indefinitely. Some history: He's engaged in a long series of discussions on Talk:Clade trying to get his point of view across. As near as I can understand it, he's on a crusade to rescue Linnaean taxonomy from the clutches of "Cladism" which he insists is unscientific. His arguments vary. Generally people debate with him for a while, and get tired of it, at which point he states that they either don't accept or don't understand scientific rationalism (and usually that they don't understand some other thing, such as relativity) and either finds someone new to argue with, or goes back to edit warring. -- Why Not A Duck 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected four of the articles named above. Since is indef-blocked for disruptive editing, a longer block for the IP is deserved but will have little effect, because his IP changes all the time. If he edits more widely, please ask for semi-protection of additional articles at WP:RFPP. When requesting protection you can link to  the indef-block notice at User:Consist. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective reported by User:Novangelis (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Further signs of non-collaboative behavior: profanity threatening to delete article suggests banning users he disagrees with accuses other editors of lying
 * There haven't been any reverts since the warning was issued. I suggest we leave this one open for a bit and see what happens. --B (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, those are lies, see my categorical refutation of all allegations in the talk section at that page, or alternatively I can post it here if you like? Can I 'counter sue' Novalis for his lies? Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective  —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

As to the profanity, that was my son, who is at an age where that kind of thing is funny to him. I apologize on his behalf.Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective  —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

I was told I was welcome to oin the discussion; There doesn't appear to be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your son shouldn't be using your id. You shouldn't be calling people liars are you are doing here and on the talk page. You clearly broke WP:3RR and are fortunate that no one blocked you. The only allegations I can see are that you broke WP:3RR, that you threatened to wipe out text, that you said users should be banned, and that you called others liars. These are backed up with difs which seem to back them up. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and make sure that you don't break WP:3RR again - and note that 3RR is not an entitlement. dougweller (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I categorically refuted all those claims and proved he was lying, why do you continue to repeat his baseless, slanderous personal attacks? (I didn't know about the three revert rule btw, I am waiting 24 hours before I make any further alterations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interim result: Magnetic has not edited past his first 3RR warning. However, when invited to comment here, he has left a number of personal attacks on the noticeboard. I've invited him to retract his 'liar' comments. If he does not do so, he may be blocked for personal attacks. I don't have a good feeling about this editor's future on Wikipedia, but if he is willing to retract his comments, that would be a good sign. I am thinking of issuing a long block if he does not do so, and I invite comment on that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. If I proved Novangelis's numerous personal attacks and allegations were unfounded lies, why can't I say he is lying? Please answer this. Thanks. Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Result: After an extended discussion over at User talk:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective and after quoting of Wikipedia policy, Magnetic could not be persuaded to remove his comments above about 'lying' editors, so he is blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedrito reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 55 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:  - edit summary is "Undid revision 262728176 by ליאור (talk) "
 * 2nd revert: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262737445 by Wehwalt (talk) "
 * 3rd revert: - same as #1. edit summary says "removed".
 * 4th revert: - edist summary labels it a revert.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user is very aware of 3RR, having filed a report today, and blocked for 3RR previously.

The edit summaries clearly indicate the editor knew he was reverting every time.


 * 55 hours. —  Aitias  // discussion 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Pedrito has asked to have his block reviewed. I'm not an admin, but if one is out there, could you please take a look at his request. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

The "reverts" relate to the map in the infobox, which this editor is taking offence to, but for which I received positive feedback from other editors.


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * User acknowledges that they know about the rule
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning 6 Jan:
 * Diff of 3RR warning 8 Jan:

The fourth revert came - sadly - after this exchange between us where it looked like we might make progress on the talk page, but instead he decided to revert a 4th time when he didn't like my response.

I should have kept a cool head this evening and not reverted myself, but I've been having constant issues with this editor ever since he joined the project a couple of months ago (see Wikiquette alert ). The latest example from this evening: after requesting he provide written sources for a map that he had drawn, I get this reply. As someone who cares a lot about making Wikipedia better (I took British Empire to FA status the other week) it pains me to deal with people who think they are above providing sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok let's make something clear before anything happens, User red Hat of Pat Ferrick has been insulting and trashing me since the first day i joined Wikipedia, he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable and i have to say he is succeeding, sometimes he is able to drive me away from articles because i dont like the way he directs at me, he is very disrespectful and rude towards me (but not limited to, many users have said the same)if im allow to say.
 * Today he says i reverted 3 times and i did because he wants to put a map that has gained no popularity or acceptance on the Talk page of the Portuguese Empire, what he did was to go to the talk page of the British Empire and asked if his proposed map was "okay" but shouldn't he be disscussing that in the Portuguese Empire talk page? out of 3 times he's asked for acceptance in the Portuguese Empire talk page he has been denied the 3 times, other users want to keep the current map until his map is fixed (i say the same, there are way too many errors on his proposed map), so in short he wants to put a map before asking any of us, i dont think that's fair to us .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that i don't provide any sources at all, in fact i do most of the time he asks me, but today i told him to go ask somebody else for sources, apparently to him, when he doesn't know something he believes whatever is not sourced is wrong, in normal cases i give him sources but this time im sure he can ask somebody else oh BTW I GAVE HIM SOURCES ABOUT THAT ALREADY, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE CAN'T ACCEPT THEM(!!), only the sources he likes he is able to accept, the source was very accurate but he just can't accept, he says because its too old but i seen him doing the same, using maps from OLD ATLASES! my source was from the 1930s or 1950s but his source for a fact in the British Empire article was from 1897!!! but i dont know why he can't accept MY sources... .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Honest Green reported by Chasingsol (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:

Also using:

Repeatedly re-adding unsourced and biased content. --Chasingsol(talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-01-09T11:58:45 EyeSerene (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Honest Green (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule on) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:78.30.163.113 reported by User:Mayalld (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. —  Aitias  // discussion 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Home352 reported by Voltorb (Result: Indef blocked)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

These user(s) have been repeatedly vandalising the Asterisk page. I know for a fact that these user(s) are part of a group of trolls from another site that emphasize "proper" use of asterisks. I noticed they moved to Wikipedia and started reverting it. After my third revert, I warned him of the three-revert rule. He then started reverting it from an IP. I reverted it again, but remembered the three revert rule and quickly changed it back.

I am not sure if he can be punished due to no specific IP/account reverting more than three times, but they are clearly the same person. -VoItorb (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Account indeffed, article s-protected. Blocking dynamic IPs isn't necessarily a fruitful endeavor, but if he/she trolls elsewhere, please let me know. --B (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One question, if I accidentally violate the 3RR without realizing it, should I revert it back as I did in this situation? -VoItorb (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In general yes, but in this case, when the edit is unquestionably vandalism/trolling, there is no need to. On an unrelated subject, it looks like your user name has been changed.  Please log in using your new user name - it makes it incredibly confusing when you use the old one and they are so similar. --B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm on a computer that had "VoItorb" (with an i) still in the "Log in" screen. And I didn't know if it would be classified as blatant vandalism. - Voltorb ( talk here ) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true - other admins might look at it differently, so I can only speak for myself - I wouldn't have blocked you if you had reverted it 50 times - it was obvious enough to me that it was trolling/vandalism. --B (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

