Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive93

Prathambhu reported by Rajithmohan (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 1) 19:02,  1 March 2009
 * 2) 19:11,  1 March 2009
 * 3) 13:10,  2 March 2009
 * 4) 01:37,  3 March 2009
 * 5) 10:03,  3 March 2009
 * 6) 12:50,  3 March 2009
 * 7) 16:30, 3 March 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

-- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone - or probably both of you - can consider yourselves lucky: Hiberniantears (talk | contribs | block) m (53,513 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Kochi, India": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I resisted a gut reaction to hand out a round of blocks for edit warring, and opted to lock the page up for a week in the hope that this can be discussed either on the article talk page, or in an RfC. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

201.29.135.202 and 201.19.242.28 reported by Dr.K. (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * 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:

They were invited to participate multiple times here and here but they simply keep reverting and removing maintenace tags from the article without discussion. Now they changed the IP as well. Dr.K. logos 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning to User: 201.29.135.202 :
 * User:201.19.242.28 knows of the WP:3RR rule as their edit summary here attests:

Is anyone here? This guy is a very prolific edit warrior. This is vandalism and it damages the maintenance tag system by allowing anonymous IPs and possible sockpuppets to add any garbage they see fit and defeat any tags that could possibly protect the reader from shock due to the ridiculous content. However I will not revert any longer because this makes an absolute mockery of discusssion and consensus as well as the core values of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 05:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, we're all asleep :-). But I've semi protected the article in my dreams William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your intervention must be a dream. When do I wake up? Regardless, I will thank you very much as always. Take care William. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

White adept reported by Spidern (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 
 * 
 * (not the same content, but still qualifies under WP:3RR)
 * 
 * 


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (see my edit summary)

The editor classified my bold edits as "vandalism", "page blanking", "petty misrepresentation", and even "sneaky vandalism". While every attempt was made to justify my edits, he continued to perform mass reverts of all edits which I made to the article without addressing individual edits. The person's attitude of ownership is getting in the way of progress on the article, and the user seems to be unwilling to collaborate. ← Spidern  →  07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish to point out that there has been large scale vandalism on this and related pages. The edits of spidern which I reverted can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=275325161&oldid=275318803. If such large scale removal of very well sourced information ( this blanking, kindly note, is in addition to the several paragraphs that had been either completely distorted or deleted out in his earlier edits) with no apparent reason (other than specious claims of "bold" editing) to a contentious topic doesn't constitute vandalism I wonder what does. Note that all his edit summaries are misleading - none direct or clear as what changes he had done to the page - neither was any of these changes discussed on talk. Another reason I intervened with the blanking was that what had been blanked were all very well sourced material added through painstaking hours of work to the article.


 * In response to the allegation of me taking an "attitude of ownership" - I wish to point out that this is not true. I had encouraged the above user's edits even when other editors derided them - assuming they were made in good faith. This was despite me noticing that were a lot of distortions introduced by his edits - some of which I point out in my recent edit on the article's talk. Allowing his recent edits ran the risk of a significant amount of very well sourced information being lost from the article - which would again require several hours of work to restore. This loss would be harder to fix given the constant barrage of vandalism on the page from newly registered users and IPs. My reverts were driven by this fear or concern - that later on the losses suffered, in terms of academic information and sources lost, would be much harder to fix - especially if other editors contribute on top of this version from which he had removed very well sourced and centrally relevant content.


 * White adept (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spidern, I wish to point out that this claim of yours that I reverted 5 times- automatically implies ( given that only me and you were involved ) that you have reverted at least 4 times today. That is, your claim of me violating the rule by reverting 5 times is equivalent, if arithmetic holds, to claiming that you yourself have violated the 3RR rule by reverting four times.
 * White adept (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. A revert is any action which reverses the actions of other editors. I only made 2 reverts to the article within this time frame, seen here and here. You reverted my initial changes, then both of my reversions, and then reverted all subsequent changes I made (1, 2). You then went ahead and performed four reversions (1, 2, 3, 4) representing a number of edits which you didn't agree with, describing them in one edit summary as "intentional distortion". By the time this was all said and done, you had performed 9 8 reversions to the page within the last six and a half hours. ←  Spidern  →  12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 9 revisions?! You mean to say that me working on my own revision also counts as an additional revision?? Also what I referred to as an a "distortion" of a Times article in that particular edit summary - I have discussed in detail on talk.
 * White adept (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at it again, I noticed that your last edit is re-adding a source, which may not be considered a reversion. However, once again, the prior 3 reversions are effectively undoing changes made by other editors, totaling a 10KB addition of content. ←  Spidern  →  14:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend closing this for now. White adept, please heed Jehocman's comment on your user talk page. -- Kanonkas : Talk  14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that with the revert below, which seems to have introduced material in violation of present arbcom remedies and which is not even listed in Spidern's evidence above, user:White adept stands at 5RR within less than 7 hours by my reckoning (not counting consecutive edits). Jayen 466 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note two yet unanswered BLPN threads opened on the subject by myself and Jayen466, which have yet not received a response.  ←  Spidern  →  16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sai Baba article needs some attention from admin staff. There have been two separate postings to BLP/N in the last few days (by Spidern and myself), which have remained without significant response. As for reverts, I did not agree with this revert by inasmuch as it went back to describing four assailants, aged 25 to 40 according to a press article, as "boys" murdered in Sai Baba's ashram. The four men were armed with knives and were killed by police after they had stabbed four of Sai Baba's attendants, killing two and injuring two others. I am also inclined to think that Spidern's edits undone by WA in that particular revert were justified by WP:DUE. user:White adept was recently advised by Jehochman, following an AE thread, not to introduce poorly sourced material in violation of the arbcom remedies and to avoid edit-warring.  Jayen 466 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please point out on talk - am willing to fix this issue. I knew I was missing something thats why I asked immediately on talk to point out any perceived issues with "sources" after reinstating the deleted content. What I intended to restore was only well sourced material from a BBC documentary which had essentially been blanked in a series of edits. By the way it is Home Secretary of the State, VPB Nair, who in the BBC documentary refers to the assailants as "boys."( if I remember right ) We can fix these issues, including issues with sources, if you point them out on talk. But blanking all these info is not a constructive modality of editing. Also, I have put forward a proposal of branching the section to address BLP concerns. Also I assure you that I will pay particular attention to sources I use - and refrain from self published sources ( I had previously made the mistake of using Priddy's writings ) - and request that other editors please patiently point out if I accidently fail to do so in my edits.
 * White adept (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * White adept, in this revert, after just having been advised to abide by the arbcom remedies, you reintroduced material cited to ex-followers' personal accounts (the "Findings") again. I had only deleted these parts two days ago, and explained on the talk page and in the edit summary why I deleted them, directly referring and linking to the arbcom findings. Were you aware you were reintroducing material in this revert that violates the arbcom remedies? Or are you of the opinion that the Findings document does not fall under "critical websites which contain original research or which consist of personal accounts of negative experiences with Sathya Sai Baba or organizations affiliated with him"? Jayen 466 16:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

24h. S cautionned re edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 3months)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Version reverted to: various; crucial contested point is the reinstatement of "Greek" and the omission of any link to Albanians in the lead sentence
 * Reverts:
 * 1) 6 March, 18:03
 * 2) 6 March, 18:48
 * 3) 6 March, 19:00
 * 4) 6 March, 19:34
 * 5) 6 March, 20:04
 * 6) 6 March, 20:09

This is the fifth 3RR violation of this user since January alone. He was blocked in a escalating sequence of 48hrs, 1 week and 10 days on 5 January, 21 January and 2 February respectively; a further 3RR violation on 16 February was met not with a block but with page protection (see ANI discussion). Prior to this, he already had 9 distinct blocks between 2006 and 2008; his total block time so far is 70 days. All revert-warring conflicts are related to nationalist POV-pushing and tendentious OR editing in favour of a exaggerated view of Greek national continuity, either in its prehistory or (like here) in its interaction with neighbouring ethnicities. Two of the prior blocks were over issues near-identical to the present one.

This has gone on since 2006. I've been asking for some decisive sanctions under WP:ARBMAC for this editor for a while. There is no hope for improvement in this editor's behaviour. It's time for a long-term topic ban, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: now a fifth and sixth revert. His opponent,, is now beyond 3RR too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fut, I just had an edit-conflict with you, cause I was reporting myself.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of this field. But I see that whenever you (Future) report somebody to here, you are deeply involved in the edit warring and reverted 3 times of disputed articles. That does not look very good...--Caspian blue 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple: If I were not myself involved, I wouldn't report people but deal with the situation myself, wouldn't I? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: this has spiralled totally out of control. I've lost count how often the two have reverted now in their mad meltdown. I've tried to bring it to a halt by reverting to a somewhat middle-ground version we had earlier, even though I may have crossed 3RR with that myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest reverting to the middle ground version and locking the page down while we sort out the parameters of a ban. I'd be happy to lock the page as an uninvolved admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Page locked for 24 hrs, and reverted to the middle ground version. Any admin may feel free to reverse my action. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiberniantears, let me start by saying I think you did what you felt was best so do not take this the wrong way, but, I am not sure it is your place once you took administrative action to revert to a version that you thought was neutral. That being, the only way to decided what is truly neutral is though consensus and talk page discussion. Personally, I feel blocks would have been a better route to have taken here but we each have our own ways of dealing with disputes. Tiptoety  talk 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... That said, I've found some success with this tactic in articles that involve some form of nationalist editing. Socking is often an issue, so I've found blocking to be somewhat ineffective against someone determined to change the world through Wikipedia. In this case, I also happen to have faith in Fut. Perfect's ability to discern a more NPOV version (which I did compare to the other versions, and it clearly has a middle ground tone).Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into this particular article, but I have felt that there are times when an Administrator should not just lock a page and then walk away taking no responsibility for the version that was locked. This particularly applies to nationalist editing. dougweller (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. My presence indicates that I'm still here, and another admin blocked the editors. So I did not walk away from it. The version I reverted to was a stable version that existed prior to the edit war (and it clearly states a compromise wording). Further, it was just a 24 hour protect meant to give breathing room to an admin with a demonstrated track record of dealing with such disputes. Beyond that, I indicated that anyone who felt the protection was unwarranted could reverse my action. I'm happy to take more responsibility for the version I reverted to, but I definitely wasn't going to leave the page protected on the last version by the guy who was causing the problem in the first place. Outside or hard range blocks, blocking nationalists is essentially an exercise in futility. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you didn't think I was criticising you, I was supporting your actions. dougweller (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops... I misread that! Time to call it a day... Hiberniantears (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a block log. There's no reason we should put up with this. 3 months, and the next time will be indef. yandman 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian`s word reported by myself (Result: 8h)
I am reporting myself for breaking 3RR rule on Souliotes. WP:BEBOLD cannot work every time. Just block me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was a shame. Next time, just be a bit more patient: don't worry, you're not the only one looking after Wikipedia... I'm giving you the same length as your "opponent"'s 1st block. yandman  20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just block me, a minor wiki-adiction-break:-).Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Northdeutsch reported by Lucas (Result: indef as sock)
4 reverts in ~10 hours and in only 1 article:
 * Page:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st Revert
 * 2nd Revert
 * 3rd Revert
 * 4th Revert

...At the same time, the war in other articles. 99% all edits by this user is reverts (in many articles).


