Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive98

Fanoftheworld reported by Alexrexpvt (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User was blocked before for the same reason. Many of the above reverts were of edits made by someone called in to give a third opinion. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 72h this time. Black Kite 22:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:74.206.24.96 reported by User:Offliner (Result:Protected )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:, undoing part of this edit:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Offliner (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP has changed, so I have protected for a week. Kevin (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FreddyPickle reported by BOZ (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

New admin here, looking for some guidance. This user has been posting that the subject was insane based on his own suppositions. He reverted before I insisted he bring it to talk, reverted me, and after a warning from myself and another admin he reverted yet again without further discussion. BOZ (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He didn't receive an adequate final warning. I have left him one now. Let's see if he continues to revert. This is both edit warring and BLP nonsense, so he shouldn't get much slack. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I don't have my warnings down yet and was looking for the templates when I stumbled across this page. :) Fortunately it is not actually a BLP since the subject is deceased, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to make bald assertions about a person without any verifiable sources to reference. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning removed, but so far no further vandalism (unless you count an IP who did something different). BOZ (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No action for now. Consider a block if the 'insane' comment is restored again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Harrelson (result: warned)
Edit war between an anon and a User whose User name is the same as that of a person who the subject is accused of having murdered. The anon may be the same as Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Page:


 * Slow edit war, no vio, warned William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ltpas2009 reported by hellswesties (Result: 24h)

 * Page:


 * User:


 * User Ltpas2009 is a well-known cyber-bully, who is adept at starting and prolonging flame wars on several internet sites with several users. User Ltpas2009 has also engaged Mr. Pascal in a documented argument on his official site (adampascalmusic.COM  Note the similarities in URL to the flame site), and has gone so far as to impersonate Mr. Pascal on Twitter.


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan reported by 87.69.176.81 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please notice that while I've been trying to engage this user in a constructive dialogue, all they have done in return was to either try and dismiss my points as "ridiculous nonsense" or outright spew as many insults at me as they could (see below in "reaction to the template"), not to mention several reverts with empty edit summaries on other pages...


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I'd like to point out this user's reaction to my template, which can be found here. I've reported it to the main admin board – figured you guys here could give it a glance or two. Thank you so much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (non-admin comment): This specific reversion just says that 87.69.176.81 is the vandal. ESpublic013 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. If you look closely, it was who reversed "unit" to "until," because I simply made a typo in my initial addition and fixed it right afterward. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - The information that the IP editor is warring to insert is:"In the South Park episode More Crap, her name is used to create a fictional measure unit for weighing fecal matter."Obviously our article on Couric will be seriously incomplete without this important information. Sorry for the sarcasm, but there are only three reverts here, so WP:3RR is not violated. You've managed to submit the same complaint at two different noticeboards, ANI and AN3. See WP:FORUMSHOP. You've not made any effort at Talk:Katie Couric to get support for including this key fact, which I imagine will not be easy to get. No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and obviously, adding this information will utterly ruin the article and Wikipedia in whole. Better hide your internets 'cuz it will burn all your hard drives and rape your goldfish... alright, enough with the sarcasm, you catch my drift. Obviously, you have not been particularly helpful. There was no WP:FORUMSHOPPING because I have two separate issues with this user: edit warring with mostly empty edit summaries (which I've reported here) and particularly aggressive personal attacks (which I've reported on WP:ANI). You have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to some facts here, so I am requesting a review by another admin. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As another uninvolved administrator - No, sorry, this is junk, and if you keep trying to add it you'll be blocked. Don't do it again.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for what exactly? Please remember to be wp:civil. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Olahus reported by Squash Racket (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:18, 29 April 2009
 * 2nd revert: 18:47, 29 April 2009
 * 3rd revert: 07:59, 30 April 2009
 * 4th revert: 15:15, 30 April 2009 or 16:01, 30 April 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Editor multiple times blocked before for edit warring, and tag team revert warring

User disregarding others' edits, views, edit warring, POV pushing. Read also Talk:Central Europe for another editor's opinion on his overall behavior at that article (BTW Olahus reverted his edit too). I've made a single revert in the past two days, otherwise only introduced new material that he too frequently changed. Squash Racket (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kasaalan reported by Enigma (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

If that's not enough, see contributions. ,. Said editor also edit-warred against the result of an AfD, refusing to allow the article to be redirected. Instead, editor created yet another new page by moving it in direct violation of the AfD discussion.  Enigma msg  16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No technical vio; 1st revert is well out of 24h. Also I don't see talk from Nudve justifying his reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:71.233.122.127 reported by Xenophrenic (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: informal warning after several previously posted template warnings

Users Eleland, Decltype and Sherurcij have reverted the above reversions, and left various warnings on his user page, but he continues. Now his blind reverts are undoing recent grammar fixes, etc., as well. This editor also has a slow revert-war going on the Jonny Gomes article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Flipper9 reported by Abecedare (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:10, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "Adding inappropriate tag: Wikipedia is not a news source")
 * 2) 16:21, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 287073733 by ThaddeusB (talk)  While this is notable, it contains unverifiable information")
 * 3) 18:12, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 287092906 by PigFlu Oink (talk) Article contains unverifiable info. Stop removing tag")
 * 4) 18:24, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "This article is unencyclopedic because it includes non-noteworthy AND non-veriafiable information.  Suspected and unconfirmed information is both unencyclopedic and non-verifiable.")
 * 5) 18:41, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "I am merly adding a tag that disputes whether this article is encyclopedic.  Threatening me on my talk page is inappropriate.")
 * 6) 19:00, 30 April 2009  (edit summary: "This is not a disruptive edit.  It is an appropriate tag for an article with unencyclopedic information, and should be properly addressed in the discussion page, not squelched as you see fit.")


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Repeated addition of inappropriate tags against consensus on this and other high-profile articles on the 20009 swine flu outbreak. Note that he is also edit-warring at, and. Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours and removed tag. -- auburn pilot  talk  19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Npovshark reported by Piotrus (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (left just know)

Please note that the image from last diff is identical (but has a different name) to the images from the previous three reverts. Compare: File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG and File:German language in 1910.png. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While the user in question has not reverted since the warning was issued, its editing behavior stinks like a sock. I will note that what they are re-adding to the article is a image uploaded by a now banned . That said, I am not sure that calling a user a Nazi in a edit summary is the best way to go about things either Piotrus (see this RFAR remedy). Tiptoety  talk 05:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Piotrus or anyone else called the user a Nazi, rather just noted that the map that is being discussed was 1) used as Nazi propaganda and 2) (this one by me) was uploaded by a user who, in my understanding, got blocked for pushing Nazi POV. It may very well have been that Npovshark was not aware of the history of the map and the edit summaries were meant to explain that (of course this is assuming that this user is not independently aware of the history of the map here). Still, he kept going.radek (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Radek, I was referring to a map, not an editor, who btw shows no signs of remorse, and responded to the 3rr warning with a personal attack/"I am innocent, you are bad" claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your attitude towards this map and the way you went about raising an objection to it repuslive. "Oh, I don't like it, I'll just delete it without conversation" As for reverting three times, that is a lie. You deleted pictoral content on the site without a discussion, and that is vandalism. Editing vandalism does not count as 3RR. Then, after finding out what your problem was with the map, which took two vandalism reverts (you made no mention of the problem with a vague statement like "it is nazi propaganda/user was banned") I went and found the original map, which gives a source -- Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka - and changed the subtitle to reflect that this was not a map of 1925, but 1910. It also appears that the "work" of Rex Germanicus, the banned user, is not his work at all. He only made a copy of the file, which comes from a Dutch user, HP1740-B. So it appears you did not do your homework. Then, I added the map that was uploaded by HP1740, not the banned user. I have contacted the original creator of the map for clarification on the file, such as its source, validity, etc.


 * Thanks for telling me this discussion was going on, too. Nothing you are doing is right here, so you better believe I will come here with the "I am innocent, you are bad claim".--Npovshark (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, this is completely unacceptable: . You remove mention of Poland bombing Silesia, which means the statement of "these were the first few bombings of the war" is no longer accurate, and an article about bombings during world war II has false information. Good job.


 * Then, you add that the purpose of bombing Wielun was not to test bombing but to "simply" test bombing. Don't you dare cry to me about me pushing pov with this kind of garbage.


 * Then, you added an unsourced and actually untrue statement about Germany "leading the bombing" early on, although the facts suggest otherwise. Britain attacked many many sites in Germany before Germany opened up the air war over Britain. This is a FACT. Scroll down further in the article and you can read the summary of attacks, month by month.


 * Also, your edits, buried deeeeeeeeeep in the article history, have totally messed up the text, and I refuse to sort through them.


 * For you to run here and complain about me trying to get down to the bottom of things regarding this map is completely absurd.--Npovshark (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In history article about strategic bombing in WW2 the above user Npovshark removes information about nazi atrocities and presents Germany as being attacked first by Britain:  --Gwinndeith (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwinndeith...I explained my reversion of "your" edits. I say "your" because you have merely taken the recent edit attempts of Piotus (see here for Piotus' edits and here for Gwinndeith's, which I have commented on in the edit summary MORE THAN ONCE and also done here on this Administration discussion (see above). I also asked that you explain your changes on the page's talk  and you never responded. I have left you a message on your page  and you have not responded. Your edits are all to push a POV and you have had little consideration for facts, how your edits fit into the article (not just because they are unsourced, but also because they include bad English, show little consideration for the flow of the article and change previously sourced statements so that they say something that they actually do not source, such as is the case in your version of the intro).--Npovshark (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No action - Npovshark did go over 3RR but he has stopped reverting this article. His last edit was 22 hours hours ago, and someone else has undone his last change. In such a case it is quite uncommon to issue a 3RR block. Some people have been making a case that he is a POV warrior, but the present discussion is not for that. If you want to continue discussing this, do so either in the current ANI thread about Npovshark or on a talk page. But if Npovshark comes back to revert this article again it's a whole new ball game and he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hellboy10 reported by Sottolacqua (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Version prior to reverts:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User continues to revert article and similar articles with no rational reason or explanation. Additionally, this user has engaged in previous edit wars with Push Over, a related article. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporter warned for also edit warring, whilst reportee blocked for obvious edit warring and borderline vandalism edits/edit summaries. Nja 247 08:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Miasnikov reported by Motopu (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Miasnikov has been continuously rejecting consensus and editing in bad faith, replacing cited material with non-sourced POV pushing. He has also vandalized the talk page, removing my posts entirely. He has been constantly warned, and even appealed to in the hope he might edit in good faith. Links to other sites this user has been banned from for similar behavior available upon request. Motopu (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Motopu (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User seems to have moved to talk pages after finally receiving a warning on their talk page about edit warring. Re-report if discussion breaks down and edit warring continues. Be sure to reference this report if needed. Nja 247 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Satyashodak reported by User:Mitsube (Result: Final warning )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: Reverted, as he admits, three months of edits
 * 2nd revert: Undid previous edit
 * 3rd revert: Undid previous edit
 * 4th revert: Undid previous edit