An old dispute dating back to late November. I requested a dispute resolution via WP:3O. The user later wrote that he didn't actually care all that much about the template and agreed to leave the then-current revision as it was. Then he changed his mind.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You both have 4R. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dodo_bird reported by User: Bob98133(Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is the second time in the past few weeks that this editor has reverted and changed text 3 or more times without explanation in the edit summaries while ignoring requests to discuss. Editor previously redirected his talk page to avoid being able to send him a message. He deletes any talk on his talk page almost immediately. Bob98133 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena reported by Angelo De La Paz (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 7 Jan


 * 1) RV 1
 * 2) 8 RV 2
 * 3) RV 3

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist account.There are enough proofs show this user is against Albanians and Kosovo. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, not 3RR. Though this complaint was made two days ago, the edit warring is still going on. Forsena systematically changes the terms used to refer to Kosovo by other editors, paying no attention to existing consensus. From one of today's edit summaries, Kosovo is NOT A COUNTRY and it will never be. Stop promoting idiotism in this article! When this user returns from this block, he should take note of his one-week topic ban from Balkan-related articles and Talk pages that was enacted over at WP:AE on 10 January. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Gimmetrow reported by user:NancyHeise (Result: No Vio)
Since early November, I have had a long running discussion with over 17 editors about note 1 of the article Roman Catholic Church. user:Gimmetrow, an admin, has perisitently opposed the consensus version of this note. A very nice Wikipediean, user:Richard has been trying to work out a compromise and has agreed, along with myself and other users to a form of the note that explains things more clearly and to the use of an author named Patrick Madrid as one of the POV's to include. Gimmetrow has eliminated my insertion of this agreed upon WP:RS book three times.
 * page Roman Catholic Church
 * User user:Gimmetrow


 * Version previous to reverts


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


 * Diff to warning

He has done this without even coming to the talk page to explain or argue his point and does not seem to care that we, on the talk page, have discussed this. I am only making changes that were suggested in the compromise. . Those opposing the consensus version are Gimmetrow and two new accounts with very little activity except the RCC talk page. and I suspect they are sockpuppets of someone, no I don't suspect Gimmetrow but honestly I don't know now.  Nancy Heise    talk  04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * update: he has come to the talk page after I posted this. However his tone is not conducive to working toward a compromise which he seems adamant against considering his persistent opposition to consensus including this present set of reverts.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The above list only shows three reverts. Four reverts are needed to break the WP:3RR rule. It seems possible that you could ask for advice at WP:RSN as to whether the Madrid source is reliable. The other side has been claiming that the Madrid source is not academic and is not an official church document. From a quick look, it is not obvious to me that the Talk page has reached a clear verdict on this matter. You might be able to find ways of bringing in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will echo the above, might I recommend WP:DISPUTE and WP:30? Tiptoety  talk 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you I contacted WP:RSN. The opposing side has listed the matter at RFC twice already and the article was at FAC which is why we had so many editors chiming in on the matter with consensus in agreement over the use of sources and text that Gimmetrow disputes.   He is abusing his power and not respecting either consensus or WP:RS.   Nancy Heise    talk  07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ElSaxo reported by User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (Result: 24/31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Same as this. Apparently, the 12-hour block wasn't of much use for either side, the reverting spree restarted as soon as it expired, albeit this time I did try to discuss the question, but, alas, without success.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you've both gone back to edit warring straight off your blocks, so you're both blocked again, but for longer this time. You've made a token effort to talk (though I detected no real signs of any compromise) so you get a very slightly shorter block in recognition William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists (result: no vio)

 * Page:

Ok, we really need to discuss what the correct attitude concerning this controversy is. I would agree that there are some issues with the article, but those aren't wrote than similar ones at several other articles from the Template:Religious persecution. Other editors were bold enough to remove several sections of the article because they didn't show sufficiently that what was discussed in that section was actually discriminating. Well, I though, if they are so bold to do this, then I may be so bold to simply move the whole thing to 'Situation of atheists. I was reverted instantly, and asked to discuss controversial edits first. Well, other editors didn't do that when they removed the sections, so why should it? It didn't even get the time to justify the move on the talk page, and actually, I had suggested it before... Zara1709 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a pointy nomination, which this board is clearly not designed to deal with. Discussion on the article talk page should be attempted first, which the nominator has stated they haven't tried. Verbal   chat  13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who started to make controversial edits without justification. Since this simply happens again and again, I don't see a reason any more to contribute to Wikipedia. Find someone else to clean up your junk. Zara1709 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to at least pretend there is edit warring, and maybe trouble yyourself to present a diff or two, if you want anyone to take a report seriously. This is not WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an involved editor, but I will point out that there is a huge amount of discussion on the talk page (it takes up most of the talk page) about OR and synthesis which led up to the removal of what was seen to be OR. The discussion was the 'justification' that Zara1709 doesn't seem to think took place. dougweller (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin reported by HighKing (Result: Withdrawn by nominator )

 * Page:
 * User:

I am an uninvolved editor that came across this editor at a recent WQA. This editor has breached 3RR multiple times on this article, and an attempt to discuss this on the users Talk page was met with an accusation of being a sock (edit summary), etc.


 * 6:40 7th
 * 16:33 7th
 * 18:29 7th
 * 18:36 7th
 * 19:05 7th
 * 01:38 8th
 * 04:05 8th
 * 16:37 8th
 * 21:55 8th


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * I count only 3 reverts in those diffs, which span a period of over 24 hours, and no edits were made after the very rude warning which involved personal attacks. I suggest the nominator be warned for civility and not to abuse the 3RRN. Verbal   chat  14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the diffs spanning more than 24 hours - this was to show the amount of reverting that this editor has done on this article, but if you count them up, you will see that the first 7 reverts are within 24 hours. All of these diffs are reverts (please read the definition of what constitutes a revert).  Finally, please substantiate your accusation of "very rude warning which involved personal attacks" or withdraw the remark which in itself is a breach of WP:CIVIL.  I have included the diff above for the warning, I leave it for other editors to draw their own conclusions on behaviour standards here.  --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess once was accused of being a homophobe, I should expect this type of attack. What the editor fails to notice is that the vandalizing editor attempted to put in material against consensus, put in "joke" edits, and couldn't spell.  Moreover, another admin blocked the editor for several violations of whatever.  This is laughable.  Completely laughable.  Reverting a vandal is completely acceptable.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn - it appears that this case was already reported and the decision was not to block Orangemarlin here. Apologies to Orangemarlin, although it would have been simpler all round if he had merely pointed this out. --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for this crap. I expect an editor to do his own due-diligence before making these types of accusations.  I do apologize for calling you a sock, since you obviously are not after my own due diligence.  However, I was harassed by two meatpuppets on the same topic.  It was suspicious go through this again.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur_Kemp reported by Verbal (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 09:32, 10 January 2009  (no edit summary)
 * 2) 16:18, 10 January 2009  (no edit summary)
 * 3) 16:31, 10 January 2009  (no edit summary)
 * 4) 16:49, 10 January 2009  (no edit summary)
 * 5) 16:52, 10 January 2009  (no edit summary)


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

Note: Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious WP:COI issues. Verbal  chat  16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All I have asked for is a chance to add a refutation to a pack of lies put up about me. This is only fair, is it not?

