Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive95

Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: Abbatai


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user has consistently failed to provide reliable sources to support his claims which have surpassed the borders of simple vandalism. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issues on the talk page, the user combatively taunted others and broke into a tirade accusing all those reverting him of "spreading Anti-Turkish propaganda" and has begun to turn Wikipedia into a battleground broken by ethnic lines. In either case, he is inserting information which is propagandist in nature and seeks to fudge the truth on the Armenian Genocide. His disruptive edits have spread to other pages, as a quick check on his contributions will show.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He has now violated 3RR on other pages as well and continues reverting on Igdir.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse reported by FFMG (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: MusicInTheHouse


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


 * Page:


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

There are many more edits, (and 3RR), on other pages all related to the user trying to insert a copyrighted image. There is a discussion ongoing on the Rugby project page about the image and until then no image should be used. FFMG (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

70.108.79.147 reported by TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

additionally from an ongoing sock investigation:
 * 1st revert by 70.108.110.22
 * 2nd revert by 70.108.110.22
 * 3rd revert by 70.108.110.22
 * 4th revert by 70.108.79.147

User has already broken 3RR on Tim Hasselbeck by using other socks:
 * 1st revert by 70.108.74.81
 * 2nd revert by 70.108.74.81
 * 3rd revert by 70.108.110.22
 * 4th revert by 70.108.110.22

as well as previous warnings and ;
 * Diff of removal of 3RR warning:

At Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the IP continues to add specific birthdates for non-notable minors, despite consensus otherwise on the talk page. The IP has been blocked for the 3rr violation at Tim Hasselbeck for returning NPOV BP:BLP content. And has been warned about 3rr edits returning material violating WP:FAIR at Girlfriends -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't spell. Anyway, semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE
The editor has returned under another IP after being notified that the ip 70.108.118.234 had been blocked. The new edtis have continued to violate 3rr and WPBLP issues. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.118.234 (talk)

I wasnt aware that redpen had tricked u all once again in2 a block. Let me look. Meanwhile isnt redpen too supposed 2 not be editing 4 24hrs? The links I added to Matt LeBlanc are imdb,eonline, & femalefirst. What blog is redpen talking about? 70.108.118.234 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

12.108.255.76 reported by Adolphus79 (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I, among a couple other editors have tried to clean this article up, removing unencyclopdic content such as a complete listing of the menu, and what kind of music the restaurant plays, etc... the IP reverts anyone that tries to change the article at all... I have tried discussing the changes with the user, asking why they think a complete menu listing is notable or encyclopedic, I even suggested that they file a RfC... all they do is revert the changes saying that it is only opinion... They revert to a diff previous of other changes made to clean the article up also, with no apparent intentions to discuss this... I gave a 3RR warning, and asked that they discuss the changes on the article's talk page... they reverted the changes again, without any discussion... made a comment that the menu needs to be part of the article so that people know what each of the menu items is... considering that I have already given 3RR (and am on the verge of 3RR myself), I thought I would bring it here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WarthogDemon reporting User:Markharding93

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Article is currently under AFD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MaestroZone

The user has repeatedly removed the notability tag from the page and re-adding content removed by at least three other users, not including myself. Has been warned numerous times. - Warthog Demon  23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And has now done so again at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MaestroZone&diff=280308172&oldid=280303396 . - Warthog Demon  23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Offliner reported by User:Cmp7 (stale?)
User:Offliner has repeatedly and maliciously added, removed, disrupted, and falsely edited Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) to suit his personal agenda before anyone could even come to a consensus on the question of keeping or deleting the article. Offliner has rejected any consensus or right to free speech on Wikipedia and is alienating peoples rights as contributors to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I should point out that cmp7 removed the proposed deletion template from the page before the issue was settled by an admin, and has already been issued a final warning regarding his disruptive editing. Regarding Offliner, nothing he did could be considered vandalism. He explained his edit both in the proposed deletion discussion, and in the edit summary, and I agree with him. LokiiT (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably stale, and anyway badly formatted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

70.128.85.90 reported by A2Kafir (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

I only just now warned an anonymous user about 3RR. I don't edit that much anymore, so I'm unsure how this type of thing is handled. But this user has only edited this article, and only to remove factual information repeatedly. A2Kafir (and...?) 22:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even after warnings on his talk page, IP has reverted twice more without discussion.  Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version 24 March
 * 1) 13:46 28 March
 * 2) 17:12 28 March
 * 3) 18:54 28 March
 * 4) 22:37 28 March
 * 5) 09:51 29 March
 * 6) 11:20 29 March

Just came off another block for the same issue, re-kindling a mass edit war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of which edit war, once more, Fut. Perf. is a major party . I have flagged his persistent edit warring in his previous report about FDAU, however he didn't seem to change his behaviour. It is obvious Future Perfect at Sunrise editing behaviour in the article Greece clearly constitutes edit warring, as defined in WP:EDITWAR: "For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits."--Avg (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, on further consideration, I'm more and more convinced that this account is a sock of banned user User:Mywayyy anyway. Same revert-warring, same style, same editing profile (Greek air traffic, economics, "developed countries", removing Turkish names from placename articles), same IP range . Can we indef him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur; this is clearly a Mywayyy sockpuppet. Well spotted - might I suggest a checkuser on that account to see if there are any other socks lurking on that IP range? (You'll recall how Mywayyy used an entire farm of socks; I wouldn't be surprised to find that he's up to the same thing this time.) I agree with Fut. Perf's recommendation for an indefinite block. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen reported by Hamitr (Result: 12 hours )

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


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


 * Diff of previous 3RR warning for same article:
 * Diff of more recent warning between 2nd and 3rd revert today:

--Hamitr (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit more background information in case it is helpful. User Hauskalainen keeps adding an extensive list of UK laws restricting firearms, knives, etc.  The content was discussed on the talk page March 14 - 20, and then the content was removed with the consensus that it belonged in other articles like Firearm laws in the United Kingdom, etc.


 * Since that removal, Hauskalainen has reverted the removal (re-added the material) twice on March 20, and then the three four times listed above.
 * --Hamitr (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See below. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Toarchives reported by Chuckiesdad (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-03-29T07:11:00 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Toarchives (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf (result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version: 21 March
 * Reverts:
 * 1) 22 March, 11:58
 * 2) 22 March, 12:35
 * 3) 24 March, 17:43
 * 4) 25 March, 12:12
 * 5) 26 March, 15:08
 * 6) 27 March, 13:09
 * 7) 29 March, 09:32

Slow but long-term edit war (1 rv/day), also on multiple other articles (see contribs on 23 March c.19:30 and 22 March c.12:00). User is alone against several others in insisting on a purely symbolic flag image with no factual encyclopedic information (apparently, for him, a POV issue, about promoting the importance of the EU). User has multiple previous blocks for EU-related revert warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Lear 21 has not been part of edit warring according to Wikipedia policy. Lear 21 has uphold content from an FA article (Germany) which was established for half a year by now. User Lear 21 has properly argued at talk pages to uphold the content consisting of two images. At the talk pages 2 users expressed their critic of the 2 images and 2 users signalized support, one the supporters were Lear 21. User Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand has been not part of any discussion concerning the removal of content of the respective article (Germany). User Future Perfect at Sunrise has been reminded by Lear 21 that his deletion actions at the Germany article are undiscussed but refused to take part of any discussions nevertheless. At the very moment the procedure of Future Perfect at Sunrise actions including this report here tends to be rather abusive while at the same time ignoring several Wikipedia guidelines. Lear 21 (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lear 21 has been reverting edits for which there is a wide consensus with strong arguments against those images on the talkpage of the article in question. There are at least 2 sections about this topic on article talk and several more on various user talk pages. --Tone 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. I really don't see this as serious enough yet for a block or warning; but it might be if it continues or escalates. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen reported by O Fenian (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:

The discussion on the talk page seems against the inclusion of that section, but Hauskalainen will not accept it and keeps edit warring. O Fenian (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

66.229.250.178 reported by SoWhy (Result: Dealt with at WP:ANI)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Discussion
I also reported the 3RR violations and the legal threat at WP:ANI as well, removed the report at WP:AIV. Momusufan (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. User was blocked for making legal threats by following aforementioned report to ANI. This report is thus void. Regards  So Why  18:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

201.250.117.64/201.250.97.28/User:Moncho2000 reported by Pfainuk (24h)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert: (201.250.97.28)
 * Second revert: (201.250.97.28)
 * Third revert: (Moncho)
 * Fourth revert: (Moncho)
 * Fifth revert: (201.250.97.28)
 * Sixth revert: (201.250.117.64)


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning (to first IP):
 * Diff of WP:3RR warning (to Moncho2000):

Two related IPs and one account, all reverting to exactly the same thing with no edit summary and believed to be the same person. None have significant contribution histories. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

168.103.171.49 and 75.172.21.9 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: semi)
Two users have been involved in a tag team on Warner Robins, Georgia. The effort has been involved in creating an attack section on some local resident. Aside from the notion that such a section on your private citizen would not be appropriate for an article on an entire city, the users have been warned that their assertions are not sourced by reliable sources. Both users were warned last night. The only talk the users have engaged in were inappropriate edits to my talk page here and here

Diffs of reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Warnings to both users

 * 
 * 

TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi protected for a while seems easiest William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom reported by 70.108.118.234 (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Andrea Anders (actress)
 * User: User:TheRedPenOfDoom


 * Previous version reverted to: This is 23:54, 21 March 2009 version : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&oldid=278838320 [link]


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=prev&oldid=280086228
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280111695
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280144152
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Anders_(actress)&diff=next&oldid=280148503

Warning : Andrea Anders (actress) 3rr warning Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you 70.108.118.234 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Add any other comments and sign your name here -->

stalker redpen has been stalking me since 22Mar. For this encounter, redpen stalked me to Andrea Anders. My edits are those attributed to User_talk:70.108.102.252 & Special:Contributions/70.108.102.252...my ip changed). I simply corrected The Class to The Class (TV series) & redpen reverted saying wpblp, yet I added no bio info! I then decided to add sources 4 the info that was already in the article that I didnt add but still redpen reverted.  If you will please take the time you'll see that redpen is following me throughout wiki & reverting all my edits. Please intervene. Thanks. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was wearily predictable. RP also counselled to caution in reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Y is redpen only counseled but earlier this week I was blocked? 70.108.118.234 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

william you said TheRedPenOfDoom would be blocked for 24hours but I still see editing. 173.79.59.36 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No... I said someone was blocked, but it was the anon, not RP William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Legitimate reverts by RedPen of unsourced information per WP:BLP. IP, if you want to add information to Wikipedia, you need to have a reliable source.  Grsz 11  03:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

will: U didnt make this clear. The format of this page has the result indicating a block of the person reported on. Your bias continues to show. Did u look @ the edits? Had u done so you woulda seen there was no wpblp violated by me. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:InternetReader2 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:00, 28 March 2009


 * First revert: 22:49, 29 March 2009
 * Second revert: 23:05, 29 March 2009
 * Third revert: 23:28, 29 March 2009
 * Fourth revert: 23:40, 29 March 2009
 * Fifth revert: 23:54, 29 March 2009
 * ...and more....
 * Sixth revert: 00:22, 30 March 2009
 * Seventh revert: 02:05, 30 March 2009
 * Eight revert: 02:19, 30 March 2009


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: 23:24, 29 March 2009

Changes in one or two words in the title of the added section don't seem significant. He's been told it's irrelevant to the article, both on his talk page, and on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted 3 times already. Would someone please help. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OOPS, make that 4. I reverted numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7.  However, he should already have been blocked by now.  Grumble.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
User blocked as sock puppet/evading blocks by another admin. Nja 247 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cannibaloki reported by User:68.3.67.25 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert: [link]

User:Cannibaloki placed a PROD on article 2 in 1 AFTER it survived an AfD. I deproded article, but user:Cannibaloki place back the PROD 3 times. Discussion is on my talk page 68.3.67.25 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: [link]

Result
User was unclear of PROD template procedures, which has now been explained to them on their talk page. Nja 247 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 reported by Chuck Marean (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * First revert: link seem to be simply in support of this TW revert link.