 * 24h for 3RR, but indef'd as a presumed sock of someone, I don't know who William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran reported by Bestofmed (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: here

The third revert was done by another account (Nepaheshgar) which is probably a sock puppet:
 * 1st revert: here
 * 2nd revert: here
 * 3rd revert: here

The reverts removed a complete whole content supported mostly by inline-citations without explanation in edit summary nor talk page (silent revert) with the exception of the late account.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

Bestofmed (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a bad accusation and I have been established user for a long time. The user made a big change to the article without discussing it and getting a concensus.  I have used the talkpage to indicate where I agree and my revert to wayIran was followed by subsequent edits.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 3RR vio even if N is a sock; and you've presented no evidence for that, let alone a convincing case. You and they have a minor edit war going, which needs to be resolved by discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was concerned with the edit war as Wayiran kept reverting without explanation. Anyway, I started a discussion with Nepaheshgar to resolve the issue. Thank you. Bestofmed (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

User:Kraxler reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In discussions with this user on my talk page, he has been extremely hostile and has resorted to threats. His conduct is not appropriate, as he is demonstrating a lack of civility, while not assuming good faith, demanding that he has ownership of the template, and not taking time to disengage and calm down. I'm seeking a third opinion as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. Well it doesn't *look* like 3RR to me... K only has 3 reverts. Just like you, though you didn't mark the 3rd as a revert. So, OK, if you think 3R is worth a block... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

69.214.11.178, 70.229.32.97 and 69.212.200.165 reported by A-Kartoffel (Result: semi)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link link link

Both User:69.214.11.178 and User:70.229.32.97 are the same user. 69.212.200.165 appears to be the same as well. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Following on from an RFPP on Nobody's Fault but Mine I have semi protected the article. I also blocked, someone else blocked and the other IP only has 2 edits. Mfield (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An IP check with 69.212.200.165 reveals it's originating from Grand Rapids, the same as the two other blocked accounts. A-Kartoffel (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Azturkk reported by User:Vacio (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

The list of belligerent parties in the infobox reflects this discussion in the talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply unimpressed by the utter lack of use of the talk page in the recent edit war. Nonetheless,24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaldean reported by KALMANI (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

user:Chaldean keeps reverting back to something that he believes in that is not fact & according to the source they do not say anything about assyrian but in all actuality they refer only to Chaldeans. No where is there a mention about assyrians but user:Chaldean insists on reverting to the wrong information. Please help with this matter. As this will not end in user:Chaldean eyes, as he will start an edit war, revert, & bullying people. Thank You! KALMANI (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one, so this is 1R, not 5. You beat Chaldean in that you can spell vandalism, but overall you lose by SHOUTING which is REALLY ANNOYING. Stop reverting each other and use the article talk page to discuss your dispute as though you were civilised human beings William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SpongeSebastian reported by User:The Cool Kat (Result: semi)

 * Page: and
 * User:

User:SpongeSebastian and his IP adress 87.19.82.32 has started an edit-war claiming that Who Bob What Pants! is a season 5 episode. I don't know if he's confusing it with Pest of the West! or if he/she is simply a troll i'll assume good faith, but this has been going on for days. When i gained rolback rights i promised i wouldn't use them for edit-warring so i'm not i'm going to get revert his/her edits. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is one area of arcane knowledge I don't ccare to venture into. But I've semi'd the article for a week, maybe that will help. WP:RFCU is... over there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

72.208.118.127 reported by Haftorang (Result: n/a)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [|link]


 * Reverts: [|link]


 * This is really getting old. Haftorang 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: warned 24h)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * Page:
 * User:
 * 1) 18:53,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 273582563 by DDima (talk)")
 * 2) 18:59,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274205590 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 3) 22:48,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343973 by DDima (talk)")
 * 4) 16:42,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274587417 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 5) 16:53,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274714703 by Nick UA (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahonc At the foot!")
 * 6) 17:02,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274717169 by Ahonc (talk)")

— Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 17:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Noob, no warning, so I'll do what you should have done William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what template I should use.-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahonc, replacing Ukrainian names with Russian names is not considered to meet the definition of vandalism here; because of this edit, where you incorrectly labeled Whiteroll's edit "vandalism", I must ask you to read WP:VANDALISM. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is continueing of wars for Kharkiv/Kharkov, Kiev/Kyiv (such edit wars also were on Commons last year).-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * after warning

. : Time reported: 21:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 273583964 by DDima (talk)")
 * 2) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343997 by DDima (talk)")
 * 3) 16:54, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274715200 by Nick UA (talk)")
 * 4) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 274767904 by Nick UA (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Oh well, 24h then William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User continues warring: ,

Yes, both were at it again. 48 to Whiteroll for another vio, and 12 to Ahonc for consistent blind reverting. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User is continuing reverting .-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

85.72.90.42 reported by Mikaey (Result: Article prot'd )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Matt (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - It's been brought to ANI and the article has been protected. Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jcmenal reported by 69.158.150.169 (Result: Blocked both 24+48 )

 * Page: (also Middle America (Americas))
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Notice of warning:

Long history of edit warring on this and other Mexico-related articles. Continues to restore sentence fragment, despite edit comments pointing this out, and reverts without discussion or edit comment. Doesn't seem fluent in English, and belligerent. Behaviour at other article listed is similar. Was previously blocked for edit warring on the very article, with similar pattern (see here) Given this, a longer block than usual may be warranted. 69.158.150.169 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I've blocked Jcmenal for 48 hours for edit warring and then the IP for 24 hours for also edit warring (despite knowing that he has an account somewhere. Log in after the block expires, please). 69.158.X: Thanks for reporting but you know you where a bad boy for reverting too. Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

I have continually edited this page to remove public relations materials (specifically a "pink press" article) as well as unsubstantiated discussions of a former career. I would actually suggest that this page be removed entirely, as this person is of little or no significance. However, the party who continually reverts appears to be a relative of this individual. This person did a warning on me, which was completely absurd. I have not given her a warning, but I will if it is necessary.

Definitely in violation of the 3RR.

I believe that the page should be deleted entirely. It adds nothing to Wikipedia.


 * Result - What's the big deal in getting it deleted? Go to WP:AfD if you're that worried. Anyway, there's a no vio here as UnionSoap is actually doing a good job against a bunch of sock IPs. ProperlyRaised, please maked sure you log in and stop edit warring too. Thank you. Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

74.248.178.84 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: Blocked IP for 24hrs )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Notice of warning:

User User:Rvbaxley uploaded a number of personal photos across several articles - which are at best low quality and irrelevant. The photos were removed by User:Icarus3 earlier. Reverts were done by 74.248.178.84 this evening.

TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 06:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Scampi history, too. As Rvbaxley and 74.248.178.84, this individual has done the same edit 5 times in 24 hours, including after being warned about 3RR. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Thanks guys. I've blocked the IP for 24 hours (the autoblock will take out the account). Scarian  Call me Pat!  08:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lordvader2009 reported by Aktsu (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The notice he's removing is required by MOS:FLAG to explain the flags are not representing nationality but sporting nationality, i.e. the country the participants are representing. -- aktsu (t / c) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's also removing information from the article (e.g. that Fernandes recived a yellow card, and that the doctor stoppage was due to a cut). I can only imagine he's doing it to have the page conform to his strict view of how a "result" section should look (i.e. without "excessive" information) - with the result that it's impossible to expand the section. -- aktsu (t / c) 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably also add he's known for not responding to any inquiries and was previously blocked for not listening to people asking him to stop uploading images without free-use rationales (see block log). I mention it because I see little point in attempting to discuss the issue with him. -- aktsu (t / c) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He continues to remove (this time specifically sourced in case that was his problem) content (diff) -- aktsu (t / c) 09:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A distressing lack of talk; but you could set him an example by using the article talk page to discuss this yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll do so in the future - though I somewhat doubt (and doubted) anything would come out of it going by experience... -- aktsu (t / c) 09:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Shshshsh and reported by Ultramegasuperstar (Result: Both blocked for 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warning 1, warning 2

I reverted due to my view of vandalism according WP:3RR rules. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The same applies to the user who reports this incident. Please look. I think I'm experienced enough to know when I can and cannot revert something. I was reverting this user's sneaky vandalism. The user violated both the consensus policy and the three revert rule. The article was even semiprotected because one anon was defying this consensus. He makes the same edits as the anon. An issue that was thoroughly discussed on the talk page, with sources being added. reverted everything despite not being a part of the discussion. I discussed it, cited sources and he still claims in the edit summary there are no sources, which is his sneaky vandalism and devious way of pushing his POV. What he says about me and how he presents the situation, it is all exactly the opposite, I reverted him because I considered his edits vandalism (and there is a reason, no?). I can cite even book sources, and he was also warned, but it didn't help. He called the newspapers I cited biased and that it's all lies. I also reported him and I suspect he is a sock puppet, which will be checked tomorrow. I ask admins to check this very well before clicking the block button.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked&#58; .. In the span of only six hours, both editors reverted each other six or seven times. Regardless of the fact that each editor was labelling the other's edits as "vandalism," this is a textbook example of edit warring in a content dispute. Additionally as Shshshsh used rollback inappropriately in this content dispute, I have removed his rollbacker status. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh reported by Knepflerle (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: - previous edit-warring blocks of 24, 24, 48, 55 and 72 hours - and the last less than a month ago.

Clear consensus for material addition on Talk:UEFA_Europa_League_2009–10 (seven editors adding or supporting, only Grant removing the text) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football; incorrectly labelling addition as "vandalism". Knepflerle (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg (reporter blocked)
3RR violation and edit warring at :by : Syjytg

Syjytg was banned just a few days ago for doing exactly the same thing, but is continuing to disregard the rules.

--Johny Foxy (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporter indef'd as a sock, S warned for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680
He keeps merging Toon Disney artticle to Disney XD, and when I reverted those he kept reverting. To not keep reverting I placed a merge tag but then he reverted that too. I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this though. -- Gman 124 talk 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * page history of Toon Disney -
 * page history of Disney XD -
 * Him and his friends are vandalizing my user page and talk page. They are also impersonating administrators and sending me fake warnings. I stopped re-merging the articles and agreed to wait for a consensus.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't vandalis your page, the above section (at top of this page) says that tell the user you are reporting about the fact that you have reported him/her here. So you consider leaving that message impersonating admins. -- Gman 124 talk 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't vandalize your page i gave you a warning for violating WP:3RR. Also i am not impersonating administrators by giving you a warning. Anybody can give warnings. Powergate92   Talk  18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Avrumelmakis1 reported by Ronz (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 18:17, 7 March 2009
 * 2nd revert: 18:02, 8 March 2009
 * 3rd revert: 18:18, 8 March 2009
 * 4th revert: 19:00, 8 March 2009
 * 5th revert: 19:32, 8 March 2009
 * 6th revert: 19:48, 8 March 2009
 * 7th revert:19:52, 8 March 2009
 * 8th revert:19:53, 8 March 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:07, 8 March 2009

To make it worse, he's edit-warring over a link to a promotional website that he's stated is his own site. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's now blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Realist2 reported by 79.74.116.72 (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * I was following policy per WP:LEAD, leads don't need sourcing when the information is sourced elsewhere in the article body (which it was).
 * 2nd revert:
 * Although I did not need to source the lead, I added the source, per your persistent request for a citation (that was not needed).
 * 3rd revert:
 * You removed the source because you did not understand what it was (surely asking me would have been better), I reinserted the source and explained to you in the edit summary what it was.
 * 4th revert:
 * Your comment on my talk page indicated that your removed the citation (that you had demanded), because you did not like the way it was formatted, even though the reference was formatted correctly and used in numerous other featured articles (see examples of these featured articles below).