I see that you yourself have now agreed to allow me to refute the allegations. So why, if I may ask, if you have now agreed to put it in, did you object so strongly to me putting them in the first time around? Anyway, as long as it stays like that, I am satisfied. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This users disruptive editwarring is ongoing, on a page he should not be editing anyway. He is far beyond the 4R allowed in just a few hours, after many warnings and commenting above.  Verbal   chat  18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 31 hours. —  Aitias  // discussion 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Baxter9 reported by bogdan (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:43, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "rv "some webpage" LOL! Check it: it is the website of the Organization for the European Minorities.")
 * 2) 20:56, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "rv. please dont remove reliable referenced material")
 * 3) 21:42, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "added other sources (Registered foundations)")
 * 4) 22:09, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "Please add your reasons before you remove referenced material from tha article.")
 * 5) 22:51, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "LOL! Sure "not insufficiently" 2 reliable sources were removed by the user")
 * 6) 22:58, 10 January 2009  (edit summary: "rv vandalism. Sources are reliable.")


 * 24 hours. —  Aitias  // discussion 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

67.169.4.255 reported by Čeha (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:

User 67.169.4.255 broke 3 revert rule on this page --Čeha (razgovor) 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TO ADMIN: I invite you to please visit Republika Srpska page history to see who started reverting things. While undoing my edit, and then complaining about me the user Ceha is a constant provocator on the RS page, doing nothing but decunstructive harm. While he complains about 3RR he had the decency to remove additional links which I have added to this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.4.255 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We need some professional help on this page. People like user Direktor have in their profile a wikibox that openly says that they DO NOT SUPPORT HE RIGHT OF R.S. TO EXIST... so they are preemptively biased against the page that they are edited. We need serious help and need to stop this propaganda and nationalism that these people are trying to add here. (LAz17 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * Yes we need help. User 67.169.4.255 broke 3RR and User Laz17 is guilty of incivility. User Laz17 was also warn for serbian bias. If both users have something constructive to say about the map or improve it in any way, they are welcomed. Hower they do need (as everbody else) to stick to wikipedia rules. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already told you of your biggest fraud on the map, and it was so big that you changed it at once - it was not like your bosnia map where you never changed anything until and insisted it was okay until it got deleted. You cite the ICTY as the map data source... shit son, then why do you misname every detention camp center as concentration camp? You did not even look at what the ICTY had to say, you designed the map on purpose to spread your nationalistic agenda. Your agenda has been seen nonstop, regarding your maps. We are in the process of cleaning out your 1991 ethnic maps because they are fraudulent. The point is that you are of anti-serbian biase. I am not of any biase that you accuse me of. I may react bad to bad things, but you are the one that is causing it. (LAz17 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
 * No. You are responsible for uncivic behavior and user 67.169.4.255 for break of 3RR. Do I need to qoute the warnings where you were warned or your own words?
 * As for detention/concentration map issue, have you read map log? Let me repeat it for you;  Human rights watch declered them as concentration ones, for example |  . Moreover this is changed. Map is correct.
 * For we issue, I did not know that you are a plurality. Sorry your higness. Every document which I made is sorced. If anybody can show me that I'm wrong or that I'm using wrong data I'll correct it. That's called cooperation. Nationalistic yelling and your behavior is not cooperative. If you read anything of wikipedia's policies you would know that. --Čeha (razgovor) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Ceha who is obviosuly biased toward RS has decency to say that we are biased toward RS (since we are serbs), and yet he's the one who goes tarnishing RS page everyday. It seems that imrpoving things calls for 3RR while obviosuly being biased against is great. If you feel like you should post any RS criticism do it under Fed. Yell and complain all you want over there.67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LAZ is there a way to talk to mods and maybe lock the site until provocators disperse.67.169.4.255 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation. It is not up to admins to decide whether the contested map belongs in the article or not. It would be good if the editors who favor including the map would spell out on the article Talk page exactly where the data came from. (The map image file itself has no link to a source; it just says 'ICTY'.). EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some internet links and sources on . Going to update (spread) list of detention camps when I get the time... --Čeha (razgovor) 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Eminencefront aka 72.134.63.246 reported by Law (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The registered user and the IP are indeed the same user, as the registered user uses their IP talk page for discussion. User has been warned (has warned me, apparently), and will not use the discussion page of the article. Thanks. Lawshoot! 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Eminence Front is now at 4RR tonight, even without the IP. I've left him a comment below as well.

User:Law reported by Eminencefront (Result: EF blocked 24 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263306350&oldid=261386371


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=261389309&oldid=261386371
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263170103&oldid=263134495* 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263285759&oldid=263246670


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Law

I am linking an adult fan site for Max, being an adult site it requires a logging for Google (email address for age verification) user Law is removing said site saying it does not have anything "bettering" the article, he points to a rule about avoiding lo in pages, this rule is clearly intended for news paper and such article amendments, not for fan sites that are specific to the article as noted in:

What should be linked Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.--Eminencefront (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EF, I've also reverted you, fan sites don't belong as per WP:EL. I agree with Law that this site falls under that category. In any case, it's not worth edit warring over. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that EF has now reverted my opinion without discussion, and is at 4RR today. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious: EF violated EL as well as 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt 3RR violation (indef)
Could you possible help out on Shakespeare authorship article. Smatprt is agenda pushing his Oxfordian theology into the article and is now guilty of 3RR violation. Thanks very much for your time. JohnsonTrewA (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indef William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, JohnsonTrewA was indef blocked, not Smatprt. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I don't like ratting other editors out to noticeboards. However, I really don't know what to do. I would not do this if not the fact that the templates are nonsense and disruptive. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, talk about WP:LAME. Tiptoety  talk 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick unblock. Brewcrewer is misrepresenting his behavior and actions. I am and endless river of good faith. But lesson learned: AGF goes only so far.--Cerejota (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Croctotheface reported by LarRan (Result: Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Hi folks.

You're not going to believe what this user does. I've been doing a lot of work on disambiguation, redirection and date unlinking, whenever I've come across it. Well, this user writes to me, and asks me to stop, referring to WP:R2D. So I read it, and find that, well, ok, there might be a point - if correcting a (one) redirect were the only thing I was doing. Most of the time I make dozens of changes, as I take the trouble of fixing every flaw I find while I'm on the page (typos, camel-case, inconsistent date formats, etc).

Ok, only correcting redirects might not be very helpful. But then what does he do? He reverts my "unneccessary" change, re-inserting redirects instead if direct links, re-links dates, "re-ambiguates" links, or whatever changes I've made! (Told you you wouldn't believe it, didn't I?)

If my changes were unnecessary, then what are his? I can't even begin to describe how stupid I think that is: going back to what both he and I agree on is a worse version than that which I created. He's motives for doing this is that he wants to discourage me from continuing to do my work. In addition to violating the 3RR rule (in fact he has reverted me four times), I think WP:POINT and WP:DBF come into play.

He's at least acting in good faith, I can give him that.

