Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive99

68.148.149.184 reported by Girolamo Savonarola (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * This editor has reverted four separate editors on this action, in order to open up an improper and irrelevant RfC in the face of unanimous opposition to his proposal, which also contravenes general MOS guidelines as well as the specific ones mentioned here. At this point, his actions have been a failure to see the point, acknowledge consensus, or assume good faith opposition on the part of the other editors. This has already drawn out far too long, and this editor has, within a limited time, already drawn considerable criticism for his edits on other pages, including the Watchmen page. I think that the IP's edits on this page (as well as the others, including an active ANI) should adequately speak for themselves, and I encourage their reference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Legitedits reported by Perlonkid (talk) (Result: )
. : Time reported: 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 18:05,  7 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:55,  8 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 12:59,  9 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 22:49, 12 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 22:35, 13 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 09:09, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 14:03, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 16:33, 15 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 13:22, 16 May 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Have warned the editor several times on User Discussion page, however all have been deleted by the editor.


 * Editor continually reverts reviews to remove any negative ones and to include reviews from non-professional sources. Ignores any attempts to enter discussions. Reviews chosen contradict the rest of the article. Perlonkid (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) You've marked your reverts as reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV (b) I see no signs of your attempting to resolve this on talk in the past 2 months William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many comments in the Invaders Must Die talk page from several other editors regarding the continued vandalism of the reviews. I have reported this to the WP:AIV page and they rejected my request and recommended I lodge a request in this page. To be honest I am a new editor and am totally disillusioned with this process. The other user is blatantly trying to bias the reveiws and there seems to be no way within the wikipedia process to stop them. I have attemped to engage the other editor in discussions on several occcasions but the other Legitedits has failed to respond on eithter the history tab of the page in question, or the users own comment page (they react by deleting my comments/warnings) As a result the album page is biased as it gives an unfair representative of the critical response of the album. Perlonkid (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gryffinclaw reported by AnmaFinotera (Result: 24h)

 * Page:, , , User talk:Nanami Kamimura
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: ep list link, characters link, Pitch Pure link, Nanami user talk link


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


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


 * Pitch Pure
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link


 * Nanami Kamimura user talk
 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link, link

Gryffinclaw modified 3 different Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch articles to use a fan-preferred spelling of a characters name, going against Wikipedia's naming guidelines and WP:MOS-AM. These were reverted and it was explained to him by User:Nanami Kamimura in the edit summary, then a longer note was left on his talk page. He initially ignored her notes, and began reverting them, engaging in an edit war spread across three related articles. Nanami approached myself and User:KrebMarkt on our talk pages for assistance, as we are both heavily active in the Anime/manga project. I tried explaining to Gryffinclaw why his edits were rejected. He responded on Nanami's talk page, but at this point she did not wish to deal with him anymore and removed the note, requesting he talk with me instead. He began edit warring on her talk page, continually replacing his message despite her request that he not contact her anymore (4 more reverts total). He eventually also began leaving messages on my talk page, first claiming that because he is certified in CIW Web Page Design, his edits are justified (yes, I also went ???), then claimed that he was a teacher and protecting the children from being "hurt" by incorrect names. He then began blanking his talk page any time a warning was left for him. He clearly knows he is edit warring. Even while I was preparing this report, he went back and reverted all of the articles yet again showing he has no intention of stopping. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. You've clearly stated in your edit summaries that you are reverting vandalism. If you believe yourself, you want WP:AIV, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is edit warring. I began reverting him as vandalism as such, and introducing deliberate factual errors as he is now clearly aware he is acting inappropriately. Edit warring is generally to complex for AIV, however. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be closed with a block as a conventional 3RR, on List of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch characters. It's not vandalism, though. Disagreeing about names is not 'introducing deliberate factual errors.' Gryffinclaw has been editing since July 2008 and should be aware of our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry I was being a bit POINTy. 24h. I suppose I'd get into trouble if I "solved" the problem by just deleting the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghettoblaster reported by Scientus (Result: talk)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

notice all reverts are minor edits, as are 99% of Ghettoblaster's edits. Scientus (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No technical vio, and you haven't even bothered to try to discuss this on the talk page. Also you can't spell your own name :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

89.173.1.149 reported by Hobartimus (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

It's sneaky vandalism essentially due to the "riot was organized and later abused by Hungarian authorities" part. I would add that Hungarian authorities or indeed authorities of any country are rarely in the business of organizing riots. Of course it's not a clear cut case, like inserting curse words. The IP is on a dynamic range. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 3RR violation plus non-neutral presentation of events, without sources. Blocking the IP is not likely to be effective. Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert reported by Mendaliv (Result: 24h)

 * Page: The approx. 380 pages in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Korlzor.
 * Example page:
 * User:


 * Diffs of edit warring warnings: 1, 2

Note the problem here is not an explicit 3RR violation, but a pretty clear edit warring issue. I apologize if this report is premature; I was advised that an ANEW report may be a proper solution per User talk:TravisTX.
 * On about 9 May, I ran through the above categories and removed what I viewed as redundant sockpuppet tags (tagging an IP for the sockmaster and every confirmed sockpuppet of that sockmaster)
 * On about 11 May, Tennis expert reverted this, stating there was no policy supporting my format, and that his format had consensus (never adequately established; see this thread and specifically this response)
 * On about 16 May, I reverted Tennis expert's reverts, having obtained a pretty clear OK from PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, that Tennis expert's format was clearly wrong
 * About 12 hours later on 17 May, Tennis expert reverted me again, stating there was no consensus to change formats
 * Two hours later, TravisTX began to revert Tennis expert per the general lack of support for TE's format at WT:SPI, but stopped when Tennis expert demanded he do so
 * Tennis expert quickly reverted all those pages which TravisTX had reverted, stating that discussion was ongoing

Now, I make no case for my edits versus Tennis expert's here. The problem however is that, where my re-revert had some fair appearances of being supported by the SPI community (and TravisTX's even more so), Tennis expert's reverts have in every single case been unilateral, with at-best spurious claims of consensus for his format. TravisTX had gotten involved in this case for a different problem with Tennis expert's use of (see this ANI discussion). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h. Hopefully TE will see sense, promise to stop, and get unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag reported by Meandmylefthand (Result: sock)

 * 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:

I really didn't want to take this drama this far, but as a new editor, I just found his behaviour extremely unacceptable. This user is totally dominating this article. You will see that almost all reverts made in the past 3 months are just him. I can't even be bothered to list them all here, there are just too many reverts by this user. This is just an example of the countless reverts this user has made in the past. He has violated the 3RR numerous times now and is reverting any valid, sourced information on grounds of "consensus" (which is basically just him and a few socks). Discussion with this user is impossible as he immediately accuses anyone reverting his vandalism on grounds of this 3RR (which he himself has violated numerous times), and of groundless sockpuppetry. Any valid edit is immediately reverted by this user and new users (like me) found it very difficult to make any further contributions to this article due to this overdominance. He is completely abusing his administrator rights. Any positive edits made to this article is immediately removed by this user, even if they are properly sourced, and many new users have become victims of his tactics to block any user who is apparently a meatpuppet according to him (and his socks). I find this totally unacceptable and there must be an end to this nightmare drama as soon as possible. Meandmylefthand (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Meandmylefthand is an alternate account of the indefinitely banned User:Ziggymaster, and all the reverts listed are instances where I was reverting edits from a banned user. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've indef'd M as an obvious sock, though I didn't know whose William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this be thrown out? There are all kinds of problems with the report. First of all, the "diff of 3rr warning" isn't a diff, it's a link, and to a 'warning' that was given just a few minutes ago and I haven't reverted since it. Secondly, most of the 17 reverts he listed are not even edit war reverts; for example, #16 is rolling back vandalism, #15 is restoring content that was deleted without explanation, #17 is reverting an entirely different problem and not related to the content dispute that's going on right now (and, besides, it was a week ago). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been thrown out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Ronz (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:

Recent discussions concerning similar behavior:
 * RfC/U
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532 21 April 2009
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive536 28 April 2009
 * User_talk:Badagnani 11 May 2009
 * User_talk:Badagnani 17 May 2009

Once again, I'm concerned about his continued behavior and would like more admin help before the current disputes escalate further. In the last ANI, it was recommended that a 3RR report be written up the next time he started edit-warring again, so here we are.

In David Oei, an article he created, he is once again edit-warring over poorly sourced information that has been discussed in Talk:David_Oei and Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5.

This time around the information was tagged as failing verification 23 April 2009 by an editor that had not previously edited the article. Three weeks later, I removed the material 18:33, 14 May 2009. Within two hours 22:04, 14 May 2009 Badagnani restored it without any contributions to the talk page in a month. I reverted his edit added a comment to the talk page. He's restored a portion of the material again 04:16, 17 May 2009 without a source at all, and has still not contributed anything new to the discussion.

I've simple solution to Badagnani's ongoing problems: have Badagnani himself provide us with a solution. Require Badagnani to state for once exactly what parts of WP:DR he will follow and respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this: situation really needs attention. Badagnani has been asked more than once to go to WP:DR over these edit warring issues, and has completely ignored a user RFC Requests for comment/Badagnani. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. Verifiability's nutshell says: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Are you really expending all this effort simply because you don't believe the pianist owned a wine store? You already told the subject of the article, that the wine shop he owned and ran for 10 years is "of no importance" to his life [in the context of a Wikipedia article] unless a citation can be found. It seems to be verifiable that he owned it:, . Instead of deleting the whole sentence every time, why not suggest alternate wording? Or, take a break from this article...


 * It's already been established that you don't get along with Badagnani. I'll repeat what has been suggested by others elsewhere: Why don't you take the articles you followed him to, off of your watchlist? Yes, other people are still having problems with him. But you're not helping matters by creating more drama over things like this. You're not going to educate him into becoming a model-editor. You might manage to provoke him into doing something perma-block-worthy, and that would be a shame. Fortheloveofgodandpeace, stop interacting with him. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded to Quiddity's accusations, instruction, etc here, repeating what has already been discussed here and here. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Re: Instruction: You quoted WP:BATTLE to me. Specifically, you quoted "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." I agree. I gave you suggestions on how to improve the article in a more harmonious, and less-wasteful manner. Was it a bad suggestion, to consider a compromise in the article, instead of an all-or-nothing solution?
 * 2) Re: Accusations: How are we meant to resolve a dispute, if we can't discuss the nature of the dispute? You clearly followed (wikihounded) Badagnani across a number of articles. That seems to be making things personal, which WP:BATTLE clearly advises against doing.
 * I can only see negative outcomes, if you continue to attempt to interact with Badagnani, with the methods you choose to use. Instead, I'm suggesting things like: you read over WP:TRUCE, and perhaps question your own motives for continuing to force these disputes to occur.
 * 3) Regarding the article/dispute in question this time, David Oei, are you really expending all this effort because you strongly disbelieve the subject owned a wine store for 10 years? Are you "challenging" this material?
 * From an outside perspective, it appears to be a quibbling over tiny details, with an editor that you have a bad history of communicating with. And purposefully quibbling with said editor. Almost 3 million articles, yet you keep choosing to clash with Badagnani...
 * -- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would broadly agree with Quiddity's observations and recommendations here. Badagnani has a history of not dealing with conflict very well, but Ronz is among the editors responding to Badagnani in a way that is guaranteed to prolong the disruption. I think they should stop. It's not as if a fact about a pianist owning a wine shop is going to hurt anyone if it stands in the article for a little while. Nor will it hurt anyone if the fact is not in the article. The editors involved in this conflict would do well to get a dose of perspective. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Badagnani has a long history of being blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and generally being unable to follow WP:DR. Badagnani persists despite all efforts to change his behavior. Attacking other editors for the way they've interacted with Badagnani only worsens the situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments – Badagdani would edit war much less if Ronz (a polite and careful edit warrior, whose weapons are carefully cloaked by appeals to policy and concealed behind various WP:this&thats), and in particular GraYoshi, would stop following him around. Since 7 May 2009, GraYoshi2x (whose contributions are to move or redirect articles previously edited by B, or to remove content or links, or to side against B in any disagreements with 3rd parties, eg see Dombura) has made his first ever edits to the following 34 articles, all of which have been edited over months if not years by B: Almond tea, Baijiu, Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, Chicken balls, Dapanji, Dombura, Douhua, Egg roll, Fish ball, Fuling jiabing, Fun guo, Fuqi feipian, Hot pot, Jiaozi, Kai kou xiao, Kuai (dish), Lion's head, Mantou, Mung bean jelly, Nuomici, Paomo, Pork ball, Qingtang wanzi, Re gan mian, Red bean soup, Red cooking, Rice noodle roll, Ruan zha li ji, Sâm bổ lượng, Soy egg, Soy sauce chicken, Tuotuorou, White sugar sponge cake, Yun dou juan. Most editors would become edit warriors if subjected to such continuous and mounting provocation over several months. Occuli (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe GraYoshi is involved in any of the current disputes, nor does GraYoshi's attempts to clean up after Badagnani's problematic editing excuse Badagnani from following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, take the advice that Q and others are giving you. is just a pointless waste of time. Closing as stale, with an admonition to try to avoid B in future William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:PiTBUL882 reported by Dan D. Ric (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 04:55, 17 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:59, 17 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 05:18, 17 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:29, 17 May 2009  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Continues to make the same edit, which he self reverted once, then made again. Dan D. Ric (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel reported by Collect (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (multiple reverts)

Extended war - user seeks inclusion of contentious material without consensus on the basis of his comments on WP:RS/N for National Enquirer and TMZ.com. Other editors have removed such material citing BLP concerns. This has now gone on for several days, but only last day is cited.