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: link

my paragraph was so good I feel like I'm being ganged up against by accounts trying to get me to revert three times. Maybe I'm wrong, but saying the scientist is not a climatologist makes me feel they probably did not read the paragraph I wrote.

Result
This is not a violation of the three revert rule. Please discuss issues with other editors on the article's talk page and consider dispute resolution if needed. Nja 247 08:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:71.127.142.120 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Warn)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User:


 * In Pizzle:
 * 08:05, 29 March 2009
 * 22:57, 29 March 2009
 * 01:35, 30 March 2009
 * 01:42, 30 March 2009
 * 01:49, 30 March 2009
 * 02:09, 30 March 2009


 * In User talk:Ronz:
 * 01:56, 30 March 2009
 * 2:13, 30 March 2009
 * 02:23, 30 March 2009
 * 02:48, 30 March 2009


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: 02:17, 30 March 2009

I think we can get the problems with Pizzle under control, but I'd like him to stop with the edit-warring on my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Ronz] for edit warring in this article as he has made 9 edits in the last 48 hours to the pizzle page !  —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
IP has now been warned of proper procedure on their talk page. Nja 247 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result:no action)

 * Page:
 * User:

Discussion
Hello, I would like to ask for administrator intervention in this ongoing edit war. I have provided information to this user (Unionsoap) regarding the subject of this page, and it continually is being reverted to a version which uses only unverified and unsubstantiated sources (such as wordpress weblogs, blogspot weblogs, personal Web sites, and press release style information.) In addition, the only verified notability that this individual has is as the author of two books, and the version which I (and another administrator) revert to includes only that information. In addition, some areas of this (brief) entry are just plain wrong; this individual was never a model (as the public directories and agencies lack an entry for her) and her place of origin (San Francisco South Bay) is not an actual place. I think this must be some sort of fan but I don't think Wiki is a fan site.

May I ask that the version that excludes the weblog (unverified) information be re-instated, which was the version by the administrator, and that the version be "locked" against future edits? Perhaps this could all just sort of die down if it were locked on a version that includes only verified information.

May I also ask that this article be considered for deletion? Other than the books, which were published by a vanity press, this person's only claim to fame appears to be as the girlfriend of a German princeling.

Thank you kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs)

Result
This section is to be edited on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=49 Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedialy by the administrator processing this report.
 * There's no 3RR vio here, the article hasn't been edited in 3 days, and its at your version. No reason to bring this here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing reported by Anon (no action)

 * Page:
 * User:

I previously made a suggestion to User:The Ogre regarding the Latin America page, and they gave their support for it. It was put into the article, but then User:Bosonic dressing reverted, again, and again, and again, and again. In this edit, the user claimed they would continue to edit war until they had "agreed" to the edits. I agree that I am one edit over the limit, but this user has reverted 5 times, and I have stopped reverting, and instead took it here.

A look at his talk page before he last blanked it reveals no less than 5 previous warnings for various things, yet going back further one can see even more that have been blanked.

It appears that all in all this user's stay here on wikipedia has been far from non-disruptive, and a break may be neccessary to give them time to learn the rules. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This board is for 3RR violations or serious edit-warring, not forum-shopping. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a 3RR violation. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, not unless the Earth day is now the length of the Martian one. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read it all the way through. The user made an explicit threat to continue to edit war until he agreed with the article. 84.13.199.38 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

122.55.152.184 reported by Blueboar (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:
 * Yet other reverts:, and

Also clearly sockpuppeting under a different IP:116.50.233.2 (see: )

Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Result
The .184 IP has been blocked, and the article has been s-protected in case he/she shows up using a different IP.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours by User:Akradecki. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

12.110.131.82 reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:
 * Fifth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

KuyaBriBri Talk 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

78.148.201.138 reported by O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: Editor previously blocked for making this edit, along with many other IPs in the page's recent history

Editor is a single purpose account only interested in removing the term "British Isles" based on nothing more than their own opinion, ignoring what sources say and having no interest in any consensus that includes the term. Editor has previously been blocked for edit warring over this, evaded the block, continued to edit war, page protected to prevent further block evasion, then as soon as the protection wears off it is back to square one. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterlewis reported by Nja247 (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Discussion
I'm an involved admin, who [warned the user after their second revert that they'd be blocked for disruption by re-adding the NPOV text and for violation of 3RR if they reverted again, which they did. They're not new, and have previous incivility issues, plus I gave a clear warning. I'm reporting it here so that a neutral party can do the block rather than me. Cheers. [[User:Nja247|Nja ]]247 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Going with WP:DUCK on the IP. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:Africaepbr reported by User:Usrnme h8er (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page: Clinical officer
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

This is a pretty clear case of editwar, as of this posting I've done my 3rd revert of a massive change and will do no more. The user in question has done no less than 8 reverts against 3 other editors. Usrnme h8er 19:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonny1123 reported by Cool Hand Luke (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing on

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

SPA first adds section about www.thezeitgeistmovement.com:
 * 1) 00:10, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "")

Then edit wars to maintain the section:
 * 1) 16:23, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280352222 by Skipsievert (talk)")
 * 2) 17:37, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "The social movement is a critical part of the Zeitgeist project and it need to be noted. it is not a "fan site"")

And then edit wars to maintain links to the site, which he added:
 * 1) 15:27, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280543152 by Big Bird (talk) Very relevent to the project. keep links")
 * 2) 15:27, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280543152 by Big Bird (talk) Very relevent to the project. keep links")
 * 3) 17:02, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280661445 by Cool Hand Luke (talk) IT is the Official site of The Zeitgeist movement")
 * 4) 19:28, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280683385 by Big Bird (talk) CONFLICT OF OPINION")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PK blocked for 12h but he appears to have come back via an anon so extended to 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael H 34 reported by Slp1 (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Article as last edited on the 27th

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


 * 1) 13:48, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "step 1") removes negative info about PAS from lead
 * 2) 19:04, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280680264 by WLU (talk) Restore")  reverts to remove the information again
 * 3) 19:36, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "restoring + NPOV on "self-published" sentence") removes same paragraph again
 * 4) 19:48, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280712123 by Slp1 (talk) revert - obviously biased lead") reverts to preferred version minus info again
 * 5) 20:43, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280723039 by WLU (talk) sorry, there is no evidence that one guy has made arguments about PAS inclusion in DSM-V") reverts different material newly added
 * 6) 21:09, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725633 by WLU (talk) Repetitive and undue weight + Ackerman was referring to "some of the articles" "reviewed by Rand"") More removal of newly added info
 * 7) 21:17, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "/* Application and criticisms */ PAS is a psychiatric order and is under the purview of the APA; there is no evidence that PAS has been considered by the AMA") Partial revert of this edit that added " and American Medical association"


 * Diff of warning: here and though this is an old one

This is more complicated because it doesn't not all refer to the same material. If you need more info, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige, if I can. --Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

97.106.54.153 reported by Geoff B (result: semi)

 * Page: ,
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Warning:

Geoff B (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Addition of POV/OR, personal attacks. Geoff B (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from the IP: "So now you are crying like a baby to the mods. Very pathetic." Geoff B (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I ran into this edit war between User:97.106.54.153 and User:Geoff B) while on Recent Change Patrol and warned both parties. Pretty much it involves the wording of a single sentence: "Wesker escapes the Mansion's self-destruction, where Lisa is killed." vs "Wesker kills Lisa and escapes the Mansion's self-destruction." Much bad-mouthing involved on the part of User:97.106.54.153, who was belligerant in both his edit summaries and on the user talk pages when other party (User:Geoff B) attempted conversation. Am otherwise uninvolved. --Mukk 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

97.106.54.153 eventually changed his mind about his edit on the other article, leaving the edit summary "On second thought, I'll remove it but I'm still pushing the Trevor part. Geoff is totally anal." Geoff B (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User is also 97.106.45.159, 97.106.44.244, 97.106.48.181, user admits it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StarScream1007#Anon_IP_getting_a_bit_shirty_on_some_RE_pages. here], appears to have been handing out level 3 & 4 warnings for first offences. Geoff B (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come one, now you are being ridiculous. That was a LONG time ago. I didn't know that it is forbidden to hand out level 3 & 4 warnings for first offences. You really are trying to do whatever you can to block me indefinitely. Let it go man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.54.153 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.


 * Semi-protected for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Geoff B reported by Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:29, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:31, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - OR")
 * 3) 20:51, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280712208 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
 * 4) 20:52, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725348 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
 * 5) 20:54, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280725673 by 97.106.54.153 (talk)")
 * 6) 20:55, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: ".rv - OR is not allowed on wikipedia")
 * 7) 20:56, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - original research")
 * 8) 20:58, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - original research")
 * 9) 20:59, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - unsourced material can be removed at any times.  You cannot provide sources because no sources support your opinion.")
 * 10) 21:03, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - youtube is not a rleiable source.  See WP:RS")
 * 11) 21:05, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "rv - original research.  I suggest you educate yourself as to what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia.")


 * Diff of warning: here

This is the other half of the edit war reported first in this report. User:Geoff B and User:97.106.54.153 engaged in a very long edit war, though Geoff B did, admittedly, keep his cool much better than 97.106.54.153. — Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h + article semi for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DK127 reported by Lucas20 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_Area_High_School&oldid=280766628


 * First revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_Area_High_School&oldid=280768087
 * Second revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_Area_High_School&oldid=280769055
 * Third revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_Area_High_School&oldid=280770315
 * Fourth revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_Area_High_School&oldid=280770671


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: [link]

Tried to rm disparaging remarks against living persons, non-neutral comments, conflict of interest, and non-encyclopedic efforts. Concerns with living persons "toolbags" "absolute garbage chest injury" etc. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:71.127.142.120 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

NOTE: It appears that the user was previously submitted to WP:AN3 by ; result from that reporting was "Warn" ... but the edit warring activity continues.

