Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive97

Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by Laveol (Result: article sanctions)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miladinov_Brothers&oldid=283845578


 * 1st revert: 11:15, 17 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 20:47, 17 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 07:28, 18 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 09:06, 18 April 2009
 * 5th revert: 09:45, 18 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=284610308&oldid=284500046

Note that the warning was placed now, not previously, but that the user in question is an admin and should be well aware of all the rules around here. I hope that the fact that he's an admin won't spare him. Thanks. -- L a v e o l  T 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, seems I forgot one revert I did yesterday. The first listed is not a revert (a removal, yes, but not a revert to any earlier state that I'm aware of, the material has been there for ages), but okay, the rest are still four. I'm generally unapologetic when it comes to revert-warring against nationalist obsession (which is what we are dealing with here), because I find there's often no other way of dealing with it, so, do what you have to do. I will remove that passage again at the earliest opportunity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so you intend to continue edit-warring at the earliest possible opportunity? -- L a v e o l  T 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you start expending your energy on rewriting that passage into something halfway decent (if you can), yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I'm trying. All you've been doing this week was calling me an idion, a banana citizen and so on. I've answered you on the talkpage, but you don't seem willing to communicate with unless it involves some lame personal qualifiers. -- L a v e o l  T 13:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Future is again resorting in personal attacks. What "if you can" means if not a reference to the intellectual capability of another editor?--Avg (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read "if you can" as indicating that the passage might be unsalvageable as an encyclopedic section. Black Kite 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf. is a repeat offender in attacking Laveol in terms of his ethnicity and encyclopaedic capacity. --Avg (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see one admin trying to remove a tangent passage musing on what a Macedonian is, while being reverted by three different editors. The better tactic would have been a short term protection of the page, but I advise all parties to cease the edit war. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is an admin offers him immunity? He is an involved editor with a POV. Ask him yourself if he is acting with his admin or editor capacity here.--Avg (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst he shouldn't have reverted past 3RR, I can understand FPAS' problems in attempting to keep irrelevant synthesis (which is what the majority of that paragraph is) out of obscure articles when multiple nationalist editors have a vested interest in keeping it in. Black Kite 13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I see him acting as an admin to keep a clearly absurd section out of the article. Hopefully, the ArbCom case related to this kind of editing will help empower us to deal more cleanly with this sort of thing. If he, or I, protect the page, then we are accused of protecting his POV, even though the removal of the passage is clearly appropriate. The problem is that a nationalist consensus established what should be in the article. The only way an admin ends up in one of these pages is usually in the course of removing something that is out of place, at which point we become "editors abusing our admin powers to protect a POV". Our hands are tied on this, but there is no way that I am blocking someone on a technicality. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you can clarify your comment, are you offering Fut.Perf. carte blanche to violate Wikipedia policies if he has a dispute over the content of this paragraph? And may I remind you, Fut.Perf, is an involved editor in this case, he's not an uninvolved admin defending Wikipedia encyclopaedic quality. In fact this has been his modus operandi for years. He edit wars over content disputes playing the uninvolved admin card.--Avg (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All I know is any other editor would've been blocked for this (and has been in similiar cases in the past). That's all from me. -- L a v e o l  T 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this battleground, and blocking FPAS isn't the sensible solution. I will attempt to impose something sensible, see the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why blocking FPAS is not the sensible solution? This is not the first time and it will not be the last. He's right now edit warring in other articles too, see his contributions. If he feels he has immunity he will continue.--Avg (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify my statements above, this is an example of what we are hoping to see resolved with this arbcom case. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention it, please have a look at Fut.Perf. edit warring over the article Macedonian only today.--Avg (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 06:00, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by RetroS1mone")
 * 2) 06:34, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
 * 3) 06:38, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
 * 4) 06:42, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
 * 5) 07:08, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin")
 * 6) 07:12, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
 * 7) 07:14, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")
 * 8) 07:16, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 98.194.123.23 (talk) to last version by BullRangifer")

Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 07:34, 18 April 2009 (I see no evidence he's ever been warned for 3RR, either)

Sorry, folks, even though it started after the 4th revert of the anon.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears to have been reverting an anon who has subsequently been blocked for a week (2009-04-18T09:00:44 Mentifisto (talk | contribs | block) blocked 98.194.123.23 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)) so I'll warn re procedure but don't feel any urge to block William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about all this. I do have some questions on my talk page. I was under the impression that reverting BLP violations (which this wasn't) and vandalism was excepted from the 3rr rule, and thus not considered "edit warring". I counted it as vandalism because of that user's history on the matter. Others also considered it vandalism. BTW, the "result" above needs to be changed (thankfully!). -- BRangifer (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a number of us considered the IP's edits to be "obvious vandalism", which is indeed excepted from the 3rr rule. I took my cue from that, as well as the history, which included numerous warnings for those identical edits being vandalism... ;-) -- BRangifer (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the "results" in the heading above. Even if it had happened, a week would be overkill considering the good faith attempts to fight vandalism. The context should be considered. We don't want to be treating loyal editors the same way we treat vandals and disrupters. "Justice that is blind to both circumstance and status can have an oppressive effect." -- BRangifer (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As an involved admin, I feel constrained to report all nominal violations in articles I edit. Sorry.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CharmingPeople reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of warning as IP

Editor also as IP, also making similar edits and edit warring on Creation according to Genesis as IP. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:70.71.22.45 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 23:25, 17 April 2009


 * This editors subsequent eight edits, in 27 hours, have all be reverts, all to Talk:Stephen Barrett


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:57, 19 April 2009

This article falls under ArbCom sanctions, but I thought a 3rr report would be a step prior to AE. --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Blocked for disruptive editing to prevent further disruption. Nja 247 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh reported by CyMoahk (Result: Warn )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: NA - see below


 * 1st revert: - statistics
 * 2nd revert: - score format
 * 3rd revert: - score format
 * 4th revert: - score format
 * 5th revert: - statistics
 * 6th revert: - statistics
 * 7th revert: - stastics

It's hard to identify exact reverts and an 'original version' since this user has been banned from editing articles multiple times for other edit wars, so his reverts on this article have happened over long periods of time (3RR doesn't apply) with lots of different information entering the article between his edits. It's the same issues over and over again though, even when on the discussion page he's in the minority on each issue.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: NA - see above

I'm still relatively new at Wikipedia myself (six months or so, only a handful of article) - I've read as much information about edit warring, trivia, reverting, original research, etc. as I could, though, so I don't think I'm in the wrong here, but please correct me if I've messed anything up (including if I've messed up this report somehow) - I don't want to cause the same kind of frustration I'm feeling right now for other people. CyMoahk (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Half of these are completely non controversial or not within 24 hours. The SB to NJ edit is just like one CyMoahk made previously. All I did was use the abbreviation used by WPS. I was also updating the statistics (not merely reverting), and in the process was eliminating unsourced WP:OR. I have also been discussing this on the talk page of the 2009 WPS article. Furthermore, none of my edits were contested, and if Cy wants to revert them, they are more than welcome to. Making a bunch of edits that you disagree with is not edit warring. This is based on an incomplete understanding of policy by CyMoahk. --  Grant  .  Alpaugh  06:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still believe my edits to be correct, but I've reverted to avoid a block until further discussion takes place. --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  07:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments
You are both advised to take a minute away from the keyboard and cool down to avoid escalating the dispute. Use the article's talk page to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. Please review Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and keep in mind that continuing to edit war will result in blocks. Nja 247 10:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueshirts reported by Mendaliv (Result: Warn)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Taken to here as a result of an EAR request: Editor assistance/Requests. The other editor seems to have broken 3RR as well, and has been warned. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both parties have been given warnings, and therefore continuance of the edit war by either should be reported to me or here. Thanks. Nja 247 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lunchtime666 reported by Dan D. Ric (talk) (Result: 12H )
. : Time reported: 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:44, 19 April 2009  (edit summary: "I have removed /* Critical Reaction */ because it was written by somebody wants to ruin the playwright's reputation and sabotage the page. Please do not reallow him to enter it. Thank you")
 * 2) 16:52, 19 April 2009  (edit summary: "i REMOVED /* Critical Reaction */ AS IT IS SOMEONE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE PAGE OUT OF MALICE. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO PUT IT BACK")
 * 3) 16:57, 19 April 2009  (edit summary: "i have removed critical reactions as it was done out of malice")
 * 4) 17:01, 19 April 2009  (edit summary: "PLEASE DO NOT MINDLESSLY SABOTAGE THE REPUTATION OF THE PLAYWRIGHT")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-04-19T17:48:13 Nja247 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Lunchtime666 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Learneggs12 reported by Drmies (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Editor has reverted closure of AfD discussion three times; I've undone it twice, but do not wish to fall afoul of 3RR. Editor, after being warned, went back for a minor edit, at which point they could have easily undone their last reinstatement of the AfD tag. Editor has also thrice undone the closure of the AfD discussion, here, here, and here.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There is a history of vandalism and of somewhat unseemly AfD's for this article--I don't have the tools or the smarts to look into suck puppeteering, but this editor is an SPA; the article was twice nominated a month or so ago and easily and quickly kept; Tenpoundhammer has already rolled back once to this version, the last one that had consensus: I consider Learneggs12's edits to be unhelpful and suspect. Thanks for your attention, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Black Kite 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-closed the afd again. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal reported by Adrian CZ (Result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Verbal is repeatedly reverting the insertion of material from the opening sentence of a news report on the website of Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency, despite the fact that this source clearly and easily meets the bar for WP:RS. The lead in the article that Verbal is reverting, on Matthias Rath, currently contains a statement based upon the sixteenth and seventeenth sentences of a piece from The Sunday Times (Johannesburg) that I – and, seemingly, other editors – feel would benefit from the addition of a contrary opinion, to ensure neutrality, per WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, Verbal reverted the insertion of the material from the Bernama news report three times within a mere 82 minutes. Moreover, I would also wish to point out that this is the second time within a matter of weeks that Verbal has contravened the three-revert-rule. Adrian CZ (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "seemingly other editors" is right. The rest isn't. This is being discussed on the talk page page and so far no arguments for inclusion have been presented. Rather than make these reports and waste multiple editors time, it would be better if Adrian and his IP friends used the talk page to justify the edits and convince us that this is valid. To encourage this perhaps Adrian should be banned for some time from this page, as has been done with other editors who have abused it in the past. With each edit I directed the editor(s) to the talk page and even started the discussion for them, to which they haven't contributed. Stating that I have broken 3RR in the past is also incorrect, Adrian was directed in that instance to go to the talk page (as the result link will testify) - lying in a 3RR report is not recommended. I'm sorry to be wasting my time and the time of good faith editors here again, yours, Verbal   chat  20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No action. Last time, I turned down your report about Verbal partly because 3RR had not been breached . It hasn't been breached this time, either, as only 3 reverts have been made. Also, the "reliable source" is a promotional advertisement for a seminar being held by Rath, and so of course is likely to describe him in glowing terms - and thus fails WP:RS. And yet again a UK T-Mobile IP is inserting the information, and you're reporting it again. It's becoming a bit difficult to assume good faith here. Black Kite 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuckarg33 reported by Ryan 4314 (talk) (Result: Blocked )
. : Time reported: 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:33, 18 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Politics */ Add in Constitutional Reform details and new paragraph start.")
 * 2) 23:47, 19 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid Sections of the Arg constitution which refers to the Falklands are MOST relevant since large parts of the article mentions Arg")
 * 3) 00:56, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "Very quick undo. Not about Argentine constitution; only mentions what relates to the islands that is in the legislation")
 * 4) 01:13, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "Biaed opinion after misreading the text. Isn't about the Constitution but the article that refers to the islands")
 * 5) 01:27, April 20, 2009 (edit summary: Undid revision 284921225 by Ryan4314 (talk)
 * 6) 01:42, April 20, 2009 (edit summary: "biased by those on the british side. let 3RR flow!!!")


