Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive96

69.204.200.237 reported by C.Fred (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * also previously blocked IP


 * Previous version reverted to: is the last clean version


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert, 1st as new IP:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Notice of violation of 3RR but invitation to participate at talk page only:


 * Diff of block notice to 1st IP:

Seeking assistance from another administrator here since the key issue at this point is edit warring. IP editor removed a sourced section of text from the article claiming it was "Unproven libellous allegations". He was invited to participate in discussion but persisted in deleting the text.

I specifically told him that he had violated 3RR but I wanted to not block him so he could participate in discussion at the talk page. Note that he has deleted comments there  although not related to the discussion of the issue at hand. Even after the specific warning, he persisted in deleting the text, for which I blocked his IP. A new IP, 69.204.200.237, then returned to make the same edit to the article.

This appears to be clearly the acts of a single editor, so I think this is the better venue that a request for page protection. I also want a fresh set of eyes to confirm that this is edit warring; until that determination is made, I'm not editing the article any further so I don't perpetuate the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update I have blocked 69.204.200.237 for making a legal threat. If another IP returns, I'm escalating this matter to AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the IPs made this revert, which deletes a comment saying that Kemp received a murder confession from Clive Derby-Lewis in South Africa. According this claim, Kemp left South Africa since his apparent cooperation with prosecutors caused him to lose face with fellow activists. I think this raises some WP:BLP issues, but I'll leave the rest of my comment at User talk:C.Fred. I don't object to C.Fred's semiprotection of the article, but suggest that he remove this disputed passage until it can be supported from mainstream sources. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - C.Fred semiprotected the article. The disputed section has been removed and the claim is reworded more cautiously. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TruHeir reported by Taharqa (Result: 24h - both editors)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User:TruHeir Is being extremely unreasonable and disruptive. He/she came out of nowhere blanking over tons of information in a thoughtless revert. I restored the previous version and he/she accusing me of vandalism for reverting his disruptive edits. I told him/her that they were being unreasonably and warned them of the 3rr (which he/she is obviously keenly aware of, attested by his contribs and familiarity with wiki icons as he/she posted on my talk page) in that they'd be blocked if he/she persisted. To no avail, the user ramained beligerant and disruptive, thus, I'm reporting him/her as indicated.Taharqa (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

- both editors are being unreasonable, edit warring and failing to engage on the talk page. The article is already semi-protected and I see no reason for it to be fully protected. Further edit warring will be met with increasing blocks. Black Kite 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As an FYI, soon as the block expired, TruHeir reverted again, and visa versa. No apparent lessons learned with block one. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Optfx reported by Dayewalker (Result: 24h)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is edit warring to insert a section of original research into these two articles (Yahoo diffs shown for ease of reading). User is also editing as, as seen from his edit history and this comment. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also edited as / -- Zim Zala Bim talk  02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by CENSEI (Result: no action )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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

User Warned

Chronic drama magnet Scjessey has once again decided to join in an edit war on a political article and has not only demonstrated his repeated propensity to edit war but has also violated 3RR on this one. CENSEI (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy close please - yet another serial retaliatory report brought by topic banned editor, continuing to go after editors he was topic banned for harassing, and who should not be meddling here. Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3rd and 4th reverts were reverts of anonymous IP inclusion of unsourced content on a BLP and removal of a POV tag by another anonymous IP. No 3RR infraction here. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding unsourced content, even on a BLP, is not in and of itself a reason to Rv and get away with it (especialy when the comment is not overtly defamatory), and removal of a tag is also not a Rv freebe. And to Wikidemon, what can I say except red herring. CENSEI (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that BLP comes before anything else, even your agenda. Also, the fact that you "warned" him for 3RR AFTER filing your report here, is funny. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The third edit is a completely uncontroversial removal of an out of place attempt by an IP editor to insert a poorly formed Wikilink; the fourth is to remove an unexplained article tag that was accompanied by an incorrect statement that the matter had been discussed on the talk page. That's wikignoming, not edit warring.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For your sake Allstarecho, I'll ignore that flagrant violationof WP:OUTING. CENSEI (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! If I see that bullshit happen again, I will indef you both. Walk away, right now!.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note: (1) Allstarecho has been blocked for the alleged outing so that question is presumably resolved, and (2) this entire matter (edit warring at Barney Frank, CENSEI's role, and the alleged outing) are all under discussion currently at WP:AN/I in connection with a wider dispute. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing this report as "no action": probably not a genuine 3RR vio, strong signs of it being a bad-faith or retaliatory report, and the article has been protected now anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-04-07T08:01:44 Yandman (talk | contribs | block) blocked CENSEI (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Net contribution to the project is not positive.) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthbody reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajrayana&oldid=281963129

Reverts by User:Truthbody
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

, a possible sock puppet of Truthbody with a history of controversial edits and a block, also reverted once in the same period: I object to this. I am not a sock-puppet of User:Truthbody. If you doubt this, check our IPs. I do not have a history of controversial edits, I am simply editing articles that are controversial. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * I'm not sure if this is the reason for the accusation, but your block log says you were blocked for using sock puppets in the past.Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * then I would like to respectfully request that the log is changed because I have never used sock puppets. I and some other users (,  and ) were blocked last Summer because we were all attending a conference in England while at the same time making edits on Wikipedia.  It was noticed that we all had the same IP and were accused of sockpuppetry.  When I informed the Admin Thatcher of the situation, we were all immediately unblocked. I'd be grateful, therefore, if the record could be changed.  Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the contribution history of those accounts. There may be some valid concerns about WP:MEAT.  Since you are no longer at a conference, a WP:SSP should reveal different IPs, correct? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do check. I'm telling you the truth, I have nothing to hide. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

, another possible sock puppet. Greetings, Sacca 09:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Previous warning (March):

User:Sacca is also pushing it, but so far has stayed within the letter of the law by reverting precisely 3 times in 24 hours... Jpatokal (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Causteau and User:Wapondaponda reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * Page:


 * Too many edits to list.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Wapondaponda
 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Causteau

Two users have been warring over these two pages to a stunning degree. Both appear to have quit as of this moment, but outside intervention or comment is probably required. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They should know better. 24h. Amenable to unblock if they confess their sins and show repentance. Can we sentence people to recent changes patrol for 50 useful edits? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stevens reported by back2back2back (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I did not warn the user directly but he was well aware of wp:3rr.

Back2back2back (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want anyone in particular blocked, or shall I just block everybody to be on the safe side? and are you sure you are guiltless? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did not violate 3RR. Most of my recent actions were reverted without any reasons given.Back2back2back (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. 24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User: 69.158.150.169 reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:26, 5 April 2009


 * 1st revert: 00:35, 7 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 00:45, 7 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 01:00, 7 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 01:13, 7 April 2009

Not warned because user is well aware of this policy, link provided corresponds to his previous block.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Highly uncivil user (check edit summaries, comments), uses profanity and personal attacks, even in edit summaries (check history of article). Not first 3RR violation with this particular IP. User may be hiding behind this and other anon IP addresses (i.e. 216.234.60.106, consistent edit pattern with this IP and Corticopia) to avoid direct action against his main user account (User:Corticopia). A simple user check would reveal related IP addresses.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat inconsistently, I've blocked for 72h: 3rr (again) and incivility. Let me know if they start ip-hopping William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More arbitrariness: User:Jcmenal gets 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

173.55.27.133 reported by Arcayne (Result: semi)

 * Page: James Cawley
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: a, b
 * 2nd revert: a, b
 * 3rd revert: a, b
 * 4th revert: a, b

The anon has been warned repeatedly not to add unsourced, or poorly sourced info to BLPs, and this latest run of the same edit is part of a larger pattern that has repeated on at least 2 two prior occasions. As this is the second 3RR report filed on this user in less than a month for posting the same exact edits - the first instance, I had erred in counting each edit of the pair as a revert - something stronger than 'please knock it off' would appear to be in order. I think that a block with a 6-month topic ban on James Cawley might be the best way to allow this user to possibly develop their skills on a topic with which they appear to demonstrate some animosity. I suggest 6 months, as this allows for the Star Trek film to be released in the interim, and gives the user something else to work on.- Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocking IPs is generally a waste of time as they just get another. I've semi'd the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that, but this IP has been editing from the same one for over a month. We don't give IPs a pass on 3RR, do we? Blocking sends a message that we protect our articles from vendetta-like behavior. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have blocked me from editing and have taken my 1st Amendment right but you are allowed to write anything. I will let you put in James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek movie because he said it. I have printed out the Trekmovie page so do not have them delete it. Please add James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek Film. The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/

"121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. "

Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk)
 * I'm not sure what disturbs me more, your complete misunderstanding on the nature of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, or that your defending it over an entertainment franchise.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

82.9.115.117 reported by Aktsu (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Not warned about 3RR, but told multiple times in the edit summaries to stop introducing unsourced (and most likely completly false) material. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Warned now. Also, somebody not at 3R might want to revert the recent addition... -- aktsu (t / c) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)



William C. Rader, Malibu stem cell doctor, reported by Minjul (Result: To be handled elsewhere)
William C. Rader is a well-documented M.D. Malibu psychiatrist who has received widespread negative media coverage for administering fetal stem cell treatments in the Caribbean. Rader's long-overdue Wikipedia entry was begun in February 2009, and the first reversal came on April 3, 2009, from User 96.251.169.2. According to Whois domain lookup, that IP address is registered to William C. Rader himself.

Rader (or possibly his wife) apparently substituted an unsourced FAQ from his Medra Inc. website, and was joined by User 76.95.150.85 (Whois) a few days later in similar edits. Ultimately the entry has been reduced to the online potted biography from the end of that "FAQ" page, shorn of all the mainstream media references. (Among other things, Rader's claim to have developed the treatment principles at the Betty Ford Clinic is false.)

New Wikipedia user Super1122 has only edited on Rader, making similar edits to 76.95.150.85, and has now hit a 3RR threshold. Can that user be notified and/or disciplined?

