Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive92

Marcperkel reported by wrs1864 (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st large edit/revert: Note that there are 24 edits in this diff. This started with marcperkel making a large number of additions/changes.  I reviewed these changes and, assuming most changes would be good, piecemeal reverted small sections until I had reverted a large portion of the changes and merged other portions into the existing "drawbacks" section.
 * 2nd edit/revert: Note: 5 edits here. revert by Marcperkel, restoring much of the new stuff he added and I had deleted.  In addition, he merged and move stuff around.
 * 3rd edit/revert: Note: 3 edits here.  I revered Marcperkel's re-addition of the "how to implement" section, along with more edits, including renaming the "drawbacks" section to what I thought was a more acceptable "Known problem cases when implementing Callback Verification".
 * 4th revert:   Marcperkel re-added "implementing" section.
 * 5th revert: User:AndrewHowse removed all sections that had "implementing" in them as per WP:NOTHOWTO
 * 6th revert: I restored the original "drawbacks" section because it isn't a "howto" section, renaming it again, now to "limitations" (as per the title in one of the references that covers the same material.
 * 7th revert: revert by Markperkel back to AndrewHowse's version.
 * 8th revert: I reverted to add back the "limitations" section (originally the "drawbacks" section) and added inline references as per a request by AndrewHowse on the talk page discussing re-adding this section.
 * 9th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
 * 10th revert: revert by me
 * 11th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted.
 * 12th revert: revert by me
 * 13th revert: revert by Marcperkel back to AndrewHowse's version with the "limitations" section deleted. Note this revert was soon after User:RegentsPark had given a third opinion that the "limitations" section was important for the article.
 * 14th revert: revert by Marcperkel to restore the "implementing" section, previously deleted by AndrewHowse
 * 15th revert: revert by me.
 * 16th revert: revert by Marcperkel
 * 17th revert: revert by me
 * 18th revert: revert by Marcperkel
 * 19th revert: revert, with follow-up edits to address points from the discussion on the talk page
 * 20th revert: revert by Marcperkel
 * 21th revert: revert by me
 * 22nd revert: revert by Marcperkel


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

While there have been a large number of reverts, neither of us have technically violated the WP:3RR policy. There has also been a large amount of discussion on the talk page and many points that I thought we might be merging toward a consensus, or at least had the potential to be working that way. Many of the reverts had followup edits by both parties to try to resolve things. We appear to have had two third parties come in and try to resolve this situation. However, I no longer see a good way to proceed via the talk page and other resources and I think the article as it stands now neither represents the WP:CONSENSUS from the previous two years nor is it an encyclopedic article.

As a summary, I feel that User:Marcperkel is asserting himself as an WP:EXPERT to use this article as a WP:SOAPBOX to create a WP:NOTHOWTO article based on WP:OR.


 * 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rapparee71 reported by NJGW (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * (a reversion of )
 * 2nd revert:
 * (a reversion of )
 * 3rd revert:
 * (a reversion of )
 * 4th revert:
 * (a repetition of the above reversion)
 * 5th revert:
 * (a reversion of


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This all revolves around a section which Rapparee71 has demanded be removed. After being reverted by 5 separate editors in the past week, Rapparee71 has started making POV edits which have also been reverted by different editors. He has made 5 sets of reversions in the past 24 hours. After being warned for a 2nd time of 3rr and asked to self revert the 5th set, Rapparee71 tried to compromise with a partial revert. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be argued that the edits I have made are POV Edits or not. That is the point in which I have been trying to get across to Jim Dunning and NJGW. I changed the title of the sections back to "Misogyny" to appease NJGW, but BoomerAB actually changed it back to "Alleged Misogyny"!


 * The section in which I changed the introductory sentence of the second paragraph of "Themes" was, in fact, already edited by Jim Dunning from the paragraph that I had inserted in the first place (a quotation from Richard Adams from an interview with BBC Radio). I was merely improving on his edit. This is neither against the rules nor the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, to date, I haven't heard any complaints from Jim Dunning on this specific action.  The edit to his edit was merely an effort to streamline the sentence and to take out superfluous words he had added.  All of this is clearly within the bounds of a good edit.  None of the actions I have taken are "vandalism".  All edits were made in an effort to improve the article.


 * Since I made an effort to reach a compromise (several times in fact) and they were summarily reverted without an effort on the other party's part to reach a compromise, I can only assume that NJGW's motives are vindictive in nature. Also, let us not forget that this is a community effort and I also, am a member of this community. The ONLY reason it could be argued that I have violated the 3RR "rule" is that NJGW and Jim Dunning have insisted on repeatedly reverting my revisions without discussion. Or when they do discuss it, they do so without giving my opinions (term used loosely) equal weight.  Rapparee71 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not clear that this is 4R. You'll have to follow the instructions for "complex reverts" if you care. I'll warn R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I revised this to show 5 reverts in 24 hours, after the initial warning. Prior to this, the editor reverted 8 times in 48 hours.  NJGW (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Constructive editor reported by Martin451 (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: |link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: |link

Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: |link -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. yandman  08:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon reported by Jenuk1985 (Result: talk / DR)
.. among others, see user's contributions
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

The above are diffs for Isaac McLellan, there are about 8 articles the user has reverted in this way.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Tagishsimon - informal warning

The user repeatedly removes orphan tags despite being warned not to by myself and another user. The user has also engaged in what I believe to be uncivil conduct on my talk page: User_talk:Jenuk1985, but that may be a different road I'd need to go down. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You and he and who knows who else disagree about those tags. You need to talk it over rather than revert it over, perhaps at the relevant noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Caldwell reported by Anyone77 (Result: talk)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st edit: # (cur) (prev) 15:41, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,291 bytes) (See discusion section) (undo)
 * 1st revert: # (cur) (prev) 17:35, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
 * 1st undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 21:08, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,311 bytes) (Undid revision 272531823 by Lynn Caldwell (talk)) (undo)
 * 2nd revert: # (undo)# (cur) (prev) 21:33, 22 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,208 bytes) (→External links: Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)
 * 2nd undo revert: # (cur) (prev) 22:01, 22 February 2009 Anyone77 (Talk | contribs) (41,330 bytes) (See Discussion section on this matter and use it rather than wantonly vandelizing the edit.) (undo)
 * 3rd revert: # prev) 00:26, 23 February 2009 Lynn Caldwell (Talk | contribs) (41,209 bytes) (→External links:  Link owner removing malicious tampering of link summary. Daily monitoring for removal of vandalism. T L Caldwell) (undo)


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


 * I made what I have termed the "1st edit" above in the interest of accuracy to the facts. "Lynn Caldwell" evidently doesn't like the fact that changes I made to his link description are accurate to the facts and has engaded in what appears to be a 3RR violation. He will not use the Discussion section to respond to my posting there on the matter, even though I have directed his attention there. He wrongly claims that I am vandalizing his posting. As there are numerous links in that External Links section, I provided a brief discription of each so that the reader may choose which to investigate without having to look at each one. The facts I noted in the description of Caldwell's link are accurate to the facts, and I can easily prove them. He wants to give a false impression of what his site actually contains. That just doesn't seem right, as this doesn't seem to be a forum for private opinions, but rather a place of simple facts. Please help, allowing my description to remain, and blocking him from changing it if necessary. Thank you Anyone77 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) -->

Um, looking at the diffs there is no strict 3RR vio, and the text being removed is odd. I've mentionned this on the talk page: it looks to me as though that link should die, not be qualified William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

86.155.147.172 reported by CHawke (Result: semi)

 * Page: Hawkwind
 * User: 86.155.147.172


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkwind&diff=271809051&oldid=270863685
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkwind&diff=271809051&oldid=271426477
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkwind&diff=271870864&oldid=271853392
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkwind&diff=272711299&oldid=272701874

(No 3 reverts in 24 hours but a constant battle over the last week or so over unsourced entries between myself and IP address only users - initially I flagged these two changes in the Hawkwind section as "fact" requiring citations - the fact tag kept getting removed - after a week I removed even the entry as these "facts" should have had another source by now - and invited anyone wanting to change the page to add it to the talk page rather than direct - the latest IP editor has reverted to the unsourced, untagged version almost straight away--C Hawke (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I'm not sure blocking one IP is going to change much. This is more of a BLP issue. How about I semi-protect it for a short while until the user(s) behind the IPs discusses it on the talk page? yandman  13:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi Protection would be cool - thanks for understanding, this is the 1st time I've had to raise things like this, so not sure what was best - I think the user will either get bored or, of course, there is a chance that the "facts" will have some external source after a while - how do I go about getting the protection removed once added? --C Hawke (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. It'll expire in 1 week. If after that time the issue isn't resolved, drop a note on my talk page. yandman  14:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - I'm sure the other person will get bored - and I am pretty sure that these different IPs are the same person--C Hawke (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Amyseekuif reported by Ward3001 (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Lindsay Lohan
 * User: Amyseekuif


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

3RR warnings here and here. Level 4 warning here.

Amyseekuif was blocked for 24 hours. I also warned Ward3001, who also was close to 3RR limit. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cosmic Latte reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: No violation/No block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 22 February 2009


 * 1st revert: 09:09, 23 February 2009, reverting someone's minor addition;
 * 2nd revert: 16:42, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
 * 3rd revert: 21:37, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."
 * 4th revert: 22:51, 23 February 2009, re-adding "...more than a third of Americans find it likely that their government officials were either foreknowing of or involved with the attacks..."


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:12, 23 February 2009, already familiar with 3rr