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


 * 1) 08:05, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280347778 by Ronz (talk) Ronz please stop spamming and vandalizing Wiki! 5 revs...will report!!")
 * 2) 22:57, 29 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280423509 by Kelapstick (talk) General knowledge like the rest of the article")
 * 3) 01:35, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280531625 by Ronz (talk) Reversing Vandalism by Ronz")
 * 4) 01:42, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280548682 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 5) 01:49, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280550460 by Ronz (talk) Temperature was already mentioned in the previous versions, and is an impt. factor in preparation")
 * 6) 02:09, 30 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280554150 by Kelapstick (talk) (removed "the sun or ovens" - disruptive editor does not provide citaitons)")
 * 7) 04:21, 31 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280782165 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 8) 04:34, 31 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280798374 by Ronz (talk) Please stop Vandalizing pages on wiki Ronz!~ Have sent you repeated warnings!")
 * 9) 04:52, 31 March 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 280800667 by Barek (talk)Follow CIVIL and NPA or be ignored until you're finally blocked, please use discussion page")


 * Diff of warning: here and clarification

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional revert not listed above in Pizzle:
 * 04:54, 31 March 2009


 * In User talk:Ronz:
 * 01:56, 30 March 2009
 * 2:13, 30 March 2009
 * 02:23, 30 March 2009
 * 02:48, 30 March 2009
 * 04:33, 31 March 2009
 * 04:37, 31 March 2009


 * Additional diffs of WP:3RR warnings:
 * 02:17, 30 March 2009
 * 08:14, 30 March 2009
 * 04:37, 31 March 2009

I count six new reverts since the previous report, four in Pizzle and two in User talk:Ronz.

It's also becoming apparent that this ip address is likely being used by the same person also edit-warring on Pizzle: who has admitted  to being. Avrumelmakis1 is the account that started all the edit-warring on Pizzle, and was previously blocked for edit warring in the related article, Bully stick, where he had a conflict of interest with the links he spammed there. --Ronz (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
The only person edit warring here is Ronz as can be evidenced by looking at the history of the Pizzle page! He has made 14 edits to the page in the last 2 days! Could someone please warn or block him? It appears on his talk page that he is also engaging in edit warring on other pages in Wiki as well. I am just trying to add content to the encyclopedia which makes sense, not spamming, not adding links, nothing but adding content. Additionally, I have been civil in using the discussion page something which is not being done by Ronz at all; please look into this! Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jamesworthy/User:123.2.149.117 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User: /


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:
 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

The Quinten Hann article has seen large portions of referenced text removed and replaced with unreferenced text. This has occurrred all through March:. The edits were originally carried out by User:Davidmorris666 whose edits are solely limited to the article. After breaking the 3RR on several occasions and being warned, the exact samed edits continued being made by an anonymous user User:123.2.149.117. After warning the anonymous user today, the anonymous user 'stopped' editing and User:Jamesworthy started making the exact same edits. The edits Jamesworthy has made are also limited to the Quinten Hann article and I am positive they are the same person, so am reporting them cumulatively as a 3RR violation. I have tried to negotiate with this person on the talk page but he insists the information is 'wrong' despite the references, and has offered no alternative references to validate his claims. He simply changes the information and excises large chunks of it. I've run out of reverts now so I would appreciate it if the information was restored and the user dealt with. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous reported by Tundrabuggy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Fifth revert:
 * Sixth revert:
 * Seventh revert:


 * Keeps re-adding two removed quotes, one by Zangwill "Palestine proper had already its inhabitants. The pashalik [province] of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews." and one by Weizmann "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value". Annoynmous is not a new editor, he has been editing for over two years, and has been blocked for 3RR violation 4 times before. His talk page is full of warnings from just this month about edit-warring on this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * First off I did not revert more than three times. After I reverted the first time I restructered the article some more and tried to satisfy the other editors demands. The last time I added back the information and made some more changes. We have settled those disputes and I agreed that certain quotes were innapropriate at this time and removed them.


 * Plus all the warnings on my talk page were part of attempts by other editors to bully me into going away. Several times the editors falsely accussed me of violating the 3rr when I hadn't.


 * Anyway, it doesn't matter, whe have settled the dispute. annoynmous 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also like to say that I was trying to make some edits at the same time as hertz. This ended up in an edit conflict. I didn't technically revert him. I simply re-added the material, although in different parts of the page.


 * This specific issue with the article is resolved. I'm willing to except a 24 hour block even though I don't feel what I did was technically a revert. annoynmous 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the dispute is not "resolved" - you've just out-reverted everyone else. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. The dispute was not just over the Zangwill and Weizmann quotes. There were several quotes in the article by the author Amos oz which I agreed were innapropriate for the article right now, but the Zangwill and Weizmann quotes are relevant to it. I removed the Oz quotes and kept the others. No one else from the talk page has disputed it. You weren't involved on the talk page so who are you to say the dispute isn't resolved. annoynmous 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also like to say that currently I am in dipsute with and editor named Historicist that is seperate from this dispute. It started after the other conflict was resolved. It was over the wording of a quote. Sense that dispute has begun I have made 3 reverts only. annoynmous 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User:annoynmous has been edit warring on this article for weeks and seems bent on being disruptive and annoying. I'd support a lengthier block than 24 hours because of prior history and that this may be under ARBPIA. DVD 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Annoynmous is up to his seventh revert now. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because DVD doesn't like me is not sufficient reason to block me. The dispute he's referring to is over. I conceded the point of tags at the top of the article weeks ago. I am currently satisfied with the page as it is. After this I plan on taking a long break from editing. annoynmous 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those last 3 reverts were not about the same topic as the one above. They are about a dispute with Historicist about how to word a quote. annoynmous 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Annoynmous and Historicist were both edit-warring, but Annoynmous (who's been blocked before for such things and knows) has six clear reverts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and maybe another one or two partial reverts. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne reported by User:Dream_Focus (Result: No action, editors warned)

 * Page: Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica)
 * User:Arcayne


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

You can see he has erased the exact same information at least four times. Older edits I think he did it more than that, but proving it four times is all that is required.  D r e a m Focus  17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Pardon me, but two things are glaringly obvious: 1) only three two edits occurred within the 24-hour period (and the four are over a three day period); 2) the 'warning' was tendered many hours after the third edit; and, 3) this user has been actively involved in an edit-war in that article, having just finished a block for edit-warring less than a week ago. There is a discussion at AN/I regarding a particularly bad set of actions by another editor in this matter. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of reverts, as well the time they spanned are not set in stone; you cannot hide behind the rules. It is the intent of 3RR that matters and it is clear the intent was quite disruptive. Arcayne removed information, I reverted; that is the time Arcayne should have stopped, which he ddidn't. He has been reverted by me and another editor. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not actively involved in an edit-war in that manner. After filing this report, a short time later someone erased the information again, so I reverted it.  That is the only time I have edited that article at all.  The edit war problem I had was when I reverted a vandal from erasing Rescue tags, but some didn't consider that vandalism so a short block was done.  That has nothing to do with this article, or anyone involved in it.  And I didn't notice it wasn't within a 24 hour period.  So as long as you only erase the same exact information from the article, once or twice a day, you are safe from the rules.   D r e a m Focus  22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result

 * No action. The technical 3RR has not been violated here; and it takes more than one to edit war. I also note four reversions by User:Edokter of Arcayne's edits in the recent history (and he has also been reverted by more than one editor); if a sanction was to be applied on one it would have to be applied on both, and I do not see that as productive.  Both editors may take this as a warning not to continue this course of action. Furthermore, I am watchlisting the page and will fully protect it if this edit-war, which now includes more editors, continues. Black Kite</b> 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Berig reported by User:Spinach Monster (Result: 12 hours for reporter)
On Cimbrian language. Began with incivility on my page, he escalated it with canvassing tactics. Trying to talk to this user has proven to be a waste of time, the arrogance is palpable. His edits go against facts found in Cimbri, Sulla and at least half a dozen other articles from the late Roman Republic.

If he continues, I will have to start an RFC. He's committed 3RR today. Here are the diffs.

Spinach Monster (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial Diff
 * First RR
 * Second RR
 * Third RR


 * I'm just reverting OR by Spinach Monster, who clearly has misunderstood the 3RR rule.--Berig (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have informed Berig. Also please note that such behavior is not appropriate from any user, let alone an administrator, which Berig happens to be. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OR and vandalism must be reverted on sight, SP.--Berig (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Berig's understanding of original research is as incorrect as his understanding of 3RR considering the amount of articles that disagree with his opinion. I am putting a disputed tag on the article now due to the intransigence here. I will start the RFC the next time I get a chance. If an admin could please assist in restraining Berig until then. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spinach Monster, let me get this straight, Berig reverts you three times, you revert three times, and you're expecting us to block Berig or something? Please use the talk page and don't use this board to forum shop. And Berig, I know it was probably a mistake, but using rollback like this sets a bad example. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right Deacon. I should have used the undo function and left a message in the edit summary (as I did the last time I reverted him).--Berig (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodness me, Spinach monster thought it would be a good idea after making this report to be the only one to violate WP:3RR. I've given him 12 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Bering wont to bring factual data. Is it so hard to read. It appears some here can count up to 3. Can you count the missing X centuries? read section {ref} in Cimbri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.246.31 (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz reported by CENSEI (Result: no vios)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert: user did self revert on this
 * Fifth revert: user self reverted on this as well


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Tried to adequately source a criticism of Jewish Voice for Peace and Malik Shabazz edit warred to keep it out. Even when sourced to an undeniable reliable source, Commentary Magazine, user continued to edit war to keep another critical comment out of the article. Although in violation of 3RR, I don’t think that Malik Shabazz should be blocked. He should, however be warned for his edit warring and his initial refusal to even discuss his edits on the talk page. He has now taken to edit warring to Joshua Muravchik where he is attempting to reinsert an unsourced statement, something he must know is a WP:BLP violation.