I think we will continue to see possibly involving these and other sockpuppets, and hope other users will be attentive to this activity. Will the Admins please bookmark this page, and keep an eye out? Question: with the edit from IP address 96.251.169.2, does William C. Rader qualify for Wikipedians_with_articles, or does he have to self-declare? Minjul (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * New Wikipedia user Super1122 has only edited on Rader - really? And do you think we aren't capable of looking up your edit history ? This report is unformatted and belongs on WP:ANI or somesuch anyway. If you report people here, please (a) warn them beforehand about 3RR and (b) tell them you have reported them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should hope you would look up my edit history. While hardly the last word on Rader, I certainly believe this is a more accurate biography than the copy pulled from Rader's own website (which I see now has a link to Medra Inc). I didn't know the procedure, but I will go notify Super1122 of 3RR. Should I also go to WP:ANI? Minjul (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the William C. Rader article to the last version that is not a word-for-word copy from the bio at the bottom of http://www.medra.com/faq.html. (It may interest you that copyright violations can be reverted without infringing WP:3RR). If Minjul believes there is a conflict of interest, then filing a report at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard should be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be on the safe side of WP:BLP, which applies to noticeboards as well as articles, I have removed a set of quotes from the header of this report, and removed some negative comments from the first two sentences. Also changed the closing status to 'To be handled elsewhere.' EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Points taken, though I hope you won't quarrel with the use of quotation marks around the term "stem cell" when its used on Rader's page to characterize his treatment. I justify that by the (twice-cited) fact that legitimate stem cell scientists have been denied access to test or evaluate his product. It is uncertain whether Rader uses fetal precursors, stem cells, astrocytes... No one knows. Just to say, I'd argue that putting "stem cell" in quotation marks is not unwarranted, given the lack of foundation. Minjul (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by Judas278 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Scjessey has made numerous personal attacks, Article Talk, and accused others and me of bad faith and questionable motives,  My Talk, without justification. See also: this ANI he reported. He protects the article, has COI as detailed in the article talk, and is one-sided in demanding justifications from others, but made "Wholesale updates" without prior discussion, when he feels like it... --Judas278 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Scjessey
I have made 3 reversions in 24 hours, and thus I have not actually violated the three revert rule. I will self-revert my last edit if it is deemed appropriate; however, I believe that reverting the actions of an hostile SPA is not unreasonable. The reporting editor has confessed to being a disgruntled former customer who now seeks to use the article to attack the company. I am in the process of compiling a request for third party review, but I am not ready to submit it at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to my first edit you have repeatedly reverted my edits. You will note the substance of my first edit eventually stayed in the article with support of other editors. I do not have rose colored glasses about the company, but I have been very careful to make moderate, well sourced additions, while discussing removal of advertising-like text without sources. I am here because you recently removed npov and coi tags from last fall without first making significant improvements to the article or changing the OWN tendencies. --Judas278 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (purported) Personal attacks aren't edit warring. Try another board.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno what the PA's are supposed to be. Sj called you a SPA, which is accurate. As an aside, I don't think it is reasonable for such a large proportion of the article to be prolems. But you'll have to take that elsewhere. Further edit warring, especially by SPA's, will be looked on unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Near the end of the current article talk, another editor recently added, "i really don't think you're treating Judas with respect and courtesy. i think you're being hostile, defensive about the company, failing to assume good faith, and you're doing a bit of bullying. until he's been sanctioned by an admin for his behavior, i don't think you should be acting this hostile towards him. some of the things you're saying about him could even be construed as personal attacks." --Judas278 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Untick (Result: BLP exemption)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:A Man In Black continues his edit war to tag article for lack of notability and to prevent improvement of the article. Several other editors are defending the article, but each time User:A Man In Black reverts back to his version with notability tag. Untick (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An alternate take on this is that Dekkappai is reverting to his preferred version that uses pornography catalogs as sources for a biography of a living person, something I've broken down in detail for him multiple times to little avail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you explicitly claiming a BLP exemption for your reverts? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. A possible real name is tied to an incest porn stage name through very shady sources, biographical info is sourced to what boils down to the back of a box, and it's alleged that a TBS series ripped off one of their songs. The potential for harm here isn't too likely (different language), but this is a biography by way of detective work to too much of a degree for me to be comfortable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm accepting AMIB's BLP claim, but advising him to read (yes, I know) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can do. I've been dancing around it because it's kind of a distraction from the main point, which is plain old bad sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely ludicrous to paint this as a BLP concern. Japanese privacy law is very strict, and there's no way in hell a major commercial site is going to "out" the real name of a pornographic actor. This is simply a case of an actress who has used two stage names during different periods of her career. These two names are documented in her profile at a major commercial site. More importantly, the alternate name is just one small part of the article which Man in Black repeatedly blanks. Man in Black is simply opposed to any use of a commercial site for the sourcing of a commercially-released item, and information on a commercial career. And he is opposed to the use of a column by a published authority in the field for sourcing, etc. Fine. Did he tag it for sourcing concerns, and run it through AfD when appropriate? No. He has engaged in edit-warring, blanking of content and hiding of sources for nearly a month, during which time the article has undergone two AfDs. The ironic thing is that if the first AfD had been allowed to proceed normally-- for editors to find what sourcing they could, add it to the article, and for the community to look at the evidence and judge Keep or Delete-- the article would probably be gone by now. Instead, Man in Black and one (sometimes another) editor belligerently blanked anything added to the article. It is appalling that any editor has such little faith in standard Wikipedia process that he has to game the system through bullying. I will repeat, had the first AfD had been allowed to proceed normally, without bullying, without blanking, without edit-warring, the article would probably be gone by now. This is not about sourcing or BLP concerns, this is about edit-warring, content-blanking during AfD, gaming the system, and other sorts of belligerence. Dekkappai (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He broke the rules, reverting more than three times in a single day, and must be blocked as punishment. Most editors don't have a problem with the source of the information, nor doubt that it is valid.    D r e a m Focus  00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP trumps everything regarding notability here. You should know that, DF.  No blocks here - AMIB was absolutely correct - even if he's ultimately wrong, he was right to flag a possible problem. Black Kite 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

== JuliaDzigora reported by Tedder (Result: editor admits that both are at fault, no point blocking both, please work out on talkpage, note that any further edit-warring will be hit with a long block) ==


 * Page:
 * User:

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


 * 1) 03:50,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:01,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 282696893 by Tedder (talk)")
 * 3) 04:07,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 282697780 by Tedder (talk)")
 * 4) 04:11,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "There is no need for citations for the founding year or the founder of the company. This is public knowledge and is not present on other company sites")
 * 5) 04:20,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "You are vandalizing this company's site and have been doing so for some time. These mythical requirements you demand do not exist for any other company, please check out AGV, Dainese, and Alpinestars")
 * 6) 16:12,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Removed unnecessary citations for information which is public knowledge and not required or posted on similar company sites. No citations are required.")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * User's post-3RR messages: article talk page, my talk page

Note I am (or may be) at fault for violating 3RR too. I thought it protected me against maintenance tag removal until I reviewed the 3RR policy. That's why I said, in my warning to the user, that I may be liable too. In other words, I'm acknowledging that the blame cannon should be pointed at myself. tedder (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No action per the title. Black Kite 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER reported by Onyxig (Result: No Vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version TO BE reverted to:

User PRODUCER claims that a sentence does not belong to certain section reffering to WP:Lead, and yet he fails to place it to the appropriate section, and instead keeps removing it. I have had numerous 3RR issues with him, and his POV biased view of that article. Sick and tired of this. He never added anything constructive to the article but is always watching over it, removing things he doesn't like. I recall arguing with him regarding this sentence months ago.

Thank you.

Onyxig (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cs32en reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)
\
 * Page:
 * User:

Complex reverts, all adding at least common text which was in the


 * original text 02:44 April 8, 2009

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and 8 other authors, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. The paper suggested that super-thermite chips were discovered in the dust ....


 * 1st revert: 19:55 April 9, 2009
 * 2nd revert: 20:11 April 9, 2009 differs from preceding only in have external links to en.wikipedia instead of external links to de.wikipedia
 * 3rd revert: 21:02 April 9, 2009 specifically undoing my edit of 20:51, resoring the same text as the previous, although there were some incidental changes elsewhere by.
 * 4th revert: 22:34 April 9, 2009 slight rewrite, moved to a different section of the article
 * 5th revert: 23:09 April 9, 2009 seems to differ from previous only in the absence of a blank line


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:54 April 9, 2009

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User: 81.77.203.85 reported by SISPCM (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th:
 * 6th:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SISPCM (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

- no direct vio, but clearly disruptive. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he's probably back!!! Now with this ip. Also good to mention: he probably fromerly edit with this ip


 * Page:
 * User:

Regards! --Olahus (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Watching )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link


 * At this time I am not going to take any action as has not reverted since your most recent warning. If he continues to edit war, please notify me on my talk page, though I will also be trying to keep an eye on the article myself.  Tiptoety  talk 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lpi-english reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I left messages on Talk:Language Proficiency Index and User_talk:Lpi-english  in an attempt to avert edit war but got no response. Username is also likely a UAA violation, as it implies connection with the organization that administers the test. KuyaBriBri Talk 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * by  Tiptoety  talk 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

== CardinalDan reported by 129.240.0.83 (talk) (Result: CardinalDan warned, apparent IP socking being watched, article semi-protected) ==


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert
 * 8th revert
 * 9th revert after being warned of Wikipedia:3RR


 * Diff of 3RR warning: was warned, was warned again of the 3RR rule specifically, but continued edit warring.