 * Diffs of 3RR warnings: ,

The user has also accused me of being a "Sinhalese nationalist and Buddhist chauvinist from Sri Lanka." I am none of those things. He then did four reverts in an hour and a half. Mitsube (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User given a last and final warning on their talk page. They have not edited since then, thus there's no reason to block to prevent further disruption at this time. If behaviour continues contact the admin who gave the warning, or report at appropriate noticeboard (ie for edit war here, for vandalism WP:AIV, etc). Nja 247 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pink-thunderbolt reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Warn )
. : Time reported: 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 20:21,  2 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Gosselins */")
 * 2) 20:42,  2 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 287510467 by Thirteen squared (talk)")
 * 3) 05:33,  3 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 287520138 by Thirteen squared.  Stop whitewashing.  It is actually multiple reliable sources, and it is about the show, it's also in the Vancouver Sun now.")
 * 4) 06:04,  3 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 287591996 by Scjessey (talk) Check my sources, I'")


 * Diff of warning: here

This user is edit-warring some pretty serious BLP violations into the article - basically unreferenced controversial information about a living person. The user was warned for edit-warring, but he/she deleted the warning and reverted again. — Scjessey (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is sourced on CNN, MSNBC, People Magazine, E!, US Weekly, and the Vancouver Sun, and there are pictures. Those sources are neutral, the assertions verifiable, and the research is not my own. The page in question has been drawing criticism for several months for the horrendous amount of whitewashing that has gone on there.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should also point out that Scjessey has previously been blocked for an edit war, I have not, that he intimated a legal threat by "warning" me that my edit was defamatory, and that all previous attempts to include information deemed in any way critical of the subject of the article has been summarily reverted by a small group of people. The article in question is for some reason being treated differently than any other reality tv family show article, and unless the serial deletion of this information is halted, the quality of the article will continue to suffer. Also, one of the alleged reverts is actually the initial addition to the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is edit warring, and to have a proper dispute there needs to be two parties. Both the reporter and reportee are advised to discuss their content dispute on talk pages or seek dispute resolution. Continuation of disruptive editing by either of them will result in blocks. Nja 247 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning scjessey looks like a bad call - Scjessey and one other editor are reverting poorly sourced material on BLP grounds, and Scjessey has taken the dispute here for resolution. Pink-thunderbolt broke 3RR trying to insert it.  The proper content resolution is that the material stays out unless and until there is both consensus for inclusion, and a reasonable determination that it isn't a BLP violation.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PT only appears to have 3R: the first edit isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that PT inserted controversial information about a living person into an article without any referencing, and then thrice restored it despite being warned after the second revert. Whether it was 3 or 4 reversions isn't really important - it was still edit-warring BLP violations into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I referenced it, anyone who looks at the disputed text will see that. There is a consensus for inclusion, many people over a long period of time have proposed that there be a section on criticism of the show, or that at least, information like the information provided by CNN, MSNBC, E!, US Weekly, and People Magazine be included, and over and over again, Scjessey has tried to weasel around it, sometimes by saying that the article is about the show, not the family, even though it is a show about a family, or that things are poorly sourced when they are not.  I have been to the page twice, once several months ago, and both times I came looking for information on the reports of serious unhappiness of Jon or controlling behavior by Kate, because I saw something about it on Television, and in a magazine, and both times there was nothing here.  So I added the information. When I was at the page several months ago, I mentioned that I would be putting in the information if more news sources began to cover the issue, and they did, so I did.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I count 4RR for Pink Thunderbolt - the first edit re-inserted this claim, albeit in different words, that Jon Gosselin was partying in clubs with other women. Pink Thunderbolt was clearly edit warring and, with two editors objecting, there was not a clear consensus for it.  Content changes that are not accepted should be discussed on the talk page, not edit warred.  So even though the question is now moot -- the report is resolved with a warning rather than block and the editors are no longer reverting each other -- I raised this only to point out that Scjessey was not doing the same thing.  He was joining a second editor in making a BLP reversion to the newly added material - if another party tries to add it again, I don't want this report to have a chilling effect on watchful editors who would otherwise correctly remove it again pending a full discussion.  Scandalous rumors cited to gossip columns is a classic and frequently misunderstood BLP situation.  That the rumors form the WP:PLOT of a reality show is a less common twist best discussed at WP:BLP/N.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also throw in that, while I haven't been around for the bulk of this warring, I went to pink's talkpage and saw pink has replaced all warnings with a rant that starts with this: "Some fruitcake from the Jon and Kate Plus 8 fanclub made a comment here about me putting gossip on the page for the show." They have also said several things like we're "whitewashing" the page of negative material. At the very least, the user is not assuming good faith and is acting in a less than civil manner. It is disruptive to the project. Before Pink came back to the page, we were having a decent discussion about the issue on the talk page (which included finding decent sources and we started to discuss its merits for inclusion). Now it's turned back into a rant-fest by Pink. --132 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lynskeyium reported by Edokter (Result: 24h each)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Persistend adding of non-information after having been warned several times on editor's talk page. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h each The first of the reverts above is stale, and the 3rd and 7th appear not to be reverts but tweaks to the previous edit. That still leaves five reverts in 24 hours for the reportee, of course.  However, I also count five reverts by the reporter here (Version reverted to - Rev1 (15:34 2 May).. Rev 2 (16:31 2 May).. Rev 3 (13:02 3 May).. Rev 4 (13:06 3 May).. Rev 5 (13:09 3 May).  That doesn't leave a lot of choice here. Black Kite 16:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NiciVampireHeart reported by Josephjames21| (Result: No action )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

NiciVampireHeart does not believe proper names should be bolded if the proper name doesn't have an article
 * I believe that Nici is right from my reading of MOS on bold text. Regardless the other party has been blocked for disruptive editing by another admin and therefore no need to block to protect from further disruption. Nja 247 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sardath reported by Xhienne (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Now that this article is protected, I believe it can improve, especially the "Critical reviews" section which does not meet WP quality guidelines. Sardath refuses to abide by those guidelines and doesn't accept that others rewrite this section in order to lessen the number of quotes and their length. As soon as someone edits the section, this (seemingly) single purpose account pops up and reverts their edit. He doesn't even agree with the Quotefarm banner that merely reflects an undeniable fact. Despite my warning on his talk page, he has just made his fourth revert in less than 24h. — Xavier, 14:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Black Kite</b> 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

StuporesMundi reported by Arnoutf (result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor wants to split of large parts of the history of Alitalia from the main article; as this is the case on the Italian Wikipedia. This has been discussed before and there was no consensus to do so. The user however places the Italian situation/ point of view, without any discussion beyond the international point of view. In spite of my urging not to remove this information the user has done so anyway, and called my reverts "vandalism" from the start (although I actively defended the user from accusations that his removal was vandalism e.g. here). The editor instead repeatedly calls my (talk page supported edits) vandalism and reverts as such. It seems clear to me this editor is not even trying to listen to others. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theo789 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: No action )

 * Page:


 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Note that the above edits only deal with one specific paragraph that Theo789 has been adding while 3 other users have deleted it. This is the specific violation of 3RR, but there are many other issues on which he(?) has been edit warring. For example, deleting sourced material, adding specious NPOV tags , adding poorly sourced info - he sourced a Facebook discussion here:. Generally POV pushing, while claiming that the well sourced consensus version is POV. Also note that anonymous user user:63.215.27.57 was warned for making very similar edits, but seems to have gone away since Theo789 showed up - it's likely the same person. See the anon edits here:, , , etc.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Also note that Theo789 has been engaging in the same type of edit warring at Caylee Anthony homicide - changing sourced material, , , adding poorly sourced or irrelevant material to push a POV.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:,.


 * No action - While the user in question did violate WP:3RR, they have since ceased edit warring after they were warned and taken to discussing the issue on the talk page. Should they continue to edit war, a block will be necessary. Tiptoety  talk 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Falastine fee Qalby reported by User:Lanternix (no vio)

 * Page: Coptic history
 * User: User:Falastine fee Qalby


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


 * In addition, the user is harassing me on my talk page: I attempted to initiate a respectful discussion with him/her here  and all I got was more harassment on my talk page. --Lanternix (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see, changed the link to a redirect (to Arab invasion of Egypt), and I am reverting his edit to avoid a redirect (back to Muslim conquest of Egypt). That edit of Lanternix is part of a series of edits that show his hostility towards Arabs. Here he deletes a large amount of text from Arab Christians with the edit summary (Egyptians / Copts are NOT Arabs and have nothing to do with an article called "Arab Christians") Here is another series of edits in which he replaces words like Abu Bakr and Rashidun with Arabs . If it was one or two edits, I would not have mind, but it appears to be the same with the majority of his recent edits. I don't see any other purpose to his editing than to incite. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * , who registered just a few hours ago, reverted my edit on that page back to Lanternix's really useless change. That was Azazilsgoat's second of only two edits. Could this be trying to get the version he wants without appearing to be edit warring? Or could this be Lanternix trying to get me to make a 4th revert, thus violating 3rr? I don't see why this 'newly' registered editor would undo my revert as you all can note, Lanternix changed the link to a redirect for POV reasons. It is highly likely that this user is Lanternix, do I have to open an SPI, or can someone do a checkuser now? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, his first edit was uploading a map whose author is Lanternix. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Blocked A as a sock of L William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

209.244.187.134 reported by ChaosMaster16 (Result: talk)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This user has been causing disruption and unneccesarily removing and placing certain information. *UPDATE* The User is not only editing Ghost Whisperer now, he is now removing and changing references on the list of episodes. The references he is putting are way out of date. User:ChaosMaster16|ChaosMaster16]] (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * Doesn't look like a formal vio to me. However, *no-one* is discussing this on the article talk page - why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone looks on the talk page anymore. The last comment is pretty far back. I'll fix that though ;]ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Badagnani reported by User:Redheylin (Result: warning)

 * Page: Chaozhou xianshi
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This behaviour extends to several related pages. Redheylin (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned; see article talk William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

63.3.22.3 reported by Age Happens (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User 63.3.22.3 continues to make the same revert since receiving the 3RR warning. The 3RR warning was given after the 3rd revert (4th edit). Has made 7 total reverts in addition to the initial edit which was removed as possible vandalism.


