Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive91

User:89.132.132.138 reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: various blocks)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is removing referenced information from the article. Already warned, no response from user.Baxter9 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stwalkerster has blocked User:Phd mit UCLA student and Rrrtkzt. The anon seems to have dropped out, let me know if it returns William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere reported by Middayexpress (Result: No result)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

An editor has been constantly reverting an edit I made where I added the fact that Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed was the eighth President of Somalia to the page. The other editor at first justified his reverts with a cryptic if vaguely insulting "I know it must seem like I'm picking on you now, but even though I'm vehemently opposed to orders where I can, Somalia is definitely the worst place for them to be." He then insisted that no other Wikipedia articles outside of "US, NZ, Canadian and Australians" used the president numbering system (i.e. "3rd President of Egypt"). I proved that false with links directly to several pages which do. However, he reverted yet again, this time under the pretext that "it's not possible to definitively number" the number of presidents Somalia has had, although Worldstatesmen.com doesn't seem to have any such trouble. Middayexpress (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're both over the line here. Would there be any point blocking both of you? I'm not sure, so let's say you both forget this article for a week or two. It's hardly that important. You're both competent and productive editors, so it would be a shame to lose you. yandman  16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for at least having a look at my case. However, I must disagree with your verdict because unlike the other editor, I didn't go over 3RR. I actually specifically avoiding doing so since I was well aware of said rule and respect it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So here are difs as proof: My first revert; my second revert; my third revert. That's three reverts in the space of 24 hours, the maximum allowed per 3RR:
 * "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."
 * I did not go over that, unlike the other editor who's POV campaign compelled him to breach it anyway. I just wanted to set the record straight, even if you don't decide to revise your verdict. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You were still edit warring, which doesn't require 4R. After the first revert, you really must start discussing on the talk page, not via edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You forgot this one. Anyway, as WMC said, the point is that both of you need to stick to the talk page until you can get a consensus hammered out. yandman  08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a revert. That dif was when I first inserted the "8th President of Somalia" line into the article, which the other editor then began reverting at will. At any rate, thanks for the advice guys. I'll try and follow it next time. Middayexpress (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dynablaster reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 55hr)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: These are complex revert - a diff will be provided for each version.


 * 1st revert: - removes category, and reverts this edit
 * 2nd revert: removes numerous footnotes, reverts this edit
 * 3rd revert: removes same footnotes as above
 * 4th revert:, ditto,


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user is aware of 3RR, and has been previously blocked for it, very recently:
 * Blocked for 55 hours. Sandahl (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Hindutashravi reported by Voidvector (talk) (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 12:47,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "POV edit? How? Specify in talk page and come to a consensus.It is the previous edit which is a POV edit and offensive to India where the area legally  is!")
 * 2) 13:28,  7 February 2009  (edit summary: "Discuss the article in talk page not in edit summary and come to a consensus")
 * 3) 16:43,  7 February 2009  (edit summary: "Replied to To User: Voidvector discuss and come to a consensus in Talk page before reverting to POV edit")
 * 4) 09:51,  8 February 2009  (edit summary: "POV content has no place on wikipedia, please get consensus before introducing content that might be POV")
 * 5) 17:18,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "rv to last NPOV version of AwOc and added new external link")
 * 6) 12:27, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "(rv to last NPOV version of AwOc with added new external link and further added  historic maps")


 * Diff of warning: here

Myself was involved in the revert war. However, I have since stopped after my 3rd revert. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has continued the revert battle with another editor. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has not participated on the talk page discussion for number of days even though he/she insists that other editors do so before changing his/her edit. —Voidvector (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * *I* was involved in the revert war. However, I can't see this as block-suitable; inspection makes me think that you and F&F are in the right, but only you two are reverting H. I'd suggest WP:DR, possibly an article RFC, if this is ongoing William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

205.248.102.81 reported by PRODUCER (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP (probably User:Onyxig) refuses to give good and valid arguments as to why to keep the info in Serbophobia. I've historically had problems with this user see Talk:Republika_Srpska. He constantly fails to provide valid arguments and insists its my duty to provide sources to information that he or another user adds.  PRODUCER ( TALK ) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm impressed. You think having 2R is enough for a block? Well, you have 3. So obviously, you think you should be blocked (see above). And I agree with you. Will consider the anon William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DanTD reported by 75.47.147.2 (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User contines to revert legitimate edits with invaild reason and violates the WP:MOS, improperly accuses me of a vandal and also incivility. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I received the warning, and since this user has nothing more than an anonymous IP with no talk page, I'm going to address the issue here, as well as the page this user is editing. First, he/she keeps using ELG to justify these edits, But unless ELG restricts state borders and time zones, there is no reason to get rid of them. Second, if there's no established town where I-10 runs through Nassau County(where no interchanges can be found), then the column that reads "No Exits in this county" should span to the county column itself. Otherwise it's a waste of space. The only thing acceptable about this users edits are the reformatting of partial interchanges. DanTD (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * STOP SCREWING UP THIS GODDAMN EXIT LIST! is considered a personal attack and its not very nice and you may be blocked for disruption. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed the article name. I was wondering what you were complaining about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like both sides are edit warring. Note to whoever takes care of this: 75.47.x.x has a history of IP-hopping, so a range block would probably be in order. --NE2 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, apparently this user is doing a lot of IP-hopping. To the user complaining, anybody could have your IP, so technically this isn't a personal attack. I've been dealing with plenty of Anoymous IP's who damage exit lists, most notably in and around South Carolina. DanTD (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

24h each. Will have to look at ranges, sigh. DanTD warned re PA William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the range block. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nategreene11 reported by Will Beback (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:34,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */")
 * 2) 15:25, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "All added information is sourced and accurate.")
 * 3) 18:51, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "This is an encyclopedia - all information is accurate and sourced.")
 * 4) 19:53, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Once again - all information is accurate and balanced.")


 * 1) 22:30,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Remarks about Barack Obama */")
 * 2) 21:07, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Added relevant quote from Obama about his own middle name.")
 * 3) 22:03, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Put relevant Obama quote back in for the third time. The reader should get both sides - this quote gives neutrality to the page.")


 * Diff of warning: here (actually a second warning).

There have been multiple reverts of other edits too, but these are the easiest to list.  Will Beback   talk    22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a second set of two reverts, in addition to the others already listed.   Will Beback    talk    22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kurzon reported by User:Mafia Expert (result: bozos)

 * Page:
 * User:

I am afraid an edit war is getting out of hand in the Mafia article. User:Kurzon is constantly removing properly referenced sections under the pretext of improving the article. I am reverting errors, move sections where I think Kurzon has a point and keeping useful additions. However, Kurzon is now reverting every change. I think the best thing to do is to revert the article to its most complete version and then block it for a while, until editors have cooled down (including me). - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness sake, you've *both* massively broken 3RR. What was so urgent about your reverts? Luckily for you I'm bored with blocking people for tonight, so hopefully someone else will come up with a more amusing solution William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eightball reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please see Talk:United States men's national soccer team where we are attempting to work this out. Unfortunately Eightball can't seem to allow the process to take place before insisting on getting their way, rather than allowing the page to remain as it was for weeks prior to this incident while discussion continues as normal. -- Grant . Alpaugh  00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus has formed REPEATEDLY against Grant on this matter, and he refuses to respect the decision making process that has already occurred. All I am trying to do is implement the solution that other editors have determined is satisfactory. Grant continues to incorrectly revert the article after the matter has been settled. This is not an edit war, this is Grant vandalizing the article and me returning it to the proper state. I suggest that Grant is blocked, given that he is the one actually causing trouble. Eightball (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was the way it was for weeks without any problem until today when you started an edit war. I don't know how you can call anything other than the one prior to the edit war the "consensus" version. -- Grant . Alpaugh  03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was only that way because people got tired of dealing with your crap and gave up trying to enforce consensus, something I am not going to do. Eightball (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Grant once again reverted the article (thus violating 3RR himself, though I don't care) under the guise of vandalism. He knows exactly what he is doing: consensus was reached against him, so he has decided to 1. ignore discussions that have already taken place between editors, and 2. revert our edits by lying and claiming it is vandalism. I would also like to note that this user has a long history of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus, and has been blocked from editing on many occasions. Eightball (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrwsc (Talk | contribs | block) m (51,774 bytes) (Protected United States men's national soccer team: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by spin (control) (result: 24h)
User insists on removing a comparative table from this page Nativity of Jesus

and the section removed each time Nativity of Jesus

He has done so here:


 * 1)  Revision as of 18:47, 10 February 2009
 * 2)  Revision as of 07:51, 10 February 2009
 * 3)  Revision as of 05:44, 10 February 2009
 * 4)  Revision as of 19:34, 5 February 2009
 * 5)  Revision as of 05:08, 25 January 2009
 * 6)  Revision as of 07:14, 14 January 2009


 * Diff of warning: |here

The user refuses to enter into a dialog as to how the section can be improved, despite repeated requests for suggestions. He started claiming "novel synthesis" but could not justify the claim. He then started claiming because another poster showed some agreement that he had consensus on the issue!

The only thing I really know is that he doesn't like the material for some reason and wants to get rid of it through any means he can. --spin (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my defence, please note that I view Spin's edits as vandalism; he refuses to acknowledge that no-one supports his addition of this section. Moreover, to see the kind of editor he is, look at his edit summaries. He has had little concept of civility and decency in his interactions with me, as well as with others. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Carl, your dialog was that you didn't want the section; if you had to have a comparison, you wanted it in prose which would obfuscate the comparison; so you continually removed the comparison table. You were not prepared to work on the issue. Not entering into a meaningful dialog was to me the height of incivility. I had no real idea why you were vandalizing the section.
 * If you really wanted to complain about my edits you should do so in a separate action. I wanted to stop the unconstructive process of your insistant removal of the section. Why did you want it removed? --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On a first look, its clear that you (S) have at least 3R in the last 24h. Since you clearly consider that a blockable offense - or you wouldn't have reported CB for it - I'm blocking you for it. Will now consider CB William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My interest was to stop the edit warring and get some constructive dialog. You might have asked what sort of outcome would have been useful. Instead you handed out summary justice and guaranteed that there would be no dialog, meaning there could be no resolution to the issue. What a lot of good your involvement was. I don't know much about the administration side of things, but you certainly missed the spirit of co-operation which I thought Wiki was about. --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought about it. Don't feel any great urge to block in the name of "balance". Will warn and encourage DR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can tell from your actions that encouragement is a goal of yours. --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem (proposed result: SeP?)
''Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)''

Can someone please take a look at my interaction with user:Glkanter at talk:Monty Hall problem, starting at about talk:Monty Hall problem (apologies for the length of the thread, but I've been really trying to help him understand both the problem itself and Wikipedia's policies)? To some extent this is a content dispute being worked out on the talk page (so far, so good), but he has lately escalated into what seems to me to be nothing more than disruptive editing, metaphorically simply putting his hands over his ears and shouting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right". Fair warning - the content dispute is about a notoriously contentious point involving the difference between conditional and unconditional probability as it pertains to the Monty Hall problem. A behavior warning from an uninvolved admin might help. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I must be missing the point but: I can't see any edit warring, just a long tedious discussion. Since it seems to bear no relation to changes on the page itself, why don't you just stop talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted this at ANI, not here, since it is disruptive editing, not edit warring. There's a cadre of folks wanting to "dumb down" (my terminology, not theirs) the existing article.  The discussion is actually a proposal to delete major sections of the article, which seems to warrant a response.  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I take great exception to Rick's characterization of my postings. There is nothing in my postings that is as he describes above. In fact, the "I'm right, I'm right" comment is just projection on his part. He has been defending this Article for over 4 years now. There are 7 pages of archives, thousands of postings. Clearly, something is wrong with the article. And Wikipedia needs to become part of a solution. I would request you read the section titled 'Conventional Wisdom'. It is there that I describe my desire for some closure to this long running fiasco. I welcome your input.