Edit summaries like this are typical of his personal insults and tendentiousness. CENSEI (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Insulting how? By telling you where the information is found?  Grsz 11  03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Insulting by the way he used "duh". Come on, we are supposed to adhere to a higher standard of civility, right? And to be uncivil in that particular context, during an onslaught of CENSEI's improper non-neutral POV pushing, it's downright wrong. If they come across so rudely again, why shouldn't they be blocked? I've seen users who were blocked for less rudeness than that, even if they weren't edit-warring. uncivil rudeness + editwar nonneutrality = adding insult to injury. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
There have been only three reverts at Jewish Voice for Peace, and there is most certainly a source at the end of the sentence at Joshua_Muravchik. — Malik Shabazz 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been 7 reverts, two of these were you reverting yourself when you realized you crossed the 3RR boundary, but regardless you are still edit warring, and I have asked you several times on the talk page to cease and desist. CENSEI (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need to spend a little more time reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. ... Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule. — Malik Shabazz 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more game playing tendentiousness by Censei. He should be ashamed. He knows better. He just chooses to spend all his time here being disruptive. He endlesley inserts unreliable sources (while removing such from articles he likes) to goad people into going "over" their limits (not clear to me if malik did or didn't, and don't care).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don’t consider a magazine that has played host to 100's of the most notable individuals from the fields of politics, diplomacy, art, history and literature "non-notable", but others certainly don’t agree. CENSEI (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the five diffs cited, only the first three are actual reverts. The next two were quickly self-reverted by Malik Shabazz.  Further, the first two out of three were BLP reverts, even if not stated as such.  As far as I can tell CENSEI is the primary party edit warring here to insert poorly sourced POV content.  I will refrain from commenting or speculating on other administrative reports but this one seems questionable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.
 * CENSEI and Malik are both engaging in edit-warring. Malik went over 3rr twice but reverted himself both times, CENSEI's hugging the line too. Blocks will come if it continues today. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Rracecarr (Result:warned)

 * Page:
 * User:

(this is actually a diff, showing addition of "Seasons" entry, after it had recently been deleted.
 * Previous version reverted to:

(the first of these not a revert. The second is the same edit a few minutes later, after reversion by another editor) (two removals of "Dark side of the Moon" entry)
 * First revert:  removes "Seasons" entry
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert: removes "Seasons" entry again
 * Fourth revert: removes "Seasons" entry again
 * Fifth revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Discussion
I removed unsourced and badly sourced examples from this list, in line with the discussion that has been ongoing there and the article's intro. Rracecarr has reinserted them repeatedly, despite general agreement in the discussion that only well-sourced examples would be kept. I am not looking for an edit war at all here - in the 'Seasons' examples above, I discussed it with another user on the talk page and we came to an agreement about sources. I didn't realise I had edited the same article so often - since RRacecarr posted on my talk page, I haven't edited the article. --hippo43 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Only 4 reverts there, as consecutive uninterrupted reverts are not counted separately. I'll take Hippo's word per WP:AGF that this was pure accident (let's face it, it happens), but future accidents like this will most likely lead to a block. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sifilis122 reported by The Ogre (Result: Both parties blocked, 24 and 12 hours respectively)

 * Page: (violation of 3RR)
 * Previous version reverted to: Battle of Alcântara (1580) - as edited by User:XPTO at 18:03, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 14:09, 1 April 2009
 * Second revert: 15:54, 1 April 2009
 * Third revert: 16:02, 1 April 2009
 * Fourth revert: 16:20, 1 April 2009: partial rv; refs do not uphold change


 * Page: (violation of 3RR)
 * Previous version reverted to: Uthman ibn Affan - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:42, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:52, 1 April 2009
 * Second revert: 14:06, 1 April 2009
 * Third revert: 15:56, 1 April 2009


 * Page: (partial violation of 3RR)
 * Previous version reverted to: Portuguese Restoration War - as edited by User:XPTO at 17:45, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:26, 1 April 2009: sources do not uphold the change and one of them is spam; calls XPTO a vandal
 * Second revert: 16:10, 1 April 2009
 * Third relevant edit: 16:37, 1 April 2009: re-introduction of spam link


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: List of Spanish Viceroys of Portugal - as edited by User:XPTO at 00:19, 3 February 2009
 * First revert: 12:24, 1 April 2009: same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Joseph Bonaparte - as edited by User:Alansohn at 15:39, 18 March 2009
 * First revert: 12:18, 1 April 2009: same unsourced POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Portuguese Castle - as edited by User:XPTO at 22:05, 30 March 2009
 * First revert: 12:10, 1 April 2009: same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Ziryab - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:31, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 12:09, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Santa Cruz Basilica - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:58, 30 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:55, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Hermenegild - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:32, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:54, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Chindasuinth - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:37, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:53, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:21, 31 March 2009.
 * First revert: 11:51, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Fulgentius of Écija - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:56, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:50, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Liuvigild - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:26, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:49, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Dibba Al-Hisn - as edited by User:XPTO at 22:07, 30 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:45, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Code of Leovigild - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:40, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:43, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Saint Florentina - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:00, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:42, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Comes - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:07, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:41, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Septimania - as edited by User:XPTO at 21:18, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:40, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Reconquista - as edited by User:Tugaworld at 17:00, 20 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:32, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Legio VII Gemina - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:15, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:29, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: Battle of Ponta Delgada - as edited by User:XPTO at 20:11, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:22, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * Page: (edit warring with the same or similar POV agenda)
 * Previous version reverted to: War of the Portuguese Succession - as edited by User:XPTO at 17:52, 31 March 2009
 * First revert: 11:20, 1 April 2009:same POV pushing


 * User:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning: 16:05, 1 April 2009

This user seems to have a strong POV agenda that makes him edit war in a diversity of articles, as can be seen above. His mais objective is to change, against consensus, the references to Iberia and Hispania to the modern country of Spain, ignoring that those geographical and historical realities, that comprehend not just the modern territory of Spain, but also of Portugal, can not be equated with the modern reality of that specific country. It would be the same as just calling England to Great Britain. He also tries to change references in Portuguese language to Spanish ones. Furthermore, he tries to change the complexity of the procees leading to and subsequent to the Iberian Union as a simple domination of Portugal by Spain. He also rapidlly acuses other users (such as XPTO, who he seem to be harassing, and myself) of vandalism and chauvinism, and as comited some sort of vandalism in my user page by his abuse of warning templates (he has done a wholesale removal of warnings from his talk page and placed them on mine: see 1 and 2). This needs dealing with. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Both Sifilis122 and The Ogre with vios. 12 for The Ogre and 24 for Sifilis122, the latter getting more for accompanying bad behaviour. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho reported by CENSEI| (RESULT: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:
 * Fifth Revert:


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Allstarecho has made 5 reverts in exactly 28 hours and none of them were accompanied by any comments on the talk page explaining or justifying inclusion or exclusion of the content until I did so prior to my first edit. CENSEI (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Talk about lieing. My comments are plainly visible on the talk page as well as in my edit summaries. The fact is, CENSEI and User:Ejnogarb are hell bent on whitewashing the article by removing valid sourced content. They should reach a consensus on the talk page BEFORE removing valid, SOURCED content. They are 2 conservative editors who are trying to remove content pertaining to a study which shows gay people and straight people have pretty much the same amounts of promiscuity. Censoring content is vandalism and reverting vandalism is not edit-warring. Myself and other editors have reverted these changes but these 2 editors want to remove the content and THEN discuss it on the talk page? How about discussing it on the talk page first to come to a consensus and then if the consensus is to remove it, remove it. If anyone has been "edit warring", it would be those 2 editors, especially Ejnogarb who has 4 reverts in 24 hours. I would also point out that these 2 editors are working in tandem based on this edit. Additionally, Ejnogarb and I were already dealing with this issue today until CENSEI came along to disrupt it all over again.- &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about content, which by reviewing the talk page you are completely wrong about, but is about your editing behavior. CENSEI (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My edit behavior? It's apparent you 2 have an agenda so it's really more about your own editing behavior. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my not-so-humble opinion, CENSEI and Enjongarb have been blatantly pointy-- and no less than four other editors have felt the need to undo non-neutral edits performed on articles which had been improperly modified in the past few days. I don't mind having their POV all over the Talk Pages because i think it's very useful for them to collaborate openly, but i am rather distressed by the way their POV efforts seem to be showing up in the main Article spaces particularly on topics related to men who have sex with men, promiscuity, and LGBT issues.... without being discussed openly first. The issue of collusion is secondary, the issue of non-neutrality is primary. Thanks ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CENSEI, Allstarecho made only three reverts in 24 hours. And you are edit warring on the same article. Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Malik, as you well know (with your own recent edit warring) 3RR is an electric fence, not a God given right. Its the behavior associated with the Rv's as well as their frequency, Allstarecho had 5 in less than 30 hours indicating a certain degree of Tenditiousness that is the issue. My 2 Rv's are hardly an indication of edit warring, unless the standards have been rewritten. CENSEI (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the very Tenditious page you linked to:
 * Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.
 * Ejnogarb and your edits have been resisted by other editors and yet, you all keep insisting. Hello again pot, meet kettle again. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As you should know—look higher up this page at —your two reverts are edit-warring. So sorry, but thanks for playing. — Malik Shabazz 20:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Concerned by the edit-warring by Ejnogarb and CENSEI too, but Allstarecho is clearly the disruptive force in the article, so we'll see how it goes with him on a break. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Back2back2back reported by Robert Stevens (RESULT: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User: (apparently the same user when not signed in)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:

Article contained factually incorrect information, apparently a distortion of the history of Tyre in order to provide a better fit to a Biblical prophecy alleging the city's permanent destruction (the city still exists). Faced with the choice of providing counter-apologetics or simply deleting the inaccurate information, I chose deletion (though I'm prepared to provide counter-apologetics, I feel that this would break the flow of the article, which is apparently an overview of claimed Bible prophecies). On the talkpage discussion, User Back2back2back refuses to admit that the information is inaccurate, refuses to check references available on the Tyre (Lebanon) article as requested, and insists (without justification) that the information I removed is "historically accurate".

Actual paragraph reads:

"The island city was destroyed by Alexander the Great during the Siege of Tyre and its residents were enslaved. Alexander used the debris from the destroyed mainland city to build a causeway to the island city. The Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre. Numerous other empires and countries have rebuilt the city at or near the site of the original only to have them destroyed. The fishing village of Sur is now located at the original site of Tyre."

...But most of this is simply false (Alexander did not "destroy" Tyre when he conquered it, he didn't enslave ALL the residents, the city recovered and was rebuilt, it has since enjoyed many centuries of prosperity, and it still exists today: and "Sur" is simply the Phoenician name for the city the Greeks called "Tyre"). Also, there is no mention of Alexander in the prophecy anyhow, it's about Nebuchadnezzar's earlier attack on TYre, and only Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians are mentioned by name, not Alexander or the Greeks: so this is irrelevant except as an attempt at misdirection.

All of this has been explained. Back2back2back doesn't care.


