Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive90

Mervyn Emrys reported by Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result:no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

Summary:3rd revert done after the user was told here |Revert done after being warned at 03:29, 30 January 2009 and the user responds he that he will continue to do so | and after replying at 03:45, 30 January 2009 and does the 3rd revert at just a few minutes after replying to the other user.The user was clearly warned and did the 3rd revert knowingly .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:02:50, 30 January 2009
 * 2nd revert:03:16, 30 January 2009
 * 3rd revert:03:48, 30 January 2009
 * No vio; three reverts is not a 3RR vio; you need four for that. No reason I see to apply an edit warring block for only three in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by L0b0t (talk) (Result: both warned)
. : Time reported: 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 07:30, 30 January 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; OK, since he was a physicist but his pubs were also essentially in cosmology, the simpler form is still better. (TW)")
 * 2) 15:56, 30 January 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; Edit made for purely personal attack reason does not address the point. (TW)")
 * 3) 16:08, 30 January 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; My edit on your talk page suggested that you AGF, and explained the reasoning; you ignored it. (TW)")
 * 4) 16:09, 30 January 2009  (edit summary: "/* The Big Bang Never Happened */ physical cosmologists is perhaps a better inclusive category")

—L0b0t (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one. Your edit summaries verge on PA, e.g. ; please be more cautious and civil. You are both edit warring, over what appears to be trivia, and both risk being blocked for it. DL gets credit for discussing on talk; L0 a demerit for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

205.240.70.10 reported by Darwin's Bulldog (Result: no vio / stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In regards to the U.S. sales figures of Metallica's latest album, Death Magnetic, to date, the most recent reliable figure has been 1,570,000 copies, reported by Billboard on December 31, 2008. (See: "Lil Wayne Notches Top-Selling Album of 2008".) I have assumed good faith with this user, as he has been updating the sales figure without reference, but his edits have been going on for about a month now, and its obvious that he's either guessing or using very unreliable sources for reference, as the figures he'll post will change and numbers will fluctuate high and low from week to week. (For example, he put over 1.6 million a few weeks ago, and his most recent edit was 1,599,000.) Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * .10 has precisely one revert, which you've reverted. Why are you bringing this here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for over a month, and has been reverted more than once (see references listed above). This was brought here to resolve the issue so it doesn't continue for another month. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rave92 reported by Nikola Smolenski (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Apparently also broke 3RR on Oj, svijetla majska zoro by editing anonymously (see Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92). Nikola (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at this, and the song, and its plain you are both edit warring. On the song, neither of you has even pretended to discuss things on the talk page. So you both get a block. You should know better William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake3 reported by Truco (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This case is a bit unique. Mshake3 is a great user who contributes to Wikipedia with marvelous images of wrestling events. However, as of late he has been disruptive with edit warring causing the above article to be fully protected. The case is that he believes that because WWE.com (on the middle right) has an upcoming calender that states WWE One Night Stand has been changed by WWE to WWE Extreme Rules, however, WWE has not formally announced that this name change has occurred. Last year WWE Vengeance was to be changed to WWE Night of Champions, however, we waited until WWE posted a direct link to the ticket and promotional information here. Originally, the edit warring began on the WWE One Night Stand article, which Mshake reverted 3 times. This caused a full protection. As a result, WP:PW began to discuss this at WT:PW, but Mshake did not want to discuss and he began to change the name of the article at the List of WWE pay-per-view events. There he reverted 4 times, and avoided the discussion at WT:PW. In addition, he began to change the name of the article in an infobox here. He was warned by User:TJ Spyke for adding original research here, and then for 3RR at the link I placed above. He, however, removed those warnings. It would help if he was given "time off" to avoid the disruption he has added. TRU    CO   03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Time off to avoid the disruption" sounds like "cool down block" which are not allowed.  iMatthew //  talk  // 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it like that, I meant that he needs to have time off so the edit war can stop.-- TRU    CO   03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The pages can't be full protected instead?  iMatthew //  talk  // 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They already have, but he finds other ways to avoid the discussion and add his own input to related pages like at Judgment Day (2009).-- TRU    CO   03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mshake's disruptions have already led to 2 articles being fully protected (WWE One Night Stand and List of WWE pay-per-view events). He has disrupted multiple other pages that link to those two and based on his comments at WT:PW I tend to believe he will continue his actions once those pages are unprotected. He is ignoring the consensus (which is to leave the current name for now). He shouldn't get a long term block, but has is just being a disruption to Wikipedia right now and not being the constructive editor he has been in the past.  TJ   Spyke   03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I know that he passed 3RR, but you were all edit warring. You should have stopped at the first or second revert and contacted an un-involved administrator for input. By continuing, you were all involved in the edit war.  iMatthew //  talk  // 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We were just enforcing consensus, which is why I seeked protection for both articles so we would stop the edit warring.-- TRU    CO   03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both sides need to take a huge step back. The change to a new name is almost definite, and it has been reported by a reliable source (Dave Meltzer). The WrestleMania example used by those who don't support MShake3's version is not a good comparison, as it deals with a completely separate issue. It also wouldn't make sense for WWE to give One Night Stand the same subtitle for two years in a row, so the change seems like a sure thing. There hasn't been a press release yet, however. So both sides are right in their own ways. Punishing a valuable contributor like MShake3, however, would not help anything. I suggest that this report be withdrawn and that everyone realize that this is about as trivial as it gets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even Mshake has said he can't find where WWE ever said last years ONS was called "One Night Stand: Extreme Rules". The official site only calls it One Night Stand and the only place they mention "Extreme Rules" is on the DVD cover. This leads me to believe it was just another tagline. If this was just one article, I would agree with you. But this has spread to multiple articles.  TJ   Spyke   17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-28T07:46:45 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) m (13,191 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of WWE pay-per-view events": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when I make two consecutive edits to an article, that doesn't mean it's two separate reverts, as you're suggesting. Anyway, I will continue to make these changes because A) I'm not violating any policy (it's not speculation or original research if I'm following the official, reliable sources (this all came from a change on the comany's official website, I might add.)) and B: as stated in the conscous policy, an agreement of a few people can't override the overall policies, and the overall policies state if the source is reliable (and it is, since it's used for so many articles in the project's scope.), then it should be added. Mshake3 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I will continue to make these changes - you do realise this classes as edit-warring, which could lead to a block? D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help it if those reverting against me are wrong. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the name is going to be changed, but they just want something official is a specific, arbitrary way. Mshake3 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If the WWE's official website lists the name of the event as Extreme Rules, it's as official as it gets. Why else would they have it listed there? I say the article be updated to match this change. Anyone who says that wwe.com is not reliable enough for information concerning their own company is just being irrational. Continually changing an article so that it doesn't show something listed on the company's OFFICIAL WEBSITE should be reported. Not updating an article with factual information. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

90.201.141.210 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is us reverting him.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

And his 7th revert, yet to be reverted by us.
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This same user has previously been blocked for long periods of time for edit warring, showing no regard to other editors. 90.201.141.202, 90.199.99.144, 90.201.141.112, 90.199.99.31 etc is him too. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NeutralityForever reported by LK (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Diff of 3RR warning after last ban:

Just 4 days ago, User IP 99.2.224.110 was banned 48 hours for breaking 3RR. (Case and result here). User apparently registered an account NeutralityForever, and has been editing under that account. User has just broken 3RR again, and did so using an IP edit, apparently to avoid 3RR. I have warned the user about not creating the appearence of multiple users by using anonymous IP edits, and may also file a suspected sockpuppet case against the user if he/she continues to use anonymous IPs together with the registered account. LK (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to give him one last chance, if he continues to sock to engage in edit warring will be indef blocked and a SPI case filed.  Tiptoety  talk 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Lawrencekhoo have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours

NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LK reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Skipsievert have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

YesOn8 reported by Irn (Result: 24 hour)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Blocked by C.Fred, but he should be unblocked and reblocked in the name of an uninvolved admin, so he can't say. Erik9 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed this block and declined the request for unblock by YesOn8.-- VS talk 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reported by Theserialcomma (Result: 24 hours for NPA)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * first attempt to add 'perceived recoil' without a source
 * first revert, after being asked to WP:PROVEIT on his talk page
 * second revert, still wont provide a source [
 * 3rd revert, still refuses to provide a source, says it's not necessary

see ANI thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#edit_warring.2C_and_indirect_language_used_to_make_blatant_personal_attacks_and_uncivil_remarks where he refuses to add a source but will edit war to include it, and his talk page, where he also refuses to add a source. consensus on ANI is that he should add a source and stop edit warring. He is still edit warring and still refuses to provide a source.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, I already provided a reference. This user has been hounding and harassing me. This is the third fight he's picked with me over editing.  I admitted I Was wrong the first time and he didn't back off.  He questioned the source I provided that agreed with his.  Now he is baiting me again by demanding a reference for every edit I make.  Normally, one would fact tag and ask for a reference assuming the material is not dubious.  He didn't. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, T...comma has already reported this to AI:N that resolved itself in his favor where I was compelled to provide a source. I DID provide a source, hoever he felt the need to re-report this on another board using the shotgun effect to try and 'get one over' on me or whatever his obsessive goals are. This isn't the first time he's 'reported me'. See this discussion: . One more thought. He also reported my reference (used to bolster and support the reference he was defending) here: . I see this 'report' as a continuance of unresolved bitterness of this editor towards me and clearly not edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interim result: Since I perceive that Nukes4Tots is the editor closer to being blocked, I've asked him to propose a resolution. Let's see if he can come up with something that could move things forward. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed, this was already solved on the other board. How many times do I have to be reported for two reversions and a source within two days? Reported, resolved, solution implemented, then he re-reports me.  Do I get a "do-over" as well? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Result. That was not the conciliatory gesture I was hoping for. We expect our editors to be grownups. If you have a conflict, take it to WP:Dispute resolution. A quarrel of this intensity which has gone on so long makes the admin eager to block both parties, but Theserialcomma has reverted fewer times and has been careful in his use of language. Nukes has used a lot of four-letter words in conversations with his opponent on his own Talk page, so Nukes4tots is blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. I see that your language has previously been discussed on your own Talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. I shouldn't have to parse your usage of fucking moron to see who you are referring to and check that it's over the top. It is now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

74.37.87.91 reported by Marty Rockatansky (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Keeps repeatedly reverting the results format with no explanation given. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No vio. Obviously. Once upon a time you had to supply dates William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Kyle1278 reported by Blubberboy92 (Result:no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User repeatedly removes information. Has stated on talk page that he will not quit. That's pretty much it. Jason (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree i most likely am guilty of the 3RR i was just doing what i thought was right i was not intending any vandalism. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, there have to be four reverts, not three, for a 3RR vio. So how about if I leave you and anyone else who may need it with an injunction to just not edit war, please. Discuss articles, come to consensus, pursue dispute resolution, all that good stuff. Can we do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ydnar12 reported by Plastikspork (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (removed white font)
 * 2nd revert: (removed white font)
 * 3rd revert: (removed white font)
 * 4th revert: (may or may not be same user, but same edit)
 * 5th revert: (may or may not be same user, but same edit)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note that I too am most likely guilty of 3RR in this particular case. There are two pages on which this revert-war is on going, I Love Money (Season 1) and I Love Money (Season 2), and I didn't realize until my last edit that I had committed more than two reverts on the same page. One can look at the edit history of the other page and see a similar revert pattern, but I decided to let it go on the other page. I had started a discussion, with my arguments on the talk pages of both articles. I plan to stop editing either of these pages until this issue is resolved. Sorry for not bringing this for arbitration earlier. Thank you! Plastikspork (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is entirely relevant, but here are links to the same revert on the Season 2 page:, , . I stopped editing that section after the last linked revert. Plastikspork (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 10 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 29 January, 17:06
 * 1 February, 22:23
 * 2 February, 07:09
 * 2 February, 07:15
 * 2 February, 07:22
 * Earlier edit-warring: ,

No warning necessary, experienced user with multiple previous 3RR blocks. Already two 3RR blocks in January 2009. Please block for longer period. Consider wider sanctions under WP:ARBMAC.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No cohones to block the guy yourself Fut. Perf? You're getting a bit soft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.191.46 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Future, get real. You provided zero reasons for your reverts on the Bryges article. Also, my edits contained secondary sources all adhering to WP:RS. User:Jingiby caused a little dissonance, but I smoothed things out with him on the talk page. Ultimately, you love to use me as a scapegoat. Meh, standard procedure. Deucalionite (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This editor has a colossal block log. Besides reverting four times in 24 hours this time around, Deucalionite seems to revert very persistently across a range of articles, and in my review I didn't notice him ever waiting for a Talk page consensus before making a controversial change. Since he has returned so recently from a one-week 3RR block I think some escalation is needed. Should problems recur, consider asking for a 1RR restriction at WP:AE. I notice he's already under WP:ARBMAC restriction for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, "colossal" would be an understatement. But I guess twelve blocks in a row is one hell of a record despite the fact that one of them was given to me based on inconclusive evidence. C'est la vie. Deucalionite (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR and overall pattern of disruptive editing by User:Supparluca reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (result: warned)
While not strictly done in 24 h, the user nonetheless violates the spirit of the 3RR quite clearly by reverting every day the same passage referring to the same refuted arguments again and again:

3RR

 * 1) 18:12, 29 January 2009  (edit summary: "wikilinks")
 * 2) 10:24, 30 January 2009  (edit summary: "wikilinks etc. - see the naming conventions - and category")
 * 3) 07:38, 31 January 2009  (edit summary: "3rd rule: "[...] all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article [...]" - and cat")
 * 4) 10:08,  1 February 2009  (edit summary: "1941-1943? See the naming conventions and the title of the article Province of Bolzano-Bozen - added category for the fourth time")
 * 5) 08:25,  2 February 2009  (edit summary: "fixed wikilink")

Notably,
 * His edits were done against the edits of three other users.
 * His last edit was done ignoring the Talk page to which I had pointed him.
 * His five reverts are part of a much larger, long-term disruptive editing pattern:

Disruptive editing
Supparluca's history reveals that for weeks, even months he has almost exclusively confined his edits to the Italianization of place names in South Tyrol, the German-speaking area in Italy, despite opposition from several other editors. Hereby, he seems to be guided by the belief that in any given context, the word "South Tyrol" and its derivants, as generally all English place names based on the German and the Ladin language are to be removed from Wikipedia.