FYI, the article is subject to arbcom sanctions at Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "When reporting a user here, inform them of this on their talk page." Thankfully I have this page watchlisted. Anyway, "1st revert" doesn't even pertain to the section in question, so I have no idea why it is even mentioned here. In fact, it involved the removal of a claim (perhaps introduced in bad faith) about "conspiracies," whereas my later reversions involve the inclusion of information regarding conspiracy-related perspectives, so the mention of this "1st revert" is especially bizarre. "2nd revert" involved the restoration of a sentence in which the views of a signifant minority were attributed to their source. Only "3rd revert" and "4th revert" involve the restoration of the entire section that appears to be in dispute now. As per usual, I have made extensive use of edit summaries and the talk page. The pertinent discussion may be found at Talk:September_11_attacks. There, I have made what I consider a compelling case that the views held by a significant minority should be attributed to that minority, as per WP:DUE, which states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." A third of the American population, while not an individual adherent, is nonetheless prominent, and it is reliably sourced (see this talk page post of mine). Whether or not the view of a significant minority is "backed" by the sources is of limited relevance, because, as per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I pointed that out on the talk page here. Apparently unable to refute this, TH has thrown a 3RR template and vague references to an ArbCom hearing at me, even though I'm not advocating anything substantively new or more controversial than what had already been included in the article, but rather am advocating that the perspective already included in the article be attributed to the significant minority that happens to hold this perspective--a move that is supported by WP:DUE, the very policy that is being distorted and overmphasized in an effort to discredit my edits. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, note that other editors have been making subtle modifications to the disputed section (as have I:, &mdash;note how I resolve the issue of potentially "dated" sources by putting both sides of the debate in the past tense), so there certainly does not seem to be any consensus that the section should be eliminated entirely or even reduced to a bare minimum--a minimum that, oddly, eliminates the balanced attribution prescribed by WP:NPOV and its WP:DUE section. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I find it discouraging that people are using this forum to "report" a good-faith editor&mdash;one who makes extensive use of talk pages, edit summaries, and policy references&mdash;rather than following the much-less-confrontational steps outlined in WP:DR (see this talk page post, for what it's worth). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to do the bold thing and not block Cosmic Latte. The important thing here is that Cosmic Latte, that if you know you're getting close to the 3RR/Edit Warring rules, to back off. 3RR is really really bad, and its obvious that when you have two reports on the same page. I agree on the case that the first revert would immediately discount this as 3RR. Cosmic Latte, I think it would be better if you backed off for a little while. I know that September 11 is a strong fighting area, and I don't think a 3RR needs to spawn another ArbCom case. I am saying this, Cosmic Latte, one more 3RR violation, and you might be blocked, pretty harshly. Tom Harrison, don't you think this is leading to stalking a bit? Its his second report by you and I believe its time you back off from him. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to back down in terms of reverting, but as I feel that my position is defensible in terms of policy and have used the talk page extensively to demonstrate this, I think it might be a reasonable discussion for a pertinent WikiProject, WP:RFC, or WP:3 (any of which would have been my first choice for "reporting" a dispute like this if my intent is not to alienate myself from other editors). Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While your edits of themselves may be defensible, you still may not cross the 3RR line. When you reach that point it's either time to stop, or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. Please note also that the 3RR guidelines at the top of this page make it clear that reverts do not have to be the same material. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that, there is just the problem that eventually this causes more problems. I understand what you want, and you're right about defense of your position. However, be careful how much you make your position known. I often screw up royally when I do, and make giant rants, 1/2 that aren't correct. Just understand: Bad decisions ---> Problems between 1 or 2 users ---> More users do "Great War" declarations ---> RFC ---> MedCom (or ArbCom) ---> Bad reputations ---> Users fight and hate you totally. I don't like the decision and the highway leads to a bad area. I am a big person against banning or blocking, and will alway look for the probational way out.

I am going to watch this page more carefully, if anything comes up, it may involve more issues or harsh punishments. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 01:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as has been noted here, I did not violate 3RR. I have never done so, have no plans to do so, and (in apparent contrast to the spirit of some of what has been said above) have never tried to make any case that I should be able to do so. I said that "I'll be happy to back down in terms of reverting," and I hope that you all will take my word for it. If my word is not enough, however, I offer you this evidence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a bit off-topic (although it might seem odd more because it's simply unusual for AN3), but probably appropriate to mention because it can help me to improve as an editor and thus help to improve the project, at least insofar as I am involved with it. I invite anyone who has participated in this thread, including Mr. Harrison, to comment at my editor review. Rather than canvassing for glowing feedback, I often find it useful to hear from those who have interacted with me in difficult circumstances--even circumstances, such as this, that I feel should not have arisen in the manner that they did--in order to help me better to address, and indeed to avoid, such circumstances. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Solino reported by User:Wiki libs (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:20, 22 February 2009


 * 1st revert: 18:27, 23 February 2009
 * 2nd revert: 19:02, 23 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 19:12, 23 February 2009
 * 4th revert: 19:27, 23 February 2009
 * 5th revert: 19:38, 23 February 2009
 * 6th revert: 19:46, 23 February 2009

Comment User:Solino was warned for edit warring after a period a multiple reverts on the same article of the past few weeks. The user ignored the warning. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * —  Aitias  // discussion 00:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result:Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Addendum: a fifth earlier revert-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User keeps adding the claim that legitimate criticism of Israel is confused with Antisemitism, despite a rought consensus at the Talk:Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and repeated warnings that newsletters or blogs (i.e. CounterPunch and a The Brussels Journal) are not a reliable source according to WP:RS. The same editor also before expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "Judeopedia" due to articles such as this (see ). Afroghost (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3rd and 4th revert allegations are illegally constructed. User Afro is carrying out a personal vendetta against me because I made edits that he did not like. If anyone looks at history of the article, one would realize that it was the user who reported against me that started the edit war(from which I had gracefully exited). His mentioning of a comment I had made at a specific context in a talk page again and again wherever I make an edit shows him carrying personal vendetta ZencvLets discuss 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring disaster area. As usual, all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order. Deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume your account has been compromised, because otherwise I cannot explain why you are not following Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring/Administrator instructions. And your claims are ridiculous, several editors, including me tried their best to keep the article in order. Afroghost (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-02-22T23:50:34 Black Kite (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Afroghost (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This block is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The block was for unrelated reasons. Action still must be taken against User:Zencv who violated 3rr and was clearly edit-warring in violation of the rules. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only find 3 reverts by User:Zencv. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The four reverts are listed above. Although the fourth revert has slightly different wording then the first three, it was a revert.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does a rephrasing count as a revert? --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. A revert with slightly different phraseology is a revert.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a tad more than slightly to me. The phrasing removes 'those concerned with anti-semitism' and is expressed in a more neutral fashion. Borderline perhaps, but worth cutting the editor some slack here. Perhaps a warning to be more careful but no more than that. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really  see how it is more neutral. I would also support "cutting some slack" but not when it's really the 5th revert (added above) and when the same editor has been grossly incivil (one example). If an editor's civility behavior is problematic but unsanctionable because it's not that bad, when he clearly breaks the rules, he should  be sanctioned.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fifth revert above is from the 20th and not a violation of 3RR (4 reverts in a 24 hour period). I'm reluctant to block the editor because the last rewording, to me anyway, can be construed as a genuine attempt to reword in a more acceptable way. The civility issue would likely require digging into the relationship between the editors involved so I would ignore that unless its been reported on a more appropriate forum.--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, the fifth was few days earlier, I didn't realize that. But it does go to prove that he is generally an edit-warrior. If he was a long time established editor with a history of productive contributions to Wikipedia, I would be first in line to argue for giving him a break. But this clearcut 3rr violation coupled with his general incivility issues warrants a 24 hour block. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not convinced that the 4th instance above is a pure revert. I'll post a warning on the user page and lets see where they go next. Best to err on the side of not straining the quality of mercy and all that! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. It was a clear 3rr violation and he should be sanctioned. His talk page is full of incivility and inability to interact normally with other editors. Also, I just realized that he was blocked previously for edit-warring. If you feel that a block was unwarranted despite the 3rr violation you should have avoided this thread, instead of encouraging his policy-violative editing. I'm very disappointed. Admins should be furthering the interests of Wikipedia and letting him get away with this behavior is a step back for Wikipedia. With respect,-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think broader civility issues are best discussed elsewhere. On this article, from what I can see, they've been editing for three days with 4 clear reversions and 1 marginal one. One of the four reversions was two days before the other three. I did see the other block but it was almost a year ago and the editor seems to be a prolific contributor to the encyclopedia and I'd rather just assume good faith than do something punitive. I do realize that that you don't say things lightly, and, if the editor is back here anytime soon, ......! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism and User:Jayjg (no vio)
A couple weeks ago I added the self-hating Jew link to the antisemitism template. Another user, Malik Shabazz, reverted me, (diff) and we engaged in a brief discussion on the talk. The first reverter gave consideration to my argument for inclusion and, for the time being, consented. Malik himself undid his revert and restored the link (diff), and there it has been until Jayjg came along not long ago to remove it. Jay's substantial justification in the comment line was terse: "[it has] nothing to do with the topic of antisemitism." (diff)

Call me unwiki or whatever but I generally don't like it when people revert good faith edits (ie. "my edits") without joining the discussion. I'm referring to such tactics as "ninja edits," (ie. 'deadly but pointless' edits: WP:NINJA). I restored my changes (diff not really a revert, see) and stated "that's nice Jayjg, but you forgot to discuss this on the talk page, where there is a section dealing with this addition. Others appear to agree its relevant". Which was true! The talk page section is here if anyone wants to look. Jay reverted again, here, "even if relevant, which it's not, it's not significant enough to go in the template," and I "restored" again here, "That't great, Jayjg. You might be right about the concept, and therefore have an argument against inclusion here. On Wikipedia we have talk pages, and on these pages we talk about the articles. Please join us other three by clicking "discussion" abov[e]."

So, I'm asking Jayjg to put aside his ninja-editing concept, and join us in a discussion about its inclusion. I admit that he may have a point, or I should say instead as with anything, there is legitimate cause to question the concept's sufficient relevance such that would justify the link's inclusion. Whether Jayjg wants to make a valid argument on the talk page that could perhaps persuade others to join his position remains to be seen, and I would like to see him conform to these tedious traditions of we call "discussion" and "consensus." That is my entire purpose for this report, and I plan on using AN3 more often for this purpose of promoting such tedious traditions. -Stevertigo 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jay wasn't edit warring (2 reverts in 2 weeks). This isn't the venue for this accusation.  Grsz 11  19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Agreed. Maybe try a WP:RFC or other venue. --Tom 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ps, oops, looks like there was one?? --Tom 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is, given that I don't want him to accuse me of 3RR, when reverts again without joining the discussion, thinking he owns the place, and that we who differ with him deserve no more than his ninja-esque treatment. There were two reverts each, not counting the reverts and restorations previous. That is edit warring, even if it is just at a low-intensity warfare, and doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet. -Stevertigo 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pursue WP:DR. We can't solve all problems here. There are 4 reverts today, 2 are yours, one is J's, what do you want, to be blocked? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * doesn't quite look like Hiroshima, circa late August 1945, yet, what the heck are you talking about?!? Can we save the nuke references for deserving matters please, --Tom 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been reverted again without explanation. Ive listed it under WP:RFC pol. Thanks for being erm... useful. Apparently this well-monitored page is only for people who "..want.. to be blocked.." (and of course those people endowed with the skills to block them). Eugh. -Stevertigo 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A self-hating Jew is not an antisemite, these are two different things. I fail to see what is gained by adding a link. And many people agree. I see no consensus to add the link, and editors who have spend a long time working on the article have an apparent consensus that the link is inappropriate. Does Jayjg or Malik Shabazz think they own the article? I do not think so. But I recommend to Stevertigo that he be more careful throwing around terms like ningja-editing and good-faith edit. Stevertigo has not made any substantive contribution to the article. He has not done anything to suggest he has researched antisemitism, and he has not participated in consensus-building discussions to improve the article. In anyone is a ninja-editor, he is - he picks an article about which he knows nothing and "whoosh" swoops in with an edit, which everyone else is now supposed to devote time and energy to discussing. Stevertigo is actually an disruptive editor who has done this elsewhere, making unsupported or divisive edits at one article and then moving on to make equally unsupported or otherwise disruptive edits to another. Maybe we should have an RfC, but not on Jayjg! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Atmos User:Enuja User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Stephan Schulz User:William M. Connolley reported by MarkR1717 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * Users:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The above edits followed a previous series of edits of the same content under heading Michael E. Mann


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: If this is reversed I will go to Administrators

Please see discussion

In my view no valid reason has been provided for the non inclusion of the quote from Ms Schakowsky. Another perso from the same Committee has been quoted. viz. This contention is further illustrated by the first sentence of the subcommittee's ranking minority member Bart Stupak's remarks:

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a little bewildering to me why the committee is holding its very first hearing on global warming to referee a dispute over a 1999 hockey stick graph of global temperatures for the past millennium." [43]

I am including several users in this complaint because in my view they are acting in concert.MarkR1717 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: None of these editors appears to be edit warring, and consensus on the talk page appears to be against the reporter. Furthermore, there are only four edits on the article today, and two of those are from the reporter. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * - MarkR1717 is warned for edit warring. Nothing else to do here. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I count 18 edits of exactly the same thing by the above group over a 5 month period. How is that not edit warring?MarkR1717 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48hr block )

 * Page: (and related articles)
 * User:


 * Previous version: 23 February
 * 1) 24 February, 04:30
 * 2) 24 February, 04:52
 * 3) 24 February, 04:56
 * 4) 24 February, 09:40

Warning: Previous blocking case and ARBMAC warning:

Recently returned POV-pushing SPA, used to edit-war about the same issues back in August. Stubbornly reverting against consensus. Could do with a revert limitation under ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Monshuai for 48 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  10:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by SaltyBoatr (talk) (Result: Full prot )
. : Time reported: 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Broken agreement to avoid multiple reverts in long term edit war on

In May of 2008 Yaf negotiated and agreed to a settlement with administrator User:Vassyana to not edit war with multiple reverts in exchange for the lifting of a 3RR block for edit warring of this article.