Excessive and disruptive revert-warring (in order to push the POV that the wife of the Danish PM is the country's "first lady"), showing no willingness to discuss his edits (despite calls to do so), constitutes plain vandalism. His other edits also indicates he is a disruptive revert-warrior. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may interrupt, all the revisions I did to that particular article were done because an IP user ignored consensus and kept reverting the article back to his/her view. I did give the individual proper warning, but he/she kept reverting.  In any case, the other editors of the article also had reverted the IP user in question.  In addition, the IP made a false report on Administrator intervention against vandalism against me.  All I had done was revert the article in question back to what was considered to be the consensus.  If you look at my past edits, I have not "edit warred", as the IP has alleged.  I feel that the IP user may be the same individual who had vandalized the article earlier CardinalDan (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These statements by User:CardinalDan are untrue. He took part in an aggressive revert war, without bothering to discuss his edits (unlike his opponent), giving no explanation for his excessive reverts, to restore his own POV (note that the false notion that she is "first lady" has now been removed from the other articles on her, in Danish and Norwegian, and has also been extensively discussed and proven wrong at the recent AFD entry, also note that the articles on Sarah Brown (spouse) or Cherie Blair are not inaccurately claiming they are "first ladies of the UK", so the solution with wife of NN, the Prime Minister of [country] should be considered the established/consensus solution with respect to these countries). Also, he made a false, bad faith report against an opponent in a content dispute at AIV. He continued the edit war after being warned of the 3RR. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that the user in question was blocked for 12 hours, I don't think the report was made "in bad faith". And I just reverted the page in question back to what was consensus, not what one person's POV was. CardinalDan (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Untrue. It was not a consensus version, it was your POV (which was already proven to be inaccurate) and you even refused to discuss your edits, just behaving extremely disruptive. User:CardinalDan also needs to be blocked for excessive revert-warring. It takes two to tango, and 9 reverts with no discussion, even after being warned multiple times, is unacceptable. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember, reversion of vandalism is not considered edit-warring. CardinalDan (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone was vandalizing, it was you. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that User:CardinalDan is now trying to recruit acquainted admins (and fellow POV pushers/edit warriors) to support him or even "resolve" this case. Stay alert. As his opponent was blocked for 12 hours, so should he. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * comment - As it was brought up as part of the above discussion - it appears that both and  were reported to WP:AIV (see here and here).  However, while the reviewing admin blocked the anon (see here), the determination of the admin re: CardinalDan was that his edits were not vandalism (see here).  Also, it appears that technically no 3RR warning was ever posted to User talk:CardinalDan - the warning diffs above are to a warning of claimed vandalism and to a comment field in the disputed article.  Of course, this doesn't provide a pass, but should be taken into note by the reviewing admin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it unlikely that an experienced user is not aware of the 3RR, also, he was made aware of it through the comment field. As he was reverting the article, one has to assume he was reading the comments of the edits he was reverting. In any case, 9 reverts with no discussion constitutes disruptive revert warring and was clearly not a mistake, like he forgot how many times he had reverted. He has to be treated in the same way as his opponent. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something here, or is an anon IP editor purposefully and admittedly edit warring to draw an experienced editor into 3RR violations? Regardless of the ruling on CardinalDan, the page should be semi-protected to force the IP to stop edit warring and use the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Please show me the personal attack. It doesn't matter who starts an edit war, as you point out above it takes two to tango. I stand by my interpretation of the events, and again request semiprotection of the page once the matter has been settled. Dayewalker (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit war was not started by the IP, CardinalDan is the one purposely starting an edit war and the one behaving disrupting. Also, CardinalDan is the one who refuses to discuss his edits (which the IP has done long before the edit war, including at, but not restricted to, the ongoing ADF entry), CardinalDan's only "contributions" to the article have been unprovoked revert warring. CardinalDan is the one who needs to be forced to use the talk page or otherwise topic banned. User:Dayewalker, let me remind you of No personal attacks. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would observe that 85.164.196.159, registered to Telenor, was blocked at 20:39. 129.240.0.83 appeared, registered to the University of Oslo at 21.10 to complain here. This appears to be a continuation of an edit war by other means. CardinalDan should have dropped the reverts and reported it here. I'll have a word with him about that and semi-protect the article.  Acroterion  (talk)  01:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit reported by Nableezy (Result: No action per discussion below.)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: image being removed was added in this edit, also contains image being added by user


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nableezy (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect Nableezy opinion and really sorry to be in this page. I discuss my contributions on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If he says he will stop reverting until there is an actual agreement on the talk page, instead of just posting to the talk and continuing to revert, then close this out please. The user is very civil and behaves well except for the reverting. The images one is an issue because of the different reasons used, the last one is 'leave the grandma alone' after the issues in his first 2 reverts were resolved. But if he says he will stop reverting without any agreement then please close this out. Nableezy (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not change the article for at least 24 hours. The changes of "grandma" image were discussed here. I did not take part and it was wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1111tomica reported by Yannismarou (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Negush uprising
 * User: User:1111tomica


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Let's just note that the aforementioned user not only edit-wars, but he also removes the AfD template. If you check his contributions log, you'll see that he is engaging in a nationalistic edit-warring in a series of articles. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Martintg (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 07:47,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Er, no,  it's for Ukraine in whatever form it was in.")
 * 2) 11:25,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "rv blind revert; these were all elections that happened in Ukraine; the flag or status of the country at the time are irrelevant")
 * 3) 18:59,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "They still happened, regardless of how flawed they were")
 * 4) 23:39,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Firstly, people need to stop blind reverting because they are putting back an error into the template, and secondly, not having articles yet is not a reason to not include them")


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 07:46,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "Er, no, it's for Russia in whatever form it was in.")
 * 2) 11:25,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "rv blind revert; these were all elections that happened in Russia; the flag or status of the country at the time are irrelevant")
 * 3) 18:59,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "They still happened, regardless of how flawed they were")
 * 4) 23:40,  9 April 2009  (edit summary: "rv yet another blind revert that changes the format of the template")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Martintg (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I second to Martintg here. This pointless edit-warring and 3RR violations by Number57 warrant administrative actions. There's absolutely no point introducing those red links to the templates, and this definitely should not be done through revert warring. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5th revert:, 5th revert: . -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries sum it up; the edits I were reverting were the problematic ones due to the fact that they were blind reverts; on the Ukrainian template the editors in question kept changing the year of the next presidential election to the wrong year, whilst on the Russian one, they kept reverting to an old format that is being deprecated. A discussion is currently underway on Template talk:Russian elections regarding this nonsense. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, this can be closed as "stale", reverting has stopped and discussion is ongoing on talk for some time now. Martintg (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Closed with no action since the submitter withdrew his complaint. It appears that a deal has been reached on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PhilLiberty reported by Septentrionalis (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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

—All three four of these appear to be exact reversions of the lead, against different editors. Considering Phil's attitude, and block log, I think he knows about 3RR, but I'll go tell him about this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid A. apparently doesn't know that independence = secession")
 * 2) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid In English, "independence" = "secession"")
 * 3) 16:41, 11 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "specifying what the war was fought for")
 * 4) 17:18, 11 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "I guess that's my quota for today")

Somewhat baffled by the edit war, since was a war fought by Americans for secession from the British empire is patently true, but you colonials are funny folk. Still, its 4R, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not patently true. If Scotland had gone Jacobite alone, would that have been a "secession from the British empire"? Yes and No. Was the colonial situation parallel? Yes and No. What was the constitution of the British empire? That was scarcely discussed in Whitehall until the next century, and may not yet be resolved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Planecrash111 reported by JustSomeRandomGuy32 (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is very aware that the consensus does not agree with his edits, and continues to do so anyways. See here. User also has history of edit warring and refuses to stop even after multiple blocks. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've tried to speak to this multiply-blocked user several times in good faith, but he refuses to stop and discuss his edits. I had previously filed an ANI report on him to try and get an admin to step in and speak to him, but PC111 has continued to edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-04-12T11:05:03 LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs | block) blocked Planecrash111 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism: Hiding revert - against consensus - with misleading edit summary) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecuadorian Stalker reported by Sherlock4000 (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Administrators:

This user is a self-professed stalker who recently "discovered" Wikipedia and lives up to his name by blindly reverting careful and time-consuming edits, without adding anything. His reverts also include the deletion of extensive, sourced material, which are included in | this version.

He (or she) will continue to undo my edits and other serious editors' with snide little asides until the user is blocked, so I hereby request that you please block this user.

Thank you for your time,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, another revert by Ecuadorian Stalker:

There appear to be about 5-6 reverts (in as many hours) by both editors. --     06:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on users' talk pages reminding of the 3RR rule. (User Ecuadorian Stalker's account is only a day old, so he is probably unaware of all of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines) --     06:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Both editors have now stopped editing the article. Have advised a discussion on the subject. 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ES has certainly stopped :-) : 2009-04-12T20:45:12 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Ecuadorian Stalker (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (obvious sock of User:Historian19) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:Offliner (Result: self-rv)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: - done after report was filed