(Important background information: Note that WP:placename conflicts (--> Multiple local names) stipulates that, other in the few cases where there is a widely used English name, names in South Tyrol "are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority", which in 111 out of 116 municipalities are German or Ladin.)

His actions include: He persistently changes the names and urls of references, although these reflect the true title of the refence respectively the original place where the source was retrieved (see Oscar Benvenuto (ed.): "South Tyrol in Figures 2008", Provincial Statistics Institute of the Autonomous Province of South Tyrol, Bozen/Bolzano 2007). Notably, he continued his disruptive actions in the face of repeated requests to refrain from this:
 * 22 January: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7
 * First request: B
 * 23 January: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
 * Second warning: C
 * 30 January: 13 - see revert again to "provincia"

He systematically replaced the name "South Tyrol" (since 1919) with the anochronistic "Province of Bolzano-Bozen (only since 1948), although the General guidelines makes it clear that in historical contexts the historical names are to be preferred:


 * 25 January: 13, 14, 15
 * 30 January: 14

Moreover, he moves pages (see here) against the clear outcome of discussions and votes on the talk page (5.5-1 for Eisack; 2.5-1 against Isarco) (in April 2007). Note that he had already moved the page for the first time in (August 2007), that time directly against the actions of an admin.

I feel his overall editing behaviour is congruent with long-time Tendentious editing as per sentences 2-5). Work on the articles on South Tyrol has practically come to a halt these days because of Supparluca's constant renaming of place names, moving pages to other place names, changing German language references, etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've said a lot of things here that really should be on the article talk page. And pointing S to this discussion would have been a good idea too. Really, this is not the place to talk through all the issues you raise. You need to find somewhere else to discuss this, centrally William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is the discussions have already been taking place for quite a while in many of the 200 or so articles related to South Tyrol, but the strong thrust of the user for changing German, Ladin and English place names is making constructive work increasingly difficult, so I thought it was time to address this centrally - here. I am assuming good faith, however, and hope that we can work from now on on these articles, that is on their contents, constructively together, because that is why we are all here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka reported by User:Showwould40q (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please follow this link for more information.

Please provide third party mediation. Thanks. -Showwould40q (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No vio, obviously. S's edit history is suspiciously short, presumably someone's sock. Take it to WP:DR or more plausibly an image copyright page. IM could be a bit more civil William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Siru108
Constant edit warring on the Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism pages, among others. Keeps POV-pushing and deleting spelling corrections. This has been going on non-stop for months now! Introspective Perspective (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is you first edit. Please tell us what former accounts you have used. Also, have you read the instructions for formatting reports? If not, why not; if so, why have you ignored them? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER reported by Onyxig (Result: 1 week each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Last 24hrs
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Previously (same section + other)
 * 4th revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Republika Srpska history (last message left for the vandalism in history)

User PRODUCER has once again outdid himself in removal of information from Republika Srpska article. As you can see in the page history he keeps removing paragraphs, and keeps renaming the section. We already discussed this on the talk page numerous times. Furthermore if there is any confusion, the user publicly (on his page) supports abolishements of Republika Srpska entity, and yet he accuses those in support of it as having POV. Sick and tired of his unconstructive repetitive edits towards the article which he clearly despises. Onyxig (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 week each, for edit warring and blatant failure to use the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:LOLthulu reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: all warned)

 * Page:
 * User:




 * Previous version reverted to: East-West Schism


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Article is touchy with Roman Catholics, article is target of ad hom Style over substance fallacy. Editor is now after doing 4rr copied text they deleted to the talkpage. (LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Why is this whole incident in comment tags? NEway, first revision wasn't a revert, and by the last there was broad consensus on the article talk page. LoveMonkey's WP:OWNership of this article is troubling, though.  LOL thulu  —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
 * I am asking that the entire section that was deleted be restored and collaboration be activiely engaged in on the talkpage of the article.(LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
 * You're being engaged on the talkpage. You just don't like what you're hearing.  LOL thulu  21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio, since 1st revert is well out of time. But you're both edit warring, so are both warned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ingushetia reported by User:Folantin (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has long history of adding the same tendentious material to the article (it violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH). No communication on the article talk page. No response to recommendation on user talk page that he should undo his fourth revert. Deceptive edit summaries. Two other users have reverted his edits  and warned him about 3RR in the summaries. The first also warned him he could be blocked without warning on the talk page. --Folantin (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update User has now added what I presume is a false anti-vandal protection template claiming the article is protected (in his version, of course) until May . --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked per name conflict and edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:LOTRrules reported by User:yoganate79 (Result:no vio)
I have a serious problem with a user on the Wiki page entitled List of United States inventions and discoveries.

User:LOTRrules continues to delete a valid, legal, licensed, and copyrighted picture approved by Wikipedia on the page listed above. The photo shown is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and has no ownership by anyone. The picture used and of concern is File:Franklingulfstream.jpg as it relates to Benjamin Franklin's invention of ocean current mapping on the page List of United States inventions and discoveries. This picture is also used legally and found on the Wiki page called Gulf stream. I have worked on the page List of United States inventions and discoveries tirelessly and for many weeks adding several citations, etc. Please make User:LOTRrules stop from deleting information which is allowed to be used on the page in question. Thank you. --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation here. In any case, it wasn't edit warring; I'll ask the user why he thinks the image is NFC. Also, a bit of a malformed edit report; try to fill it out next time? :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of lords420 reported by EdGl (Result:no block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user blanks the charts in the article, as shown with the diff links I provided. User is repeatedly warned to stop on his talk page but the user continues to revert to his edits without explanation or discussion.  ~EdGl (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the warning about 3RR was after the most recent revert, no block for now. If he resumes, leave an update on this noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has just again made an unexplained deletion against ref in MxPx and blanked charts in MxPx discography. Dl2000 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and here's the diff.  ~EdGl (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:NothingWorthy at ExxonMobil (result: 24h)
NothingWorthy(talk) continues to revert changes and refuses to discuss his argument on the talk page. The issue (as I see it) revolves around him using hazy language where concrete language could be used. Specifically, he says ExxonMobil is the most profitable company in the world rather than the company with the most profits. The latter is indisputably true, the former depends on what definition of profitable you're using (%-wise, Exxon is not the "most profitable"). I have reverted three times now and will refrain from doing it again. He has reverted the article to his way of thinking 8 times by my reckoning and seems pretty surly in general. TastyCakes (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We may have a sock. Brusegadi (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Spartanad reported by User:Brusegadi (result:page protection)
Article Arnoldo_Alemán.

First_Version

First_Revert

Second_Revert

Third_Revert

Fourth_Revert

Warnings:

First_Warning

Second_Warning

Note that in each revert the user is attempting to re-introduce language that is not supported by any sources, such as "innocent of all charges." The edit war has evolved because Spartanad refuses to allow any mention of the controversy over this politician's recently earned freedom. I understand that there is a BLP concern but the sources used to discuss the controversy are highly regarded, NYT, Time, The Economist among others. Finally, the source used by the editor does not support his language as well. I have been trying to make some more progress in narrating the political events that led to Aleman's freedom along with User:Academic Challenger and User:Notmyrealname but we have not been able to get it past the talk page because of the constant disruption. Any help would be appreciated. Brusegadi (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to block anyone; I'll just protect the page. Discuss it on the talk page, please; even if you feel you have consensus, try to reach a compromise with Spartanad.
 * Oh, and please use the reporting template next time, ok? It'd be much appreciated. Thanks! Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I keep in touch with you if it gets frustrating?  Ok, ciao. Brusegadi (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SonofFeanor and associated IPs reported by Yilloslime (Result:user warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (the issue here is the adding the  tag)


 * 1st revert: 12:10, February 2, 2009 - as SonofFeanor
 * 2nd revert: 17:46, February 2, 2009 - as 141.162.101.50
 * 3rd revert: 22:40, February 2, 2009 - as 141.162.101.50
 * 4th revert: 23:53, February 2, 2009 - as 69.249.101.52
 * 5th revert: 07:05, February 3, 2009 - as 68.84.231.240


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warning for 69.249.101.52, warning for 69.114.87.223, warning for SonofFeanor

Yilloslime (t) 07:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Proof that all these IPs are User:SonofFeanor:
 * SonofFeanor is 69.249.101.52
 * 141.162.101.50 is 69.249.101.52
 * 69.114.87.223 is SonofFeanor
 * 68.84.231.240 is 69.249.101.52--both geolocate to Norristown, PA.
 * Note also that SonofFeanor edited as SonofFeanor immediately before and after restoring the POV tag anonymously, so this seems like a case of sockpuppetry to circumvent 3RR.


 * Well, good detective work, and thanks for the well-formed report! I'm not going to block anyone, as it seems you guys have resolved your fight, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. I'll leave a note on SonofFeanor's talk page, though. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dayewalker reported by User:dunno who (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_University_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=260904039


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_University_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=263487776
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_University_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=265998100
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=268231893&oldid=260904039
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_University_of_Pennsylvania&oldid=268232947


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

User has been warned, and was informed of the wikipedia criteria for notability, which both Berger and Napolatino meet. Berger has had a biography in forbes, and his actions are frequently cited by others in his field. Napolatino meets the criteria for creative professional notibility because he co-created the original pennysaver publications - a concept which is now used weekly by many different stores and your average american gets one pennysaver publication a week in their mail, albeit from different sources. Tried explaining this on the talk page several times today, only to repeatedly have my explanations replaced by Dayewalker stating that I need to explain what makes these people notable each time I put up the information

71.240.72.131 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Brent
 * Comment: This one seems to be filed against me, so I'll respond. The IP (or another similar one) has been trying to put these two names in the article for a month now, and has been reverted by multiple editors. I've tried on the talk page to get them to understand notability and to give reliable sources showing some kind of notability, and the IP claims to have already done so, although a quick check of his contributions shows nothing.


 * As for their accusations I've removed comments from the talk page, they are completely false. I've asked for him to show any DIFFs or evidence, and heard nothing. Dayewalker (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some diffs are a month old. Not reported properly, and not a violation.  Grsz 11 Review 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur, no vio. Doesn't seem to be high enough level of anon trouble for semi William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3 IPs reported by Politizer (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Mismatch negativity; Neurolinguistics


 * 1st revert (Mismatch negativity):
 * 2nd revert (Mismatch negativity):
 * 3rd revert (Mismatch negativity):
 * 4th revert (Mismatch negativity):
 * 5th revert (Mismatch negativity):
 * 6th revert (Mismatch negativity):


 * 1st revert (Neurolinguistics):
 * 2nd revert (Neurolinguistics):
 * 3rd revert (Neurolinguistics):


 * Diff of 3RR warning: first, second

This user has for almost a month been involved in a battle to remove two references from the Mismatch negativity article, references which he says are irrelevant to the context, not "seminal," and not cited in the same citation style as references in scientific articles. For what it's worth, my argument has been that the references provide extra examples of the main point, and aren't hurting anything. I recognize that the material and concepts in this edit war may be difficult for someone who's not familiar with the field, but hopefully through reading Talk:Mismatch negativity and the edit summaries of my reverts you might be able to get a picture of what's been going on. If it helps, has also come into the dispute (a while ago) to offer a 3rd opinion, and might be able to summarize the issues more clearly than I can.