In the last week, Yaf has engaged in five identical large scale reverts, in violation of his promise:


 * 1) revert of section 04:46 24Feb09
 * 2) revert of section 13:07 23Feb09
 * 3) revert of section 04:10 22Feb09
 * 4) revert of section 03:56 22Feb09
 * 5) revert of section 06:26 17Feb09


 * Diff of Yaf's commitment, negotiated with User:Vassyana, to not edit war with multiple reverts: here


 * Result - Full prot'd talk page for 3 days to allow for mandatory discussion. If edit warring persists after the 3 days please inform me and I will block the involved users. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Blee Blee reported by User:A More Perfect Onion (Result: 48hr block for socking )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The redirect edit war is over redirecting Photo hunt to the general game type of Spot the difference vs. a specific commercial game of that type, Photo Hunt. Note the capitalization difference. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Got a CU run after some suspicious activity on that redirect history. Turns out Blee Blee had a couple of accounts. Blocked them both indef and then blocked BB for 48 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MKil reported by Vintagekits (talk) (Result: no vio )
. : Time reported: 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:46, 22 February 2009  (edit summary: "Once again removed POV insertion sourced by dead link and unreliable fansite")
 * 2) 18:44, 23 February 2009  (edit summary: "Revert insertion of POV-pushing material referenced with unreliable "sources" and replaced, once again, with neutral description")
 * 3) 18:45, 23 February 2009  (edit summary: "Removed outdated material and restored reference")
 * 4) 13:23, 24 February 2009  (edit summary: "See talk")


 * Diff of warning: here

The editor has been warned before about the 3RR and here. He has also been engaged in editing original research in the article and when asked to justify this there response was to state "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." —Vintagekits (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation here. I suggest trying some other means of dispute resolution. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aradic-es reported by User:Yano (Result: balkan sanctions)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marko_Djokovic&oldid=271452193


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Aradic-es has been edit warring on Marko Djokovic and Novak Djokovic following two page moves that he disagrees with. He appears to be using IPs to avoid 3RR, as the edit summaries are the same (representing my own reverts as vandalism). I have presented my opinion on each of the Talk pages and invited him to discuss the matter there, but he continues to add the information, sometimes with obstinate edit summaries. --Yano (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I judge that the anon's are A. However, that doesn't much help: all we have is you and he edit warring together. So Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia comes into play: you're both on WP:1RR on Marko Djokovic and Novak Djokovic and anything else that comes to my notice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make much sense to me. User:Aradic-es is editing against consensus, despite overtures to join the discussion. His edits are an avenue for him to vent his frustrations over the page move, by changing the template to match his desired page title. This seems to be quite against the spirit of adhering to the move request decision to me, and I would ask you to reconsider his actions with that in mind, specifically how they are needlessly and disruptively continuing a closed debate. --Yano (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:143.167.235.164 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP left a personal attack after my first edit. See diff here:. This IP then left the same message over and over on my talk page (see my talk page history here: ) getting quite comative about it. He is also being combative on the talk page with this edit: though I had not called anything he did vandalism. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Talk:New_Horizons If you wanna read what the "edit warring" is about--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and Nuske4Tots haven't replied to my content change, he just gave me Wikipedia links, so enough said--143.167.235.164 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I did respond. Lots of times in fact. See here:, here: , here: , and here: .  I am not, sir, a "dude", and your defense does not include anything relating to your four reverts.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your First response: You gave anarticle extract.
 * Your Second response: You said that speed is relative.
 * Your third response: You gave me Wikipedialinks on reverting.
 * Did I miss something? Oh yes. You haven't replied to the topic. I see now... :)--143.167.235.164 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact remains, you broke the 3rr after you were warned. You chose to edit war rather than discuss. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the fact remains, you chose not to discuss and decided to edit war. So maybe it is you who we should discuss here...--143.167.235.164 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * —  Aitias  // discussion 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:190.25.194.38 reported by User:TeaDrinker (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Additional user:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User switched IPs, but appears based on edits to be the same user. Issue is at the core one of WP:POV, although there are additionally issues of style and clarity. I am an admin, but thought since I was involved it would be best to bring it here. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * —  Aitias  // discussion 02:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

210.49.251.226 reported by Moe Epsilon (Result: Blocked for 3 months)

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

A complex case as this user is revert warring on three articles without actually breaking 3RR.

The first article: Imagine Entertainment:
 * 1st edit
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * Removing different content
 * 1st revert of that
 * 2nd revert of that
 * 3rd revert of that

The second article: WWE Hall of Fame
 * 1st edit
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert

The third article: Little Shop of Horrors (film)
 * 1st edit
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert

He has been revert warring and adding unsourced content all month and his talk page is cluttered with nothing but warnings about it. — Moe   ε  04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, nevermind. — Moe   ε  04:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Methron reported by §hep Talk  (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 273078110 by JonRidinger (talk)")
 * 2) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 273077721 by JonRidinger (talk)errors")
 * 3) 21:47, February 24, 2009
 * 4) 18:51, February 24, 2009
 * 5) 18:49, February 24, 2009


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Comments Suspected sockpupet of Sleepydre has the same editing style and similar edit summaries.

— §hep Talk  02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

uuhhh yeahh but how does this makes me a sockpuppet? im not automatically logged in and when i close out windows sometimes i forget to log back in i didnt know it was a crime. if you would have just asked me if my account was Methron i could had told you... again sorry if crime did and will remember for now on --66.61.87.219 (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about socks for? Relevance? §hep  Talk  03:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

because you started right above me...you know, where you can plainly see something about socks and your name right below it signing it................................--Methron (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-02-25T04:23:56 Ruhrfisch (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Methron (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006 reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

At Rheinwiesenlager, Smith2006 is repeatedly adding to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is roundly debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. Smith has been reverted by more than one editor; I have twice left messages on the article talk page requesting discussion, but been resolutely ignored, rather the editor in question has repeatedly labelled me a Communist, with the latest charming edit summary of "No talks with extremists who want a Slovenian Communist Yugoslavia". I have now lost faith that there will be any discussion at all with this editor. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Manyanswer reported by Majorly (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Manyanswer has been edit warring over this contentious piece of trivia on a BLP over the past 2 days or so. He's been reverted by multiple other users but doesn't seem to be listening.  Majorly  talk  16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly reveals his abuse in his own sentence above. He calls this a piece of trivia in indicting me for warring. I ask Majorly - where are your comments in THE ACTIVE DISCUSSION I STARTED AFTER THE SECOND REVERT? - he makes his judgment on the suitability of the material without commenting in the discussion? Please try to keep up with the proper order of events. If someone other than Majorly could give direction on the appropriate spot for content before the revisions started I would be helpful. I added the material in good faith. Doesn't W:AGF dictate that the content should remain during the ensuing discussion? I have had users undo it with no comment line and no addition to the discussion - should I be blamed for reverting that? Manyanswer (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that I left Manyanswer a 3RR warning at 14:51, 25 February 2009 and s/he reverted yet again at 15:58, 25 February 2009. -- auburn pilot  talk  16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And so far as I can see, WP:AGF doesn't say anything about content remaining during discussion, or have I missed something? dougweller (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, and WP:BURDEN, as well as normal practice, would tend to indicate the opposite.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My information was from two reliable sources that were cited. That was not the reason for others reverting, they objected to the presence in the article... which I started a discussion about.  My point about WP:AGF was that I was showing good faith... I added material and then started discussing it after the second revert.  Others were not showing good faith: not contributing to the disucssion or were reverting it while the discussion wasn't complete. Manyanswer (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't see it at first; if the problem was the multiple reverts please tell me you left warnings for the other users. Manyanswer (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In further defense, I have been entirely compliant with WP:3RR as is pointed out by following the timing of majorly's links above. Therefore his 3RR warning was given when I hadn't violated the rule, and my subesquent revert of his edits was still in compliance.  I invite all parties to comment in the discussion... as I and other users are avoiding edit warring by discussion and not trying to control content by accusations of 3RR and edit warring. Manyanswer (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite technical 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:72.28.159.237 reported by User:Kww (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * Sock:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:56, 25 February 2009
 * 2nd revert: 14:55, 25 February 2009
 * 3rd revert: 23:58, 24 February 2009
 * 4th revert: 13:42, 24 February 2009

Note: Socking as well: see existing sockpuppet report. Note that the sheer quantity of reverts is breathtaking. A look at the IP's edit history shows over 50 reverts on this article alone, with dozens more on other Mariah Carey articles.