 * Diff of warning: here and here (plus must be aware of 3RR by now)

— Ryan 4314  (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked by  Tiptoety  talk 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Arqoub imp reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours )

 * User:


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 9th revert, made after being notified of this report:


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * Tiptoety talk 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda reported by Causteau (Result: 48h and)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:01, 18 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 03:07, 18 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 03:13, 18 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 03:15, 18 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The above editor has just violated WP:3RR across two separate articles: Haplogroup M (mtDNA) & Haplogroup N (mtDNA) (on the haplogroup N article: his first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert). He basically just kept knee jerk reverting edits I made to both articles, edits for which I provided a detailed justification here. Judging by the quick time in which he reverted my edits (literally less than five minutes later), the editor never even bothered to read my explanation of said edits much less respond to them. The editor was also recently blocked for violating 3RR (as was I) in a revert war with me over the same articles, but does not seem to have learned anything from the experience since he is back to knee jerk reverting. This appears to be the editor's modus operandi, as his personal page audaciously outlines, among other ploys, the following:

"'As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version.'" Causteau (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So too has  violated the 3rr as per
 * History of Haplogroup M
 * History of Haplogroup N
 * Causteau's block log reveals that the User has been blocked twice for edit warring on genetics articles. Once in October 2008 and again in April 2009.
 * With regards to my so-called strategy, it's simply an excerpt from a famous wikipedia webpage at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war which was deposited on my page by some user diff. I though it was hilarious so I decided to share it with the world on my personal page. There is no evidence that I use any of the information contained, I just have a sense of humor.
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no I haven't. You see, I made the first edit to both pages (haplogroup M; haplogroup N), which then began reverting. I also only performed three reverts to the haplogroup M article (1, 2, 3). On the haplogroup N article, while I did perform five reverts, my last revert was a self-revert of my next-to-last revert, thereby annulling it. And per both WP:3RR and this noticeboard, self-reverts don't count:
 * "'The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.'"
 * User:Wapondaponda, by contrast, also performed a self-revert... only in doing so he was yet again reverting back to the way the page was before I first began editing it i.e. he had just realized that he had reverted my self-revert and was correcting his 'error'. In fact, his edit summary reads "oops"! Causteau (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And despite his claims to the contrary, User:Wapondaponda's personal page is very much in line with the true nature of his edits as this post of mine makes clear. Causteau (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why C doesn't realise he has 4R on the M article. Ah well, this will be a learning experience, as the new-fangled folk say. W clearly has 4R too. And both have form, so can have 48h and WP:1RR restriction on the article William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau doesn't "realize" he has 4RR on the M article because he doesn't. You have unfairly blocked me when all I've made to that page was three reverts (1, 2, 3). That so-called "fourth" revert was me first editing the page, an edit I fully justified beforehand on the article's discussion page. then within minutes reverted that very first edit without even so much as bothering to read it, which sparked off the revert war. And I've already explained this to you in some detail on your talk page. Next time, please get your facts straight instead of needlessly blocking people and mischaracterizing their edits. Causteau (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

miasnikov reported by motopu (Result: Malformed)
Miasnikov continually erasing sourced historical version and replacing with opinion at "Fare strike" page Here is a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fare_strike&diff=284752397&oldid=284748984

The issue is a fare strike of municipal transit in San Francisco. I am posting the historical fact, corroborated by published author, Znet contributor, and well known radical historian Tom Wetzel, that "thousands participated" in the fare strike. Wetzel was a participant in the fare strike, and is a primary source. His statement about thousands participating is featured at the libcom.org website and other places: Primary source from first days of the fare strike documents that thousands rode free, agrees with other first hand accounts

"Despite heavy police presence at major bus transfer points, at least a couple thousand passengers rode the buses for free in San Francisco on Thursday, September 1st — the opening day of a fare strike in North America’s most bus-intensive city."

source: Tom Wetzel, anarchist author, Znet author, teacher, and well known Bay Area radical historian. URL: http://libcom.org/news/thousands-ride-free-in-san-francisco-transport-fight-04092005

The user "miasnikov" is a well known internet troll named Kevin Keating who has been banned from libcom.org for disruptive/disrespectful behavior, and had a special section created at anti-politics.net for his continually disrespectful and disruptive attacks on users. He has written serialized attacks on the fare strike participants, but they have not been corroborated by a single participant or witness after four years.

The fact that thousands participated in the fare strike is corroborated in a pamphlet called _Fare Strike!: First Hand Accounts_ published by IDP publishers of San Francisco (http://flyingpicket.org/?q=node/7). There are other sources I can cite if need be.

Kevin Keating (miasnikov) engaged in vandalism when he repeatedly removed my posts from the discussion page in which I explained my edits and rebutted his comments about me. He has also been trying to replace this sourced historical fact with an opinion that judges a historical event (a strike) in a reductionist way as a "failure" despite it having drawn the support of thousands and being thousands of times larger than a similar effort that never came off in the 1990s. Obviously, historical events exist in a continuum, and the responses from around the country that participants have recieved indicate that people want to try fare strikes in where they are too, suggesting some "success" in exemplary action.

Lastly, for my part, I was trying to act cooperatively with Keating, as I explained in the discussion section: "From the start I helped clean up the links to your articles so people could see your side of the story. While you as a source on the fare strike, have been discredited among the fare strike participants, at libcom, and on anti-politics, I agreed to have not one, but two of your articles in our joint editing process, and I think that shows an interest in being open minded on my part. I also dug up the remains of the Social Strike [a group Keating was in until they split from him for similarly abusive behavior] site and linked to it via the wayback machine. Again, I made the effort to present your side and a balance, without posting opinion on whether the fare strike was a success or failure, which should be left to the intelligence of the reader."

Apologies if I have not entered this complaint correctly, I read many directions, but I don't think all of them. Motopu (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct: you haven't filled in the form properly. There are many ways you could discover this, probably the easiest would be to compare it to the other reports. Alternatively you could click on the add new report button. You need to supply diffs showing 4R, not a long string of text no-one will read justifying the edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you to William M. Connolley for taking the time to respond to this. When I get time I'll try to pattern my entry on the others here. Oh, and I'll look for that add new report button that I missed in my newbie ignorance. Motopu (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the instructions at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Starlingmaximilian reported by AnmaFinotera (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * 1st revert: link (revert with additions)
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link
 * 5th revert: link
 * 6th revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Edit continuing to edit war on this article despite being reverted by two different editors and having been warned by a third (me). He is aware that these edits are against consensus, as shown by his participation in a discussion on it at Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, but continues edit warring anyway. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has made a 6th revert ~ Itzjustdrama  ?  C 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Added above
 * He's since taken it to the Wikiproject talk page, it seems. At least, his last 21 edits (over the span of 3 hours) have been on talk pages. I think it's unnecessary to push this any further than maybe an admin warning. --Raijinili (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since he's stopped reverting and started discussing, no further action for now. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous versions reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Ernest has been very involved in editing the Phar Lap article to his own personal agenda and has been unwilling to discuss before reverting. After he was last blocked for edit warring, we got some constructive discussion in, but now he has sprung up again and has continuously reverted constructive changes that have been agreed on through the talk page from a previous slightly biased article to a more ambiguous, NPOV article that no longer is giving undue weight and is less corrupted by the heritage of the horse and is trying to move towards presenting the facts. He is even removing fully cited material and adding back his own uncited changes. He is well aware of WP:3RR, he has been warned over three times now (and blocked once last week), but chooses to ignore many editors pleads and the policy all together. Many have tried to collaborate with him but he refuses to do so. I did not want to be here twice in the same week, but he is leaving many editors very little choice and is causing disruption and conflict. Thank you, Matty (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alpha Centauri 2021 reported by untwirl (talk) (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * edit warring violation on