 * William Connolley, your input would especially be appreciated. I have made roughly 75 postings making the case for the deletions based on a simple Probability proof. Rick refers above to a "cadre of folks wanting to "dumb down" (my terminology, not theirs) the existing article.' who more or less suggest the same changes." Those opposed? Rick. And a couple of new gadflys. "Dumb down", that's nice talk. That's how it's gone for the past 4 years. By the way, what is SeP?


 * Glkanter (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User 68.56.81.128 / Article Shamu (Result: no violation)
== 68.56.81.128 reported by SWF Trainer
 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

SWF Trainer (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These edits are vandalism, not 3RR violations. If it continues, report it at WP:AIV. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (series of edits)
 * 2nd revert: (note abusive edit summary)
 * 3rd revert: (note misleading edit summary in which its implied that only Egypt is being added to the list, when in fact the editor is adding lots more than this)
 * 4th revert: (edit summary also misleadingly states that only Egypt is included)


 * Diff of warning:

This editor was blocked for 72 hours on 6 February for edit warring on several articles, including this one, and for using abusive and misleading edit summaries (the relevant report is at the bottom of the page on this old version of this noticeboard). Now that the block has expired they've returned to exactly the same behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am protesting this since my edit has logical basis. Egypt is excluded in the list despite becoming independent in 1922, Newfoundland is included despite voluntary relinquishing its independence in 1934, and the Philippines Commonwealth should not be listed together with the other unincorporated territories of the US.--23 prootie cute 
 * Please don't forget to read this summary which specifies my edit --23 prootie cute 

As the previous blocks in the past few weeks have had little effect, I am blocking for a longer period. To User:23prootie: there are other ways to resolve disputes without resorting to edit warring. Kevin (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 reported by Matty4123 (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has now also had the page protected displaying the incorrect information. - Matty 4123 <font face="Chiller">(T•C•A) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the page has been protected, a block would be purely punitive. I would like to note that a violation did occur, and I feel blocking would have been a far more suitable choice here than protecting. Tiptoety  talk 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:78.149.184.232 reported by User:Knepflerle (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

etc., and multiple reverts on other material too mixed in.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * User aware of rules per own post. Strong similarity to previously banned user  - compare to

Knepflerle (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR violation on both sides. But 2009-02-11T16:44:46 Angr (Talk | contribs | block) m (18,573 bytes) (Protected Maltese people: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Idlewild101 reported by User:Dsol (result: 24h)

 * Page
 * User
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:29, 11 February 2009
 * 2nd revert: 13:44, 11 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 18:25, 11 February 2009
 * 4th revert: 20:36, 11 February 2009

Warning diff: 17:12, 11 February 2009

Comment: Relatively new user censoring various bits of information about at the eXile and Michael Wines. Material is explicitly supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, and has never been disputed by any source. User does not engage in discussion or even respond on article talk pages, his/her own user talk page, or at BLP noticeboard. Note that this same blanked material was previously debated at the BLP noticeboard, with the final decision: "The section has been rewritten and now has adequate sourcing; it does not appear to violate WP:BLP policy." dsol (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. User does not engage in discussion or even respond on article talk pages - respond to what? *no-one* is using the talk page, for which you are all chastised William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:85.5.94.26 reported by User:M.K (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2009-02-10T19:18:15
 * 2nd revert: 2009-02-11T09:22:21
 * 3rd revert: 2009-02-11T16:20:22
 * 4th revert: 2009-02-11T18:58:24
 * 5th revert: 2009-02-11T19:26:07

Warring diff:

Comment: IP is waging revert war for several days now, reverting multiply editors and any article improvement.M.K. (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yet, first IP still serving its time, but another one jumped in, and doing the same as the old one (not surprising both IPs are from same geographical era). Can anyone semi-protect the article, or should I ask it somewhere else?M.K. (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RyanJak reported by User:Caissa's DeathAngel (Result:24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Content added first time:
 * Content removed first time:
 * Content added second time:
 * Content removed second time:
 * Content added third time:
 * Content removed third time:
 * Content added fourth time:
 * Content removed fourth time:
 * Content added fifth time:
 * Content removed fifth time:
 * Content added sixth time:
 * Content removed sixth time:
 * Content added seventh time:
 * Content removed seventh time:
 * Content added eighth time:
 * Content removed eigth time:
 * Content added ninth time:
 * Content removed ninth time:
 * Content added tenth time:
 * Content removed tenth time:
 * Content added eleventh time:
 * Content removed eleventh time:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: *Note: Not strictly a 3RR warning, but advice on the content generally. Link is to RyanJak's talk page since the warning created the page, hence no diff.

User: RyanJak along with IP 71.238.81.89 have between them in the last day or so added a paragraph of text 11 times. It is an addition to the lead of the article suggesting that a particular player was ranked as the best in the world at the game for a length of time. The edit summaries suggest the addition is being made in bad faith: "You're making this too much fun", "Just the usual redo.". Neither RyanJak nor the IP have editted beyond adding this, with RyanJak having added it twice before in recent weeks, but without undoing the reversion. The contribution is blatantly OR, Trivia, and the edit summary "Was cited on EA's Xbox Live standings home page. Was there for years." suggests that the source does not exist. Later in the day, he started adding a citation tag with the edit for some reason. Reversions of this edit have been made by myself (x6), User:Bovineboy2008 (x2), User:Riotrocket8676 (x2) and User:Haipa Doragon. The latter contributed to a thread I made on the WikiProject Video Games talk page (having forgotten that here existed) and allayed my fears that I would be in violation of 3RR myself due to the nature of the edit being removed. Advice/assistance here would be much appreciated to end this rather pointless back and forth on this page. My thanks in advance. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning here, because it is possible that the user did not specifically know about the 3 revert rule. Any further reverts by either the user or the IP will result in a block. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has again attempted to add the material: . It was reverted immediately by Bovineboy2008: Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After the latest reverts, I have blocked both RyanJak and the IP. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JustSomeRandomGuy32 reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Tiptoety talk 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceha reported by Yerpo (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

(a few minutes more than 24 hours, but still...)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has a history of trying to promote Croatian POV on several topics (see his talk page). I tried to explain in my edit summaries that he is reintroducing biased and unsourced material (labeled as such), and rephrased the section where the true nature of the issue is explained to be clearer. Ceha did not provide source for the problematic paragraph, only accused me of making doubtful claims and using Wikipedia as a forum, which is in my wiew precisely what he is doing. --Yerpo (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h, edit warring. You just about escape, but if you revert again without explaining why on the talk page I'll block you William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 reported by Russavia (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Putinism&oldid=270041223


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: - note, another user has placed this warning
 * Response to 3RR warning:


 * User:Muscovite99 is currently blocked on ru:wiki due to disruptive editing and the resultant ru:wiki arbcom decision, which can be found here, here, here and here. Unfortunately, extreme issues of ownership of articles, disregarding of other editor's concerns with articles, etc are carrying over here onto en:wiki. There are legitimate edits on the article by editors, but the above are the continual reverts of other people's contributions to the article which I put down to ownership of the article. --Russavia Dialogue 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia, you shouldn't bring other wikis into this. This is English Wikipedia; we don't block, say, a Chinese dissident here merely because his unpopularity cultivated by the ruling party of PRC has led to restrictions of his access to Chinese Wikipedia.  What happens on ruwiki stays on ruwiki. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its shows that he is a disruptive edit warrior, and we only see him on enwiki when he is blocked on ruwiki. But needless to say, this is a problem here too. --Russavia Dialogue 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Has form, well over 3R, 1 week. Blocks on ru are neither here nor there (well actually I suppose they are there. By that, I mean I don't object to you mentionning them but it makes no difference) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked at Ellol; has at least 3R and is cautionned for edit warring and (all together now: not using the talk page). However, hasn't obviously got to 4 William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NotAnotherAliGFan reported by Alastairward (Result: 72 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

NotAnotherAliGFan has been blocked for edit warring before and has started back after an absence by starting edit wars on other South Park articles. See Canada on Strike, The China Probrem and Towelie. Alastairward (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, this is getting ridiculous. It seems that no matter what kind of edit I make, Alastairward immediately removes it, every time under a new pretense. I basically have to ask for his permission to give any creative input, like he owns Wikipedia and must authorize my actions - his latest joke was putting a 3RR warning template on my page unsigned . Every time it leads to these stupid wars and I always give up, maybe because I have other stuff to worry about. I'll appreciate some real admin input here, thank you very much in advance. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I forgot the signature, but the page history very easily shows who left it. If I wanted to do so anonymously, I would have made a sockpuppet account (which would of course get me banned and is unproductive, so I didn't.)
 * In any case, I left the other edit histories above to show it's not just my edits that are being reverted. Alastairward (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3rd similar offence. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User: 78.144.204.95 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24h both sides)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Practically every day here I am, if not amazed, then perhaps disheartened, to see people reporting others for 3RR, and giving them warnings nicely, without ever once stopping to consider that the rules apply to them, too. Sigh William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you consider that some of the IPs edits consisted of the introduction of a format error? It might not change the case that much, but since removal of the error was in some of Nomoskedasticity's reverts I am wondering if you caught it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't notice. Nor does it matter (unless you're asserting that the entire revert was a f.e.; but I don't think you are): if someone introduces a format error, the answer is obviously not to revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose there'd be a case for an intent defense (which is what I was thinking), but since his edit-summaries indicate that was not the reason he reverted each time then I'd agree it doesn't matter. Thank. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. See 3rr. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't see anything there that means we should block users for reverting vandalism, Todd. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