 * 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine Reported by User:Mashkin (Result: 24h)
User:Izzedine has been edit warring in Syrian Desert and violated 3RR


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

Before his 4th revert I warned him not to do so:

In addition he keeps calling deletion of his edits as "vandalism" (see e.g. the edit summary here ). Let me also mention that he feels confident enough of his knowledge of Wikipedia to issue these "warnings", ,. Mashkin (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Anthony on Stilts Reported by User:Ht686rg90 (Result: 24 and 12h)

 * Page: Theodicy
 * User:


 * Prior version partially reverted to:


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


 * 3RR warning:

Massive, large-scale reverts to a very old version long after merge to another page. Not even the version before the merge but to material from another one much earlier. Refuses to discuss his claims or provide any sources for them. Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anthony on Stilts thinks that theodicy is a more general subject than an answer to the problem of evil and thus should have a separate article from the problem of evil. He has presented no sources for this claim and refuses to discuss it. Instead preferring to edit war in order to get his OR text. He is also now making many other massive other large scale edits to both "theodicy" and "problem of evil" without discussion, moving material, deleting sourced material, and inserting unsourced OR. But that is a content dispute and not relevant for the 3RR. He clearly broken the rule and continued edit warring as seen in the diffs presented by me above after being warned.Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The way you delete an article is by complying with the Deletion policy. Restoring an article whose deletion did not comply with said policy, and then re-arranging it into a better article, does not require pre-agreement. See Ownership of articles.
 * Furthermore, you'll notice that none of the four edits listed above is remotely identical. Here are comparative diffs - edit 1 to edit 2, edit 2 to edit 3, edit 3 to edit 4.
 * I believe that Ht686rg90 seems to be trying to delete an article without going through the proper policy requirements. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made no attempt to delete the theodicy article. Several months ago I removed unsourced material and merged the rest with problem of evil article after discussing this on the talk page with no opposition. Anthony on Stilts today restored much old, unsourced material without discussing this and has made massive, large-scale changes to both articles without discussing this on talk. Even after I asked him on his talk page to do so in order to avoid an edit war, explain his reasons, and give sources for his claims. But the content dispute is not relevant here. He has clearly broken the rule, even after I warned him, also informing him that the reverts do not have to be completely identical. That he seems to think that he if free to ignore the rule if he does not make identical reverts only makes violation worse. Ht686rg90 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not so much 'no opposition' as 'no comment'. Perhaps you should have waited for longer before merging, and, at the very least, put a 'merge proposal' notice on the article.
 * The point I am making with the diffs above (edit 1 to edit 2, edit 2 to edit 3, edit 3 to edit 4) is that they are not reverts, they are normal edits. You (Ht686rg90) are the one making reverts (,, , all reverting to this version).
 * Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a merge proposal notice on both articles and I presented it on talk with no opposition. But again, content dispute. All your four reverts reverted the redirect as clearly seen in my diffs above. Again, that you think that you can violate the spirit of the 3RR, can avoiding citing sources, can refuse to try to resolve an issue by discussion as I asked for, and instead edit war if you do not make identical reverts only make the situation worse.Ht686rg90 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aos clearly broke 3RR. But H is also edit warring. 24 and 12h respectively William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Asasjdgavjhg reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and

Emptymountains (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. Mango juice talk 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Twelfth Doctor reported by Frickative (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Editor has been continually adding an irrelevant category to the article multiple times over the past week, despite talk page discussions with 3 separate editors explaining why WP:CAT opposes this. Has continued to revert despite being alerted to the 3RR and receiving no support for his addition.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Frickative 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 48h for harassment or stupidity or something William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Karabinier reported by User:Cordovao (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

<The user first added a military conflict infobox, and I did not believe the infobox was appropriate so I reverted and asked user to gain consensus on talk page. He refused to wait for consensus, and kept readding. Cordovao (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)>


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cordovao reported by Karabinier (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

User page information deletion:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

The user User:Cordovao keeps removing information from the article added by me and number of other fellow editors without adding any new information. I am concerned that this might look like an Edit war by the user.

I believe that the infobox is appropriate as all other wikipedia mutiny articles have such wiki infobox. Karabinier (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did keep removing the infobox, but as I explained above I do so because as per WP:BOLD if someone disagrees with an addition of information, he can revert and then consensus can be gained at the talk page of the relevant article. Plus, I apologize for removing the currentevent tag.  That was by accident, since it kept getting caught up in my reversions of your edits.  Plus, regardless of whether you felt the infobox is appropriate, when your addition is reverted you should, as per WP:BOLD, then immediately stop and gain consensus.  Plus, I haven't gone beyond the 3RR rule (the history says I reverted more than 3 times, but they weren't reversions (due to the high edit rate of the article by lots of people, sometimes other people's edits got accidentally reverted by me(for which I greatly apologize), so I had to revert back, and then revert the edit I intended to revert which was Karabinier's.).  Cordovao (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And to emphasize, my reporting of you is not because I disagree with the infobox. It was because WP:BOLD says gain consensus if an edit of yours is reverted, before readding, which you did not do over and over again until the point where you violated WP:3RR  Cordovao (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The current infobox - mutiny wikipedia infobox hasn't gained any other negative feedback by fellow editors as far as i know - therefore it seems to me that the problem is in details not in the principal usage of the infobox. Although the mutiny which laste dsmth 5-6 hours did not have a bloodshed and victims - where the infobox has rows for such data as well - there isn't any other infobox as far as I know at wikipedia to use to improve the article with an infobox. Mutiny happened and took place and there is an infobox "mutiny" at wikipedia - therefore it fits. Which i agree that the data inside the infobox could be brought up better in order to describe the event as non-violent mutiny - I don't see a need for a new separate infobox to be created as this "event" wasn't huge and didn't gain much of a media attention. Karabinier (talk)

WP:BOLD does not trump WP:3RR. 24h. And K - read the instructions please: use diffs not versions William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jc12man, reported by User:BatteryIncluded (result: clueless)
User:Jc12man performed about 9 vandalistic edits this morning. Warnings up to level 4. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Porbably just a clueless newbie rather than a vandal. Have you considered talking nicely to him? Anyway, this is 3RR, not WP:AIV William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jim Sweeney (warned)
I think this user has broken WP:3RR at List of nicknames of British Army regiments he keeps deleting an entry for the Argyle and Sutherland highlanders despite it having multiple references which I have added to. NetherSarum (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi this has just been brought to my attention I admit to having reverted three times (my understanding was I could rvt 3 but not 4 ?) The article in question was full of unofficial and derogatory nicknames User:NetherSarum has even admitted on his talk page he is adding an unofficial nickname There is no need for it to be official just for it to be a nickname for the Regiment . Being a member of WPMILHIST I have asked the project for opinions

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force in an attempt to clear this up --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider yourself warned, and the reporter too (who is asked to follow the correct template in future) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks warning accepted --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

78.60.103.71 reported by Radeksz (Result:2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (note the honest edit summary "references removed")
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (It's an anon ip)

The edits are essentially vandalism (removal of tag, removal of sourced info, removal of the refs themselves, flipping the meaning of sentences and paragraphs by inserting "not" and so on). The ip address should also be checked in case it's a sock or a banned user. Article may need to be semi-protected.

Update: I've added a warning on the talk page, but the anon's very persistent:. I think that's his 7th or 8th revert in under 2 hrs.radek (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've left the anon a warning on his talk page, he has reverted again with an incivil edit summary. As there are no constructive edits from this account, I suggest a month block.


 * Blocked 2 weeks. Note that the honest edit summary is actually a tag left by the abuse filter. Kevin (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user is evading the block with a slightly diff IP .radek (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vilnius has been semi-protected due to the IP switching over to 78.59.190.64. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Liu Tao reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * User has a long history of being warned and suspended for edit warring, ,

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the user has only 2 blocks, not a long history of such William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by BarnabyBlue (Result: BB indef'd)
. : Time reported: 6 May 2009
 * Three-revert rule violation on multiple days

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

User has been invited to discussion forum, but has declined. User has been warned more than 3 times. User's talk pages are replete with complaints from other wiki users - same pattern of behavior of deleting long-existing content, and then engaging in edit war. Please help resolve this matter. Thanks.


 * 1) 14:31,  4 May 2009  (edit summary: "hi-rez => high resolution. Fact tag. Deleting unsupported conclusion in lead paragraph. DVD-Audio and SACD sales figures from reference used to rewrite paragraph.")
 * 2) 14:32,  4 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* DVD-Audio */ fix ref")
 * 3) 22:09,  4 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 287849954 by Binksternet; Removing Brautigan... the list doesn't intend to be a complete one. Restoring RIAA shipment figures.. (TW)")
 * 4) 16:14,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "Restored sales figures for DVD-Audio. Changed 'hi-rez' to 'high resolution'. Deleted any instance of 'overwhelmingly'.")
 * 5) 16:21,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Content */ Deleting exhaustive list of artists")
 * 6) 17:29,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288085416 by Melodia; Restoring version without extended and unuseful list of artists. (TW)")
 * 7) 19:46,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Popular artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into another article")
 * 8) 19:47,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Classical artists */ needs a prose rewrite, or separation into its own article")
 * 9) 19:48,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 288089806 by 58.173.10.128 (talk) Restoring changes to 'rez' and to DVD sales with reference")
 * 10) 21:15,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 129.78.64.103 identified as vandalism to last revision by Binksternet. (TW)")
 * 11) 21:38,  5 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 58.173.10.128 (talk) to last version by David0811")
 * 12) 01:13,  6 May 2009  (edit summary: "Added prose tags back in. Deleted insufficient reference for lead paragraph, added fact tag.")
 * 13) 14:15,  6 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by Grazildah identified as vandalism to last revision by SmackBot. (TW)")
 * 14) 16:47,  6 May 2009  (edit summary: "Restored Prose templates taken out by BarnabyBlue")
 * 15) 16:55,  6 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* See also */ removing entries that were already represented in article")
 * 16) 17:10,  6 May 2009  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 288297042 by Binksternet; Restoring to version prior to IP vandalism. (TW)")


 * In my defense. My changes to the Super Audio CD article have been solely to prevent it from becoming too promotional. My reversions have been in response to vandalism, and three of the editors who were reverting my changes have been blocked as a result: Wozwoz, Special:Contributions/129.78.64.103 and Special:Contributions/58.173.10.128. The account BarnabyBlue was formed just today in response to my changes, and exists as a single-purpose account to keep me from holding the Super Audio CD article to the normal Wikipedia standards. I have requested an administrator block against BarnabyBlue as well as against Grazildah and Special:Contributions/144.139.185.122; accounts that have been repeatedly removing my maintenance tags. My actions have been above-board and reasonable; their actions have been retaliatory. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All the excitement seems to be over; BB and his army of socks are all indef'd William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sardath (2) reported by Xhienne (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Note: first of all, this follows a previous issue. As soon as his block has ended, he has been edit-warring again.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Moreover: I'd like you to put an end to his disruptive behaviour.
 * he is using dubious tricks like changing the name of the disputed section, so that the links in the talk page don't work any longer
 * he is reverting others' edits for the very same reason he added a quote to this section not long ago.
 * judging by his contributions (99% on this article in 4 months), this user has only one aim on WP: to push his point of view on that movie by discouraging others to contribute.