Note that the response to the 3RR warning was to switch to a sock.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IP blocked 31 hours (account creation blocked, blocked logged in users too). I'll leave the registered account to the sock report. -- auburn pilot  talk  18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Offliner reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reported by Theserialcomma (Result: it's the trout for you both)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

03:56, 26 February 2009

04:35, 26 February 2009

04:54, 26 February 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Nukes4Tots has been blocked 7 times under various sock accounts for edit warring and NPA. he is currently under checkuser/arbitration investigation for his sockpuppetry []. he is also currently engaged in a gratuitous edit war for no reason that makes no sense. he is edit warring to include a sentence that is not represented by the source, and reverting my attempts to make the sentence adhere to the source. he is also edit warring over grammar, whether a comma should come before and or after and i.e. ", and" vs "and,". he's wrong about the grammar, but he is seeking retribution against me for filing the sockpuppetry report, so he is harassing me by reverting and edit warring my valid edits. he hasn't violated 3rr because i refuse to continue the edit war, but he is violating the spirit of 3RR Theserialcomma (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you've got quite the time machine if you can go in the future and forsee my 4th revert. I also went directly to the talk page and started a discussion amid your incessant cries of foul, edit warring, and other bad faith assumptions.  This is, what, the 6th time you've reported me for something?  I disagreed with you over one thing and I've endured your wikihounding ever since.  I don't think that I've violated any spirit of anything nor any letter of anything.  I'm trying to keep Glock a good article and make some improvements and I get you moving commas to change the meaning of sentences and demanding that sources be quoted word-for-word.  I feel these are good items to challenge.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, don't mean to be nit-picky here because being nit-picky is counterproductive. But, having said that, looking at the edit comments, these are not reversions of the same content.  I might be wrong, but I believe I only reverted the same thing twice, after starting the discussion on the talk page that Theserialcomma stated he would not engage in, preferring to report me.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * you made 3 reverts of your 'and,' grammatical error. i explained on the talk page, with 2 grammar sources showing why it's wrong, but you won't listen. and you claiming that correcting and, to become , and somehow changes the meaning of the sentence is absolutely ridiculous. the semantics absolutely stayed the same. you've been blocked 7 times for this already under your accounts, and probably barely escaped countless other blocks due to leniency from admins. stop edit warring to include poor grammar just because i am the one who fixed it, and stop edit warring to include claims that are not backed by the sources. that is all. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it's just the two of you editing, I deduce that if there is edit warring on one side there must be on the other. Also, edit warring over where you put a comma is WP:LAME. My inclination would be that the comma should go back to where ever it first was, failing some intervention by the appropriate wiki grammar police, whoever they may be. Further edit warring will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * while it does seem super lame to edit war over a comma, there is no reason for any article in a respectable encyclopedia (wikipedia!) purposely to have incorrect grammar/punctuation. it is even lamer than the edit war if we keep incorrect grammar in an article just because it was already there. sure, you could say that if it were a big deal, then someone else would step in and fix it. but that's not the point. encyclopedias should not have purposeful grammatical errors, especially when specific attempts have been made to fix them. i won't edit war, however. the current version has correct usage of the conjunction and the comma. if anyone reverts to the erroneous version, i'll just seek an outside opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've since reported this "incident" again to Reference desk/Language where they told you that, far from being a "gramatical error" as you state, this is an alternative way of using a comma and its use was supported well enough by me. No reason to edit war, in my opinion.  Further, you've gone about nit-picking nearly every comma in the article including removing a serial comma.  I reverted that edit as well.  There is something to be said for making sure that commas are used properly, but that is not the case here. Each time you report me and don't get the results you desired, you regroup and re-report me to some other place for the same thing or you scrutinize my edits and then report me for something else.  If those don't work, you bait and badger till you get your desired result. Honestly, this does not seem very productive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You two couldn't be trying harder to get yourselves blocked, could you?--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:72.152.78.91 reported by User:Wikipedius Reparo (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Appears to be a sockpuppet of other IP users 94.192.38.247 and 76.67.185.74, also edit-warring on that page. Previously reported to WP:AIV for adding racist and inappropriate sidebars to multiple articles. Appears to now be moving to Antun Saadeh to begin edit warring there. Previously warned for vandalizing that article: see User_talk:72.152.78.91.


 * 2009-02-26T19:21:06 Kralizec! (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 72.152.78.91 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)  William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On a second look, this looks a bit more dubious. I've indef'd W as a sock of User:Histopher Critchens and blocked HC for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Magnius (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 2009-02-26T22:02:34 Tanthalas39 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Ada Kataki (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment), presumably for . Seems a touch on the harsh side, perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Roberth Edberg reported by Sloane (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Sloane (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h each William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean reported by User:Ism schism (Result: Voluntary article ban suggested )

 * Page: Ramakrishna
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Goethean has made multiple reverts on the Ramakrishna page to try to force NPOV/Disputed tags onto the top of the article, against a clear consensus among editors. Please see Talk:Ramakrishna for the comments of other editors on this subject. There has been clear consensus established on this, aside from Goethean's continued tagging. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I've asked him to take a temporary article ban (1 week). If he agrees then that'll give time for other editors to work through the problems that the article faces and give him a time out from apparent ownership troubles. Please inform me of any more reverts personally and then I will block (whomever). Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If he agrees then that'll give time for other editors to work through the problems that the article faces and give him a time out from apparent ownership troubles.
 * Oh, with me out of the way, there won't be any troubles to work through! The NPOV tag will be removed from the article, the article will reflect the fantasies of a religious cult, and everybody will be happy! Of course, the readers of the article will be deprived of any academic material, but who really gives a shit about them? Let's focus on civility rather than neutrality. Right? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I wrote, sir. I've written a very large paragraph of advice on your talk page... I'm gonna assume that some of it is at least helpful. Just chill out, friend. Scarian Call me Pat!  21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, you're just following orders. Got it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the incidents related to Goethean that have been posted and discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I advise that the suggested Result be revisited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest Goethean receive a non-voluntary article ban for a period of time - due to the above 5 reverts listed above, and the comments from multiple editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where there is cited evidence of personal attacks and demonstratons of incivility from Goethean. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

82.109.203.178 reported by richj1209 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Richj1209 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Vandalism not 3RR, blocked anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:84.68.75.165, User:84.68.239.131, User:84.67.32.3 reported by User:Cigarettizer (Result: Revert )

 * Page:
 * User:, ,


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2:_The_Great_Escape&oldid=268127553


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=269565391&oldid=268956401
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=271928474&oldid=269657816
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rayman_2%3A_The_Great_Escape&diff=273268715&oldid=272956035


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.68.75.165&oldid=273646923

Some time ago, the Rayman 2 article was updated by several people, of which I was one (under my old account ) to a version which is partly sourced and written according to wikipedia guidelines on video game articles. Since then, every now and then an anonymous (IP) account reverts it to an old version which is remarkably less of what a good wikipedia article should be like (sources and relevant information are removed, needlessly detailed sections on the individual game levels are added). I have tried to tell one of the IP addresses on its talk page that this is not the way to act and have also placed a new section on the article's talk page, but to no avail. Cigarettizer (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to give a 3RR block to a dynamic IP. Do you mind just reverting it from time to time? There only seems to be one edit every 3 or 4 days, so semi-protection would be overkill. Give me an update if he doesn't stop. Thanks, yandman  16:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maziotis reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 72h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version: 25 February, 18:06
 * Reverts:
 * 1) 26 February, 14:30
 * 2) 27 February, 11:44
 * 3) 27 February, 12:18
 * 4) 27 February, 14:41


 * No warning, user was previously blocked for 3RR on the same article and a very similar issue (reinserting of disputed anarchist-POV sources) in December

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 days. yandman  16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong, Magkantog reported by Sigma 7 (Result:24h )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]

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

Edits by Magkantog
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273730552
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273688329
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=273735954


 * Diff of 3RR warning: N/A, see talk of article page.

Based on the edit history, there seems to be a dispute over the inclusion of some content. There appear to be multiple editors involved, none of which have made substantial edits outside of that article. The talk page for said article also seems to have an "impressive" conversation which suddenly started on Feburary 19, 2009. Also, I believe sock puppets are probably involved given the pattern of edits. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Suspected_sock_puppets/Magkantog. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Lhakthong: —  Aitias   // discussion 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesusmariajalisco reported by José Gnudista (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * User keeps reverting List of space agencies without providing arguments. - José Gnudista (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * —  Aitias  // discussion 02:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded reported by José Gnudista (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps ignoring arguments and keeps adding on sources that do not prove his/her point. - José Gnudista (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * —  Aitias  // discussion 02:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mrboss x reported by Stephenjh (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Stephenjh (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any special reason (other than the "this user name is bound to end up blocked" username) why I should block him rather than you? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind you, not all agreed: 2009-02-28T03:36:09 Jclemens (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mrboss x (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Harry the Dirty Dog reported by Are you ready for IPv6? (Result: warnings all round)
Guy vandalizes talk pages by blanking legit comments and then trolls by falsely calling them vandalizing and gives generic template warnings against the rules Has done it to me and others. He has a history of bullying other users. User does not respond to communication and just continues. I have left several warnings, specific to him and he just erases them without responding. The user repeatedly reverts this. Is there anything wrong with this edit I made? I can see nothing with it. He also continues to revert any talk page communication I leave him and then sends me generic template warnings.

Here is where he violates 3RR on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
 * Revert 1 - 11:30, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 2 - 14:24, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 3 - 14:40, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 4 - 14:49, 28 February 2009

Here is where he violates 3RR on User talk:Harry the Dirty Dog
 * Revert 1 - 14:27, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 2 - 14:35, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 3 - 14:43, 28 February 2009
 * Revert 4 - 14:52, 28 February 2009

Hopefully I did this report correctly. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you ready for IPv6? consistently added nonsense to Talk:Fritzl_case and readded trolling comments removed from Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. He was warned, but instead of heeding the warning continued to add the nonsense and made bogus warnings of his own. This is hardly a case of edit warring! It is a user who fails to understand why he has been warned and why his bogus warnings have been removed from my TP. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ps I did not "repeatedly reverts this ." The edit I reverted was different, referring to "Australia". All such edits are reverted as a matter of course as vandalism on this article. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann -- you bullied an IP editor by blanking their comments repeatedly.  Talk:Fritzl_case this is what he kept reverting.  I tried real communication on your talk page and you blanked it all.  You spammed generic vandalism warnings for things that were not vandalism on my talk page instead of communication.  You have been trolling, vandalizing, and bullying other editors for a very long time.  And instead of communication, you violate 3RR.  If I or anyone else had kept reverting you, you would be guaranteed to keep reverting them over and over until someone blocked you.  Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of you: Stop edit warring right now and talk to each other. Throwing generic vandalism-templates and edit-summaries around isn't going to resolve a dispute, neither are accusations of vandalism and trolling. It took me a while to figure out that this seems to be about User:Are you ready for IPv6? using "Australia" instead of "Austria" on Talk:Fritzl case. Whether that was intentional or not, I can't tell, but a polite discussion would've cleared this up before either of you reverted each other three times on that page. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Conti but I wasn't edit warring. I was removing vandalism and trolling. The Fritzl article gets vandalised regularly by people inserting Australia for Austria, as Are you ready for IPv6? did repeatedly. So we revert and warn. That is the practice I did inform Are you ready for IPv6? of my reason for the reversion and that's when he changed it to Austria, the version that is now there. But I am sorry, removing what is on the face of it vandalism and trolling, especially on a BLP is not edit warring, nor does the 3RR rule come into play. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You reverted Are you ready for IPv6? 3 times   and left 3 generic vandalism warnings on his talk page    before you bothered to tell him in your fourth warning why you were reverting him in the first place. Don't you think that this all could have been prevented if you would have first told him what was wrong with the edit, and then left warnings on his talk page if the behaviour would've continued? --Conti|✉ 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It appeared to be generic vandalism and trolling. He could also have asked instead of leaving aggressive messages on my TP. That sort of thing is not conducive to making me want to communicate beyond generic warnings.. The fact that he was less than honest in this report (claiming the whole time that his last edit was the one he was making all along) tells me a lot about how this user "communicates". Harry the Dog WOOF  15:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he could (and should!) have asked instead of leaving counter-warnings, just like you could and should have told him what was wrong with the edits in the first place. All this could have been prevented if both of you were a bit nicer to each other in the first place. :) Don't template the regulars exists for a reason. --Conti|✉ 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that when someone is aggressive, the best thing to do is stick to the minimum possible communication. In any event the matter is resolved and I will bear all this in minds if I cross paths with this user again. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely disinterested sidewalk observer here but the use of the terminology "identified as vandalism" that is bandied about with fair abandon (excuse the mixed metaphors and inadvertent slip) can be seen as a contributing factor. The labelling of an established editor/contributor or the use of "templating" is not the best method of dealing with people. This has once occurred to me and I know that I was offended (harumph, how dare you...) and there are some position papers extant on Wiki project pages that admonish established users to not treat the regulars with these tactics. All that being said, the edit history of all concerned may lead to simply the caution, to "back slowly to the door" and let this issue die as it reeks of "beating the dead horse". FWiW (... not much in today's environment) Bzuk (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Just to stick my (possibly unwanted) equally disinterested comment in; the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article has been a magnet for vandals since its inception, and Harry has performed sterling service in keeping it intact. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthony.bradbury, I cannot find anything wrong with the stuff Harry the Dirty Dog has been reverting in Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If there is a reason, it's some obscure one.

also...