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * You did not warn me that there was an alleged/potential edit war, all you did was inform me that you were reporting me over this joke. At no point during these edits did you suggest there was an edit war, to me there didn't seem to be one. I thought you were simply a newbie who did not understand WP:LEAD or citation formatting conventions. Rather, you are an experienced account holder, signing out to cause mischief.

Realist2 has something of a history of arbitrary reverting on any article pages related to Michael Jackson. When a "citation needed" tag was added today to one of the pages (for dubious worldwide sales of an album), he has repeatedly removed the tag, insisting that something he read in a book was a sufficient source for the information (which it is not as it fails WP:RS and WP:POV). Looking back through his edit history, it seems that his involvement is somewhat obsessional, often treating the Jackson article pages as his own property, and he tends to revert the work of others without discussion. It appears he has been banned for breaching the 3RR rule on various occasions before. 79.74.116.72 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll currently in discussion with 2 administrators trying to resolve the issue, hopefully we can get some sense out of this, so please bare with me. The book in question is used on a multitude of featured articles (Michael Jackson and Thriller (album)), so I'm not sure why he's moaning about WP:RS and WP:POV all of a sudden. It seems quite obvious also, that this is a registered user (I have a reasonable idea who it is) signed out to cause trouble. — R  2  00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, do not disrupt the format of the 3RR report as you have done above. If you have anything to say in your defence, then state it at the end of the report. Secondly, do not attempt to throw the blame onto me or any other user. You have clearly breached 3RR regardless of your so-called reasons for doing so. I am not signed in at present because I am not at home, but I will not allow you to use that as a smokescreen to deflect what you've done. Now kindly wait for an administrator to deal with this matter and discuss it further with him/her after they have investigated if you wish.79.74.116.72 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (this comment was sent by a different IP)
 * How on earth is the "second revert" a revert? I specifically inserted the (apparently offending) citation (for the first time), like you requested. Am I banned for adding citations when they are requested? How does that count as a revert? I no numbers are not strictly relevant, but hopefully the assistance of the administrators will bring this issue to an amicable ending. I've certainly never seen citations rejected because an editor disagrees with how they are formatted. Having a notes section for the page number and a reference section for the specifics of the book is common practice on featured articles. — R  2  02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Technically, no 3RR violation here: and  are reverts, but replacing the fact tag with a citation was not. Realist's formatting of the citation isn't my favorite, either, but I have seen it used on other articles, and refusing to accept it and stamping a "fact" tag over it doesn't seem particularly appropriate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the method I was taught when getting Michael Jackson featured, I was actively encouraged to do it. The Beatles Wiki project seems to love it as well, numerous GA's are formatted in that manner. Rejecting a reference (that I didn't even need to give per WP:LEAD), because it was not formatted in a particular way, is rather odd to say the least. I've tried my best, I sourced the lead, even though it goes against my writing style, I sort the opinion of 2 admins (now 3), unfortunately they were busy. At no point did it ever occur to me that this was an edit war, rather someone who didn't understand the writing convention used. First it was one issue (sourcing the lead), then the problem seems to be the formatting of the reference itself. — R  2  04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

- the way the reference was cited is somewhat problematic, but that alone is not the central issue. The claim that this album sold a certain amount of copies was not directly backed up by any source either in the opening lead or in the main body of the article (by directly, I mean a source ref added immediately after the claim). It would appear that the IP user above then added a fact tag, which is fair enough. Realist2 insisted (perhaps mistakenly) that the information was adequately sourced and thus began the edit war. In the end, the claim was backed up by some vague reference to a Michael Jackson biography that cannot be immediately fact-checked nor verified for its own factual accuracy (since it isn't any kind of recording industry publication). This is made all the more questionable when the actual worldwide sales certifications on the article page itself do not seem to come anywhere near the amount that is claimed. Looking through the history, it appears that this was discussed to some extent on Realist2's talk page prior to the 3RR, but s/he still went ahead and reverted the other user anyway so there is an undeniable breach of 3RR. As for the disputed information itself, I can't say if it is right or wrong, but I would find a more reliable source.GoldCoaster (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was already sourced in this section of the article, at the end of the relevant sentence. Invincible was a commercial success, debuting atop the charts in 13 countries and going on to sell approximately 10 million copies worldwide. It received double-platinum certification in the US.[7][8][1]. I wrote it in months ago, using a book I've used for multiple featured/GA articles on Jackson. Never had a problem, the book in question is quite possible the most well known on Michael Jackson. There is no such thing a body or entity that documents worldwide sales online. Books are a totally acceptable form of sourcing. To imply that when an editors users a book, it can't be trusted because it cant be checked instantly, is not assuming good faith at all. Despite the fact it was already sourced in the article, I added the source to the lead as well, even though I didn't need to, this was rejected by said user because he did not like the method of formatting, a method that is perfectly acceptable for GA/FA. I most certainly did not make a 4th revert, I've sort the assistance of a third party. The issue can be resolved amicably. If this involves altering my writing style, on that article, so be it. —  R  2  13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP breached 3rr
One fact tag, Two fact tag, Three fact tag, Four fact tag. — R  2  13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP also participated in an edit war, added citations, and used the 3RR page, which makes it seem like the IP is probably a regular user who logged out. Logging out to edit war is against the rules, so a CU should probably be requested for this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

R2 warned for breaking 3RR. Anon is presumably someone's sock, but that is no excuse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Alekboyd reported by JRSP (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: and


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wells Fargo Bank reported by Marek69 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User Wells Fargo Bank is also warning other users with 3RR templates --      02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Noob; no reverts since warning William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:174.34.161.230 and User:174.34.161.16 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: delete)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reverting back in a lot of puffery and a whole slew of mostly irrelevant or duplicative external links. Hipocrite (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Akradecki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cal Orey" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (restore) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Coa$ter reported by 68.89.169.63 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The problem is obvious upon examination. 68.89.169.63 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The obvious problem is that 68.89.169.63 continues to delete Premier Ride's company background, sample awards and accomplishements from the page. I am simply fixing the page by reposting the same accurate information. I have asked for this user to stop deleting the same. Coa$ter (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Coa$ster, As I indicated on your talk page, if you insist on posting this info, it should sound less like an ad for the company and should include references. For example, you should avoid saying things such as "the industry leader" and "best". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.169.63 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No proper 3RR warning, but has one now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:wikidemon reported by User:Expertfp1 (Result: no vio, reporter warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Wikidemon modified the heading of my comment several times on the talk page,even after I reverted it and asked him to stop. He made uncivil comments accusing me of edit warring, then closed and archived the section, and placed a warning on my user page. He appears to be trying pass himself off as an administrator as well, by telling me I am on "probation" on my talk page. NDM (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those are not reverts. Plus this is a process fork of an AN/I matter, and I am on article patrol rather than edit warring.  I'll address in a moment.  Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe not given below. But please see the talk page here, which refers to an AN/I discussion.  We're trying to deal with some serious trouble at Barack Obama and it's talk page.  We are doing a lot of talk page cleanup, vandalism fighting, organizing, etc.Wikidemon (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment First revert is not a revert. Second revert is not a revert. Third revert is not a revert. Expertfp1 should be gently reminded of WP:NOT. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourth diff isn't an edit by Wikidemon at all. Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Wikidemon did not warn Expertfp1 he was under probation on his talk page, he noted that the Obama article was under probation. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still further comment The "3rr warning" diff is from after the reported "reverts." Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No vio by Wd; reporter appears to be causing trouble on the page, will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:BigbossSNK reported by User:Herr Gruber (Result: both sides cautioned)

 * Page: Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots&oldid=276001169


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4%3A_Guns_of_the_Patriots&diff=276021807&oldid=276005872
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4%3A_Guns_of_the_Patriots&diff=276041076&oldid=276029309
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4%3A_Guns_of_the_Patriots&diff=276042748&oldid=276041624
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4%3A_Guns_of_the_Patriots&diff=276044240&oldid=276043546
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metal_Gear_Solid_4%3A_Guns_of_the_Patriots&diff=276045555&oldid=276044815


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BigbossSNK&oldid=276046618

Yes, granted, I made four reverts here myself. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The warning was incorrectly added to the editor's user page, I've since moved it to his/her talk page. Also, as an aside, the first revert doesn't count as one (it was the initial content change). Thanks! Fin©™ 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You've both broken 3RR so could both be blocked. And you will be if you resume edit warring. For the moment, I'm warning you both, here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Syjytg
3RR violation at :by : Syjytg


 * And if there was a 12RR rule, Syjytg would have broken it here UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout stage - fchd (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon reported by unomi (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&oldid=275849378


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=275891202&oldid=275890497
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Hi Sorry, I am new here and not really sure how to give an 3RR warning.. Basically I was gamed by Keepcalmandcarryon in collusion with user Tom Harrison. I was adding some notable and relevant direct quotes that they took exception to, I opened a section on the discussion page and invited them to discuss so we might find a solution but they kept reverting my edits without any comments. I asked for their reasoning on the discussion page repeatedly and 'naturally' undid their vandalistic deletions. The end result is that just as I navigated here to seek help I was notified that I was under 3RR warning. Tom Harrison had not previously done any editing on the topic, did not seem to be able to read the source and did not see fit to justify why he deleted my quotes. 2 minutes after I undid his deletion I received the 3RR warning.

Please help us sort this out, thanks. Unomi (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an inappropriate use of this noticeboard. There is no 3RR, you are make serious bad faith accusations to two other editors, and you are using this noticeboard for resolving your issues.  You need to stop.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced this editor is "new here". Much that they have done indicates experiance, and a similarity to at least two other SPAs on this topic. Verbal   chat  15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the second time I am accused of being a sock puppet, it is worrying because it seems to center around my ability to read and apply what I have read, this is apparently controversial. From what I have been able to gather sock puppetry is a fairly serious allegation, right up there with WP:MEAT, WP:CIRCUS, WP:CABAL and WP:WL. I have been forced to read all these wiki terms because of the dumping of WP:TAGS without explanation. This has proven unfortunate but fairly interesting reading.
 * I was not really sure how to go about resolving the constant deletion of sourced information, despite my requests for discussion here, here, and here before hasty decisions. This was why I brought it to the attention of this noticeboard, honestly I did not know the meaning of [WP:3RR] at the time, if I did, why would I have violated it? It is quite clear from my initial posting that I am not accusing [user:keepcalmandcarryon] of violating 3 Revisions Rule, obviously the fact that some try to frame this as a spurious 3RR accusation could explain why my ability to read wikipedia policy is so perplexing to them.
 * I also wish to add that user:orangemarlin is not a neutral party in this.
 * My apologies if my attempt to explain myself is taken to be [WP:SOAP] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fault is with U, who is lucky that this report is now stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

99.229.36.15 reported by Lucek (Result: semi)

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


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

100% all edits by this IP is reverts editions by 5 users,.