 * Diff of WP:3RR warning:

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:

To see why the first one is a revert: observe the reinsertion of the words "the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by..." To see why the second one is a revert: observe the readdition of the words "one time Neo-Nazi" - the same was done in the first revert. Offliner (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To see why number three is a revert: notice the readdition of the words "The committee has been noted for its anti-Estonian sentiment and neo-Stalinist viewpoint.":. The same was done in the first and the fourth revert. To make this more clear: here's the series of edits before Martintg's third revert: note the addition of "Estonian journalist Heiki Suurkask has accused the committee of anti-Estonian sentiment" This piece of text is removed and replaced with ""The committee has been noted for its anti-Estonian sentiment and neo-Stalinist viewpoint." in Martintg's third revert:  Offliner (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The words "the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by..." are not in the "previos version reverted to". Given the quality of the next report by the same user, one should be careful. Colchicum (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read again. The words are there like I said. Offliner (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the words "and", "in", "with", "to" are there too. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Offliner himself was a part of edit warring in both articles. I believe this is a part of coordinated effort by Offliner and Russavia to follow edits by Martintg and others - see this diff. Perhaps this should be addressed at another noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The alleged first revert is newly inserted material, so it is not a revert at all, while another alleged revert relates to correcting spelling and inserting text in an unrelated area. Martintg (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't personally see much 3RR here, without further diffs. However, I did notice that WP:BLP addition of material describing living people as Neo-Nazi's. I would urge an admin to go thru both Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Johan Bäckman to ensure that potential WP:BLP violations are removed, and when included that they are suitably sourced and attributed, rather than presented as matters of fact. --Russavia Dialogue 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest protecting affected pages for a day or two to cool down tempers. There is edit warring on both (more?) sides, but no 3RR violations. Yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

1, 2 and 4 are reverts. Can't see why 3 is. If this keeps up someone harsher than me, or me tomorrow morning, is going to block you all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Following further info from the reporter, #3 is indeed a revert. 24h. Cautions to others remain William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg reported by User:Offliner (no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:
 * Fifth revert:
 * Sixth revert:

Also note the case above. Offliner (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Care to show that these are ideed reverts? At least and  are clearly not reverts, the others probably too. Colchicum (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems all of the diffs are related to different edits in different sections, one even being just a correction of a spelling mistake and the other a missing space. Also there was no warning given for 3RR either. Martintg (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Offliner himself clearly was a part of edit warring in both articles. I believe this is a part of coordinated effort by Offliner and Russavia to follow edits by Marting and others - see this diff. Perhaps this should be addressed at another noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. This is definitely not for this noticeboard. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, and considering the message pointed out by Biophys, this entry and the one below it are not sanctionable cases of edit-warring. These articles are of highly controversial people, full of WP:BLP risks. The diffs are cherry-picked diffs from a path of incremental improvement of the article. This not a case of edit warring; it's a case of attempting to eliminate content opponents via bad-faith EW reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw the attention to the supposed reverts [128] and [129], which are ... spelling corrections. This fact alone is enough to question the motives of the author of this report. Second, I would respectfully suggest Offliner to read what "revert" means in WP: one has to revert THE SAME THING. Simply making 3 edits that you don't like on the same article does not constitute repeated reverets, unless they REDO EXACTLY THE SAME (in meaning; might use synonims, etc) VERSION. Do you see anything like that in the edits you cite?? Dc76\talk 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One should take into account, that these are not isolated incidents, but only part of a steady stream of edit warring on Martintg's part. Here, for example, Martintg makes 3 reverts within 24 hours on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, (wisely) stopping just short of breaking 3RR:. I think a short block is in order here to discourage such behaviour. Offliner (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one should closely examine Offliner's own edits and block log before. Colchicum (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That "2 intermediate edit not shown" business again. What are these about?  You can't just claim any random edit (or series of edits) you don't like as a revert, you know.
 * What next? Randomly combine a content opponent's edit with a random vandal's, and then use the diff to "prove" that he or she vandalised the article? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, what are we talking about? This is from two weeks ago. Colchicum (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Silly me, assuming good faith again. I should have become a pessimist, then I'd only be surprised in pleasant ways. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Offliner is edit-warring on Soviet deportations from Estonia against the discussion on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

This is stupid. is a minor grammar correction and is a spelling corection. Why are you reporting them as reverts? I can only conclude that you are desperate to get your "opponents" blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Colchicum reported by User:Offliner (result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * First revert:
 * Second revert:
 * Third revert:
 * Fourth revert:
 * Fifth revert:

Offliner (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To see why number three is a revert: see this addition by User:Dojarca:. Compare this to C's third revert (also notice the edit summary:). To see the why number four is a revert: take look at it series of edits before Colchicum's first revert:. Note the addition of the words "Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates..." These words are removed by Colchicum in his fourth revert:. Number five seems to have been a mistake on my part: it is indeed not a revert (I think.) Offliner (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
The fourth one is certainly not a revert, the fifth one is also certainly not a revert. Get real, your efforts to get rid of your opponents look ridiculous. Colchicum (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not ridiculous. This is working. He already (almost) get rid of me, and he now started WP:Battle with Martintg. Offliner is clearly disruptive.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I have nothing personal against these editors. In fact, I respect them both. I especially respect the fact that Martintg has been recently seeking compromise in articles such as Putinjugend. And I don't think I've ever had a single argument with Colchicum. I just wish they would stop edit warring in the two articles mentioned. 3RR is an absolute limit. I'm just the messenger here - do not shoot me. Offliner (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no edit-warring, and we were nowhere near 3RR, because more than a half of your diffs are not reverts. Also what about "N intermediate revisions not shown"? What is this? Who made them? Colchicum (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do respect us you would have warned us first if you believed 3RR was breached, but instead you run to this board without warning. Martintg (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The diffs given relate to different parts if the article, which is under an intense WP:BRD development cycle. Oflliner has come late into this and appears to be attempting to disrupt this. No diff to 3RR warning has been given because there is no 3RR going on. Martintg (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, and considering the message pointed out by Biophys, this entry and the one above it are not sanctionable cases of edit-warring. These articles are of highly controversial people, full of WP:BLP risks. The diffs are cherry-picked diffs from a path of incremental improvement of the article. This not a case of edit warring; it's a case of attempting to eliminate content opponents via bad-faith EW reports. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Same as in the above report of martintg: I would respectfully suggest Offliner to read what "revert" means in WP: one has to revert THE SAME THING. Simply making 3 edits that you don't like on the same article does not constitute repeated reverets, unless they REDO EXACTLY THE SAME (in meaning; might use synonims, etc) VERSION. Do you see anything like that in the edits you cite??
 * What are the motives of the author of this report? Dc76\talk 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why the report was brought here, but looking at revert 3, 4 and 5, without additional diffs, I wouldn't view myself this as WP:3RR. I would suggest that this is closed with no action. --Russavia Dialogue 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * However, as I noted above, there has been a lot of WP:BLP characterisation of people as Neo-Nazi's and the like, such as in this diff which is part of this report, and I would urge an admin to review the two articles and ensure that BLP is adhered to. --Russavia Dialogue 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Number 3 is definitely a revert. He says it himself in the edit summary: "(rv. not a historian)". He is reverting this edit by Dojarca: . The fourth one is also a revert. Take look at it series of edits before Colchicum's first revert: . Note the addition of the words "Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates..." These words are removed by Colchicum in his fourth revert: . As for number five, it seems I was mistaken: that one is indeed not a revert. Offliner (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be really desperate... I am so sorry for you. In the fourth edit a duplicated paragraph is removed, here is it, if you don't see: Bäckman has noted Russian youth hates Estonia and Latvia and will act accordingly when the Nashi comes to power in Russia, leading to end of the Estonian statehood shortly afterwards  He speculated that most of the Russian youth all over Russia, including children, hated Estonia and denied it the right to exist. Bäckman went on to predict that in ten years at most, the Nashi comes to power in Russia, leading to end of the Estonian statehood shortly afterwards. Colchicum (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Result
This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

No evidence presents that most of the "reverts" are indeed reverts. Reporter is encouraged to study the text ''For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary''. If you can't be bothered to do this, don't come back William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew reported by Magnius (Result: 24 hours to both )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User has entered into edit war over image use in article. Despite repeated requests to discuss the issue before removal, the user continues to vandalise the page without discussion. It is also worth noting that the user blanked their own talk page after warnings were applied, new warnings were added.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

magnius (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What a surprise, the reporter had also violated the rule. Hopefully a break from reverting the "vandalism" of their opponent will do each some good. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Sickofdoublestandards reported by User:Brianyoumans (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user may not be technically in violation of 3RR, but they are clearly edit-warring and paying no attention to other editors' attempts to work with them. (See the edits by User:Suziesiegel and User:Printexas, for example.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User hasn't violated the 3-revert rule and hasn't edited the article again since his last [non-admin] warning, and has been reverted. I've warned the user not to continue. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DavidOaks reported by Nukes4Tots (Result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: <-- reverting same edit by another user


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User was warned only after reverting another user's deletion of his edits. Though he has not reverted 4-times in 24 hours, he has reverted two editors and did not engage in good-faith discussion nor addressed the clear points against his inclusion of the content. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's like 4 reverts over nearly 3 days. A stretching of the BRD cycle, sure, blockable or warnable, no. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Parvazbato59 reported by User:Geo Swan (Result: no action )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The second of the three contentious edits here is from an IP address, not from Parvazbato59. But it shows the same idiosyncratic wording. I do not think Parvazbato59 was trying to obfuscate their identity, merely that they forgot to log in.

This is my first 3RR report in my four plus years of contributing to the wikipedia. It is not clear to me whether I could have reverted their edit one more time, or even multiple times. I had pointed out to them, on Talk:Shahzada, the guideline for disambiguation pages recommends the wikilinks on disambiguation pages not be piped. So, could I have reverted it on the grounds that ignoring policies and guidelines constitutes vandalism?