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

— untwirl (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 14:35, 10 April 2009
 * 2) 13:08, 12 April 2009
 * 3) 14:46, 14 April 2009
 * 4) 21:38, 15 April 2009
 * 5) 17:57, 17 April 2009
 * 6) 03:57, 18 April 2009
 * 7) 23:15, 18 April 2009
 * 8) 12:14, 19 April 2009
 * 9) 22:07, 19 April 2009  <
 * 10) 12:02 20 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

this user keeps removing the fact that amorello was forced to resign. untwirl (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. Black Kite 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wow - you're fast!  untwirl (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Amicaveritas reported by TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man (Result: )
. : Time reported: 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:43, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 19:01, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 3) 19:05, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 19:26, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */ factual corrections")
 * 5) 19:31, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067502 by Tnxman307 (talk) - published fact.  Restoring.")
 * 6) 19:32, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285075609 by Tnxman307 (talk) removing libellous and factually incorrect content")
 * 7) 19:33, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
 * 8) 19:38, 20 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067273 by Tnxman307 (talk) restoring public factual content and removing false claims that do not match source")


 * Diff of warning: here

— TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And unblocked again. May be a BLP issue here.  Further eyes welcome. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure. What exactly is D's supposed excuse for breaking 3RR though? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist reported by 207.237.33.36 (Result: No violation)

 * Page: RFC Collect
 * User: Ncmvocalist

this initial edit was reverted:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please also see the RFC's talk page...consensus was already reached on which info goes where on a complex RFC.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I respect your decision, I still feel this user violated 3RR because it was a clear attempt to Game the system - (3RR not an entitlement). 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you feel that he violated some policy or guideline other than 3RR, which does not apply as per the above. If you can find some other policy or guideline that was broken, that might be useful. But otherwise I have to agree the existing decision is the right one. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to be more the other way around as the IP states here:. ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good catch, Clean-Keeper. I asked below, I'll mention it again here. IP, your edits both in this report against Ncmvocalist and below against Daedalus seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors, then appealing to admins for help. You admit above to edit warring, and promise to continue. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dontworry reported by EvaK (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main)
 * User: Dontworry

Well known as edit warrior in de-wiki the user continues his edit war in Article Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main), after I placed some new images in the article. When I dropped a warning note on his talk page to stop this action he reverted the article as IP which can be located in Frankfurt. --Eva K. is evil 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285203557&oldid=285197276 (IP from Frankfurt)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285189062&oldid=285187173 (Dontworry)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285160957&oldid=285110703 (IP from Frankfurt)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=284592404&oldid=282214150 (Dontworry)


 * 24h. But why is there not a word from either of you on the talk page about why your version is correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inconvenience. I asked him to discuss the issue on the talk page, but there was no reaction. He refuses to discuss with my, also on de-wiki. The only reaction I ever got are personals attacks. I'll try to open a discussion, though. --Eva K. is evil 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bassline2 & 85.176.99.95 reported by 124.169.112.128 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|Bassline2, userlinks|85.176.99.95


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: ,

These two users are reverting the changes I've made to this disambiguation page removing external links, contravening WP:MOSDAB. 124.169.112.128 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Luis Napoles reported by User:Likeminas (Result: Protected and warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please note that user has violated the WP:3RR at least twice within 24 hrs. Likeminas (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor made a false report. I noticed that this editor was making massive deletions of citations in a single revert without any explanations, but limited it to exactly three warnings. See his case.Luis Napoles (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

76.234.167.192 reported by Richard Myers (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|76.234.167.192


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th (self-)revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Editor 76.234.167.192 keeps re-introducing the same paragraph. Two of us have reverted this persistent addition of unsourced opinion. This is probably an IP sock puppet, these are the only edits made by this editor. Not sure if there is a significant violation of Wikipedia policy, so no warning given so far. Richard Myers (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

69.125.53.187 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|69.125.53.187


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Ben (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bemused wacko newbie. Semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

201.220.92.91 aka Nikollita reported by Jamesbeat (Result: 24h)
User - I doubt that these are two different persons - continues to add a non-existent performer to both pages listed below. Both IDs have been created on April 20 and their only contribution is adding the same vandalism on both pages listed below.


 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|201.220.92.91
 * User: userlinks|Nikollita


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|201.220.92.91
 * User: userlinks|Nikollita


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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

Please note that while writing this both pages have just been reverted again to the previous vandalism.

24h. Warn them next time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:207.237.33.36 (Result: Pages protected)

 * '''Comment: I'm not sure if I'm using this template correctly. However, it is plain as day that this user has gone way out of the realm of using Wikipedia fairly.  The reverts are only the tip of his aggression.  Please forgive me any misuse of this template. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First violation

 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|Amicaveritas


 * The version before his reverts:
 * The version he is reverting to: He is reverting several separate edits to this article with blatant disregard of the concept of Consensus.


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

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

 * Page:
 * User:


 * The version before his reverts:
 * The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.


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

Third violation

 * Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect
 * User: userlinks|207.237.33.36


 * The version before his reverts:
 * The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.
 * Additionally, he is reverting edits related to this RFC on his own and on others' talk page as well.  All are listed below.


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

Comment: While I understand that these edits do not all fall under the same 24-hour period or to the same article, I believe that the hostility and attitude -not to mention their sum- they reflect this editor's inability to edit fairly per Wikistandards.

PLEASE take into consideration the multiple hostile, threatening, and vicious attack posts made by this editor on my talk page: 

,, see edit summary, and this change of a section name. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All of these are without merit. The first conflict has already been solved, since you were stalking my edits, I'm surprised you did not realize that.


 * The second conflict, is again, solved, check the talk page.


 * The third conflict doesn't even count, I'm allowed to revert edits to my talk page, especially if the user making edits is insulting my intelligence.


 * 207, you may be allowed to remove edits from your talk page, but you are not allowed to lie about me in your edit summaries, calling my edits vandalism when they are not.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that the user in question was given formal 3RR warnings on his talk page...but they were deleted by him after making the above response. I stand by my assertion that this user performs a large number of reversions in content disputes should be blocked for edit warring (per the 3RR warning).  Please also refer to his comment on my talk page regarding my intentions with this Admin notice: "Now leave me the fuck alone." and "Have fun with that, it won't get you anywhere".  Complete disregard for civility and Wikipolicy.  207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: IP, your edits both in this report against Daedalus and your report above against Ncmvocalist seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors. You admit to edit warring here, why the sudden appeal to help from admins after waging open war? Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will gladly address any and all reverts I made when they are reported here. In the meantime, I would suggest the focus remain on the ones I pointed out in this report. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing comments: Both of the articles that actually were violations have been fully protected for at least two hours. Blocks are only implemented to prevent damage, and with both articles locked down, a block will not accomplish anything. I am going to close this report without rendering an opinion on whether the report was valid or not. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A block against a user who is Gaming the System will certainly accomplish something. And given your out-of-the-blue edit to my talk page, I do not believe you are unbiased enough to close this report.  Perhaps if you would not direct the attention to the few reverts that I made and address the multitude of reverts the user in question made, this report would keep it's focus clear: not on my behavior but on Daedalus'.  Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IP, when a post is made on the edit war board, an admin actually looks into the matter and investigates. Generally speaking, it take more than one to edit war. J.delanoy explained his reasons above for not blocking anyone, which seem to make sense. Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, my warning was not out of the blue. I saw you coming close to violating 3RR, so I warned you. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you also warn the other involved editors? Ncmvocalist, who had just as many reverts in as many days as I did?  Or Phoenix of9 (9 reverts in 4 days)?  Or Daedalus (THIRTY-FIVE reverts in 7 calendar days?)  Or just me? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that right there is a blatant lie. I have not been very active in the past month, so your assertion that I reverted someone 35 times is without base, unless of course, you feel like backing that up with evidence?—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the 3rr warning template: "Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." Daedalus should be held accountable. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Daedalus: taken straight from your history, which is available for all to see:

                                

Some of the above reverts (only 32 of them in 7 days, sorry) are obviously valid and fair, which is why they were not mentioned in my report. I only question the high volume of reverts by this editor, and what this indicated about his editing behavior. Speaking of his affinity for reverts, please see this bit....

Now, who would like me to chart the number of blocks of other editors Daedalus made during the 7-day period from the 15th to the 22nd? (4) How many did he recommend blocking? (7) He is an editor with a vengeance and his reverts are only one indicator of that. I stand by my report and believe my issues have not yet been addressed...in fact, the only things that has been done is fingerpointing toward MY reverts...which were significantly less in number and done in a most civil manner.

I would also appreciate this user staying off my userpage, which I indicated several times. He refuses. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to stalk me for reverting vandalism and OR, I suggest you do that to every other wikipedian, because I am not the only one who does this. Now back off, you have made it blatantly clear all you wish to do is punish others, leave me alone, this is clear harassment.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait. You are seriously counting all of his reversions in the last week? Including patently obvious vandalism reverts!? If you are counting those, you had better report me too. I've made over a thousand reverts in the last seven days, and I once made over 6000 in a week. What the bloody hell are you trying to accomplish here?
 * The quote you used, "Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule.", has utterly nothing to do with what you just posted. That sentence is referring to a series of reverts on the same article where it is clear that the editor is deliberately bypassing the three-revert rule. None of the diffs above provide any evidence whatsoever of this type of behaviour, and indeed incline me to agree with Daedalus' assessment of your intentions. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This IP clearly is not trying to be constructive, and merely is disrupting Wikipedia and using it as a platform to attack specific editors/admins here at this point. I blocked them for 48 hrs.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is continuing to attack me on their user talk page, in the means of his or her unblock request. Not a surprise:  It doesn't address the reasons they were blocked.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

3RR within one hour. User:Mashkin refuses to accept information credited to six sources from a wide spectrum of WP:RS even though this is the compromise reached. --Shuki (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is misleading information of course. First, as you can see I have not violated 3RR. Second, no compromise regarding these sentences was reached (please look at the talk page). This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions, but let me just mention that I do not see any merit in discussing a label such as "far left" with no explanation as to what this term means in the particular context. Mashkin (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 3RR needs 4R William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fact: Mashkin did revert 3x within 45min. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another fact: Four or more reverts are needed for a 3RR violation - see WP:3RR - "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." — Travis talk  13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuki reported by Mashkin  (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:

Shuki reverted 4 time in less than 24 hours. He is a veteran editor who knows about the 3RR and ironically tried to get me blocked a few days ago (see notice up there).