 * Semi-protected William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SallyFord reported by User:SlimVirgin (warned)
I'd appreciate some administrative help with a new account,, at (PETA). The patterns of contribs suggest it's a returning user. First edit was February 5, 2009; she has made 29 edits to mainspace, many of them reverts.

She is repeatedly removing a quote from the body of PETA on the grounds that there is a similar quote in the lead, and is now removing a photograph on the grounds that the same photograph is used in another article.


 * 1st revert of quote 04:59 March 9
 * 2nd revert of quote 05:15 March 9
 * 3rd revert of quote 13:14 March 9
 * 1st revert of image 20:58 March 9

The reason I'm bringing this to this page so quickly is that the user's brief history shows repeated reverting to be a modus operandi. At Amber MacArthur last month, the account inserted seven times that the subject's child was born "out of wedlock" &mdash; 13:35 Feb 18; 03:28 Feb 19; 19:23 Feb 19; 14:27 Feb 24; 21:25 Feb 25; 04:08 Feb 26; 14:49 Feb 26. She was warned about 3RR on Feb 26. 

After this, the account stopped editing for a few days, then turned up at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to begin the same kind of reverting. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contiguous edits count as one, so 1 & 2 are only one. And the 3RR warning was on her user page. So I'll give her a proper warning William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: 55h)
. : Time reported: 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:20,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275804521 by Nick UA (talk) I do spit upon your talk! (!) http://www.metro.KHARKOV.ua - official site")
 * 2) 11:29,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276007692 by Nick UA. Have you ever meditated on why domain is KHARKOV.ua not KHARKIV?")
 * 3) 23:33,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276144541 by Ostap R (talk) Only one article allowed - Kharkov Metro")
 * 4) 23:41,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276146131 by DDima (talk)")
 * 5) 23:44,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276147286 by Nick UA (talk) Vandlism? See Kharkov Metro article!")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-03-10T00:05:07 DDima (talk | contribs | block) blocked Whiteroll (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: continued edit warring and page move vandalism despite repeated warnings) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sunray reported by User:Skipsievert (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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

Have had a hard time with ownership issues in the article. The reverts happened within an hour or so. Have tried informal conflict resolution. skip sievert (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, as far as I can tell, Sunray is leading an active peer review and you're involved in several disputes already on the talk page. Get consensus for adding it back in intead of forcing the content in through edit warring.  Sunray already moved it to the talk page for discussion and User:Granitethighs has commented on it saying it needs work.  It's not going anywhere, so please follow the consensus on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor tightly controls the article with one other person usually. I request that you block this editor for violating the revert rule. Nothing else is going to change the way things are going on the article. It is not a page that allows much change and is tightly controlled by Sunray. Consensus on the talk page does not happen except through two other users. I moved it to the talk page before he did, after I made the edit... so that is not correct. I was not edit warring. He did the three revert. How is it that one editor can assume so much control over an article to the point of flagrant violation? He could have edited the material instead of ditching it. Or left it and discussed it. I brought the material to the talk page immediately after the edit. He did that after. skip sievert (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, they are trying to bring the article to FA. Is this a problem? You think you might try helping them? Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is good and fine. I have written sections of the article, particularly the early history part, and introduced many of the ideas of topics into the article Ecological economics Industrial ecology Energy economics etc. I also have been demeaned, harassed, and been called a troll previously by this user. I am tired of this user using a collegiate attitude and friendly demeanor while throwing every conceivable roadblock to others (me) participating in the article, in what I think is a positive way. I have tried informal moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_11#Proposed_findings with an editor I picked out of the blue. That person agreed, preventing another from editing because of the status of himself being a team leader is not appropriate. I have tried helping them often and positively... I have never edited disruptively... and sometimes my edits stick. Look at the general history of the page. I do think this editor needs to be blocked. I know that this may seem iffy. At the very least I will not be happy unless this editor is warned. skip sievert (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not be happy unless this editor is warned. Well, there you go.  I, on the other hand,  would be very happy if the article reaches FA.  I suppose my priorities are messed up. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but sarcasm is not appropriate here. I am someone who cares about the article. It was a 'B' grade article before. I have tried to improve it... because I am interested in the subject. Because of the cumulative effect of having to deal with this person a block seems appropriate. I will take what I can get though. skip sievert (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, I'm sorry you feel you were treated poorly. Now, how about getting back to the talk page and contributing to the discussion which is ongoing? Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Viriditas, and I will. But I think some action should be taken. Otherwise the guidelines, which I try to follow, do not mean much. I understand that rules are meant to be broken, and I have broken a few in the past, but I think there is too much concerted control in this article in general. skip sievert (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And what did Sunray say when you shared your concerns with him? Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. It is after the fact and he is back peddling now. I have shared these concerns for months... and are they being addressed suddenly now? If Skipsievert (talk · contribs) wants to edit Sustainability, he may do so, and his edits should not be reverted merely because they violate a voluntary process established by other editors. If the edits are unhelpful, they can be reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jehochman/Archive_11#Proposed_findings - if there was not a long standing pattern of this editor roadblocking elements he does not control and over controlling everything in general, I would not be here or complaining. This is a pattern. I do not like it. It has not changed. He reverted me because he felt he was immune from the guidelines. I suppose this may seem petty but this pattern is a pattern. skip sievert (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what I recommend: Drop this, leave Sunray a friendly note on his talk page letting him know that the revert upset you, but that you want the article to reach FA as much as him and hope the two of you can form a better working relationship in the future. Then, visit the peer review page and see if you can help out with any of the tasks.  That will create a huge amount of good will and bring more people over to your side.  Then consider taking a break from the current discussion to get some perspective on your role.  Also, if you know you are going to be making controversial or disputed edits, try to discuss them first.  Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would would I leave him a friendly note when he edit warred some good information?... which is a pattern of his? I say block him. Thanks any way. skip sievert (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip, at least two editors have a problem with the content, the article is undergoing an active peer review to reach FA, and disputed or controversial material should be discussed, not forced into the article through edit warring. The reason you want to leave him a friendly note is to show him that the article as a whole is more important than any small personal or content disputes you might have.  That creates goodwill and a better working environment between users, making it easier for you to edit harmoniously with Sunray in the future.  Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Ownership issues, if they exist, can't really be addressed here. Allow me to note that edit warring with an edit comment of Stop edit warring... shows a regrettable lack of self-awareness William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. I see I am not going to have anything happen here. Thanks anyway. I reported a 3 revert vio. from a user with a team that controls an article to the detriment of the article. My opinion. So be it. skip sievert (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua and Balkanian`s word reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours each)

 * Page:
 * User 1:
 * User 2:


 * Previous version reverted to: various.


 * Alexikoua's reverts:
 * 1) 10 March, 12:42 (Blanket revert to version from  December )
 * 2) 10 March, 13:46 (removal of fact-tags added here
 * 3) 10 March, 14:16 (same as #2)
 * 4) 10 March, 14:19 (reinstating own previous edit from 14:13)


 * Balkanian`s word reverts:
 * 1) 10 March, 11:38 (reverting previous removal of material by Alexikoua)
 * 2) 10 March, 13:09 (undid immediately previous edit
 * 3) 10 March, 14:10 (undid immediately previous edit)
 * 4) 10 March, 14:17 (undid this)

Please consider a longer-term revert limitation under WP:ARBMAC. Balkania`s word had a brief revert-warring block just the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The first is not a revert. I added the material and reverted nothing. Just see revision history. It was 2,000 kb and it was made 18,000 kb, what could i revert?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the previous edits, and mine too. There is nothing reverted. It was 4,842kb, Alexikoua made it 2,469kb, and I added all the stuff from the page Northern Epirotes, which is the same as Greeks in Albania to this one. Reconsider your proposal fut.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur) (prev)  11:38, 10 March 2009 Balkanian`s word (talk | contribs) (18,738 bytes) (this is the page) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 23:02, 9 March 2009 Alexikoua (talk | contribs) (2,469 bytes) (→Notable members of the minority) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (prev) 19:42, 9 March 2009 Alexikoua (talk | contribs) (4,842 bytes) (→History) (undo)


 * The first edit I listed for you, was reinstating, among other things, several sections in the "notable people" list which Alexikoua had removed with his immediately previous edit . Hence a revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me, I added a whole page Northern Epirotes, it is called merging, not reverting. It was totally not under dispute if this people were or not Greeks of Albania, Alexikoua removed them and added them on Northern Epirotes, a page which is merged with this one. How can this be a revert? Should I add all other parts of Northern Epirotes and leave this out?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The very fact that it was part of your merger underlines it was a controversial edit. Because the previous edit by Alexikoua was exactly because he was opposed to the merger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He was opposed to the merger? There was nothing to merge. Northern Epirotes were created as page on 22:45, 9 March 2009, and my edit was exactly the next day. How could he oppose to merge a page that did not exist?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua definitely violated the rule: clear revert 1, 2, 3 + fact tag revert. 3 clear reverts by Balkanian's word, plus another reversion that we'd call a revert but he may argue wasn't. Balkanian is just off a similar block however, and has no excuse for warring again so soon. I've blocked both for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lverqlv reported by Themfromspace (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has no understanding of WP:RS and is also reverting with an IP sock (74.127.242.203). Requesting long-term block of both accounts. Themfromspace (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tedickey reported by dfrench (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Tedickey is purposefully ignoring changes and improvements made to this article for unknown reasons. This user reverts this article back to previous versions that do not contain the improvements then hurls insulting statements when asked for an explaination. Please block this user from editing this document again.


 * please see the talk page for additional reasons to block this user Tedickey talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrench (talk • contribs)

Also blocked the reporting editor in question per WP:REALNAME. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI reported by Xenophrenic (Result: warning + 55 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The editor has not yet technically crossed the 3RR threshold, and is not likely to, since he was recently warned and blocked for similar behavior a dozen edits ago. I'm reporting Edit Warring, not a 3RR violation.