Background: Parvazbato59 nominated a recent version of the Shahzada page for deletion, and has objected to me trying to restore the version of the page that was a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "warning" you issued, is really not a warning, it is a link to this thread. I recommend leaving uw-3rr and attempting some communication with the user seeing as they have not made any edits since your message on their talk page. If they continue to revert I will block, but for right now I recommend trying some good old communication. Tiptoety  talk 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum reported by Russavia (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In addition to this report, Colchicum posted this to Digwuren's talk page, possibly (??) in a WP:TEAM type of way in order to get around 3RR, and Digwuren too has removed sourced information. Additionally Digwuren has stated at that it is basically ok to remove sourced information, and to insert unsourced information, and that if others don't like it, stiff, they can WP:SOFIXIT. --Russavia Dialogue 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was cleaning up after an edit-warrior, who blindly reverted against the discussion on the talk page. And where is the fourth revert, my dear stalker? Colchicum (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) The warning was given after the reverts (I am well aware of 3RR, though) and was clearly aimed at trolling. Anyway, given this and the three bogus reports above by the same team, I think some sanctions agaist Russavia and Offliner are warranted. Colchicum (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job talking about me behind my back. Real class act.
 * As for the WP:TEAM -- take a look at how User:Russavia inserts neo-Nazi claims about Estonian police into Wikipedia after Offliner did it twice . Obviously, the tactic is to troll articles with silly or outrageous content, skirting the borders of WP:V, and then count reverts.  I concur that sanctions are in order -- both on Russavia, of this report, and Offliner, of two reports above. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Colchicum, 3RR doesn't entitle you to 3 reverts. Also, I unfortunately had to advise you after the violation. BTW, there is no team on my part, particularly with Offliner, we operate independently with our edits on WP, and there is little to no actual interaction between us. Now, the information was totally sourced, and was neutrally written, and was attributed. As another editor obviously has seen fit to include said information into the article, there obviously is not consensus to exclude it. But at least you weren't whitewashing the sourced information completely as Digwuren attempted, and inserted unsourced information like Digwuren has, and refused to provide sources like Digwuren has. If it were up to me, I'd rather bring Digwuren here, rather than yourself, but given your message on Digwuren's talk page, which considering his past seems like a call to WP:TEAM in order to defeat WP:3RR I have no choice but to bring that here. --Russavia Dialogue 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me both Russavia and Offliner (who have a history of coordinating their tactics) are attempting to block shop here by attempting to lure people into edit wars by adding irrelevant and contentious material into articles they have never edited before. Soviet deportations from Estonia is one such article, another being Kaitsepolitseiamet only stopping and withdrawing their contentious edits after being reported on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Russavia's admission above "I'd rather bring Digwuren here, rather than yourself, but given your message on Digwuren's talk page, ... I have no choice but to bring that here" is evidence that Russavia and Offliner are misusing this board to "get even". I think these WP:BATTLE tactics by Russavia and Offliner need to be stopped. Martintg (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering their history of mutual coordination, it is indeed suspicious that they both landed there at the same time, though they have never edited or shown any inclination to edit those articles before, but let's assume good faith for the time being ;) Colchicum (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this the best you guys can do? Honestly! What do you see there? A message from one editor to another editor who has been involved in the same article in the past, with a note alerting them to the insertion of materials which were challenged in the past and removed, and encouraging him to discuss this on the talk page. That's some damning evidence right there. This alleged call to arms resulted in Talk:Web_brigades, which if below it one will notice certain editors insertion of Arbcom decisions into the article, and constant re-addition of said information, even after it was pointed out on several occasions that WP is not a reliable source. But what does any of that have to do with this? About the same as your link to a talk page message on a totally unrelated subject. Nothing. Additionally, you will notice above in the other reports that I have clearly stated that I don't believe 3RR has taken place; I guess this means our team is now defunct Offliner *insert rolly eyes here* --Russavia Dialogue 20:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes Martintg, I would rather bring Digwuren here, because as far as I am concerned inserting unsourced material into an article, and then tell another editor to source it himself, goes against verifiability, and as the assertion he has made is absolutely contentious, then I regard such things as more heinous than 3RR, but I can't bring Digwuren here for that, and in fact, there is little I can do about it, and he basically knows that. Recognising something like this as genocide or a crime against humanity is a pretty controversial thing to do, but there is no source for this contentious content, and there still is NO source. But please, don't continue with the battle accusations, as all one has to do is show this in which Colchicum stated "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ru[[Image:Schutzstaffel SS SVG1.1.svg|14px]]avia", which resulted in him receiving this warning, which he ignored. What we have in this article is an editor inserting sourced, neutrally worded information into an article, and then the pack descends upon it, and causes crap like this. --Russavia Dialogue 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's your source: . The resolution's passage was all over the news.  I find it strange that you'd be unable to find it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a vio to me. Cautions all round re edit warring; continuation will bring trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal of the question could have easily been answered here ya know William. I have always been under the impression that only 3 reverts are allowed. Given that, my apologies Colchicum for bringing this here, I will know for next time. --Russavia Dialogue 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrannar reported by User:Inmysolitude (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been warned about edit warring on this page in the past.Inmysolitude (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 22:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Robert Stevens reported by User:Back2back2back (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I did not warn the user as he was already aware of the three revert rule.Back2back2back (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

GHcool reported by Cryptonio (Result: 24 and 12 hours respectively)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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

Did not warn the editor, for he intended reporting me if I were to abuse 3RR as he did.

Cryptonio (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Two vios on the page, one indeed by the reportee and one by the reporter. 24 for the former (2nd offence) and 12 for the latter. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:189.75.33.106 reported by User:Troy 07 (Result: semi-protect)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note: the most recent of many block-evading IP socks. ~ Troy (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Troy, you shouldn't really be using rollback like that; but with that said I've semi-protected it for a month as he'll clearly just come back whether or not I block this manifestation. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 reported by Factsontheground (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Wikifan is continuously adding the POV tag to the article. Other editors had in the past agreed with the user, but those concerns have been remedied and they no longer support the tag being placed in the article, as can be seen here at the end of the section. The entirety of the dispute is that Wikifan insists on keeping the POV tag in the article without noting that the concerns have already been addressed. When asked what would improve the article's neutrality he responds with his feelings that the article should not exist and that the AfD did not produce the required outcome. Nableezy (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A note, another user also added the POV tag, Shuki, and we were able to discuss it in a calm manner on his talk page. I dont really mind the tag being placed, but a rationale and ideas for improvement would be appreciated, not the blanket statements Wikifan has been making that the article shouldnt even exist as a POV fork and so the POV tag has to be included. Nableezy (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. I'm really getting tired of your wikihounding. I was simply adding the POV that was suggested in talk and widely supported per prior AFD. You continually to ask for examples, I gave you explicit reasons yet you continue to remove the tag. Also, suspicious the creator of the article who has take an usual obsession with the topic reported me for adding what clearly goes against his POV. Anyways, I knew you were waiting for this. Hope you are satisfied. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I followed the 3rr process and explained the tag in simple terms. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the article. Whoever blocks me remember this was nothing close to blind edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not hounding, was actually about to report (in fact did) until I saw Factsontheground did first. Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. You two have the same mind. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, when Fact complained via revert I directed him to the rationale on his userpage here. He didn't comment. Surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (result: 72 hours)

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

This is the second 3RR I am filling out for this user in the past two weeks. He clearly has no grasp on what it means to not edit war and has failed to provide reliable sources and discuss his edits despite being asked so countless times. To repeat my comments from the previous filing, his disruptive contributions have spread to other pages as well. Some tougher sanctions seem to be heavily warranted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ericorbit reported by LauraAndrade88 (Result: no vio)

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


 * 4th revert


 * 5th revert
 * Please note that the reporting editor has been informed on her talk page about an ongoing consensus discussion pertaining to information she is adding to articles (she has since blanked her Talk Page and ignored me) and editor has also removed citation tags from articles without providing sources. The article in question (per links above) has been experiencing a high level of vandalism which is clearly evident in the article's history.  Do what you will.  Thanks. - eo (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules breaker here is you, Ericorbit. Your attitude is bad. I'm watching you. LauraAndrade88 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I misread the timestamps on this first time round. No vio. But there is more reverting there than there should be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

82.108.42.66 reported by OlYeller21 (Result: Redirect fully protected)

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


 * 4th revert


 * This article was deleted per this AfD. Since then, it's been recreated a few times and I've reverted all of them (not within 24 hours) and attempted to start a discussion on the talk page.  I tried to explain in the edit summary and on 82.108.42.66's talk page (here) why the page was made a redirect to the album.  He was also warned here by another user about the #RR.  I believe that the anon user may also be using a sockpuppet, Saulornelas to revert |here and |here. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone for a 3RR violation so please let me know if I've made any errors.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 21:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The song's name has been full protected as a redirect to the album till April 17 by User:Camaron. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Zach Thomas (result: text removed)
There is an ongoing edit war among several editors involving BLP violations at Zach Thomas. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and re-removed the text + added an explanation + warning not to re-add it to the talk page, as it does appear to be a BLP violation. If it's re-added without clear consensus to do so, feel free to update this thread or post to ANI (or even requests for page protection), making sure to cite BLP. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal reported by Adrian CZ (Result: No Action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

On 25 March I made what I thought were some good improvements to the Matthias Rath article, all per WP:AVOID and with the aim of improving the article’s WP:NPOV. Whilst I would obviously agree that the Words to Avoid guidelines are best treated with common sense and the occasional exception, Verbal seemingly wants to make an exception of an entire WP:BLP. To do so clearly contravenes WP:NPOV. Moreover, to repeatedly revert all of my edits in their entirety, three times within eight and a half hours, is not only completely unjustified but also a clear case of edit-warring and breaking the three-revert rule. Adrian CZ (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I did not attempt more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. However, this was not an attempt at gaming by going to the technical limit. I asked for the IPs and new account to discuss their edits on the talk page of this controversial BLP to justify them, and requested page protection when it became obvious that they were not willing to discuss the edits in an attempt to force discussion. I was not the editor that reverted Adrian CZs edits, rather another editor that also thought this was a mistaken application of WP:AVOID. The reverts by the IPs also removed other article improvements, whereas the language introduced by Adrian CZ was clumsy and unclear. This can simply be resolved by discussion of individual occurrences on the talk page to gain agreement and consensus and find alternative wordings, if required, that improve the article. Note that my request for page protection was for semi page protection, which would have allowed Adrian or other established editors to debate and edit the page still. In future with this kind of dispute on controversial BLPs I will request semi-protection earlier, or ask the advice of experienced administrators. Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No action Quite apart from 3RR not being technically breached (and not to mention that this dispute is four days old and thus stale), reverting a collection of suspicious IPs on a BLP/altmed article gives far more latitude to an editor, especially when at least two of those IPs are clearly the same editor and another is an account with one edit, and Verbal's erit summaries clearly point those editors towards the talkpage without success. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ianmacm reported by 80.192.67.254 (Result: No vio, reporter warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * (cur) (prev) 22:39, 4 April 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (10,905 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 16:29, 1 April 2009 Ianmacm (talk | contribs) (10,804 bytes) (copyedit, see User talk:Tlrampa) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 12:30, 1 April 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (10,974 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 08:55, 28 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) (10,974 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 08:49, 28 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) (11,122 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 21:00, 27 March 2009 Ianmacm (talk | contribs) (10,803 bytes) (rv, see previous comment and WP:LINKSPAM) (undo)
 * (cur) (prev) 18:45, 27 March 2009 Tlrampa (talk | contribs) m (11,123 bytes) (→Excerpts from Rampa's writings, advocacy of his views) (undo)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link] not sure how to do this

I have always had a brief description about this link and this person only edits my comments to what he thinks it should be. I don’t know this person, never net him and by his comments he is anti-Rampa. I would rather anyone who disagrees to talk with me first rather than just editing. Many links on Wikipedia have detailed description as this helps any visitor to know more information about that link before choosing. He also makes comment about images which are not on Wikipedia; why I have no idea? There are various websites dedicated to Dr. Rampa, all as equal to each other, but perhaps not in any particular individual opinion, but equal as in pro Rampa. --80.192.67.254 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No party has gone past three reverts in 24 hours. I caution both User:Tlrampa and the IP editor to read and understand our WP:SPAM and WP:Conflict of interest policies. The web site can be mentioned, but Wikipedia is not a medium of advertising. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy reported by Unionsoap (Result: one week and 12 hours respectively)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The often block User:DreamGuy Block Log is once again refusing to accept the KEEP consensus of an AfD, and is engaging in an edit war to remove referenced facts, and to tag the article with a Notability tag. Unionsoap (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nominating editor also gets 12 hours, as he violated the rule too. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthbody reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Warn )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert.