Reverting continues in Talk:Fritzl case:
 * revert 1 - 11:32, 28 February 2009
 * revert 2 - 14:22, 28 February 2009
 * revert 3 - 14:35, 28 February 2009
 * revert 4 - 15:55, 28 February 2009
 * revert 5 - 16:03, 28 February 2009
 * revert 6 - 16:17, 28 February 2009

I have not edited the page further. Harry the Dirty Dog did three more reverts to other people. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, it's not what's done, it's how it is done. What we have here is a failure to communicate, Strother Martin as the Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I agree, but User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s initial and subsequent communications on my TP were aggressive and confrontational. I reacted as I did because the Fritzl article is a magnet for vandals and "Australia" for "Austria" is a typical one. I initially left a very low-level warning, assuming it was an honest mistake. User talk:Are you ready for IPv6?'s subsequent actions made me question that which is why I escalated the warnings. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, just donning my referee's jersey (I was one once, now that's a thankless job!), I certainly was not inferring anything to anybody as I am a true spectator here, I merely conjectured that the original comments in edit histories may have been a bit un-judicious on both parties' parts. However, your explanation is more than sufficient in that editorial changes were required and again, the proviso, still remains, somewhere on this page, rather frankly stating: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Now I think everyone has expended enough energy on this topic. Can we agree to move on... (there's nothing here, using the Jedi mind-trick). FWIW (tell me if the Jedi mind-trick still works) Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Parallel discussion opened here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this all on the same page, I think we are close to done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Well, what I was going to say at AN/I, in response to this, but before an edit conflict with this direction to return to AN3, is the following: You might not need consensus for removing violations, but it can sure come in handy when determining whether such violations exist in the first place. You have not demonstrated how "sourced speculation" is a blatant violation of BLP. Feeling somewhat charitable, I decided to play devil's advocate, and pointed out that the comments arguably run counter to BLP's caution against sensationalism. But that is a matter of opinion, and the appropriate way to express opinion in a community-based project is to state it, not to remove the entire forum on which it can be stated. Speaking of sensationalism, though, the media has turned Fritzl into a well-known figure, who therefore arguably falls under WP:WELLKNOWN, which is a section of BLP that states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There might be debate as to whether the sources I provided are reliable, but the appropriate way to debate is, well, to debate--not to remove the entire forum on which this can be done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...not to remove the entire forum on which this can be done." I didn't. The section remains with the contentious edit removed, and the discussion was continuing. That is the appropriate place to continue it. Harry the Dog WOOF  18:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the contentious issues is in removing talk page commentary which is rarely done. Is there a way that constructive discourse can still take place in regards to determining violations of the WP:BLP provisions? What I see are two (three) very experienced editors who have made substantive contributions but all want to be treated with respect and deference. Can we all agree that no one is a vandal and the issues revolve around differences of opinion re: interpretations of community standards of verifiability. FWiW The don't bite the regulars should be a rule as strictly adhered to as don't feed off the newbies. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Talk page commentary that violates BLP is subject to removal. A good example is repeated attempts to post slanderous stuff about Barack Obama on his talk page. Its being sourced to some tabloid or other dubious source is irrelevant. The editor could point to the article without restating it within wikipedia. Removal was appropriate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree but was it not germane to bring up the topic in an effort to see if it was suitable for inclusion in the main article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
 * It could be. And once it was apparent it was a BLP violation, that would be the end of it. But even at that, he could simply say, "What about this?" and link over to the tabloid article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, yet again. First off, IMO there is far too much trash on wiki talk pages; alas the system is heavily weighted in favour of leaving stuff in just in case. Since removing trash is so uncommon, people (wrongly) assume that talk pages are sacrosanct. So, HTDD is commeneded for removing stuff that clearly should be removed is the Fritzl case, and CL reproved for re-adding it. As for 3RR on HTDD's talk page; it is well established that (a) you have effective immunity from 3RR on your own talk page and (b) you should not re-add warnings that have been removed. AyrfI is cuationned re that latter point and advised to look up the former. As for the MM, I'm still looking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, as for MM, I tkae it this is the text concerned. In that case, it's hard to tell from the outside whether it should stay or go, which means (sorry) that dumb inertia means you'll have to live with it staying. Removing it once, or even twice, is not unreasonable; edit warring over it's removal (or re-insertion, hence the warnings all round) is not tolerable. If any of the editors who have touched that bit of text remove it or replace it in the near future I'll block them (if someone else doesn't get there first). while I'm here, please tone down the edit comments. Again all round, but that particular one earns AyrfI a caution re civility; even if you believe that to be true the place to raise such issues is not in an edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:LifeStroke420 reported by User:GaryColemanFan (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: 6th revert: GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note that this using has a history of edit warring and a previous block for violating 3rr. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing invalid sources isnt vandalism.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why are you removing a Slam! source as well? I agree that 411 is disputable, but you are removing a very reliable one as well. --  Scorpion 0422  20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For something like a Reception section, 411mania is fine for giving reviewer's thoughts. The article passed a GA review, and the source wasn't a problem. The issue at hand is edit warring, though, and 7 reverts in an hour and a half certainly qualifies for a block . GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

411mania isnt a valid source slam is ive fixed MY mistake.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-02-28T21:35:22 J.delanoy (Talk | contribs | block) blocked LifeStroke420 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: on WrestleMania XI) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim4048 reported by Amethystus (Result: 3h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * No proper warning (put them on the users talk page, not buried in an edit comment), and a noob, but I doubt anything but a block will help, so given 3h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:77.42.179.51 reported by User:Phil153 (Result:both editors blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There's a good chance that  (reverts: ), who signed up today, is the same user logged out. Same page, same kind of edit summaries. The editing pattern went 4x IP, 2x Quisi, 1xIP.

Phil153 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Squash Racket reported by Carpaticus (Result: unclear)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Squash Racket is always looking to cover up his reverts by "adding text/adding facts, reference" commentaries. Moreover he inserted some other text that unreasonably stuffed up the article, but I did not consider them as reverts. Carpaticus (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In short: User:Carpaticus made 4 real reverts, I made 2. The above mentioned diffs are NOT reverts. (Example: in Carpaticus' mind that would be a "revert", see the diffs above.) Thank you.
 * REAL reverts made by User:Carpaticus:
 * 1st real revert:
 * 2nd real revert:
 * 3rd real revert:here he calls his clear revert "not a revert" in his edit summary
 * 4th real revert:
 * No need to warn the user, he knows the rules very well, he sent me two(!) 3RR warnings after my single revert there. BTW he inserts material that is a weak, scant duplication of Origin of the Romanians and is irritated when I add referenced info to balance his edits. I'm waiting for an explanation on the talk page of the article why we should repeat the lengthy debate in Origin of the Romanians article in this article in a biased and incomplete way.
 * He also tends to misrepresent what sources say to support his POV, see page history of the article Gesta Hungarorum where I had to add what the cited references actually say. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the POV pushing by Carpaticus is well understood from this edit summary "studies sustain the Daco-Roman continuity". Seems the user is obsessed by trying to "prove" this theory and tries to shoehorn this material into random unrelated articles like in this case a summary style article that covers Hungary in a period where it's form of government was monarchy a pretty long period with a lot of events that need to be summarised. There is no reason to replay the same dispute on theories in unrelated articles. The two theories are migration from the south in the 13th century and the other this daco-roman theory. It does not help that the article that discusses these Origin of the Romanians are currently listed as "needs to be rewritten" "factually disputed" and some other problems. It seems that in light of this the content, Carpaticus tried to insert was inappropriate for the article and hence disruptive. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 6th revert made by User:Squash Racket in less than 24h:


 * What should I say when I see such a fanatic user? My first edit was a brief phrase about the situation of Transylvania in the Middle Ages (see link: ). Thereafter Squash Racket was reverting and inserting new text between the lines again and again in order to change the initial sense of the quoted text. From a simple phrase, after he/she "balanced" my edits, the initial phrase has become just huge, please see the following link: All my edits were to diminish, as much as Wikipedia rules allow, the effect of User:Squash Racket's reverts. Seems like it was in vain, since this user has been continuously reverting...
 * Carpaticus (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Carpaticus, enough with the lying now. I made exactly 2 reverts (the one you showed above is the second one), Carpaticus made 4 reverts in less than 5 hours. Please check the already provided diffs. Meanwhile another user removed the ethnic stuff inserted by Carpaticus as irrelevant to the article. I fully agree, the debate is presented in full length at the article Origin of the Romanians (yes that article needs cleanup, more sources etc. but there's no reason to spread the whole debate into other articles in a scant form). Squash Racket (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Squash Racket, please calm down, your inadequate tone and words are supporting what I said before: you are a fanatic user that should not be a part of Wikipedia. Arrogance and intimidation should not be allowed here. I really want this conflict to stop, therefore I will let the admins to do their job.
 * Carpaticus (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly calm (BTW you are being arrogant bolding a personal attack, I just pointed out you're not telling the truth about the reverts). Based on the comment of User:Hobartimus admins can decide who is fanatic here and who is not. Yes, let the admins do their job instead of misleading them. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some help for admins to decide who is a fanatic. (Removing Hungarian related materials from articles, POV pushing), ,,,,,,,,,,Baxter9 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now is quite clear that here is a clique of a few Hungarian users who are using Wikipedia to promote in a chauvinistic manner Hungarian POV regarding history. The group of 4:User:Squash Racket, User:Baxter9, User:MagyarTürk, User:Hobartimus are supporting each other and they accept only references that support Hungarian POV, the other materials being characterized as: irrelevant, of low quality, Romanian POV though they are |United States of America scholars or | US Gov materials However, User:Hobartimus characterized them as "daco-romanian POV pushing that's irrelevant to this article" (see link: ). If we look to the history of some other pages (Treaty of Trianon, Origin of Romanians, Gesta Hungarorum, Transylvania, Michael the Brave) there are many similar examples. Carpaticus (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, Carpaticus also tends to misrepresent what sources say to support his POV, see page history of the article Gesta Hungarorum where I had to add what the cited references actually say. User:Carpaticus seems to be bothered by the Princeton University Press and the Harvard University Press books I added at Treaty of Trianon to clarify the caption of a map and by the ABC-CLIO reference I added at Origin of the Romanians. (I don't see much other activity going on at these articles recently.) The above mentioned "States of America scholar" Barbara Jelavich, an honorary member of the Romanian Academy only told one side of the story. Even she was referring to "contemporary Romanian historiography" when she talked about the controversial Daco-Roman theory. All the pro and contra arguments are mentioned in the article Origin of the Romanians. You won't repeat a biased version of that article in Kingdom of Hungary. User:Carpaticus used the "US Gov materials" to support what Jelavich said in a misleading way. No comment. User:MagyarTürk made one edit this week, he isn't much around. This noticeboard is about Carpaticus making 4 reverts in less than 5 hours and lying about the number of reverts of another editor in his "report". Making further false accusations won't change the purpose of this noticeboard. Squash Racket (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is who lying here? The edits you referred to were done always after yours, so if, in your opinion, my four edits are "reverts" then judgmentally, your six edits are reverts, too. Carpaticus (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Carpaticus is lying here again. These are reverts:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:here he calls his clear revert "not a revert" in his edit summary
 * 4th revert:
 * The ones you presented above with the exception of two are NOT. Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor. I added new material, didn't delete/change your edits even if I disagreed with them. So simple and easy to check who broke 3RR and who didn't even get close to it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see 4R in the original report. The last two are clear enough, the rest are murky. You'll have to make your case better. Better still, of course, would be for both sides to discuss the matter and perhaps find some common ground - I'm not really sure what you are arguing about William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rotational reported by Rkitko (Result: no vio)

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

There are multiple articles involved here, so I urge you to check the history for the ones listed above, but I will lay out the diffs of only one, Barnard 68.