The editor persistently inserts and reinserts an allegation of manslaughter into this BLP article on Leahy without reliable sources. I have pressed the editor for proper sources and context on the article talk page and on the BLP Notice board without success. Instead, he tells me to look the stuff up myself. The burden is on him to provide proper sourcing and context for such a contentious BLP entry, but I decided to go the extra mile and research it myself. Result: the content CENSEI is repeatedly reverting back into the article is not in the cited source. In fact, nothing even close is mentioned, so it's not even a misinterpretation issue. WP:BLP allows me to remove this false information repeatedly without violating WP:3RR, but I'd rather not waste my time. Hence this request. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is only very weakly BLP; please don't rely on it to get you off 3RR. This just looks like an edit war to me; you need to bring in other eyes or other parts of WP:DR. Warnings all round William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, William. This is a very strong BLP violation.  Inserting text saying one person is responsible for the death of another person is obviously a contentious edit.  Then citing that edit to a source containing no such information is fabrication with intent to deceive.  No amount of additional eyes on the article will change that fact.  Your advice on trying other parts of WP:DR is spot on, but I am at a loss as to which step to try next after this current step at the BLP Notice board resolves.  Do I pursue the civility route now that this editor has resorted to personal attacks and harassing emails?  Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only on edit warring here is Xenophrenic as he is not only removing the disputed material but all the material added in the edit including material he is not disputing. CENSEI (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rechecked all my edits just to be sure. Every single word I have removed or changed in that article does qualify as 'disputed by me' as explained in the edit summaries and talk page.  I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.  Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it to the article's talk page instead of here? This is not the place to continue disputes, friend. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you reverted again after Will's result so I've blocked you for 55 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pipuk53 reported by kejoxen (Result: Note)

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

The tone of the edit just seem to me to be to personal, biased and unencyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejoxen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Not a 3RR vio or edit warring per se; just a confused new user. And Kejoxen: Remember to leave 3RR warnings on the users talk page next time ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks, this isn't something i've needed to do before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejoxen (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Knowledge is free for all reported by Abecedare (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

Previously the user has edit warred over the same unsourced, undue and POV edits as , —Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 07:09, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 09:02, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 09:18, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 11:23, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 13:13, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276258234 by Dbachmann (talk)")
 * 6) 17:11, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276296205 by Doldrums (talk)")
 * 7) 20:58, 10 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276346867 by Dbachmann (talk)")
 * 8) 00:01, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276394896 by Looie496 (talk)")
 * Diff of 3RR warning

user blocked by Akhilleus for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:99.9.23.19 reported by Nudve (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:04, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 2) 05:08, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 3) 05:45, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 4) 05:45, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 05:54, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 6) 05:55, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 7) 05:56, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 8) 05:57, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 9) 06:08, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 10) 06:13, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")

Diff of warning: (created page). Other warnings were given.

—Nudve (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-03-11T06:27:13 Nja247 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 99.9.23.19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) 

Whiteroll reported by Ahonc (Result: Full prot'd )
. : Time reported: 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:53,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 273582563 by DDima (talk)")
 * 2) 18:59,  1 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274205590 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 3) 22:48,  2 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274343973 by DDima (talk)")
 * 4) 16:42,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274587417 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 5) 16:53,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274714703 by Nick UA (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahonc At the foot!")
 * 6) 17:02,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274717169 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 7) 21:47,  3 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 09:31,  5 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274795430 by Daniel (talk)")
 * 9) 13:18,  5 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 14:04,  5 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275162029 by Ahonc (talk)")
 * 11) 16:04,  5 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275170532 by Ahonc (talk) I want to meet you halfway, you don't!")
 * 12) 11:07,  8 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275211238 by Nick UA (talk)")
 * 13) 01:20,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275804521 by Nick UA (talk) I do spit upon your talk! (!) http://www.metro.KHARKOV.ua - official site")
 * 14) 11:29,  9 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276007692 by Nick UA. Have you ever meditated on why domain is KHARKOV.ua not KHARKIV?")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 11:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - An admin full prot'd yesterday. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

JpGrB reported by F-22 Raptored (Result: Stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

removal of information. I also have ownership complaints with this user, nearly reverting everything that gets put into edit without further research put in.-- F-22 Raptor IV 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Stale and appears to have ceased. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:24.23.176.171 reported by User:wperdue (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I have done everything that I know how to do in order to resolve this. I have been documenting everything on the article's discussion page as well as on the other editor's talk page. I have asked for and received a third opinion, and I have warned the user about the 3RR. I have not had a single response regarding the tag removal/reverts. What more can I do to resolve this? Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh reported by Knepflerle (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User was blocked after 4th revert just over two days ago, and further previous edit-warring blocks of 24, 24, 48, 55 and 72 hours.


 * User was blocked for 24h after fourth revert above - first edit back off his block as a further revert, and has reverted another three times since.
 * Continuing to misrepresent edits as vandalism and single-handedly ignoring a clear consensus for material addition on Talk:UEFA_Europa_League_2009–10 (seven editors adding or supporting, only Grant removing the text) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. User has made no further attempt to discuss at either venue.


 * 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

24.0.96.29 reported by Cosmic Latte (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:


 * Blocked by User:Lectonar for 24h. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reported by Lagaman (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I'm simply trying to provide some missing information, and a link to more, but this person keeps removing it. Four times, to be precise, and in the past 24 hours.

I've gone through two rounds of getting editor assistance, as well as a third-party opinion. In both cases, I have followed their recommendations, only to have this person undo those changes.

I may have screwed up the links here, and if so, I'll try and get them corrected. Lagaman (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Last "compromise" is a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:75.151.228.217 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:49, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Drinking Game Concerts */")
 * 2) 13:51, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276510053 by XLinkBot (talk)")
 * 3) 16:48, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276536514 by Barek (talk)")
 * 4) 17:10, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276542654 by Barek (talk)")
 * 5) 20:39, 11 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 276578762 by Barek (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: 17:12, 11 March 2009

Note: this is the second time this IP has engaged in edit warring on this article. See also:


 * 1) 14:47,  5 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 274907747 by 204.111.165.36 (talk)")
 * 2) 15:06,  6 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275399833 by FerrousCathode (talk)")
 * 3) 20:39,  6 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275458055 by 204.52.215.6 (talk)")
 * 4) 20:49,  6 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 275467061 by Barek (talk)")


 * Diff of prior warning: 20:50, 6 March 2009

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:The TriZ reported by User:Chcoc (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:

user is removing references and adding dead links:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

again, removing references and info from references:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * Tiptoety talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DR2006kl reported by Miacek (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: - he reverted lead section only to his preferred version.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (only partial revert (removal of undesired information plus introduction of own synthesis), see below)

The last 4th revert, made 24 hours 55 minutes after the 1st one yesterday, constitutes partial revert: being warned that 4th rv to his previous version could result in block, the disruptive newby changed his wording a bit. However, the aim was still clear: to remove responsibility attributed to the Supreme Soviet side. Viz, my version's “demonstrators broke through police cordons and urged by Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, started storming objects in Moscow” was removed the 4th time within 24 h 55 min. But this time, probably with the aim of avoiding technical violation of the rule, in addition to reverting/removing he also added another (whitewashing) sentence “During the day the supporters of parliament removed police cordons around the parliament building” and additionally introduced WP:OR/WP:POV “ According to Eltsin supporters, the demonstrators tried to storm Ostankino. According to parliament supporters, they demonstrated to request coverage of their position on central television, which was controlled by Eltsin's supporters, and OMON opened fire. This way or another, the firefight resulted in the large number casualties.”


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (the user removed the warning)

I have been contributing to this article for some months. I've tried to introduce sources to this very poorly sourced article, and asked a knowledgeable user to join in and share his thoughts, once he has more time. However, a newby appeared some months ago, and has been criticising me for almost everything I did, reminding me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Without having done a single edit of encyclopedic value, the user concerned has engaged in disruptive edit-warring for a number of weeks. His so-called improvements in the lead are based only on his own argumentation at talk, they are too one-sided, removing, valid references to who is usually held responsible for the escalation of the events (as the article itself covers). Instead of waiting other people's opinion or providing sources at talk, he blindly reverts to his version every now and again (compare the diff for 9 Feb/9 March, where his 'preferred intro' is again there. Note also, that in the meantime the article has been developed by me and other constructive users, adding sources, external links and citations. I also resent comments at talk like “most of the things you introduced here is either Eltsin's propaganda or of no encyclopaedic value” (WP:NPA). I have not engaged in any propaganda, I have introduced information so as to make sense of both side's positions, , ,. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Remind me again why he is edit warring but you aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, William, but the user seems to have violated the 3 RR, which I haven't. Indeed, the article had staid for years with the (well-known) statement that the Soviets started the armed rebellion on 3 October, which the guy has sought to remove (without so far having done any useful contributions to the article, furthermore, without bringing a single source, unlike me). Yes, purely technically I made 3 reverts within 24, so what? I was merely undoing his unilateral move, that he ha been pushing for months. I was careful enough not to revert over 3 times. What the guy is doing is, well, simply forcing through his own POV, apparently by breaking the (purely formal) 3RR. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree, he has 4R in ~24h, and you have refraimed from the 4th revert. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To put the record straight, I had 2R and 2 honest attempts to work over the issue in 24 hours and was blocked. My honorable friend Miacek had 5R of my edits including 3R in 24.2 hour period. Moreover, my first R was only after his 3R-s.

Going back to the article in question, when I came across it it was an abomination of Wiki with all possible tags of going wrong. In particular, it is heavily pro-Eltsin. I am trying to improve NPOV starting from introduction. In my view, blaming the parliament for the escalation of the crisis in the introduction is POV. The death toll on both sides as well as the fact that none of the parliament leaders received prison sentences tells us that the truth is somewhat more complicated. Needless to say as with all recent political altercations, both sides are blaming each other for the escalation and there is no definite answer who is to blame.

The article in question had only 2 references when I saw it first and my honorable friend added a few. I stay by my words that some of them are of questionable value (for instance, names of z-list celebrities who supported Eltsin from the liberal Yabloko party website) and I feel that most of them are POV supporting the official pro-Eltsin version of the events. DR2006kl (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Standleylake40 reported by Hippopotamus (Result: 24 hr block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (similar also to these, , etc.)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Seems to be a long running edit war (a week or so), though it looks like this is the first time 3RR has been violated. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Stan for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Erikeltic reported by EEMIV (Result: See below)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * and his IP:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: IP
 * 2nd revert: IP
 * 3rd revert: IP
 * 4th revert: IP
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: - after 3RR warning
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Additionally, has made other pointed edits, technically not reverts: and 


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and


 * Result - The autoblock will take out the IP, so don't worry about that. See below. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Veecort reported by McJeff (Result: 24hr block )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * Initial version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (20:48, 11 March 2009)
 * 2nd revert: (05:17, 12 March 2009)
 * 3rd revert: (08:25, 12 March 2009)
 * 4th revert: (12:08, 12 March 2009)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (11:46, 12 March 2009)

The fourth revert wasn't to the COI tag, but instead to a block of text that Veecort added back in December.

McJeff (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Veecort for 24 hours. McJeff, in future could you please watch your own reverts, too? Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

EEMIV reported by PA17927 (Result: No vio )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEMIV&oldid=276827310
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

After an intense debate (and me asking EEMIV to stop deleting my discussions) he posted a response on his talk page in which he called me a "dick" and told me to "fuck off". He did this while telling me to be mature. Please ban him for his abusive behavior that finally culminated in this vile verbal attack. Thanks. PA17927 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is more of a civility dispute, best taken to WP:ANI or WP:ETIQUETTE. As such, no vio. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Captain Kirk (Result: 24hr block)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276785359


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276782567
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276783576
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

There is an on-going edit war between two wiki users who feel that James Cawley's name should be included in Star Trek bio box on the James T. Kirk Page. The bio box for Star Trek characters was agreed upon and setup properly, but there has been no discussion as to whether or not Cawley (a fan who has been in 4 Star Trek TV fan shows he made himself) should be included on Kirk's bio. The argument is stricly over the bio box, not the "depictions" section of Kirk's page.