LarRan (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is quite a bit of discussion taking place, mostly at Talk:New York Islanders but Croctotheface is continuing to revert even though the most relevant discussion seems to be leaning against his view. It is accepted that the articles on the hockey players will use the version of their name *with* diacritics. Introducing a piped link to each player's name, though it doesn't appear logical to me personally, seems to be the version that the WP:HOCKEY editors are in favor of. Some of those joining in the discussion have pointed out that this compromise was originally adopted within WP:HOCKEY to put a stop to *revert wars*. So here we have Croctotheface engaging in a revert war. Something isn't right. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm generally loathe to comment on things like this, as the record should speak for itself, but much in the above comment is just false. I did not "continue to revert even though the most relevant discussion seemed to be going against my view."  My last edit to the main article occurred BEFORE I posted on the talk page, and all talk page discussion occurred after that comment. I see no evidence that the other editors are in favor of introducing piped links, just that they don't see the point in reverting them.  Djsasso and RGTraynor take that position.  GoodDay agrees with me that we should use redirects.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, to further explain the record, when Djsasso wrote, "And that is not an ok situation as needless edit warring between versions is what our compromise was trying to stop. While this isn't an edit war between diacritics and not diacritics, its still an edit war. Ironically over the same links but for a different reason." That comment does not refer to a "compromise" regarding using piped links.  The compromise is about using diacritics for player names in certain articles and not using them in others.  The past edit warring he refers to was over whether to display or not to display the diacritics.  This edit war is over R2D, nothing more.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And since I'm here already, I may as well point out that of the four linked reversions above, two occurred four days ago. Additionally, LaRan reverted each of the reversions he linked above, as the page history shows.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't dispute resolution, but if I may attempt to resolve the dispute, LaRan is seeking to link to Zigmund Palffy, which is unquestionably wrong under R2D. If that's the direction that WP:HOCKEY is going, then WP:HOCKEY is wrong. This only causes maintenance annoyances down the line. For example, suppose that some time down the line, it is discovered that the wrong a is being used and it should be a different a. If you directly link to the correct title, then links that need to be updated can easily be found with whatlinkshere. But if you pipe the link, then it's much more difficult to find the link. I would think using the guy's actual name with no piping - Žigmund Pálffy would be correct, but whether you use the Americanized spelling or the correct spelling, piping it is a bad idea. In any event, there's no threat of disruption here and blocking would be purely punitive, so not blocked. --B (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JAF1970 and User:Bomberdude'02 reported by Elbutler (Result: watched)

 * Page: Jonah Falcon
 * Users: User:Bomberdude'02 and User:JAF1970.

The two have started an edit war about, out of the most silliest of things, Jonah Falcon's penis size. JAF1970, claims to be Jonah Falcon and thus keeps reverting the edits. Which Bomberdude'02 counteract's with "you don't want to degrade yourself". Please break this up before the page is fully protected. Elbutler (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:J.delanoy seems to be dealing with this William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Reidlos reported by User:LauraAndrade88 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Posturewriter reported by WhatamIdoing (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:  Note that this involves partial reversions, plus additional comments:  the edit war is over his determination to restore a subsection head that attacks me.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I frankly didn't think that Wikipedia's rules said that editors had to wait for repeated personal attacks to rise to the level of 3RR, but that seemed to be the drift of the (non-admin) comments at ANI. I've removed this particular one from my user talk page four times in less than 24 hours. Attacking me is the only thing this editor has done during this time. I would like someone to block this user before we make it a fifth, sixth, or seventh time. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:81.23.54.165 reported by User:Ynhockey (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Notes: User was warned with uw-3rr.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 reported by Prophaniti (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

User:Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material from the mudvayne page. See diffs. I have accepted changing the opening line to a more general term, and expressed willingness to discuss other matters on the talk page. Ibaranoff24 is leaving the published book source, but continues to remove an NME source and a Rolling Stone source, both published music magazines, and citations also from popmatters and Metal-Observer, not ideal sources, but accepted review sites due to meeting the criteria of having an editorial and writing staff, and as such acceptable in support of other sources. I apologise if this is not the correct place to put a complaint about reverts removing sourced material, and if so would appreciate a link to where it would be appropriate. Prophaniti (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and needs to be handled through some type of dispute resolution. This is the correct place to report edit warring, but this user has not violated 3RR. You need 4 reverts within a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, only two of these reverts are within 24 hours. There is no violation here. Landon1980 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No vio. Try (all together now...) WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The user has not violated the rule, but as the rule states, that isn't the only way to edit war. Top of this very page: "Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." Ultimately, he's simply removed sourced material repeatedly. I'm bringing it here because I've no doubt if I revert again I'll be the one getting done for edit warring. So if nothing is being done here, I want one of two things: a guarantee from an admin that if I continue simply to restore these sources I won't end up getting blocked for warring, OR a pointer to where precisely I should take this, as the user in question will not listen to me on the talk page, so what else can I do about this removal of sourced material? According to wiki rules it isn't vandalism, so please tell me precisely where to take this. Prophaniti (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This usually means that you have to build your case a little more. Try a few more times to discuss the matter and if the reversals and the refusal to discuss persist you can reopen the case. Dr.K. (logos) 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Dr. K. I'll continue on the talk page and try to end it, if Ibaranoff persists I'll bring it back here. Prophaniti (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure Prophaniti. I've been in a few situations like this one myself. It just takes a bit of patience. Take care. Dr.K. logos 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed Landon helping restore the material. Thanks Landon, much appreciated. Prophaniti (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Prophaniti has been repeatedly trying to push his own POV and add questionable sources. Now he is outright lying about the edits I've made in order to keep his revision. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