In each of the reverts, Biophys removed the statement by Mary Dejevsky. Biophys is an experienced used and is surely aware of 3RR; he has also been blocked before for edit warring. Offliner (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment, Biophys was reverting the addition of libelous, controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. Offliner and Russavia have long been content opponents of Biophys, (Russavia having received a two week block for harassing Biophys). seems like they are attempting a block shop exercise by the insertion of such material into a formerly stable article which they have never edited before. Martintg (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I have explained on the article talk page, I really don't see how Mary Dejevsky's statement "he expertly fronted a publicity campaign" would be a BLP violation in any way. The first time I edited Goldfarb's article was on 9 April, but I have edited articles related to his books and the events where he has been involved. It is perhaps worth noting, that Biophys has been constantly removing similar statements from other articles as well, although they are directly supported by multiple mainstream sources, are neutrally worded and attributed, and are essential parts of the article subject: . As for Martintg, please don't try to defend Biophys' clear 3RR violation by making baseless accusations and by trying to draw attention to irrelevant matters. Offliner (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been previously warned about vexation litigation here, yet you continue. Biophys warned you of the WP:BLP problem on your talk page, yet you continue to edit war yourself:
 * 09:30, 9 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Political activism */ role in litvinenko affair")
 * 00:09, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - it is not WP:UNDUE. this is the political activity he has received the most mainstream media coverage for")
 * 01:58, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Political activism */ chief editorial write of the independent")
 * 05:08, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - please don't remove important, well-sourced content")
 * 15:25, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - it is neutral, well-sourced and relevant info - no WP:BLP violation here")
 * 04:22, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv - nothing deflamatory about that. it is well-sourced and important info.")
 * assisted by Russavia (who has also never edited this article before):
 * 00:49, 10 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 282752511 by Petri Krohn; it isn't BLP to include verifiable information. using TW")
 * 15:30, 11 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Political activism and social work */ merger into one")
 * --Martintg (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have said, I really don't see any WP:BLP problem in the addition; if you want to argue about this, I suggest you do that at the article talk page and not here. Biophys dropped me a note, and I answered - how is that relevant to this report? And I really don't know what Russavia or "vexatious ligitation" has to do with this - this is a simple report of Biophys' quite clear 3RR violation and persistent edit warring in two articles, which has to stop. Offliner (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about the "vexatious ligitation warning" diff you provided there . You obviously failed to notice the follow-up Connolley posted after I modified my 3RR report: . Unfortunately, in the end it was you who got blocked for edit warring in that case: . I really don't see any "vexatious ligitation" in a report that in the end was completely justified and accepted by the reviewing adming. Offliner (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So I caused Biophys to breach 3RR, Martintg? Good one. As he has been told, Wikipedia is not censored, the information is verifiable, it is sourced to a reliable source, the opinion is attributed to its author, it does not breach bio of living person's policy. When an editor such as Biophys is here to advocate, information in such articles is not desirable for him, and frankly, the longer Biophys goes on with removing such information that is critical to figures who are associated with Berezovsky, one really has to start wondering whether Biophys has a conflict of interest with these people. People don't like my WP:ALPHABETSOUP, perhaps when they can understand what all that soup means, I can stop using it. And as it stands, Biophys has breached 3RR, that much is absolutely clear. Offliner, there is no need to say anything else here, because the report speaks for itself. --Russavia Dialogue 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 hours ago. Interestingly, I seem to remember that Russavia's last breach of 3RR (a week ago), being at least as clear as that, was declared stale after five hours. Colchicum (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No violation, as reverts of WP:BLP violations are not subject to the three-revert restrictions. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Protecting WP from potential libel issues regarding the biographies of living persons is not subject to 3RR, in addition Biophys did place a notification of the violation. Given that Russavia and Offliner have demonstated themselves to be antagonistic to Biophys (my personal opnion based on past interactions), the 3RR motion here appears to be little more than tag-team block shopping to enforce a POV which could be considered as violating WP:BLP guidelines. As for "alphabet soup", (to Russavia) my overwhelming experience has been that editors pushing personal POV liberally lace their arguments with WP:ALPHABETSOUP to intimidate their editorial opposition and unilaterally cut off meaningful discussion--attempting to bolster their position by proximity to their invocations of WP:RULESANDGUIDELINES. If you wish to discuss content and its applicability to an article and wish to be taken at face value, please do so in plain English. This is an encyclopedia where articles are discussed and created in plain English, not an acronym farm. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>    </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:3RR, '''Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.''' I can see nothing from Biophys on that noticeboard, and I see no discussion from Biophys, except a claim on Offliner's talk page. Inserting poorly sourced material that a person is a paedophile is a violation. Inserting well-sourced, neutrally worded, attributed opinion into an article is not a violation. 3RR policy does not exempt Biophys in this instance. And to prove it, here is what was written:

Mary Dejevsky, the chief editorial writer of The Independent, opined that Mr Goldfarb "expertly fronted" a publicity campaign in the last week of Alexander Litvinenko's life and that Mr Berezovsky dictated the view that the British public had of the event.

which is quoting:

In the last week of Litvinenko's life, it was also Berezovsky's money that bought the publicity campaign, so expertly fronted by Alex Goldfarb. Thus the view that the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky. Until the very end, neither the hospital, nor the British authorities, nor the Russian embassy contributed anything at all. Berezovsky, through Goldfarb and the PR company, Bell Pottinger, had the field entirely to himself.

I look forward to being reported to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and for people to ask to sanctions against me, because according to numerous editors above, I have now breached WP:BLP and I should be blocked indefinitely for blatantly breaching that policy. --Russavia Dialogue 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your skills at creating wikidramu. I really do.  But don't you think you should take this particular kind of dramu to WP:BLPN? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is User:Biophys, User:Martintg, User:Digwuren and User:Vecrumba who should be taking it to WP:BLPN, as those four editors are the ones who are claiming/gaming it is a violation of WP:BLP, and using that as an excuse for Biophys' clear breach of WP:3RR. If anything, Goldfarb's article needs more information on how he is an (close) associate of Berezovsky. Looking at we have the International Herald Tribune, The Guardian, Moscow Times, Taipei Times, New York Times, The Associated Press, News 24, The Independent, Washington Post, Financial Times, RFE/RL, USA Today, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Deccan Herald, BBC, Los Angeles Times, Kommersant, The Peninsula, Jamestown Foundation, and many, many, many, many more making this information known. But here on WP, it is a WP:BLP violation? And if it is a breach of BLP, look at it this way, now that I have also transplanted the information here, you have an extra reason to have me indef banned for blatant, egregious violations of WP:BLP. Anyone who seriously thinks this is a violation of BLP has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock. It is clear that Biophys has simply removed information he doesn't like, and he clearly breached 3RR in doing so. Stop making excuses for it. --Russavia Dialogue 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from a totally uninvolved but tired user of having see |the same old stuff again by the same members at this board along with AN/I and other boards. I don't see any Blp violation in the given diffs, and don't understand why Martintg tries to derail from the main subject, Biophys's 3RR violation. Accusing Russavia's old log is out of the topic as well (well, my 5 minute research gives Biophys' RfC/U and ArbCom case). Offliner edit-warred too but reverted 3 times, and Russavia reverted 2 times. Then who is the most reverter in the situation? Biophys with no doubt. BLP exemption is not applied here. I don't think protecting the article would work.
 * WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive88 12 January 2009
 * WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive89 18 January 2009
 * WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive90 9 February 2009
 * WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive95 29 March 2009
 * WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive526 filed by Colchicum on 2 April 2009
 * So we can see endless edit warrings, revenges, accusations between Group1 (Martintg, Colchicum, Biophys) and Group2 (Russavia, Offliner). These are just a few of recent cases. Administrative actions are really required, --Caspian blue 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is no longer a stale report, as Biophys has just reverted again, with this edit. --Russavia Dialogue 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. I am not sure what administrative response would be appropriate, but perhaps this warning by William M. Connolley was relevant.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you violated 3RR at this time, so the diff is not relevant to this case. I do think the taking to ArbCom is better for everyone.--Caspian blue 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply. Sorry, I did not know about this report (no one warned me). I self-reverted to allow discussion. But I believe that Russavia and Offliner clearly violate WP:BLP policy in a number of articles.Biophys (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As you have been blocked for 3RR in the past, you don't need to be warned. And your last self-revert still leaves you with 4 reverts. Also, you have also been removing sourced information from Boris Berezovsky, Yuri Felshtinsky, etc -- all because you don't like it. It has nothing to do with WP:BLP, but that you don't like it. --Russavia Dialogue 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering User_talk:Offliner, I suggest at the very least putting Offliner on a 1RR parole, particularly as his reverts involve introduction of controversial BLP issues. This entire thread looks like more harassment of Biophys. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support such a thing, given the tedious nature of Biophys' edits across many, many, many articles which removes information that he doesn't like. Alexander Litvinenko, Russian apartment bombings, Boris Berezovsky, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), the list goes on and on and on. --Russavia Dialogue 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia, throughout these conflicts, you appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner. Please assume good faith, I for one am not "gaming" any system here nor did I stalk you or Offliner to Huffman coding as you have charged. I suggest the BLP concern which originated this be taken up in article talk or appropriately in a request for comment for a wider audience as it is quite obvious (to me) that you and Offliner have no desire to negotiate with those editors who you deem to be your adversaries, only to denounce them, as you have attacked me a number of times and now here. Your increasingly incivility will bring neither peace nor consensus in our time. Obviously how you decide to spend your next WP:YEAR is up to you.
 * And as for I look forward to being reported to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and for people to ask to sanctions against me, really that does nothing to advance any content, I really abhor these constant reportings which accomplish little except polarize individuals by accentuating lines of division. Your comment only serves to illustrate the WP:BATTLEGROUND (or is it WP:BATTLEFIELD) mentality you appear to now live by. We can do without the martyrdom. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So many people willing to offer advice, how kind. Biophys appears to have self-reverted, so I can see little point in a block. However, like others, I am getting somewhat sick of the same infighting amongst the same people. Perhaps fortunately for you all, I'm on a slow link at the moment. If you can't stop fighting each other and can't bring yourself to go through WP:DR then you'll just get blocked. Substance: it isn't clear to me why is an exemption under BLP; the general advice here has to be that while you should remove BLP-type material, once you've done it once or twice you should put it on the BLP noticeboard (wherever that might be) and if no-one there cares to come to your aid, you should conclude that it isn't BLP-exempt. Unless you have something strongly germane to add, I strongly advise against adding further comments to this section William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Anonymousone2 reported by Dcoetzee (Result: indef)
P = NP problem. : Time reported: 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 282972550 by Shreevatsa (talk) How is ArXiv not a reliable source? It is gov't sponsored research.")
 * 2) 04:46, 12 April 2009  (edit summary: "However, I must so successfully insist because ArXiv is used as in references in several other categories and pages in Computer Science and this page. We cannot pick and choose.")
 * 3) 05:15, 12 April 2009  (edit summary: "I respectfully disagree. Is it a requirement that all referenced sources be refereeable? If it is not this should be allowed to stay.")
 * 4) 05:26, 12 April 2009  (edit summary: "Please keep discussion local. How is it irrelevant if it is specifically on subject? Under what basis is  your judgment valid to discriminate?")
 * 5) 05:50, 12 April 2009  (edit summary: "Wikipedia is not  a place for debate. It is noted this was acceptable per Reliable source examples..")
 * 6) 08:59, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: I think this may have been a computational redirect accidentally triggered by a bot. There was no vandalism present.)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Anonymousone2, also editing as User:67.102.24.106 and possibly also User:Otisjimmy1, is persistently introducing a reference to a (clearly erroneous) source against consensus, and has been reverted by four different regular editors to the article, but continues to revert to reintroduce the reference. The source claims to have solved a long-standing open problem in computer science, but has not been peer-reviewed or received any serious consideration by anyone. They're attempting to use the reliable source guidelines in order to back up their position, claiming that the website hosting the paper, arXiv, is a reliable source. I didn't issue a three revert warning quite soon enough, so they may not have been aware of the policy. So far they have not reverted again since being warned. I did not block them myself as I am an involved editor. Dcoetzee 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: The history of the deleted article Succinct problem strongly indicates that this user is a sock puppet of User:MartinMusatov, who has already been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of another user, and is the author of the reference being introduced, indicating a conflict of interest.