Furthermore, these two wiki users have blocked another user for making multiple edits, while they have made twice the number of edits in a day as the user they blocked! Both of these users are clearly familiar with one another (as you can tell by their Wiki pages) and may even be friends IRL. Arcayne's wiki discussion page also shows several other users complaining about his behavior. Please help.


 * Result - blocked for 24 hours.  Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (I saw the header for this and thought: 'Damn, someone got the wiki-handle Captain Kirk? That's totally awesome'. Then, realizing that our spacefaring manwhore was blocked, I figured Khan was behind it. KKKKHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNN!) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne reported by anonymous coward (Result: wrong person)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276914609
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276772042
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_T._Kirk&oldid=276769369
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

is engaged in an edit war over the Captain Kirk page (oh no he isn't - you mean James T. Kirk). There have been several discussions as to whether or not non-studio actors should be included in the bio box on Kirk's page. Three editors and two admins have said no (feeling that non-studio actors have as much weight as spoofing actors and should not be included), but Arcayne feels otherwise and keeps reverting the page to include an actor who played Kirk in 4 webisodes. In addition, has deleted another studio actor that will be playing James Kirk as a young man. Rather than start yet another edit war or endure his harassment, I am asking you to please put an end to Arcayne's endless reverts. 24.115.224.131 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you reported the wrong person: 2009-03-12T16:28:32 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) blocked Erikeltic (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: James T. Kirk) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by ww2censor (talk) (Result: 48hr block )
. : Time reported: 16:24, 13 March 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


 * Diff of warning: here

—ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Armchair blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Scarian  Call me Pat!  16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:89.240.193.223 reported by dougweller (talk) (Result: 24hr block )
. : Time reported: 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

The two above edits should be treated as one as they are consecutive
 * 1) 16:34, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "no such thing is done. all statements involved are referenced")
 * 2) 16:41, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "then revert THAT bit - not the entire thing")
 * 3) 16:56, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "*sigh* some people don't listen. I've taken it into my own hands - I've put back the information about Siculo-Malta, but removed the "the most popular theories include". Next time, read.")
 * 4) 17:49, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "did you even look at it? Look at the sources. Sicily is not excluded in the new section. It is mentioned exactly as it is presented in the sources. Next will be RFP")
 * 5) 17:50, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Malta */ clarify")
 * 1) 18:20, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "did Plato say that they came from Iberia during his lifetime?")
 * 2) 18:28, 13 March 2009  (edit summary: "you don't just "remove it". you improve it (which I have now had to do)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Hm, I didn't notice one of the IP's edits and edit again after that, so I am at 3RR and should stop editing, sorry! dougweller (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Dougweller blocked indefinitely. I've given the IP a warning. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? You've blocked the anon for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fasttimes68 reported by Therefore (Result: 24hr block )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is about adding in 2 second paragraph about the Nancy Pelosi aircraft issue. It is properly sourced from MSNBC news and balances out the Judicial Watch's statements in the New York Post. The user removes it 4 times. I've attempted discussion on the article's talk page. User claims the 3rr rule doesn't apply to him because, he says, I didn't respond on his talk page. I don't understand the reasons for his revert. Please, if you could, revert the page. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked Fasttimes for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bradfordparkavenue reported by Plumbago (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR not broken

--P LUMBAGO 08:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editwar began after I edited article to tag up OR and remove unsourced and inappropriate (my POV) material on a BLP
 * Editwar has focused in article lead where (other) editwarring editor is repeatedly adding material that is inappropriate for a biography and sourced to an inaccessible lecture given by the article's subject
 * I have tried to discuss how this material could be supported with the (other) editwarring editor on their talkpage but they refuse to engage, and instead just describe the edits of myself and other editors as vandalism
 * The (other) editwarring editor appears to have reverted two additional times from the IP address 66.183.24.133
 * In passing, this is my first visit to this forum, and I may have come too early before exhausting all alternative actions; my apologies if this is the case


 * User made an additional revert from IP 66.183.27.212, subsequent to 3RR warning that I added to the user's talk page.  It should also be noted that User:Plumbago has made several polite attempts to engage in discussion with the user on his talk page but the user has not responded.   JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor has made a further revert from same IP (66.183.27.212). Editor has still not engaged in any form of discussion (beyond edit summary jibes).  --P LUMBAGO  07:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Between the two foregoing IP reverts, the user also made an additional one in his own name.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint against Philbox17 on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (result: this isn't ANI)
1) Philbox17 has made personal attacks on me.

Here, Philbox17 accuses me of making propaganda.

And here he calls me a propaganda machine.

2) Philbox17 is editing an article about an organization after being asked to do so by leaders of this organization. There is a conflict of interest here.

3) Philbox17 has called me "peureux" (a coward) on French wiki and has also taken to threatening me in a veiled manner: "I counsel you to stop the vandalism and the federalist propaganda right away Vincent...". (My translation.)

4) Note that Philbox17 was suspended from French wikipedia for the above and the suspension was extended following an attempt by Philbox17 to evade the block with a sockpuppet.

Would an admin kindly look into these matters, please? Vincent (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked, and concluded that this is WP:3RR not WP:ANI which is over there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren reported by Russavia (Result: Go away)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has previously violated 3RR

I put this up for speedy deletion, as the template serves no purpose, other than to denigrate other users, especially if they are "North American". There is discussion between Digwuren and another editor at Wikipedia_talk:Baltic_States_notice_board in regards to this. There are policies in place on WP which stop the deletion of articles, such as notability. The speedy deletion template states "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.", and Digwuren as the creator should not be removing speedy deletion templates from this, but rather using "hangon". He hasn't done this, but is rather removing the speedy template completely, outside of that process. --Russavia Dialogue 11:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board, the discussion of a clown who attempted to seriously argue that Riga, Latvia's capital, is such a "non-notable community" that its mayor is not "inherently notable".

The template is supposed to act as a reminder of WP:BIAS to people who might otherwise all too easily delete stuff they haven't heard of. Russavia's entirely pointless speedy deletion tag not only interferes with the template's rendering, it's also fraudulent -- the systemic bias *is* a widely recognised issue of Wikipedia, and there's nothing in established policy against reminding people of that problem. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you again resort to personal attacks against User:Seicer, calling him a clown? And your others reasons are not bound in policy for this template, which you have breached 3RR on. --Russavia Dialogue 11:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, there's a reason why I didn't name any names. Your doing so is what constitutes a personal attack here -- and accordingly, I've removed it.  Under established policy, of course.
 * Besides, there's nothing shameful in being a clown. Even Penn Gillette has attended a clown school -- and his apology for that was merely for laughs. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not alter my posts. Thanks --Russavia Dialogue 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also evident by Articles for deletion/Andris Ārgalis, who your "clown" comment was directed towards. You have failed to assume good faith with his nomination, have created a template directed towards "omniscient" "North Americans", and have not read the template in that you should not be removing it, but rather use "hangon" instead, and have breached WP:3RR, the only reason for which we are here. There is no doubt that you have breached 3RR, and it was out of process. --Russavia Dialogue 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting tactic.  It's you who's doing his darnedest to keep personal attacks on this page, and yet you're trying to claim I'm responsible.  Where have I seen this before?
 * Are you User:Ghirlandajo, per any chance? He *has* been suspiciously silent for months ... ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not blocking anyone over this at this stage. Instead:
 * Russavia - if you think this should be deleted then take it to WP:TFD. It's not a candidate for speedy deletion.
 * Digwuren - don't remove tags from pages you created, it just leads to nonsense like this. Administrators do know what the speedy deletion criteria are.

CIreland (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

59.91.253.113 reported by Radhakrishnansk(Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is involved in mutilating the wikipage of SUCI for the last 2 years. Some time back he was stopped by the administrators. He keeps using abusive language on every editor who criticizes him. He has some personal vengance against this party which is evident from his vandalism.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. R is cautioned re 3RR and incivility too. WP:RFCU is over that way if you need it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * RFCU is unnecessary. The IP editor has acknowledged being a banned editor. See which can be read as admitting that the editor is User:Kuntan, and  acknowledges being banned. Edits by banned editors may be reverted on sight and 3RR should not apply to these, though the non-admin editor should immediately request admin assistance. IP from the range appearing in articles of known interest should be treated as the banned editor, and blocked as appropriate. Rangeblock might be considered. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:173.67.254.207 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: 21:04 stated as undo and revert to 20:38
 * 2nd revert: 21:10 stated as undo and revert to 21:06
 * 3rd revert: 21:15 revert to previous
 * 4th revert: 21:20 revert to previous
 * 5th revert: 21:22 revert to previous
 * 6th revert: 21:24 restoring inappropriate note at the beginning of the article


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:16


 * I've reverted the anon's nonsense elsewhere, so I can't block it myself. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-03-15T02:01:01 Hersfold (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 173.67.254.207 (talk) with an expiry time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) ‎ (Vandalism; and insinuating the intent to pursue legal action) William M. Connolley (talk)

Ebenkostbar1 reported by Aktsu (Result: final warning)

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


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: None, but warned that he was inserting copyrighted material in his edits (diff). Will give him one now.

This seems to be one part edit warring, one part copyvio and one part COI... -- aktsu (t / c) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning given. I reverted him since removing copyright violations are exceptions from 3RR. -- aktsu (t / c) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Given final warning William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Prof.rick reported by Richard Arthur Norton (Result: 12h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I am not sure why the contents of the subjects website are notable enough to include, and then add a warning that the information should be disregarded. If an editor wants to argue over the contents of someone's blog they should do it in their own blog, not in Wikipedia. The topic has no third party coverage. I think there may be some personal animus between the subject of the article and the editor adding the material. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h, in the hope that is enough to make him see sense. If it isn't, get back to me. Haven't you been around long enough to know that warnings go on the user talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation against Philbox17 on Réseau de Résistance du Québécois (result: 24h each)

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


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


 * Note: Philbox17 has taken to personal attacks on me (Vfp15) and he has made threats against me, following which following which he was suspended on French Wikipedia, at first for three days, then for longer because he tried to evade the block with a sock puppet/.