 * 1st revert:  23:59 17 May and following.  comments include "weasel-worded promotional sentence removed" "TMZ has **not** been judged unreliable, and in this case it seems to have actual documents and lawyers' letters to back up the report. See the pdfs) "


 * 2nd revert: 00:21 18 May "Reverted to revision 290615670 by Ratel; The RS noticeboard endorses TMZ, no matter what Amicaveritas says. (TW)) "


 * 3rd revert: 01:08  18 May  "FBI investigation: shorten. remove slant)"


 * 4th revert: 07:46 18 May "FBI investigation: hey-yo, problem solved)"


 * 5th revert:  08:08 18 May "(Lots of secondary sources, will definitely be included. Get the BLP posse as you promised, Scott. I welcome it. (BTW, your weasel edit is not weasely))"   (as I read them, he is at about 10RR in 3 days - including reverting three or four different edotors)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  prior warning at  by another user for same article

It appears the user may also be a tad uncivil here as well, he routinely makes aspersions on other editors. is one of his mildest. To make things clear, my sole article edit here was to change a pound sign to a dollar sign. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) added earlier warning Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These are mostly not reverts but edits or mods to other edits. Two of the other editors have COI (one knows the subject, the other runs his fanclub). Lots of well-sourced info has been removed, despite no real consensus for removal (RS noticeboard endorsed TMZ).► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors can follow the TMZ/Copperfield controversy here and here. ► RATEL ◄ 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And three other editors (including Blueboar etc.) have no connection whatever with the topic (and the other two you cavil on are not "outed" as far as I know for any specific COI, unless you know much more than is on WP). As for saying editing to go back to waht youw ant is not a "reert" - I think you misapprehend what "revert" means here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Editor warned. I did not see a plain 3RR violation, but Ratel has been editing aggressively with regard to BLP-sensitive material. I've told Ratel that he may be blocked without further notice if he inserts negative material about Copperfield without first getting consensus on the article Talk page that is OK under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and as I responded on my talk page, that won't happen soon, since one of the opposing editors runs Copperfield's fanclub, the other is a confessed personal friend, and a third is Collect (nuff said?). No way any consensus for inclusion will be forthcoming like that, even if the material SHOULD be in the article if objectively considered. ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting response to a clear warning, I think. And with you not mentioning the other editors, why make this post?  Collect (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The editors making Talk page consensus impossible and exposing a flaw in this methodology for deciding edits are:
 * a SPA who runs a Copperfield fansite and is in contact with Copperfield diff
 * another SPA who knows Copperfield personally, he says, and he uses a lot of legal phrases like "plaintiff" and talks with familiarity about court documents involving Copperfield diff
 * Collect. All that needs to be said about him is here at his own glorious RFC. No sensible consensus possible with him editing the page (not a PA, a fact). [[Image:Face-sad.svg|25px]] ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha -- all you do when given a warning is sling mud again (as you have now done quite a number of times)?  Ed -- please consider this a specific request to consider acting on the PAs here, and the implicit attacks on Blueboar, Cameron Scott,  Amicaveritas et al. And Ratel -- take a cup of tea.  Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please continue this discussion on the article talk page if needed. It is hardly worth going to ANI in a case with so many issues and no smoking gun. Wait to see if Ratel will start to sincerely work for consensus and will observe the constraints of the BLP policy. If not, there are many possible remedies. If he continues to beat up on all the other participants he will not attract much support. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.43.95 reported by Wildhartlivie (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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

IP keeps reverting to a version that claims Fromme has a definite prison release date and removes the factual points that a parole hearing must be held and Fromme must attend in order to be considered for parole. The release date would only be valid if those conditions are met. Without that information, the article gives inaccurate and misleading information. IP history shows a pattern of abusive edit summaries and warnings regarding behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose there must be a reason why you think your reverts are exempt from 3RR but I don't know what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that removing what is a conjectural interpretation of a source per WP:GRAPEVINE is exempt from 3RR. In fact, it says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." In this instance, is it not only a gross misstatement of the source, but it is inflammatory in that it conveys to any reader of our page the impression that her release is imminent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The problem is, who gets to decide that is what you were doing. You? Please see and in future be more cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's something quite suspect about an administrator adding qualifiers to existing policy in order to support his decision not to act upon expressed concerns regarding an editor's reversions, especially when the same administrator ends up taking action when someone else reports the same editor for the same behavior. I've been around here a long time and my editing practices have never been questioned. It's too bad when good faith efforts to keep misleading content out of an article leads to revisions in policy and guidelines language in order to ignore an issue that I brought up. I suppose it depends on who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Psw1359 reported by Smerdis of Tlön (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * See generally:
 * See also: Articles for deletion/Distributed Inter-Process Communication

I don't see a technical violation of the 3RR rule here, since enough time has generally passed between the successive edits, and I'm not parsing the whole history for technical violations, but the history of this page shows a long standing edit war between User:Psw1359 and User:J123Jordan concerning the article Distributed Inter-Process Communication, apparently about distributed computing on some Linux thingumabob. This has been going on since September of 2008. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so it is a disaster area but no-one has even warned Psw about this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wozwoz reported by Binksternet (Result: 72 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: This version was the one being put together by User:Melodia and User:Binksternet as of late May 17 and early May 18.


 * 1st revert: The sum of 11 edits, reverting User:Binksternet
 * 2nd revert: The sum of 4 edits, reverting User:Melodia
 * 3rd revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
 * 4th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet
 * 5th revert: one edit, reverting User:Binksternet

Most of what's being reverted is an extensive list of over 130 artists or albums. Other material includes the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution", and URLs which are questioned as references. Each reversion has removed several fact and clarify tags without addressing the indicated problem.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

97.106.43.95 reported by Xeno (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&oldid=290584526


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290584526&oldid=290574301
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290786238&oldid=290780651
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290792534&oldid=290792310
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_5&diff=290796224&oldid=290796154


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.106.43.95&diff=290698872&oldid=290585607 (from previous offense)


 * Very lame edit war. I'm arguably involved, having tried to put an end to it.
 * Possible sock of presently blocked
 * –xeno talk 21:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:97.106.43.95 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Geoff B (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-05-18T21:19:45 Esanchez7587 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 97.106.43.95 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Vandalism) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimidgy reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I'm an admin and I would block the user myself, as they clearly made more than three reverts, with the last one coming after a warning, but I have made a single revert to the page to remove what amounts to almost vandalism (repetitive insertion of strongly POV language). So I recuse myself of admin action, and hope that someone is watching this page and can take swift action. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Amerindianarts reported by Uyvsdi (talk) (Result: submitter warned)
. : Time reported: 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 04:09, 19 May 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 04:25, 19 May 2009  (edit summary: "I did not add it initailly-someone else did.  I wrote the article and nothing is offered for sale on the page which is within Wiki rules.  Check them out.  An authir can do it")
 * 3) 05:16, 19 May 2009  (edit summary: "Like I said, I didn't add it initially and I am the author.  There are plenty of other commercial websites on Wiki directly linked to that offer info.")

—Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is in regards to the three reinserts of the editor's personal, commercial as an external link. Uyvsdi (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsd
 * No technical vio. U appears to be replacing a link to the original article with a link to the copyvio. I don't understand why U thinks this is a good idea and have begun a discussion on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I more fully understand the situation now and see that both links have been removed, which seems fine. Thank you for your time! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Errol Sawyer
Please see this (and with this as background).

I am an admin, but it could be claimed that I am involved, so I let others draw their own inferences and take appropriate measures. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24 hours (via related ANI thread). EyeSerene talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re User:QuotationMan (result: malformed)
I will have gone into WP:3RR if I do any more on this the above user has decided he owns several pages and has removed huge amounts of info footnoted to WP:RS highest standards. A short ban is in order, I imagine such a ban will result in a few socks popping up. I think that might already be the case on that page.

Any advice help would be of interest.   Catapla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the first piece of advice would be to tell us which page the problem is on. You might, perhaps, consider following the accepted format for submitting 3RR reports? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a 3RR warning for User:QuotationMan. He has been trying to remove a large section from Libertas.eu with no support from the Talk page. Another editor is suggesting a WP:COI, and the repeated removals do hint at some motive other than plain article improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Imbris reported by Hobartimus (Result: Protection )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st revert: 21:53, 18 May 2009
 * 2nd revert: 23:39, 18 May 2009
 * 3rd revert: 01:45, 19 May 2009
 * 4th revert: 17:19, 19 May 2009
 * 5th revert: 17:44, 19 May 2009
 * 6th revert: 18:22, 19 May 2009


 * Diff of 3RR warning: familiar with 3RR

Previous blocks for 24 and 72hours due second block was shortened due to some stipulation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * — A itias  //  discussion  18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

12.36.39.154 reported by Oli Filth (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: (and  and ).

In the interests of full disclosure, I've noticed during filing this report that I've also violated 3RR if one includes my edits from yesterday, but I'm not the only editor who's been reverting the IPs edits. Oli Filth(talk 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP has been Also, Oli Filth has been   Tiptoety  talk 23:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Ikip (Result: 9 days )

 * [added later] 23:26, 18 May 2009 Puts the project he was edit warring about up for deletion
 * 21:52, 18 May 2009
 * 20:34, 18 May 2009
 * 10:03, 18 May 2009
 * 09:40, 18 May 2009

23:47, 16 May 2009 3RR warning:


 * For:
 * 07:36, 15 May 2009
 * 21:16, 15 May 2009
 * 21:28, 15 May 2009
 * 21:56, 16 May 2009
 * 23:09, 16 May 2009
 * 23:40, 16 May 2009
 * [added later] 00:03, 17 May 2009 Then deleted the FAQ tag from the page itself:

07:12, 7 May 2009 3RR warning:
 * For:
 * 05:20, 7 May 2009
 * 07:01, 7 May 2009
 * 07:13, 7 May 2009

14:56, 5 May 2009 3RR warning:
 * For:
 * 14:52, 5 May 2009
 * 12:44, 5 May 2009
 * 09:36, 5 May 2009
 * Unrelated section deleted: 14:51, 5 May 2009
 * Deleted other editors comments on WT:ARS:
 * 09:07, 5 May 2009
 * 19:37, 6 May 2009

As per the instructions above:
 * If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and or warnings.

AMIB has been blocked more than any other administrator, 12 times for edit wars. The last edit war block was for 7 days in February.

Ikip (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you are on thin ice, and I encourage you not to take advantage of this situation to continue the edit war, doing so will result in a block.  Tiptoety  talk 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed this with Tiptoety, and this appears to be an appropriate block. The edit summaries by AMiB are rather odd (Take it to the talk page...while the page in question is a talk page). Risker (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification - although the edit summaries look odd on the face of it, the contents of Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ were being discussed (kind of) at WT:ARS, the project talk page. pablo hablo. 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the past history of edit warring, with 11 valid prior blocks for edit warring since his RFA, endorse. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Borcat reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

In most of these edits, Borcat is removing or changing sourced material, and 3 editors other than myself have reverted him, so consensus seems to be against his/her edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 24h. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:85Zed reported by J (Result: warned)

 * Article:
 * User:
 * Time: 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* History and availability */ no need for mode of announcement. It was pedestrian and trivial. [...]")
 * 2) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290989205 by J (talk) Rebates are instant at Bestbuy and other stores etc. so rebates are not all mail in.")
 * 3) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291009463 by J (talk) Please stop reverting. Bes buy and RdioShack do no mail in rebates on Sprint . they do nstate instead")

User continues to inexplicably revert to remove accurate, sourced pricing details in favour of his unsourced knowledge on the matter. Attempted discussion on talk page, but user has proceeded to revert regardless (including a "Please stop reverting" edit summary on his most recent undo). user:j   (aka justen)   20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notify him of the 3rr? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't believe he would consider it sincere coming from an involved editor. He otherwise didn't notice my subtler guidance to explore options other than revert and undo, however.    user:j    (aka justen)   00:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please! Always leave a proper warning for the editor involved before bringing a dispute to this noticeboard, unless you are sure they're experienced. When you file a case here it is assumed you know that the editor has continued to revert past the warning. This user's talk page was a red link, so an opportunity for dialog had not been taken. I have now left a proper 3RR warning, and advised him of this discussion. His four reverts on the article aren't a good sign, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For information I am using the standards used in pricing as it appears in the category. I am using the pricing model used by 99% of press. I have backed up may position on Talk and have support of others. I have also given sources.
 * I do not have four reverts of price issue. I have two. the other reverts are supported by a consenus on talk. One of those reverts is from an anon IP that has vandalized the page with the phrase "fu## N#gge#s". That revert constitutes evidence of bad reverts?85Zed (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you did revert, three times, on the issue of price. They are listed above for you to see.  Revert is not the way to solve an editing problem, regardless of how certain you are about it.  In this case, though, there are WP:RS and WP:V issues that I'm not sure you're familiar with yet, and I've gone into greater detail on the article's talk page.  We can discuss it further there if you'd like.    user:j    (aka justen)   17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

194.46.181.124 and cohorts reported for vandalistic edit-warring by Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

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


 * 1st vandalism: 194.46.181.124
 * 1st revert: 194.46.164.111
 * 2nd revert: 194.46.247.61
 * 3rd revert: 194.46.253.210


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Even though the 3RR warning does not really matter because this is a clear case of vandalistic edit-warring by a pack of similar IPs. Dr.K. logos 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to request semi-protection for the Corfu article. Dr.K. logos 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strike my comment above. Page was protected following request. Dr.K. logos 04:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a case of 3RR violations. Did you notify him of the 3RR? Ikip (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I notified a couple of them, one before the last revert. But since it is also a case of clear vandalism I think they should all be blocked regardless of the 3RR warning. Dr.K. logos 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Semiprotected by User:Philippe. Looks like regular vandalism. Blocking the range is not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ed for the technical information. Dr.K. logos 23:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