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

This user has, for quite a long time, protected his articles against what he views as vandalism, which is mostly other editors trying to bring his articles in compliance with WP:MOS, specifically MOS:HEAD and MOS:IMAGES. Rotational's personal aesthetic seems to not agree with Wikipedia's manual of style. Instead of altering his user style sheet as I suggested to him recently, he edit wars the manual of style changes away. Older conversations that may help inform this report: I realize this is not an explicit violation of WP:3RR because there are not four or more reverts on a single article within a 24-hour period, but the pattern of long-time edit warring is problematic. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:SilkTork/Rkitko - Rotational Discussion (an attempt at dispute resolution)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486
 * Village pump (policy)
 * (an older example of edit warring)


 * Hmm, it's hard to see this as a vio. Tempers seem to be getting a bit frayed on both sides, e.g. isn't exactly helpful. Come back if it gets worse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How much worse is "worse"? I agree the tempers displayed by both sides don't help (and I'm not entirely innocent in that regard), but this is a pattern of editing that has gone on for more than a year. He's been very careful to not violate the 3RR, but what's worse - consistent and prolonged edit warring over styles that could easily be set through his user style sheet or a one time violation of the 3RR? I appreciate the civility warning, though. --Rkitko (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably need WP:DR. If it's been going on for more than a year, perhaps a RFC would be a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Already tried several dispute resolution methods (see link above to discussion with User:SilkTork as mediator). I haven't checked in with RfC in a while, has it gotten better? Past experiences with that process have required a lot of work with very little input and little to no resolution or participation from editors outside those involved. It's such a silly little thing that could easily be fixed by a user style sheet. I'm still baffled why Rotational doesn't take advantage of the style sheet so that he sees all of Wikipedia the way he prefers. --Rkitko (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... Yesterday, User:TheFarix went through Rotational's edits and fixed MOS edits back to February 16, as noted here: Village pump (policy). Rotational's only edits so far today were to revert back to his previous versions. User:Jenuk1985 then reverted Rotational's edits. Is that worse enough? This clearly isn't a BRD cycle, this is an edit war of one person against many and the MOS on several issues (headings, infoboxes, image placement...). --Rkitko (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

K;;m5m k;;m5m reported by Warren (Result:12 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&oldid=273818401


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273818688
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273820235
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273821005
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=273825351
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kernel_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=274009654


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K;;m5m_k;;m5m&diff=273828118&oldid=273826763

This user received a 3RR warning and was subsequently blocked for 12 hours after the 4th revert. 5 hours & 20 minutes after block expired, the user carried on with the 5th revert, their explanation being something to the effect of, "Wikipedia is useless, the Internet is useless, you are an asshole, the article is a piece of shit." A more lengthy second block is probably necessary to avoid further disruption from this user.  Warren -talk- 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User had already been given 12 hours by User:Chillum, after all but one of those reverts but before this report. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maz112 reported by GoldCoaster (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of second 3RR warning:

User: Maz112 has been engaging in edit warring since his account was created in November 2008 on both the Marilyn and Despite Straight Lines article pages. The user often reverts information, continually adds his own unofficial fansite as the artist's URL, adds details that are factually inaccurate or irrelevant to the article, and generally has little comprehension of (or respect for) Wikipedia policies (particularly WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:EL). The user has been warned on several occassions about his/her edits in the past couple of months by various users, and also by myself over the past two days, but has persisted in edit warring. The above list of edits is from the last 24 hours only, but if you look into the history of the article pages mentioned, you will see far more. The user's fan site is of particular contention. As an unofficial fan site, it is inappropriate linkage. Until today, the fansite (which is based in Germany) actually identified itself as a fansite. However, after receiving a warning about why the site cannot be linked to, the user has just amended the site to remove all mention of it being a fan site and is now claiming it to be official so that he/she can link to it from Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence that the site is official or even officially endorsed, and given the user's apparent behaviour, it seems extremely doubtful that it is. Obviously, there is also a COI issue as he/she is promoting their own personal website. There are further details of the problems on the article talk page. GoldCoaster (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

The user has just carried out yet another revert, which I have listed as 7th revert above. GoldCoaster (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

— there are WP:SPAM and WP:CoI concerns here too. One of the things Maz112 is trying to enforce on the page is a link to a site which he maintains and claims is "official". Not quite convinced User:Maz112 has grasped our policies on such things, nor even if he understands what the 3 revert rule is. I'm gonna leave this to someone more experienced and versed on band matters though.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h - and warned re COI William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Darvit Chandhurai reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Edit warring including inflammatory edit summaries and attacks on other editors. O Fenian (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No actual violation of the 3 revert rule. Edit warring to replace a photograph with one "less good looking" is very far from compliance with the spirit of wikipedia's biography policies, however, and the user's recent history consists of little but unproductive edit-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

for disruptive warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Version reverted to is [13:35, 27 February 2009, reverts are at 13:37, 28 February 2009, 18:05, 28 February 2009, 23:50, 28 February 2009 and 13:57, 1 March 2009. Four reverts in 24 hours and 22 minutes would generally be seen as a violation. O Fenian (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * O Fenian, you have three reverts for the day yourself, two of which came after listing this report. This is skating on thin ice. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry that I chose to correct an error with my third edit that an editor introduced without checking the edit history or the talk page, I won't bother doing it again lest some heavy handed admin threatens me with blocking. O Fenian (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I saw that revert of Snowded like that. But it looks bad if you report someone, then while clarifying that it's for edit-warring rather than 3RR, you revert them again. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was that editor - apologies I assumed that 51 was meant to be 15 reading the entry as DoB. O Fenian did the right thing and its not 3RR  --Snowded (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 reported by Offliner (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Muscovite99 has also been blocked earlier for edit warring on the same article. Offliner (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the last edit is obviously the opposite of the prior ones (all of them simply removed literal duplication). But the real question (in terms of Wikipedia's benefit) as regards this article (Putinism) is: Are we creating an encyclopedic article which is essentially on the subject as designated, and written in a basically grammatical English; or are we playing silly kids' games? The latter i clearly discern in the latest actions of both Offliner and Ellol: it is quite obvious that they have conspired to lay a trap for me as a kind of thankyou for my proofreading and correcting their grammar mistakes and duplications for the past couple of days. I also see their malevalent intent to essentialy destroy the article by dumping utterly irrelevant and meaningless fluuf into it: What do rising wages have with the nature of the political regime in question? Yes, they were rising; since last autumn they are dropping like a stone (and Putin is head of the RF government): does this chane the essence of the subject. I am not trying to discuss the content; i am simly saying that these two editors, to my mind, have a destructive way of editing this particular article. Therefore, i should hereby request sanctions against both of them.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In fairness some of the reverts did contain sound English corrections, but it's like this editor has accepted that being blocked is a permanent nuisance in his life as an editor of Putinism, as the businessman accepts taxes or something. Editor needs to change fairly soon or an indef is probably on its way; perhaps he'll take the two weeks to think about it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Baxter9 reported by Yopie (Result: 24 hours for both)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * And, of course, he well knows this rule, because he warned me :-)

--Yopie 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First link is not a revert, just an edit of mine! (I changed my edit later). Here are the reverts of user:Yopie:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: Baxter9 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no WP:3RR violation on either side, but reviewing background. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Baxter9's offense was the lesser, but has recently been blocked for similar activity. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

129.234.217.155 reported by Rwiggum (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rwiggum, why are you expecting your own violation of the 3 revert rule to be treated more leniently?Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Namely because I never violated the rule. I reverted his edits three times today, but stopped after that. The one edit I made since was not a revert, as I simply removed a few unneeded and extraneous references. The content that he added remained. Although I am curious as to why you thought I violated the rule. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is actually a partial revert too.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that? (I'm not asking that to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious, btw.) I didn't actually remove any of the disputed content. More than that, there wasn't a dispute over what I removed. I just thought that having five or six references in the row was overkill, (not to mention it looked bad) when one reference could do the same job. Even then, most of the references were from smaller sites that wouldn't normally be considered valid references anyway. Thanks for your input. Rwiggum  (Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because of the definition of revert, per WP:3RR, is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. I agree though that your 4th revert wasn't hardcore edit warring, but I encourage you in future to revert less and talk more. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded reported by José Gnudista (Result: no vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Disruptive user disregarded 3RR warning as "nonsense" while constantly ignoring a RFC in the talk page, refusing to explain how an article at a fansite and a poorly-written article in a newspaper support his claims of automatic creation of a space agency (despite the massive amount to evidence on the contrary). - José Gnudista (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They are spread out over a period of time longer than 24 hours. There is however drawn out warring over the past few days, and so I've protected the article for 3 days to allow discussion to take place in a cooler environment. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wetman reported by Phalanxpursos (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=273965834&diff=273965834 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_(mythology)&oldid=274132152
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=274028421&diff=274028421
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tethys_%28mythology%29&oldid=274160688&diff=274160688
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wetman#Reply_to_83d40m_talk_page_about_Tethys
 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83d40m#Tethys_.28mythology.29