HROThomas on Battle of Prokhorovka
New user will not cite sources and countinues to restore their reversals while not providing the requested citations. Dapi89 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

189.7.182.186 reported by PeeJay2K3 (Result:24h to both sides )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

– PeeJay 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the ten reverts performed by yourself aren't reverts, Peejay? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked the same question of this user. It's clearly a content dispute. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I was reverting blatant vandalism? – PeeJay 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and have blocked you for 24 hours also. Kevin (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut reported by EEMIV (Result: warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Vandalism warning (I admit, I completely forgot about 3RR until I realized, in undoing this material, I would violate it):

Material -- which is uncited trivial, with an edit summary justification for inclusion that is essential WP:OR ("I find quite ironic") was removed (several times; Merkeut continued to restore it) a month ago by both me and User:JimDunning. JimDunning provided a clear rationale for the material's exclusion on the article talk page. JimDunning left a note on Merkeut's talk page about the content, which Merkeut respond to with a follow-up from Jim; however, the exchange by no means suggests consensus, and Merkeut simply continued his reversions. Merkeut is restoring same material, is not responding to talk-page material, and in most recent revert included glib, antagonistic edit summary that "We can carry on forever if you like". Looks like tendentious restoration of material and ignoring WP:RS, WP:OR. Although didn't receive a "formal" 3RR warning, editor who's been registered since late 2005 should generally know better about 3RR in general, and certainly should be cognizant of need to reach consensus and engage in discussion. --EEMIV (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned by User:Tiptoety; he has been here since 2005 and presumably knows the rule, but was warned already after last revert and hasn't reverted since. Another revert should result in a block. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Sarita and Terrillja reported by Mervyn Emrys (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Additional diffs on Paul Watson History page.

A POV Fork was created by Terrillja to Allison Lance Watson and I was invited to leave the Paul Watson article and go edit at the new page. See User:Terrillja, Talk Section: Paul Watson.
 * See also edit summary at Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Talk:Paul Watson Section: 2RR, going on three

This information is all timely, relevant, and cites reliable sources. These users refuse to allow any editing of information to improve the article by myself, despite my numerous efforts to change my edits to meet their demands.

Having recently hosted two articles to Good Article status, one of them a biography, I have some familiarity with what GA reviewers look for. I tried to reorganize the page to downplay less important information and move bio background to the fore, but my efforts were repeatedly reverted, many more than three times. This is very disruptive and suggests a proprietary interest in the page. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be nice if you had told us so we could at least know what you were up to.


 * My first ever post from this user on my talkpage was this, where he called me a jackass. Really showed a will to contribute there. Multiple editors have tried to work with Mervyn to try and get him to contribute positively and stop the sarcastic edit summaries and comments , but he has rebuffed all attempts, including one by an uninvolved sysop.


 * Mervyn was never told to go somewhere else, I only said that information on Allison should be in her article, and that the article on Paul should stay on point about him. I certainly welcome Mervyn to help find references and contribute to the article, since he added all the fact tags.


 * Another example of Mervyn's inability to remain civil can be found here:.


 * It should be noted that a medcab request is currently pending: . -- Terrillja talk  00:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is appropriate for this user to continue the debate here, but I will repond by inviting anyone to view the statements and actions by the user above which stimulated the diffs above. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for now, while I examine the behaviour of all concerned. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:General Disarray (result: no vio)
''Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)''


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

(Notice that two of these are within a half-hour of the original edit.)


 * User Warning placed


 * User then responded with the same except, I've only reverted the article twice in the past day.

I wouldn't come here for something a trivial as this one page, but this user is actively edit warring on three other pages (often summarizing as "restore" what is effectively a revert): and this user has taken blocks in the past for edit warring on these very pages. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant
 * Neal Chase
 * Leland Jensen

COMMENT Hopefully these actions can be put in their proper perspective so they can be scrutinized here in the correct context of the events. It is my understanding that discussion is part of dispute resolution, to which I'm attempting to be actively involved in. I chose to revert MARussell's edits on Mason Remey after a careful and extensive rebuttal was placed on the talk page to his original concern that a book review, he feels, has impeached the reference he is attempting to excise from the page. Without any response to these concerns, he reverted back (2nd rvt) my undo. I followed with an undo of my own, and extolled his response for a 2nd time on the talk page. He reverted again (3rd rvt) and finally weighed in on the discussion I was trying to get him engaged in. I've reverted a third time, absolutely strong in my conviction that the book in question is a valid WP:RS, and also further resolved by the fact that the RFC I elicited has brought forward editors who concur; to wit: "Since there are very few written sources on Remey it would be almost a folly to ignore what little there is." This biography is wanting for sources, and yet MARussell is attempting to impeach a published biography by one of this man's followers which is basically removing what amounts to one criticism of MARussell's religious group, and the details of his funeral related first hand by Remey's son to the biographer. My edits are not attempting to remove anything, but rather to protect the source in question, for which there are few to begin with. MARussell has still, as of this writing, not responded in the discussion to address my direct questions, but has instead come here accusing me of edit warring.

As far as the other pages in question, those article's talk pages reflect the copious amount of discussions transpiring to resolve the content disputes. A merger discussion has been transpiring which is related to all three articles, and content from new sources is being parsed between the three inter-related articles. Even a cursory glance of the history of the articles shows that in the last several days much progress has been made by the productive discussions on their talk pages, and that none of the edits by either me or Cunado could be construed as "warring". Those talk pages are another area that MARussell's participation would be useful, but discussing his edits hasn't apparently been a priority lately. I don't know what actions he's seeking here, but those are the reasons behind mine. <font face="cursive" color="Maroon">Disarray<font face="cursive" color="Purple">General 08:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting seems to have stopped, there was no vio anyway, and there is talk William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:90.184.244.234 reported by User:Kendo 66 (Result: talk to people)

 * Page: Kendo
 * User: 90.184.244.234

Hi, Recently the Kendo page was protected after I reported user 90.184.244.234, for edit warring and expressing POV on the Kendo article page. The protection expired on 11 Feb and user 90.184.244.234 is back, adding unsupported POV's to further some issue he or she has. May I ask that you consider either banning or blocking that IP address, or restricitng the Kendo page to registered editors? Thank you. Kendo 66 11:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:90.184.244.234 hasn't reverted all day. If its the same as User:PublicLibrarian, why is no-one talking to him? And why has no-one used the article talk page all this year? Please make some attempt to solve your own problems, we can't spoon-feed everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

3 revert rule violated by two feuding editors (result: 24h)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anime_Pulse&action=history Two editors have both done the revert thing more than three times today, on that article. Dream Focus (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BS report and attack by editor who has started following me around and been warned by an admin multiple times to stop the wikihounding and attempts at being disruptive. User:Ichigo-go-go is apparently a vandalism only account. The total sum of his edits have been to make a personal attack against someone in the talk page of Anime Pulse, then vandalize the article with another personal attack in his edit summary, and then the "edit war" was his attempt to continue vandalizing the article by putting in an image that was completely unrelated to the topic and falsely claiming the image was from a live event (the image's own creator says otherwise). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in question is File:Cosplay.jpg, which is according to its caption Malice Mizer's Japanese band costume players. The caption doesn't specify if the image is of members of the band or their fans. --Farix (Talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the rule you are violating is:

''You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others. Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. There are numerous dispute resolution processes and there is no deadline to meet; the wheels of Wikijustice may grind exceedingly slow, but they grind fine.''
 * I therefor reported you. Assume good faith.  You should've discussed it with them on the talk page, instead of engaging in an edit war. Dream Focus (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost your equipment page and nobody wants links to your Gantz wikia. That must be hard on you, but this isn't the way to deal with it. I suggest you take a deep breath and a few-days-break from Wikipedia. Seriously. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. I saw a rule violation, I reported it.  At least one of those participating got banned for a day.  And I was having problems with her, long before my equipment page got deleted.  We've argued over many anime/manga projects in the past and elsewhere. Dream Focus (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Truely one of the worst formatted 3RR reports for a while; nonetheless: ''Blocked for a day for edit warring and breaking the three-revert rule on Anime Pulse. You can return to editing constructively when the block expires. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)'' William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rachel.Greenberg reported by Richard Arthur Norton (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User inserts information best placed in the articles on the people and institutions involved. The Essene theory is already discussed extensively in the article. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a sock too, though I don't know whose. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User: (Result: semi)
HISTORY SLAYERS. REPORTED BY WITHOUT SLEEP FOR DISRUPTIVE EDITING ON THE BARKHA DUTT PAGE. User insists on inserting unsourced, unverified material on the Barkha Dutt page that violates policy on Biography of Living persons. Where is the evidence or source of information being repeatedly inserted? The material entered is malafide and malicious and has no supporting evidence. This is the version without Hypocrisy Slayers edits: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkha_Dutt


 * 1st revert: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkha_Dutt&diff=270618720&oldid=270501839
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]

The article has a talk page, Talk:Barkha_Dutt. Why aren't you using it? This report is grotesquely malformed - could you not be bothered to add more than one revert? I know, it's so much trouble, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a mess. I've semi protected it in the hope that might allow it to settle down. If anyone else cares to investigate further and maybe block, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian reported by Steve (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (I'm not positive that this is the one, but I'm pretty sure.)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note, fifth and sixth reverts were aftewr this explicit warning. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Damian is making changes without consensus and claiming that he is restoring change made earlier - but it was not a consensus back then, and the edit-warring that caused the origonal changes resulted in a the article being frozen for a week and the article is currently the subject of ArbCom which is nearing the end of the evidence phase.
 * Mr. Damian received a 3RR warning earlier --Steve (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Damien is inserting POV language into the article lead without discussion or consensus. Typical is this edit where the authors quote saying that she held her advocacy of "reason" and "egoism" to be more primary than her advocacy of capitalism is changed to say she "tried" (implying she did not succeed) to so ground her views and also typical is the author's insertion of a refernce by a hostile blogger described by the editor as showin g"exactly how she misunderstands Kant." The additions are not NPOV but assume the subject's views have been roundly diproven. The remarks have been moved with direct attribution to the criticism section of the article, but the editor has reverted this, see above.

Mr. Damien is failing to assume good faith and is making hostile remarks "(rv from Kjaer's version - this editor is becoming a major nuisance)" in the edit summaries.