 * 1st revert: Reverted the previous two edits, which are these:
 * 2nd revert:, undid most of the previous users two edits, which are the following:
 * 3rd revert: Simple revert of the previous edit
 * 4th revert: Same thing, this time undoing my edit.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is spamming a variety of pages with material from a non-academic publisher devoted to the views of a leader of a small Tibetan Buddhist sect. Mitsube (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically no breach of 3RR, and I see a report also at WP:AN (though made by another user not yourself). I think it'd be practicable to discuss the issues directly via talk pages rather than carry on with this content dispute. I will warn the user to do the same. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a breach. There were the four reverts in less than 24 hours, which I posted. I'm not sure what to do in this situation, should I post this report again? Mitsube (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 1 week)

 * Page: and multiple other country pages
 * User:

Previous report: Please see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive95

Slow but extremely tenacious edit war about the reinsertion of a decorative flag picture in multiple country articles, most frequently Germany. Was reported on 29 March for having reverted seven times in seven days. No block given at that time, but warned that action might be taken if the warring continues. Since then he has reinserted the image three more times on Germany ( 1 April, 2 April, 5 April), and once again in a mass edit on a dozen of other articles

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please block Lear 21 or issue firm admonishment. This persistent user won't give up pushing his edits. He does bring the matter to the talk page, but he just keeps repeating his arguments, rejecting the arguments of everyone else who explain why he is wrong, over and over again. It's getting very tiresome as not only it's useless to discuss with him, as he keeps reverting users who revert him on a daily basis, claiming that no consensus has been reached on the talk page (false, he just continues in denial). Hús  ö  nd  11:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. --Tone 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing an edit-war after clearly being told that continuing it might be sanctionable is a poor decision. I did consider making this a longer block, given the editor's block log and the fact the last edit-warring block was 3 weeks, but since that was over a year ago I think this is a reasonable compromise. This editor should be under no illusions though that continuing this behaviour will lead to quickly escalating block lengths. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 reported by Alientraveller (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

ChaosMaster16 posts irrelevant edit summaries, does not care for other editors taking care of redundancies and has admitted willingness to patronize readers on my talk page, and also stated they only want to follow the part of WP:MOSFILM they want to follow. This article has already had a painful birth after NuclearWarfare, Erik and I sorted out how to manage an overlong lead, but ChaosMaster16 has returned insisting the article go back to the way it was and refused to input at the discussion page. Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally constructive edits editor has blindly reverted include the removal of information not given in citations. Alientraveller (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox reported by User:Kenosis (Result:48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert of three other editors.


 * 1st revert: 1st revert, of User:Cassowary's removal of original research
 * 2nd revert:, 2nd revert, of User:Hrafn
 * 3rd revert: 3rd revert, of User:Kenosis' removal of original research [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=281939054&oldid=281934717
 * 4th revert: 4th revert, of User:Kenosis' removal of another instance of original research [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=281939691&oldid=281939642
 * 5th revert. 5th revert, of User:Hrafn [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=281934717&oldid=281930671.
 * 6th revert. 6th revert, of User:Kenosis' 2nd removal of an instance of original research
 * 3RR warning by Kenosis
 * Removal of 3Rr warning acknowledgin receipt
 * Likebox's response on Kenosis' talk page
 * 7th revert. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=281941662&oldid=281941602] 7th revert, of both Kenosis' removal of OR and Hrafn's placement of "disputed section" template. [, . At this point User:Likebox has reverted three separate editors who have attempted to remove or dispute the original research unsupported by the sources provided

Likebox appears determined both to have his original research and independent conclusions about this topic included in the article, and will not even accept a "disputed section" template. But frankly, it's blatant OR wholly unsupported by the sources Likebox has used. Today, three separate editors have agreed the stuff is unsupported by the sources, and Likebox has reverted them all including myself. On a prior occasion on this exact issue in the same article, other editors including at least one admin have expressed unqualified agreement it's original research. But today the issue is edit warring to insist the original research be included. Regrettably, I therefore request a block of sufficient strength to make the point that LIkebox's approach is completely out of bounds w.r.t. both WP content policy and WP behavioral policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Williamgeorgefraser reported by User:Frickative (Result: 24 hours )
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

— Frickative 22:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur Voltaire reported by IsraelXKV8R (Result: 24h, page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is another dispute over the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE. We get this every once in a while. This scientific article uses the scientific standard of BCE/CE. Monsieur Voltaire claims that since the article was originally opened with BC/AD, the article must adhere to that. Please disabuse.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:Monsieur_Voltaire

IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Monsieur_Voltaire -
 * User:173.77.216.250 -
 * - page semi-protected for 3 days. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== 88.22.157.67, 83.43.225.208, 83.49.159.170, 88.8.119.201, 70.82.250.118, 79.155.66.196, 79.151.113.99 and others, reported by Bookworm857158367 (Result: Pages protected) ==


 * Page:
 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This anonymous user has been switching IP addresses every time he is warned to stop vandalizing the page Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1899-1918). He is posting the same inaccurate information at the page Romanov claimants and continues to revert back and switch IP addresses when he is warned on that page as well. I suggest semi-protecting both pages so that anonymous users cannot edit them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User_talk:88.22.157.67

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

. Both pages semi-protected for a week. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vayalir reported by NJGW (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is carrying on a related edit war at Renewable energy and another edit war at Output impedance (though the second may have just cooled down). NJGW (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor warned. Though there were four reverts in 24 hours, this user has not made further edits to any of the articles mentioned since 4 April, and (thanks to an apparent compromise at OTE) there is no ongoing dispute. If he continues to promote his thermal ideas against consensus in any other articles, consider re-filing the report. If the editor prefers to keep blanking all messages left on his Talk, maybe he should stay out of contentious editing situations, where reaching a compromise may require building up a discussion thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia reported by Colchicum (Result: stale )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert (April 5, 6:44):
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 2nd revert (April 5, 7:50):
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 3rd revert (April 5, 8:11):
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 4th revert (Apr 5, 11:06): (pagemove-revert, disregarding objections on the talk page)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 5th revert (Apr 5, 11:52): (pagemove again – not to the same name, but to something only minimally different, over objections on the talk page again)

The user is perfectly aware of the existence of 3RR, he was blocked two times for edit-warring, has given 3RR warnings and reported other users to this noticeboard himself, as well as claimed that he is "mindful of 3RR".