User:Amadscientist reported by User:DionysosProteus (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This theatre was recently involved in a controversy, the details of which constitute about a quarter of the article's total length. Editor persistently removes all reference to those events from the lead, apparently in a desire to protect the theatre's reputation. I understand the wikipedia guidelines on leads to say that they should summarise the important elements of the article; as a section constituting such a large proportion, it is clearly important enough to summarise. My own non-investment in the theatre's reputation--good or ill--is detailed on the talk (I live on another continent for a start). DionysosProteus (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed a violation (there were four reverts), but I feel that page protection is a better course here. Open to a second opinion. Okiefromokla questions? 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why. AMS clearly violated 3RR, the others didn't. Blocking AMS rather than protection seems more natural. Furthermore AMS has been distinctly incivil (Consensus is required. Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass) and appears to be appealling to a non-existence consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the fourth revert sir. The rule is three reverts in a 24 hour period. Dionysis was very biligerent and uncivil as well. There was no consensus for the addition of the text and he was just as wrong for not waiting for a consensus to be formed. ANd no one thinks his calling me a vandal over reverts wasn't incivil? This doesn not make sense to me at all and I request someone please point out the four reverts.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * William, you are correct, a block would have been a better choice here than protection. Not sure what I was seeing late last night, but Amadscientist's behavior was more questionable than I realized. However, given my initial actions here, and the fact that Amadscientist has at least attempted to work things out with Dionysis by means of a comment on his talk page since the page protection, I've left a note asking Amadscientist to make some promises if this block is to be waived. If other administrators agree, that would be my suggestion. (Note: here is the fourth revert: .) Okiefromokla questions? 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This must be a matter of my not understanding dates as the 4th revert you just linked is from the 9th not the 11th. I will admit I seem not to understand any of this. I request simply inblocking the page and blocking me. I may not understand any of this, but i would rather the page be open and I be blocked.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My offer was declined by Amadscientist, and the 3RR violation stands. 24 hour block is appropriate. Okiefromokla questions? 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Amad said he did not understand the complaint (above), here are the four reverts that I noticed (all times UTC):
 * 03:03, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
 * 02:23, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
 * 00:40, January 11, 2009 'Reverting..'
 * 20:01, January 10, 2009 'Undid..'
 * Since the four reverts are within a 24-hour period, they do break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - Just for clarification, Amadscientist also received an explanation and/or diff of the fourth revert here, here and here. Okiefromokla questions? 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is a somewhat volatile article, with its scope under much contention, and what material should and shouldn't be included. There are quite a few editors, as evidenced by the talk page, who believe that Biophys is assuming ownership of the article and linking other alleged or real internet teams or whatever to give this conspiracy theory more credence. It would appear that Biophys is intent on having only his version of the article without addressing concerns that other editors have. --Russavia Dialogue 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Why is the first revert a revert to the version-reverted-to. It doesn't look like it to me William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My edits after the revert by Martintg (3rd diff by Russavia) do not represent a revert/edit warring. To the contrary, I removed materials, suggested to be irrelevant by Russavia . These removed materials were previously inserted by me, not by other users, as one can see from edit history. I would be happy to self-revert, but my new version has been already reverted by other users. There is a discussion at this article talk page. If recommended, I can stop editing this article for a couple of days. Thanks,Biophys (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note this: .Biophys (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that other editors have also reverted your changes demonstrates that there is much contention as to materials in the article, and the article history demonstrates that you are asserting ownership of the article. And yes, I put a message on both Ellol and Offliner talk page, as they have both been involved in discussions on the talk page, and it was a notice advising them of the re-inclusion of your preferred text. And I would also ask that admins look at this, in which Biophys continues with his insinuations that others (this time me) are members of Russian government propaganda teams. This is in violation of Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren (of which Biophys is aware); accusing people of being Russian government propaganda agents create battleground conditions. --Russavia
 * Just one other thing, one will notice that none of the two editors who I contacted have done any reverting, they have instead gone to the talk page, as I suggested, and are continuing discussion there. --Russavia Dialogue 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain --Russavia Dialogue 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, shan't, you explain William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain what William? Read the talk page of the article concerned to see that there is absolutely no consensus for the re-insertion of information by Biophys. He knows its contentious, and yet he does it anyway?! --Russavia Dialogue 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This 3RR report is malformed as there was no 3RR warning given and hence no warning diff supplied. Note that Russavia has been blocked for two weeks for harassing Biophys in the past. This report appears to be following a similar pattern. Martintg (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the result, you are wrong: B has been blocked for 3RR before and needs no warning William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Martintg, that is so far in the past it is not funny. If you wanna bring that up, then perhaps your stalking of myself needs to be brought up also, yes? It could also be said that your revert of myself has been done as a team situation, using the "there is no consensus" reason, when if you would have cared to look at the talk page, there is a heap of objections to the revisions which Biophys has done in the past on this particular article. --Russavia Dialogue 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio: don't see why first-revert is a revert, nor the third William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then can one explain how all of the editors who have never expressed an opinion on the article talk page before, are now rushing in to revert and re-include information into the article. Wait for it, the Arbcom is now a WP:RS....yes, you got it, the Arbcom is now a RS for WP purposes. Check if for yourselves, and one can clearly see there is a shitload of disruptive editing on this article. --Russavia Dialogue 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionlly William, the third is a revert. I was BLOCKED for 48 hours, remember, and the basis of some of that is that I actually did legitimate copyediting. I asked, and never got the decency of a response, as to why there is one rule for one, and another rule for others (on that occasion Biophys also was clearly guilty of breaching 3RR, but got off). I don't expect much of a response now either, mind you. --Russavia Dialogue 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Russavia, it's a classic tactic to edit disruptively and denounce all opposition as POV, then when a number of editors oppose your edits, to accuse them of acting in concert. You preach "assume good faith" but your own behavior belies that you regard WP not as WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA but WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your anti-Russavia conspiracy is nothing but editors who--on their own--keep tabs on Eastern European and other articles having to do with Soviet and post-Soviet Russian policies and conduct. That there is some "rush" you perceive as being against you, is simple editorial vigilance. When edits don't work, escalate to block-shopping, a classic tactic. PetersV     TALK 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ADKTE reported by Caspian blue (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2009-01-10T01:48:51


 * 1st revert: 2009-01-10T04:20:39
 * 2nd revert: 2009-01-10T04:25:13
 * 3rd revert: 2009-01-10T16:43:11
 * 4th revert: 2009-01-10T22:07:27
 * 5th revert: 2009-01-10T22:12:10
 * 6th revert: 2009-01-11T14:26:58
 * 7th revert: 2009-01-11T14:37:47
 * 8th revert: 2009-01-12T14:42:14


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2009-01-10T22:39:12
 * Although the editor in question registered his account on January 10th 2009, s/he knows rules quite well, and even guided me how properly to file AFD. Aside from the matter, s/he has never tried to gain a consensus on his removal of massive contents, but just insists that her/his edits without discussion or consensus is "improving" the article, and anyone who objects to her/his edits are vandalism". The fact that the closing admin of the AFD on History of Joseon Dynasty which ADKTE created to sit the article of Joseon Dynasty, suggested us to discuss for merging as closing AfD, does not mean that s/he get a permission to revert more than 3 times in a period of 24 hours and disregards "consensus". When I spot ADKTE's massive removals and 3RR violation, I did not report her/him here from good faith. Moreover, when he violated 3RR again right after the AFD's closing, I also did not reported ADKTE in hope that s/he comes to discuss the thing, but ADKTE just kept reverting the article. In spite of the fact that more than two editors are against his removal and relocation, he reverted today just a few minute after his last revert. This practice constitutes gaming the system. Therefore his repeated 3RR violations should not be condoned further.--Caspian blue 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No vio. This isn't 3RR. You need to talk coherently on the talk page and drop the accusations of newbie-hood and sockpuppetry. OTOH, A should stop relying on "the result was keep". The result was "make redirect" which means keeping the content on the JD page. Explain this carefully and politely on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand as to why the more than 3 reverts by him within 24 hours are not 3RR violation. As for civility, he first accused me of doing "vandalism" as me restoring his deleted contents without a consensus. He even quoted various policies on his first day, so in my experience, I can not think that this user in question is okay to just skip the rule with the excuse of him being a newbie. Besides, I've explained to him many times (which were all deleted from his talk page) that the article should remain as it was until he gets a consensus. Since my attempts to continue a discussion have failed, perhaps you can instruct him? --Caspian blue 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Within the past 24h he has made one revert. As for civility, he first - sorry guv, this doesn't excuse you. I've explained to him many times... that the article should remain as it was until he gets a consensus - where did you get that idea from? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I see his 5 reverts in 24 hours twice. Would tell me how you see just one revert from the diffs? Your comment sounds like I should put up with his constant incivility even if he is rude. He constantly said my restoration is "vandalism" which I consider "personal attack". As for your question, I've got the idea from our policies. Besides, more than 2 editors are against his edits, he should seek a consensus with discussion first. The onus is his job.--Caspian blue 20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We're interpreting the same info differently. What was there in Within the past 24h he has made one revert that you did not understand? I didn't tell you to put up with incivility - I told you not to return it. The onus is his job is wrong, and people say it all the time, and it never works William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're responsible for your decision, so I expect you to explain here why I follow to how you interpret the massive reverts as just one revert. Removing existing contents itself is a "revert" because it significantly changes the article. Moreover, how would you explain his reverts over my edits are not reverts. You can just pick and show the diff that you consider only one revert. Consensus can be changed with discussion, but you're saying the onus to persuade him is me and others' job until he gets it. Since he wants 'change', he is the one who should persuade people. You know policies much more than I do, so please direct me such pertinent policies. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Duncan John Murray reported by JGXenite (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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

The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user. However, here are my two warnings about adding unsourced information:
 * 1st warning: link
 * 2nd warning: link