I am lawmaker of very high standards, with unfortunately a very bad temper. I am also very unpatiened due to circumstances, the situation about Wetman is that he appears to be a button clicker. He doesn't edit pages to his liking, but deletes every single content I provided. So eventhough Tethys is very dear to me, does Wetman give me the treatment that I am not welcome on the Tethys page. I contributed to the page, Wetman doesn't really improve the page but only decides to delete what I improved. Incase you people are confusing Wetman with Okeanos, then must I disappoint you. Because I guarantee you that Wetman is not the same person as Okeanos, as a matter of fact with all the Roman history I have studied am I greatly disappointed about the Romanology of Ouranos & Okeanos. I believe in Roman Gods, but I refuse to accept Oceanus & Uranus. Eventhough I believe in Roman Gods, I calculate Ouranos & Okeanos as deities needed for sea travel. Long story; I am a very angry person, I need to be soothed. When this doesn't happen, great trouble could occur. I had a dream of Tethys in a visionary pelgrimage of Western Europe, in where I learned she is infact the mistress of rain. Have been initiated into the mysteries of Civilization by dreams from the Pleiades & Hyades, I am a person with a very bad temper. Actually do people need to be protected from me when I get angry, have written morally-correct legislation which contribute to the wellbeing of Human Dignity and the Commonwealth. I really suggest you people should read my morally correct legislation, because I don't want any credit for my work that's why I actually should post all my writings at wikipedia as opensource because I don't want credit for my work just that people learn from me. The truth is that I have such a bad temper, that I don't belong in public places such as wikipedia. Phalanxpursos (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As an additional suggestion from me, you might wanna consider depriving Talk:Tethys (mythology) of her virginity before coming here again. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I am equally unpatiened and notoriously intolerant of marginal literacy, I am too smart to run afoul of the 3 revert rule, even were I intentionally incited to do so by reverting of my edits, which are up to my usual standard in this case. A benchmark of minimal competence in a Wikipedia editor is the understanding that quoted text is never "fudged" to align it with our own preferences. And minimal competence in added disinfoboxes requires that existing formatting not be left in disarray for more careful editors to repair. The rest is full of sound and fury: I do not address it. A sample of this editor's manners and more than slightly daffy personal fantasies can currently be seen at User_talk:83d40m: I quote:


 * People I work for the genuine Intergalactic Federation and have been assigned to represent Tethys, so you are now appointed as the personal bodyguards of the Tethys page the way I have updated it. Or face dire consequences, because Tethys is also mistress of Warfare and the Thunderbolt. Please don't worship me, worship a system when it is good for the people. The way I represented Tethys, is indeed the Goddess of chief Rivers.


 * Surely nothing further will be needed from me. Closer adult supervision of Tethys (mythology) is badly needed. Almost anyone will have a kinder touch with the delusional than I. I am removing the page from my Watchlist for a few weeks, as my reserves of diplomacy and tact are in perennial short supply, and I must save them for important occasions. --Wetman (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to take this account so seriously as this. I have warned the user that if he continues to disrupt wikipedia I'll indef him. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be like taking a frying pan to a mosquito. Perhaps there are authentically useful edits at Phalanxpursos' User contributions. I don't see any myself, but— eh!— I may be missing something?--Wetman (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you not catch the bits where he claims to be working for an "Intergalactic Federation" and to be "lawmaker of very high standards"? Or how he's going to zap wikipedia back to 100 BC? All that's well and good, but when such throw-away accounts start launching non-serious 3RR reports that's where admins start considering indefs. Not worth the time. If I've missed something here then feel free to tell me. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will stick with the article for a while. Seems to be looking for a sparing partner, I will not and have told the editor that I will delete further gibberish posted on my talk page. I think the ip address is among records on my talk page, do I come back here if it becomes to tedious?  83d40m (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx reported by QuackGuru (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * Reverted to an older version


 * 2nd revert:
 * Reverted to an older version


 * 3rd revert:
 * Reverted to an older version


 * 4th revert:
 * Reverted to an older version


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Rvcx has clearly made four reverts which is a violation of 3RR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This notice seems to be a response to my incident report about QuackGuru's edits, which I and other editors consider to be blatant vandalism. Rvcx (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It took me about 15 minutes to write this up. There is no evidence this was in response to your allegations of vandalism. According to Rvcx reverting any edit by QuackGuru is not considered a revert because Rvcx considers my edits to be vandalism. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:24.19.214.36 reported by User:Yellowweasel (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 03:56, 2 March 2009 J.delanoy (talk | contribs | block) blocked 24.19.214.36 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: on Apollo 13 (film)) (unblock | change block) Tiptoety  talk 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

98.112.67.14 reported by JonStrines (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Constantine&oldid=274098071


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Constantine&oldid=273821321
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Constantine&oldid=270838993
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Constantine&oldid=268434679


 * Diff of 3RR warning: N/A - unregistered user

Page has undergone a long standing edit war over a properly referenced statement that the character is bisexual: it's not just this particular user that is reverting the statement, but he is the latest. I'd like to request semi-protection for the page to try to stabilise it. JonStrines (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can't see this as at the level requiring semi protection. You need to be above 1R per day at least William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Maz112 reported by GoldCoaster (2nd report) (Result: 24h all round)

 * 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:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: see report above and also []

After being blocked for 12 hours yesterday (see above), user Maz112 has now continued edit warring with another user on the same page (Marilyn (singer)). I've only just seen all of this, but in the early hours of this morning he was edit warring using his IP address 89.55.208.132. The other user (79.66.16.15) also appears to have run an IP trace and discovered it was held in the same location as the Maz112 account (who is based in Germany). It looks like quite a battle ensued, but there is also a conversation between the two users that took place on his talk page here where Maz112 admitted he was using an IP address whilst he was blocked and also showed a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies. The other IP user (79.66.16.15), whilst making the huge mistake of engaging in the edit war, was clearly trying to show Maz112 how he was breaking Wiki policies with his edits. Even at the very end, Maz112 has totally refused to remove his own fan site link from the page, even though it is a violation of WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and probably about half a dozen other policies. He is also continuing to arbitrarily add/remove information from the article as he sees fit, regardless of Wiki guidelines and policies. The administrator who banned Maz112 yesterday also informed him at the same time that it is not enough that he just claims his fan site to be official. Looking on the Marilyn (singer) page in the list of edits and reverts Maz112 has carried out just in the past 24 hours, it is quite clear that he has no idea how to contribute to Wikipedia and is basically just using it as a secondary fan site. I would recommend the user Maz112 receives a lengthier ban, and his IP range is either blocked or the Marilyn (singer) article page is locked from IP editing for a period of at least a month to let things cool down. GoldCoaster (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked both anon's and Maz William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I also request that the page is semi-protected for a month to prevent further IP edit warring. Thank you. GoldCoaster (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Farkas János (result: 24h)
I tried to get help on the WikiProject political parties but there was no response. User:Miacek has reverted every edit to Liberal Democratic Party of Russia for the past few days and has also taken to reverting Liberal Democratic Party of Belarus and ru:Либерально-демократическая партия России. He insists that the LDPR and the LDPB are not liberal and calls all claims otherwise "nonsense" or "vandalism" and does not discuss the matter. He doesn't talk much, but he does revert a lot. We need some intervention as soon as possible. Farkas János (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing the ideology of this party to liberalism, only source providing this term being the party's own program papers (WP:SELFPUB) amounts to soap-boxing and misuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. There are absolutely no academic or just neutral sources describing this party as liberal. According to WP:NPOV, we must base the articles on reliable sources. Arguing that Zhirinovsky's party LDPRF would indeed be liberal is of bad taste political propaganda and is tantamount to saying that the National Socialist German Workers' Party was democratic because this party's program called the Nazi party democratic...-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 20:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not continue a dispute on this page. Farkas János (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it was you who brought it here. Miacek is right, you need reliable third-party sources describing the party as liberal rather than its own website (you would have hard time trying to find them, as the party itself claims that all aims of the citizens shall be subordinate to the state; individual freedom is acknowledged as long as it doesn't interfere with state and society interests. This is emphatically not liberalism even in the modern American usage of the term, this is the opposite of liberalism. And I see some discussion on Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, so there is no need to go forum shopping. Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was that User:Miacek has appointed himself a judge for the article and has assumed control of it, reverting all edits, ignoring complaints or contradicting evidence [] [][].

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:129.234.217.155 reported by Leodmacleod (talk) (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:16, 27 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:19, 27 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 00:10, 28 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 273756064 by WesleyDodds (talk)")
 * 4) 03:36, 28 February 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 273800675 by Rwiggum (talk)")
 * 5) 03:48, 28 February 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 18:07,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274093939 by Indopug (talk) Information relevant to a piece of art and how it is perceived and reviewed by critics.")
 * 7) 22:20,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274241696 by Rwiggum (talk)")
 * 8) 22:31,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274258694 by Rwiggum (talk)")
 * 9) 22:37,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 13:36,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "please stop removing good sourced material for personal agenda. Ref clearly states: "after three tracks of grinding funk" and "lashings of funk to almost every track".")
 * 11) 13:37,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "hence not just 'indie rock'")
 * 12) 13:42,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "corrected intro re: title discrepancy and re-added good sources removed")
 * 13) 19:27,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "more reviewers confirming funk genre tag")
 * 14) 20:05,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274504673 by Leodmacleod (talk)")
 * 15) 20:29,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "added extra refs and explicit quotations to confirm 'funk' tag")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note to admins: Sorry if I was rude to him. He got very personal very quickly.

—Leodmacleod (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Olahus reported by Sthenel (talk) (result: 72h)
Article: Template:Greeks

Although he hasn't broken the 3RR, this user has been reverting continuously for 7 consecutive days against 5 other users. - Sthenel (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Yellowdaredevil reported by User:Atlan (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Continual reverting to a dodgy source and misquoting it to have it confirm the cancellation of Knight Rider and its producer moving on to do a Las Vegas finale.--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Gnomsovet (result: 24h)
User:Miacek concerns with political censorship on base their own personal political passion Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Communist Party of the Russian Federation Fair Russia he names nationalistic and prevents all corrections these article to discordant his positions. At ideologies not one of these party are not nationalistic. But references to normative documents defining ideology these party he deletes.


 * 24h; see above. This poor article needs a rest from edit warring. Others take heed William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Maxal reported by User:Arthur Rubin(Result:warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 20:44 to version of 20:32
 * 2nd revert: 21:00 to version of 20:32
 * 3rd revert: 22:36 to version of 21:39
 * 4th revert: 22:45 to version of 21:39
 * 5th revert: 22:49 to version of 21:39


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:50 rejected 22:59

These is a WP:EL violation question, but he seems unwilling to realize that 3RR doesn't have to be a single issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

- The editor has not reverted since being warned, and seems to have gone to the talk page. Kevin (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek reported by Sciurinæ (Result:resolved)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:40, 2 March 2009 (sentence added: Poland also was the site of numerous post-Holocaust attacks against the few remaining Jews, hastening their departure from Poland)


 * 1st revert: 04:45, 2 March 2009 (the sentence removed)
 * 2nd revert: full revert (17:49, 2 March 2009)
 * 3rd revert: 23:02, 2 March 2009 (the sentence removed)
 * 4th revert: 23:50, 2 March 2009 (the sentence removed)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warned several times already.