 * 1st revert: at 23:31, 19 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: at 16:28, 20 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: at 21:19, 20 April 2009
 * 4th revert: at 21:32, 20 April 2009

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy) far-right claim is POV and not sourced properly. --Shuki (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from WP:V
 * Should have left a note on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is that was a sincere concern. Note that "right wing" to a "far right" party might be considered offensive as well. Mashkin (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - Protected 3 days. Not clear that there is a genuine BLP violation here, but I see plenty of reverting with little usage of the Talk page. Those opposed to Shuki offered no quotation from a reliable source for the term 'far right,' while the Jerusalem Post does sometimes use 'far right' to describe political groups in its own articles. Nobody reported the Post doing so for this party. Please sort this out on Talk. Admins may be inclined to issue blocks if warring continues when protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please reconsider and block Shuki.
 * The JP source given in the article says explicitly: "The far-right Eretz Yisrael Shelanu party, led by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo and Baruch Marzel" Mashkin (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you found 'far-right' in the article I struck out my previous remark. Please continue this discussion at the article Talk page. Maybe you can attribute this party's far-rightness as the opinion of the Post so that it is clear to readers. If you and Shuki can agree on compromise wording, then the protection could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the party is very clearly far-right; its leading members are well-known far-right activists (e.g. Baruch Marzel). Unfortunately Shuki has a history of injecting right-wing bias into Israel-related articles, so attempts to shift anything on the political spectrum to the right (so, for example, he endlessly edit wars at the New Movement-Meretz article to get the party (which is a standard social-democratic party with a dovish stance on the peace process) labelled as far-left, even though they are clearly not communist, similarly, anything right-wing becomes centre-right, and anything far-right becomes just right-wing. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A)I am disgusted to see an admin like Number57 blatantly attack my ability to be POV on articles close to my knowledge and excuse himself of identical behaviour on his articles (as evidenced recently in an unjustified and lengthy semi-protection of the New Movement-Meretz page after a very, very short skirmish with one lone alledged sockpuppet, whereas other articles more frequently vandalized do not get this favoured status protection when brought through the proper channel). I challenge Number57 to document his preposterous claim that I regularly soften the right-wing articles.
 * B)Number57 claiming the party is 'clearly far-right' without any WP consensus litmus test to judge is blatant OR and POV. The lone Jpost article does not even describe why it labels the party 'far-right'. In contrast, the compromise reached at the Meretz article is that the main label is 'left' yet 'some claim' that it is far-left is deprecated and included lower down. In fact, the 'far-left' label there is well sourced to a wide variety of international media, the far-right label here is simply not. The lack of wanting to reach a compromise on Eretz Yisrael Shelanu article is suspect of the attempt to add derogatory language to an article the editors oppose (right-wing articles).
 * C)WP:AVOID The use of explicit far-left, far-right should be avoided unless it is undeniable. The current use of the term in Israeli media (legitimate or not) is certainly not the same one used in other Western countries but the world reader would not know that. Mashkin or Number57 (assumed credible admin) have refused to show a wish to improve the article but rather justify one off-hand mention as a good source.
 * D)I understand Mashkin's continued behaviour to hound me but am disappointed with Number57's failure to be the 'more mature' editor. Instead, he emotionally enters the edit war with a failure to want to NPOV resolve the disputes as well as poor use of the edit message to justify his edits only replying on the discussion page after I revert him. The Meretz compromise only came after an additional 'rfc' editor suggested it.
 * E)There is nothing to show how this new party is more extremist on one side of the political spectrum than Meretz is on the other. Meretz supports parading homosexuals through the Jewish city of Jerusalem, supports the forced removal of Jewish settlers from homes on the West Bank, and radically supports the separation of 'church&state' on Jewish issues, while Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (and similar Jewish National Front party) support parading Israeli flags though an Arab town, supports motivating the emmigration of Arabs from Israel (not their forced removal), and encourages Israel to be more Jewish/religious. Meretz activists have been documented regularly opposing religious leaders, Eretz Yisrael members do not show the same fervour to oppose secular people.
 * Above all, I would expect a seasoned editor like Number57 who takes a strong interest in world politics to be NPOV on all Israeli articles as well, not just the ones he identifies with. --Shuki (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You may well be disgusted, but I hope that you can actually learn from it. Trying to claim that Meretz is far left because it supports gay pride marches, the demolition of settlements and the separation of church and state just illustrates your delusions regarding the location of the political centre; these are all very common stances, and in most countries are even supported by people on the right.
 * As for trying to claim I have some form of bias, it's nothing I haven't had before from right-wing Israeli editors; the fact that I've had the same kind of abuse from blatantly pro-Palestinian editors like Ashleykennedy3 suggests that in fact I let the facts do the talking, regardless of whether they make one side or the other look bad. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Number57, please comment on the issue at hand rather than avoid it. Don't put words in my mouth, the issue here is not Meretz, but rather a double-standard, or rather no fair standard. --Shuki (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Number57 complaint against Shuki. He is very biased and likes to invent rules "you need two source for a claim" on the fly. Even worse, his edits are often personally motivated, to "get" at other editors. The article in question is very straightforward: it is the most right wing faction of the most right wing party in the question. There is a source that explicitly says so. Mashkin (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuki reported by Mashkin  (Result: content dispute)
I request that Shuki be blocked for edit warring in Amnon Yitzhak. The issue is a sourced paragraph regarding Yitzhak's anti Zionism that has been at the article for a long time. Shuki has been trying to remove it for last few days, even though it is well sourced and the claim is explicitly attributed. I have requested a few editors to comment    and as you can see on the talk page both those that commented agreed that the paragraph should remain. Shuki engaged in edit warring and removed it.

Even though this is "just" a single revert, I believe that it is a clear violation of edit warring, in light of the discussion. Instead of engaging in a ritual back and forth reverting until he passes the limit (which he just did in another article) I suggest that he be blocked until he shows that he understand how disruptive and wrong is this sort of behavior. Mashkin (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is he edit warring rather than you? I can block you both, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a discussion on the talk page. He, rather me, is engaging is edit warring since he is trying to change the stable version despite the clear opposition on the page. Mashkin (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you have a content dispute. Try WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Obviously there is a content dispute (ow there would not be a war). But the way to resolve a content dipute is by discussion which is what I called for. Shuki did not pay attention to the discussion and reverted. If you think that his behavior is proper, then you are encouraging mindless reverts. Mashkin (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Switpi84 reported by Orangemike (Result: Block was OK)

 * Page:
 * User:

Persists in re-inserting self-published material claiming that he created the first blog, and insists that this material must remain unless we can prove he is wrong. I've given him a 24-hour 3RR block, but would appreciate some more eyes on this. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He was properly warned for 3RR, though he only did three reverts in a 24-hour period. Certainly within discretion as a long-term edit-warring block. And in my opinion, due to his lack of any appropriate response to the COI complaint, he might also have been blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bmcworldcitizen reported by Zaian (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has added a similar link to Indian general election, 2009, and reverted three times on that page as well. Zaian (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

69.158.150.169 reported by 201.143.220.153 (Result: Same issue being discussed below)

 * Page:
 * User: userlinks|69.158.150.169


 * Previous versions reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RR warning is needed, rules are well known by reported user.

201.143.220.153 (User talk:201.143.220.153|talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: this report was apparently filed by IP 201.143.220.153, a sockpuppet of User:Jcmenal; see below. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed. Same issue is being discussed below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

201.143.220.153/Jcmenal reported by 216.234.60.106 (Result: Moved to WP:SPI)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous versions reverted to: link

Jcmenal: IP 201.143.220.153:
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link

The named user has been blocked before, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The sockpuppet is probably a mixed and misguided attempt by the alleged puppetmaster to not only circumvent that, but to also cast doubt onto the other editors involved in this.

IP 201.143.220.153 (IP based out of Tijuana, Mexico) popped up and reverted edits to 'Outline of Mexico' (note the restoration of rare, misleading regions into the outline) that are similar to those supported by Jcmenal, an alleged puppetmaster in nearby Mexicali who has a loooong history of edit warring (e.g., Geography of Mexico, Template:Central America topic, Outline of Mexico - having violated 3RR at that article recently) and blockage. IP 201.143.220.153 then posted a misleading 3RR report posing as this IP. A sockpuppet report has been filed. IP 201.143.220.153 has since reverted the article again and again. Significant measures are probably required (extended blocks). 216.234.60.106 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As well, a clerk over where the sockpuppet report has been submitted declined to checkuser, but affirms that "Behavioural evidence is sufficient [in support of sockpuppetry]. Quacking like a duck."  Quacked, is right. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has yet to be addressed. Can someone please look into it and act?  TY! 216.234.60.106 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - This case is being discussed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. They should be making a decision soon. When the submitter of a sock report is an IP, as you are, it causes unease. It would be better for you to use a registered account consistently, if you plan to do much editing of contested articles. Your reports to admins would become more credible, since you would have a visible history. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TY -- I will consider your advice. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First violation

 * Page:
 * User:


 * The version before his reverts:
 * The version he is reverting to: he has not specified, but by browsing history it is clear that he is reverting to some version at least hundreds of edits ago before expansion by the editor Melromero.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: - Just a little after his 24 hour limit expired.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 18:20, 21 April 2009
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 20:48, 21 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Luis Napoles (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The page, like all others on wiki, has a talk page. Use it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third violation
I wanted to emphasize need for action here, as the user has continued warring at Che Guevara.  Grsz 11  13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong report.  Grsz 11  17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crcappuccino reported by O Fenian (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor persists in adding an irrelevant section that is nothing to do with the subject of the article, only advertising for its competitors. O Fenian (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowded reported by Karbinski (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Previous warnings for this type of edit warring: []. --Karbinski (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reversions were to the previous stable version to allow a consensus discussion before any change. That is now taking place if you check the talk page of Protestantism and Christianity.   3RR was not breached (and yes I know its not an entitlement).   Karbinski is playing at being a stalker at the moment.  He has made two attempts to insert Ayn Rand propaganda on Philosophy articles and resents the fact that (despite his own edit warring) he was the sole proponent against consensus in both cases and in another on the Ayn Rand page more recently.   He has even created his own special user box here.  Paranoia has set in and he thinks he is being watched.   Actually he isn't, he just intrudes propoganda for his heroine on various philosophy pages all of which I watch as a matter of course. In a fiarly juvenile way is now doing to me what he thinks (wrongly) has being done to him.   Its all fairly petty, I was ignoring it, but if he is starting to come here I suppose I have to dignify his accusations with a reply.  Oh, by the way he didn't bother to tell me he had posted here. --Snowded (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the other user involved in this mini storm, I didn't particularly appreciate the reversions (well duh), but this is clearly not necessary. I have no prior involvement with either Snowded or Karbinski. Quantpole (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Two days. Please take the dispute to the Talk page. Editors who do not participate on Talk, but continue to revert after protection is lifted, may be sanctioned. That is a very lonely Talk page. Quantpole is the only person who has left a comment there in the last two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion is taking place on the talk page of Christianity and is fairly extensive. Quantpole's comment on the talk page of Protestantism links to that.  --Snowded (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)   --Snowded (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tycoon24 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:41, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285523128 by Happysomeone (talk) Earmarks=Wasteful Spending thats not a direct responsibility of government")
 * 2) 17:57, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285670118 by 67.52.196.120 (talk)")
 * 3) 17:58, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 285657613 by Mike R (talk)")
 * 4) 20:53, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 21:37, 23 April 2009 - additional reversion


 * Diff of warning: here

This round of edit warring comes soon after a recent block for the same, and there is a discussion at WP:ANI that should be taken into consideration by the investigating admin. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Form. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww reported by JoãoMiguel (Result: submitter indef blocked as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user rarely adds information to the articles, just delete things. I do not know what is the intention. To me it seems to destroy everything that is in sight, without exaggeration. S/he accused me of things that I do not understand. I feel something like paranoia. This is clearly a Wikipedia rules' violation. --JoãoMiguel (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * JM is to be congratulated. On only his 8th edit, he makes a near perfectly formed AN3 report (something, alas, that many more experienced editors fail to do). Anyone looking at this may want to read Sockpuppet_investigations/JuStar. I'm off to bed myself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have a request to make in relation to article Daydream. Please recover the information about the charts. I think Wikipedia is an important information's source and the article is not correct like this. Thank you for your availability.


 * Quack Quack Block. Thankyou and goodnight. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blappo reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked indefinite)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Unrepentent POV crusader, as seen by these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
 * Even though he's been trying to pick a fight even against me, I believe this diff was not the edit he meant to do, he just undid thinking his edit lay there  missing that a ip had vanalized. chandler ··· 05:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After I defended his right to blank his talk page, Blappo is now edit warring harrassing comments onto my page even after I've asked him to stop. He's not here to be civil. Thanks in advance for admin attention. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After this sat for over an hour, a report filed on the AIV board resulted in Toddst1 handing out a one week block. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: 55h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link, link, link...

Ernest has been a continuously problematic editor. While he is a knowledgeable editor, he has often refused to collaborate. He has been blocked once for edit warring in the past week or so, and then again has had the article fully protected to stop the constant reverts he has been making. Now he is reverting my fully sourced edits to the article that were positive and a step forward for what this article needs. He has been reverted once by me once here (the first time we edited I mistakenly copy-pasted the part of the article I had been working on in my sandbox over his changes that were made in quick succession and were simply reverts back to his old preferred revision). He has then been reverted twice by User:Wallie who has also been involved in cleaning up the article here and here. While I can understand that Ernest may have problems with select parts of the article as they add information that draws away attention at his victories in Australia, he is also reverting fully sourced paragraphs and elaborations that explain the situation neutrally and in depth. I have explained each one of my changes to him on his talk page here but he still blanket reverts everything. We are trying to get this article back on course away from silly claims from both countries to the horse but he continues to be problematic and edits against consensus. Thank you once again, and I hope i'm not going to have to be here same time next week to report him again as he doesn't seem to get the message no matter how many people point it out to him. Matty (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DJ-x3 reported by User: Tvoz (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Original version


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Repeated text reversions without consensus plus repeated reversion of photo which is a, after being notified several times that the image is a problem. Tvoz / talk 08:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Twobells reported by O Fenian (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Previously blocked for 3RR

Edit warring to include offensive unsourced commentary, claiming that with regard to a recent death threat he received many people are saying it "couldn't happen to a nicer guy". Until the fourth attempt to insert this information there was no source, he has since tried sourcing it with this that does not even mention Martin McGuinness. O Fenian (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look, and it is safe to block Twobells, but O Fenian may warrant a block as well. Can't decide if it is edit warring, plain vandalism, or some combination of the two. I'm going to block Twobells for 24 hours, but invite others to review my decision and make changes as they see fit. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the last part of the edit, where it says "subsequently many people were reported to say "couldn't happen to a nicer guy"". Is this in any way acceptable in an article about a living person? If say, Gordon Brown developed cancer tomorrow, would it be ok to add the same commentary to his article? Of course not! O Fenian (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the last line of 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems you have done the wrong thing here. O Fenian deserves a block for continually reverting Twobells edits. The rules should be applied fairly and equally to two warring users []. --87.115.136.194 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2009-04-24T13:36:09 Hiberniantears (talk | contribs | block) blocked Twobells (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block). Having looked, I agree this was essentially vandalism, so no block for OF William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish10524 reported by Ogress (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

c.f. - a very large number of reverts after 3RR warning.

... you get the idea.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has been welcomed, warned of 3RR and THEN warned again about copyright infringment.  Ogress  <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

User:B9 hummingbird hovering reported by User:Mitsube (Result: 4 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: Undid previous edit
 * 2nd revert: Undid previous edit
 * 3rd revert: Removed tag I had added two edits before
 * 4th revert: Undid previous edit.

The user views wikipedia as a joke, as he admits in this conversation on his userpage: User_talk:B9_hummingbird_hovering. He purposefully uses unintelligible language. He has also started defacing the talk page for the article in question: Talk:Buddha-dhātu and has moved it away from the standard English word to the Sanskrit version with diacritics, so as to confuse people further. Mitsube (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitsube is not over 3RR since only three of his recent changes were reverts. B9 appears to be treating Wikipedia like a plaything, which fits the definition of disruptive editing. (Read over a few of his edit summaries to get the flavor). He is toying around with important articles. This is B9's fourth block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

3ghef reported by Bubba73 (Result: 24 hours)


User is in an edit war. Added material to Knight's tour, which was removed. After that user reverted four times in less than 25 hours (not quite within 24 hours). Warnings were given on the user's talk page. No response from the user on his talk page or on the article's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor has done it again, and now he admits that it is his own WP:OR. Bubba73 (talk), 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User has done it again. Dmitry Brant (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

These are diffs other than the initial addition. Basically there are five reversions other than the initial set of edits.


 * 1) 12:55, 22 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 2) 19:40, 22 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 3) 05:11, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 4) 16:26, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 5) 16:28, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Generic Knightâ€™s Tour Sequence */")
 * 6) 20:28, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 7) 22:43, 23 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")
 * 8) 13:20, 24 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */")

and warnings on the user's talk page: Bubba73 (talk), 23:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

The user just did it again a few minutes ago diff. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And warning #6: warning #6. Bubba73 (talk), 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And he just did it again diff and in his edit summary he is accusing the bona fide editors as being vandals. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:EEMIV reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: 24h)

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

He has personally reverted the undo of his previous deletion of the tech seection four times, within the past 24 hour period, in violation of the rule.  D r e a m Focus  16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, he's right. I lost track between last night/this morning. For what it's worth, I'm also the one who opened talk-page discussion on the content, two other editors have also removed the material, and Dream Focus and the other restoring editor/IP are the subject of a CHU request. But, yes, I did in fact break 3RR. Also, I suppose at this point I shouldn't need a 3RR warning -- but I didn't get one (see note about losing track between after waking up). Anyway, sorry. --EEMIV (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is likely that some of those EEMIV reverted are socks of someone; I've not looked into the photography side of this show. See:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There were 3RR's in relation to Dream Focus specifically and the user knew better and to seek consensus rather than edit war. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Portia327 reported by User:Touch Of Light (Result: Final warning)

 * Page:
 * User:

Please look at You're Beautiful for edits.

The user Portia327 and another anonymous user ( 60.50.236.167 ) have been going back and forth editing this page, they seem to be in an edit conflict, which is why I have reported them here. If someone could please check it out that would be greatly appreciated. Touch Of Light (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A final warning to both parties was issued by User:Nja247. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy (no vio)
Please, explain User:Madcoverboy that he has to read the Wikipedia guidelines very carefully before reverting articles like the article Steinway & Sons. He is undoing some of the edits in a roughly way. (See Talk:Steinway & Sons) Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, since you're such a fan of the guidelines, could I point out to you that your report isn't correctly formatted? And that failing to sign your talk page edits is annoying? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Who says, that I am such a fan of the guidelines???
 * What about keeping your attention to what is relevant (the problem I wrote above), than talking about signing comments or other formalities.
 * The problem is that Madcoverboy says things on the talk page and make changes in the article, that he claims is according to the guidelines. But when you go to the guideline pages you can see that he sometimes has misunderstod the guideline. Therefore he has to read the guidelines carefully before editing articles. Otherwise he will continue making some wrong edits in articles from time to time.
 * Thank you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Fanoftheworld is a WP:SPA (Special:Contributions/Fanoftheworld) with an unabashed POV and a possible COI with the Steinway Company (given the user's familiarity with press releases, marketing information, licensed products, and edits to "competitors"). While the article has been substantially expanded with his or her contributions, the user exhibits many characteristics of article ownership as well as disruptive and tendentious editing. User:Theseeker4, User:THD3, User:Karljoos, and User:Alexrexpvt have all repeatedly attempted to intervene and correct the article's deficiencies only to have the article return to an advertisement in due course. I don't believe 3RR intervention is called for at this time since both parties are currently engaged in attempts at discussion and consensus-formation, but I provide the revert diffs below for other editors' judgment. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Fanofthewrold reported by Madcoverboy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning in edit summary:
 * Diff of 3RR warning to user talk page:

No sooner had I posted the previous message than did Fanoftheworld go and revert edits yet again. My other comments above still hold. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems in very short
The problems is in very short, that Madcoverboy doesn't write explanations when he makes edits; that he sometimes misunderstands guidelines; and that he doesn't write answers on the talkpage but make edits regarding subjects that are in discussion on the talk page.