Basically, the user started out repeatedly removing these two refs and saying they were "typographically inconsistent." I restored them and explained to him that it's inappropriate to remove refs because of the format in which they're typed; rather, he was welcome to change the format. He continued removing them (for a while using that same "inconsistent" reason), eventually starting to say basically "this section is about the MMN in general, and those references are about studies of the MMN in langauge"; my response was that even though it's about the linguistic MMN, it's still an example that's illustrative of the general point. But he has continued removing them, saying they're irrelevant and "unprofessional" (I pointed out that WP is not a science journal). He's also been saying people should listen to him because he's at the University of Helsinki, and people should ignore me because I'm just a student (aside: I think most people working on WP are students).

He has also started to edit war at Neurolinguistics, an article which I have been working on for a long time and just submitted for GA review; I'm worried that his edit warring will destabilize the article to a point where it won't earn the assessment it deserves.

Note: there are three IPs in this report; all three IPs have participated in reversions at MMN and messages at the talk page, and the last two have participated in reversions at Neurolinguistics as well&mdash;137.163.19.99 is the one most recently active. Obviously I'm not looking for a block or anything since it's probably a public IP (and a 24-hour block wouldn't make much difference anyway, given the time interval between this individual's edits), but maybe something along the lines of a ban from editing these pages directly (requiring him/her to suggest changes at Talk) might be appropriate. Also, I realize the reverts have not all been within a 24-hour span, but still I think the history and tendentiousness of the editor is egregious enough to warrant some response. Politi zer talk / contribs 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hard to be sympathetic to an editor who is warring to keep a reference out of an article. The use of multiple IPs (all from the same geographic area) does not inspire confidence, since they could be one person who is trying to avoid scrutiny. If this guy has such strong feelings about reference formatting, let him come back as a registered account, and let him wait for a Talk page consensus before making his changes. Both articles are semiprotected for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just left a message at your page (before I noticed this), but this explanation from you makes me feel better.  I noticed, though, that the protection on Neurolinguistics appears to be indef, rather than one-month...would you be able to change it so it expires in a month? Politi zer talk / contribs 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I fixed the expiry date. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Removing entire film's plot section under a false claim of it going against WP:NOT and pointedly ignoring a discussion on the article's talk page (in which consensus agrees the plot is well within guidelines). Technically, these extend beyond 24 hours, but it is obviously pointed and intentional edit warring. He had not edited since the last revert and as soon as he returned, he first removed the 3RR warning from his talk page with a summary of "removed bogus warning -- don't people ave any sense to not template the regulars?" then returned to the article to do a 4th revert immediately afterwards in which he again stripped the entire plot (which, at this point is really vandalism to some degree). This is from an editor with an extensive history of edit warring and numerous blocks for it, including one in December. After his last revert, he also left a rather snarky message on my talk page. Looking at his contribs, it appears he is doing this in multiple film and novel articles, which also speaks to an extensive cross article edit war. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring, no attempt to discuss on talk (unlike you, well done!). 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at his talk page, I'm concerned that this is an overall bigger pattern of a pointy disruption. It seems others on pages he did the same ripping of a plot section to have attempted to discuss and he either ignored completely or indicates that he is doing this because he has decided that WP:NOT forbids any plot summary. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Wikipedia") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only "assistance" you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." Though the issue here may be something for AN/I to look at the overall pattern (he's also doing a lot of pointed editing to biography articles, claiming multiple personalities are not real so removing them from articles where people are said to have them. Even more concerned about his behavior after reading Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. He clearly knew what he was doing, and just doesn't seem to care. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SonofFeanor and associated IPs (again) reported by Yilloslime (Result:mm, AGF)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Please see previous report from ~15 hrs ago, here
 * Since that report and subsequent warning and an admin, this user has again reverted:


 * 22:29, February 3, 2009 141.162.101.50
 * This is within 24 h of the most recent 3 reverts reported in my previous report, above, and after being warned by an admin about not using anonymous editing to circumvent WP:3RR.

Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and warn him once again; however, if he does it again I'm blocking. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :D  03:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sfvace reported by Bubba73 (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been reverted six times by four different editors. User is also a suspected sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Bubba73 (talk), 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the report directly below this one. Tiptoety  talk 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and Yellow Monkey and Silly Rabbit. Bubba73 (talk), 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Sfvace reported by User:Silly rabbit (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 6th revert: link

siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * by  Tiptoety  talk 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:67.161.212.181 & User:Madrok reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: blocked )
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Madrok looks to be the newly created account name for this user.


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

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


 * 1) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 2) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 3) 03:36, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 4) 03:38, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 5) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 6) 04:43, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")


 * Diff of warning: 1 2 3 4

With comments like ''No matter how many times you delete this i'll keep on re-posting it. Let the facts be heard'' it does not look like this user wants to play nice. A time out might be justified. Any chance the someone could revert the last vandalism. I do not want to break the 3rr rule also. Thanks. —- Phoenix (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked for 24 hours, while the named account has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts and edit warring. Tiptoety  talk 05:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Will not discuss civilly or respond to evidence that his idiosyncratic edits are improper. Appears to be POV-pushing a separatist agenda. Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan
 * Has started edit-warring at Adi Shankara,, without explaining deletions.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Stale - Sorry that the admins overlooked this report. The body of the report should normally include the date it was filed. The IP you complained about kept changing Ramanujan's nationality from Indian to Tamil, but he appears to have stopped editing that article. If there are any ongoing issues, please submit a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result: Article is protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (13:40/17:53 January 31)
 * 2nd revert: (12:07/14:42 February 1st)
 * 3rd revert: (16:16/18:01 February 1st)
 * 4th revert: (19:37/19:52 February 1st)
 * 5th revert: (20:14/22:11 February 1st)


 * The first revert isn't necessarily part of the 3rr, but it's where the revert warring started, the two reverts after that are self-evident. The fourth revert changed the content in something controversial, (and something that is factually incorrect too ( His revert regarding Borizovsky is incorrect too since he bought the company kommersant not in 1998 but in 1999 ). In his final revert, admist the minor changes he removed a title called ==dissidence==, something he had also done in his first and second revert and something which me and two other users attempted to discuss on the talk page. and he did so before replying there.


 * Maybe this isn't the right place but this user is also acting pretty disruptive. During the revert warring at 18:48 Russavia also posted a message on the talk page of User:Biophys he was warring with (he was previously blocked for herassing this user), saying the other user was disruptive and accusing him of a lot of other bad stuff. At the time the other user had made two reverts. On the talk page of the Litvinenko page he had also pointed out that this user doesn't WP:OWN this article which I think is exactly how he's editing. Perhaps unrelated, but he often accuses users of being disruptive even when they make good faith edits. Apparently there was more revert warring by Russavia today at a page which he's trying to get deleted. where he responded to the same User:Biophys with More disruption from Biophys - he didn't include any sources for the second paragraph - i'm getting sick of the WP:TEND editing by this pov-pusher


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well-aware of the 3 revert rule which he has broken several times before. I've reported him once before as well, and wasn't sure if I should do the same thing again, because last time it caused a lot of emotions. I'm still doing it because it's unfair, since I'm now not allowed to revert his actions back when I disagree with them as this can get me blocked too. I've also seen people getting blocked for just edit warring when they hadn't broken 3rr. I embrace such policies because it's not pleasant discussing issues like that. Grey Fox (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I made two series of edits in Litvinenko today, and none of them was revert. Biophys (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring by Russavia in another article today, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia. He also made a 3RR violation there:
 * initial version (his old revert)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert - note his deletion of Chechenpress reference to Mikhail Trepashkin (М. Трепашкин: «Создана очень серьезная группа)
 * 4th revert, a massive deletion of sourced and relevant text.


 * Edit warring by Russavia in third article today, Vladimir Glebov:
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert. He removes text with supporing external link. He nominated this article for deletion and works hard to "prove" that subject was not notable.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy to take whatever punishment is given out to me, and thank again guys for not again advising me of this. First to deal with Biophys' "evidence". Those revision were '''removing WP:BLP that Biophys and Martintg re-inserted into the article, unless of course it is totally ok to accuse people of war crimes without a single reference:

A few days after receiving the medal, Glebov was accused of committing war crimes by targeting the Chechen civilian population while leading a Russian Airborne Troops unit (119th Airborne Regiment). The prosecution claimed that Glebov shot dozens of unarmed Chechen men during an unsanctioned military operation in Grozny, and then placed weapons near their bodies in order to fabricate a victory. The case was eventually shelved and Glebov was allowed to retire.

Where exactly is the source for this? At least when Biophys tried to present the accusation that Putin was a paedophile in an article as fact he used a reference (to a fringe, terrorist website). Both Biophys and Martintg have re-inserted unreferenced WP:BLP into the article, where's the punishment for them? I bet there will be NONE AS USUAL (William Connelly, you reading this?).

The Litvinenko is not 3RR, it is called article improvement. The first link is improvement. Revert 1 and 2just because Biophys engages in WP:TEDIOUS editing by insisting that I discuss my edits for inclusion, well I got news for him. WP:TEDIOUS states:

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[67] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

The Arbcom which this is linked to is at Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar. This basically says that Biophys has been disruptive. Wikipedia is not a debating society, nor is it a place to engage in advocacy. So he can claim he has only done two reverts, but his reverts are clearly disruptive as per that arbcom decision.

Revert 3 is again more article improvement, rewording and fixing of sources, etc. Revert 4, is well changing a sentence structure, and well, removing whitespace, fixing wikicode, etc (you know all those menial tasks that most usually shy away from).

In regards to Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union is not Russia (as much as Biophys likes to portray). We have Allegations of state terrorism by the Soviet Union in which Soviet-era allegations are separation in order to keep NPOV (we don't include Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova, etc in this articles so we?). It appears Hmains was unaware that the other article existed, hence he reverted. Unfortunately yes, I did breach 3RR, as did Hmains, and unfortunately, it is not possible for me to revert my 3RR as Hmains has been able to do. It appears this is a result of a misunderstanding, and it can be discussed like adults and without disruption from people such as Biophys.

Anyway, this will all likely fall on deaf ears too, so just block me, give everyone else a free pass and be done with it, as per is usually done around here. And of course, it doesn't matter that I'm not editing those articles at the moment due to myself writing up evidence for WP:AE for the issues such as I mentioned above. Russavia Dialogue 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As an extra datapoint, here we have an uninvolved admin expressing concern about Russavia's nationalistic edits lately, particularly the articles Allegations of state terrorism by Russia and Vladimir Glebov for which he has been reported here. Martintg (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This editor has also been edit warring in the article on The Economist: and . I think that a block would be in order. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with regard to The Economist, regardless of my previous disagreements with Russavia. He made just two reverts, and note that his piece was sourced. We could argue on talk, whether this section needs curtailing, but it definitely deserves inclusion. I'd acquit Russavia of that charge. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and he made 3 reverts on The economist actually. 3rr clearly states The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing). I'm pretty sure this is the case. The way Russavia replied here is pretty much how he usually replies, apparently we've broken loads of rules systemetically, and therefore he is allowed to behave like this. Any good faith edit he does not like is the breaking of a rule according to him. He will type up giant paragraphs in which he accuses users of a lot of bad things and also recalls disputes from a long time ago that have nothing to do with the actual dispute, such as an apparent quote about "paedophilia" from a year ago. I understand people do not enjoy arguing with this guy 24 hours a day.
 * As for the reverts for the Litvinenko not being reverts, I don't think you get the defenition of WP:Revert Russavia. In the first revert you edited a lot of stuff written by other users, so that's undoubtly a revert. The 2nd and 3rd revert are not justified because Biophys broke a rule; he didn't, I agreed with his edits since you typed up a lot of material that was obviously non-neutral. The revert after that was also a clear revert Russavia, you replaced information about berezeovskiy with something that's not true. I could go on, but it's no use. No matter how obvious it is that you've done wrong, you will never see it this way yourself. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL? Are you f'ing kidding me? Show me just what was not neutral? What exactly is NOT NEUTRAL about this:

Livtinenko met Boris Berezovsky in 1994 when he took part in investigations into an assassination attempt on the oligarch. He later began to moonlight for Berezovsky where he was responsible for the oligarch's security.[12] The moonlighting by Litvinenko and other security services personnel was illegal, but the State somewhat tolerated it in order to retain personnel who were at the time underpaid.[12] In 1997, Litvinenko was promoted to the FSB Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal Groups, with the title of senior operational officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section.[14] According to Dimitri Simes, the Directorate was viewed as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement.[15] Litvinenko's moonlighting for the controversial businessman was not investigated, but often investigations in Russia were selective and often targetted only at those who had stepped out of line.[12] Throughout his career he was not an 'intelligence agent' and did not deal with secrets beyond information on operations against organised criminal groups.