If you also count other partial reverts to it, he's at his fifth revert. His latest block ended in December (blocklog). Sciurinæ (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To the reviewing administrator. Please examine alleged reverts and recent edit history for the article and talk page. Changes are not the same just a lot of controversial information removed from this very difficult article, however if I was indeed carried away with my edits today please execute appropriate action. P.S. I'm being very careful not to be engaged in the edit wars. In my understanding, there must be four or more identical reverts within a 24-hour period for the three-Revert Rule to apply.... I hope I did not cross the line. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You clearly crossed the line, as noted at the top of this page the reverts do not have to be identical material to count as edit warring. Your explanation of what your next move is going to be will help decide any action to be taken against you. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After taking closer look at my edits and especially the rules I agree with both of you (person who reported and Kevin) that I did cross the line. It was not my intention to do it but unfortunately I did... I will be paying much more attention to keep in line with the rules of reverting. I also want to avoid unpleasant situations like this one.. I don't wish to be blocked but of course will not argue and will fully understand if the block is executed. Thank you--Jacurek (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if you understand and intend to avoid 3RR in future then I see no reason to block you. Perhaps you could self-revert your last change though. Kevin (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, thank you. P.S. I rolled back my last 6 edits on that article from the 2nd of March.--Jacurek (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mike Doughney reported by User:Mike George (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

(Fixed nomination.) Recommend rejection, as Mike has only edited the article once in the past 2 weeks. However, I think I qualify as an involved admin, and won't take admin action on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No violation. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Thewikirmanjohn reported by Sloanlier (Result:user is being educated )

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Weiss&oldid=274533909


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Weiss&oldid=274533909


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Weiss&oldid=274537132
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Weiss&oldid=274593701
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Weiss&oldid=274604375
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Everything that Thewikirmanjohn has repeatedly removed from the article would stand up as truth in a court of law. Unless Thewikirmanjohn can provide a reason consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines for his/her/its deletions, Thewikirmanjohn should have his/her/its Wike editing privileges suspended.

Thank you,

Sloanlier
 * Comment: This appears to be a WP:BLP matter, as the reporter has added questionable material four times in less than six hours. I reverted the last round of changes as per WP:BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: And now, has made his fifth reversion of the night here, with no further explanation or sourcing. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Phil153 is educating in how to edit within the rules. No further action required at present. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thronedrei reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Continues edit warring over wording choice, despite on-going discussion over the term on the talk page. Issue brought to my attention due to a post for additional opinions in the anime/manga project, which Thronedrei continues to ignore. As a note, in the 4th revert, he did change the revert slightly but it is my understanding that it still counts as edit warring and reverting. As editor is also continuing to dismiss all views but his own on the talk page, I suspect he will continue to act in this manner (and in his revert, he acknowledges he was warned). It is particularly concerning that he is saying he is going to report those who are disagreeing with him for vandalism -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's already made a "report" over at Wikiquette alerts for moving the discussion about his POV edits from my talk page to the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 02:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comment:) - First, allow me to apologise for not getting here sooner, as I just now addressed the WQA that was filed. The Thronedrei  account was created on 12 December, 2008. As a new contributor, Thronedrei has indeed gotten off to a rough start, and ended up here within his first 3 months of editing. I'm not sure if this user fully understands the many guidelines, policies and nuances that are in place here at Wikipedia, and how to properly apply them. Perhaps a Wiki mentor would be helpful in this case. If this user requests unblock with the understanding of what has gone awry to this point, I would, with some reservations, support an unblock. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

71.201.186.107 reported by Themfromspace (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Themfromspace (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Revisionism finds truth reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24h )
. : Time reported: 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:58, 3 March 2009.


 * 1) 09:28,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "vandalism...")
 * 2) 09:42,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "biased editing in violation of Wiki neutral policy...")
 * 3) 09:46,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Edit warring in violation of Wiki policy...")
 * 4) 09:55,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Edit warring in violation of Wiki policy...")


 * Diff of warning: User_talk:Revisionism_finds_truth

— Verbal  chat  10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h by User:Bongwarrior. yandman  10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * and many more...
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (for Jerome H. Remick as an example) link

Again, for Jerome H. Remick as an example, but spread across dozens of pages:
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link
 * 5th revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

See the previous discussion on this page: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring above. Upon further edits and advice from User:William M. Connolley, who closed the last report, I'm generating a new report. In the last three days, Rotational has responded to MOS (specifically MOS:HEAD and MOS:IMAGES) changes by multiple editors on the article's he's created by edit warring. Rotational's view is that the aesthetics of Wikipedia are lacking and that the MOS need not apply on his articles. The events are as follows:
 * An IP editors reports similar edit warring at Barnard 68 on 27 February: Village pump (policy).
 * Following that report on 28 February, User:TheFarix edited Rotational's articles back to 16 February to fix the MOS issues.
 * On 1 March, Rotational reverts all of TheFarix's edits, e.g. diff.
 * TheFarix or User:Jenuk1985 again apply the MOS to Rotational's pages after his reverts, e.g. diff
 * On 2 March, more edit warring as Rotational reverts more of Jenuk1985's reverts, e.g. diff
 * More reverts on 2 March, e.g. diff, and another revert from Rotational today (3 March) across all articles involved (too many to list), e.g. diff.

I am not reporting this as a violation of the 3RR, clearly no one has reverted more than three times in one 24 hour period. This is, however, not a BRD cycle and is a mindset that Rotational has displayed for more than a year. Anytime his articles are edited to be compliant with the MOS, he reverts, indicating WP:OWN issues (as well as his misuse or misunderstanding of inuse). A particularly telling case was when one of his articles made its way to DYK and gained some attention: back in November, where Rotational reverted good faith MOS edits at least three times. He also frequently calls these MOS types of edits "vandalism" diff. Dispute resolution has been attempted and was moderated by User:SilkTork, but there was no strong conclusion and now Rotational is using that discussion as his reason for reverting, e.g. this edit summary: diff. --Rkitko (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no more intention of reverting any edits myself, for fear of getting involved in an edit war and implicating myself. But something *needs* to be done about this user, his edits are unconstructive and causing many issues. He does not appear to take kindly to any criticism and seems to respond to others in a very offensive tone. Rather than reverting, I'll take the issue as far as needed if a suitable solution is not worked out here. Established users should not be exempt from policies, which is the view that appears to be taken in regards to this user. None of his recent edits have been constructive in any way. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that WP:AN3 is the appropriate venue. This is for WP:ANI to take care of since it is a complex case involving Rotational's tendency to display WP:OWNership of articles he's created. --Farix (Talk) 14:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know where to report this. I've been to AN/I twice before: here and here.There was some response and a few users did warn Rotational that his unconventional edits weren't improving the encyclopedia and that edit warring isn't the way to solve differences, but nothing much came of it... Rkitko (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done, and this is something: 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

125.21.165.158 (Result: stopped?)

 * Page:
 * User: along with his/her sockpuppets  and


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The IPVandal has been utilizing two other IP addresses to revert all edits made to the page. Kindly look into the matter as the user has been warned many times. 221.132.117.17 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't see any reverts after the warning.

User:Butwhatdoiknow reported by Ben (talk) (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 15:07,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Restore unexplained reversion of formatting.")
 * 2) 22:02,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Bullet points seem appropriate in a notice. But, in the spirit of compromise, let's try this.")
 * 3) 23:07,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Revert: There is no "no bullet points in notices" rule and you won't talk.")
 * 4) 00:37,  4 March 2009  (edit summary: "Revert: WP:BRD leads me to WP:DR but you won't talk. So what is your next recommendation?")


 * Diff of warning: here

Editor claims I will not discuss with them, but I, and others, have discussed changing the notice at length here and here. Editor still insists on making changes though. Ben (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to Mr. Tillman's charge that he, "and others, discussed changing the notice [with me] at length." This is a misleading half-truth. The earlier discussions with others related to the content - not the format - of the box. When Mr. Tillman - and only Mr. Tillman - later reverted my changes to the format I tried to talk to him here. I made changes only after a week of his silence. See Silence and consensus. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MelicansMatkin Repoted by User:Kyle1278 (result: no vio)
The user has Undid my edits twice i don't want it to go to three so i need someone to tell them that once newspaper article with a small section about it dose not establish notability it need more coverage than one small section in a newspaper article i have reverted there edits three time because of that fact and i telling you now to not mistake me. here is waht they provided it definitely is not enough for it to be mentioned. Kyle1278 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User:


 * Can't see anything serious enough for us here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

86.159.190.206 reported by Frickative (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Frickative 20:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackal4 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has been engaged in contentious editing over minutia for awhile now. In this case, at least 3 different editors have advised him that a comma after a year is proper English and follows MOS. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as he's been belligerent towards other users and basically does whatever he feels like doing, in defiance of consensus and proper usage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All three editors also violated the 3RR as well. Jackal4 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is you warring against 3 other editors. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Trinhbaongoc reported by User:YellowMonkey (Result:24hours )

 * Page:
 * User:

Diffs? : Very obvious. Marked as machine reverts. Two people on the talk page disagreeing. Warned? Yes, clearly on his talk page, he said "be professional" and refused to unrevert.

 YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rbfitz0529 reported by Phoenix_of9 (Result: No vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex


 * Too many reverts, by far exceeded 3 (is this vandalism?):


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This may be a case of vandalism too, not sure. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No vio. Just a misunderstanding; the guy actually made a very logical argument. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

leuce reported by Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: Not needed )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User responded to my 3RR warning by admitting familiarity with the policy and stating an intention to skirt it with selective edits. User has been edit-warring to remove sourced material and use original research for several days at this and related articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User is well aware of the 3RR violation and refers to "the fact I committed 3RR" as justified because other editors also reverted. User then makes further changes to the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User has made no controversial edits since the 3RR warning, has acknowledged the warning, has taken the discussion(s) to the talk page, and there seems to be no clear consensus for or against most of his edits. I'll drop him a note saying he'd better rely on the talk page even more before editing in future. yandman  12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg reported by Darvit Chandhurai (Result: 24 hours )
Please deal with this repeated violator : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syjytg

on this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Cup_2008%E2%80%9309

This is my first 3RR report, and I can't get the report made properly. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Deacon beat me to it just as I was pressing the block button! Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Gave Syjytg and User:Dr Robert Taylor 24 hours each. A couple more are edit-warring (and there's allegations of puppets), but reluctant to protect because it is an event-in-progress. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Darvit Chandhurai has been filed. O Fenian (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna comment on the sock case, but let me add I've blocked the User:Ronny 1953 for 24 hours too. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All three of the editors on the "opposing" side are confirmed sockpuppets. O Fenian (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:McSly and User:Ec5618 reported by User:Okmjui2000 (Result: Plaintiff blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: ;


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Hello, I have been trying to add relevant information with proper documentation and references to this page, and these two users have deleted my contribution nine times now. I am a new user to this site and I have endeavored to improve my posting with each criticism, but now that I seem to have satisfied all requests for proof (not original research, on topic, sited and referenced), and with no more objections they are simply threatening me with intervention from a moderator.

I am not in this for some kind of ego battle, I just want to put up this three paragraph contribution to the space elevator page! If my material is in some way inadequate tell me what else must be fixed, and I will complete the improvements to your specifications, just please stop these users from scraping my work. Thank you for your help.

Okmjui2000
 * This request is useless for the following reasons:
 * We need diffs in order to work, not other versions of the same page.
 * There is no link to the 3RR warning.
 * Without those, it is *impossible* to block for edit-warring. Also, please note that the tags hide comments, making it even harder to check up. I've fixed the tags for you, but not the rest of the report.  You have 24 hours to fix it or I'll remove it as malformed. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 06:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked into it myself instead, and... wow. Plaintiff blocked for '8 or 9RR on the article. Since plaintiff appeared to be adding original research and sourced his work to an Arthur C. Clarke novel, I'm not going to do any more. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)