This user has been warned before (back in December) about the addition of unsourced information to other pages. Despite this, they have ignored all warnings and refuse to discuss their edits. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-01-11T23:12:24 Spartaz (Talk | contribs | block) m (45,519 bytes) (Protected Duffy (singer): Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo), which is fortunate for you, otherwise you'd be blocked. The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user - you do realise this is twaddle, don't you? If you don't, I'll be happy to explain William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite confused by your reply. Not sure whether you are responding to me or to Duncan John Murray... (except for the 3RR warning bit, which is obviously aimed at me).  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm talking to you, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. I don't quite understand why I would have been blocked? I was reverting the addition of badly sourced material.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JGX, if you check WP:3RR, there is no exception for removal of badly-sourced material. Since you reverted just as often as Duncan, you risk sanctions when you report the issue here, having gone over 3RR yourself. Due to the protection, blocks will probably not be given. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Ed for explaining it to me.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 09:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. 3RR says "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Samer (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Capasitor reported by Brandmeister (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Tendentious editing and severe bad faith assumptions. The talk page and edit summaries have had no effect, only one good-faith revert to mediator's version. The article hangs at WP:POVN with no solution so far. Brandспойт 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two reverts this year is not edit warring. This requires someone knowledgeable about the subject to referee and that is outside the scope of this page. --B (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One could see it is not merely reverts, but confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. The breach of consensus continues but I don't want to engage in further reverting, aggravating the issue. Brandспойт 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Motivez reported by B (talk) (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

Initial edit (version reverted to):


 * 1) 08:13, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 263711146 by Soundofthunder (talk)")
 * 2) 09:36, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 263774530 by 91.138.5.255 There's no basis for removing information that has been confirmed by by vBulletin officials.")
 * 3) 11:34, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 263787312 by 65.188.243.116 (talk) Hit wrong button, sorry!")
 * 4) 15:20, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 263796319 by B (talk) Citation added for revenue sharing and the rest of it.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—B (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

83.31.108.91 reported by Stismail (Result: IP-hopper way past 3RR, semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:

[Please note: this is my first time submitting a 3RR violation; if I need to amend it technically, please let me know on my talk page.]


 * This is what the article looked like before this editor started editing.

Edits to the pronunciation guide section:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor first changed the PG to an inaccurate one. When I provided an updated source for the correct PG that was originally listed (the other one had been deleted, but was likewise issued directly by the Patriots), the editor switched to the tactic of claiming "improper" pronunciation. The editor has maintained that this is "important," but provided no justification for such a claim (e.g., Brett Favre and Bill Romanowski, among many others, also have "mispronounced" names, but there is no such disclaimer in those articles).

Given that the editor has given no indication that he intends to stop (and, in fact, intends to continue), and that he has used multiple IP addresses over the last week alone, I would request that, if possible, rather than block this user, this article be protected against edits by unregistered users. Samer (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. The IP-hopping editor has gone way past 3RR. The constantly-changing IP makes blocking useless, so the article is semi-protected. Anyone know how to check this IP for being an open proxy? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not. 83.31.108.91 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER reported by User:205.248.102.81 (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:

Within 24hrs user kept reverting my aditions and adding dispputed/unsourced map.


 * SAMPLE REVERT: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republika_Srpska&diff=263862832&oldid=263862084

205.248.102.81 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed common knowledge WP:CK that you added, and brought back a sourced map that you removed. PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge for whom? Don't want to dispute this here. Map hasn't been sources until lately, and even as such it's is disputed since it's self made (source only contains textual info for Yugoslavia and not only RS so map is biased), and from what I see it's queued for deletion. 205.248.102.82 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You honestly have to tell people that that the history of a region began centuries ago? Laz is the only who has a dispute with the map. PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected, which might help. Both sides cautioned re edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes for now its appropriate to mention history and number some wars, until I or someone else finds time to expand it it doens't hurt anyone. Furthermore Laz17 isnt only one with a problem as you can see from article's history. Onyxig (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea. Thanks. However I dont see the semi-protected lock on the article?205.248.102.81 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:205.248.102.81 reported by Ceha (result: semi)
User 205.248.102.81 broke 3RR here. As for map; it is sorced, and shows war crimes on today RS and parts of Federation (even just for one side). I even offered myself to create map (with help of other users) about war crimes which were made by other sides. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its already semi protected. See above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SotosfromGreece reported by Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (Result: Incomplete report)

 * Page:
 * User:

I am not sure I am going at it just the right way, but I've been having some problems with this user which seems to insist on inserting material that is inconsistent with WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. I have brought the issue up with WP:RSN (diff ) and my position is inline with consensus. He has been approached by a third party but chose to clean up his talk page instead. He has reinserted material sourced to elore.com and other random websites, even though this has been defined as unreliable. I don't know if I am doing something wrong myself, or should this person be notified for edit warring? He has made some disturbing allegations in my talk page and has tried to file me to WP:AIAV. Thanks for notifying me as for the proper proceedings.

--Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you are not familiar with how WP:Dispute resolution works, it might be better to take this issue to WP:Editor assistance/Requests. The other guy does appear disputatious but you don't have a well-organized case for your own view yet. Somehow you need to bring in other editors and convince them.This is not quite an edit war by our definition. EdJohnston (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tales23 reported by Novangelis (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert after warning and over edit summary that included "Tales23 you are are exceeding the 3RR limit."
 * 6th revert

I posted proven facts or multiplication and division based on the tool bones calendar sticks from 20000 and 35000 BC. Above in the Logic Nature category there is listed mathematical logic. --Tales23 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 9 minutes before 5th revert

Novangelis (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 7th revert, 8th revert, 9th revert Novangelis (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Novangelis you started this discussion here, why do you still just revert? Face the Facts! --Tales23 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please if you have doubts read this http://etopia.sintlucas.be/3.14/Ishango_meeting/Mathematics_Africa.pdf --Tales23 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:206.228.222.39 reported by User:Smallbones (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User: also User:206.228.222.37


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Plus he has reverted me twice and user UnitedStatesian twice, all in about 1/2 an hour

Gave a non 3rr warning, which followed a non3RR warning by another user. Will give a formal 3rr warning now.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [series of warnings]

Smallbones (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-01-14T22:06:07 Hiberniantears (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 206.228.222.39 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Costho reported by Skomorokh (Result: 24 hours )
Some reverts by this user to the article in the past two days:
 * Page:
 * User:
 * 1) 02:03, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "libertarianism is synonym for anarchism. never heard of libertarian socialism as distinguished from state socialism?")
 * 2) 05:38, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "there is not consensus either way")
 * 3) 17:40, 13 January 2009  (edit summary: "obviously there is not conensus by the fact that I'm putting it back in. If you want to COME to a consensus you need to have more substantial arguments than that.")
 * 4) 16:36, 14 January 2009  (edit summary: "libertarianism is often used synonym")
 * 5) 23:21, 14 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 264125177 by Koroesu (talk) there is the option to discuss while it's there, as well.")
 * 6) 23:46, 14 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 264146119 by Maziotis (talk) no policy says something has to be out of an article while it's being discussed")