PS: I know this isn't the right place to ask this, but if you don't mind, I would welcome any advice by neutral third parties on what to do on this article, especially with such a combative user that undermines any effort. Since my RFC hasn't attracted any interest for now, I wonder whether it was the right choice. Should I choose another option? Or simply wait? Feel free to answer here or on my talk page, thank you. — Xavier, 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for edit warring. Advice: keep talking, be scrupulously polite, follow WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I will try my best. — Xavier, 10:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Ryan (Result: prot)
There is a long term edit war going on here involving several SPA's with suspect User names. The "external links" are a nightmare, and the article in toto is a disaster. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unclear what admin action you are requesting. If you think some editors have a COI, or are crusading for a cause, you could try posting at WP:COIN. This would require you to identify some users you think are misbehaving, and give examples of bad edits. These people would then be asked to explain what they are up to on that article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to cross over, I had decided to protect this thing to see if that would force the redfolk to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Red Peacock reported by Dayewalker (Result: all warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been blocked before for edit warring in similar POV circumstances, and rarely ever uses talk pages to discuss contentious edits. Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this is neccessary. I was simply adding a legit source in her politcal view section. There was nothing wrong with it. The Red Peacock (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a content dispute, with TRP reverting three different editors to include the material, and never once using the talk page or even an edit summary. Furthermore, this edit seems to give another example of his POV pushing, and was quickly reverted as vandalism. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick take - it looks like good faith newbie editor not yet familiar with editing expectations, making a somewhat imperfect content proposal. Though clearly having a POV I see no reason not to assume good faith about it.  Whether blocked or not they ought to get the point that the talk page is the way to go, not edit warring.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this edit is indicative of good-faith. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed (but, alas, not surprised) to see so much reverting there with no attempt at discussion on the talk page. Anyone doing more of this is going to get blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dryamaka reported by Ohconfucius (Result: 24h)
initiated discussion at Talk:Susan_Boyle to remove the "cheesy" File:Susan Boyle.jpg image from the Susan_Boyle article but failed to get any support.

Four attempts were made to remove, blank or otherwise replace the image:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

Warning was then duly served by yours truly.

However, the image was once again removed after the warning. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Already blocked 24 hours for 3RR by User:Madchester. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

86.170.26.172 reported by PatGallacher (Result: 24h / semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

What appears to be the same user, albeit operating under different IP addresses, is engaging in edit warring in relation to the Edward Heath article, which has broken the 3RR, and has also insulted various users e.g. he left a message on my talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for the anon, and since that won't work, semi the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vivalatinamerica reported by Opinoso (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

<This user is edit-warring in different articles that talk about Germans. He also vandalized my user page: Opinoso (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)-->
 * Vivalatinamerica also tried to remove this report from this page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Please note that today I added sources which support my edits, but the user continues to remove them. Emptymountains (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've semi'd the page for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please consider doing the same to the related Dorje Shugden controversy article, where this user is also active today. Emptymountains (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the user Emptymountains speaks of. i have reported this group to the relevant authorities and would ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism as well as all the stuff in the talk page of New Kadampa Tradition as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive140#POV_edits_from_a_group_of_users_on_Dorje_Shugden These people are dodgy/slippery and this must be watched!!!YontengYonteng (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Heroes (previously posted on arbitration and "incident" page, relocated a third time now. Result: prot)
There is an edit war involving whether the Invisible Man in the TV series Heroes is named "Claude," "Claude Rains," or neither of the above. I attempted to add information that both clarifies the source of the debate and also takes a neutral point of view. User Ophois, however, immediately deleted this information without listing his reason. When I politely called him on it on his user page, he declared my information to be speculative, which, quite frankly, it isn't. This is more than a mere difference of opinion with another editor. Ophois has been engaging in an edit war over this silly issue for a while now, according to the page's history, and immediately rejected my attempt to neutrally end the edit war, with a simple deletion of my neutral information without even citing a reason. He is clearly more interested in asserting his own POV than in respecting either the integrity of the article or in following Wikipedia rules except where it suits him. I'm asking for arbitration because a review of his behavior both on the article's discussion page and on his own user page clearly illustrates that he is not interested in resolving disputes peacefully. Minaker (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this situation calls for some form of dispute resolution but is not yet ready for arbitration. Also, you haven't provided the kinds of information we need to process a request for arbitration. Rather than spend a lot of time here discussing procedure, could a Clerk or other experienced administrator please counsel the parties on how best to address their dispute? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm skipping steps in the process, I'm not doing so deliberately. However, I'd like to point out that Ophois has kicked the dispute up a notch, starting a new edit war and even deleting my comments from user pages, which is dishonest in the extreme, not to mention surely against Wikipedia policy. It's getting ugly. Any help would be appreciated. Minaker (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no edit war occurring, actually. The original debate has ended, as we found a source confirming that "Claude Rains" is merely an alias. Minaker has since kept adding speculation despite warnings that the name may be a reference to the actor Claude Rains without providing any reliable source to back it up. Ophois (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any look at the history page will reveal that Ophois's claim that there is no edit war is completely dishonest. In addition to the original edit war (don't take my word for it or his, just check the history page, it's right there) there is one a new edit war occurring, instigated by him when he deleted an edit I made without citing any justification whatsoever. As I have pointed out, he only cited a reason when I called him on it on his home page. Despite Ophois's claims to the contrary, the original debate did not appear to be over; simply because Ophois himself had had the last word does not mean that the debate is over. Ophois's claims of speculation and original research on my part are completely without merit, but as he will disagree, I whole-heartedly encourage people to review the article's history, the article's talk page, and the relevant discussions on both his and my user pages. Yes, it's getting heated, and ugly on both of our parts, but I should point out that Ophois's warnings about edit warring are meaningless if he himself continues to engage in one, or if he abuses the citation of Wikipedia rules for his own benefit, while gleefully ignoring them when they don't suit his purpose. Read the discussions and judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take this to Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Minaker
The user Minaker has repeatedly added Original Research to the page List of characters in Heroes. I have explained to him that he needs a source to back up his claim, but he has been hostile and keeps readding the speculation. I have warned him four times on his talk page, but he keeps persisting. Ophois (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. This has become insane. Ophois has gone from disingenuous to outright dishonest ("there is no edit war") and insanely disruptive, demanding, for example, a source when I cite on a TALK page that there has been a debate between us. And now he's threatening to block me over an edit war that he has started (see above). There is nothing speculative about my comments, and Ophois's attempts to paint himself as the voice of reason are, frankly, absurd. I again encourage everyone to read the discussion pages on the article and both users to determine 1) if there really is no edit war, as Ophois claims, 2) who is most responsible for said war, 3) whose edits and arguments are made in good faith and who is merely being difficult. I also fully encourage any of these third parties to try to read past the increasing antagonism on both sides and make their judgments solely on the merits of the edits and arguments as Wikipedia rules (and the spirit behind such rules) would apply to them.  It also might be helpful to review the history of both users (Ophois has repeatedly been blocked in the past for exactly this type of behavior while I have never needed disciplinary action from Wikipedia) and to note who asked for help first -- not exactly evidence, I'll admit, but certainly adding creedence to my claim that my initial goal was to resolve disputes, while his goal is. . . well, to speculate would be foolish, judge for yourselves. Minaker (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you've been given your final warning, I've stopped removing it as it is out of my hands. However, as yet another editor has reverted your most recent revert, I would suggest that you please stop adding it in. Ophois (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I again question your authority to give me such warnings, as you yourself clearly defy Wikipedia rules whenever you please (don't make me list the ways). However, since another editor has weighed in, I will stop re-adding the information until the matter has been resolved; since it is currently under review by administrators, I will trust their judgment over yours, Mr. Darrow's, and my own. Minaker (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Same advice as above) I suggest you guys take this to Request for comment. There is not anything that is likely to be actionable by an admin here. (Unless you get into WP:3RR territory, which has its own board.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say but we are both guilty of violating the 3RR rule. I took the discussion here because I had originally posted it elsewhere (request for arbitration) and they told me to take it here. I'm really getting the run-around on this issue. Minaker (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Result
Henrik (talk | contribs | block) m (148,402 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of characters in Heroes": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Docob5 reported by Geoff B (Result: 10hr blocks)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Geoff B (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoff B is continuing to war after request to discuss in talk, which was refused by Geoff B. Geoff B set up the 3-revert by using Yomangan to change page and cause intentional vandalism to.



Request consensus to determine outcome. Docob5 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the filer did not violate 3RR, he was blank-reverting simply because he did not agree with the change that had been made; such conduct is totally unhelpful. AGK 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 hour blocks issued to both Docob5 and Geoff B

Geoff B and Yomangan reported by Docob5 (Result: 10hr blocks, warnings issued)

 * Page:
 * User: ,

Vandalism and hostile intent to intentionally war without cause.

Geoff B is continuing to war after request to discuss in talk, which was refused by Geoff B. Geoff B set up the 3-revert by using Yomangan to change page and cause intentional vandalism to.



Docob5 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

HELP  User Cunard keeps deleting my comment on his talk page about a contentious article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cunard#Hugh_Wilson --Gregory Clegg (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yomangan's involvement was minor enough to warrant a final warning for becoming involved in an edit war—as opposed to a block; hopefully the warning will serve to stem future disruption. AGK 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, Geoff B and (the filer,) Docob5 blocked for 10 hours.