Update: See also Sockpuppet investigations/Martin.musatov. He's been engaging in a number of other furtive and manipulative behaviors, such as tricking other innocent users into introducing the reference on his behalf, and adding the reference to forked copies of other articles. Dcoetzee 06:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indef as sock; would have been 24h for just 3rr William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ecuadorian Stalker reported by O Fenian (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor is also almost certainly a sockpuppet of banned editor based on the articles edited and the same combative editing style. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 12:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris cohen reported by John Carter (result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert (and 3RR notification)
 * 6th revert


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor is seemingly determined to have the subject's family tree information added to the article, regardless of how many times and how many changes he has to make for it to reasonably fit in. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Last edit more than 48h ago; stale William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hcp7 reported by NJGW (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User has stated on the talk page that they will not discuss the edits and instead refers to my edits as trolling and vandalism. This is an SPA account that has only edited one article with the express purpose of promoting a specific POV. Probably a sock.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

NJGW (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you are saying is false. I did not say I will not discuss; I said, first remove your personal attack which you refused to do. You attacked me twice, first in your talk page, and second in the article's talk. Also, I did not violate the rule: the first edit was not a revert. You must provide proof that I am a single-purpose account and a sock or otherwise you should be blocked. Hcp7 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I made my first about edit, I kindly contacted the user but they responded rudely by asking a completely irrelevant question about myself. Then they again asked the same question in the article's talk page. User:NJGW is the one who should be blocked, not me. Hcp7 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps the problem is reading comprehension. Here's the question, which I answered here.  Why is it rude to say "I hope this is now clear, but feel free to ask more questions if don't understand."  Why is it irrelevant to ask "By the way, under what account did you edit in the past?"  You seem very touchy on the whole past account subject.  Care to suggest why that might be?  NJGW (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins, here's one more diff:. Hcp7 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h for incivility. Didn't check the 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:VicMackey2002 reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:37 13th April 2009


 * 1st revert: 02:04 13th April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 02:11 13th April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 02:17 13th April 2009

At a guess I would say that this IP edit 00:27 13th April 2009 was the same editor. I gave him a warning and that appears to have made them register to keep editing.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:14 13th April 2009

I admire their enthusiasm but the edits to the pages relating to the Shield do not fit the MOS. I'm not going to make another revert to the change back out but rather I am going offline after putting this report in. I am expecting to lose my internet access by the morning, so if you could e-mail me and I will pick it up Tuesday. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin user account [] invalid blocking (result: declined)
Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for reporting bad blocks. Please consider ANI or AN instead. -- slakr  \ talk / 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hispanic and Latino Americans (Result: Submitter blocked)
There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - The submitter has been indef blocked by User:Ricky81682 per a discussion at ANI. Unusual racial theories were being added to our article on Hispanic and Latino Americans by a set of editors who may all have been the same person. Anyone who is not a sock of one of these editors is welcome to try making the case on the article's Talk page for inclusion of the alternative racial theory. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Atlpedia. The proponents of the alternative theory seem to have been trying to insert their material for many months. Due to the blocking of Onetwo1 and two IPs I see nothing immediate for us to do here. Atlpedia is not yet blocked, but is not currently over 3RR, unless checkuser shows he is a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Man of wealth and taste reported by User:JGXenite (Result: protection, warning)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

This user has been asked on several occasions (1, 2, 3, 4) to stop re-adding the statement regarding a link between two episodes of Doctor Who, and to discuss it with us first and provide sources for this link. They have continued to re-add the statement without any proper discussion, and have been warned twice (although I've now removed the second one) by two editors about overstepping the 3RR mark. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with JGXenite that the user is an edit-warrior, uncommunicative and adding original research. Could someone also take a peep at Talk:Planet of the Dead in relation to this? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert one, revert two, revert three, revert four. Hmm, four reverts in less than 24 hours. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you definitely shouldn't be blocked, then ;-) However, blocks aren't punitive, and since you've now stopped edit-warring (page protected, and issue stale), I see no reason why there should be any blocks. I'm assuming that you won't continue the behaviour once the page becomes unprotected? ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm happy to sit out a block if it's deemed necessary. I'm just making sure that info on the degree of edit warring is available.  Man of wealth and taste (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag isn't the one "on trial" here though. You should start a separate report if you believe TreasuryTag has violated 3RR.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * - Both parties should use communication on the talk page of the article, where differences can be sorted out without repeated use of reverting. It would be productive to do this while the page is protected and then you can submit the consensus version, GDonato (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * - Both parties should use communication on the talk page of the article, where differences can be sorted out without repeated use of reverting. It would be productive to do this while the page is protected and then you can submit the consensus version, GDonato (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems straightforward - TreasuryTag knows full well that the 3RR applies to edits like this, and Man of Wealth and Taste also seems aware that revert warring is unacceptable. Instead of protecting an article so that nobody can edit it, let's just deal with the pair of edit warriors with 24 blocks, which I've done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocking these user hours after they have stopped is punitive. Since they also had an agreement to stop, these block were unjustified. I have unblocked both users. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GBataille reported by 201.19.101.162(Result:Decline)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User is very aware that the consensus does not agree with his edits, and continues to do so anyways. User also has history of edit warnings and refuses to stop even after multiple blocks. User is causing edit war.


 * Diffs do not show 3RR violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

85.187.36.29 reported by MatriX (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Someone using this IP address is constantly making reverts on several pages without any explanation. Please check his/her talk page:, it has been warned several times for such behaviour. It seems this IP address was blocked 3 times so far for the same reasons: MatriX (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The diffs show an initial edit and 3 reverts by the IP, and 3 reverts by the reporting editor. Therefore, 3 reverts each. Either both or none should be blocked here, and since the last edit was 7 hours ago blocking would seem pointless. Therefore, no action. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

78.42.122.79 reported by TimVickers (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Athenean reported by Balkanian`s word (Result:mediating)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: 1st revert is actually not a revert, reporting user has a history of nationalist edit-warring, source falsification and blocks under his old name, User:Arditbido. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: His first edit is a factual revert, that he has tried unsuccesfully before. On his comments on me, I wont bother, its quite clear who`s the source falsificator (Talk:Cham Albanians). This user has only reverted on Cham Albanians page and never contributed on it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: On the second and subsequent diffs, I actually used a completely different wording, in accordance with what the source actually says, so that is not a reverts to the first diff.  This editor has also been warring on Chameria, and has previously been blocked 4 times for edit-warring.  As for his falsification of sources, it's all here Talk:Cham Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A revert is used even when it is a rewording, per definiton of 3RR. Per my abuse, those misuses of sources that I was accused, by you, were all fall down, and my wording is still in that page, cause you could not find any argument, except making bad faith new sections.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that whole section you added was removed by consensus, so no, your wording is not "still in the page". --Athenean (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, guys, this isn't about past histories or who is in the wrong. I can see that you disagree; however, the best way to proceed is to present your cases for your revision to each other, discuss, and establish consensus. I've noticed you're already doing this on your recent edits to the talk page; keep it up! Right now I'm not going to block anyone, though if you go back to edit warring I'll be forced to protect the page. Also, please do not make major changes to the page without discussing them first. Thanks, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:141.154.15.7 (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]

Fairly complex - the violation involves acting against multiple people

1} Here adding back what looks like inappropriate material for the article deleted by myself

2)Here adding back material deleted by SMP

3)Here adding back material deleted by SMP

4)Here deleted multiple entries made by myself,ex  and   and two others

I warned him about what looked like a 3RR violation several days ago and I also warned him about this most recent one reported above. He then deleted both warnings here to make it look like he has not been warned.

I reverted the deletion of the warning and then he deleted them again

FYI: My IP provider change my IP address every so often.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment It's perfectly permissible to remove a warning from one's user talk page. It is presumed that by removing it, the user has acknowledged reading it. You were wrong to revert over that - no comment on the underlying issue, tl;dr. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't really consider my edits to be WP3RR violating edits. But obviously this AnonIP editor thinks so. In response I have voluntarily done a self revert, and offer an apology. Also, I would welcome some advice as how I might find a way to get along with AnonIP, who I find very hostile and difficult. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The rules say 4 reverts in a 24 hour period constitutes edit warring. Either there were 4 reverts or there were not. I warned you about a 3rr violation on your talk page and I further warned you on the article talk page. You did nothing to correct your actions until I made this complaint. Re: Your self revert. You only made that after I made this complaint and you refused to do anything prior to this complaint, such as when I asked you to self revert here and return "balancing" commentary to new material in the article. Not only did you not self-revert to restore balance but you added additional unbalanced commentary.141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apology, sorry. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be of interest the history of this, see and  and  and  for four recent blocks of this AnonIP editor.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I paid the price for not understanding wiki rules. Thanks to you getting me banned I believe I now understand them better and my understanding states that you are in violation. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For additional history of this issue please also review the recent (28hrs) pattern of edits by this AnonIP editor, summarized below. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:141.154.15.7 I am disturbed by comments on Item 4 above which states that I called an author called Tushnet a nobody. That is in fact not the truth. I have not made any remarks against Tushnet. While there is currently a "he is a nobody" argument on the Second Amendment talk page, it has nothing to do with Tushnet. A third editor has attacked an author (not Tushnet) as being "a nobody" and I pointed out that a third author (also not Tushnet)who is currently used as a reference, has quite a bit less standing then the author attacked by that third editor. Attack on the other author, as a "nobody",is here and me pointing out that another author, with much less standing, is being used as a reference is here. I am in fact defending someone from being called a nobody. Can't argue with the fact that I made the above edits, but item 4 which adds new "balancing" material and can't be considered part of a edit war. The edits also do not breach 3RR. I further point out that the first 4 edits listed above were all deleted by SaltyBoatr here. If those 4 edits count as 4 against me as engaging in an edit war, then I ask that they be also counted as 4 against SaltyBoatr for engaging in the same.141.154.15.7 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 12:46, 12 April 2009 . (edit summary: "/* United States v. Cruikshank */ "sad consequenses" ndoes not belong in article")  Part of the long term edit warring of the "lynching" sentence. See prior here
 * 2) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Colonial Experience */ deleting material backed by Chicago-Kent Law Review 76 as "paid propaganda" from Joyce Foundation - see talk page Achive 14 - find another source")  Part of a very long edit warring of the material sourced by the author Saul Cornell. See here for one prior example, there are many others.
 * 3) 13:36, 12 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Early commentary */ I don't think Spooner can claim all the credit for Browns's beliefs - The man who wrote "all men are created equal"  probably was also an influence") Part of long term edit warring of the Lysander Spooner passage.  See here for one prior example, there are many others.
 * 4) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Background */Added US Supreme comment from Heller as counterpoint to Tushnet") This is seemingly a good faith edit, though improper synthesis original research, and discussions of this WP:SYN problem on the talk page has been met with ad hominem argument "he was a "nobody"" and hostility.
 * 5) 13:54, 13 April 2009   (edit summary: "/* Background */ added material for balance")  Additional edit warring of the 'Civilian usage' section, see here for prior.
 * 6) 15:39, 13 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* English Common Law: /* restored commentary, with additional material to indicate why it is relevant to Second Amendment)  Edit warring the "common law rights for self defense" sentence, see here for prior.