His edits were a cause of a previous edit war. See twenty five explicitly hostile edits 10 Jan 2009 beginning here where the lead is rewritten from scratch, without discussion.

These disruptive actions are making it impossible to move forward on editting the article. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to my previous civil warnings of Feb 11 and Feb 12  of his breaking the 3RR rule, (prior to the above six reverts,) he left this uncivil disruptive threat "Stop leaving crap on my talk page.  Or I leave crap on yours. OK? Peter Damian (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)" on my talk page. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would ask the reviewing admin to also examine Kjaer's edits, as he is the one who is edit-warring with Peter Damian. Idag (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor (Kjaer) is [PA removed - WMC] (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

24h. 3RR (whilst not endorsing 6 R) and for extra bonus points incivility too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, looked at K. Can't see 4R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

78.69.82.192 reported by Dylan0513 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is the second time this user has repeatedly added unencyclopedic, opinionated statements to the Toph Bei Fond article. They obviously have no regard for Wikipedia's guidelines. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h. You might try talking to him though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Arneandre reported by F-22 Raptored (Result: peace)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=270664550&oldid=270610981


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

Genre dispute, it was once hard rock, but after neutral pointing, it is just now rock, user constantly changes it to Metal. I was late with the warning, forgot about that. I for one, can't make another edit however.

Update: If its okay, I will just cancel the report as we are currently in a resolution. I think the edits were all good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

-- F-22 Raptor IV 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy to hear it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:GrizzledOldMan reported by NoCal100 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In addition to the above 4 reverts made today, an additional one was made yesterday, just outside the 24h boundary -. 3 editors have objected to this repeated insertion of categories and ethnicity. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 4R and incivility; 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:82.4.220.242 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor is warring in several United States presidential election articles. Please see his/her history and talk page. Now s/he just went over 4rr at United States presidential election, 2000.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be naive and well-meaning but mis-informed editor who has stopped following your warning William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Seems like s/he only stopped to get some sleep and is back on warring over the same thing:, (besides making other mass-changes to all United States presidential election articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

...and more of the same:. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to have form. 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Greatly appreciated. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ah Poh reported by Badger Drink (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User blanked warning message, repeatedly requests for clarification (see bottom of my talk page) - clarification was provided early on in the edit war via his talk page, as well as through edit summaries. User asks for reference to assert that Wikipedia is not Google (see second revert, above). Smells fishy - there has been a history of sockpuppetry and edit warring over Mr. Quigley in the past (see AN/I archives #429 for starters). Badger Drink (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR broken, but reverting seems to have stopped. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

213.202.129.181 reported by Cameron (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link

....
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 9th revert: link
 * 10th revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link


 * No less than 10 reverts in total (and counting), two after 3RR notice. Best, --Cameron* 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm allowed to revert if its vandalism!What about the other editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.129.181 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User:213.202.129.181 and User:78.16.156.75 for 24 hours. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:206.47.252.66 reported by Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions (Result: blocked)
. : Time reported: 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:22, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 22:23, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 22:25, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 22:26, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 22:27, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 22:28, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 22:29, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 22:30, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Discospinster. — <span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"> Aitias  // discussion 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ophois
3RR violation by on Peter Petrelli. Editor is an experienced editor whgo has been blocked multiple times for 3RR and/edit-warring violations. He has been asked to discuss his edits, but he isn't having any of that. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * It is kind of stale and WP:LAME. I'd block him but that wouldn't really stop any disruption.  Nor could I be sure that protecting the page wouldn't stop disruption.  I can see that one reason he isn't reverting now is that the page is in a favorable state for him.  He also seems to be discussing things on the talk page.  Oh, and would you mind notifying this editor that he has been reported on AN3? Protonk (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it has all happened within the past 24 hours, how exactly is that "stale", protonk. Edit-warring a preferred version might seem lame, especially if it isn't an article within your interest. The problem is that there is no EL-worthy evidence of the term he keeps edit-warring in.
 * Lastly, I have no problems notifying him, but it was my understanding that an experienced user - especially one who's been blocked three different times for exactly the same type of violation - doesn't need to be notified of 3RR complaints. Were it ANI, it would be a different story. Has that changed recently, along with the name of the noticeboard? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know if it is mandatory or anything. Just a courtesy I guess.  And yeah, it's LAME.  This is an edit war over whether or not to call some guy's superpower "Power mimicry" or "Empathic mimicry."  I'm sure Heroes is an awesome show and all, but edit warring over that is LAME.  I also note that he has self reverted.  Oh, and when I say stale I mean that the "edit war" ended an hour before the report was filed and almost three hours ago now.  That's all. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I had noted that the issue wasn't over what to call a super-power but rather the uncited nature of the addition, I realize that it isn't as burning a debate as over Intelligent Design or whatever, but any encyclopedic content has to meet our rules for inclusion. As for staleness, I had discovered the 3RR shortly after reviewing edits. 3 hours doesn't make a stale 3RR, Protonk. Not sure if it ever has. 3 days might be stale, though.
 * That aside, I asked the user to self-revert, and in consideration, i would withdraw the complaint. As they have, so do I. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sooner016 reported by radeksz (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (subsequent three or four edits also reverts)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

I've also made attempts to discuss this on talk page but these were ignored.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: made before the 5th revert.


 * Update: I don't think the user in question was aware of the policy. S/he has been on Wiki since 2006 but hasn't been very active. So just somebody letting them know would be sufficient.radek (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MrSpammy and User:Datenschleuder reported by &mdash;Smilers&#x263A;Talk (Result: warned)
The following two users appear to be engaged in an edit war on page World War II Online. There may be more involved parties and informal mediation has been requested here.

User:MrSpammy
. : Time reported: 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:50,  5 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268682709 by DocVM (talk)")
 * 2) 17:44,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268951185 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 3) 17:45,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268951061 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 4) 17:45,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268951018 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)I get it, you like the game-biased")
 * 5) 17:49,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268954470 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 6) 17:50,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Customer Service */")
 * 7) 21:46,  6 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 268961859 by DocVM (talk)")
 * 8) 14:07,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269533911 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 9) 17:12,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Poor Customer Service */")
 * 10) 17:12,  9 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Poor Customer Service */")
 * 11) 23:49, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269758998 by DocVM (talk)")
 * 12) 01:52, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 13) 12:10, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270402572 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 14) 12:11, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270402501 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 15) 12:11, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270402465 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 16) 12:12, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "VANDALISM")
 * 17) 21:12, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "undoing vandalism")
 * 18) 21:15, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 19) 21:15, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 20) 21:16, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 21) 21:16, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism- restoring citations")
 * 22) 17:18, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270634966 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 23) 17:18, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270634927 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 24) 17:19, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270634902 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 25) 17:19, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270634870 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 26) 17:19, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism")
 * 27) 22:32, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "just saying Naval vessels implies many, when in actuality it's only 3")
 * 28) 17:01, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270879582 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 29) 17:01, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270879393 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 30) 17:01, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270879188 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 31) 17:02, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270879094 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 32) 17:02, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270878779 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 33) 17:03, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270878675 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 34) 17:03, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270877943 by Datenschleuder (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

User:Datenschleuder
. : Time reported: 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:09, 12 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Small Player Base correction*/")
 * 2) 22:12, 12 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Subscriber Forums section removed due to stark bias and no relevance to the subject */")
 * 3) 22:14, 12 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* corrected spacing*/")
 * 4) 08:34, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270351385 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 5) 08:34, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270350592 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 6) 08:35, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270350283 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 7) 08:36, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270350098 by 24.252.201.161 (talk)")
 * 8) 12:42, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270426118 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 9) 12:43, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270426039 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 10) 12:43, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270426001 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 11) 12:44, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270425945 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 12) 12:47, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* 2007 to Present Day */")
 * 13) 12:52, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* 2007 to Present Day */")
 * 14) 15:19, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Removed link that does not relate to the subject*/")
 * 15) 09:55, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270526686 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 16) 09:55, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270526596 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 17) 09:56, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270526534 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 18) 09:56, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270526444 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 19) 09:56, 14 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270525778 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 20) 12:36, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270750337 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 21) 12:38, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270697721 by Versus22 (talk)")
 * 22) 12:39, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270697674 by 24.114.255.83 (talk)")
 * 23) 12:39, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270697581 by 24.114.255.83 (talk)")
 * 24) 12:41, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270697426 by 24.114.255.83 (talk)")
 * 25) 12:46, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270877943 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 26) 12:47, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270877733 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 27) 12:49, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270877652 by Datenschleuder (talk)")
 * 28) 12:49, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270693233 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 29) 12:51, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270693111 by MrSpammy (talk)")
 * 30) 12:52, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Removed totally outdated statements made in 2001 */")


 * Diff of warning: here

&mdash;Smilers&#x263A;Talk 18:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Going over some of Datenschleuders edits rings a COI bell. It might be worth looking into that at ANI and/or checkuser. Besides that, I've (almost?) never saw such a large list of reverts by two users. Block them and give them a barnstar for "Best editwarrior of the month".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: And a big "smiley trophy" for user:smilers's work putting this report together.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. Although its a huge pile of reverts, many are contiguous, and no-one has strictly broken 3RR. More a sign of incompetence William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned. Some sort of mediation may be gearing up, who knows William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PenrhynRoad reported by Protonk (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: and very likely

Diffs

 * Previous version reverted to: id:269748391
 * 1) 11:11, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269588684 by Shell Kinney (talk)")
 * 2) 15:27, 10 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269748504 by Euryalus (talk)")
 * 3) 14:35, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270825597 by Protonk (talk)")
 * 4) 18:09, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 270918729 by Protonk (talk)")
 * Diff of warning: here

Summary
It is very likely that ==, regardless, is an apparent single purpose account reverting to maintain an article in a negative state vis the school. I came upon this article while removing links to a wikipedia mirror and removed the negative, unsourced material along with the citation. The user has reverted me twice without comment (along with reverting two other users without comment. I consider this edit warring and while not breaching the three revert rule, the nature of the account (and possible socking issues) dictate that we investigate a little.  Please do not mark this as stale, as the article is in his "preferred" revision right now and I refuse to revert any further.  Note, I am an administrator but because this could nominally be called a "content dispute" I won't use the tools here.  Thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted back to the prior version. I don't think this is 3RR - this is adding defamatory unsourced material, and there must be a proper forum for that. But I'll block anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:64.255.180.70 reported by Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) (Result: no vio)
. :
 * Long-term edit warring on


 * 1) 13/02/09
 * 2) 21/01/09
 * 3) 10/01/09
 * 4) 01/01/09
 * 5) 26/12/08
 * 6) 23/12/08
 * 7) 20/12/08


 * Diff of warning: here

The same user (presumably) was already the subject of a previous report (diff to answer), and has yet to respond to any of my enquiries. I later tried to have the page semi-protected but this was denied because of the lack of then-recent activity.

—Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think that rate of reverting is just too slow to trigger this board William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what would be the appropriate course of action in this case?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing. WP guide lines simply have no provision agaainst disruptive users who are smart enough to revert slowly, but steadily enough. Sad, but true. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: Full prot'd )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Prior version: 15 February, 00:43 (partial reinstatement of material deleted by other editor )
 * 1) 15 February, 20:12
 * 2) 16 February, 16:36
 * 3) 16 February, 17:03
 * 4) 16 February, 17:05

Edit-warring to reinstate material that was proven to contain serious misquoting and misrepresentation of academic sources. Just coming off another block over a similar issue. Note that an earlier block of 5 January was over the exact same material, just on a different article, and there have been two other 3RR blocks in the meantime. Series of 3RR blocks has already escalated to 10 days. At this point, I'm asking for a really long (several months) block and/or a permanent topic ban from all articles related to early Greek history and prehistory under WP:ARBMAC. This is an extremely persistent POV-pushing issue and not going to go away by any other means. This user has essentially been asking for a ban and trolling for a long time (see latest edits to his user page too ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Content dispute. I have full prot'd for a week and asked both of them to discuss. Don't want to block an admin again either. Just talk please. Be adults. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's nonsense. This is not a content dispute but near-vandalism. If I'm telling you this has been discussed ad nauseam and there's a consensus the material is false, you can very well believe I know what I'm saying. No, Deucalionite is NOT a person to discuss with. I've been dealing with this guy for years. This person is beyond any possibility of cooperation. He simply needs banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, so I'm not a person now? It's no wonder a growing number of users don't like you. You've been "dealing" with me for years only because you literally enjoy stalking me. Simple as that. You assume bad faith even when I do something right and whenever there is a misunderstanding, you go Rambo on me for POV-ish reasons. You see me as an obstacle that needs to be removed rather than as an editor whose slowly, but surely, improving behaviorally while contributing. The fact that I continue fixing Wikipedia articles despite my extensive block log only proves that your bully tactics do not intimidate me. So, are we going to discuss things like civilized men and overlook our so-called rivalry? Or are you going to continue using me as scapegoat whenever something bad happens? Deucalionite (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, my userpage is meant to mock my extensive block log. It puts a smile on my face since I know that one day you will report me (or ban me) for something as trivial as fixing spelling errors. You consistently choose to interpret my userpage as though it were some kind of WMD when it is technically subject to change. Of course, you also choose to ignore the awards I received for the positive contributions I've made to Wikipedia. Ultimately, you love to scapegoat me, because doing so accentuates your usefulness as a "rouge administrator". Ciao. Deucalionite (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:141.154.110.173 reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1) 17:46, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271152968 by Blanchardb (talk)")
 * 2) 17:50, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271154314 by Blanchardb (talk)")
 * 3) 23:19, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271193910 by SaltyBoatr (talk)")
 * 4) 23:21, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271193496 by SaltyBoatr (talk) Ojection to deleting biased material bogus at best.")
 * 5)  02:56, 17 February 2009(edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

This edit war might benefit from a cool down period. No personal offense is intended to 141.154.110.173, but I am just hoping for a break in the action to allow civility to return to this edit work. I also agree to a truce and invite moving the content dispute to the talk pages for negotiating a resolution, including WP:DR as needed and if parties are willing, prior to insertion of the edit(s).

—SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:75.2.7.232 reported by TWilliams9 (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:44, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */")
 * 2) 05:56, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */ did you even read this?")
 * 3) 16:07, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "this is quoted directly from the source")
 * 4) 16:38, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "add isenberg")
 * 5) 16:43, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */ the report actually disputed this assertion")
 * 6) 16:55, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */ add Stern")
 * 7) 16:59, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */")
 * 8) 17:25, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 03:58, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */")


 * Diff of warning: here

—TWilliams9 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make a rhetorical point since many editors have accused you of edit warring on Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America? Which edits are you even disputing? I'd say WIKIHOUND, but I am not particularly harassed, just confused.--75.2.7.232 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue in question is the Iran Nuclear Page. I am contending that you have broken the 3RR policy with you copious edits in the last 24 hours on the Iran Nuclear page. TWilliams9 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, all I see is a list of edits made by this IP to this page. It's difficult to see any violation there, and if there is the IP probably doesn't know about it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the template that was given and listed all the edits made my the editor in question in the last 24 hours. That consists of now 13 total edits in the last 24 hrs 1 minute, of those 13 total edits 5 of them are revisions.  Since I posted the notice there has been another revert by the IP.  I also posted the link to his talk page where I posted the 3RR template in relation to this article, which he then deleted, so the IP is aware of the policy. 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TWilliams9 (talk • contribs)
 * To condense it, the particular revisions condesed are,


 * 1) 04:30, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "this establishes the article's viewpoint")
 * 2) 16:07, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "this is quoted directly from the source")
 * 3) 03:58, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* US and European viewpoint */")
 * 4) 05:21, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "could you list a specific problem and just remove what you are challenging? changing analyst to sources and adding a fact tag hardly seems controversial")

TWilliams9 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've self-reverted since I can atleast see what you're talking about now. Could you explain why this quote is controversial on the article's talk page? Thanks,--75.2.7.232 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nickhh reported by Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 02:19, 17 February 2009
 * 2) 02:40, 17 February 2009
 * 3) 02:45, 17 February 2009
 * 4) 03:20, 17 February 2009

—User:Nickhh keeps removing the phrase "Judea, an area in modern Israel" (and related citations), terminology previously removed by User:MeteorMaker (e.g. ). Now that MeteorMaker has been put on editing restrictions, Nickhh appears to be edit-warring on his MeteorMaker's behalf. NoCall100 has reverted in turn 3 times, but has also been adding sources to the statement, and justifying his edits on the Talk: page. Nickhh is well aware of 3RR, he was blocked for it just a month ago. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the formal editing restrictions I was put on were later confirmed by the responsible admin as based on a misunderstanding on her part . MeteorMaker (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we really going to say it's totally irrelevant that the Judean hills are not, in fact, an area in modern Israel, and aren't even claimed as such by the Israeli government? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

, most admins I think would block Nickhh given the background, but I'd be unhappy right now doing so given the 3 quick successive reverts by User:NoCal100, who was edit-warring but didn't violate the 3RR. In the mean time I've protected this stub article and reverted the 4th revert for the sake of fairness. I will however look into the matter further and notify another admin more familiar with the background of this arbitration area. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's done it again, this time on Ma'ale Shomron:
 * 1) 02:24, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 269383275 by Shuki (talk) In the lebensraum of western poland etc etc")
 * 2) 02:54, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "Edit summary totally comprehensible to those who wish to understand, as is standard terminology")
 * 3) 03:35, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "Explained - the terminology of the occupying power may or may not be the standard terminology for a geographic area. Very simple really. In this case - as per "lebensraum" - it's not")
 * 4) 04:12, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "FFS. Standard terminology please, not what the IDF or even the CIA might happen to occasionally say. I have three references, found via Google, which say you are an arsehole, can I use them here?")

I've included the edit summaries this time, because they're fairly outrageous: equating Israeli policies with Nazi ones, and calling an editor an "arsehole". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although these were performed before I had the chance to warn, user is aware of the rule and multiple violations (and such personal attacks) aren't acceptable. Given him 72 hours. User:NoCal100 is also reminded of best practice. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Wilson Delgado reported by User:151.190.254.108 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Note that all reversions are, according to that article's talk page, in violation of WP:UNDUE.

A 3RR warning was issued just after the 4th revert, so in this case I have explained how narrowly the user missed out on being blocked. Others had already offered advice on dispute resolution. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SgtAvestrand1956 reported by A new name 2008 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:11, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:26, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 18:29, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 19:26, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Gaia Octavia Agrippa added a Globalize template to the article. SgtAvestrand1956 removed the tag with no comment. I reverted him with an edit summary discussing not removing maintenancce tags without commenting or fixing the problem. SgtAvestrand1956 then removed it a second time. I then warned on the talk page, and then readded a second time with an edit summary. SgtAvestrand1956 removed a third time, I gave a 3RR warning and let it stand for 50 minutes added a section on Talk:Physician assistant then readded a third time with a detailed edit summary again. SgtAvestrand1956 removed it a fourth time and then removed the section on the talk page and blanked own talk page.

—A new name 2008 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked User:SgtAvestrand1956 for 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (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

POV pushing is making this article impossible to edit. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

24 hour blocks for both and. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chelo61 reported by Firestorm (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 1st 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 2nd 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3rd 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 4th 3RR warning:

There has been a discussion to attempt to form consensus on whether or not a roster listing should be included in this video game title, as well as similar ones. Although the issue has not yet been resolved and consensus is not yet achieved, several editors (including myself) are trying to broker a compromise. Despite this, Chelo61 has been re-adding the roster despite numerous warnings and requests that he join the discussion. While it takes two (or in this case, four or five) to edit war, this user has been the only one re-adding it on a consistent basis despite warnings to not revert until consensus was achieved. I personally believe that the roster should be included, but I will not engage myself in this edit war until a final consensus is achieved. The constant reverting, even though most of it doesn't technically violate WP:3RR, is very disruptive to the article. On the other side, the one reverting Chelo61 most often is Truco and SImonKSK. Firestorm (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, consensus was reached, which is why I reverted. I would not have reverted if there was no consensus, but Chelo refused to listed to warnings about the consensus. -- TRU  CO   21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)From what I see, the discussion is still active (though it is very convoluted). It will probably need a formal WP:RFC before it is finally resolved. However, I do believe you are correct in maintaining the roster-less article until it is over. Firestorm (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its still open, but it was resolved. The discussion took place between the video game project and the professional wrestling project, so I would say a fair consensus was formed.-- TRU  CO   23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

14th revert:

15th revert:

16th revert:

17th revert:

18th revert:

He did it again. <font face="Verdana"> Simon KSK  23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's it. They need to be blocked for ignoring warnings and continuing to revert as they did here. They have no intentions of listening to consensus.-- TRU  CO   03:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's had final warnings now, so I'd block next time he does any change like this. He's even at simple 3RR limit for many of those, let alone edit-warring against a discussed apparent consensus. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just want to let everyone know that I didn't ment to get anybody angry. I got y'all so angry that you guys want to block me! I'm going to tell you guys why I keep on putting the roster back on there. The reason is because it gives people info about which wrestlers are on the game. They should know the whole roster instead just a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelo61 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with you in principle that the entire roster should be included, the consensus has apparently moved against our point of view. Wikipedia is written by consensus, so even if we personally disagree with what seems to have been decided, it is our duty to uphold it. Even if you think you are right, you're still bound by consensus. When your block expires, I hope that you will be more willing to accept consensus. The purpose of a 24 hour block is generally to help you see why you were wrong and give you time to review policy, rather than to punish you. Firestorm (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ptr123 reported by Bertport (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:57, 15 February 2009


 * 1st revert: 22:39, 16 February 2009
 * 2nd revert: 04:13, 17 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 21:47, 17 February 2009
 * 4th revert: 01:23, 18 February 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Bertport (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the edit war died down about 15 hours ago, however regardless it appears that this editor was not reminded about the three-revert rule. I went ahead and issued a 3RR warning, which will hopefully help keep things from re-escalating. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloodholds reported by FFMG (Result: Resolved)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 1


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 1


 * Please note some of the edit summaries given.
 * Discussion of the images
 * [[File:All_Ireland_Rugby_Emblem_.jpg]] The copy violation image itself. FFMG (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the image has been deleted (by me, as CSD I9), there is no reason to expect the edit warring to continue. CIreland (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:141.154.110.173 reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: one week)
. : Time reported: 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Immediately after release of 24 hour block, see above ANEW

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


 * 1) 02:56, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Well regulated militia */")
 * 2) 16:28, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Later commentary */  deleting biased "bought and paid for" opinion from Cornell who got $400,000 from gun control group prior to writting his anti gun book")
 * 3) 16:35, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Case law */ deleting biased "bought and paid for" opinion from Cornell - see discussion page for more details")
 * 4) 16:43, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Reconstruction */")
 * 5) 16:50, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Post Heller federal cases */")
 * 6) 17:10, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* District of Columbia v. Heller */")
 * 7) 17:42, 18 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Right of revolution */ small addition to right to revolution featuring the declaratio of Independance")


 * Diffs of additional Feb18 warnings:


 * 1) "(Message re. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (HG)) (undo) "
 * 2) Vandal warning. "(Level 2 warning re. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (HG)"

--Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this now blocked user also uses another IP address,See here, to evade blocks, at least he did during the initial 24 hour block. Yaf (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloodholds reported by Gnevin (Result: Resolved)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

(Gnevin (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Looking into this at the moment... CIreland (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar nom above Gnevin (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved - contentious image deleted after discussions with parties. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gnevin reported by Bloodholds(Result: Resolved)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

(Bloodholds (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Looking into this at the moment... CIreland (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved - contentious image deleted after discussions with parties. CIreland (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie reported by JK54 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

jk54
 * Semi-protected. BoogaLouie is currently sitting out a ten-day block, and there is a confusing edit war at Quilliam Foundation among IPs who do not participate on Talk, some of whom may be socks. The IPs continue to make large reverts with no discussion. If you follow their example you won't be in good shape either. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:216.26.217.157 reported by User:wtshymanski (Result: stale)

 * Page: Winnipeg Folk Festival
 * User: User:216.26.217.157


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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

This isn't yet strictly a 3RR violation but may be by the end of the day.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Would someone more familiar with the procedure please caution the user at IP address 216.26.217.157 that a long narrative story is not really appropriate content for the encyclopedia? I've left a message at the IP talk page to no effect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem seems to have gone, closing as stale, let me know if it recurrs William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's still happening as of today (Feb. 16). How do I make a link to the edits? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Somone in Thunder Bay really likes the long story and keeps re-inserting it. I suppose it could be *several* people from Thunder Bay, but that seems unlikely. Still active this evening (Feb. 18 CST). --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now inserting the story into Birds Hill Provincial Park. Using IP User:216.211.71.68.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jetskere reported by User:NYScholar (Result: stale)
.... (More can be found by following links to this user's edits throughout editing history. S/he is engaged in an editing war in this article and has been over an extended period of time.  Despite having his/her errors pointed out to him/her, s/he persists in making them, reversing sourced information provided by earlier editor(s).  --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User:
 * Reverts of well-sourced and previously-correct text today (17 February 2009)
 * 1) 1st revert today: Revision as of 11:38, 17 February 2009 (Reverting of correct artwork title "SheFits" or "She Fits" (depending on source citation followed); documented by reliable and verifiable third-party published sources). [not referring to corr. of typographical error "Cycle" to "Circle" is okay and kept later.]
 * 2) 2nd revert today: Revision as of 11:39, 17 February 2009 (reverts editorial interpolations of correct information: "Susitha R. Fernando" [appears to be or] is the same person as "Sachie Fernando": one author, not two different authors: see talk page of article)[NOTE: Since I posted this report, user Jetskere has returned to the talk page of the article and we are currently discussing this matter; it is not yet resolved. I put a template on the article to indicate that it is currently being worked on. --NYScholar (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)][updated further due to further discussion and investigation; I have altered presentation in the article while this is still ambiguous; there remains an angle-bracketed editorial interpolation (visible only in "show preview") directing readers to the talk page discussion.  My textual alterations resolve this problem temporarily until further reliable third-party English-language published sources can be located (if they can be). --NYScholar (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]
 * 3) 3rd revert today: Revision as of 21:30, 17 February 2009 (Multiple reverting of correct title of artwork, as documented in source citation previously provided and further source citations added since this revert)
 * 4) 4th revert today: Revision as of 21:39, 17 February 2009 (see above: "She Fits" [or "SheFits"] is the artwork title by the subject. It is documented by the reliable and verifiable third-party published source citations provided.)
 * See linked AfD at top of article talk page for contexts related to these incorrect edits by this user. The user's facility with the English language is weak, making his/her comments extremely difficult for native English speakers to understand.  S/he does not read or write in idiomatically-correct English and misses important details in English-language sources.  S/he cannot understand explanations in English on the talk page, and has a long history of creating problems in this article.
 * The article has just survived an AfD by dint of the sources that mostly I have added. The version that s/he created was nominated for deletion recently and recently saved from deletion due to major reconstruction.  Yet, this user is back to deleting correct information based on the reliable and verifiable and verified sources and substituting incorrect information from unreliable sources that are not verifiable and not published by third parties (not the article subject).  Whether or not the user intends to be correct, s/he is incorrect, and the constant reverting of correct information amounts to vandalism of Wikipedia, since the errors have already been brought to his/her attention multiple times.  The user does not provide edit summaries explaining the reverts and no prior discussion on the talk page of the article, where s/he was directed to "take" comment made in the recent AfD. --NYScholar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)]

Stale now William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Political Achilles reported by Themfromspace (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of original warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Themfromspace (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to have got bored, or gone away, or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff79 reported by MarkFD (Result: warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I am also guilty of the same crime as this man. MarkFD (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit war has stopped, so I have warned both sides. Kevin (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * MarkFD is a sockpuppet of User:Londo06 who was blocked for incessant sock puppetry and edit warring so really should be blocked. This account seems to have slipped thru this case--Jeff79 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per this comment by MarkFD, he is an alternate account of User:Fronsdorf. Since MBisanz indefinitely blocked Fronsdorf in October for puppetry, I have left a note for MBisanz to see if MarkFD should be indef blocked as well. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, apparently that comment slipped by me. Yes, if he is a sock, he should be blocked.  MBisanz  talk 20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have blocked MarkFD per this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:93.96.148.42 reported by Nudve (talk) (Result: please warn)
. : Time reported: 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 06:07, 19 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271759689 by Nudve (talk)removed original research, as per talk, reinstated sourced material")
 * 2) 07:05, 19 February 2009  (edit summary: "expanded article, with references.")
 * 3) 07:13, 19 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271769449 by Trusilver (talk)reverted unexplained action - see discussions on talk page.")
 * 4) 07:52, 19 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271774067 by Nudve (talk)Reverted reversion by Nudve, as per talk - feel free to edit, but don't just trash my references")
 * 5) 08:05, 19 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 271775866 by XLinkBot (talk) Reinstated page, without the about.com reference")

Diff of warning:

User keeps making radical changes despite standing consensus. He was already warned today about NPOV by an admin

—Nudve (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning not good enough and should be on users talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== Some other random report that no-one could be bothered formatting properly, as is all too common in these debased times. Ee, when I were a lad you wouldn't get way with reports like this (result: sarcasm) ==

User:Police,Mad,Jack keeps reverting edits to List of police firearms in the United Kingdom Orangepippen (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like 3RR to me. Oh course, had you bothered to provide a list of diffs like you are supposed to we'd have a bit more substance to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Whippletheduck reported by User:Jackieboy87 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Whippletheduck added original research to the article in question with this diff and was subsequently reverted by User:JpGrB twice and by myself twice. He accuses us of edit warring and fails to understand what constitutes original research. Even after I explained why his edits were not productive on the article's talk page and his talk page, he continues to revert. His version still stands because I do not want to violate the 3RR myself. Thank you. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noted our dispute on the NOR discussion thread. If I understood the original research policy, then sure I get how using the offical wikipedia listings like I did the first few times as my source. So I went to abc.,com and I have been using the offical LOST episode summary's available on there for my last several edit's.  It seems to me that the OFFICIAL website and teh OFFICIAL episode summary for the show is more then sufficient to establish grounding in what I am posting. The fact that we here at wikipedia have caught a major error in LOST continuity is something we should all be proud of, yet JackyBoy has gone out of his way to try to pretend this error in continuity does not exist. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't here to catch errors. We are here to present information (which might include errors) that other people have already reported about in reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite following...your saying that even though there is a definite error in the continuity of the show regarding what is on the offical episode summary at the official website. Even if, why is my not citing both the official episode summary and highlighting that there is an error in continuity not within our scope here at wikipedia. I realize that if you are not a fan of the show LOST that this seems trivial but rest assured to LOST fan's, its significant. Whippletheduck (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SYNTH. Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. I would think that we'd need a secondary source that has reported a continuity issue before we explicitly point one out ourselves. Significance has nothing to do with it...except that, if it's significant, sources should appear soon. --Onorem♠Dil 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempting to just delete the article but I suppose people would whinge. Oh well, 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hapsala reported by Skizzik (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user have linked the date without providing any links that backups his agenda, actually the one he/she provided says that it should not be linked, see, and. I'm in the danger zone of 3RR myself and don't really know where I should go with this. --Skizzik talk 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, User:Skizzik is currently engaging in a personal crusade against linked dates of birth and death. According to his revision history, he has recently made a great number of destructiv edits in a long number of articles. The reason for unlinking dates is his personal interpretation of "unless there is a reason" for it (Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). He is currently warned about violating the 3RR. --Hapsala (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Both sides warned. Anyone who wants to delink dates needs to discuss it on the article talk if they end up reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Okej, Hapsala, can You just answer these questions? I think it is you who should reconsider your editing, using expressions like "personal crusade" etc and reverting things without providing anything that can back you up, I have provided two (see above). And strictly speaking, You have reverted the article 3 times and I 2 times, but i think one could say that we both have done it 2 or 3 times. Anyway, is this the right place to discuss this things? Maybe any admin could help us in this conflict or at least direct me to where to go with it? --Skizzik talk 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are my edits destructiv?
 * 2) How do You interpret "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. More information can be found at WP:CONTEXT#Chronological_items."?
 * 3) How do you interpret "Items such as days, years, decades and centuries should generally not be linked unless they are likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic."?