Everything I write is sourced to a reliable source, in this case a scholarly source, and you too are claiming it is not neutral? The problem that Biophys and you have is that it tells in a neutral way that he was moonlighting for Berezovsky, that the moonlighting was illegal (yet overlooked by the govt), and that his unit was regarded as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement (I do find it somewhat funny that people such as Biophys like to portray Russia as a corrupt, police state, yet don't like this information in this article? Why the hell is that? It's not accusing the person of being corrupt, mind you). Your words about me inserting false information about Berezovsky, I believe you are referring to the statement "in the newspaper that he owned at the time"? This was an error on my part, as there is also information to be included on their appearance on ORT, which is what was owned by Berezovsky at the time. That does not excuse the massive revert of relevant, sourced information presented in an NPOV fashion, however. --Russavia Dialogue 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to bother discuss all that here Russavia, you should have discussed this at the talk page instead of the edit warring. There are a lot of concerns with the way you are trying to portray this man's biography, but I'm not going to raise them here. Grey Fox (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nationalist POV pushing? What a laugh. I am Australian, as are you Martintg. You have never tried discussing a damned thing with myself, and the only time you have ever had a thing to say on my talk page, it was basically you telling me that you were going to create Putin-Dobby. So, Mr Putinland do not accuse me of being a nationalist POV pusher, and don't forget to tell these fine folk that you are also stalking my edits. --Russavia Dialogue 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, as I said on your talk page, you removed sourced material from an article. If you think it is too much, then fine, edit it, and reduce it. As another editor ended up doing (which was then removed as trivia (b/s). Regardless of we think, we write about what sources tell us, and the opinion of a "western" journalist who was based in Russia on a "western" magazine's reporting in Russia, is notable to some degree. Also note the inclusion of the example of The Economist's reporting of the Irish famine, that too is quite notable as one can see here which states "A month later, which another season of starvation looming, The Economist, peering down from the heights of ideological purity, condemned was it regarded as the disastrous result of the Government's intervention in the Irish economy" and "The Economist, the The Times", normalised the horror of the Famine, and, by doing so, erased it. Ideologically inspired propaganda cynically ignored or denied reality". and "The most brutal, cowardly, and calumnious libels were found in the English press upon the Irish people, whose conduct ought to be lauded. There was the ruffian Times, and then The Economist, the free trader...but all these papers had levelled their brutalities at the people of Ireland. The Economist had basely charged the Irish people with flinging themselves like slaves upon the bounty of the English - without energy or exertion...these outrageous attacks upon the people were evidence that nothing would be done effectively for the relief of Irish distress...". That is from a book entitled "Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine". This too is all notable opinion which deserves a place in the article. But you chose to delete the entire lot, without discussion, and my IP stalker and others have decided to game the system by arguing to exlude ALL Russian sources from this article too, thereby arguing to exclude any notion of any "Russian POV" from WP, unless of course it agreed with their own POV. Be damned with that rubbish. --Russavia Dialogue 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm Australian", that doesnt matter Russavia. You've been told recently by an admin too. You not being ethnically Russian is not an excuse to behave like that. Grey Fox (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And that admin is at least going to hear my side of things. So Grey-Fox, where is the scorn for Martintg's stalking of my edits and general harrassment? Do I do this to you guys? Not on your life mister. --Russavia Dialogue 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made so many baseless accusations of everybody being out to get you, stalking you or whatever, that nobody cares anymore. That is one of the reasons why it's harmful to cry wolf. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Martintg Russavia, I have not interacted with him. Have you tried asking him on his userpage? I don't stalk you that I know. In many of the articles you and I edit, I was active long before you was. You're 68th on the List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, it's no surprise that you encounter many of the same users everywhere, especially since most of your editing is about glorifying the Russian government. Grey Fox (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Grey-Fox...perhaps if we didn't have articles stating Putin is a paedophile, I wouldn't need to "glorify the Russian government". It's got nothing to do with glorifying anybody or anything. It has to do with providing a multitude of views with conform with NPOV. Until such time as articles are NPOV, and cover all major views, then I will continue to participate in this project. Of course, if you really want to get rid of me, then I would encourage people of writing articles from a NPOV stance in the first place, instead of simply "dishing the dirt". --Russavia Dialogue 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is there has never been such an article, it's all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All in my head? "Among those who knew about Putin's paedophilia...", does that ring any bells with you? Not only does it state a matter of fact, but it also claims others know. --Russavia Dialogue 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, do you remember what happened when I reworded the above in order to make it clear it was an accusation, and also added information from other sources on this claim, which called it "wild" and "unsubstantiated"? I do, a "compromise version" version was made, in which all material which I added was removed, and the claim was re-presented as fact as above. Do you remember what happened then? I do, there was gaming of the system going on, in which I was blocked and the editor who re-inserted these statements of fact got off scott-free, and the blocking admins totally ignored any report of BLP, and refused to even look at it. Want to guess who did that "compromise version"? They do these "compromise versions" a lot where they remove ALL edits by other editors in a sign of ownership of articles and revert back to their own desired version. And I am the one being accused of POV-pusing....go figure. --Russavia Dialogue 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia the reason why nobody else was blocked was because there was no BLP violation. The quote above was placed in quote itself, so that they only showed the words of Litvinenko, and not a statement of fact. You made the entire BLP violation thing up, and it seems that after 4 months you still haven't gotten over it, because you've been alleging this constantly in unrelated discussions. Yes it was indeed all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of that was irrelevant. The only relevant question: can a user violate 3RR rule simultaneously in two articles, conduct edit waring in several others, and believe that he was right and everyone else was wrong. If this is fine, no block or other actions (such as placing him to Digwuren list) would be required.Biophys (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Biophys, Grey Fox and Martintg appear to be working in concert to get Russavia blocked, I'd like to point out, that in my view these three users have a strong history of tendentious editing, and share an (unusually strong) agenda in WP. They have also themselves been involved in edit warring and (at least near-) violations of 3RR. As far as I can see, most of the "controversial" edits by Russavia are merely attempts to fix the unbalance created by the trio's edits. I think that any admin making a decision should take into account the behaviour of the three users mentioned. Every editor should be treated equally. Offliner (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually never really interacted with Martintg before, you're just making stuff up because you seem to have the same agenda as Russavia, judging from this and your behaviour at various Russian related articles. Grey Fox (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Will an admin just block me and User:Hmains already and be done with this shit. I have argued that I am in favour of the equal treatment for all, and I will continue to argue for that in future. Both myself and Hmains have breached 3RR, so just block us and be done with it. Unlike many I take responsibility for my edits on WP. --Russavia Dialogue 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to block any user who (like Hmanis) politely debated the problem, apologized, self-reverted and did not fire any personal accusations. That was actually Russavia who came to his talk page with threats: "Now I will remeber you". Biophys (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean self-reverted after you left a message on his talk page, encouraging him to do so, so that you could report me after he had done so? HAHA. You play a good WP:GAME Biophys. Anyway, in the words of the very same admins who refused to block you but blocked me, blocking is supposed to be preventative, and blind freddy can see there is no edit warring or reverting going on, and there hasn't been before this report was brought here. But still block me anyway, right? --Russavia Dialogue 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmains has never been blocked for violating 3rr before Russavia, you have. It's only natural for Biophys to inform him on the rule. Grey Fox (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't give a fig if Hmains has been blocked before, whether Biophys games the system, or whatever. I, unlike many, will take responsibility for their edits on WP, and not act dumb and outright bullshit like some, so will an admin block me already so that these people can sit back and rejoice in yet another victory for their pedantic ownership and their outright POV-editing of articles, and when I return, I will join you all over at WP:AE. It's like you people think I really care, it's the internet for shit's sake. --Russavia Dialogue 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given his blocklog of previous 3RR violations, this current report of 3RR across multiple articles, his combative attitude and the fact that EE topics are under discretionary sanctions (under which provisions he was previously blocked), a long block is in order here. Martintg (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of order. I was never blocked under that arbcom, it was for alleged WP:HARRASS\OUTING of Biophys. At no stage was I ever advised of that Arbcom at the point of blocking, and I will be asking for that to be removed. As to my "combative attitude" what the f' does one honestly expect when they are being stalked and harrassed all around WP by you and others Martintg. Most hilarious is that you are bringing up my alleged harrass/outing of Biophys, but by all tokens you are guilty of the same thing. Nice attempt to game though there Martin ;) --Russavia Dialogue 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a delightful mess. Let's start with Glebov: removed source which states unverifiable things). If you (Ru) mean, removed for BLP violation, you need to say so. Furthermore, there is no requirement for sources to be verified, only that they be reliable. Whether these ones are or not I can't say. This [] is a slightly closer attempt, but should not say "unsourced" (because it clearly is sourced). Your complaint, if you have one, is over the reliability of the source. Anyway, no-one says you've broken 3RR there so I'll drop that.

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia is closer, but I'm not sure why #3 is a revert. Hmains has 4R in the last 24h, without even counting his rv/self-rv pair, so gets a Warning re edit warring.

Alexander Litvinenko ditto. If you're going to report reverts which aren't obvious, please include sufficient explanation to make them obvious.

All seems rather summed up by the presumably unintentionally ambiguous I've reverted Russavia's attempt to remove mention of dissidence before it could be resolved here on talk.

In short: there is edit warring on both sides and you need to talk (civily; again, warnings). I'm not inclined to block either side of this mess for the moment, but certainly will if you continue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recognising that there was edit warring on all sides. I have admitted my part, yet no-one else is. And I will discuss issues, so long as it is real discussion for improvement of articles, instead of going thru the motions of talking to a brick wall with article owners. Given that, if this issue is now closed, I am off back to editing. --Russavia Dialogue 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

William could you please explain who else has been edit warring? There's only been one user whose made more than two reverts I think. I was also thought that 3rr is like an electric fence. I've also seen loads of users getting blocked for making three reverts on a single page, let alone more than a numerous pages. Concerning Russavia, this isn't an incident, but it's systematic and that's why I reported him. Another question, does this mean that you are going to watch the pages in question now? Or someone else will? Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring by Russavia (aided by Offliner) in Litvinenko just resumed: . Note that Russavia was previuosly blocked for edit warring over the same article.Biophys (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, end this block fishing already. Everyone can see that there is no edit warring going on, just normal article improvement, with discussion and well argumented edit summaries. Offliner (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that was new revert by Russavia. That was a good article. Not any more.Biophys (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not believe the audacity of this Biophys. I reverted the article because THE LEAD IS A COPYVIO as per the edit diff, but Biophys being a (you don't want to know what I think about his bullshit) conveniently forgets to make this clearly known here, and he also fails to mention that I have posted on the talk page, and Grey-Fox and I have come to a quick agreement, that I will rewrite the lead and will post this on the talk page first, so that it can be discussed. Quit the shit and nuttery Biophys, I've have a f'ing gutful of it. Hopefully the admins will see this, and you, for what you are, and what you are doing here. --Russavia Dialogue 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Biophys is partially wrong, probably because of his believe that reverts only count when they are major reverts. The one who was edit warring was offliner who made 3 reverts, not you Russavia. At the same time the way you reply to this is completely below standards. Grey Fox (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Russavia continue to blindly revert any constructive changes in this article instead of looking for a compromise:
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it appears Biophys is going to run back here everytime an edit is done to the article. It was indeed Biophys who demanded that we discuss changes to the article (in a sign of WP:OWN, because it negates WP:BOLD), so myself, Offliner and Grey Fox have been discussing the lead, in the 3 of us have managed to come up with a compromise for, with one matter still under discussion. Biophys has then come along and made unilateral changes to the article which goes completely against his own demands to discuss the article. His edits do not have consensus, and have not been discussed on the talk page. We are trying to create a neutral article here, and we are working on the lead first, and in a sign of WP:AGF myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox are discussing the article, it doesn't help when people who have had a demand of discussion thrown upon them are discussing, whilst the one making the demands is making such changes. Now Biophys is welcome to discuss also, but if he is going to make changes in such a way, it will be resisted given his demands on us. His inclusion of information for which there is not consensus is not helpful, and he surely knows that. --Russavia Dialogue 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to protect Alexander Litvinenko article until there is some consensus on the dispute. Please work towards these consensus on the talk pages. Please discuss behavior of other editors on the RfC's, not the 3RR board. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Russavia is also continuing to edit war on The Economist article, and is still re-adding material which has no support in the dicussion on the article's talk page: and  Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am questioning the first few of the people on the talk page as they are not here to help build an encyclopaedia, they are here to advocate (as is obvious by their consistent arguing in favour of exclusion of any Russian sources...in order to not allow any of that POV to come thru, unless it comes from a fringe newspaper such as Novaya Gazeta, and they don't want anything bad being said in favour of Russia on WP. I, however, am here to help build an encyclopaedia, and balanced "criticism" (not the type of negative criticism for criticism sake) is warranted. If I have to provide another ten sources (which will be in Russian) to demonstrate the opinion (and this is how it is presented) that they are anti-Russian and engage in biased coverage of Russia, I will do it. And I have also mentioned, that I will also include information on their reporting of the Irish famine, which will take into account their POV also, which one can see I have already started doing. Nick, you have not assumed good faith, even calling my edits "politically motivated". I'm not a card-carrying member of United Russia (believe it or not, although I'm not Russian, I used to support Yabloko), so there is no political motivation in my edits, but rather the need to present alternative POV on the subject. As it stands now the article needs Template:Advert, Template:POV and Template:Refimprove templates on it, as over half of the 60-odd sources are sourced to The Economist itself. It seems to me that because the section is "criticism", you believe in not AGF that I have only the intention of including materials which bash the magazine, and that is not the case. A magazine which makes its business in criticising others, it is only natural that others are going to criticise it also. And as much of that Economist criticism is scattered all over Russian topics, it is only fair that a sentence of opinion on that criticism is present in their article. Or is The Economist is somehow immune where all other articles are not? So yes, I have reinserted the materials, and also starting to expand upon it in relation to Ireland, because by WP:IAR, it is my firm belief that your objections for inclusion are not within the spirit of WP:AGF. Like I've said, block me, it really doesn't phase me, I'm here for the betterment of the project, and won't allow myself to be sidelined first by my stalkers who try to game the system, policies and guidelines, and then by people who have not AGF with those edits. AGF, and then you will see that you are sorely mistaken with both your own opinion on myself and my edits. --Russavia Dialogue 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are the one who has been trying to pass issues with the editorial positions The Economist took in the middle of 19th century as fresh and valid criticism of the newspaper after failure of your earlier attempt to pass The eXile's insult comedy piece as such a criticism, you really, really shouldn't be the one to complain about "negative criticism for criticism sake". Glass houses are rather fragile, you know. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User with multiple IPs reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: Prot'd. )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 11:08
 * 2nd revert: 11:37
 * 3rd revert: 11:58
 * 4th revert: 20:06