 * One other piece of evidence that the administrator(s) here may want to consider are the personal attacks and hostility on the talk page, one recent example: "...as evidence of your bad faith. Happy Easter! May you find rebirth on this day and become a better human being."  This smear aimed at me was hostile and non-constructive.  Please also review the general talk page effect of the AnonIP activity over the last couple months, which has played a large role in raising the hostility level to the point that progress reaching consensus has become virtually impossible.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If administrators wish to look at histories of personal attacks, a look at SaltyBoatrs record as shown on his talk page, shows a long history of complaints from other editors as well as many past instances of banning for engaging in edit wars. 141.154.15.7 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks stale to me. Complain here if you think otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How fast do we need to report these? The complaint was April 13 with a time stamp of 1:41. Violation 4 above was made  on April 12 with a time stamp of 15:51, only 10 hours earlier. Once spotting the violation and in an attempt to be civil and work this out between the two of us, I gave SaltyBoatr a chance to revert and stop being in a 3RR, which he refused do, warning and response are here . Once aware that he had refused to self revert, I reported the violation. If you feel 10 hours is not fast enough, In the future I will drop the attempt to be civil and simply report the violation.141.154.15.7 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm judging staleness by when I saw it, not by when you reported it. You are under no obligation to inform the user, though it is considered polite. You are of course obliged to be civil William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, and yes, civility. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

69.3.159.225 reported by TravKoolBreeze (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

A discussion was started on the talk page and then I asked three editors for their opinion in which one did respond to the dispute. The user in question still reverts without adding any discussion to the talk page. TravKoolBreeze (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we've been tardy. This now appears to be stale William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

75.73.210.43 reported by Ianweller (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Ian Weller (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More humourous vandalism that 3RR. Anyway, he has stopped and there was no technical vio William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ViperNerd reported by Fletch81 (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

EDIT: User has removed 3RR warning from talk page while adding one to mine. I have assumed good faith in editing of this article. The user appears to be attempting to assert ownership of the article to preserve it for vanity's sake.


 * User is also in violation of 3RR over WP:NPOV template on the University of South Carolina page and is removing warnings from talk page. Fletch81 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User Fletch81 who posted this edit warring notice started the war by contentiously adding POV edits linked to a blog that requires paid membership to read the content of the citation, and is clearly not a notable source to begin with (it is a college sports fan site). Furthermore, this user has lied about the 4 reverts. One of them was an edit that attempted to improve the article by removing a POV statement (2nd revert: ).

3RR warning was added to this user's talk page, as this user is equally culpable of contentious editing of this article, based on the repeated addition of POV material. Sourced edits do not equal NPOV.

This user is now in violation of 3RR/edit warring as well:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * The "3rd revert" is a unique edit attempting to address the concerns raised by ViperNerd. I did not simply revert. Fletch81 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not broken the 3RR rule, nor have I lied. In addition, I corrected the link.  When the source is directly from the South Carolina Athletic Department, it is NPOV.  Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit you list as "2nd revert" is clearly NOT a revert. So, that would be a FALSE statement, a.k.a. A LIE. ViperNerd (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon my mistake, I was acting in good faith. I have corrected this by striking through the second revert.  However, you are still in violation of the 3RR rule. Thank you.  Fletch81 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As are you, my good faith friend. You're welcome. ViperNerd (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT TO BOTH EDITORS: Both of you need to understand that this board is not the place to continue a dispute. An admin will be along soon to take a look at what's happened here, and probably will block both of you. Continuing to add onto this report isn't going to help either of you. I advice both of you to let this be on this board, and talk it out on the relevant talk pages. Dayewalker (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By my count, ViperNerd preformed 4 reverts on this article, with Fletch81 having 3. Q T C 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as notice for the admins, there's another report involving the same two editors below. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, a block would be punative instead of preventative. I'll leave them both a message. Q T C 06:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma reported by User:Yaf (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:53, 14 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 04:00, 14 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 04:03, 14 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 04:06, 14 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

-- Yaf (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * that's not 4 reverts. the "1st revert" is not even a revert; it's the first addition of the tag to the article. i made the first edit and then you reverted 3 times, as did i. that is  3 reverts. except my edit summaries were informative variations of "discuss your incessant removal of the plagiarism tag on the talk page" and your edit summary all 3 times was "rv nonsense". you are edit warring to keep a {copypaste} tag out of the article that explains, for other editors, that the article in question consists of stolen/copy and pasted material from other articles. for some reason (maybe since you're the one who created the POV fork article in the first place and personally copied and pasted material from other articles into the new article), you don't want people to see this tag. if anyone should be reported for edit warring, it's you. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * now Yaf is edit warring on the talk page. so far he's | made a discussion topic called "False claims article is copy/paste/stolen by Theserialcomma", | removed a message of mine and restored it with altered wording and | this and | this. what is he trying to accomplish here? all this edit warring because i tried to add a tag to the article that most of it was copy and pasted from other articles. the article is currently under | AFD with multiple editors claiming on the AFD and talk page that it's a copy and paste from other articles too, but somehow Yaf thinks all this edit warring is acceptable. All this arguing over an article that's going to be deleted. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Firearm_(tool)#False_claims_article_is_copy.2Fpaste.2Fstolen to view recently posted (not comprehensive by any means) evidence of plagiarism/copy and pasting from other articles. this is why Yaf should not have edit warred to remove the tag, nor reported me for 3 reverts, claiming they are 4. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Yaf cautionned re incivility in edit summaries, and false claims of incivility by others William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ViperNerd reported by Fletch81 (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:ViperNerd continues to revert POV material on yet another article in violation of WP:NPOV, as well as WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Fletch81 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, this contentious user continues to waste the time of Wikipedia admins by starting edit wars and then reporting people drawn into them. And last I checked, it took FOUR or more reverts of an article to violate 3RR, but this user couldn't let that get in the way of an obvious agenda. I'm also wondering why this user isn't editing DOZENS of articles simultaneously complaining about POV minutiae. Please don't let this type of obvious gaming of the system continue. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By my count again the revert actions for ViperNerd and Fletch were 5 and 2 respectively. Q T C 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This may not be 3RR, but it appears to be edit warring. Both have been very active and at cross purposes on several articles tonight. It seems to be a mess. ViperNerd's edits have also been brought up by Fletch at the NPOV board. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The NPOV board conversation is found here: []. There is a discussion on my talk page here: User talk:Fletch81, as ViperNerd has deleted everything from his.  I would also encourage those to look at the attempts I made to proceed with POV templates and discussion on talk pages, the content of the edits, as well as the tone each editor has used.  Thank you for your time.  Fletch81 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sucking up to other editors doesn't excuse your edit warring. Sorry. ViperNerd (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the users 5th Edit Warring block. Q T C 06:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Another admin might want to see if User:Fletch81's edits constitute edit warring. Not very clear cut in my opinion. Q T C 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not attempt to engage in an edit war. I began by introducing POV templates, then fact tags as Viper suggested.  Then he repeatedly deleted them.  I attempted to act in accordance with his wishes to achieve a goal of improving the article.  That is when I sought more outside help.  Please examine my edit history, which reflects I act in accordance with wikipedia's policies of civility.  I would also like your opinion on how to proceed with this impasse.  Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmsaber reported by Gsmgm (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:, yes, technically I am edit warring.
 * IP:, received a verbal warning.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Link of a MOS warning:

Okay I know there were never a 4:th revert (But I guess it's coming), but this madness has to be stopped. Gsmgm (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit war is based on extreme stupidity (and is completly pointless!), I stumble across this article and removed contact information (per WP:NOTYELLOW) and linked the image into the article itself (previoulsy it was linked to the external links section). An hour later I find the link to the image back on the external link section (while the same image is on the article!) together with contact information, so I promptly remove it and warns the user, Now Mmsaber has stopped but the IP is unwavering (third removal of the same redundancy). Gsmgm (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one, so technically only 1R. Newbie, so please be patient. Appears to have taken your hint William M. Connolley (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gokufistum reported by User:Ctjf83 (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Family Guy
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

 C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre reported by A Nobody (Result:no action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

"Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." C'mon guys; you're both well-established editors who know the way around Wikipedia. Why must you fight? Aside from the fact that there was no 3RR warning issued by A Nobody, this is no way to settle things. Getting each other blocked/banned will hardly further your goals. That's why I'm not issuing any blocks; I'm just going to warn you both (as severely as I can) to not do this again. Spectre has the right to appeal a closed case if he thinks it hasn't received just attention; please don't revert him on that. In general, just don't revert each other at all. If something happens and you think it's a problem, tell me, Sepiroth, or any other administrator who'll turn an ear. But trust me on this; if you keep going, high chances are User:Triggerhappyadmin will see a nice excuse to block you.
 * Three different editors User:Black Kite, User:Patton123, and I have reverted him and another User:Sephiroth BCR old him on his talk page advised against it, as did Cube Lurker at AN/I. Please note as well, even though a third admin has archived the section, he continues to comment in the archived thread.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, reversions two and three are reverting vandalism from WP:VAND:
 * Editors may unarchive a discussion if they believe a discussion is unresolved. Hell, that's why unresolved exists. And A Nobody knows better. He should've just re-archived the discussion. Then, he'd have a genuine claim to 3RR-breaching edit warring. Sceptre (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted Black Kite, an admin, and changed/replaced his words in the process, even with critics of me advising against that. Thus, by your own claim, your doing that would constitute vandalism, especially doing so after being reverted by not just me. And worst yet, you still commented in the thread even after yet another admin rearchived it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't. I just changed resolved to unresolved. Standard operating procedure. Sceptre (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like an open and shut case of 3RR by me. I remember dream focus was blocked for 3rr when he fought over a template. This is the same situation. templates are not one of the exceptions in 3rr. Ikip (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if I was unarchiving to unarchive. I wasn't. I was unarchiving to revert vandalism. Sceptre (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh. Vandalism is someone going "HAHA! PAAANTS!" or something similar. Disagreements are not vandalism.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec*2) I quoted the part about WP:VAND which AN's actions fall under. Most vandalism is that, but not all. Sceptre (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do heed those words. Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  23:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - Was just about to close it as no-action myself. I totally agree with MoP; just quit it. And, also, don't continue the discussion here please or the comments will be removed. Scarian  Call me Pat!  23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

86.133.11.175 reported by Oicumayberight (Result:mediation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is also in violation of WP:DICT by redefining "analog clock" and "digital clock" contrary to well-accepted sources. and no other sources to back it. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't block, but I'll just warn the users. More on talk page. Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh reported by Bobblehead (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There's been some on going discussions on the page the last several days, but Grant seems to have stopped participating in the discussions and is now just hitting the undo button and "discussing" via edit summary. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though please be warned that other parties are very close to violating 3RR themselves. Tiptoety  talk 23:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm one of the "other parties" and I will refrain from further reverts of this nature. I allowed myself to devolve into "tit-for-tat" nonsense last night and it won't happen again. --SkotywaTalk 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Threeafterthree reported by JCDenton2052 (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has repeatedly used the edit summary "See talk" but has not provided any rationale for his blanking on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, stale. Would have been "no technical vio" if seen earlier. With warring edit comments of "trolling" and "bad faith" it looks like you both need to strive for politeness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At some point, trolling is trolling. I have no problem using the talk page and have done so with no response from this editor there, just continued reversion with rv vandalism in the edit saummary. Hopefully this will move to the article talk page or I will have to seek out other dispute resolution. Thank you, Tom (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Threeafterthree, please read WP:NPA. Additionally, you gave no reasons for your blanking on the talk page until after I reported you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about NPA? Calling a troll a troll? I commented on the talk page well before you made this report, which you didn't even advise me of, I had to see it on your contribution list. I commented again on the article talk page. You reverted again calling it vandalism. You have made zero contributions to the talk page. I have dealt with your type before, trust me. --Tom (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one labeling me a "troll", so I don't think the problem lies with me. You commented on the talk page but gave no reason for your blanking so there was nothing that I could respond to. I've met your type before--Wikipedians who make no or few additions to the project but try to remove as much knowledge as possible. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

76.112.248.224 reported by JohnInDC (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has not made 4 reverts as such, but instead an unsound initial edit here followed by 3 reversions. The second to last reversion followed an explanation on the user's talk page why the edits were inappropriate and the third reversion after a 3RR warning (more accurately, an "edit war" warning inasmuch as the 3d reversion had not taken place yet). The user is violating the spirit, though not the letter, of the 3RR rule and intervention is appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting appears to have stopped after your 3RR warning. Should be blocked if more reverting goes on William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Happily another editor shared my view of things and put the page back the way it should be. If another few hours pass with no more reversions then I'd be happy to withdraw this or let it go as stale -  JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 76.112.248.224 has reverted again, his fourth. TheMile (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And now <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Brisbanelionsfan1 reported by User:Jevansen (Result: no action yet)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

There are also warnings on his talk page.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has created an account with the sole purpose of adding a list of controversies to the article of this football club. He has also added similarly themed material to the page of a Brisbane Lions player. His ironic username also makes it clear what his agenda is. He has added the same list of controversies to the Brisbane Lions article four times in the last 24 hours, despite at the same time being engaged in a discussion on the talk page where every single user objected to his actions. Despite telling him, in this discussion, that he had violated 3RR and asked to stop adding such material until we had sorted the issue out (to which he replied), he proceeded to do his 4th revert of the page. Jevansen (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR warnings go on user talk, not page talk. I don't see any reverts after the warning; no action yet William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100 reported by Nableezy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is just outside of 24 hours but clearly edit warring. 3 separate editors have reverted the change in question, NoCal100 just waits until his 24 hour clock is reset and starts again.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What Nableezy somehow forgot to mention is that by this standard, he is just as guilty of edit warring, having reverted 3 times in 24 hours: All of his reverts are removal of well sourced material.
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert.

He has been edit warring on multiple articles with this exact same tactic of making 3 reverts in 24 hours, and has been warned about it:

NoCal100 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Well-sourced material that made claims the source did not make, and that 3 separate editors reverted. Is it possible that material that does not follow the source it claims to cite is 'well-sourced'? I do not think so. Nableezy (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And 'just as guilty'? In the past 26 hours you reverted 6 times, I did 3 times. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 times in 26 hours is edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCal100 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So whats 6 times? Nableezy (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are edit warring which do not violate WP:3RR. NoCal100 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NonResidentFellow reported by Mashkin (Result: Duplicate report)
User:NonResidentFellow violated 3RR in American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The violation are. He was warned that he is violating 3RR and was asked to revert but refused to do so. Mashkin (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly: from 22:08, 14 April 2009 Mashkin did 3 reverts or deletes within 24h (3RR). After NRF [!] started Talk, Mashkin did revert (his or her 3rd, making 3RR). -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the matter: Mashkin has started a new thread on my Talk page on this. Wrote disapproval. -DePiep (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - For the action taken, see a report below this one. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NonResidentFellow reported by Hyperionsteel (Result: 3 days; two socks blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:26, April 15, 2009


 * 1st revert: 05:17, April 15, 2009
 * 2nd revert: 06:28, April 15, 2009
 * 3rd revert: 13:07, April 15, 2009
 * 4th revert: 19:05, April 15, 2009
 * 5th revert: 19:28, April 15, 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: |19:23, 19:23, April 15, 2009 Hyperionsteel (talk | contribs) (7,809 bytes) (→3RR Violation)

I have asked NonResidentFellow several times to respect the 3RR rule. He has continued to violate it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Also blocked User:Leading authority and User:Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger as socks of User:NonResidentFellow. The conduct of NonResidentFellow was quite egregious, given the highly POV nature of his changes. I leave it to some other admin to decide whether User:The Squicks should be sanctioned as well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to note Sockpuppet investigations/NonResidentFellow. Tiptoety  talk 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I wouldn't have filed this request unless I was certain that NonResidentFellow's edits were not only inappropriate but also were in bad faith. With regard to the concerns expressed about The Squicks and Mashkin, I believe they were acting in good faith to remove inappropriate material and I didn't feel that their actions warranted any sanctions.


 * As Tiptoety  has just noted, I have also filed a request to determine if Leading authority, Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger, and NonResidentFellow are actually the same person (i.e. sockpuppets). I've provided the link to the investigation request I filed here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NonResidentFellow. Hopefully, we will soon have a clearer picture of what is going on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Collect reported by Phoenix_of9 (Result: Too old)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: deleting "collectivist"


 * 1st revert: 17:21, 13 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 17:37, 13 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 12:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)
 * 4th revert: 18:22, 14 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User got blocked twice before for violation of 3rr:


 * Technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. First revert 17:21, 13 April 2009, latest 18:22, 14 April 2009. But note the long edit-warring history (among others) of this user here: Requests for comment/Collect
 * I reported this at WP:AN/I:, was told to come here:  Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Too old. I see four reverts by Collect in a 25-hour period. This is something that, if newly-reported, might be sanctioned. But Collect has been inactive on that page for the last 32 hours. There are 14 edits since his last one on Fascism, even if you collapse each group of edits by the same person. Blocking Collect would have little effect on whatever is happening on that article, since he is not continuing to war there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong reported by The Little Blue Frog (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has already been blocked for edit-warring and 3RR

Evolded from the main ANI board: User:Benjwong repeatedly deletes issue tags clearly annotated, even after further addition of more annotation and Fact tags. Report started at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. &mdash; The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit ) 04:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment; Both violated 3RR.--Caspian blue 05:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Article protected. henrik  • talk  05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This report lacks a time stamp. I'm adding an artificial one so that MiszaBot will archive the report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * All reverts
 * This report lacks a time stamp. I'm adding an artificial one so that MiszaBot will archive the report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

 * Page
 * User


 * This report lacks a time stamp. I'm adding an artificial one so that MiszaBot will archive the report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This report lacks a time stamp. I'm adding an artificial one so that MiszaBot will archive the report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun Ismailiyya reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The User over and over again is trying to plug in Shia negative stories into the biography of this Islamic figure, and using hardcore Shia citations but fakely reporting them as secular or Sunni sources. Over and over since the User's message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umar#Regarding_my_reversions_and_edits he is insisting to plug in Shia beliefs in the body of the text, and against the obvious disagreement of most everyone in the talk page. Then the User used edit warring techniques to force maintenance of those changes and stories and outright lying about the citations. The citations are from shia books and we have been trying to clarify that these are all Shia beliefs, however the user is erroneously claiming that they are neutral secular "Yale" research books or referred to that they are mentioned in famous Sunni books. I have confirmed one of the Sunni books, Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, and found the page number and found no reference whatsoever, when told the user merely removed the page number but maintained the false citation.

When he sent the link to one of the books he called "secular and neutral sources" it was a clear religious "introduction to Shii Islam". He continues to insist on reverting the page with false citations despite being disproven as per the talk page.