87.196.45.78 reported by Odin 85th gen (Result: talk / warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No technical vio, and no recent evidence for attempting to solve this dispute on talk. Please see WP:DR. Moreover, this looks like a good edit to me, and removing it a bad one William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wousfan reported by Galloglass (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I warned the user last night prior to his 4th edit with the following.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Wousfan appears to be a single issue editor trying to impose a highly biased version of events in the career of UK PM William Gladstone. Editor Johnbull has gone out of his way to help Wousfan by re-writing Wousfans POV diatribe against Gladstone in as near a NPOV form as he can, see here. It appears Wousfan does not accept WP:NPOV in any way shape or form and is highly abusive in his summary replies to Johnbull. In addition there is also a 5th revert here which although technically outside the 24 hour period is still germane to it. - Gallo glass  09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

JaniceMT reported by WLU (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Warning – today for PAS, yesterday for PA

This is a huge mess, and there has been no engagement on any talk pages. JaniceMT knows the CCRC links should not be used based on extensive discussions on User talk:JaniceMT and talk:parental alienation. Edit warring from yesterday is continuing today on the parental alienation syndrome page, accompanied by the deletion of well-sourced materials, replacing links to news stories with inappropriate convenience links, bizarre removals of useful information, and inappropriate interpretations of summaries and policies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I can confirm that multiple IPs and users have been editing to get references to the Canadiancrc website (often to copyrighted material) hosted there. See this blacklist report, and the very obvious blatant spam message at the bottom of this recent edit. User:S-MorrisVP et her IPs were blocked for similar actions a week ago and the page semi-protected. This is a a bigger problem than 3RR but let's start here. --Slp1 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note the return to parental alienation which may be a 3RR violation on that page as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also an interesting comment here, that I am asking for clarification on. This may be an ANI or COIN issue.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Page:


 * 1) 19:52, 20 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 291193193 by WLU (talk)These are all valid links to papers published in reputable publications ie Canadian Bar Assoc.oc")
 * 2) 20:21, 20 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 291246759 by WLU (talk)  Verifiable good linked content - Stop the vandalism")
 * 3) 20:50, 20 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 291252520 by Slp1 (talk)undo vandalism")
 * 4) 22:03, 20 May 2009  (edit summary: "[[WP:UNDO| Why do you think the Florida Bar Assoc., Canadian Bar Assoc., and ABC news, and the courts of Canada decisions are "dubious" sources?")

—Slp1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-05-20T22:21:03 Ruhrfisch (talk | contribs | block) blocked JaniceMT (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3rr) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist reported by Collect (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:24 20 May "This view doesn't deserve anywhere near such prominence"
 * 2nd revert: 12:54 20 May

Each revert specifically removing over 4K of material currently in an RfC in Talk:Fascism


 * Diff of editwar warning:

This user has 10 entries in block log, has been under substantial editing restrictions, knows better, and once again "User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before" so he can not really expect that this is acceptable. and show consececutive reverts of a single other editor in two separate articles 3 minutes apart, less than an hour before the two massive reverts cited. Massive number of other warnings, remonstrances in talk page history. I am not presuming here that 3RR is a license for such edits against an RfC. Collect (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why 2 reverts is supposed to count as edit warring on this article. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

REPORTING 121.220.36.117 AS SUSPECTED SOCK PUPPET, VANDALISM, EDIT WARRING AND COI


If you will review the talk page of this person, 121.220.36.117, he does pretty much nothing else but revert Carbonne entries. I HIGHLY suspect he is a sockpuppet and the same person on the extended-range bass page who is overtly and aggressively advertising himself, with no supporting links. This person is not only uncivil (see his talk page calling someone else's header "stupid"), he is also stalking Carbonne on here, removing anything he finds about him. He has also accused ME of being Carbonne's partner, and therefore, implicating Carbonne in having something to do with the additions I added about him, which he DOES NOT. I have not added anything about Carbonne since I was suspected as having a COI (although I absolutely do not), and now some other knowledgeable contributor who I do not know - picked up the ball, and added factual information about Carbonne on the page. First, 121.220.36.117 accused me of having a COI, and now, because another editor has added factual information, he is removing valid, important information without any valid reason, except for the fact that he is stalking Carbonne. If the latest contributor who added the Carbonne info to the page forgot or did not know to add a link, I have. However,, with the spurious reason of removing Carbonne because there was no link, and other artists on the page have no links, it is clear that 121.220.36.117 's motives are very suspect. In addition, he removed information about Michael Manring, who is one of the best known Extended Range Bassists in the world. Please address this, and stop him from warring and stalking Carbonne. It is very clear he fancies himself as a competitor.

Thank you.

Here is his talk page:

(latest | earliest) View (newer 99) (older 99) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

* 13:44, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (rev website.)  * 13:38, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (remove this paragraph about Carbonne. No consensus for this material (see talk page) and Carbonne article was deleted as failing notability) (top) (references removed)  * 13:37, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Michael Manring ‎ (reverting unsourced addition) (top)  * 13:34, 21 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert unsourced addition about Yves Carbonne. Please resolve existing dispute re this material.) * 12:13, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Richard Tognetti ‎ (remove personal comments from end of page) (top) * 12:01, 20 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Australian Chamber Orchestra ‎ (reverting copyright violation lifted from http://www.aco.com.au/?url=/about) (top) (blanking) * 14:50, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (fix) (top) * 14:47, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (make these pics a gallery to repair the layout of page) * 14:43, 18 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Corniche Beirut ‎ (revert unencyclopedic editorial comment) * 07:38, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:81.86.68.253 ‎ (as with the userpage, use a soft redirect.. IPs shouldn't be redirected to user accounts as there always remains a possibility that someone else may use it...) (top) * 07:35, 17 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:81.86.68.253 ‎ (turn this into a soft redirect as theres no guarantee it will always and only be used by this user) (top) * 13:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (→Mr Rent-A-Kill: revert unsourced additions that don't come from the book this para is sourced to...probably more Underbelly fiction. Please cite published sources. kthx) (top) * 13:34, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Sasha Alexander ‎ (revert external link) * 12:42, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) 2005 Cronulla riots ‎ (revert series of degrading edits - removal of bolding in intro, confusing language &c) * 12:33, 13 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:SchuminWeb/Unprotected talk page ‎ (rvv) * 03:18, 5 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Christopher Dale Flannery ‎ (change stupid heading) '''* 05:26, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (revert recent spamming by someone with a blatant conflict of interest) (references removed) * 05:24, 28 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (Carbonne article was deleted as not notable) (references removed)  * 03:22, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Bass guitar ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed) * 03:21, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Sub-bass ‎ (revert spamming by Carbonne's partner.) (references removed) * 03:20, 26 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Extended-range bass ‎ (undo spamming by Carbonne's partner) (references removed)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs)