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

 Grsz 11  Review 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was coming here to file this, but Grsz beat me to it. If you'll check the page, this IP has been trying to add these people to the page for a month now, and has been reverted by multiple editors. They obviously know what they're doing, as they filed a frivolous edit war complaint against me last night for reverting them, and threatened a 3RR report against anyone who reverted their latest change . They claim to have been providing evidence of notability all along, but have never done so. From their commenst here, this IP is also the one responsible for trying to add a list of non-notable valedictorians to the page, so their disruption goes back even farther. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I've protected it for a while (Can't remember how long). Scarian Call me Pat!  21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tallard reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Full prot 72 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * This is the stable version with the dupe references merged, the trivia section worked in to the main article. A new header added with info from the 1500s that was under "Modern perspectives". I also corrected a damaged url and swapped in a "main" template under a header. I also removed one unsourced statement, and reworded a double negative in a statement to the positive. That statement still needed a change of tense but was reversed before I could correct it.


 * 3RR warning


 * 1st revert: removing my tags added to unsourced facts
 * 2nd revert: reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
 * 3rd revert: reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
 * 4th revert: reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
 * 5th revert: this is where she made her last revert

My encounter with her has been of her reverting my changes to the article saying that I am introducing religion to the article by reverting her deletion of the image from Gray's Anatomy, now she has switched to deleting any and all changes I am making to the article including the addition of references, and the merging of duplicate references. I am a scientist, not religious, yet some topics have medical, religious, philosophical, and legal definitions that are not identical to each other, and belong in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, it covers all aspects that are notable of a topic. I have gone through a request for comment which brought consensus to the engraving from Gray's to remain on the page, but now it appears every addition I make is being reverted based on the premise I am adding religion to a scientific topic and performing "vandalism". I have made over 60K edits to Wikipedia in over 4 years. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I've locked it down for 3 days (at least I think I did). Please use that time to discuss... if it was any other admin you'd have been blocked. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure locking it solved any problems, it just set in stone one version over the other without evaluating the quality of any of the edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it didn't. Neither version can be "correct" and I am not proposing that one is better than the other. That's what started the whole damn edit war in the first place. Richard, you're awfully fortunate that I dealt with the situation because I don't think blocking achieves much except angry contributors. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrewjlockley reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: AGF warning )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: complex reverts; each one specified


 * 1st revert: partial revert of  (restores "Rapid Arctic shrinkage is already occurring, with 2007 being...")
 * 2nd revert: marked revert
 * 3rd revert: reintroduces a whole pile of stuff added under  ("Lawrence et al(2008) suggests that a rapid melting of the sea ice may up a feedback loop that rapidly melts arctic permafrost...", "However, Buffett and Archer predict a much higher release of between 2,000 and 4,000 gigatonnes..." etc etc)
 * 4th revert: repeats


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warned editor post-reverts but he rejects the warning  and even asks for a removal of the warning . Several other editors try to reason with him  to no avail.

Please also note that AJL has been pushing his POV onto the GW article for a while now; he has now exhausted most peoples patience, see his talk page and t:GW William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I've gone soft: - if someone could show me that he's acknowledged this advice and then chosen to ignore it, then I will block. Can't do it now; I feel sorry for him, and he seems a bit green for a user of almost 2 years. Message me if anything else crops up. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll do. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Romani people by country (Result: 48 hour block)
Breaking of the 3RR by the user Mttl (4 revertings only for today), edit warring with the users Athenean, Behemoth, Olahus, DerHexer. --Olahus (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked for 48 hours for building up a mass of reverts over the past few days, including edit warring with DerHexer (whilst the latter was using Huggle, no less. Bad move!). <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

90.184.244.234 reported by Kendo 66 (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user, seems to have a strong POV, that influences their edits, a request to discuss such things has been ignored. Kendo 66 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Malformed report (see WP:DIFF). But anyway, page protected for a week. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Radeksz reported by M.K. (talk) (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1) 2009-02-04T02:25:41
 * 2) 2009-02-04T07:12:16
 * 3) 2009-02-04T07:44:51
 * 4) 2009-02-04T09:48:15


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user was already blocked for the edit warring . M.K. (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those reverts are not identical, and whether they are reverts of good-faithed WP:BRD - with the ongoing discussion on talk about reliablity of removed sources - is unclear. Considering that the other editor, M0RD00R, is matching Radeksz tic-for-tat, but both of them are users in good standing with little history of edit warring, I have warned them both on the talk of the article and on their talk pages. If any of them reverts further (I suggested they both keep to 1RR a day on that article for a while), blocks to cool some heads down may be appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus was heavily involved in edit warring on this same article  2) Piotrus alerted User:Radeksz to participate in this article due to the new specific issues, which caused this  edit war . 3) Talking into consideration Piotrus long standing personal disputes with user: M0RD00R and a relationship with Radeksz. 4) Piotrus already gave Radeksz 3RR "warning" in the past. He should know better.  . I ask that the case be taken up by a neutral administrator, rather than close associate of one of the parties, who was admonished by Arbitration committee to avoid avoid edit-warring.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I got ahead of myself. But changes 1 and 2 are different than changes in 3 and 4. They are about a different source. I'd be happy to keep to 1RR on this article for awhile. It would also help if the discussion on the topic was actually carried out on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. I posted my reasons there on the two questionable sources. Waited a few days and only then removed them. This was immediately reverted by Mordoor who never bothered to respond on the talk page even though he had all the time in the world.radek (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also please note that the previous block MK refers to was an admin's MISTAKE for which he apologized. I was reverting a known and frequent vandal on the Copernicus article (the one that keeps putting in "Copernicus was Polish!" in the lead) and the admin in question accidentally blocked me when he meant to block the vandal. The block was rescinded within minutes as soon the admin realized he made a mistake (I didn't even have to point it out). This is all clearly evident from the edit summaries in the link MK provides if he actually bothered to read them. I'm not sure I like this smearing of my reputation.radek (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous block MK refers to 2008-11-24T07:12:03 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked Radeksz (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring, incivility.). In any case it just shows that you are well familiar with WP policies.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't see a technical violation here - rv 3 is 't obviously an rv and you haven't bothered explain why it is. Edit warring from both sides, who may consider themselves warned. R seems to have done most in initiating talk pae discussion; M encouraged to reply William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to reopen this case or anything in this fashion, but rather technical response regarding revert No.3:


 * Editor installs source in this edit (see Death Comes in Yellow: Skarżysko-Kamienna Slave Labor Camp), in subsequent edit user:Radeksz removes it (see: Death Comes in Yellow: Skarżysko-Kamienna Slave Labor Camp). By the definition of the revert, this action called revert. M.K. (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The commonality in the revert war is one sentence (and its verification).
 * 23:55, 28 January 2009 Novickas created the sentence stating that some historians have characterized the entire army as anti-Semitic. Piotrus reverted that twice (1 2)
 * 00:36, 4 February 2009 Novickas restores the sentence and suggests a third opinion. Piotrus jokingly asks Radek for involvement ...
 * 02:25, 4 February 2009 ... who is quick to remove the sentence on arguing the sources were insufficient (revert 1)
 * 07:00, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores the sentence and adds two more sources (revert 1)
 * 07:12, 4 February 2009 Radeksz doesn't accept the sentence again and removes the first sources again (revert 2)
 * 07:29, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores one source (revert 2)
 * 07:44, 4 February 2009 Radeksz removes that source again and also another of them (revert 3)
 * 07:51, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores the 2 sources (revert 3)
 * 09:48, 4 February 2009 Radeksz removes one of them again (revert 4)

To sum up, I cannot see why Radek's third revert of his four is not a revert. There, Radek completely undid M00RD0Rs previous edit, thus provoking him to revert again. Even if you don't count it although it should be, then Mordoor's second revert wouldn't count either and Mordoor would have 2, as many reverts as Piotrus ... (although Mordoor's first revert was only fulfilling what Radeksz asked for: additional sourcing to support the sentence whereas Piotrus simply did two wholesale reverts). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Galassi reported by Volodymir_k (Result: Note left on talk )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 1) Galassi is definitely pushing his POV in there, reverting ALL changes.
 * 2) He does this without any discussion of his reverts at article talk page.
 * 3) He does not even read the changes by other editors, because otherwise he would noticed he made a typo.
 * 4) His typo was easy to notice: "noted in particular for his noted in particular for his", I pointed that twice (at article's talk page and at user talk page), but he didn't pay attention.
 * 5) Instead, he answered that my "English is too incomprehensible"
 * 6) At the article talk page, I requested support for verification, and that was simply ignored.
 * 7) Comments to his edits say "unexplained deletion of cited material, rvv", but that is not true: nothing was deleted, it was moved into proper section. (And of course there are no any quotations.)
 * 8) His single reference is to non-neutral journalist.

Thanks, -- Volodymir k (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No blocks or protection as there hasn't been a rv in a few days but I have left a note on the article's talk page requesting discussion. All editors are forbidden from making any more reverts until they have worked it out between themselves. Recommend WP:MEDIATION as this is a content dispute. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I needed: to be heard. Volodymir k (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TheColdDick reported by User:Michig (Result: 48 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor involved deleted warning from his talk page with an edit summary of "oooh scary", and proceeded to revert again, with an edit summary of "fuck you". The editor has insisted in readding "Hot Press" in the reviews section without a link to the review, and is clearly not interested in listening to others' views.--Michig (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * for 48 hours. Other disputants advised of the need for discussions on the Talk page. CIreland (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

125.17.14.100 reported by MrinaliniB (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:

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

The Tamil new year is subject to some controversy at present. The current Wikipedia entry presents both viewpoints in a seamless text that flows quite well. There are 13 footnotes to back the two sides to the debate.

IP # 125.17.14.100 however has been single-minded over the past month in removing sections whose evidence is backed with a footnote. The summary deletion of an important sentence, not to mention, removal of key phrases elsewhere means that the text loses useful information and nuance that is otherwise necessary to understand the ongoing debate.

IP # 125.17.14.100 in turn introduces a PoV without evidence or a citation. This gives an ideological slant to the revised text. He has been consistent in unilaterally deleting information/citation and then replacing it with his PoV. It is one thing if he backs his PoV with evidence/footnote - but he does not. This is disruptive behavior.