Filmography section (result: sarcasm)
user Shshshsh believe that a filmography section does not belong is an article about a film composer. He also removed template from dozens of films scored by that composer. He also is reverted work on my template: Sachin Dev Burman. He is absolutely mistaken about how this website works. Please help me make him understand he needs to stop vandalizing.Cosprings (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK this guy created a template with a selected filmography of one composer. His template included something like 50 films (maybe his favourite ones), while the composer composed over 270 films (!). Well this is definitely POV of the user, and he says he chose "the most notable" films.
 * I do appreciate his efforts. I really do, but he just doesn't understand what's permitted and what's not.
 * While adding the template, the user also removed other important templates such as stub sort tags.
 * And after all he says I vandalise... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article is no longer a stub, then yes I removed some templates, and the bollywood template does not belong on every bollywood-related page.  The films were not "my favorite ones" but, the ones which, through a long process of detection, found already had articles on wikipedia without being listed on the composers main article. Cosprings (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK so this and this and this are not stubs????? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read some truely appalling badly formatted 3RR reports in my time, but this one must be a record: you don't pretend to list any reverts, and for extra points don't even bother tell us which article you have a problem with. Bravo! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to continue posting to this, but this exact thread was also started at both WP:EAR and WP:ANI. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

88keys4me (result: 24h)
I don't want to add a formal report I just think someone needs to look at the contributions  of user:88keys4me, certainly is an SPA on a mission which is never good. Based on the name could be a throwaway too but I might be wrong about that. Anyway just take a short look and remove this post if you think he is not edit warring. Hobartimus (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User:


 * 24h. Unlikely to be a throwaway (how many keys does a piano have?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

69.65.93.171 reported by Janus303 (Result: Semi)
Three-revert rule violation on:
 * Time reported: 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:45,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 2) 21:29,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 3) 22:06,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 4) 23:52,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 5) 23:53,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 6) 00:25,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 7) 00:59,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 8) 02:03,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 9) 16:10,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 10) 16:43,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 11) 18:13,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */")
 * 12) 18:50,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */") Janus303 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) 19:37,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Aircraft photo mission controversy */") Janus303 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Result - Semiprotected. A fluctuating set of IP editors persist in adding the unsourced POV term 'scapegoat' to the article. One IP was blocked for 48 hours by another admin, but a new IP showed up immediately to take his place. This is a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

86.138.90.54 reported by Soxwon (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User also possibly tag-teamed here as both users were present for an AfD and the one who is in violation has made few or no edits outside the article. Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

211.31.31.188 reported by Alan16 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User:

Just look at the history. He has reverted about 6 times in the last 18ish hours. Alan 16 <sup style="color:DarkGreen;">talk  01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result -- Semiprotected one week by Juliancolton. His comment was: Excessive vandalism: persistent unsourced speculation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

76.195.220.65 reported by decltype (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

<span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This talk page post appears to say the editor is going to keep reverting back to his/her edit, no matter how many times they are reverted.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also note these edits from May 5-6, , , .Dawn Bard (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mifren reported by Yeti Hunter (Result: 24h for edit warring)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Initial addition of material:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert and 3RR violation:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

-Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Mifren blocked 24h for edit warring. He only made three reverts, but there was an extremely patient and thorough discussion on the Talk page, and he reverted against the outcome of that discussion. The consensus was that the section he wants to add is not factually correct. The editors on Talk claim that this section can't be supported by reliable sources, and Mifren has not persuaded them to change their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A few hours after the ban expired - 9th revert: --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10th (partial) revert: --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ShinyGiratinaMan reported by Sesu Prime (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * NOTE: Article has since been merged with its parent article.


 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User received total of six warnings in the form of vandalism warnings on their talk page from XLinkBot, ClueBot, ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds, and myself:.

User created the article Pokemon Heart Gold and Soul Silver, but it uses an improper title (there should be an accent over the e in Pokémon, and the "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" should not be separated by a space; they use CamelCase according to convention established by past Pokémon remakes; see Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen). So I made it a redirect to the article with the proper title; Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver. User then changed "HeartGold" and "SoulSilver" to "Heart Gold" and "Soul Silver" numerous times, and I asked the user numerous times to discuss this issue at WT:PCP instead of edit warring, and the user refused. User even added this message directly to Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this must be stale by now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng / 94.192.139.167 reported by Emptymountains (Result: 24h)
aka
 * Page:
 * User:
 * User


 * Previous version reverted to:

To show this has been going on for a week:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

And, in the last 24 hours:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

The user was reported for 3RR the day before on another article here:, the result of which was a semi-protect, which is why they have since registered a username.

I posted this to the user on the discussion page:


 * Yonteng, the onus is on you. Per WP:NPOV dispute, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." Emptymountains (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The user is active on the article's discussion page, but never listing any "specific issues that are actionable" concerning the content of the article, saying that removing his tag is "cyber bullying."

I asked the user on the Dorje Shugden controversy dicussion to "agrue facts not personalities," but that continued unabated, including an attempted outing which I reported here:. There was talk of a block by the administrators who responded, but I don't know if anything came of it. Emptymountains (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * New user Yonteng also making unpleasant ad hominem attacks on the talk page (and Edit Summary boxes). (Truthbody (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC))


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz reported by HarryAlffa (Result: Page protected for 7 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

He only just falls outside the 24h hour window - gaming the system.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I gave sound reasoning in the talk page and indicated this in the edit summary. The usual style of Ckatz is to not respond in talk pages. You'll notice his first contribution to the talk page wasn't until after his third revert - and even then it was nonsense. HarryAlffa (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, hey, this is fun... now I'm gaming the system. That fits in nicely with previous accusations from this editor that I'm part of a cabal, that I'm a sockpuppet, the checkuser request, and so on. Anyone reviewing this is encouraged to please read through Harry's contribution history, especially his general pattern of behaviour toward anyone who disagrees with him. Please. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three reverts in exactly 25 hrs; gaming the system. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote, 16 August 2008"I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read 'the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous,' and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions."
 * "Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and 'acting' required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * Here we go again, fundamental dishonesty from Ckatz - again. Last year I genuinely thought sockpuppetry was happening, it wasn't - I acknowledged it. Then Ckatz continually brought it up as if I hadn't, now he brings it up again as if it's in the present. Is that exemplary behaviour? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ckatz, Serendipodus & ASHill were to me operating as a Cabal - and in a recent post I said, "it seems only in the past", he's read that, yet he casts it up as if it's current. Be very careful of accepting anything he/she says at face value. Like a politician with deceitful intent, will use use statements of apparent truth to paint a perverted picture to suit. Is this really the sort of ethics administrators are expected to exibit? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note his clever use of the last sentence - he's hoping you don't check up, as he hopes he's fooled you before you get there. I give reasoned argument, and expect the same from others. Check the FAR of Solar System to see my great patience in explaining things to those who will not reason. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:King of Hearts protected the page for 7 days. Since no actual violation occurred, I'm closing this. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Annoynmous reported by Collect (Result: 55h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

For Business Plot alone 9 Reverts in 82 hours.
 * 1st revert:  20:25 6 May
 * 2nd revert:  20:52 7 May et seq
 * 3rd revert:   23:56 7 May
 * 4th revert:    1:03 8 May et seq
 * 5th revert:   20:53 8 May (3RR)
 * 6th revert:     1:28 9 May (4RR in 24.4 hours)
 * 7th revert: 18:19 9 May et seq
 * 8th revert: 23:15 9 May (3RR in 22 hours)
 * 9th revert:  04:08 10 May (4 RR in 25 hours)

But more:

He also had:

Smedley Butler

et seq 20:01 9 May 23:16 7 May

And for Gerald MacGuire

20:32 7 May (stubbing an article from 3K to under 1K in size) which I understand may count as a substantial revert 06:00 8 May 15:03 8 May (making 3RR here as well)

This user has a very long editwarrior history (at least 5 blocks under this name) - one block for which was a week already.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  I only filed this report after he stated he was not guilty of 3RR violations, and he then did "one more revert" as I am loathe to report people. Thanks!

Collect (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days approx 2.3 days due to continuing edit war. If you think his editing generally should be looked into, you are referred to WP:RFC. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 13:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when has 3 days been 55h? :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given his recent declarations that he won't conform his behavior to editorial requirements (especially that he not participate in edit wars) and that he has a "right to edit whatever article I please" suggests to me that he needs a block much longer than 55 hours. This is his fifth edit warring block. As jpgordon said, the next one should be months, not hours. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:173.169.149.127 reported by TastyPoutine (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:53, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Treatment */")
 * 2) 14:11, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289065356 by XLinkBot (talk)")
 * 3) 14:30, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289069394 by TastyPoutine (talk)")
 * 4) 14:40, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289070717 by Mindmatrix (talk)")
 * 5) 23:19, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "Summary")
 * 6) 23:23, 10 May 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.169.149.127&diff=289071823&oldid=289070967 here


 * Comment - Linkspamming user

<b style="color:blue;">TastyPoutine</b> <sup style="color:red;">talk (if you dare) 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another revert

2009-05-11T04:15:13 J.delanoy (talk | contribs | block) blocked 173.169.149.127 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Spam / advertising-only account) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New users
Two new users have entered the fray.


 * and

<b style="color:blue;">TastyPoutine</b> <sup style="color:red;">talk (if you dare) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lordvader2009 reported by Christopher Kraus (Result: read the rules)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288921658&oldid=288914738
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288911793&oldid=288911747
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288911663&oldid=288893415
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=288359832&oldid=288359744


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordvader2009&diff=289148067&oldid=289147787

User keeps removing warnings from talk page, which I have been told is permitted, but with the amount of edit warring and warnings occurred by this user, a final warning or some sort of block might be in order. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Has he been edit warring on article pages, or is this just for him removing warnings from his talk page? As per WP:TALK, he can do that as often as he wishes. The warnings are still there in the history of the page, and if a legitimate claim is made against him for edit warring, admins will check his page history and his contributions. Dayewalker (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents--Christopher Kraus (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop harassing LV, and read the rules re user page exemptions William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby reported by Lanternix (Result: stale)
Falastine fee Qalby has been repeatedly violating the 3RR rule and vandalizing articles about Copts. He has been also mounting an ill-faithed campaign against users who disagree with his changes. Here is his latest violation of Wiki rules on the Copts article:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288384731&oldid=288372149
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288519261&oldid=288518494
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288522198&oldid=288520390
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=288526931&oldid=288523240

I hope an independent admin will look into this. I will also notify the user so he can defend himself. --Lanternix (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stale, obviously. Reporter cautionned to avoid inflamatory edit summaries which could easily be construed as incivil William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I have been reverting copyvio, and other people have too, of Laternix' socks. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph being removed is a copyvio. Evil saltine (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:71.122.23.39 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 12:11, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Tinnitus Causes")
 * 2) 12:42, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Causes */")
 * 3) 13:31, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Causes")
 * 4) 15:48, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Tinnitus Causes")
 * 5) 15:58, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 16:08, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289273433 by Mindmatrix (talk)")
 * 7) 18:44, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 18:50, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours - <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf reported by Allstarecho (Result: Both editors warned)
. : Time reported: 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 08:43, May 11, 2009
 * 2) 13:37, May 11, 2009
 * 3) 16:23, May 11, 2009