 * That is all rather incoherent. Who is the anon supposed to be a sock of? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that this report must have been filed by someone who is a fan of Yves Carbonne. The IP who is being cited here for edit warring, 121.220.36.117, does not appear especially troublesome, though they have removed a couple of citations to the work of Carbonne, for instance here. See also Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, User talk:Jodel141 and User talk:TLCbass. I hope that User:JulieSpaulding will add a comment here if she knows what is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston, yes, I know quite a lot about this through some extensive investigation. What would you like to know? JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to know if TLCbass has been editing under the username THSL. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This board is not the right place for sockpuppet complaints. Please file at WP:SPI and try to be as clear as possible. Under the circumstances WP:COIN could be a better choice. I caution User:TLCbass to observe WP:3RR himself. I suggest that this report be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of William M. Connolley, I think TLCbass is a little misguided as to what a sock puppet is. I think he believes 121.220.36.117 works for one of Yves Carbonne's competitors. Regarding the closing of this report, there is still a little bit of edit warring going on, possibly between Carbonne and some other musician's representatives. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - I'm closing this as an Incomplete Report. Please use the button supplied in the header entitled 'Click here to add a new report.' I think the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a better place to discuss this. Noticeboards are limited in their power of investigation, and we hope that users will get their material in order before coming here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:121.220.36.117 reported by User:TLCbass (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extended-range_bass&diff=291396322&oldid=291185871
 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:  He removed Carbonne on yet ANOTHER PAGE as part of a collaboration: It is crystal clear, he is stalking and targeting Carbonne.

121.220.36.117
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * You are clearly targeting Carbonne. You have removed 2 separate contributions on him by 2 unrelated editors repeatedly.  You have repeatedly re-added unsupported, repetitive, promotional information about Garry Goodman, who is not a notable bassist, and who has little or no fan base anywhere on the internet, in favor of Carbonne, who has a HUGE fan base:  He is the only bassist in the world to play a 12 string fretless sub-bass, with the lowest range in existence.  But, it is clear that you know that and you fancy yourself as a competitor (I suspect actually, that you are a sock puppet).  If you are the same person who is stalking him all over the internet, it is time to stop.  The public has a right to know about his instrument and the contribution he has made to next concepts in bass development. It is clear you have a blatant conflict of interest.  Stop immediately with your edit warring, and apply the same rules across the board.  You are stalking Carbonne and you must stop IMMEDIATELY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2009


 * 3RR is per-article. Your 5th revert is a different article. Contiguous edits count as one, so 2 and 3 are the same. Revert 1 is before the dawn of pre-history William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many more reverts, mostly by the same person. If revert 1 counts as pre-history, it is one of several by the same person, less than a month ago. Revert 1 took place on April 28th, which is less than a month ago, and is the one in particular that clearly indicates 121.220.36.117 clearly has a conflict of interest. Thank you for your help.TruthBeTold (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear to me why rev1 indicates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, if that is the primary reason for a block, I think you're probably on the wrong noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See above header JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

REPORTING User:MrStalker for edit warring and 3RR violations
We were asked to report any 3RR violations on The Sims 3. Ever since MrStalker's edits were reverted by many users for multiple reasons, he's violated this rule and the general rules on edit warring on at least 2 or 3 occasions, reverting back to his edits or removing others in what is nothing short of vandalism out of perceived anger. I warned him on it before, though obviously he sees fit to continue. In response to my warning him, he told me to "Go Fuck [my]self". Please address this as soon as possible so it does not continue. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see proof of this so-called edit warring. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Please use the report format provided. I can't see a clear technical vio from a cursory survey of the edit history - are you claiming one. OTOH is clearly incivil, so I've blocked fo 12h for that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd reported by MastCell (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision by Abd as of 20:43, 11 May 2009


 * 1st revert: 14:53, 21 May 2009 (series of 3 contiguous edits by Abd)
 * 2nd revert: 16:50, 21 May 2009
 * 3rd revert: 17:17, 21 May 2009
 * 4th revert: 18:38, 21 May 2009 (partial revert, restores some contentious material removed in preceding edit)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Abd is well aware of WP:3RR; curiously, he chose to warn another user about edit-warring while in the course of racking up 4RR of his own in less than 4 hours.

By way of background, Abd has been a central figure in a recent Arbitration case concerning cold fusion: I consider myself too involved to render an administrative verdict here, but I view this as problematic edit-warring in the context of a much larger, festering dispute. An aggravating factor is that talk-page discussion appears to be against Abd's reverts, and that he is handing out warnings about edit-warring to others while rapidly violating the rule himself. Note that has also edited the page heavily today; I count 3 reverts on his part, and will leave the handling to the reviewing admin. MastCell Talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG


 * Abd's 4th revert appears to be an error - since he signed the edit, he appears to have desired to send it to the talk page. I am well aware I bumped right up to 3rr. Thus, I pledge on pain of enforcement of this pledge by block not to edit the article or its talk page for 24 hours from my first reversion except for obvious vandalism or blatent violations of BLP in the hopes that perhaps all of the parties in question can be convinced to discuss instead of reverting over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Abd has commented that his 4th revert was not in error. Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a toss-up between blocking Abd for 3RR, blocking Abd and H, or protecting the page. I've done the latter. Abd is urged to recall the rather weak and feeble Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG remedy 2.1, and to learn how WP:DR works before making unrealistic threats on talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I can claim to know what Abd is thinking, but the edit summary here seems to indicate that it was destined for the article itself, not the talk page. But whatever. MastCell Talk 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The section title, the writing style, the use of "ref" tags, and the edit summary would all indicate that the edit was intended for the article, and that he added his signature by accident. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

mmm.... here is a report on my behavior, I responded, clearly answering the question about that alleged fourth revert, and it's removed by Connolley as "discussion." And then, on my Talk page, he suggests I answer the question, which I had already answered. Perhaps, looking only at diffs, he didn't notice that much of my comment was in a collapse box. To read the full discussion directly, not in a diff, see permanent link. Otherwise, I assume we are done here. My apologies to anyone offended by my defense of my actions. --Abd (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Romanpolanski reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 11:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison : this revision.

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


 * 1) 09:50, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 290921648 by Bidgee (talk) images of buildings = irrelevant without being mentioned in the text itself")
 * 2) 10:39, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291583986 by Bidgee (talk) you are being rude and you should engage on the discussion page instead")
 * 3) 11:03, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291588811 by F (talk) nice try Bidgee. why cant you explain why you think the images add value ? pls go to discussion page.")
 * 4) 11:28, 22 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 291592279 by Bidgee (talk) a ha yeah Bidgee, right.")