I have not so far wrote any warnings on Madcoverboy's page but maybe I should do that, like he does on my page. Do not think that his actions on Wikipedia are all correct. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'velooked at the talk page. There is discussion from MCB William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is really a very misleading thing to write. If you look at the time he last wrote at the talk page and the time he last edited the article, you will clearly see, that he is stopped writing on the talk page but that he still is editing disputed things in the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: 3RR I see that a user easy can give RRs. I will do the same sometime. Madcoverboy has also edited against: "Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.". But the administrators are clearly on Madcoverboy's site. I must dissociate myself from that way of acting. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lokyz reported by User:Radeksz (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Lokyz has tried to insert questionable sources into the article, as well as remove any reference to Poland or Belarus from the article (he does this to a lot of Lithuania related articles), along with several typos. Here, I tried to engage him on the talk page, which still hasn't gotten a response:. He's been around for awhile, been part of a couple RfA's (where he got a restriction for incivility, which he's also been blocked for before), so he obviously is aware that the rule exists.radek (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * L's first edit is marked "rvv". And as far as I can see it is indeed reverting vandalism. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's a removal of word "Poland" form the article (Bronson's father emigrated to US from a town that between the wars was Poland, before that Russia and today is Lithuania). (Add: More specifically, while that edit was made by an anon, Lokyz still took this as an opportunity to revemoe material that he didn't like. So it's still a content dispute, not a simple rvv.) radek (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are BBC or USA today questionable sources? Is Šiaurės Atėnai, a weekly printed newspaper sponsored by  Ministry of Culture a dubious source (despite quite old-fashioned design of the webpage it is respected publication)?  Altough provided references do not mention Poland user:Radeksz is still altering referenced information to his liking.--Lokyz (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IMDb w/o a Writer's Guild note is most def a non RS as is tv.com. I didn't remove any references to BBC or USA.radek (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I, as the principal editor, who currently expanding this article, I can note, that indeed this edit is a revert of vandalism (while reverting vandalism 3RR not counts): a) IP removed referenced name b) invented, that parents were from Poland and Lithuania. On the side note, Radeksz systematical edit warring indeed needs attention (he was already blocked for the edit warring in the past, but failed to modify his behavior):
 * On Charles Bronson:
 * 2009-04-21T13:45:30
 * 2009-04-21T18:53:04 (like restoring Buchinski, removing back that his father served in Russian army etc)
 * 2009-04-22T08:40:25 (like again removing that his father was Lithuanian immigrant, or that both parents were LT immigrants etc)
 * 2009-04-25T20:22:03 (like again removing Lithuanian father etc.)
 * 2009-04-25T20:35:11 (as as above)
 * 2009-04-25T21:20:29 (as as above)

And many others articles recently affected by Radeksz edit warring. Such editing practices should be stopped. M.K. (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Battle of Grunwald
 * 2009-04-17T14:57:29
 * 2009-04-18T00:53:32
 * 2009-04-18T01:21:43
 * 2009-04-18T22:52:23
 * 2009-04-19T21:42:46
 * Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)
 * 2009-04-15T18:17:27
 * 2009-04-15T18:39:00

Closing as no vio. Better lucknext time.All sides cautioned re reverting. Excess discussion trimmed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Adijarca reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 18:01, 25 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 19:56, 25 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 09:09, 26 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 11:13, 26 April 2009
 * 5th revert: 13:16, 26 April 2009 (by IP)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The last edit is very likely by the user logged out in order to avoid 3RR block exactly. SSP could be filed for checkuser but in my view it is fairly straightforward. The user also removed the 3RR warning posted as his talk in an effort to conceal his actions. He also deceptively marks the reverts as minor edits to avoid scrutiny. note the date of the removal of the 3RR warning and the edit of the IP. Hobartimus (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h, plus 48h for the anon William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ausdawg reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 15:12, 26 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


 * 1) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "http://www.qppstudio.net/publicholidays2009/australia.htm")
 * 2) 14:10, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "official and unofficial day")
 * 3) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "official changes1")
 * 4) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "anzac day is also on the 27th in some states as changes indicate")
 * 5) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "correct changes in accordance to message")
 * 6) 15:04, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "it is not irrelevant it may be after the 27th 2009 but not before it is a regular question i get asked and is of some relevance")
 * 7) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "lots of people may think it is relevant to no when the public holiday is i agree with you about taking it down after the 27th but this is an information site isnt it?")
 * 8) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "im sorry are you disrespecting my family because they are from qld and we have the 27th off and i personally feel it is a relevent point to respect people on anzac day")
 * 9) 15:20, 26 April 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "delete on the 28th apr to show some respect")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor continues to readd but I can not continue to revert since I've hit my third revert. Bidgee (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex reverts, prev version provided for each revert


 * 1st revert: - labeled as a revert in the edit summary
 * 2nd revert: - revert this edit by Follgramm3006.
 * 3rd revert: same as previous, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
 * 4th revert: removes same passage as before, adds in different version
 * 5th revert: as previous one


 * Diff of 3RR warning: use ris well aware of 3RR, and uses it frequently against others:, . Nevertheless, was warned and asked to revert:

Indeed I was warring, after the notice by Brewcrewer I made no more reverts, and all the warring has ceased with a compromise between the two of us that were warring. Very sneaky of NoCal(ton) to have no edit summary with my name here and no notice of the report. Not averse to a block, but there is nothing to prevent, nothing is going on now. Nableezy (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick ts reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:

Single-purpose revert warring account, has been on a slow, sterile reverting spree at a single article, evidently politically motivated related to the conflict currently at WP:ARBMAC2. But this account isn't worth burdening the Arbcom case with, can somebody please take care of it? Please consider indef-block.

(No regular AN3-style link list this time – you'll get all the picture at a single glance by looking at his contrib history. He's been doing nothing than these reverts for two weeks.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing even remotely close to a 3RR violation is in the article history. By the standard of a "slow, sterile reverting spree", Fut.Perf. is just as guilty. NoCal100 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, seeing that he's reverted three times last week, while Nick ts has been at it this whole week. I'm not going to take action, since I'm too involved (party to ARBMAC2), but the notion that this is nothing worth looking at completely ignores the bigger picture of edit warring that doesn't violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked one week, by Moreschi, with the comment edit warring only. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:64.185.238.44 reported by A new name 2008 (talk) (Result:semi-protection 1 week, user blocked 31 hours by User:PeterSymonds)
. : Time reported: 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:38, 26 April 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 23:48, 26 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 286328212 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
 * 3) 23:56, 26 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 286330037 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
 * 4) 00:15, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 286333000 by Trevor Marron (talk)")
 * 5) 00:18, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "WP:IAR")


 * Diff of warning: here

—A new name 2008 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User was blocked for 31 Hours for vandalism on this article. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for 1 week considering that another user has inserted the same images. -- JForget 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Canjth reported by Mr. No Funny Nickname (Result: Final warning )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I did not make 4 reverts. I made three and have started discussing with the other editor. Canjth (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

(Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Wiki0508 reported by User:Howard the Duck (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * It seems that he does not revert in one edit but instead has an entire series of edits. I have already contacted him for discussion and warned him of 3RR but he doesn't respond. It has been challenged that his revisions were indiscriminate collection of information but he just re-adds it.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

– Howard  the   Duck  15:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Added another user. Doesn't respond to user talk messages. – Howard  the   Duck  10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee reported by Nil Einne (Result: No action needed )

 * Page:
 * User:

User is engaged in long term edit warring:


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

I'm an uninvovled user so not that familiar with the details but there has been some discussion here Talk:Resident Evil 5. While I don't know if there is quite consensus, Daymeeee appears to be the only one (except for this who was reverted by someone uninvolved below ) who is trying to force this specific POV and has been reverted by multiple different editors with the compromise version

While never blocked, user has been warned multiple times about edit warring (and other things besides all to do with the RE5 or related articles albeit not always this issue)   including:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

While I appreciate this isn't a sockpuppetry report, there is good reason to believe this user is the same as anon who was previously blocked for edit warring. Both these users have edited each other's talk page with comments and removing warnings etc they didn't like, and some of these have occured at about the same time, including reversal as the 'owner' of the talk page after someone reverts the other user editing the talk page. E.g. +  or  +. While there's no clear evidence of attempts to circumvent or avoid blocks, I thought it worth mentioning in considering what block is appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User was informed but removed it. User also has self-reverted and agreed to stop but sadly has followed that up with extremely pointy behaviour and more edit warring    Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No action at this time as user has indicated on their talk and in the edit summary of a recent edit to the page in question that they 'give up'. Re-report if it continues. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bracton reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

It's complicated; repeated addition of tax protester rhetoric.