IP # 125.17.14.100 is the only individual consistently involved in such arbitrary reverts since January 1 and has refused to engage the other editors in the talk page which is the ideal forum to resolve disputes over content. Any point can be introduced provided it is backed with evidence while alternate views are not summarily deleted/replaced.

He has reverted thrice in the latest 24 hour period - February 4. You had temporarily blocked him before but he always returns to re-engage in the never-ending edit wars where he is the sole individual reverting arbitrarily since January 1 to be precise. This is more than one month where the periods of quiet have been those when he had been blocked. No one else unilaterally deletes as he does. He also seems to confine his edits to this one page alone if one were to look at the record! This seems to be edit warring.--MrinaliniB (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week for edit warring without discussing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Godspeed. --MrinaliniB (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Catskillemt reported by Yossiea (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 21:55,  4 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* New Jersey */ Yet again reverting vandalism by Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton two year olds. Grow up!!!")
 * 2) 15:46,  5 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undoing vandalism yet again. When will you guys grow up???")
 * 3) 20:14,  5 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 268719545 by Yossiea (talk) Undoing vandalism by Yossiea yet again.")

—Yossiea <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me again why I'm supposed to block him not you. For reverting 3 times, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted his edits, not reverting my own. I added to this article recently as well as years ago. It was on my watchlist and I noticed that he was pushing his piece. Yossiea <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You both violated WP:3RR. This is a content dispute - neither side's edits were vandalism. I've locked the page for a couple of days and urge you to either resolve the content isssue on the relevant talk page, or seek a third opinion. Continuing the mass reversions when page protection expires will get either (or both) of you blocked for edit warring. Euryalus (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically no, since neither made 4R in 24h. But they were in deed edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, 4rr in around 29 hours not 24. I stand corrected, and have amended my emssage on Talk:Hatzolah. Thanks for pointing this out, hopefully the content issue can now be resolved in a slightly calmer way. Euryalus (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells reported by NYScholar (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

Preliminary warning: Please see repeated removal of the Style Sheet by User:Jezhotwells; the repeated removal of the Style sheet is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:3RR.
 * 1) Diffs.
 * 2) Diffs.
 * 3) Diffs.

The template is an "optional" Style guide and there for information and consultation. Editing warring over consistent style format is not permitted in Wikipedia. The removal of the Style sheet in the manner that it is being done is a breach of Wikipedia civility (WP:CIVIL) and breaches optional style guidelines re: templates. Such templates are informational on article talk pages. They are there so that subsequent readers of the talk page can see what the current Style Sheet is. --NYScholar (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the merits of the report, I notice that diffs 2 and 3 show the same edit. CIreland (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * corr. (see edit summ.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see at most three reverts, plus this comment by Jezhotwells which suggests he is not planning to revert any more. If so then the war is over. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

24.245.59.4 reported by Pinkadelica (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP appears to be an SPA who has no other contributions outside of adding and re-adding this same unsourced content to this one article. User has been reverted by two other users since February 1, and warned about adding this content repeatedly.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black; font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Say it...  01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * by User:Rootology. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54 reported by BoogaLouie (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:

before my edits
 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Jk54 has no page
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

BoogaLouie (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jk54 has four reverts in 24.5 hours, and he uses blanket reverts to install his own much larger version of the article (59 kb vs 13 kb). I do not see that he got consensus anywhere for his larger version. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy reported by RoyLeban (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambigram&oldid=255316272
 * Note: This is a version from December 2008, before some big blocks (but not all) of the removed content was added to the article.


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambigram&oldid=268469785 (final edit of 4 in a row)
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambigram&oldid=268506069
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambigram&oldid=268743492


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=268839387&oldid=268831540

First off, apologies if I'm not doing this quite right. This is the first time I've ever done this. Also, I may not be on Wikipedia again until Monday, Feb 9th. If it is necessary for me to visit this page, please send me a brief email offline and I will endeavor to do so (this is not an invitation to start an off-wiki discussion). Thank you.

There are only three reverts here in slightly more than a 24 hour period, but it is clearly an edit war and there is a longer pattern of destructive editing. User:DreamGuy insists that he is the only one who understands Wikipedia policies. This is the second time he has, in my opinion, attacked the Ambigram article, this time removing about 10% of it. I assumed good faith the first time and took discussion of his deletions to the talk page, where other editors have commented (I've been waiting for a bit more input before restoring those items which have consensus for restoration).

This time, I know better. DreamGuy says he has discussed changes on the Talk page, but that is not true. Rather, when he has contributed on the talk page, he provides his opinion as fact, as if he alone gets to decide what is right and what is consensus (e.g., "case closed). He treats reliable (cited) sources as unreliable because he does not have personal access to them and/or he doesn't agree with them. Where the edits were mine, I have cited specific sources, including page numbers in many cases. Although I refer to my own edits, and a significant portions of recent edits are mine, he has removed edits by many editors, plus long-standing content, some of which has been in the article for more than a year.

DreamGuy claims, erroneously, that I have a COI on this article (and I'm not the only person so accused). I do not. I have explained it clearly on the Talk page, but, again, he thinks he is the sole arbiter. It is true, as I explain on the Talk page, that I am an expert on Ambigrams and I know personally many of the people in the field. This does not disqualify me from editing -- in fact, it makes me a better editor. My edits do not enrich myself. In the one case, where I do have a COI (a game I developed that is related to ambigrams), I stated that I could not vote on the Talk page. My login is my real name so it is easy to verify who I am and that what I say is accurate. DreamGuy also claims my comments are deceptive. This is a smokescreen.

DreamGuy claims to also be an expert on ambigrams, but his edits do not bear this out, as he does not seem to know things that he should know to be true. For example, earlier, he deleted a statement that said Dan Brown named the Robert Langdon character after John Langdon. This is widely known in the community. I restored it after digging up a quote from Dan Brown himself, but if DreamGuy really was an expert, he would have marked it as needing a citation, or he would have dug up the quote himself. If he did know it to be true, then the sin is even worse.

DreamGuy has also been uncivil, making remarks such as the following in response to editors with whom he disagrees: Note that this is not the only edit war DreamGuy has been involved in -- he has done this in numerous places and has had edit wars on many articles, multiple bans, etc. You can see another recent edit war at Near Dark. Although I have not done any significant analysis, looking at his edit history, it appears that most of his edits are deletions.
 * "Wow is all I have to say. Clearly an unbiased opinion there" (this is an implicit COI accusation)
 * "You realize that this site is an encyclopedia, right? Useful? What?"
 * "it's just ridiculously inappropriate for WIkipedia every which way"

I reverted his reverts twice, with the following comments:
 * rv vandalism -- you should not make wholesale deletions of content without discussion -- take any problems you have to the talk page
 * Go read BRD. Start a discussion about these changes. Don't insist that you're right.

You can also see that I did another recent revert for an apparent COI edit which was made before the first reversion by DreamGuy and then made again later:
 * RV edit that I suspect is COI and is inappropriate for this article. I hope to incorporate some of it in a restored FlipScript article when I find more references. If you disagree, please go to Talk

He will no doubt show up here and argue that I know nothing about Wikipedia policies, that my edits are all COI, and that all of my edits as well as all the other content he deleted is stupid. I think things are pretty clear and, for the record, I've been an editor since 2001 (though not under my real name until recently). Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. I realized I forgot to include the diff to the edit war warning. I made it right before submitting this and it's now linked above. RoyLeban (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No formal vio. Not even 3R in 24h. Use the talk page. Consider WP:DR. Stop the accusations of vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

23prootie reported by Nick-D (Result: blocked by User:YellowMonkey )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (revert of: )


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (for similar edit warring over the article's infobox shortly before the latest outbreak). Also recently warned for edit warring on the Allies of World War II article:

This editor appears to be a POV-pushing edit warrior. His edit summaries in this edit war include: 'Americans and Australians SUCK, man arrogant little horse', 'American horse! horse! horse!' and 'removed Mexico, again Americans are horse, trying to use petty arguments just to downgrade Philippine contributions to the war. That really sucks you know. ek.'. The editor is also edit warring on a number of other articles, including: Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allies of World War II:, , (note also the misleading edit summary),  (followed 3RR warning and promise to stop edit waring)
 * lists of sovereign states in the early 1940s (I count 4 reversions in 3 minutes of these articles twice today in their recent contribution history:, , ,  and , , , )


 * I note that User:YellowMonkey has just blocked this editor for 72 hours. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

65.32.128.178 reported by Poeticbent (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP blocked 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior reported by User:Ukufwakfgr (Result:no vio)
This concerns the article Masonic conspiracy theories. User:Blueboar is unilaterally making edits that are still under discussion, and hiding them behind minor edits.

The article had gone without a revision for 5 months, and was biased. The changes that I made were undone by User:WegianWarrior with the reason that the article is already excruciatingly neutral or something like that. Suddenly, however their interest has been renewed, and have made more than a handful of unilateral edits in the past few days, claiming deceptively that such edits were "discussed."

There is reason to suspect that these users may engage in edit-warring as well as revert-warring. User:Blueboar has already been blocked for violating 3RR. This has been mentioned in Wikiquette alerts as well as the noticeboards of: conflicts of interest and neutral points of view. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WQA tagged NWQA and referred back here. Gerardw (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm so what you are saying is that you are edit warring with 3 different people and they are all in the wrong and you are in the right? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that there is reason to suspect, and look at the edit logs for yourself. They are full of unilateral changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Blueboar has "already been blocked for violating 3RR". Three years ago. Unblocked after ten hours. Never been blocked again. Clearly, a recidivist hardened criminal. Throw the book at him!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have more to contribute than sarcasm. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You got to admit though that it's bloody impressive how such a new user as Ukufwakfgr could find someone's block log like that. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read through the lengthy discussion at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories and was wondering where User:Ukufwakfgr got the cajones to accuse the others of edit warring. His posts are one rude personal attack after another laced with foul language.  The article is quite NPOV and his edits are clearly attempts to insert POV.  (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Please discusss why on the talk page, and actually read it instead of pre-judging or cherry-picking. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe he stated that he did in fact read the page. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He obviously skimmed through the more sensationalistic parts. Not good faith. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have indeed read the Talk page. It's a sad commentary on how one person can disrupt carefully crafted neutral wording with what appears to be a nit-picking agenda.  And the nit-picking is not always well-informed or even accurate.  I have seen that Blueboar et al. have carefully and patiently tried to deal with Ukufwakfgr, but to no avail.  Ukufwakgr's posts tend to be rude and insulting and when he doesn't think that others are paying enough attention to him he reverts to foul language. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Baseless allegations. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't want to get involved in the particulars, I'd like to say that just because Uku (don't mind if I call you that, right?) is the minority view here doesn't mean he should be ridiculed or ignored. Not to say he has been, but there's been a bit of irrelevant discussion concerning him which isn't the most productive thing that could be done. Likewise, Uku, try to be a bit more civil and collected. I'd encourage everyone to take to the talk page, including Uku, and sort out your differences there. If that can't be done, someone get back to me and I'll protect the page, but only if I see evidence of discussion that has been ignored by the warring party. Any questions, comments, concerns are welcome here or on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more users accounts are involved: Theresa Knott Taivo

All 5 of them are acting in a grossly uncivil manner by repeatedly requesting that I comply with what I believe to be an unreasonable demand (to select one of my talking points and re-state it, even though each talking point has been discussed already). They have outrightly rejected my counter-proposal without discussion, and seem to agree on pretty much everything.

Theresa Knott has abused her administrative priviliges by "redlinking" me, deleting portions of a comment I made, and providing additional support to the other users instead of demonstrating impartiality. She, along with Blueboar seem to be trying to play good-cop-bad-cop.

Taivo has taken to engaging in revert wars in the talk page itself, calling my desired changes ugly or something like that. That user has hypocritically accused me of trolling, and has tried to remove the POV tag.