 * Diff of warning: here

The user is also accusing me of being however I'm not that editor nor do I know that editor. I'll be happy to have a check user to prove it. —Bidgee (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Today is the first time I met Bidgee. We just happened to revert the same page at the same time, I promise. :) F (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

24h for 3RR. But indef, since the username looks impermissible William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Toxygen reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: The original form reverted by user.


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

User removed material with 2 english sources: He added no references to prove his statements. Already told him to STOP on my userpage: NOTE: he is removing references from the article Robert Fico too. 


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warned 2 times (me and another user)

Baxter9 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

72.79.221.240 reported by Anaxial (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Anaxial (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

70.106.202.243 reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24h)

 * Page: Portal:Current events/2009 May 23
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 2009-05-23T01:58:30


 * 1st revert: 2009-05-23T02:22:37
 * 2nd revert: 2009-05-23T02:25:13
 * 3rd revert: 2009-05-23T03:39:46
 * 4th revert: 2009-05-23T03:43:40
 * 5th revert: 2009-05-23T04:22:50
 * 6th revert: 2009-05-23T04:52:01
 * 7th revert: 2009-05-23T05:06:22


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2009-05-23T04:49:02


 * The anon has refused to answer my question and continued blanking any entry inserted by others except one that he inserted (Madagascar's political parties). Since my politely asking and 3RR warning did not stop his disruptive blanking, I submit this file. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mosedschurte reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * Time of edit warring: 01:07, 23 May - 06:11, 23 May.
 * Total reverts: 6
 * Straight reverts: 4
 * Complex reverts: 2
 * Total warnings before last revert: 2
 * User notified of AN3 report? Yes

Straight reverts

 * 1) 01:07, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:03, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "whoa, hey, slow down on the reverts on the outside the article material")
 * 2) 01:18, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:11, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "More direct:  Please stop WP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
 * 3) 01:28, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:Soxwon to previous version at 01:18, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Please stop WP:Edit War by adding 8K of material that is clearly not "in the United States" (if you want to change scope, suggest that instead)")
 * 4) 02:11, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:91.63.151.181 to previous version at 01:34, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv POV language by IP")

Complex reverts

 * 1) 02:40, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:Larkusix's removal of tags and lead section and restores tag and lead section to previous version at 02:30, 23 May 2009 (compare)(edit summary: "restored tags and improperly deleted through mass revert")
 * 2) 06:11, 23 May 2009  Reverts User:SlimVirgin's removal of tags  and partially restores tags to previous version at 04:05, 23 May 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "a few (but not all) of the most obvious deleted tags -- see talk for discussion of each")
 * Diff of warning: here and here. User continued to revert after first and second warning were given.  User notified of this discussion, here.


 * Note: The only way to "compare" the complex reverts in 02:40 and 06:11 was to cite the diff for the change by the previous editor. In this way, the complex revert jumps out of the diff when compared separately to the user's revert diff.  Using this method, the date of the version reverted to appears as the "old reversion" and the material being reverted appears struck-out.  Comparing the first diff with the "compare" diff using pop-ups, for example, makes the reverted material immediately clear.  If I was to simply compare the two diffs from the previous version and the revert, the complex revert would not appear in the preview pane. If there is another method to do this, let me know and I will fix them. If there are any questions, please contact me or post a request here. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Josquius reported by Joowwww (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: - includes huge removal of references that don't agree with his opinion
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:, subsequently deleted, and duplicated on my talk page in a tit for tat move


 * I realise my edits could also be seen as edit warring but I'm not the one making changes that go against the references, and I don't see why an article should be compromised in this way for any amount of time.
 * Josquius has engaged in edit warring and been warned about it before:


 * Much discussion has been made on Talk:Cornish people and Josquius is the only contributor continuing to change the article according to his personal opinion, without citing a single reference. His changes also disagree with the references provided, but refuses to read them.


 * --Joowwww (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * &mdash; User was warned and appears to have stopped. I gave an extra warning just in case, as the user is clearly engaging in disruptive editing, but has otherwise been productive and has not edit warred recently. If he resumes, please report back; or, it other editors join in the edit war, please request page protection due to a content dispute.  Cheers. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:89.236.165.232 reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This IP is edit-warring for days to remove a project tag that the project's members have placed there. Enough is enough.

Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Also appears to have hopped around several other ips around May 10th, necessitating semi-protection of the talk page back then. If it gets bad enough again during this block, feel free to report to requests for page protection -- slakr  \ talk / 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank1829 reported by Sampharo (Result: prot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: | Original


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

The article reverted by the user contained false references to an existence of a Shia myth in historical accounts and Sunni books. Talk:Umar has a complete explanation of the long discussion and the conclusions that they violate WP:Reliable Sources and WP:verifiability, and are very biased and emotional in nature anyway and therefore violate WP:neutral as well. Moreover, it was a very old version with a huge number of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, stylistic bias and not to mention that the paragraph was written TWICE. Later he edited AGAIN a disruptive edit which reversed the meaning of the whole section explaining Sunni view, to a personal point of view of Shia | Here, which violates WP:POV and further represents the polemic views of less than 12% of the muslim population to start with, so it already violates WP:Undue not to mention the three original ones mentioned earlier, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:neutral and WP:verifiability. In the end his only writing in the talk page was charged with emotional tyrade and personal attacks and would not even respond or read that the sources have been disproven nor that the version in specific he is using is obsolete.


 * Diff of 3RR and Edit warring warning: | First Warning until | Fourth Warning

Above all this, he vandalized my User page User:Sampharo in this | diff link

Please block this user until he understands about respecting other editors and that edit warring is not tolerated especially in religiously charged articles.


 * Cirt (talk | contribs | block) m (35,938 bytes) (Protected Umar: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)))) . As to your user page, that looks to be a clueless newbie mistake (except for the bits about lying; thats not acceptable). Explain patiently about the use of talk pages, and point out WP:CIVIL. If they continue to break civility, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Biblelight reported by User:Farsight001 (Result: warned)

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

Never reported a user before, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, especially since the warring encompasses multiple articles.

User first started editing Vicarius Filii Dei with several edits. History:. Policy was explained on talk page, user continued to edit, article was protected. User continued to complain on the talk page, once threatening me here:. User then moved on to articles Donation of Constantine and Augustinus Triumphus, and made very similar edits there. Policy was crudely explained again in my revert summaries. User Biblelight then moved on to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology and added the same information to that article. Has ceased discussing things with other users and simply re-adds his information. One more revert and he violates the 3RR, which I told him. Here's the 3 reverts so far:
 * 1nd revert:
 * 2rd revert:
 * 3th revert:

I really don't know what to do because biblelight simply moves his edits to a different article if people revert enough, and nothing I tell him seems to change his mind.

Again, this is the first time I've reported a user, so apologies if I did it wrong. Feel free to correct me in any way. :) Farsight001 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a proper warning for this editor, and notified him of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated status to "warned," since the user appears to have stopped for now. If he continues, feel free to update. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If the sysops will please review the aricles I have been posting to, they will see that I have been trying to post verfied historical information from reliable sources in an effort to counter demonstratably false statements, in particular false information regarding Seventh-day Adventists.