 * 1st revert: 16:23, 26 April 2009 revert to 06:25
 * 2nd revert: 16:55 specific revert of my edit
 * 3rd revert: 16:57 specific revert of my edit
 * 4th revert: 19:10 restored move of section, previously reverted (although perhaps accidentally) by 18:45 in any case, some of the edits in that sequence restore material removed by Famspear.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:13

Addition of tax protester rheetoric. It's possible the first sequence before 16:23 also includes a revert, but the nonsense added wasn't in the article recently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hut reported by JohnInDC (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This case may not meet the technical definition of a 3RR violation, given slight differences in the edits and reversions and the fact that the changes were spread out over a period longer than 24 hours. It is, however, plainly an edit war. The user persists in making the same (essential) edits without seeking consensus and his edits have been repeatedly removed by several editors (myself primarily). The same contentious edits were the subject of an earlier 3RR report and block involving an IP (see Talk page result User_talk:76.112.248.224 and sample diff) and I suspect the instant user to be the same as the editor from that IP. I also note that the same reversions were also made twice by a newly created account, User Talk:Kill Bubba Kill, diffs here and here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional revert this morning by User:Kill Bubba Kill, diff here. I'll file an SSP report.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the preceding note, a second suspected sockpuppet OhioState4Life has continued to reinsert the disputed edits without discussion or other attempt to gain consensus. Diff1, diff2, diff3.  Sockpuppet report here.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

24h, plus indef socks William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (Cryptonio subsequently removes notice )

Cryptonio doesn't like the addition or prominence given to a reliable source that questions the amount of people killed during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. He has taken it upon himself to remove or minimize this information. His reverts have also included some insulting and incivil edit summaries. Cryptonio has been blocked less then a month ago for edit warring. His talk page also includes admin warnings concerning his incivility. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha reported by RolandR (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

RolandR (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know if I should comment, but I came here to report the same. I just didn't know if the last revert was the same or whether it was just 3.5RR, while still flipping a digital comment toward policy.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg reported by Emptymountains (Result: Final warning)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user also keeps moving things around on the Talk Page. I keep moving the most recent discussions to the bottom of the page, and he keeps moving them back up to the top. Emptymountains (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - This is a new but rather stubborn editor. The 3RR warning is later in time than the last revert listed so a block would not be justified. I've warned him against moving others' comments to the wrong place on Talk. Report again if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422 reported by TJ   Spyke   (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 02:36, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Reigns */")
 * 2) 02:47, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Reigns */ Why should DiBiase, Rhodes, McMahon and Batista be noted if they had no chance of winning the title?")
 * 3) 02:57, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "/* Reigns */ So why exactly does every edit to this page need your approval?")
 * 4) 14:38, 27 April 2009  (edit summary: "rv. Rhodes, DiBiase, etc. had no chance of winning the title, so they should not be noted. It's the same reason why interference is (usually) not noted.")


 * Diff of warning: here

User continues to act like they control the article, reverting anything they don't like (even if it is notable to the content of the article). After the first 2 reverts I contacted the user and asked them to discuss it on the talkpage. The user has continued reverting when another use added the content back in.  TJ   Spyke   17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first edit was not a revert. This is why 3RR is flawed, users use it as a way to get petty revenge on others. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Scorpion, instead of discussing the issue like I asked you too, you just kept reverting. You can't claim ignorance either as you have been around awhile and know how 3RR works.  TJ   Spyke   19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No vio. First edit not obviously a revert. TJS cautionned for rather combative talk page attitude - please WP:AGF William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mtpisaman reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Dawn Bard (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: Final warn )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Links will be provided for each revert - these are revert of different parts of the article


 * 1st revert: reverts this edit, removes "gaza victory" & al-aman source
 * 2nd revert: again removes "victory' an al-aman source
 * 3rd revert: - labeled as a revert in the edit summary
 * 4th revert: - same as revert #3


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I reported this user yesterday, for a similar series of 5 reverts, on the same article -, but that report went unnoticed, apparently, and today he's right back at it, for a total of 9 reverts in the last 48 hours, including 2 separate 3RR violations NoCal100 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NoCal, do you have problem with notifying users when you file a report? And secondly, can you read? I didnt remove 'Gaza Victory' or the source in the second revert, I changed the order and the location, look more closely at the diff, at the end of the diff it is there. The second 'revert' is not a revert at all, I reworded what was in that section. The last 2 are reverts. Nableezy (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And your 'warning' was from yesterday, you, nor anybody else, have any warning for this. Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be still edit warring, I have strong suspicions of rule gaming with 3RR. Care to defend yourself?--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I already said yesterday's report was accurate and I was edit warring, you can look above for that. The first two reverts listed here consistes of one removal of an extra name, when that was reinstated I changed the order around. The second 'revert' consists of 4 edits, in this one I changed the order, in this one I changed the wording slightly, in this one I fixed a grammatical error (no period), and in this one I corrected a spelling error. The last two probably constitute edit warring, but in my defense there has been strong talk page consensus in the past for this passage, and the user who changed it has been trying to do so over a long period of time to remove the phrases 'propaganda' and 'psychological warfare' for actions the sources describe as such. If you really need me to pull up the relevant section in the archives I will, but it was 'warring' so a block may be justified for that. I said above, I could and probably should be blocked for yesterday, I reverted too much instead of working out a compromise with the party I was warring with, which if you look at the history I made an edit that was kept by the other editor. If you want to block on what happened in the previous report feel free, I wouldn't even contest that (though I would ask that you block me on the 'honor system' as I am working on an article in my userspace, if that isnt allowed then whatever). But this above is frivolous, put together by an editor whose entire history on that page, and there isnt much by him on that page, wholly consists of reverts. But again, I was warring yesterday, and I did make two consecutive reverts of the same change today, so whatever you need to do is all good with me. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'compromise' from yesterday's incident was made here and the user who I had been 'warring' with kept it here. Others started warring on its inclusion or exclusion at all, I stayed out of that. Nableezy (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One more note, 'gaming' is kind of harsh, more like not paying attention. I said I was warring yesterday, I wasn't thinking about it today. I logged on, saw these changes and changed them back. The first 'revert' at all in this was removing one of three names, two of which were added in the prior edit. I felt it wasn't needed to have 3, so I removed one, that was changed back so somebody objected to its removal so I didnt remove it again. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on your talk page. Essentially you should now use a 1RR when editing this page, except for blatant vandalism only. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 05:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * all good, i actually was thinking of not editing that article anymore, too much of a pain. but ill try and follow 1rr on it from now on. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Scuro reported by Jmh649 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Appears to have been discussed on their talk page. If reverts continue, re-report here even if not a 3RR as it constitutes continuance of an edit war after warnings. Refer to this report when/if filing new report. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans Engstrom and Malin Tokyo reported by Gsmgm (Result: 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:


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

The page contains ranks, personnel categories, and the number of persons in each rank as reported by the Swedish Armed Forces including references to all the information. For example, who are comissioned officers and the number of persons with the rank Kapten(s). Some are upset (presumably officers themselves) about the officer vs troops ratio, which has been reported as 18,676 officers vs 770 troops. No one has found any errors. Despite this, all the numbers and statements from annual reports have been deleted many times w/o motivation. This is a pure conflict of interests since officers want the numbers of troops to be much greater relative officers to assure that they are looked upon as officers and not merely as soldiers or anything else.

After the removal of fully sourced offical number and statements from the Swedish Armed Forces, redefinition of terms began to elevate most personnel of the Swedish Armed Forces as Comissioned Officers despite of those official statemetns and numbers reporting differently.

The numbers from the Swedish Armed Forces annual report are 100% accurate and fully sourced and if I am hindered from publishing them on wiki, wiki will loose all of its credibility. Consider the hypothetical situation when management of a company tries to stop the publishment of their audited financial statements, size, capital, personnel, ratios on an wiki article that describes the company under their management. I request those numbers to be restored immediately! --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gsmgm (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Hans Engstrom 12 hours for 3RR. The two parties, Engstrom and Tokyo, have been disputing on this article for a long time. Technically, there is only one 3RR violation, so the block is for HE. If the revert war continues after the block expires, with no-one opening up formal dispute resolution, sanctions for both parties are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been posted for discussion at the WP:COIN with Engstrom accusing Tokyo of a COI. I cannot see where the conflict of interest is however. Smartse (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is clearly a conflict, if the cause is interest or someting else is not so clear.
 * There are however no room for interpretation of swedish military ranks since the Swedish Armed Forces have now adopted NATO-standards for ranks (see Ranks and insignia of NATO and http://www.mil.se/sv/Arbete-och-utbildning/Sok-utlandstjanst/Nivaer/) 83.227.130.26 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are stating your own opinion and interpretation of ranks here, which is completely out of the scope as this page is for dealing with
 * edit wars. The underlying issue is the removal of fully sourced statements from the Swedish Armed Forces and has nothing to do with NATO.
 * --Malin Lindquist (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are. This is the correct and official translation of ranks published and used by the Swedish Armed Forces. There is no room for interpretation. This is the very foundation for the edit-war. You are missusing the statistics to prove a point that is incorrect. I may add that I am serving with the Swedish Armed Foreces, but as a private, so I have no personal interest in promoting officer ranks. 83.227.130.26 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss your claims. There are no translations and there are no documents that support your claim above about NATO, Sweden is not part of NATO. You are now claiming that the annual report is false. Are you a private now!? You are firing lots of accusations against me in public w/o any ground for those. You had one whole month to verify those numbers from the military, but you found no errors and no one else did. Now you are accusing me again that numbers are incorrect and that I am misusing statistics w/o presenting any proofs.  Wiki, you must deal with this person.  I have spent a whole month in the discussion forum prior publishing the table and after no errors found I published it. Why is this person starting this here now. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone found errors in it! There are more than seven users and you are the only one who thinks the table should be included in the article! As an effort to resolve the dispute about the article content, all editors agreed that we should make only small additions and discuss each addition on the talk page before posting it in the article. Yet Malin posts this new table without discussing it properly and without finishing the discussion on the earlier version of the article.--Stulfsten (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, they didn't,,, where are the errors? I took the initiative, not you, of starting over bit-by-bit and the facts table was a result after lots of rewires... You have been stating for several mothts that this and that are wrong, but you have never ever pointed out what is wrong and why it's is wrong? You said that there are about 30,000 people, which are not in the table. What people!? For weeks you were not able to tell what those people are. Those turned out to be HD staff as pointed out by someone and irrelevant. Other than that, you have not provided any information at all about the Swedish military.
 * We need an independent person unrelated to the Swedish miltary to deal with this issue... This has gone too far and there is no solution.. Those pople are redefining their own ranks.... I am the only one free from COI, but we need more. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This editing war has beeing ongoing for ever, it seems like. The reason for the war is Malins (Lindquist, Randström, Tokyo) faulty comparison between Swedish officers and officers in USMC and BA. Malin has repeatedly posted false information and has repeatedly posted unethic posts with a fair amount of disrespect for both officers and other wiki contributors. I know that Malin has acted in the same way on other places on the internet and she has been banned from at least one forum because of her misconduct. COI in this case can be seen as between us that wants the information on Wikipedia to be correct and Malin that apparently has declared an internet fatwa on the officers of the Swedish Armed Forces. /Army officer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.160.68 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, I cannot find any substance in any of the statements above other than a number of personal accusatios. From scratch, I have drawn all the insignias of the Swedish Armed Forces -- a great effort that persons that is describes abowe would never ever do! What I have published is the number of officers =18,767 vs troops = 770, which indicates that there are lots of officers but hardly any troops. I have also publsied major indepedned researches from top universities regarding your organization. Hardly any errors has been found by anyone. For this, I am being insulted and trheatened by Swedish officers. No errrors were fund in my coparission with BA and USMC.... I compared a rifle squad leader of 6 men in Sweden with x years of experience with a rifle squad leader of 8 men in the BA with x years of experience and simply took their rank and conclude that they are very cloose. My conclusion was regarded as a serious insult by Swedish officers, as lies, me having a fair amount of disrespect, discredting the officers cors,et,etc... but they did not provide any useful information on the subject. I feel that some Swedish officers here are intruding on the human right of free speech. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Vleague016 reported by Howard the Duck (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (Level 4 MOS violation warning)