Help would be appreciated. Vincent (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it helps, but youve both broken 3RR so I've blocked you both. You desperately need to start discussing the substance of the edits concerned on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

76.202.195.129 reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comments: User has been edit warring to restore an unsourced network list and trivia over the past few days, only now stepping up his efforts to enforce his version. Been led to WP:BRD in edit summaries and dismissed it. Been warned about 3RR on fourth and continues reverting. He's also reverting obvious corrections: there is no "Jeremiah" in the series, yet his fifth revert is to undo that correction. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

because im not talking about a character.. maybe you need to pay attention. this is why people who dont follow a subject matter should not edit pages regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's a city or some sort of location, you should make that clearer, because there is no link indicating it as such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

or you should stop acting like a know-it-all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.195.129 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Xasodfuih (Result: 24h)
From 02:56, 15 March 2009 to 10:58, 15 March 2009 OrangeMarlin reverted in whole or in part multiple users on Major depressive disorder with the following edits:

3RR warning was acknowledged. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * reverts edits of multiple users (none of which are mine; 1st section) and those of User:The Sceptical Chymist (2nd section)
 * reverts my edits
 * reverts my edits
 * reverts my edits and also those of User:The Sceptical Chymist.
 * For whatever it's worth (WP:3RR says it matters), he also called me an idiot, and CAM POV pusher. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for the incivility, though please try not to use generic warnings templates on the regulars, ie users with an established history of contributions. I urge everyone involved to use the article talk page and remain calm and civil to avoid future edit conflicts. Nja 247 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like the 3rd one was a straight revert: "no scientifc evidence" and "little evidence" do not actually mean the same thing. Cardamon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken together there was obvious disruption: the reverts; conduct; not assuming good faith; and the fact that the blocked user had not been using the article's talk page to discuss the obvious dispute. Nja 247 19:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am one of the editors with whom Orangemarlin, supposedly, editwarred. I do not think there was editwarring per se. OM was reverting separate edits, and did not revert any of those more than two times. Moreover, he stopped reverting when I explained my reasoning on the Talk page in detail. It also appears that Xasodfuih agreed with the compromise version. Thus, there is no need to block Orangemarlin. There was incivility but not so gross as to warrant a block. A warning from an admin would have sufficed. Can this block be reconsidered? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations, however the edit history tells a slightly different story. Further the conflict was reported by the other editor that you named. Regardless the user is able to edit their own talk page if they have anything to say that will clarify any lingering queries. Nja 247 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Stradov reported by Dynablaster (talk) (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

User:Stradov keeps trying to remove notable information published in New Scientist that he personally deems "factually dubious". The information will keep being deleted until he sees some evidence the New Scientist report is accurate. Please read the brief exchange on the main talk page for a complete understanding. Stradov was informed about 3RR on the talk page, "Mind you do [not] break the three-revert rule", with special emphasis in the edit summary: "Be sure to read carefully and follow the links" 03:03, 15 March 2009 I proceeded to post a note of warning to his talk page, offering a piece of sound advice. 03:12, 15 March 2009 Unfortunately, the aforementioned user again deleted reliably sourced information from the article, as the above timeline will show. More recently, I invited Stradov to self revert. 16:18, 15 March 2009. Editors are welcome top see if I myself have done anything wrong, and offer advice/sanction accordingly.
 * 1) 00:08, 14 March 2009
 * 2) 01:22, 14 March 2009
 * 3) 01:08, 15 March 2009
 * 4) 03:59, 15 March 2009
 * 5) 08:01, 15 March 2009

—Dynablaster (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like a strict vio to me, and if we're counting non-strict, you too have sinned. Meanwhile, I'm not really inclined to regad Nude Scientist as a terribly RS. I strongly recommend you find other editors to offer an opinion rather than edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello William. If you examine the page history, you will discover that I have been careful not to break 3RR. In the past, when this sort of thing has occurred, the advice on offer was to take a deep breath, calm down, follow the correct procedure and report rule breakers instead of reverting them. Now that I follow this advice, you disparage a perfectly reliable source ("Nude Scientist") and accuse me of "sinning". What, may I ask, is that all about? Dynablaster (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me try again. S has not, in strict terms, broken 3RR. Neither have you. But he has been edit warring, and so have you. from the edit history it looks like recent changes have consisted of you and he reverting each other, so it could hardly be otherwise. And no, NS is *not* a perfectly reliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably then, "strictly speaking", if Stradof has succeeded in deleted exactly the same information (not once but 5 times), but in doing so, he simultaneously moved other words about and shifted a period fractionally to the left, that is not to be considered relevant? If so, then what is to stop me from doing the same thing? Kindly explain why New Scientist is not a reliable source. Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't understand you. Have you read WP:REVERT? S hasn't got 4R in 24h, is that so hard to understand? As for NS, that is my personal opinion of it, I have no intention of arguing about it here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned user has removed notable information, attributed correctly to a reliable source, 3 times within a 24 hour period. He thinks the information is inaccurate, and until he sees some evidence otherwise, he will keep removing it. If that is not a clear violation, then I'm a banana. Dynablaster (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't go near any gorillas :-). More seriously, if you think your reverts are "right" but his are "wrong" then you dont want AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:User:86.151.123.189 reported by User:Boston (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I'm not really involved with this but I noticed the user in question making personal attacks against another user an deleting what seems to be well-referenced, NPOV text. Requested user not break 3RR but they stated they do not care about this rule. If I shouldn't have reported this or should have handled this differently please advise.--Boston (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Ah, but the rules care about them 2009-03-15T19:27:44 Mfield (talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.151.123.189 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: removal of sourced content, personal attacks)  William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I caught that one via a request at RFPP. IP seems to be a sock too. Mfield (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User is wearing a new sock already  Someone want to revert that edit?  I already did 3 times. --Boston (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have blocked all the IPs and semi protected both articles to prevent continual reversion and chasing of IPs. Mfield (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vexorg reported by Jayjg (Result: 24h block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor keeps adding a disputed paragraph to the article, claiming a "consensus" on the Talk: page which he will not actually point to. Has been blocked for 3RR before, and in his last revert actually warned me about 3RR. His response to a request to revert himself was belligerent. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus reported by Sloane (Result: vote delete)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Conflict is about the addition of the "rescue" template to the article, I, User:AnmaFinotera and User:TheFarix disagree. I tried warning User:Dream Focus about breaking the 3rr, but he continued anyhow and is now justifying his actions by accusing the other editors of vandalism.--Sloane (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag on the Misa Kobayashi says if you disagree with speedy deletion, you should remove that tag. I don't think it meets that criteria, and stated me reason why. Another editor went and agreed with me on that. You don't need to be an administrator to remove that tag.


 * The three edit rule does not apply to revert vandalism, such as tag removal. I read the policy, and that's what it says. Collectonian recently nominated an article for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_David which had a rescue tag placed on it, resulting in members of the rescue squadron, including myself, going there to argue keep. The third person who removes the tag is Sloane, who gives the reason, "article is going to go anyway)" and "no need to waste peoples' time" for his two attempts to delete the tag. I believe that counts as vandalism, and reverted it.   D r e a m Focus  02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is completely and totally false BS. I did not post on my user page for someone to remove the rescue tag. Provide proof or redact that false accusation please. The only post made to my user page about this article was responding to Artw to let him know that I was NOT the first one who removed the rescue tag and saying someone needed to warn you for 3RR because you were now reverting a third editor. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly vandalism. It's other editor's auditing the use of a cleanup tag. The rescue tag is not except from being audited like any other cleanup tag. The fact that you are assuming bad faith only compounds the problem. --Farix (Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait.. sorry. I misread something. What was I looking at... I apologize, you didn't ask others to go there and delete the tag also.  The rest is true though.   D r e a m Focus  02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User: Dream Focus accuses other editors of canvassing for the deletion of the tag (without proof), but in fact, he himself seems to be contacting other people about the matter at the Wikiproject responsible for the tag.--Sloane (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone please click on that link. I asked if someone was allowed to remove the rescue squadron tag or not, since I didn't think they could.  Still waiting for an answer on that.  And that isn't canvasing, it quite relevant to the issue.  Where else would I ask it, but the Rescue Squadron's site?  Others may have had this same issue come up in the past.   D r e a m Focus  02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out, as the person who tagged the article for deletion, that the first person I notified (after the automated message from Twinkle to the article creator) was to Dream Focus. I have monitored this deletion discussion closely and have been making sure that there is no canvassing on either side. Dream Focus certainly hasn't canvassed either; I've made sure of that. I would have warned him otherwise if he had. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Removing the rescue tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the rescue tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep content on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Comment above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Removing the misapplication or abusive application of this template is hardly disruptive. But holding that the template as "unremoveable", especially when the article is clearly unrescuable, however is. But that is beside the point. The point is that Dream Focus had edit warred with multiple editors over the template's application and shows no signs of relenting if another editor removes it again. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful about accusing others of edit warring when you are involved in similar behaviour. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The error here is that someone is putting themself as the judge and jury when a community AfD process is underway. Many "unrescuable" articles have been saved. There really is little to be gained by removing the rescue tag then possibly baiting members of the ARS project or those working to save the article. Seems ironic, IMHO, that certain editors are keen on adding voluminous clean-up tags (despite guidance not to) yet are simply besides themselves when another service tag they find objectionable is also introduced. If you honestly think an article is beyond the help of the ARS project you simply need to do nothing but express your !vote at the AfD. If you're right the article (and tag) will go away in days. If you're mistaken the tag will still be removed when the AfD is complete. Really this seems rather disruptive every time it's brought up. Just leave the tag and ignore the article, one or both will disappear soon. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not do an edit war. I reverted three people who tried to remove the tag, one of them trying twice.  I checked the rules, and it says that the three revert rule doesn't count if you are reverting vandalism, such as tag removal.  Does anyone believe I violated a rule here?  Other than the three who kept trying to remove the tag?  How many consider what they did vandalism?   D r e a m Focus  13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, 3rr clearly states that "adding or removing tags are not exempt". It's not an exception to the policy. And once again, the "rescue" tag is a cleanup tag like any other. It's within any editors prerogative to remove or add these as they see fit (without edit warring of course). This not an afd tag.--Sloane (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved. As i stated above to deliberately try to hinder rescue attempts or any other attempts to improve wikipedia is disruptive. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider this vandalism, and reverted it.  D r e a m Focus  17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (cur) (prev) 02:14, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (prev) 02:10, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (no need to waste peoples' time) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (prev) 02:08, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (that is not a valid reason to remove the tag) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (prev) 02:05, 16 March 2009 Sloane (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (article is going to go anyway) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (prev) 01:28, 16 March 2009 Artw (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (Possibly you should discuss that first?) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (prev) 01:25, 16 March 2009 Collectonian (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Undid revision 277533128 by Dream Focus (talk) not salvagable; per Rescue groups REAL goals, should not be added) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (prev) 00:50, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (And an editor can put it back in if they believe it is valid. Form a consensus with other editors before reverting again. Use the talk page) (undo)
 * 8) (cur) (prev) 00:44, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (Any editor can audit a cleanup tag. This is no different and its pointless to use such a tag with a clearly unrescuable article.) (undo)
 * 9) (cur) (prev) 00:40, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,720 bytes) (That is not your decision to make.) (undo)
 * 10) (cur) (prev) 00:31, 16 March 2009 TheFarix (talk | contribs) (1,673 bytes) (clearly unsavable.) (undo)
 * 11) (cur) (prev) 00:22, 16 March 2009 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,739 bytes) (added rescue tag) (undo)
 * Rather than edit warring it would have been better to post an alert at ANI. This isn't really vandalism just tenacious editing. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is going down on AFD; the more you edit war the more likely it is to die, so go for it I say William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vebatim from above: That one editor feels an article might be salvagable and so tags it is a Good Faith effort to improve the project, whether the article is saved or not. This does not allow that another may remove it out-of-hand, no nore than it does removing an AfD tag. Removing such tags, whether as a refusal to accept the good faith of the tagger, or in disbelief in the article's slavagability, might reasonably be seen as (unintentional) "good faith" vandalism. Point: Have articles been tagged that did not survive an AfD? Yes. This does not minimalize the good faith of the tagger. Are atempts made to salvage tagged articles? Usually. Were some tagged articles actually saved from deletion? Quite definitely. Does removing that tag, that itself had been placed in a good faith effort to improve the project, work to disrupt the process of improving wiki? Yes. Properly replacing a removed tag acts to improve wikipedia, and should not be considered as a violation of WP:3RR for if the removal of the tag can be seen as vandalism, whether intentional or not, the replacing of the removed tag does not fall under 3RR as its removal was not condoned by policy nor guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Point here, is that were the AfD tag were improperly removed, and then replaced, that replacement would not affect the 3RR count. Rescue template is the same, a limited life-span tag as part of a process that acts to improve wikipedia. Such tags should only be removed at the conclusion of and as a result of the AfD. And the RESCUE tag is not the same as a CLEANUP tag. It has a very limited lifespan, and is placed for speciallized and different, though related reasons. This was already hashed out a recent TfD discussion about the tag itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removal of the tag once might be considered a good faith edit, possibly tetsing the waters to see if it is supported or just in plain error. The multiple removals seem like a clear attempt at disruption, and as such should be considered vandalism. Artw (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 01:32, 15 March 2009
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:56, 15 March 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:45, 15 March 2009
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 22:58, 15 March 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: see date of account creation in 2006.