 * Diff of warning: here

—- Allstarecho (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - No violation. It takes four reverts to break 3RR. Both editors are strongly cautioned against more reverts, given that the deletion debate on the image is still in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor User:Allstarecho just reverted me again now using an anonymous account. --Damiens .rf  05:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that IP is not me. Be sure you know something for fact before accusing others of WP:SOCK. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 05:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: While a 3RR violation may not technically exist at this time, the pattern of disruptive editing began several days ago when User:Damiens.rf made the exact same reverts three times before, not quite within a 24-hour period:
 * May 8, 19:14
 * May 8, 14:48
 * May 7, 16:35


 * Damiens.rf also has declined thus far to contribute anything substantive to the talk page discussion about these edits, relying only on edit summaries (e.g., "enforcing police") to communicate any rationale. For the record, it's also worth noting that the image that he or she keeps removing is one that Damiens.rf himself or herself has nominated for deletion—for the second time in less than six months: Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7. (The previous decision, obviously, was 'keep'.) Damiens.rf has been asked repeatedly on the talk page to wait until the FfD discussion concludes before making such edits; so far, he or she has not responded. Also for the record, neither Allstarecho nor any other individual editor has been edit-warring over this; the war essentially has been one-sided, more like an attack, with multiple good-faith editors reverting Damiens.rf's reverts. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And now edit warring at File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 06:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:98.218.204.115 reported by TharsHammar (Result: 24 hr)
. : Time reported: 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:39, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "removed uncited and anonymous source that was used to support content in violation of NPOV.")
 * 2) 03:16, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289180320 by TharsHammar (talk)  see talk")
 * 3) 03:41, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "removed information from fringe source that disputed mainstream view.  see talk for more.")
 * 4) 03:51, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "your fringe anoymous source can not be used to dispute the mainstream view.  i think you are abusing your adminstrator status.")
 * 5) 15:06, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "this matter is currently under discussion.  see extensive talk")
 * 6) 15:08, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "removed section at the recommendation of an admin in extensive talk section.")
 * 7) 22:22, 11 May 2009  (edit summary: "Before adding this controversial content, please reference the discussion on the talk page.  The consensus was reached to remove it.  If you want a different outcome, talk page should be first stop.")


 * Diff of warning: here

—TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston has blocked for 24 hours. Mark Resolved. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Uopmaintain reported by Docu (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on Time reported: 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1 06:37, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289062302 by Docu (talk)")
 * 06:38, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289060410 by Docu (talk)")
 * 06:40, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 06:44, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 06:45, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
 * 2 17:32, 11 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289207199 by Docu (talk)")
 * 3 03:14, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "will continue to delete irrelevant and unsourced info")
 * 4 04:46, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "clean up grammar if you need to include part about HIV clinic.")

—-- User:Docu 05:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ldt88 07 constant unexplained revisions and edit-warring.
User:Ldt88 07 keeps reverting edits to the article without explaining their reasons for doing so. I added a reference to the track listing on Fantasy Ride so that he/she could not continue to add further producers and/or writers. I also attempted to engage in discussion with said user on their discussion page but there has been no response. Yesterday i offered mediation but the user went ahead with their persistant revisions. Their additions to the article are unsourced and continue to occur without any explainations or edit summary given. I am at my whitt's end because the revisions/edits are identified as WP:disruption and the user is participating in a Wp:edit war. I don't know what else i can do. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Diffs please. In fact, why not use the convenient pre-made format rather than a random string of text? BTW, were I to look at, say, Fantasy Ride, I'm sure I'd find a good explanation by you as to why *your* reverts are a good idea. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without taking a position on the dispute, I will point out the Lil-unique1 has explained his reverts in his edit summaries, and has started talk page discussions about them as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry i did not fully understand what diffs were. i have attempted to highlight the diffs below. plus Ltd88 07 has been asked to provide edit summaries and/or discuss his/her revisions but has failed to do so. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Revision History (diffs)
the reverts can be seen here: 1. May 9, 2009 2. May 10, 2009 at 19:49 3. May 10, 2009 at 01:42 4. May 10, 2009 at 01:46
 * at this point i added references in attempt end edit war (added refs to article) although these were then removed by Ltd88 07. revisions the continued:

5. May 11, 2009 18:59 (partial reversion) 6. May 12, 2009 00:03 (partial revision) 7. May 12, 2009 16:14 (revision of copy-edit by another user)

The user has been given opportunity to discuss the issue on their discussion page] but failed to respond. A message was also left about not providing a WP:edit summary but no response.

Jay32183 reported by Allstarecho (Result: 24h )

 * Page: File:Szapinka.jpg talk - history
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

- ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-05-12T09:00:51 Nja247 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jay32183 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and WP:3RR violation) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck reported by Piotrus (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:
 * 16th revert:
 * 17th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: the user is familiar with 3RR and has been blocked for 3RR violations and edit warring before

Please note that this is not a report about breaking of the 3RR rule, but of the persisent edit warring, disrupting the article. Donald has not broken 3RR - well, he did it once and self-reverted himself, but for close to a week now he has been doing 3 reverts per day. Please note that he has been reverted by several users, and that everybody else keeps to 2 reverts per day on this article, and nobody else certainly approaches his 2 digit revert number in the past week. We also tried to address his points by expanding the article, adding references and rewriting for clarification - all for naught, as he simly keeps reverting and removing the pieces he dislikes (he has not added anythign constructive to the article, he just keeps removing content). We tried engaging him on talk but he is not very constructive in his posts there, hence protecion of the article will not help (as it us inlikely we can raech a consensus). Please also note that Donald has edit warred on this article in the past: ex., , , , , - those edits from Jan 2 indicate that he has actually broken the 3RR...), he edit warred in December  too. Considering all this, I suggest if not a topic ban, then a 1RR restriction on Donald on this and related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is great problem with WP:SYN by User:Piotrus in this article. His typical method is supporting some WP:OR statements by references to marginally connected google books search results. In particular, I have asked Piotrus to provide sources for his statement "Russian absolutism was also known as Russian despotism" in the article, as absolutism is quite different from despotism. Apparently, he thinks that two unrelated google searches for "russian absolutism" and "russian despotism" prove that it is the same thing.
 * There are about 10 reverts by User:Piotrus in this article, several reverts by Polish editor User:Radeksz supporting Piotrus, and several opposite reverts by User talk:Altenmann, deleting this dubious statement about despotism.
 * I think there is some political motivations by User:Piotrus here, as he stubbornly pushes this connection of absolutist monarchy in Russia (which was typical form of government for the 19th century Europe) with "oriental despotism".DonaldDuck (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Political agenda? Suure... and what would it be? :) Here are some stats to illustrate how Donald's editing patterns differ from those of others in this article, based on data since May 5 (a week ago):
 * Donald has reverted 17 times, so ~2.5 per day; he has not added any new content to the article
 * I (the principal author of this article) have reverted 8 times, so ~1 per day; I've attempted to address Donald's objection with two rewrites: and, both of which were simply reverted by Donald without any attempt to explain why this compromise is unsatisfactory.
 * Donald has been also reverted several times by users Radeksz and Digwuren (who as far as I know is not a Pole, if anybody cares...). I think it is pretty clear who is edit warring here and where is the consensus.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must tell that DonaldDuck actively conducts edit wars in many articles and refuses to discuss anything. See this article, for example. I asked him to explain his reverts, but there was no response. There is aslo a suspicious SPA who does nothing but supporting DonaldDuck in revert wars. A puppet?Biophys (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note, that Russian absolutism belongs to specific period of time (18-19th centuries, or, more broadly 16-19th). Anything about Mongol invasion of 13th century or Cold war or Putin is quite irrelevant to this article and amounts to WP:Coatrack. DonaldDuck (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest renaming of the article, or splitting it into a series of subarticles, the proper way to do it is to discuss the issue on talk, not to revert war for a week and finally comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck has been busy recently. There's this deletion and this deletion, for example. I can't regard these as anything else but vandalism. is probably some sort of bizarre WP:POINT. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Has form. Edit warring (and last 4 are close enough to count as 4R). 2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just read the previous block message; changing to indef correspondingly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomdobb reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2009-05-12 03:04:16


 * 1st revert: 2009-05-12 12:13:54
 * 2nd revert: 2009-05-12 12:59:40
 * 3rd revert: 2009-05-12 13:36:06
 * 4th revert: 2009-05-12 13:50:50
 * 5th revert: 2009-05-12 13:52:34
 * 6th revert: 2009-05-12 14:02:47


 * Reverting 2 editors. Note that this has carelessly reverted substantive edits, including entire paragraphs, references, and disambiguation. (See page history in its entirety.)


 * Diff of warnings: as a response and as a final notice


 * Abused uw-vandalism2, and didn't follow its /doc instructions for subst'ing.
 * Apparent violation of Ownership of articles.
 * This is no longer an Orphan.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporting user also violated 3RR, , and repeatedly removed the orphan tag without making any effort to de-orphan the article. The article only has one mainspace/non-redirect/non-dab link  and reporting user has done nothing to address this, despite repeatedly removing the orphan tag. I explained in edit summary  that if this continued, it would be considered vandalism. Reporting user then removed tag again  without offering any explanation, so I warned him  instead of explaining his actions, he immediately threated to report me  and then removed tag again without explanation . He did not respond to a further request for explanation  and only notified me of this report via his own talkpage  not mine.


 * All reporting user has done to the article is move it (fine), added a chunk of unsourced text (questionable) and repeatedly removed the orphan tag without actually introducing links.


 * Any removed text has been restored and was not purposely removed.