 * Diffs of warnings: here and here

Four different editors besides myself have tried to restore the article during this period (an RfC on the content dispute is ongoing), and only Costho has reverted it back during this time. Skomorokh 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So then why aren't you and those four editors edit warring too, for taking out what I put in the article? Don't insult the intelligence of the administrators. Costho (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I insult no-one's intelligence. I've offered what I think constitutes evidence of you violation 3RR; the administrators are free to judge whether or not my assessment is correct. You are free to report me and our colleagues at Anarchism if you feel we have been edit-warring in a manner that requires administrator intervention. Regards, Skomorokh  00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I "report" you? I'm not that petty. You have a right to make changes to the article just as I have a right to. You just don't like what I put in the article, even thought it's well sourced, and now you're trying to pull some scam. Costho (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have rights; editing is a privilege granted by the Wikimedia Foundation who empower administrators to withdraw it when it is being abused. 3RR is there among other reasons to stop never-ending edit-wars such as the one at Anarchism. If you think it's a "scam" you should have seen the encyclopaedia before it was introduced. Skomorokh  00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your majoritarian scam. You're trying to make it look like I'm the only one that supports the material being in the article. Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. Also the implicit assumption is that the majority is not edit warring, just by the fact that they're in the majority, but the minority is edut warring by the fact that they're in the minority. No one has to abide by the majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy and I'm sure the adminstrators are aware of that, as explained at What Wikipedia is not Costho (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: reporter blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--  Grant  .  Alpaugh  01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that PeeJay reverted himself upon receiving the warning, as such I am going to hope that cool heads prevail and you both take this issue to the articles talk page. Any more edit warring though, will result in a block. Tiptoety  talk 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Grant.Alpaugh wanted to keep edit warring, he has been blocked for 55 hours. Tiptoety  talk 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy Fisher reported by Wuhwuzdat (Result: 12h to reporter)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User Fisher ( AKA "The Long Island Lolita" ) has OBVIOUS COI issues with this article, and insists on having it her way, despite multiple COI and AUTOBIOGRAPHY warnings. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You also reverted five times, and there may be mild BLP issues here (as there generally are with mugshots). I'm not sure if there are here, since she's most famous for the action she was arrested for, but you're certainly not blameless. --NE2 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stand by my actions, and state that all my edits to this article were for the purpose of correcting COI issues, as stated in my 1st edit summary. If I get punished for that, so be it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Correcting" CoI issues isn't one of the exceptions to 3RR...just for future reference. --Onorem♠Dil 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I stand by my actions, as being in the greater interest of Wikipedia. Ms Fisher, on the other hand, seems to have signed out, and continued to edit this article as an IP user. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warriors always think they're "in the greater interest of Wikipedia" [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI WP:AN.--Tznkai (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO Wuhwuzdat deserves a trout slap for not discussing the matter on either the talk page or Amy Fisher's userpage, beside using CAPS and templated messages. Seriously. This is not helping the project, and that's how we end with angry emails to OTRS and bad PR. -- lucasbfr  talk 08:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief. W slapped with a 12h trout. AF warned. Look, this is silly. AF is a noob. She has clear COI issues on the article, but so what? What was so urgent about this that you needed to break 3RR? Answer, nothing. Raise it on COI and let them send her a polite warning instead of spamming her page. Argh William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I didn't dare doing it :) -- lucasbfr  talk 08:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24 reported by Landon1980 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There is a thread on ANI regarding this user as well, but mainly for different issues i.e. personal attacks, harassment, etc. Amongst these things he has now violated 3RR despite numerous warnings not to do so. This has been going on for days now and he reverts anyone that touches the article, the sources he is disputing have all been found reliable at the RS noticeboard. Despite this he continues to edit war with several different editors. These are just the reverts within 24 hours, and I can supply several more if needed. Landon1980 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Bytebear reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:50, 15 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 264305856 by Gamaliel (talk)  Reverting POV edit which censors FACT. Dont sugar coat facts, please.")
 * 2) 22:07, 15 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 264322966 by Gamaliel (talk)  See talk.")
 * 3) 22:22, 15 January 2009  (edit summary: "yes, you liberals will probably ban me for 3Rs but wikipedia does not accept euphemisms above facts.")
 * 4) 23:35, 15 January 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 264354587 by Blaxthos (talk)  Did you even look at the changes. stop removing facts")

Diff of 3RR warning. Croctotheface (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Bytebear is an established user who is clearly aware of the 3RR (see his edit summary above). Gamaliel (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vitorvicentevalente reported by Amalthea (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 21:19, 13 January 2009 "Undid revision 263890198 by Amalthea (talk)"
 * 2nd revert: 14:21, 14 January 2009 "Undid revision 264024910 by Amalthea (talk)"
 * 3rd revert: 16:02, 14 January 2009 "but is a single of Rihanna, and written by T.I. and Rihanna"
 * 4th revert: 17:01, 14 January 2009 "Undid revision 264059689 by JYi (talk)"
 * 5th revert: 19:03, 14 January 2009 "Undid revision 264081908 by Jdot01 (talk)"
 * 6th revert: 12:35, 15 January 2009 "Undid revision 264131865 by Amalthea (talk)"


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:53, 14 January 2009

I've tried to explain to the user in detail why his changes can't be accepted on his talk page, and referred to it in my edit summary. Other users, like User:Acalamari and User:JYi also referred to it in their respective reversions of Vitorvicentevalente's changes. Acalamari explicitly asked the user to explain his reverts on the talk page. His replies to it were unsatisfactory, and he keeps undoing nonetheless, and in the process re-inserts errors to the article, as well as unverifiable and non-noteworthy rumors. -- Amalthea 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User: 96.239.140.104 reported by User:Mervyn Emrys (Result: Incomplete report)
Request immediate block and reversion of following articles to version of yesterday's date before this user began destroying them: Morris Dees, Sierra Club (section on immigration controvery and affiliated groups), Southern Poverty Law Center, and Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). User has repeatedly removed sourced material with reliable references frompublished sources from each article and reverts my reverts. Has no user page and no talk page, but makes nasty remarks in edit summaries. Appears to be concerned nothing critical is said about FAIR or its founder, John Tanton, and nothing favorable is said about Dees or SPLC, even if sourced. I haven't mastered how to make diffs yet or I would provide them, but all this has taken place within the past 48 hours. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am requesting reversion of said articles back to their state before any edits to them were made by User:Mervyn Emrys and User:Dr. Perfessor (the same person), which is when those articles were NPOV and stable before the above person started inserting heavily slanted, inflammatory and biased narratives into them. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with this last (counter-)request. Said articles were stable and balanced before the recent editing, editing which multiple Wikipedia users have unanimously assessed as being overtly slanted and in violation of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificus (talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the comment above have no signature? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Harshray reported by Roadahead (Result: sock blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Could be operating several sockpuppets as well, checkuser results show this as "likely" that the Harshray, Chellaney and IPs are the same person. -- Ro ad ah ea d  &#9733;  05:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked as probably sock; would have been 24h for 3RR otherwise. If the C account misbehaves, it should get the 24h 3RR block, by that logic William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He says he's not a sock; so 24h instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremie Belpois reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: merge restored)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Some content added, but the point is it's being restored from a redirect.


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


 * Comment: Per this AfD, the Code Lyoko characters were merged. Jeremie is trying to restore those pages. The content he restores them with is not significantly different from the original nor does it satisfy any of the concerns of the AfD. He has been told this repeatedly by me and several other editors yet continues on. It;s getting tiresome. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: ive told this guy many times that these are trying to be expanded, but he always causes edit conflicts, this guy is the one edit warring, and he is also VERY rude, but any time i report this guy nothing is done Jeremie Belpois (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * His last attempt is here for reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored and locked the merge. JB: don't recreate any more of these without getting agreement first. Definitely don't edit war over them William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Khalsaburg reported by Roadahead (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:


 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: So many articles and reverts, please my logs on this articles talkpage

Diffs for reverts at article "Akhand Kirtani Jatha"
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * Before these three most recent reverts - reverted the same information here and here not too far before the most recent three.

Diffs for reverts at article "Vegetarianism in Sikhism"
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert along with mass unexplained deletion.