Hobartimus (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h. Rubbish warning though; "see block log" would have been better, but still very lazy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus reported by AnmaFinotera (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 (left by User:Sloane, third editor to remove the tag).

DreamFocus has now reverted three different editors over the removal of the rescue tag from an unsalvagable article. He first tried to claim it doesn't apply unless he's reverting the same person then falsely calls the removals vandalism even though he is fully aware that 3RR does not work that way and that removing the rescue tag is not vandalism. He is also beginning to edit war on Misa Kobayashi, removing a CSD tag despite his not being an administrator and it being obvious the CSD tag was applied in good faith and appropriately. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't edit waring. The tag says anyone who disagrees with the speedy delete, should remove it.  Another editor reverted you and agreed with me on that point.  A voice actor working on three notable projects is just as notable as a regular actor on a non-animated film.   D r e a m Focus  02:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A rescue tag should remain in place until the afd is over. Removing it serves no purpose at all. It doesn't affect afd outcome and will not save the article from deletion if that is the outcome. The tag merely serves as a flag to guide the 'rescuers' who may be able to improve the article to a point were it may survive deletion. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags are text. Reverting them is not vandalism per se. Whether they belong or not is up to the editors of the article. There is no 3RR exemption for restoring tags, no matter how passionately you may believe they belong. The three edit thing doesn't include reverting Vandalism, which is what removing tags is clearly defined is. is untrue. Give a valid reason why that tag shouldn't be there. would be nice, but failure to do it does not justify breaking 3RR, which is absolute. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely concur. Removing the rescue tag is almost always seen as disruptive and impedes the work of the ARS project to then have to deal with enlightening those who don't seem to like what the ARS do - rescuing articles on notable subjects from deletion. ARS and the rescue tag are not magic wands that fix all problems but instead bring editors who are keen in helping keep articl;es on notable subjects from being deleted. There really is no good reason to remove the tag until the AfD is closed, which usually happens within a week. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The template is for articles that have some potential to be referenced and rewritten, and editors can believe in good faith that that isn't possible. WP:ARS's work is good but it's not sacred. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I suggested that ARS' work is sacred, in any case the underlying principle is the same as AFD. That one person doesn't decide if an article is kept or rescuable or not. It is a discussion. If an article will be deleted anyway who cares if the rescue tag is on it when it goes down? Ergo removing a please fix this article if you can tag seem rather pointy and possibly hostile. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or it could easily be a good-faith belief by an expert that the subject cannot be improved in this manner. afd has the support of years of consensus that removing it is disruptive because it delinks a conversation; no such custom protects (or should protect) rescue. "Removing the rescue tag is almost always seen as disruptive" is a false statement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really relevant that one editor may not think the subject can be improved, if another editor wants to try and asks for help with it, then that's good practice and is an attempt to improve wikipedia which is the goal of every editor. It should be encouraged. I can see no good reason to remove, it serves no purpose or benefit other than to deliberately hinder attempts to improve the project. That is disruptive and above all quite petty. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Editors don't think it should be deleted, so should they remove the AfD template? Rescue templates should not be removed until the AfD is closed for the same reason.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That one editor feels an article might be salvagable and so tags it is a Good Faith effort to improve the project, whether the article is saved or not. This does not allow that another may remove it out-of-hand, no nore than it does removing an AfD tag. Removing such tags, whether as a refusal to accept the good faith of the tagger, or in disbelief in the article's slavagability, might reasonably be seen as (unintentional) "good faith" vandalism. Point: Have articles been tagged that did not survive an AfD? Yes. This does not minimalize the good faith of the tagger. Are atempts made to salvage tagged articles? Usually. Were some tagged articles actually saved from deletion? Quite definitely. Does removing that tag, that itself had been placed in a good faith effort to improve the project, work to disrupt the process of improving wiki? Yes. Properly replacing a removed tag acts to improve wikipedia, and should not be considered as a violation of WP:3RR for if the removal of the tag can be seen as vandalism, whether intentional or not, the replacing of the removed tag does not fall under 3RR as its removal was not condoned by policy nor guideline.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Equating removal of an AfD tag and the removal of a rescue tag makes little sense. The removal of the AfD tag needs to be reverted because the process that it is part of will go on even if the tag is missing.  Any editor can in principle do an out of process closure of an AfD process, although in general one should be careful about doing this.
 * When speaking about vandalism on wikipedia you are making the definite statement that it is intentional. See WP:V.  If the person performing the so call vandalism believes that what he is doing is for the good of wikipedia then it is not Vandalism.  Taemyr (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

70.67.115.63 reported by Logos5557 (Result: 12h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User 70.67.115.63 insists on that the word "band" should be replaced with the original/actual word "density". He thinks that band was not used a single time in any of the books, so is completely unsuitable to be used in the article, because "uninitiated" can't grasp the concept with "band" he claims. Discussion is here.

Since there seems no possible resolution, an administrator's intervention seems necessary. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dimension is a more suitable word and has more precedent, both in the material and in commentary on the material on the internet. For instance a message board that discusses the material commonly replaces the potentially confusing word "density" with "dimension." However under no circumstances do they use the meaningless and non-understandable word "band". Logos5557 has decided that his word "band" is superior and cut off discussion, reverting the word "dimension" over and over. At one point, Logos invited me to replace the word band, and when I did, he reverted the changes. 70.67.115.63 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to present a distorted version of what happened.. First of all, user 70.67.115.63 did not discuss the density vs. band issue under the heading I opened in article talk page . Instead he tried to "settle" the issue in my talk page, of course in an uncivil way. Neither density nor dimension is suitable for the concept that the word band imply in the lead. Dimension is not as broad as band. A "band" of spectrum can contain many "dimensions". Message boards mean nothing in this discussion and can not serve as any kind of source for wikipedia. It was not me cutting off the discussion. As it is clear from talk page, it was 70.67.115.63 who relieved himself from any more discussion and went back to his revertion game. Logos5557 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Band, density, dimension, who cares, this is all psuedoscience babble. Since the article uses the word "purported" a lot I guess it avoids AFD; but you certainly don't get any 3RR excemption for your reverts, so you can split the 24h between you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratel reported by CENSEI (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Ratel has been waging a low level edit war over the past several days. He has repeatedly removed sourced material without so much as even a brief note on the talk page. CENSEI (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tendentious editor CENSEI, current under investigation for sockpuppetry, is trying to insert allegations of THEFT against The Huffington Post using a crummy blog entry, which contains the word "dumbass", written by some unknown hack journalist. WP states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I am enforcing that at The Huffington Post page. CENSEI should be blocked for repeatedly trying to insert blog-based actionable material, which, even if true, probably refers to an editorial error that looks to have been immediately corrected and is thus completely non-notable. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄  01:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The blogs are published by newspapers, considered RS's last I checked, and Wired has pucked up on the allegations. Regardless, Ratel is edit warring over the material and only decided to use the talk page after I filed this. CENSEI (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs are only RS if the person writing it is an expert in his field. The character who wrote the one you cite is a bozo who litters his speech with curses and IM acronyms. Ugh! What's next, using graffiti at your local train station as RS? <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like minor edit warring by both of you. No strict 3RR vio, talk amongst yourselves or go for WP:DR and avoid incivil edit comments (R in particular) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by TharsHammar (talk) (Result: both sides warned for edit warring)
. : Time reported: 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

Original 03:41, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Article criticizing Wikipedia */ Add liberal Huffington Post defending Klein, +ref saying As is standard journalistic practice, Klein "tested" the story by having his own researcher attempt to make")

Revert #1 03:54, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "/* Interviews with terrorists */ +ref "his journalistic methodology is scrupulously sound" because the "questionable sourcing" and part of a "smear campaign" quote by itself is POV without balance")

Revert #2 03:58, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277564374 by TharsHammar (talk) - rv - use Talk to delete what you obviously oppose")

Revert #3 03:59, 16 March 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 277565388 by AniMate (talk) - rv - please use Talk to delete this as the article appears POV without it")

Revert #4 02:36, 17 March 2009 (edit summary: "rv TharHammar, not for vandalism reasons, it's just that he has misread the Talk page and hisory comments")


 * Diff of warning: here

Editor continues to reject consensus on talk page, and revert the article against multiple other editors. Note 2 and 3 could be combined, but it is shown to demonstrate user is reverting against multiple editors, and even with combining those edits LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has violated the spirit and the rules of 3RR and continues to engage in edit warring against consensus.

—TharsHammar (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User has been notified of this complaint, and has so far chosen to not refute the allegations.  Please note that many intervening edits and reverts were not highlighted in the report, only those reverts related to one subject manner, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has reverted other information in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No refutation is necessary. A look at my edit history reveals I either did or I did not violate 3RR.  I did not, and your claim that I did does not make it true.  I think you do not understand 3RR since some links you use for support include additions, not reverts, among other things, like your previous false 3RR claim.  I know you are a well-meaning person but I hope someone explains 3RR to you.  I would but I know you would not listen at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I violated 3RR once before when I did not know any better due to inexperience. But I have that experience now, and I edit in a whole different style/manner, so 3RR violations will no longer happen to me, and I regularly build consensus even with those with whom I have initially disagreed, and vice versa. AniMate is just the latest example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having 1 other editor propose a compromise that was rejected by all other editors is not "building consensus". You violated 3RR after repeated warnings.  I played nice last time on 3/11 and just left a reminder on your talk page instead of filing a formal complaint.  Others have warned you not to violate 3RR since then and you have still ignored them.  Now that this has become a pattern of yours I had to file this complaint so administrative action could be taken. TharsHammar (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If editor promises not to edit war, there is no point in a block because the point is to avoid disruption, not to punish. However, the editor seems to be on a weird agenda-driven mission on Wikipedia to discredit Wikipedia as a cabal of liberals so I am not sure what good may come of this.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see 3R from both sides; would you both like to be blocked? No? Then behave William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)