See also a similar unresolved case above. – Howard  the   Duck  11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverting without talking is bad. I've blocked for 24h to encourage communication William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted without talking anew after the block's expiry. – Howard  the   Duck  12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paulthomas83 reported by Justin Tokke (Result: incivility: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Justin Tokke (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to have reverted just as much. However, on the assumption that the anon is PT, I've blocked for 24h for that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DionysosProteus reported by Angr (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Daymeeee reported by Nil Einne second time (Result: talk / gone away)
User was previously reported


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

User is continuoing to engage in edit warring now across multiple articles with pointy edits resulting from the way the other case turned out:


 * 1st revert in Mass Effect:
 * 2nd revert in Mass Effect:
 * 2nd revert in Mass Effect:
 * 1st revert in Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows:
 * 2nd revert in Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows:
 * 1st revert in Resident Evil (video game):
 * 2nd revert in Resident Evil (video game):

As mentioned, I reported this user about 40 hours ago for persistent edit warring. After I informed them of the case they then annouced they'd given up, self reverted to the consensus? version but in the same breath annouced they were going to make it their mission to change other articles in the same fashion. I informed them that such POINTy behaviour was liable to mean they would be blocked and reverted one of the pointy edits (but was promptly reverted by Daymeeee) and mentioned this new development in the report. Because they'd agreed to stop the other edit warring, it was deemed no action had to be taken so the user continued with their new pointy edit warring which has been reverted by multiple users, primarily it seems those monitoring this user as a result of the recent history.

Given the lack of any useful contributions, the multiple warnings for edit warring, the recent history of edit warring, the new pointy edit warring and the likelihood of this being the same person as the anon who was previously blocked for edit warring; it seems to me what's gone on is sufficient for at least a short block even if the recent edits alone may not constitute edit warring. If the closing admin still feels no action is warranted may I request that someone's help in monitoring this user and help convince him/her to stop? Because despite only being involved with this user for 40 hours it's getting a bit tiresome dealing with him/her myself let alone I suspect for those dealing with him/her for nearly a month.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have informed the user Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This user is continuing to edit war on Resident Evil (video game)  Lychosis  T / C  17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

After checking D's contribs, and discovering nothing on the article talk pages, I was going to block for reverting without discussion. But then I check more and discover that *no-one* is using the talk pages to try to settle this tedious edit war. So since D says he is off for a break, I think the best thing it to do nothing (you don't want me to block everyone who was reverting without discussing, do you?) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alonsornunez reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 12:18 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
 * Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.2


 * 2nd revert: 13:44 UTC April 26 Said "RV" in edit summary
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.2


 * 3rd revert: 14:51 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
 * Previous version reverted to: Link to the tournament in Sydney in Section 2.1


 * 4th revert: 16:41 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3


 * 5th revert: 17:26 UTC April 26 Used "undo"
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.1


 * 6th revert: 19:30 UTC April 26 No edit summary
 * Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.4


 * 7th revert: 04:04 UTC April 27 Said "Reinstating consensus version" in edit summary
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user made seven reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 16-hour period and acknowledged his edit warring objective after the last reversion here. Since at least February 2009, Alonsornunez has a disruptive history of edit warring, despite repeated requests on his discussion page not to do that. See, for example, these requests: (1), (2), (3). Tennis expert (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: This user made other reversions in the Serena Williams article during this time period that apparently do not count for these purposes because there was not an intervening edit by another editor. None of those "other reversions" are listed above. Tennis expert (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note that this matter is already being discussed concurrently with Tennis expert (himself accused by three editors of violating 3RR) on his talk page (of course, this does not prevent the matter from being discussed here); it is also of note that this incident, of which a majority agree was precipitated by Tennis expert, is part of a larger issue being discussed at Requests for comment/Tennis expert. Alonsornunez  Comments  07:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is stale William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

HJensen reported by Tennis expert (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 14:19 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "This must be a mistake?"
 * Previous version reverted to: Title of Section 2.2


 * 2nd revert: 14:29 UTC April 26 "ce Srerena Slam section (I liked the less stubby version, and with a title; also changed some ref formattting"
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3


 * 3rd revert: 16:33 UTC April 26 "I don't think one should link to redirects"
 * Previous version reverted to: Link to the tournament in Sydney in Section 2.1


 * 4th revert: 17:01 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "I agree that the earlier version is the better; Nothing with wholesale"
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.3


 * 5th revert: 18:37 UTC April 26 Used "undo" and said, "My god you have reverted this section also! Please stop disrupting"
 * Previous version reverted to: Section 2.2


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This is not a warning. It is a statement of an opinion. But, on the other hand, User:Tennis expert normally considers his opiinons as the truth. See this diff at the bottom.--HJensen, talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As the above evidence shows, this user made five reversions to the Serena Williams article in a 4-hour period. And this is not a "stale" complaint as the current version of the Serena Williams article reflects the edit warring by this user and Alonsornunez and because HJensen clearly does not understand WP:3RR. See, for example, this post by him. Tennis expert (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this matter is already being discussed concurrently with Tennis expert (himself accused by three editors of violating 3RR) on his talk page (of course, this does not prevent the matter from being discussed here); it is also of note that this incident, of which a majority agree was precipitated by Tennis expert, is part of a larger issue being discussed at Requests for comment/Tennis expert. And of course it is identical to the above report that was rejected as stale. Alonsornunez  Comments  07:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Clarification. I have never filed any 3RR complaint against Tennis expert, in case one reads Alonsornunez' commets above like that. I have, however, endosed and put forth critical commmentary against Tennis expert's behavior at this RfC}.--[[User:HJensen|HJensen], talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a 3RR violation. It documents how an honest editor acts when he sees a week's collaborative efforts being disgracefully mutilated through bad faith, intentionally revengeful, lone-editor efforts (in the sense that he sees any cooperation as "tag-team" efforts against him) in strong opposition to consensus. (As for the diff proving my lack of understanding of the 3RR rule, see Tennis expert's incivil, bad faith response to my clafifying question here --HJensen, talk 08:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stale William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

79.65.91.94 reported by Parrot of Doom (Result: Blocks )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

There is no single user reverting this page - it is a mixture of anonymous IPs and one newly-registered user. All are visible in the page's recent history. Despite requests to discuss the matter on the talk page, in general they are ignoring our requests for citations, and are reverting to material which does not appear to be verified by the already-present citations. I request that an admin remind these users of Wikipedia policies regarding the use of proper sources, and take measures to prevent further changes. Until such time as these users demonstrate reliable sources which support their edits, I do not believe it is proper for them to continually revert. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The reported IP has been blocked, along with obvious socks. A warning has been put onto the likely sock puppeteer's talk page. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your help on this matter. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again - this blocked user would appear to have returned - see this diff. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Report anymore please (on my talk) as I may need to have a rangeblock done to prevent block evasion. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: grow up children)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Mashkin accused me of bringing a false report and from a dubious source. The report I made was sourced to a major Israeli newspaper website which quotes a prominent survey company in the media industry. Mashkin, blindly reverts without bothering to even want to confirm or otherwise this fact. Mashkin finally then looks for a more updated source (now suddenly giving credibility to the survey company he had doubted and would not believe) and rv my edit again. My edit which reports about a landmark occurrence for the rabbi's newspaper (even if Mashkin believes is an anomaly) is still part of history and legitimate. Mashkin refuses to allow anything good to be printed in this article. --Shuki (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it appears that I violated by mistake 3RR and I regret it. Please note that Shuki has knowingly violated 3RR:


 * first revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: Mashkin (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith notification by Shuki: Shuki put a notice on my talk page pointing out the 3RR and asking me to revert. However, at this time he has already reverted (and performed a 3RR violation) (and f course I could not revert myself). For this action alone he should be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, you've both broken 3RR, so you can both have 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

98.199.37.31 & 98.178.141.174 reported by Best O Fortuna (Result: not much)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:48, 12 April 2009


 * 1st revert: 19:48, 12 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 21:13, 12 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 21:15, 12 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 20:43, 15 April 2009
 * 5th revert: 03:16, 16 April 2009
 * 6th revert: 03:16, 16 April 2009
 * 7th revert: 04:07, 21 April 2009
 * 8th revert: 20:36, 24 April 2009
 * 9th revert: 16:56, 27 April 2009
 * 10th revert: 19:46, 29 April 2009
 * 11th revert: 19:46, 29 April 2009

Keeps adding:


 * ", and yet still accomplish nothing other than beating up on Texas Tech in both sports."


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

I kept waiting for someone else to step up and put an end to this nonsense. Just one more reason why I don't think the present model for Wikipedia is working. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More vandalism than 3RR. I'll block the latest IP, but it will do no good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)