Colchicum (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The first 3 are reverts yes, and this will be continued to discussed on the talk page which is occurring, and I will be furthering the discussion to take this to a wider audience as to the threshold for inclusion in the article. The 2nd two are not reverts of the first 3, but moving an article after a user who calls Google search results Talk:Security_Police_Board_(Estonia) bullshit moved it, and another editor who has claimed that precedent is that National Gendarmerie is at it's native language (when French name is Gendarmerie Nationale). If the article is moved back it will be taken to WP:RM, but when we have naming conventions in place we should be following them. And frankly, editors who refer to others as Neo-Nazi's, as Digwuren has here (not once! but twice!) is a grosser violation of WP than moving the article to a placename which complies with naming conventions. Now we will wait for comment from Digwuren, Martintg, probably a couple of other regulars, but I've had my say here. But I will add that it takes 2 to tango (in this case, it takes 3!), and I have backed off, and am continuing to discuss. --Russavia Dialogue 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A revert is a revert. You moved the article back to the same title again. I don't think that your title is wrong, but I think that the lame move wars are very disruptive. Colchicum (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I hope that you will tell this to Digwuren and Martintg also, because they are clearly not innocent in this entire process. It takes more than one to tango. --Russavia Dialogue 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The comments directly below are in relation to comments which Digwuren posted and hence removed here.
 * No, 2 days ago, "the editor" reverted Digwuren for a mass removal of sourced information. Whilst cleaning it up, "the editor" came to his conclusion that what was written as it stood was undue, and removed it almost immediately. After another editor 2 days later inserted said information which he initially inserted, which was reverted, "the editor" reverted it and cut it right down, and insured that only reliable sources were used. Digwuren continued to claim the information was still sourced to the blog which garnered that response. Best to show things how they are instead of painting a wrong picture. --Russavia Dialogue 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should also note, that has made 3 reverts in the article in the past 24 hours:, despite Connolley's warnings:. Even the edit warring by seems to be still going on, despite him being recently unblocked on the promise that he will stop edit warring:. In any case, there seems to be a lot of edit warring going on, and obviously warnings aren't helping as much as they should. Offliner (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, should they let you repeatedly insert the inaccurately summarized patent nonsense produced by a noted neo-Nazi to the article you have never been interested in before? I don't think so. Unlike Russavia, they are nowhere near the limit set by the 3RR, by the way. It is better to discuss the things on the talkpage, which you carefully avoid, rather than to hijack this "discussion". Colchicum (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Colchicum, are you not tired of patronising revert-warring on Digwuren's part? This has been going on for years. As soon as Digwuren is indef blocked, the problem will resolve itself. It's as clear as day. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you, Ghirla, here in English Wikipedia, too. But please don't 'chime in' with such useless inflammatory comments. This is not constructive at all. PS. Do you have this page in your watchlist or just stalking someone? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very simple. R. made a 3RR violation, as clear from the diffs. This is not the first time when O. and R. are reported for clear 3RR violations, and they sometimes even openly admitted this, without making any apologies or remorse. In a few cases they were blocked. But they were not even warned in many other clear cases of clear 3RR violations. I am not sure if administrators want this behavior to continue, but doing nothing certainly encourage such WP:Battles which continue unabated on a regular basis.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we just need to hear from Martintg, then all of the peanut gallery has had their say. --Russavia Dialogue 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is precisely a WP:Battle statement of yours I am talking about. Do you admit that you made a 3RR violation (moving article was also a revert)? Do you apologize for that? Do you promise not to do this again?Biophys (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, peanut gallery is a battle statement? People do act like the peanut gallery at times, and we don't need to hear from it. C'mon, you have to come up with something better than that. (As will Digwuren for his storage ha). Perhaps you can have a word to Digwarrior about his accusing others of being Neo-Nazis, and perhaps you can have a word to Colchicum for "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ru[[Image:Schutzstaffel SS SVG1.1.svg|14px]]avia." instead of boring me to tears with your rubbish of me creating battle conditions. I've yet to see the peanut gallery condemn either of those for those comments, so excuse me for choking on your sense of moral outrage. --Russavia Dialogue 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking over the page history, it is apparent that Russavia was not the only one edit warring. While this does not excuse his actions, I think we need to remember to look at the bigger picture here. Had I stumbled accross this earlier both Russavia and Digwuren would have been blocked for edit warring, and for Digwuren's part in violating RFAR/Digwuren. But because there has not been any edit warring for at least five hours a block at this point would be clearly punitive and as such I am going to decline taking any action on the basis of it being . Tiptoety  talk 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well I am gobsmacked, I get blocked 21 hours after my last revert on Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Russavia escapes a clear technical breach because it is 5 hours old, and Digwuren cops a backhander to boot. How does Russavia do it, muddy the waters with counter accusations of incivility and edit warring? Like kids not given boundaries, and 3RR is a clear boundary, this result will only embolden him to further disruption. Martintg (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will readily admit that I err, and cop punishments on the chin; the only thing I fought was my indef banning for sockpuppetry, because it was clearly wrong. However, I have yet to see from some other editors an admission of wrongdoing; you are making out that I am the only one who does things wrong around here, and anyone who even so much as says that is deluded. Having said that, if you are so outraged that I didn't get blocked, when you were, I have no objections if Tiptoety wishes to ignore the "stale" nature and dish out whatever blocks he was going to hand out, however, I am not going to dispute it, because if the page moves are counted as "reverts", then yes I clearly reverted 3RR, and I have always said "One rule for all, not just for some". Does this make people happy? --Russavia Dialogue 19:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims they are prepared to cop it in the chin, you sure do spray a lot of mud. Not wanting to get into a content discussion here, but creating a "Criticisms" section on the basis of the views of a neo-Nazi is clearly contentious as it is undue, similar to basing a criticisms of the FBI section solely on the views of Al Capone. It was clear that other editors objected to this a few days earlier, and the discussion should have continued on talk, yet you reignite the whole thing again by attempting to insert this same contentious material. This pattern of confrontational and combative editing is the same across a whole range of Estonia related articles. You Australian, but you behave alike an Russian ultra-nationalist, is this entertainment for you? The problem is that your behaviour is inciting other editors, in particular Offliner, to engage in similar disruptive editing in an area that has had a measure of peacefulness last year. We even have Ghirla coming out of the wood work because of your antics. You have not contributed anything positive to Estonia related articles, just articles like ESStonia and a lot of confrontation. An Estonian topic ban for you would be more appropriate I think. Martintg (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not discuss content, because there has been an absolute lack of good faith on the part of quite a few editors here. People objected a few days earlier as it was sourced to blogs. It was later resourced to an Estonian newspaper (which is a reliable source, unless you are going to say this is a neo-Nazi publication) and Interfax, it was NPOV'ed, and stripped right down to the bare essentials. But as I noted on the talk page, this went completely unnoticed because Digwuren claimed it was still sourced to a blog, when that was not the case. But let's not discuss that, let's discuss the constant refusal to acknowledge that calling others a Neo-Nazi, not once! but twice!!! is a personal attack, and a gross violation of WP:DIGWUREN, and there is not even so much as a false sense of moral outrage by a single one of you; I'm not surprised, as there are many very recent instances of yourselves referring to fellow editors as pigs (need I roll out Colchicum's admission yet again)? Well I will just for good measure in case anyone tries to deny it. Just what and who does he mean by "I meant our beloved eliminationists." Well obviously the pig is User:Offliner, for he is the one who reported something to 3RR. Like I said, at least Colchicum has the cajones to admit it, unlike yourself and Digwuren who have not commented and/or denied it. When the same editor writes "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ru[[Image:Schutzstaffel SS SVG1.1.svg|14px]]avia.", and is pulled up by an admin, and basically says "whatever", then one has to be a bit miffed at the deathly silence from the lot of you. So again, let me choke on anything that some people have to say Martintg, yourself included in this instance. Oh, and let me finish, if the criticism of an individual is undue for this article, may I ask why Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) contains a section of perception in Germany, and it simply says it is known as the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist", and is sourced, as evidenced on the talk page to sources you haven't even seen. If anything, if an Estonian-topic ban is in order for myself (no big deal to me), then a Russia/Soviet-topic ban for yourself (and others) is in order too, is it not (big deal to a lot of you, as advocacy on such articles is a big reason for existence on the project)? But of course not, because none of you have ever done a single thing wrong in your entire glorious existence on WP. I'll start to take anything you have to say seriously Martintg, when you condemn Digwuren and Colchicum for their personal attacks upon myself (and other users) in the same way that you have done to myself. Frankly, I won't hold my breathe. --Russavia Dialogue 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your evident personal issues with Digwuren and Colchicum is between yourself and them, this have nothing to do with me, nor is it justification to edit war Estonian related articles because they happen to be working on them. Nor is it acceptable to insert contentious material into Estonian related articles because you don't like something in Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), this is WP:POINT. Of course you have had conflict with many editors of other nationalities over many other Russian/Soviet articles, yet oddly Estonia seems to be a special point of focus for you. You are from Australia, do you find it entertaining to incite ethnic Russian editors into conflict against ethnic Estonian editors on the pages of Estonian related articles? Is this some kind of hate porn for you? You have been warned previously of your excessive confrontationalism. My observation is that if you stop editing Estonia related articles this conflict will stop immediately, because this excessive confrontationalism is the source of the conflict. This is why I think a topic ban for is in order. Martintg (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as I expected, you refuse to condemn them, in other words you think that it is ok behaviour to call people such vile names. But wasn't it you who ran to Moreschi like a 5 year old because of comments I made to Digwuren? Oh, that's right, yes, it was you. That is pure H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y. Please, just stop with your false sense of moral outrage, there has been enough of this from your fellow peanut gallery members, and I've eaten just about all the peanuts I can. Oh, and by the way, only an idiot could not take a look at all of your talk pages (including deleted messages) and see that there is obviously a whole lot of teaming and gaming going on between yourself, Digwuren, Colchicum and Biophys, in order to get rid of an opponent. --Russavia Dialogue 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess this is not "stale" since Russavia proceeded with such edits, without debating anything at talk pages.Biophys (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yawn". How many times do you have to be told, Wikipedia is not a debating society? Anyway, I must get back to writing my next masterpiece. --Russavia Dialogue 12:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthbody reported by User:Mitsube (Result: stale?)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Varies by revert.


 * 1st revert: Reverted the previous two edits, which are these:
 * 2nd revert:, undid most of the previous users two edits, which are the following:
 * 3rd revert: Simple revert of the previous edit
 * 4th revert: Same thing, this time undoing my edit.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is spamming a variety of pages with material from a non-academic publisher devoted to the views of a leader of a small Tibetan Buddhist sect. I posted this above, but unfortunately the responding admin did not understand the diffs. This may be due to my error. But as s/he now refuses to admit that such a mistake was made: perhaps someone else could look at it with fresh eyes. Mitsube (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be stale. No edits to Tantra_techniques_(Vajrayana) in the last 24h. Also, Talk:Tantra_techniques_(Vajrayana) has nothing about its supposed edit war, which is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tesaux reported by Hippo43 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This has been under dsicussion at Talk:Giuseppe_Rossi and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football for some time. Tesaux's comments have been fairly unhelpful. --hippo43 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

--Xavexgoem (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 12h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Time reported: 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 18:22,  5 April 2009  (edit summary: "Pater is originaly hebraic, which is a much older  tribe.")


 * 1) 21:55,  5 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 281963413 by Dougweller (talk)")


 * 1) 13:16,  6 April 2009  (edit summary: "I agree")


 * 1) 13:57,  6 April 2009  (edit summary: "osford english dictionary has the same meaning")


 * 1) 16:23,  6 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 282135387 by Folantin (talk)")


 * 1) 16:37,  6 April 2009  (edit summary: "Pls try to prove there is no sense!!! IÂ´ve offered many sources so far.")


 * 1) 16:52,  6 April 2009  (edit summary: "pater comes from patria (patris), which means country otr paese or pagan")

I asked the editor on my talk page several times to revert before I reported. Also see where I also warned editor. —Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 12h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

83.228.15.22 reported by Zaps93 (Result: please talk)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Keeps reverting edits without reference to support his/her reasons for edits. As for the edits I do, there is a referece/external link, to support it.


 * Strictly no vio, as too slow. No warning, indeed nothing at all on the anon's talk page, which is still blank. Nothing about the issue on the article talk page, so a black mark to you. *Talk* don't just revert William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Evlekis reported by Kevin (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I warned an IP also, who has not edited since the warning. Kevin (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may add. It has stopped - despite exceeding three, I haven't returned to the articles and cannot at this minute tell you how they stand. May I now officially draw your attention to User:142.161.163.92 who has never engaged in dialogue and has logged on for no other reason than to delete information, often sourced. The user has continuously demanded sources for pieces where they are not required elsewhere on the article, and has at no time moved an inch; please compare my original edits on Hakan Yakin with the latter revisions which were discussed on Wikiproject:Football, another place the anon failed to make an appearance. Kevin did not help, he merely reported me for asking how to go about such affairs when dealing with a user who does not communicate. Please consider this bias, and my own contributions over the past three years when passing judgments. Evlekis (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Setzerulez210 reported by Untick (Result: 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Level 2 warning by J.delanoy:
 * Level 3 warning by J.delanoy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASetzerulez210&diff=281925863&oldid=281822683
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

'nuff said. Untick (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's clearly ridiculous edit-warring. As the reporting editor says, no further comment needed. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black reported by Untick (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:A Man In Black does not seem to accept the fact that a recent AfD found the subject Airi & Meiri to be notable and therefore Kept. He keeps replacing the "notability" tag after it has been removed. Untick (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, I believe there should be four reverts total, no? Although, in this case, the user under discussion has been blocked numerous times for edit-warring and perhaps that is worth consideration.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No action. 3RR has not been technically broken, and whilst this is not a reason for not sanctioning, and edit-warring is clearly unwise, at least the editor has tried to engage on the talkpage.  I am far more minded to sanction those that don't (see case below this one).  Also, he's technically got a point - an article surviving an AfD doesn't mean it automatically passes WP:N as some of the reverting editors are trying to claim in their edit summaries.  However, this really needs more than one editor to engage at the talkpage now. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what Black Kite said is where I am. Untick and Unionsoap are free to offer their opinion on the talk page or add some reliable sources to the article, but removing cleanup tags without doing anything to solve the issues is needlessly obstructive. Wikilawyering about AFD "verdicts" doesn't make this article any better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)