 * Regarding my failure to "follow its /doc instructions for subst'ing," reporting user has never explained what he means by this only saying "please use subst parameter." Tomdobb (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert-warring is not the way to get this article sorted out. The Talk page is currently a red link, suggesting a missed opportunity to resolve the dispute. WA Simpson is pushing the limits of 3RR as well, but Tomdobb appears to have made seven reverts in 24 hours. Don't like Tomdobb's constant reference to 'vandalism' in his edit summaries. He should be aware that edits in a content dispute are not vandalism. There is no need to sanction anyone for failure to use 'subst.' That's just a matter of normal template usage. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nota Bene:
 * The article is the main article for a Summary style link from Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. That alone means it's not orphaned!
 * Also, disambiguation links are counted against orphanage. Indeed, a few years back, that was the usual method of de-orphaning. I added the disambiguation link (and disambiguated the article itself).
 * Note that I didn't write "purposefully removed", I wrote "carelessly reverted" &mdash; although the Undo action was egregiously purposeful, and we are supposed to check the changes.
 * The "reporting user" (me) has not violated 3RR, as respondent listed the exact 3 above. ("Four shalt thou not count.... Five is right out.")
 * The common talk page policy is listed at the top of my talk page. Obviously, respondent saw it, as he responded there (twice). If this were a legal case, that would be an admission against interest.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Respondent flamed out in a tantrum!
 * Gave himself 10 barnstars.
 * Made 2 unblock requests, both reviewed by different administrators, both declined.
 * Edit warred with the administrators on his Talk.
 * Blanked his Talk with a series of 50+ numbered blank page edits.
 * Retired
 * The tantrum was ended by blocking his Talk privileges.
 * (Certainly one of the more flagrant recent flame outs.)
 * All-in-all, demonstrative that this case was warranted &mdash; judging by the number of repeated "undid" contributions, probably a bit overdue.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yonteng reported by Emptymountains (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editors on the talk page have asked again and again that this user not practice drive-by tagging. He points to some blog of a former Wikipedia editor, saying that everything wrong with the article is explained on the blog.

In the past week, this user has been reported for 3RR&mdash;both as 94.192.139.167, resulting in a semi-protect, and Yonteng, resulting in a 24h block&mdash;attempted outing, and incivility. Emptymountains (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring, 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald reported by Miami33139 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  Someone else did warn him, and it was promptly "archived" from his talk page.

Ed has been getting a lot more agressive about defending his spacing crusade. In this case at least three users have reverted him in the span of 24 hours. There is less than 24 hours between the "Previous version reverted to" and the first revert. He is also becoming accusatory telling everyone who reverts him to stop following his edits, including on articles where he inserted spacing months after the other user made contributions. His personal aesthetic crusade needs to end. Miami33139 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat to my surprise, this appears to be a perfectly valid complaint, and EF has been edit warring to insert his own bizarre spacing rules. I've blocked hom for 24h and told him to stop it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew06 87 & 203.111.232.86 reported by Shin368 (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User: &  Same user


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


 * Not sure what is going on. You've carefully failed to provide diffs. I've semi'd the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:67.204.1.129 and S-MorrisVP reported by WLU (Result: 24h)

 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: but an earlier one by Slp1 here and here WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Might be better served with page protection and/or an IP block. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not knowing of this, I have also listed this at WP:ANI--Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

24h plus same for one of the anons plus semi since there is more than one, unless I've got confused William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro reported by Literaturegeek (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Their first revert was to revert all of my edits which were additions using secondary sourced peer reviewed citations and also removal of uncited data in an article which was over 100 kb in size. I did try and address this on the talk page but the problem continued of reverting.
 * Their second revert was again to revert my removal of uncited data from an article which was too big and needed shortening.
 * Their third revert was same as second revert, they reinserted uncited data.
 * Their fourth revert was again the same as the second revert, reverting my deletion of uncited data from an article which was above 100 kb in size.
 * Their fifth revert was same, reverting of uncited data that I removed to shorten the article. This particular edit I did compromise with an editor on the talk page who felt it was of value and moved it to the adult ADHD article.

It should be noted that this editor has been disrupting talk pages and editing and has been for years, they never contribute any citations for their forum like debates on the talk page and seem to be playing a game of wearing people down on talk pages. They churn out 100 kb worth of endless debates and drama on talk pages without using citations for their position. Seems wikipedia is a debating club for them. Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: contiguous edits count as 1, so 3 & 4 are one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok but they still have broken the 3 revert rule as the count stands at 4? I was going to say but got edit conflict,,,, Essentially if you check their contribs they live on talk pages, filling them up without anything constructive ever being produced other than engaging hours upon hours of constructive editors time engaging them in debates, accusations, drama making the article talk pages like a forum. They have been asked to contribute constructively by simply providing citations by multiple editors but they refuse and then accuse editors of ownership and file requests for comments etc when editors refuse to edit the page according to their POV. All that is asked is that they provide citations as their POV cannot warrent changes to an article without reliable sources. I think that they are doing this on purpose. Anyway maybe too off topic but that is the crux of it.

Thank you for your reply and looking into this matter.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Blossom OK reported by Rjanag (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is repeatedly reverting a recent change, claiming that it is against consensus, but three editors (myself, Mtd2006, and Baeksu) have supported the change at the talk page, and another user (Tnaniua) has also reverted Cherry Blossom asking him not to do this. Cherry Blossom claims that the recent edits are "not reverts" (see the 6th summary) because he's not exactly "undoing"&mdash;but the only real difference is that he's added a section header where there wasn't one...other than that, it's the same content, and clearly a revert. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear edit-warring. Looking at talk page, user seems to think they "own" the article, and there is a clear consensus for change. 24h. yandman  07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician)
Unregistered IP (67.63.91.121) keeps editing and vandalizing the Larry Kelley (Kentucky politician) and Steve Beshear articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerKnew (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.45.44 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: Blocked 1 week for vandalism and edit-warring)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

You are still obsessed with me I see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.45.44 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoff B (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IP started vandalizing my talk page after I warned him for making a personal attack on someone else. Blocked a week. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User:67.63.91.121 reported by TylerKnew (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kelley_(Kentucky_politician)&oldid=289863878


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kelley_(Kentucky_politician)&oldid=289863878
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kelley_(Kentucky_politician)&oldid=289927404
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kelley_(Kentucky_politician)&oldid=289929435
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kelley_(Kentucky_politician)&oldid=289931322


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<New at Wikipedia, hope I'm doing this correctly, TylerKnew (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)>

- edit-war. . User skywriter has reverted sourced material from the introduction of the Rapture page six times, without discussing edits in talk page. replacing with un-sourced biased text. I have reverted the intro a couple times and so have other users. Will an admin please do something about this user?


 * 1) here1
 * 2) here2
 * 3) here3
 * 4) here4
 * 5) here5
 * 6) here6


 * A couple of points: 1) some of us are discussing this on the talk page and this gentleman isn't participating. (his one comment was at the top of the page where I had trouble finding it even after looking several times) 2) I'm not trying to remove any information, but in fact have been encouraging this well sourced material to be included in the article in the Dispensationalism section. 3) The version of the lede he is trying to create contradicts both the second half of the lede, as well as the body of the article, and a couple of other articles.  4) I've actually included all of his material in the article itself, and removed the duplicate.  5) Some of these edits, then, aren't reverts, but moving.  Please take a peek at the discussion on the bottom of the talk page in question.  Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh -- also take a look at my attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page (which he blanked when he made this notice).  Thanks again, and apologies for you folks getting harrassed like this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to reinforce one point: I've been cheering his content. I want it to be in the article because it is well researched and well sourced.  It just needs to be in a spot where it doesn't contradict two thirds of the rest of the article.  Again, apologies for the noise on your page.  You have real edit wars to deal with, and not something where the guy being reported is encouraging the very content he's accused of not wanting. ;-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue has now been brought to the NPOV Noticeboard, since the article has now been changed back to a form that violates NPOV standards.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:207.108.250.158 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 23:23, 14 May 2009  (edit summary: "/* Other examples */")
 * 2) 23:40, 14 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289985989 by Cst17 (talk)")
 * 3) 23:44, 14 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 289988591 by Alansohn (talk)")
 * 4) 00:42, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "Sources included this time. READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CENSOR!")
 * 5) 01:26, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "-")
 * 6) 02:52, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "ACCURATE SOURCES CITED; NO BIAS PRESENT")


 * Diff of warning: here

User edit warring over inclusion of content that violates WP:NPOV.

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: resolved. Another user reported the IP at WP:AIV, result was a 1 week block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kupredu reported by Biophys (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * diff of warning


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

This user is a regular. He is possibly a sock of banned, as I reported here and here, but he creates enormous disruption right now.Biophys (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stale. Users warned by another admin already. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 13:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(result: 24h)

 * - edit war between an anon and . Discussion (non-civil) is going on on the article's Talk page, but the war continues.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IP User had been warned multiple times: User_talk:75.62.115.141. El Greco(talk) 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h for both parties William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Xanadu1122 reported by Firestorm (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has inserted a commercial link into the article 5 times in the last 24 hours, which are his only edits to Wikipedia. I believe that the link violates WP:ELNO criteria 1, 4 and 5. I reverted and issued a level 1 warning, and the user reverted to put the link back in. Another user removed the link, but issued no warning. User continued to revert for a third time, which I reverted and issued a level 2 warning and a 3rr notice. The user just reinserted the link, but I'm at 3RR so i'm not going to do any more. User has made zero attempts to discuss inclusion of his link, and has ignored warnings on his user talk page. Firestorm Talk 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Student of philosophy reported by Guettarda (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User: /


 * 1st revert: 16:59, 14 May 2009 - undid this edit
 * 2nd revert: 06:16, 15 May 2009 undid this edit
 * 3rd revert: 08:10, 15 May 2009 undid this edit
 * 4th revert: 08:35, 15 May 2009 - identical to the third.
 * 5th revert: 13:26, 15 May 2009 - undid this edit


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (most recent);  (earlier warning for the IP)

Student of philosophy edits from a variety of IPs, including 194.124.140.39. S/he has also violated the 3RR just 3 days ago; claimed to be unaware that it didn't have to be the same edit, so no report was made.


 * 24h for the anon. Nothing obvious tying the anon to SoP, so left SoP alone. Is it supposed to be obvious? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh all right . Come on, don't make me think William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael H 34 reported by Slp1 (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Text involves "Most mental health and legal professionals agree that some children whose parents divorce develop an extreme and unjustified animosity toward a parent which is promulgated or supported by the other parent"


 * Diff of 3RR warning: not warned this time; but aware of 3RR as has previously been warned here and here and blocked 24 hours for editwarring on this same article.

--Slp1 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Warning. This is aggravating.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bored. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fanoftheworld reported by Alexrexpvt (Result: 1RR sanction)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Previous 3RR warnings: ,

Blocked twice in the last month for edit warring on this page already, the first time for 24 hours, the second, for 72. Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Contiguous edits count as one, so technically no vio. But I'm bored with him edit warring, so B and F are on 1RR sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sapots reported by Drmies (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * User warned here.

Drmies (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka reported by TharsHammar (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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

There is a consensus reached on the talk page for inclusion of this material. InaMaka is not respecting that consens and continues a slow-rolling edit war. This is not a simple 3 reverts within 1 day, but an ongoing edit-warring against multiple users. Please see the talk page of the article for evidence of consensus. Particularly, here. These are by no means all of InaMaka's reverts of this material, and he has said on a user's talk page " If Hilton's nasty, fascist, hate-filled comments are re-inserted in the various articles then I will remove them as violations of BLP." Many users are frustrated by InaMaka's lack of accepting consensus.

TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you wish to defend the edits using name-calling in them as valid in a BLP? Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This report is hilarious. This is a report on 3RR.  Please notice that all of my edits that TharsHammer refers to were made over a two week period.  Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period.  As a matter of fact most of them are days and sometimes weeks apart.  There is NO violation of 3RR here.  Clearly TharsHammar is determined to place the negative, contemptuous comments of Hilton in the Prejean article and I believe that the repetition of Hilton's remarks to be a violation of BLP.  He is attempting to use 3RR as a weapon to settle a legitimate discussion about a violation of BLP.  He/she does not agree with my position and he/she is attempting to have me blocked for removing clear and definite violations of BLP.  Removals that are spread out over a two week period, I might add.--InaMaka (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * InaMaka has contacted me about this. There has been a discussion at BLPN which has become dormant although I think there are serious problems with the article (at least in some of its recent incarnations). Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues and so far as I can see if any action is taken, there is no reason to block InaMaka. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:BLP guidelines, I would consider InaMaka's edits to be correct. The article is in piss-poor shape right now though, and unfortunately, thanks to rampant recentism it'll be a while before the article looks better. I wouldn't take action here. (though in the interests of transparency, Inamaka notified me of this) Wizardman  17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This strategic posturing is a SLAPP suit-style abuse of process.
 * Very Strongly Oppose. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

The "multiple users" TharsHammar refers to are marching in lockstep on the article editing and discussion. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy are just two of them.

When I tried to question things, before I realized that the "multiple users" were completely uninterested in consensus-building, I found that they just rebut what you write.

Before you realize it, you're in a debate with the "multiple users" -- who simply prove they can make an argument, no matter how unpersuasive. They line right up to oppose you.

It is not operating in good faith to consider what an editor -- from 'the other side' -- writes, as simply something to rebut. There's no consensus-building in this environment.

Personally, I'm surprised InaMaka has spent so much time trying to debate them. Search the talk page for "InaMaka" and you'll find the posts of InaMaka's that Exploding Boy has not deleted.

The "multiple users" either don't know, or find it convenient to not recognize, that Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Judging by TharsHammar's continual bad faith, I'm guessing that s/he probably filed this to get the same anticipated chilling effect that the "multiple users" obtained -- by squelching another editor that does not share the POV of the "multiple users."

TharsHammar seems to be the biggest edit warrior of the "multiple users."

I can find at least as many reverts of TharsHammar's, including duplicitous citing of consensus, and gaming.


 * 15:50, 8 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 288689450 by Alan Canon (talk) read her quote, notice the plural photoS")
 * 01:30, 9 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 288783781 by InaMaka (talk) POV reverts of consensus")
 * 18:15, 12 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289512566 by The lorax (talk) we cannot rely on TMZ for allegations that scandelous")
 * 02:40, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Miss USA 2009 controversy */  dumb bitch per talk")
 * 19:25, 13 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 289727801 by Tstrobaugh (talk) see talk, no consensus yet for this, please discuss")
 * 02:20, 14 May 2009 (edit summary: "-gay per talk")
 * 14:46, 15 May 2009 (edit summary: "undid most of POV warriors edits")
 * Note that TharsHammar is namecalling in the last edit summary.

Moreover, simply counting TharsHammar's reverts ignores the impact of the "multiple users."

What has been happening on the Carrie Prejean, so-called 'encyclopedia' article is just part of the gay/liberal firestorm -- that ensued after Carrie Prejean was asked her opinion on the legalization of same-sex marriage, on TV, and answered honestly and straightforwardly.

The hounds of hell were unleashed on Carrie Prejean. Even one of the gay-activist, Miss California USA co-directors stated, "many people felt she was vilified and targeted. I don’t think she deserves that."

Miss Prejean is of marginal notability -- and the "multiple users" have given undue weight to this event, and flaunted our neutral point of view policy.

Most of the content on the Carrie Prejean biography is devoted to this issue and the resulting fallout, and most of it is negative -- despite the existence of a content fork for the event.

"Multiple users" are trying to vilify Miss Prejean on her Wikipedia biography article, by copying comments quoted by newspapers -- that slag Miss Prejean -- into the Carrie Prejean bio.

The "multiple users" repeatedly insist on violating Wikipedia standards of what is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.

"Multiple users" act like they're on a mission to use Wikipedia to destroy the reputation of any that oppose same-sex marriage, for political reasons.

InaMaka has defended the wiki like a man in a hurricane. For this InaMaka deserves praise, not blocking or "reminders". -- Rico 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this post incredibly inappropriate. Why has it not been placed in sequence as is common practice, and why do you ignore the comments I made below specifically arguing against blocking InaMaka despite his inappropriate behaviour?  Why are you accusing me of deleting multiple posts by InaMaka, of tag-teaming, and of failing to engage in discussion, when I personally devoted an entire section of one talk page to responding to your concerns?  Why do you appear unable or unwilling to assume good faith?  Most of it is railing against the liberal/gay agenda/conspiracy theories; what does it contribute to this discussion?  Finally, why have you not yet altered your signature to confirm with WP:SIG by providing a link to your talk page, user page, or contribs page as requested at least 3 times?  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Rico's post on this. He's nailed it perfectly once again. TharsHammar and Exploding Boy (among others) have been distruptive, rude, incivil and POV pushing to no end. Both are not interested in a NPOV article, but are interested in pushing a political liberal agenda that has no business here. EB has gone as far as to canvas on the homosexual wiki project talk page to find support from users who share his views. I find this incredibly inappropriate behavior. EB has also given me an empty threat on my talk page as a hint to stay clear of the Carrie Prejean article. Thars is no different, and he tried to get me blocked (claiming vandalism!) over a photograph (on the female breasts) that was on my talk page so I'm not surprised to see him here trying to get InaMaka blocked. I, like Rico, realized that these two users are not interested in consensus-building, they are not interested in respecting BLP policy, they are not interested in NPOV or WP:Undue weight issues. They appear to be interested only in portraying Miss Prejean in the most negative manner possible. InaMaka, like Rico said above, deserves to be praised for doing the correct thing on wiki and not blocked. Both Thars and EB are the ones who should be blocked or given strict warnings.  CADEN  is cool  17:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * InaMaka appears to be campaigning at present, by leaving messages on talk pages of users who might support him both on the articles in question and here. I don't think this is appropriate.


 * In regards to this report, InaMaka did engage in unacceptable behaviour, which included repeated threats to engage in edit warring on articles related to Carrie Prejean. His article edits and reverts; general refusal to discuss on talk pages; accusations against other editors; incivil edit summaries as well as his comments to and general misbehaviour on my talk page around May 1-7 were extremely problematic.  Since May 7, however, he seems to have toned this down considerably and has engaged in at least some talk page discussion.  This is definitely positive.


 * On the other hand, some of his edits still appear problematic. In particular, he seems to be going against current consensus regarding inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton relating to Carrie Prejean.  InaMaka apparently wishes to protect Prejean's reputation, and he goes about this by removing specific comments made about her and reports about things she has done.  It should be noted that InaMaka has been blocked twice previously for edit warring.


 * Taking into consideration the recent improvements in his behaviour, I don't think InaMaka should be blocked at this stage. Instead, I think he needs to be reminded to participate in talk page discussions and follow consensus; be civil, including in edit summaries; and improve article content rather than reverting what he doesn't personally like.  Exploding Boy (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a couple of messages on InaMaka's talk page about working within the talk page discussion/consensus process and being civil in both edit summaries and discussions. After that initial burst, InaMaka backed away from the article for a bit, and has been for the most part calmer since their return.  (Also note that InaMaka was not the only one who was incivil (whether toward other editors or toward the Living Persons being discussed) in those earlier exchanges.)
 * In InaMaka's defense, their initial complaint was feeling it was inappropriate to repeat Hilton's particular use of an offensive word even once on the page. While the majority disagreed with InaMaka's position, there was at least a sizable minority who supported it.  However, during InaMaka's break, another user, without prior duscussion, made it so the word appears _five_ times, by (within the references section) directly quoting sections including it from articles used as references for the controversy.  InaMaka's comment on the talk page in response to this AN/EW posting (erroneously called a "3RR" in TharsHammar's notification to InaMaka, though it clearly doesn't fall under WP:3RR) indicated a (grudging) willingness to leave the word in there once in the main body text (as seems to be the consensus) but clear disagreement with it now being used repeatedly; as such, I see TharsHammar's reverting those removals, and especially reporting this here as an edit war, as way over the top.  John Darrow (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the edits he/she refers to happened in a 24 hour period is quite funny, but still no vio William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

68.148.149.184 reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

IP editor continues reinserting an irrelevant RfC from Scientists to the Film's MoS talk page, after having being chastized for violating the MoS on articles, then trying to change the MoS to suit his preferences and having it reverted. Four different editors have removed the tags and explained, repeatedly, it is irrelevant, but he instead is demanding all other editors be warned for vandalism for removing the pointless RfC. Related Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Same IP also edit warred on Watchmen (film) for which he was also warned and seemingly lead to his deciding to be disruptive at the MoS because his inappropriate changes were not allowed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP 84.148.xx.xx reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: Semi)
., , , , , : Time reported: 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 14:51,  7 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: What comes first, comes first: ANZAC Day is a National public holliday -- no what")
 * 2) 01:31, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in the first place  Undid revision 288563590 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 3) 04:21, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA; Whats your problem: It's both, firstmore it's a Holiday, then rest. Undid revision 290220630 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 4) 04:30, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: It IS a National Holiday, believe the Pages, Undid revision 290237297 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 5) 05:24, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: You gotto learn, and you will. Undid revision 290238989 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 6) 05:40, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a National Public Holiday in Australie and New Zeeland. Undid revision 290245835 by Bidgee (talk)")
 * 7) 06:09, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: Public Holidays on Australia.gov. You may want to read this page -- you may ignore it as well. But this is Wikipedia, that goes for official sources. ANZAC Day is Australials most important day.")
 * 8) 07:39, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: It's a day of rememberence, so what? For modern Australia and Aussies, it's a Pupblic Holiday in order to remember ANZAC Day.")
 * 9) 08:29, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "ROHA: But where is your contribution to discussion? I had a look at the talk page, there was no contribution from you. So, please. Read a History Book about ANZAC.")


 * Diff of warning: here

This is clearly from one editor who is deliberately disrupting and adding errors into the article even when told to take it to the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected two weeks by Cirt. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)