So far, about 10 unilateral changes have been made to the page in the past 5 days, mainly by Blueboar and Taivo. I would really like to see this dispute resolved, if at all, rather than to resort to protecting the page. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Love the implication that they are sockpuppets by using the strikeout tag... classy, real classy. If a multiple of exeprienced users talls you that you're doing it wrong, and only you think otherwise, chances are good that you are, in fact, doing it wrong. Just saying...
 * Any editwarring taking place is done by Ukufwakfgr, not to mention his breach of other rules and policies. I encourage everyone to read through his contributions and make up their minds. 158.112.84.234 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Majority doesn't rule on Wikipedia. More baseless allegations. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the name of your previous account? I'm curious. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really am new. Just because I understand computers and the Internet doesn't make me an experienced Wikipedia editor. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim reported by Leevanjackson (Result: Take it to WP:MFD)

 * Page User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war
 * User:

I've been around the houses looking for the right place to ask, was going to Help_Desk but the content of this Wikipedia:User essay is a method to apply POV and get around the 3RR so should be of interest to you, not sure how user essays count for accountability, but it is unwikipedia and also provides an instruction set for POV pushers- the 'what links here' turns up a few interesting related articles LeeVJ (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you truly disapprove, consider asking for the essay to be deleted at WP:Miscellany for deletion. Have you noticed that this is a humorous essay, and the advice it gives is not very practical? EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noted the humour, but was more concerned with feeding beans to people, particularly use of sockpuppets and how to disguise reverts which seemed practical to me - but then I'm not seasoned in 3rr! - I have enquired on user's talk page to answer my concerns before taking any action. Thanks LeeVJ (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be required reading for all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought this was only worth a chuckle but now I see it was cited as evidence in an Arbcom case. The arbs have way too much time on their hands :-) To clarify the intention, perhaps the essay could be rewritten in the style of WP:ABF, which seems harmless and does not have the air of recommending anti-social activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User has tagged with 'humorous essay' and since there are a number of similar such essays, which I would personally disagree as well, I will have to say I am _happy_ with the situation! LeeVJ (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey reported by CENSEI (Result:No Vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please note that the first line of the 3RR rule states the following:

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, except in certain circumstances.

Clearly Loonmonkey has violated this as he reverted the contributions of four separate editors on with four separate edits, non of which had anything to do with any violation of policy.

CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."  Grsz 11 Review 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * closed, no vio, all revisions consecutive and therefore count as one edit under 3RR. Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

147.27.47.76 reported by Greekboy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been adding in information that I and another user have said does not belong there. User initially asked on talk page about adding that infromation, but he/she has since ignored the response given and keeps adding it in. Additionally, it is believed that this IP is also User:Ftsdgs, who added in the same information earlier, and also wrote the same thing on the talk page, as well as User:Sdgspt who just made an account to re-add the information back into the article after the 3RR notice was placed on his IP talk page. .Greekboy (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Sdgspt has just violated 3RR. I left a notice on his page. Diffs:, , , . The last time, he wrote in Greeklish via a hidden message "Hahahaha....I am having fun with this". Greekboy (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked S, and the anon who is S. Considering G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * G saved by self revert. A wise decision William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"G" I guess is me, not Greekboy, just to clear that up, its a little misleading. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Satellite9876 reported by Jebuss (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Satellite9876 has posted inaccurate and misleading information. Confusing the difference between profits and revenue together with a confusion about the way that public companies are traded and sold in the UK.

Satellite9876 does not understand that the SoJewish business was purchased by Totally plc. Benjamin Cohen (the subject of the article) was just one shareholder and later said he sold £40,000 worth of the shares he held.

Satellite9876 does not post sources for a number of the statements that they have made (Jebuss (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))


 * I do not agree with the above. Nor have there been 3 reverts as alleged. The Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) article appears to have often been 'protected' by one or two editors who seem to remove anything they think may be "negative" to the subject in question. That concerns me for the sake of the encyclopedia.


 * My view regarding the share valuation is that the article should most relevantly discuss the share value of the individual the subject of the article in question, and as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Other editors hold differing views.


 * My other concern about this article, since we find ourselves here, is that these same editors are seen to favorably edit this article rather consistently and remove any facts that someone like, say the subject, might find disagreeable. Happy for others to consider the issues, and the familiarity of various contributors with the subject of the article.


 * There were valid WP:RS posted for all my edits. Not sure about the alternate claims as to share and company valuations made by others being similarly sourced.


 * Overall, I must say though - bringing an edit discussion here, and not to my Talk page seems rather rash indeed. --Satellite9876 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that J has broken 3RR formally, whereas S hasn't. More importantly, S has made clear and repeated attempts to resolve this on talk, and J hasn't. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SonofFeanor reported by MastCell (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:27, 4 February 2009


 * 1st revert: 22:49, 5 February 2009 (undoes this preceding edit)
 * 2nd revert: 01:22, 6 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 10:58, 6 February 2009 (undoes this preceding edit, restores POV tag that he has been edit-warring heavily and single-handedly to insert)
 * 4th revert: 15:36, 6 February 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:59, 2 February 2009

This editor has been edit-warring on passive smoking. He's been repeatedly warned about violating 3RR (see recent 3RR report, final warning from outside admin and final, final warning from outside admin. Still at it. Enough's enough. MastCell Talk 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bridies reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: editor warned before this point
 * 5th revert: with comment that editor is willing to exceed 3RR to make a point


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Dispute among several editors resulting in edit war and heated discussion on talk page. Ironically, this is over an edit I myself added over a year ago. I came back after a break and noticed this war, and warned 2 users, one of whom seems to have stopped. =Axlq 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was willing to break the 3RR/risk being blocked if it would bring an admin, and thus an uninvolved, disinterested (as in not a D&D fan) and reasonably competent editor to the page for purposes of a third opinion.bridies (talk)
 * 24h. Edit warring to bring in other opinions is not a good idea. Read WP:DR, ask for a third opinion, don't edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttll (Attlmt) reported by User:Olahus (Result: 1 week)
The user Mttll is involved in an edit war again (as only few days ago), this time it is about this template where he edited as Mttll and Attlmt (they are the same user) - 2 reverts made by Mttl and 1 revert made by Attlmt = 3 reverts, which means that the 3RR was broken. I also suspect Mttl of using more sockpuppets, as I reported here.


 * First revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert

--Olahus (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 reverts are required for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fourth revert

--Olahus (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User comes off a 48 hour block for edit warring and almost immediately returns to just that. This appears to be a clear 3RRvio on his part, but even if it isn't, the clear disruption can be seen here, which warrants a block regardless. Also a look at Mttll's contributions show that he re-initiated an edit war on at least four other pages, mass-reverting each of them following his unblock. I see no signs of a change in behavior, so I am blocking for one week. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

81.71.161.34 reported by E_dog95 (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:

Here is the pre-revert war article.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is simply adding an embedded list of artists. This probably started back in November. I have let the user know that some content other than just the list would be better. I have asked that some prose be listed along with the artists. English may not be their first language. E_dog95'  Hi ' 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h each. You are both edit warring. Neither of you has tried to use the talk page, which still doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

99.179.173.225 reported by Opinoso (Result: both reproved)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

< This IP is claiming Austrians are Germans because they speak German. Then he included a Brazilian town settled by Austrians as if it was a "German community". I removed this, then he started to reverte me. Opinoso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -->

Excuse me, but i will like to give my own defense. If you read the German Brazilian article, in the immigration section, it has Austria listed. So in that article, the Austrian people are listen as Germans. This guy who reported this is claiming that there are Germans in Austria who are not Austrian. He is also flip-flopping on the whole issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.173.225 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake use the article talk page instead of reverting like people incapable of communication. You are both reproved for edit warring (technically the anon hasn't broken 3RR but O has) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

75.57.0.136 and Ajacreative reported by VoteSchiff (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User: and


 * Previous version reverted from:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The individual who is deleting/reverting the posts is doing it out of business competitiveness, rather than seeing the benefit of the factual information, which is needed for the Peter Schiff wiki bio page. The fact is, "On January 23rd, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd."

VoteSchiff (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked both the reporter and the reported user for 24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttll reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 0th revert: (not exact same revert, but a similar revert)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: See my edit summary on 4th revert

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 03:41, 8 February 2009 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mttll (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (3RR violation on Template:Romani infobox, almost immediately after coming off previous block, edit warring on at least four other pages, no signs of stopping) (unblock | change block) Tiptoety  talk 05:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:59.167.38.253‎ reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Page:.
 * User: : Time reported: 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:56,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "The fire hit Kinglake yesterday. Victims are only now being identified.")
 * 2) 11:00,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "The fire is known fo have hit Kinglake on 7 February.")
 * 3) 11:35,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "The article clearly states the fire was on Saturday (7 February)")
 * 4) 12:12,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "The news reports clearly state the fire was Saturday (7 February). 8 Feb is the date of the announcement. Claiming 8 Feb as the date of death is original research.")


 * Diff of warning: here

The IP was also told to take it to the talk page which they did but also continued to revert against 2 other editors (excluding myself). — Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to have been any reverts by this IP since your 3RR warning William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:THF reported by Ikip (Result: No violation)
As per: the above complaint

User:William M. Connolley Blocked User:THF at 21:47, 7 February 2009

User:William M. Connolley then unblocked User:THF on the promise that "OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h" at 22:32, 7 February 2009

User:THF has began editing the talk page again:
 * 11:45, 8 February 2009, adding a RFCpol to the talk page.

Please reblock this editor. Ikip (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I explained on WMC's talk page (maybe to briefly), WMC blocked THF due to a WP:3RR violation on the main article, and asked him to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours. The talk page is not the article, there never was a 3RR violation on the talk page, there was no restriction of THF editing the talk page, and hence no reason for your complaint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém reported by Opinoso (Result: WP:TROUT for both)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

< This user was already blocked 2 times, on the same week, for violations on this same article: first block and second block. Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) -->

First and second reverts were reverting my own edits, that I inadvertently made while unlogged, in order to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Ninguém (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Third revert was merely an intermediate step to add correct information. Ninguém (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, look at Opinoso's reversals in German Brazilian.


 * February 7, 00:23
 * February 7, 17:42
 * February 7, 21:15
 * February 7, 21:47 Ninguém (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking at good faith that User:189.27.21.142 is Ninguém, I see at most 3 reverts. User:Opinoso's reverts from yesterday have already been handled above. Stop reverting and talk. Both of you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the Talk Pages of the articles, you will see that's what I'm trying to do. But I get this kind of response:

"I won't waste my time reading your out of place comments. With some many article at Wikipedia, you only appear at the same article I have recently edit. You are obviously following my edits. I'm contacting an administrator to resolve it. Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)"

which is difficult to argue with. Opinoso is good at the art of stonewalling...

And yes, I'm User:189.27.21.142. In a few seconds, I'll log out and confirm it. Ninguém (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Ninguém, unlogged. 189.27.21.142 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:169.234.115.112 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31 hours )
. : Time reported: 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:17,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:25,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "not vandilsm, impotrant info")
 * 3) 21:27,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389458 by Daniel 1992 (talk)")
 * 4) 21:28,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389728 by Alansohn (talk)")
 * 5) 21:29,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389983 by Alansohn (talk)")
 * 6) 21:30,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390172 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
 * 7) 21:31,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390376 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
 * 8) 21:32,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390680 by Alansohn (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

. : Time reported: 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:16,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 2) 21:19,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "deleted link spam - blogs not acceptable")
 * 3) 21:22,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:24,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 5) 21:26,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "not vandilsm, important info")
 * 6) 21:27,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389616 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
 * 7) 21:29,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389867 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
 * 8) 21:30,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "I saw this on 30 Rock, I can do whatever I want")
 * 9) 21:32,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390498 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Already blocked for 31h for linkspaming.-Andrew c [talk] 02:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:24.8.64.63 reported by User:Kww (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

Note: two different reverted versions. Primarily attempting to edit out an image. Once that failed, he began to change the image caption to cast doubt on image's authenticity
 * Previous version reverted to: Version A Version B

Note that the 7th revert is in response to this edit, and represents a shift in the reversion.
 * 1st revert: 06:33, 7 February 2009
 * 2nd revert: 16:24, 7 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 16:31, 7 February 2009
 * 4th revert: 13:06, 8 February 2009
 * 5th revert: 15:00, 8 February 2009
 * 6th revert: 15:11, 8 February 2009
 * 7th revert: 21:45, 8 February 2009
 * 8th revert: 23:04, 8 February 2009

There is an active SPI report open at Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher, but the question there is whether we are dealing with meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting. With this edit, Wildernessfly admitted to meatpuppeting as his defense against sockpuppeting. (Breaking news: CU results came back as unrelated, so it is meatpuppeting, not sockpuppeting. &mdash;Kww(talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC) )

Basic issue is an old one: the LDS strongly discourages showing any images of the temple garments, as they are considered sacred. The article is a chronic target of efforts to remove the images based on LDS doctrine, which violates WP:NOT. The IP admitted that as his motive in this edit.