PS both sides are not warned. --Skizzik talk 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by User:Audreetucker (Result:48 hours for the reporter )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against myself, as I disagreed with her about the wording/impartiality of a separate article. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. In addition, she has enlisted 'friends' to help her continue to alter the page. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer and it's a direct violation of the living persons/biography rule.
 * Comment: I've left a message on the talk page, but these contributions don't all appear to be from the same editor. The edit warring seems to be coming from the other side, if the IP address making the same changes is considered to be from the reporting editor. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Audreetucker and the IP for 48 hours. Kevin (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte on Astrology, Talk:Astrology (result: talk)
Argument (section link) between User:Cosmic Latte and I (along with User:Verbal), involving the usage of qualifying statements such as "claim" and "according to adherents." CL states that such terms violate policy, are weasel, and aren't appropriate for a topic of such widespread substance and acclaim as astrology. He refuses to be compromising, and appears to have an WP:AGENDA. Note that the Arbcom has singled out astrology as "generally considered pseudoscience" (see WP:PSCI), and has stated that such qualification is valid for such topics. Adding "claim" is not calling it "pseudoscience" but CL appears to be acting like it was. Wondering what others think. -Stevertigo 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have presented my arguments in full on the astrology talk page, and I refer interested editors to that page. Apparently my argument was a bit too full, however, as Stevertigo stated "TLDR" ("too long, didn't read") in an accusatory edit summary that, for some odd reason, he marked as a minor edit. My intention is simply to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. I never referred to WP:AWW, and I am no longer contesting the inclusion of the article in the "pseudoscience" category, although I do disagree with its placement there. A couple notes on the ad hominem attacks: As for my "refusal to be compromising," I have several times suggested "compromises," both in edit summaries and on the talk page (too tired to search for diffs unless someone asks for them). There is no WP:AGENDA. Perhaps Stevertigo means WP:Agenda account, which refers to WP:SPA's--an odd accusation to make of an editor with nearly 10,000 contributions to the project, including the promotion of an article to FA status. He also "guesses" that I am an adherent of astrology "and as such [am] unqualified to make unqualified assertions about neutrality." Interesting double use of "unqualified" in a single sentence. Anyway, if he had indeed read my talk page comments, he would have learned that my academic background is in science, not astrology. I know very little about astrology, but I claim (/wink) to know a fair amount about the scientific method and, importantly, the philosophies underlying it. Anyway, in case my talk page arguments are indeed too long to read, my desire is to introduce Astrology in the following manner: "Astrology...is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs, according to which knowledge about the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details aids in the understanding, interpretation, and organization of information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters." This seems fair and neutral. No need to insert loaded language about "claims" or any other superfluous attributions to "adherents." The article contains extensive discussion about the relationship between astrology and science, especially in the section named for this very juxtaposition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There does seem (as in it appears that there may be) that there is a degree of advocacy going on at this page. Numerous compromise wordings have been tried and simply removed, but I'm not sure this is the right venue. There is a virtue to being concise. Verbal   chat  19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I am advocating for is neutrality and fairness. If it still appears that I have an agendum (yes, I'm a stickler for Latin singulars), I refer you to this diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi I didn't mean to imply you are (I just returned to update my wording, I'm very tired today so sorry about that, mea culpa). What I meant is that the rather long posts do seem to give that impression, if you see what I mean - I can understand that impression being made. As it is, I don't think this is the right forum. Apologies also for not yet engaging fully on the talk page, conversation by ES is not a great way to go! Verbal   chat  20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Looks like this issue can be dealt with on the article's talk page and was brought here prematurely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are tlaking. Good. If you want to bring this back here, please provide diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FTR, FWIW, CL keeps going back to this concept: "to avoid unnecessary flourishes and potentially loaded language, when it is entirely possible to phrase the introduction to the article in full accord with WP:NPOV and WP:WTA." He's asserting that what Verbal and I think is appropriate is simply an "unnecesary flourish" (he's used this term three times), and simply removing such "flourishes" makes the wording of the article more NPOV and in compliance with other policy like WTA. Note that he referred to the "claim" section of WTA, which I subsequently destroyed with a rewrite. See talk WP:WTA for my explanation. So that issue is invalid, because the policy itself was invalid, as it gave undue weight to negative aspects of "claim."

Note also that he's refusing to be brief. He could after all state his view succinctly and give at least the appearance of compromise - suggesting alternatives, asking for our input, etc. I'ts not always possible to reason with people who are absolute about a particular view, without actually having a point. He knew when he responded above that his WTA reference was defunct, and yet he still cites it. Just an example of what he's up to. -Stevertigo 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of succinctness, here is my final reply to this thread: Firstly, WP:AGF; secondly, . Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon reported by Hfarmer (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user and I have been going through all manner of dispute resolution, and was the subject of a user conduct RfC not very long ago due to violations of WP:NPA.


 * You do realise you warned him a day after he stopped reverting? yandman  13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never the less do you doubt that he was aware of the ruel? He's not exactly a newbie.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He stopped editing for as long as he has because at least where we live in the USA it is just now morning, So basically he was stopped by sleep, not restraint.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the 4th revert? (The one that would make this a breach of 3RR). yandman  13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There need to be four reverts in order to break 3rr? There is no fourth revert.  However as it says at the top of the page edit warring is not simply measured by a number of reversions.  It is a tone, an attitude of confrontational editing, which has been a problem for Dicklyon (hence the recent RFC/U).--Hfarmer (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 3 "reverts", of which 2 are contiguous so count as 1, so only 2 really. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th Revert:

This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking would be excessive per staleness and lack of evidence he was aware of the rule (plus the linked first revert is not by Ratel, though I did independently count 4 reverts). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357 reported by Xinjao (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:

The following reverts show how he swaps the country names to give India more importance, even though the sentence becomes factually incorrect.


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


 * Edit warning:

This user has a history of editing info he doesnt agree with in India related articles. This involves pointlessly swapping country names to give India more importance, and generally adding unverified info. I have warned him but the user insists on reverting info and adding his own facts to the articles. Xinjao (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Schwnj reported by 208.120.47.96 (talk) (Result: 12 hours for both)
07:02, 19 February 2009 15:46, 19 February 2009
 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

19:01, 20 February 2009
 * 1st revert:  17:25, 19 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 01:01, 20 February 2009
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has a long history of ownership issues with this article.

208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was coming here to report this same user (Schwnj). But I was also going to report this anonymous user (208.120.47.96), too.  Both have exceeded three reverts.  --ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my (schwnj) defense, I should note that a second editor stepped in partway through this dispute and the latter two reverts had to do with the version created by that other editor. There is a full discussion of these reversions on the talk pages of the above mentioned articles. My biggest problem is that the anon editor who reported this seems to be confused and thinks I am somehow substantively changing the topic of this list. I suggest other editors (e.g., ElKevbo) chime in on the discussion.-Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk  20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I can judge this IP refuses to discuss anything on the Talk page. And I actually do not understand why (s)he tries to insert online institutions (without physical campus) into the list titled List_of_largest_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment. So if someone needs to be blocked, it is this IP. Ruslik (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor has responded on the Talk page (albeit in a very disjointed and confusing manner). But both of these editors were engaged in a protracted edit war before either of them posted anything to the Talk page.  --ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look back, it is true that I 3RRd. But, to be fair, I was convinced at first that these were vandal edits. Anon reverted the page either with no explanation or a very confusing statement that didn't seem to be applicable to the page. And, as these reversions actually made the page less factually accurate, I assumed them to be vandal edits. When I finally started to understand what anon was trying to say, I went to the discussion page. (Although anon hasn't cleared up exactly what his/her problem is.) -Nick<sup style="font-variant:small-caps; color:#FF9900;">talk 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

. Both violated; Schwnj reverted again after knowing of the rule, and the anon knew of the rule.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43 reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand TRHoPF's issue here - is this really an edit war?? IMO, my edits have been constructive and improved the accuracy of the article. One of my reverts was the result of a typo. My most recent edit was an attempt at a compromise. I haven't brought anything controversial or obviously contentious to this article, and articles on the Commonwealth itself (Commonwealth_of_Nations_membership_criteria and Commonwealth_of_Nations) clearly support my version.