I have posted a report before and it was somehow removed. Please tell me if there is something missing from my report before removing it so as to know how to make a correct report. Otherwise if you haven't removed my report for some admin requirement kindly please check why it was removed and by home. I don't know how.

--Sampharo (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Investigating. This is more of an edit war, but could involve sockpuppetry. One sec... -- slakr  \ talk / 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2009-04-06T05:53:13 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs | block) m (43,761 bytes) (Protected Umar: IP vandalism. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 05:53, 20 April 2009 ) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This old report was failing to archive. I removed 'UTC' from the protection notice above to persuade MiszaBot to take this away. EdJohnston (talk)

Uirauna reported by Arcayne (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Uirauna has almost 1000 edits and has been here for over a year. (S)he knows the limitations on reverting. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Um. Still, a warning would have done no harm. But it matters not, as 2009-04-14T19:56:01 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs | block) m (21,951 bytes) (Protected Persian Gulf naming dispute: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC))))  William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, i tend to agree. Warning them of impending doom (as I did after the 4th edit but before filing here) seems enough to bring everyone to the discussion page. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PhilLiberty reported by Soxwon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

as a reversion of this: as a revert of this edit:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This old report lacks a time stamp. I'm adding an artificial one so that MiszaBot will archive the report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mitted reported by User:Rurik (Result: User warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * User mitted refers to actual person ("MIT Ted" Johnson). Edits are WP:COI, as he adds information about his own acclaims into article. He has continually mentioned his own business CEJBlackjack in the article and in talk discussions. Upon being warned of the edit war, user removed notice from his talk page, along with parts of the discussion (see ).  He then removed other names from the article as possible malicious retribution (see  and changed the acclaim to read "anonymous" player.  User warred with other editor,, upon whose talk page the discussion continued. At this point, however, Objective3000 backed out of the edit war and simply maintained discussion on his talk page.


 * Stale, but I get the impression that the user was not familiar with policy; I have reverted his promotional edits and warned. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outerlimits reported by Emerson7 (Result: No vio/stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1) 06:59, 14 April 2009  (edit summary: "range of dates after a name will be interpreted as birth/death unless otherwise indicated.")
 * 2) 19:53, 14 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 19:54, 14 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:18, 15 April 2009  (edit summary: "remove confusing data until a less misleading presentation can be agreed to on the talk page; the data is already included in the article.")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Technically no vio - 2nd and 3rd reverts are part of one edit. Also now 3 days old and stale. Please re-report if edit-war restarts. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

78.33.101.58 reported by O Fenian (Result: 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Editor previous blocked for 3RR violation

Minor variation of original text on the 3rd and 4th revert, but the bulk of the unwanted and untrue message remains the same. O Fenian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly disruptive editing after release of previous block. Blocked for 7 days this time. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LifeStroke420 reported by GaryColemanFan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user has four previous blocks for violating 3rr. Warning was left on talk page but deleted. The edit summary for one of these reverts is also troubling: "WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" does not make it seem as though WP:AGF is being applied. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever is the admin that reviews this, I suggest they look at this comment made by on LifeStroke420: "I will be unequivocally blunt: The next accusation you make will be your last Wikipedia edit. Accusations of harassment, sexual or otherwise, require solid evidence or else they are personal attacks. Consider this your one and only warning." - I would at this point support an indef block. D.M.N. (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking him now, and posting at AN/I about the block. Given everything else and the fact this is his fifth 3RR block, I'm getting the impression that he's a hopeless recidivist. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 08:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiaddict8962 reported by Debresser (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Record of edit warring warning: User_talk:Debresser and User_talk:Wikiaddict8962

User:Wikiaddict8962 has claimed the sources he removes do not support the text. I have checked 5-6 sources and found them to be fine. I suspect a user who thinks that the article has to be precisely the way he thinks it should be, based and biased on his possibly limited understanding and sources. On the other hand, his extensive contributions to other articles related to Sierra Leone suggest he is some kind of an expert in the field. Which would seem to contradict the "limited understanding and sources part, but could go well with the WP:OWN part.

I'd like to make clear that I have no personal connection with the subject whatsoever and ended up here in the course of my regular Wikignoming. (Debresser (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst there are edits, and potentially an ongoing dispute, there does not appear to be a violation of the three-revert rule within 24 hours. I've warned the user that they should avoid further edits without considering Wikipedia guidance on policy. If they continue to disregard this warning then report to me or any admin (or at WP:RFC). <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out to you that I posted this notice on a board for edit warring as well, and that I stated specifically "Record of edit warring warning". Debresser (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. I've replied to the comment you've left on my talk page regarding this matter. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 12:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

128.163.229.227 reported by Marauder40 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User logs in every month or so and adds POV edits without discussion to multiple pages, pages include Raymond Arroyo, Eternal Word Television Network‎, George Weigel has been warning by numerous editors and even blocked before. Previous IP addresses include 128.163.229.36, 74.143.204.130, 74.143.204.162, 128.163.229.32 etc. Marauder40 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Red Peacock reported by Dayewalker (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor has been very active on this page for the last three days, blanking certain sourced information and adding others to push a POV. He's been warned several times on his talk page, but refuses to discuss on his or any other talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:92.40.57.99 reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: )
. : Time reported: 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 09:55, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 284305740 by Hauskalainen (talk)")
 * 2) 13:48, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 284400257 by Nick Cooper (talk)")
 * 3) 14:40, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 284422051 by Nick Cooper (talk)")
 * 4) 14:55, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 284425822 by Onorem (talk)")
 * 5) 17:51, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* United Kingdom */")
 * 6) 19:07, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 284467593 by Famspear (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Onorem♠Dil 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anuttamadasi reported by Wikidas (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of another 3RR warning:

WP:DISRUPT, WP:SPAM Wikidās ॐ added it at 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They just don't get it do they. has been   Tiptoety  talk 03:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TomCat4680 reported by User:Delicious carbuncle (Result: Both editors warned, article protected 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Despite being pointed to appropriate guidelines and asked in edit summaries to discuss the change on the article's talk page, the editor did not attempt to discuss until after the third revert. Additionally, the editor has just incorrectly warned me for 3RR, so I presume there is a personal animus behind this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both editors have been warned, and I could argue that both are at 3RR. A block at the moment would be punitive.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I plainly have not violated 3RR (just look at the article's history to confirm). I have had a series of increasingly unpleasant messages on my talk page from TomCat4680, despite having asked them to stay away. I believe their reverts are because of some personal conflict they perceive with me and a block may help them realise that they need to reconsider their course of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion taken to article talk page and talk pages of respective editors.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tycoon24 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

This is not a standard 3RR report, but a little more complex. User is trying to insert information on this article to highlight the turnout figures for this event given by the media source Pajamas TV. This source has claimed turnout figures way in excess of other more neutral sources. Unfortunately, PJTV is not a neutral source, as it promoted the Tea Party events, even giving instructions on how people could set up their own Tea Party events.

Timeline 17 Apr 18 Apr
 * 22:23 Tycoon24 Inserts PJTV info
 * 22:30 I revert (over 3 edits, other edits included) explaining why in the edit summary
 * 22:42 Tycoon24 reinserts info
 * 22:47 I revert, again explaining why - more fully - in the edit summary
 * 22:51 I post to his talkpage, explaining the problem - there is a whole thread there which is illuminating
 * 23:04 Tycoon24 reinserts the info for a third time
 * 23:11 I post to the article talkpage for discussion
 * 23:18 I make a compromise edit, leaving in the PJTV estimate, but including a source showing that the company promoted the Tea Party events
 * 23:25 Without comment, Tycoon24 removes my addition
 * 23:27 I replace the sentence, with an edit summary asking him not to remove sourced information
 * 23:46 Tycoon24 removes my sentence again, replacing it with a comment from PJTV itself. This edit comes complete with a totally misleading edit summary as well
 * 23:59 I replace the sentence, again asking him not to remove sourced information
 * 00:06 Yet another revert with misleading edit summary
 * I back away from making any more edits at this point. Other editors start editing the article and the page is eventually semi-protected, but the sentence regarding PJTV is still there, without any reference to the fact that it's not a reliable source. However, Tycoon24 continues to edit-war.
 * 03:14 Removes entire sourced paragraph without comment
 * 04:41 Removes maintenance tags without fixing the problem
 * 04:50 Removes a source to a different tournout estimate without comment
 * 12:02 Adds multiple, mostly irrelevant, cleanup tags to a section he disagrees with
 * Tycoon24's talkpage has at least two previous edit-warring warning templates as well as other warning templates, so I believe that bringing this here is probably now best.


 * Diff of disruption warning:

<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:98.194.123.23 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC, indended blocks were multiple consecutive edits, which are treated as one for the purpose of 3RR.

Diff of 3RR warning (oops, not previously warned; previous warning was for vandalism, rather than edit warring) Comment:
 * 1) 07:57, 17 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 2) * 07:58, 17 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 3) 04:07, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 4) * 04:12, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 5) 06:32, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 6) 06:37, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 7) 06:40, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 8) 06:42, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 9) 06:45, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 10) 07:02, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 11) 07:04, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 12) * 07:04, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 13) * 07:05, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 14) * 07:06, 18 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 15) 07:10, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 16) 07:13, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 17) 07:15, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 18) 07:19, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Conspiracy theories */")
 * 07:13, 18 April 2009

All adding unsourced claims of GMO and allergies, some within quotes, some not. Even if if the first pair doesn't constitute a revert, this is rediculous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for 1 week by User:Mentifisto. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick reported by MusicInTheHouse (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

MusicInTheHouse (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The same user is now involved in edit wars on two other articles and is also vandalising talk pages with obscenities: here (twice within minutes).

Warnings on the users talk page were deleted and the user now claims to have "retired" after this latest flurry

The other articles are

British Isles
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert  with obscenity in summary
 * 4th revert

Republic of Ireland
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert

There are other examples earlier, but those are the most recent. In view of the aggression of this author, and the talk page vandalism something more than the normal 24 hours cooling off period is needed. The decision to "retire" may or may not be real --Snowded (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h for the edit-warring and incivility, regardless of the "retired" template. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 10:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)