Note that with the 8th revert, 24.8.64.63 crossed the 3RR threshold without having to take meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting into account.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Without denying that the above users have indeed edit warred, I'd like to try to defuse the situation before any sanctions are applied. I've invited these two users to discuss their concerns on my talk page, and I have implored them not to make any more edits to the article for several days at least.  If the admins monitoring this case will hold off to see how it goes, I'd appreciate it -- but I'll support any sanctions if there are further violations from either of these editors. alanyst /talk/ 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No further violations, closing as stale William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Offliner reported by Biophys (Result: O article-blocked for 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

In the last revert he restored his key phrase "caused the county to launch a military invasion" in Introduction that was present in the "Previous version reverted to". Note that he removes huge portions of sourced text in three first reverts. This user is regular.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My last edit is not a revert, but an attempt to form a compromise version of the lead. Note, that I only modified a small part of his last edit:. Earlier, I made many different edits to the article, putting my arguments in the edit summaries. However, all of my edits were soon reverted by Biophys, who complained only that I had removed sourced text. Indeed, some of my many edits removed material which I thought was irrelevant (such as a chapter about fiction books) or giving undue weight to the conspiracy theories surrounding the bombings. Biophys, you could have reverted only those few edits about which you had complaints, but no, you had to revert everything I did. Please note, that while reverting all my edits you removed huge portions of well-sourced content I had added. Offliner (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Finding; O has broken 3RR; the last edit listed above is indeed a revert. O has self-reverted, but not one of the 4 listed above. So a block would seem pointless. Instead, O is banned from the article for 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnnyswords‎ reported by User:Mfield (Result: last chance)
User continues to re-add large section of text to Elephant seal that was the body of an article he had created that was deleted. The section is too long, off topic and not properly cited, editor has had this explained and had been encouraged to discuss on article talk to narrow down the material and ensure adequate referencing before inclusion. Alternate articles have been suggested for the off topic content. Editor refuses to engage in disussion as is apparently annoyed that 'his article' was 'butchered' forcing him to put this text in Elephant seal. Feel the editor could use some reading on policy but I have exhausted my reverts at this point and he continues to add it. Editor warned about 3RR informally then formally after last insertion. Mfield (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In future, would you mind formatting your reports in the correct way? Have a look at the page source to see how this is done. Johnny seems to have stopped editing since his last reply, in which he says he'll give it a break, so I don't think blocking him will help anything. He seems like a good guy who just needs a bit of help (i.e. understanding what an encyclopedia article looks like). If you feel up to coaching him, that would be great, if not I'm sure someone will answer his questions. If he reverts again, give me a call and I'll block him. Cheers, yandman  16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, I added the section manually. Thanks, I have been attempting to help him but he has seemed more interested in keeping his section as he wrote it and has been turning offers of help around into suggestions of bad faith on his part. I will keep an eye on it anyway. Mfield (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 128.208.32.177
''Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)''

I have a situation where an IP (User:128.208.32.177) is actively edit warring on three pages. The articles in question are Vancouver and Vancouver (disambiguation) (the primary sites), and Vancouver, Washington. It is a content disagreement, wherein the IP has instituted changes that have been opposed by at least four different editors (including myself) who are regular contributors to the first two pages. The IP has repeatedly reverted everyone who disagreed with him and is far past WP:3RR. I have tried to reason with him/her on the IP talk page, and tried to get a self-revert while discussion is under way, but to no avail. Ordinarily, this would be a clear-cut case for a block, but I do not feel comfortable doing so given my involvement. As such, I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes on the matter. (FYI, User:Freshacconci has of his own accord self-reverted after being advised of the 3RR situation, and has also been attempting to deal with the matter including an AN/V report.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-02-09T15:01:21 Toddst1 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 128.208.32.177 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dingaww reported by TRTX (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Possibly related:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Note: The user in question left the following post on my talk page regarding their "reasoning". Please note that an anon IP has now taken up the edits following the 4th revert as demonstrated here. -- TRTX T / C 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

While there has not been a fourth revert, I am suspicious of the timing of this situation comparred to what I saw in the article's history while reverting these edits.

After being relatively stable for more than week, an anon IP began making a number of edits to the article. Beginning here. These edits were reverted by a different editor. However, the IP user returned on more than one occasion to attempt and restore the reverted content: here, here, and here. User Masem did warn the IP user here regarding a possible 3RR violation. I am not sure if any formal report was made here.

What I find suspicious is almost immediately afterward, the user in question begins making the same edits over and over again, with the same MO (changing the section name each time they restore the content. The IP user has a number of edits going back to bfeore this situation, and the actual user has also been around since before this issue occured.  But I find the timing highly unusual given the nature of the reversions. -- TRTX T / C 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now up to 4R, and is undoubtedly the anon. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the 4th revert. Also have added a note regarding a post to my talk page made by the user in question. I will be requesting page protection as well. -- TRTX T / C 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Phd mit UCLA student reported by User:baxter9 (Result:55 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User is removing referenced information from the article. Already warned by admin, no response from user.Baxter9 (talk)
 * User has already been blocked for 55 hours.-Andrew c [talk] 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Needed
Hi, an anon at 78.16.200.130 is refactoring my comments questioning the notability of February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall and also refactoring my requests to assume good faith. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:78.16.200.130's blanking your warning is seen as an indication that they have read it. Use WP:AIV if he keeps up (although the welcome was strange).  I have to agree with him though.  What in the world does "In Chicago, 10 inches wouldn't close the schools." have to do with anything?  If you think the article's not notable, list it.  Comment in the particular discussion, don't be smart. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Dingaww + Anon IP causing chaos in List of Rock Band track packs
''Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)''

User:Dingaww has already been blocked for 48 hrs due to his attempts to edit war regarding the unsourced addition of a 3rd track pack which they claim exists due to their work with EA. This content was added previously by an anon-IP until they were warned regarding 3RR. This lead to the user in question getting blocked for the 3RR violation, which has lead to a new anon-IP restoring the content. I can tell from the post to my talk page this user has no intent to stop. The page needs to be protected in a hurry! -- TRTX T / C 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not Requests for page protection. Please use that if appropriate.  The warring has stopped and I'm watching the page.  If it continues, I'll suggest protection.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:THF (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: N/A


 * 1st revert: 7 Feb 03:25 reverting addition of wikilink
 * 2nd revert: 7 Feb 03:27 undoing this THF edit
 * 3rd revert: 7 Feb 03:38 undoing THF edits  and
 * 4th revert: 7 Feb 03:41
 * 5th revert: 7 Feb 03:45
 * 6th revert: 7 Feb 18:52 reverting four intermediate edits by User:BaldPark without discussing on talk page


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 7 Feb 03:48

In the 0400 time frame, I was on the border of a 3RR violation as well, and stopped editing the page, instead opening an RFC. THF (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for B and T William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what happened, William blocked both B and T, but with T, William M. Connolley wrote:
 * With some reluctance, I've blocked you for 3RR on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * T responded:
 * My reversions were good-faith working to reach a consensus, and I miscounted the number of times I reverted. When I realized I reverted three times and that consensus wasn't going to be reached, I stopped editing the article and took discussion to the talk page; each of my reverts was discussed on the talk page contemporaneously. It appears that one can construct an argument that I reverted more than three times.. THF (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * William quickly unblocked THF:
 * OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No offer of "I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason" was given to Ben.
 * Can an uninvolved administrator give Ben the same offer?
 * Ikip (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ikip misquotes me. It's hard to think of a good-faith reason why he did that. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And if one looks at the Benjoboi talk page, he was specifically invited by THF to make some of the edits that resulted in what THF nows shows as either edit warring or 3RR. In good faith, I will not call this entrapment... but I respectfully request his block be removed with a caution to be more careful when following the requests of other editors. I'm sure this developed into a misunderstanding all around.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir, that's 100% false and I ask for a retraction. Benjiboi made an edit that munged punctuation and confused quotation marks.  I asked him to fix his edit so that the punctuation was accurate.  He didn't, so I did, and he reverted me.  I tried collaborating with him, and he just blindly reverted every edit I made, even removing wikilinks for the sake of removing wikilinks.  I gave him a 3RR warning after his fifth revert, stopped editing the page; when he started reverting the work of third-party editors against talk-page consensus, I reported him.  THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No retraction of my simple observation. "When you added the cquote template, you munged the punctuation of the quote. Can you fix that, please?" Those are your words, not mine.  He replied, "No problem, fixed".  When it did not appear to be so, you wrote"Actually still munged. I'm just going to restore the original".  He questioned, "How is it "munged"? I copied direct from the source".  So I cannot retract what you two yourselves wrote. THIS dialog preceded the 3RR and escalation of the edit war.  The result was an unequal serving of justice... a quick unblock for you and not even an offer of one to Benjoboi. My request above was an unblock of him with a warning, and my own observation that this entire thing stemed from and resulted in a misunderstanding all around. I am not counting the bodies after the fact... only analysing the events leading up to the explosion that might have been prevented with a little bit of patience and dialog from BOTH parties. So, You are invited to remove your assertion that my observation that A preceded B preceded C is "100% false".   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also support lifting the block so that they can discuss on the talk page; I believe the purpose has been served. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of attempting some sort of equal and balanced justice here I'll repost what I said on Benji's talk page: I'm amazed at how you were "man handled" here (by William) but the main person (THF) causing the problem and the edit war gets handled with velvet gloves by William. Sad. Typical. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that WMC has some sort of pro-THF bias is remarkably amusing. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh - that's bad form, William M Connolley. Really bad form.  I'm unblocking both users and protecting the article for 48 hours so the involved users can discuss changes on the talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. What is bad form in unblocking, in a clearly non-emergency situation, without even a pretence at consultation, a block that had already been reviewed . And what kind of nonsense is trolled edit-warring? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right - I should have consulted you in the first place. My bad on that.  But, IMO, "Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason" prevailed in my view.  The blocks were placed evenly, but unfairly - you gave THF (who provoked the situation) a chance to be unblocked (which they were, in less than an hour), while Benjiboi was a) not given the same opportunity, and b) denied the unblock with a short one-sentence that seems to be by someone who did not read the full situation.  I'm sorry if I stepped on toes, but this was unfair and was following the letter, but not the spirit, of Wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain how I "provoked" B. into reverting BaldPark's four edits without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. THF (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This won't do. You don't just step on top of other's actions without very good reason, and nothing you've said provides a good reason. Both users had a chance to be unblocked, indeed everyone blocked for 3RR has the same chance. I decided to remind one side of that; this is not unreasonable. Further, you have accused THF of trolling for a block on B. Do you maintain that accusation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I left a message at SatyrTN's talk page asking for an explanation of their unblock and they replied I should have a look at their reply here. SatyrTN's explanation here does not justify his course of action, that clearly constitutes wheel warring. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Put aside the wikilawyering: this was clearly a bad block and it was a good idea to lift it. That's the bottom line. Spotfixer (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry? The unblock was supported above by at least three other users, the block was set to expire in 4.5 hours anyway, and the application of rules seemed unfair.  I admit I should have made a better effort to communicate with the blocking admin, but since they hadn't commented on any of the notes from Benjiboi, AllStarEcho, A Nobody, or MichaelQSchmidt, I decided to be bold and lift the block from an *extremely* competent Wikipedia user. Again - I'm sorry for stepping on toes, but it seems the right thing to do. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, we give rather greater weight to the opinions of admins on questions of block/unblock William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your bad block is more of an issue than any technicalities in removing it. And I for one don't believe that the opinions of non-admins are irrelevant.  Do you? Spotfixer (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wheel warring is not a matter of being bold, but simply inappropriate. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is always appropriate to remove a bad block. Spotfixer (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm...how was this block bad? There was a clear case of 3RR violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, two people were blocked for warring with each other, but one was immediately unblocked.  This disparity makes the remaining block a bad one. Spotfixer (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept that you use a mind-reader, but yours is off calibration. I'm reasonably well-informed about this case. Your argument is bogus. The block was good. A potential problem with another block (or unblock) does not make this one bad. "We could only get Al Capone for tax evasion, so Timothy McVeigh should not have been tried for murder, either"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, one person was blocked for edit-warring with multiple people after a warning, and one person was blocked sixteen hours after he said he'd stop editing the page to resolve matters on the talk page, and then unblocked when he noted that the block did was punitive, rather than preventative. THF (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the two users were treated unequally. One was explicitly given the chance to escape the block, and did so less than an hour later. The other explained their actions and was denied the escape.  The two had been involved in ongoing communications, though they may not have been the best at it.  Blocking both may very well have been the correct course of action - both users had, in fact, violated 3RR (and admitted to it).  But for the blocking admin to seem to coddle the one user and unblock, while leaving the other user alone and not responding to queries about their block, that was unfair.  I stand behind my decision, though I will admit that I should have tried to discuss the issue with the blocking admin - that was an error. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One block was for actions that were 18 hours old and weren't being repeated. The other block was for actions that were continuing.  WP:BLOCK explicitly says that those should be treated differently.  THF (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the extremely rude and baiting language that was used on the talk page of the article? Edit warring goes both ways and in this case the editor who was working to get the other one blocked kept insulting him/her; also was using dubious primary sources which was part of the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.214 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The block also took place six hours after they stopped editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.214 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)