Diffs for reverts at article "Sikh practices"
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert

Diffs for reverts at article "Langar"
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4rth revert


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I feel that this editors is not doing the reverts in good faith or in misunderstanding. The editor seems to be aware of Wikipedia policies and so is indulging in wasting others time by appealing to spite on user talkpages. -- Ro ad ah ea d  &#9733;  16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely not 3RR; far too slow. Maybe you want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs reported by User:Tanninglamp (Result: IP address blocked)
This user is a repeated violator of the revert rule and edit warring concerning the Rick Reilly article. He has not participated in any discussion or given any legitimate reasoning for his constant deleting of a respectable news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like Baseball Bugs violated 3RR on Rick Reilly. It does look like you're evading your block.
 * Previous AN/EW discussion for any interested. --Onorem♠Dil 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ANd he hasn't participating in an edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) How am supposed to make a report if I keep getting blocked for what I can see is an issue created wholly by Baseball Bugs. Why don't you show a real neutral eye and use the appropriate wording on the Rick Reilly article which Baseball Bugs won't let there be one critical word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.195.123 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A few more related discussions about Tanninglamp. --Onorem♠Dil 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We're done here. IP address blocked for block evasion. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP user reported by GeezerBird (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:

The articles are connected in that Alan Harvey runs the Springbok Club and used to be in Swinton Circle till he was chucked out. I would guess that the Anonymous IP user is Alan Harvey
 * User: Anonymous IP user, either begin 91.109.- or 91.111.-

Alan Harvey article:
 * Previous version reverted to:

As can be seen it is unsourced and a seemingly self-written piece


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

Springbok Club article
 * Previous version reverted to:

As can be seen it is unsourced and more or less a self-written advert for his group

(prior to this there were other variations)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Swinton Circle article
 * Previous version reverted to:

This is slightly different in that he accepts most of the article but attacks certain material which relates either to him or his position. I gather from the [| discussion] he was expelled from this group but he denies it

(there are further variations beyond this)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

It does not seem possible to give a Diff of 3RR warning as the IP address is not exactly the same each time?

My apologies if this is not the correct way of going about this, I am new to this, but this seems a clear case of Edit warring as "a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time". Thanks. --GeezerBird (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Too slow, sorry. None of these articles have even *one* revert by the anon in the last 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

77.221.10.65 reported by PRODUCER (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 12 hours -- Samir 06:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:RafaelRGarcia reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: 12 hours each to User:RafaelRGarcia and User:Simon Dodd)
Page: User:

Please see related complaints at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Clarence_Thomas_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence_Thomas

3RR provides that "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material."


 * 1st revert: (00:04, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264558124)
 * 2nd revert: (00:07, 17 January 2009) (Undid revision 264556386)
 * 3rd revert: (00:08, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264555848
 * 4th revert: (03:04, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264579583)
 * 5th revert: (03:35, 17 January 2009 ) (Undid revision 264601171)

That's five reverts in three and a half hours - how can this not violate the prohibition on three or more reverts in any 24 hour period? Note that two of these reverts were in bad faith, following a good faith request for medcab.

[ADDED: sixth revert: (05:02, 17 January 2009)] Simon Dodd (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[ADDED MORE: seventh revert: (05:21, 17 January 2009). Hole getting deeper.]Simon Dodd(talk) 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[ADDED YET MORE: eighth revert: (05:32, 17 January 2009). Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[ADDED EVEN MORE: ninth revert: (05:53, 17 January 2009). RafaelRGarcia in flagrant and continuing violation of 3rr.]Simon Dodd (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You continue to edit the article, changing what was there, then claim I'm the one reverting? Hah. Furthermore, "says" and "writes" are NPOV; "asserts" and "claims" are not. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are four more from you. You're basically counting every edit I make as a "revert," when the same could be said of you:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264614559
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264613917
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264615693 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who suggested that we get medcab involved; you were the one who insisted on continuing to spar over the wording. After your bad faith refusal to await the results of mediation, I saw little point in a self-imposed exile from improving the article. The edits of yours that I am counting as reverts are those edits that are reverts. None of the links you provide above are reverts: they are changes (although they do aptly demonstrate your inflexibility and insistence on Ownership of the article.)Simon Dodd (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all reverts; they're all to exactly the same section we had been arguing about today. If your edits are just "changes," then so are mine. You "suggested" we get medcab involved, but then you kept editing, and you requested page protection and reversion to your preferred version. Nothing but bad faith abuse over some differences of opinion that could've been kept to a talk page. Cite your claims next time, and stop adding your own speculation to articles. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You offer merely further demonstration of your bad faith:
 * You reverted, changing the text from what I had back to what you had had it before. I changed, proposing alterations and text that was different to one extent or another to what either you or I had previous used.
 * I requested page protect only after you continued to edit war following submission of the issue to medcab, and I returned to editing only after you had refused to desist yourself.
 * And, once again, you simply repeat the very accusations that were submitted to medcab.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing the article lead. Please stop trying to take some moral high ground here; it doesn't exist. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing your uncited assertion is not a revert. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT:Actually, it's exactly edit warring, which is what this board is for. I'd advise both of you to stop and wait for an admin to sort through this. Any further arguments you guys get into after posting this case here won't be looked upon kindly. Please remain calm while an admin figures out what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Us both stepping back was exactly what I suggested when I filed a request to MedCab, and that the other fellow rejected by continuing to edit war; it was also implicit in my filing a page protect request, and the other fellow has disputed that, too, continuing to edit war even after that (he has also continued to edit war and revert even after this report, as you can see in updates above; he is now on his eighth - fifth by his own preferred counting system - revert in 12 hours, let alone 3 reverts in 24). As one party to an edit war, I tried to "end it now. [To b]e the first one to go to talk, [to] ask for protection." What I got was a whole bunch of bad faith on the part of the other party, as you can see. I'd love an admin to figure out what's going on, but there don't seem to be any around.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response: A brief review of Dodd's edit history will reveal that he has also broken 3RR. Best to wait for MedCab and such. Dodd has repeatedly ignored my requests to add citations to his uncited assertions and original research. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Among other edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264600642

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=264590092

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583


 * I have performed two reverts on Clarence Thomas today, and one (arguably two) on Anthony Kennedy. Explain how you think I have "also broken 3RR." Another baseless, scurrilous accusation on your part. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not mean you get 3 reverts per article, and you're not entitled to three reverts. Arguably, three of my reverts were just one roll back, because you made your edits in multiple, unbroken sequences. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rafael, this is verging on the comical. 3rr prohibits a user from "perform[ing] more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" (emphasis added); how can you be a law student and exhibit such astonishingly poor reading comprehension and imprecise thinking again and again?Simon Dodd (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This user has now called me a "prick." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264609416 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to breaking 3RR, you are also breaking the spirit of the rule, by continually reverting, or, in effect reverting, my edits.

These and other edits were revertions or undoings of my own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264601171

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264579583

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264558124

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=264555848

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have not gone above 3 reverts: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT: Since this page has a backlog, I've opened up a case at ANI about this in hopes of settling this matter quickly and ending an edit war. Since this page isn't really for discussions and arguments, I suggest you two take your comments over there. Dayewalker (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed. You guys both need to take a break from editing Clarence Thomas. What has gone on over the past several hours on the article was not productive in the least. This should have gone to the talk page as opposed to multiple reversions or reversion-equivalents. I'm probably the most lenient 3RR reviewer, but I think both of you warrant 12 hour blocks for breaking 3RR; I'm also protecting the article for 5 days to encourage discussion on the talk page when you return. -- Samir 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)