 * I see TRHoPF has contributed much to various articles on European empires. Perhaps he/she feels I am on his/her turf. If he/she had brought this up on the talk page or addressed the points in my edit summaries instead of rushing to declare Edit War I would have been happy to discuss it.
 * hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

24 hours. Kevin (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Swapnils2106 reported by C21K (Result: 24 hours each)

 * Page
 * User


 * Swapnils2106 is adding unrelated language script. and he refuses to discuss in article talkpage <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 10:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note: User:Swapnils2106 uses a sock IP 202.63.253.30 to disrupts my edits

previous version

1st revert

2nd revert

3rd revert

4th revert

5th revert

diff of 3RR Warning 

after 3RR warning

1st revert

2nd revert

3rd revert

reverts by his IP

1st revert 2nd revert 3rd revert

It needs to be discussed in on the talk page weather or not it is unrelated. Till then the Script should be there. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * you can't add unrelated scripts without discussing in article talkpage. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 10:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is sourced. see the personal life section. he is a Kannadiga not marathi. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 10:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Majority of his life was spent in Maharashtra, singing marathi songs and Abhanga's so that script is needed. Swapnils2106 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, you need to add marathi script to all the Bollywood actors page. because they are all living in Maharashtra. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * His mothertongue is Kannada not marathi. It is wellsourced. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * so we prefer only native language. not what he sings. tomorrow some person will add Hindi, Bengali etc... which will be totally mess.<font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood actors have nothing to do with marathi, Panditji has been an integral part of marathi "sahitya" Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Bhimsenji is Kannadiga not marathi. in wikipedia only native language script is added. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

see some examples Lata Mangeshkar(native-marathi, career-hindi), Aishwarya Rai (native-tulu,career-hindi), A. R. Rahman (native-tamil,career-hindi), Satyajit Ray(native-bengali,career-hindi). <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence, only native language is preferred. not other languages. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say Lata Mangeshwars career was hindi, you cannot say that for anyone you mentioned above Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG, I guess you don;t know anything. Lataji has sung more than 40000 hindi songs which is a world record. and you say her career is not hindi. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no hard and fast rule to add the native language only Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He is a native speaker of kannada, so kannada is added. There is no rule to add Hindi,Marathi,Bengali or any other languages ..etc.... <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He has been an integral part of "Marathi Sangeet", since you cannot create a seperate article of the same name the script can be added. Swapnils2106 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

he is an integral part of Hindustani music,Bhajans not only marathi. he also sings in many indian languages. so that we can't keep on adding every script. <font color = "Red">C <font color = "Yellow">21 <font color = "Red">K <em style="font family:Verdana; color:Black">talk 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, mega editing warring, 3RR blown away by several parties. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

IP got 24 hours too. Sockpuppeteering looks likely, but not sure it makes a difference to the overall picture. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Opole.pl reported by Lucas (result: please talk)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The article talk page is this way. Oh look, it's a red link isn't that odd? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cunado reported by General Disarray (result: 8h)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st Revert Unilateral revert of 12 contributions
 * 2nd Revert Reverted contribution attempting to address concerns from talk
 * 3rd Revert  Reverted back to previous revert after another rewording attempt
 * 4th Revert Unilaterally reverted 4 edit contributions explained in talk attempting to remove WP:SYN and add referenced detials.


 * I did not have a chance to offer a 3RR warning, but neither did I expect the violation as Cunado has been blocked for this twice before (under his old user name ). As of late, I've observed on several different pages we both contribute to that he regularly reaches 3 reverts without going over, so I have become accustomed to assuming he's aware of what he's doing regarding this issue.

As basically the only two contributors to this article, the history is obviously loaded with a lot of back and forth between the two of us. I'm a member of the small religious sect the article is about, and Cunado is a member of the larger group ours broke off from, and has taken a keen interest in the article over the past three years. In the past week a lot of contributions have been made to the page by both of us, most of them I'd consider improvements. Although we often engage in healthy debates on the talk page to reach compromises, in the past two days I have made a total of 5 requests in between these reverts asking for considerations on the talk page which have gone entirely ignored. # # # # # Basically after every contribution I've made has been reverted, I've gone to the talk page to make my case, and comment on the edit summary of Cunado's reverts, yet there has been no response. My efforts to pursue dispute resolution on the talk page have entirely stalled, and now reverting is the only participation Cunado is engaging in. <font face="cursive" color="Maroon">Disarray<font face="cursive" color="Purple">General 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: this doesn't really look actionable here. As you say, it's basically you two fighting, and I can't see C being obviously unreasonable. I think you are doomed to WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually I wasn't concerned about edit warring, per se, but that there was a 3RR violation. Is this not the right place to report this? <font face="cursive" color="Maroon">Disarray<font face="cursive" color="Purple">General  00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was never a 3RR violation on February 20. Look through the history. I think anyone reading through the talk page and looking at the content of my edits would quickly see that I'm trying to apply policy and editing appropriately. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  18:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This report was actually intended only to report a 3RR violation by Cunado, but in the past few days I'm not sure if a case couldn't be made that the behavior isn't reaching the bar of warring. Since this report was filed every single contribution to the page by me, which I'm explaining in the talk page discussion, have been unilaterally reverted without so much as a an edit comment (besides "rvt"), let alone having any participation in the discussion. Talking to myself doesn't seem to be moving the process along. There has been zero participation from Cunado on the talk page between any of the 9 reverts back to his original wording. I'm only pointing out that reverting three times a day, every single day, has been Cunado's only contribution to either the article or discussions. Since 2/20 I've made a total of 8 posts to the discussion page stating my concerns over his removal of reliably sourced details, and article structure; basically one for each of his unexplained reverts. With the exception of one dismissive comment and logic-defying comment from Cunado, all of my posts have received no reply. I'm not excatly sure where the line in for edit warring, but this is now looking a lot like it to me. <font face="cursive" color="Maroon">Disarray<font face="cursive" color="Purple">General  20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 8h. More talking, or perhaps rather more engagement, required, especially from C. GD, please avoid the rolling-on-the-floor stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:68.183.246.93 reported by Mark Shaw (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */ A Settled issue")
 * 2) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */")
 * 3) 23:00, 20 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "added other Regnery authors")
 * 4) 04:44, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 5) 07:14, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 272212188 by Threeafterthree (talk)")
 * 6) 08:33, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Add addl. sources")
 * 7) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
 * 8) 20:08, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ See talk page. There can be no edit war if you stop editing.")
 * 9) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Criticism and Controversy */ added source because of dead link")
 * 10) 20:54, 21 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop reverts. I have discussed this on talk, you have not.")


 * Diff of warning: here

User continually reverts article to restore verbiage which had been removed by editor consensus several days ago. User ignores requests to work out differences on talk page before implementing these changes. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Shaw continues to revert edits before reading discussions on article talk page. He also does not comment on talk page before reverting edits, then he issues 3RR warnings. This is a continuing pattern with this editor. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's talk page will reveal that 68 is attempting to thwart consensus previously reached by him/herself and others. Of course, "consensus" is not set in stone; and if s/he wishes to use the talk page to argue for his/her changes before implementing them, I'm all for that.


 * Note that 68 has also removed the 3RR warning from his/her talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What the article's talk page will actually reveal, is an ongoing conversation between me and another editor that was attempting to achieve consensus. A conversation that (Mark Shaw) chose not to contribute to. Instead, this editor was busy reverting edits without explanation or comment on the discussion page.


 * Also this editor has, in the past asked me to stay off his talk page, when I am simply responding to his incessant messages on mine. His idea of civility was to call me a "loon". As a result, I now remove all efforts by him to place anything on my talk page. As he has also just removed my latest attempt to get him to stop this uncivil behavior from his talk page. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: on review, I see that I have included too many diffs in the above. Here's a cleaned-up reformulation (again, from earliest to latest):


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

Mark Shaw (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the history, I also could have reported Mark Shaw for his 3RR violations. However, I did not because I realize it would not be helpful in the long run, and would only fuel his childish desire to prolong an unnecessary and unproductive edit war. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Going through the article's history, I find three reverts by me (from latest to earliest, in this case):


 * 21 Feb, 14:52:50 -
 * 21 Feb, 14:48:31 -
 * 21 Feb, 07:45:43 -


 * And then the next previous edit of mine (which was not a revert) occurred seven days earlier:


 * 14 Feb, 11:16:21 -


 * So, where's the 3RR violation? Mark Shaw (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As further proof of Mark Shaw's WP:CIV violations, please note this on his talk page:
 * "ATTENTION: If I have asked you to stay off my talk page, any edits you make here will be deleted unread. Thanks! (Administrative activity, such as required warnings and etc, are not included in this, of course.)" 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson Delgado reported by OldMan (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

This user was apparently warned before for revert-warring on Humanism. He is attempting to add the same content again, despite failing to achieve consensus on Talk:Humanism.


 * First attempt to add bad content without consensus:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Those 4 reverts were days ago; he has already been warned for those once.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Today he is attempting to add essentially the same content, again without achieving consensus on the talk page, and reverting any attempts to remove it:


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

The content he is trying to insert is in violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. I've also reported that behavior here. OldMan (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is too slow. You need WP:DR, not 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Agatha doppelganger reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: deleted)

 * Page: Pro-Turkism
 * User: Agatha doppelganger


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * The article in question is populated by highly contentious and unsubstantiated claims. The majority of the "references" when researched did not support the accusations.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-02-22T19:39:43 Ruslik0 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pro-Turkism" ‎ (G3: Vandalism) (restore) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Long term edit warring, with prior blocks for edit warring this article.

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


 * 1) 18:31, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm biased statement as comparison is largely meaningless, being the majority of homicides in the US are in urban areas amongst drug trade participants, & aren't widely distributed")
 * 2) 18:33, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm uncited statement, and reword = rm ws")
 * 3) 20:41, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm speculation in violation of WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a crystal ball...")
 * 4) 22:09, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "rm content contrary to Wikipedia policy relating to WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball;  the content is speculating on what could happen  -- out it goes...")
 * 5) 23:12, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "rv; (article is about arms, used in almost all homicides, not about guns; restoring properly cited and referenced material);  take it to talk before removing properly cited information")
 * 6) 23:24, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm uncited statement")
 * 7) 23:30, 13 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm unnecessary comparison (per talk page discussions)")
 * 8) 00:14, 15 February 2009  (edit summary: "rv to last version by Anastrophe (rm commentary that is uncited and sophomoric, the US Congress is not a "Parliament")")
 * 9) 04:07, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
 * 10) 04:07, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ grammar")
 * 11) 04:50, 16 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths */ rm uncited speculation")
 * 12) 06:26, 17 February 2009  (edit summary: ""cites" fail to identify "right to keep and bear arms" as being related to "gun violence"; rm uncited and unrelated commentary that is only pushing a POV rather than providing relevant content")
 * 13) 19:07, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "rm US content from UK section per talk page discussions; as for breaking out dead by firearms vs. dead by other arms, it really doesn't matter, for dead is dead and article is about arms, not firearms")
 * 14) 19:09, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ typo")
 * 15) 19:41, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */ rm rest of US content in UK section")
 * 16) 19:57, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
 * 17) 19:58, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Jurisdictions with English judicial origin */ rm OR")
 * 18) 20:35, 20 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Modern commentary: three models */ rm uncited content")
 * 19) 03:50, 22 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* United States */ rm OR")
 * 20) 03:52, 22 February 2009  (edit summary: "/* Homicide and firearm homicide statistics */ typo")
 * 21) 03:56, 22 February 2009  (edit summary: "rm OR (equating "gun rights" to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms");  Need cites equating RKBA to gun violence for this to stay.")
 * 22) 04:10, 22 February 2009  (edit summary: "rm OR (need to add cites that establish that "gun rights" equate to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" before inserting this)")


 * Diffs of article talk page warnings: here, here


 * Diffs of user talk page warning: here, here, here

—SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your counting is wrong. Contigous reverts count as one. Please read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)