In the latest incident, to demonstrate the point, I have been charged with vandalism of the article on Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Gentlemen, I AM a Seventh-day Adventist, and quoting the SDA commentary on Rev. 13:18 is NOT vandalism, particularly when it completely exposes the claim in the article that the same commentary rejects the application of Vicarius Filii Dei to the papacy. That false claim in the article is NOT verified in any manner. It IS demonstrated as false by what I am trying to post.

Farsight001 is censoring me from posting information that I believe is within Wikipedia rules. He charges me with rule violations because he wants patently false information to remain, he is censoring verified reliable from being posted because he does not want that information to be available.

I request that the matter be looked into by nuetral admins so that I can get a ruling of some sort about the acceptability of the information I have been trying to post, and clear specific reasons why, about what is ruled inadmissable, if anything. Biblelight (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have begun a discussion at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. You made a proposal, but two other editors disagreed that your changes belong in the article. You should probably wait to convince them before trying to make the same change again. If you think their views are not representative, use WP:Dispute resolution to get more views on the problem. If you try to force your opinion into the article by reverting, you may be blocked. You are already up to six or seven reverts on this article, so you are walking on thin ice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the unsupported false claim,


 * Historically, some Adventists have interpreted the number of the beast, 666, as corresponding to the title Vicarius Filii Dei of the Pope. The chief proponent of this view was Uriah Smith, and he was followed by J. N. Andrews. (They thought that the Latin letters when added equal the number 666.) However, the interpretation is rejected by most modern scholars as well as by the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and is still held only by a minority.

According to Burden of evidence "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed", and "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Am I not allowed to follow that rule on an article that purports to represent the church I belong to? Biblelight (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement, though, is in fact sourced. See the very next line in the article.  Also - removing what you thought was unsourced material is far and away not the only thing you were doing.  You were adding far more to the articles than you were removing.  That you ARE an SDA is irrelevant to your ability or right to edit the article as you see fit.Farsight001 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a 12 volume set, the Commentary on Revelation, authored by Ranko Stefanovich, Ph. D. which is mentioned in the ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No 139 totally different, not part of the SDA Commentary! But then since he is NOT Adventist, Farsight001 would not necessarily know that. I want him to right this error by reverting to my last post and allow me to continue editing there. Biblelight (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion needs to continue at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. All parties need to abide by WP:3RR and not try to force their version in by edit warring. A member of the SDA church has no special authority on this article. Use the discussion to present reliable sources for your view. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

86.165.81.180 reported by StarScream1007 (Result: semi)

 * User:
 * Page:
 * Reverts:
 * 1. 13:46, May 22, 2009
 * 2. 08:56, May 23, 2009
 * 3. 15:09, May 23, 2009
 * 3RR Warning: 15:28, May 23, 2009
 * 4. 03:04, May 24, 2009


 * Comments: IP has been reverting edits made by me, and some other users for quite some time. The anon user has been reverting the plot details that were supposed to removed/modified from the article based on a consensus on the Talk:Resident Evil 5 discussion page. The user is ignoring requests from myself and other editors to read over the consensus. Similar IPs have been making disruptive edits on relate pages: 86.143.125.177/86.165.81.180/86.170.16.43 Please leave a comment on my talk page if you further require my help. Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Page semiprotected. See Talk:Resident Evil 5 for background on this long-running dispute, which has continued in spite of past admin actions. Please comment if you can think of anything better to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look at Hot Fuzz and The Thing (film) to see if semi-protection is necessary there. This user has been edit warring on those too. This my be coincidence or this user may be watching my contributions, as we have several articles in common. Geoff B (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 86.165.81.180 for edit warring on several articles. 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's back as 86.132.133.20, same editing habits, on Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy and Albert Wesker this time. Geoff B (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 86.132.133.20 24 hours, semiprotected Albert Wesker. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help so far guys. Do you have any suggestion for dealing with this problem if the issue continues? Perhaps a block-ip ban? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerrykme reported by Venture79 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The information being reverted to by Jerrykme on the JetAmerica page is outdated before the airline reorganized under its new name and identity. Sources have been provided for each change, including links to the company's own website reflecting the change. The airline's current reservation system remains outdated as several markets are listed that were dropped due to ending relationships with other company - sources also referenced on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venture79 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Jerrykme has not edited since receiving a 3RR warning, and he is not over three reverts yet, at least on this one article. I've notified him of this complaint, and marked this report as 'Waiting for reply', in case Jerryme may want to respond. Even if it turns out that he is justified under WP:V, his repeated reverts at JetAmerica with no discussion or edit summary could be improved upon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be permissible to correct the information again since I do have valid sources to back up the information (everything is getting documented in discussion as I go on the JetAmerica article)? I don't want this to be an edit/revert war, but the information there is inaccurate based on latest reports. Thanks for looking into this. Venture79 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a genuine content dispute between the two of you, and it's not clear who is right. Since you filed a report at WP:AN3 you should wait till it's resolved before editing any contested items further. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Since Jerrykme did not respond to the edit-warring concerns, but simply deleted Venture79's comment from the article Talk page, he is blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

79.122.9.209 reported by ChyranandChloe (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is an anonymous user with a dynamic ip-address. A direct message on the user's talk page is difficult: I have placed a message on all known talks which deferred the 3RR warning to the article's talk. A block may pose impractical because of the dynamic nature of this user's ip-address, semi-protect may be a necessary alternative. Full disclosure is on the article's talk page. The ip-address above is the most recent, the remaining are: 94.27.220.95 and 79.122.70.79. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, need to refresh on 3RR. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:  May 21 17:48


 * 1st revert: May 22 20:32
 * 2nd revert: May 23 2:56
 * 3rd revert: May 23 18:06
 * 4th revert: May 23 18:07
 * 5th revert: May 24 2:20
 * 6th revert: May 24 2:21
 * 7th revert: May 24 19:02
 * 8th revert: May 24 19:03


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User deleted 3rr warning then made more reverts. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring. It would be good to see more extensive use of the Talk page by all parties. Raymond Dundas, however, continues to revert out a connection between liberalism and science that appears to be supported by all the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Plains2007 reported by HLGallon (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The paragraph in question is badly written and irrelevant to the main topic of the article. It contains a number of WP:SYN claims. The user has accused two editors who have provided good rationale for deleting the paragraph in edit summaries and on his/her talk page of Vandalism. HLGallon (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

92.11.154.60‎ reported by WebHamster (Result: semi)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User under different IP addresses for at least a couple of weeks seems intent on changing the status quo of the article by changing the origin of the band from the explained London to Colchester. There has been no attempt to source this change or discuss it. As it's borderline and I'm already on the verge of 3RR myself I've brought it here. I haven't reverted the editor's last change. -- Web H amster  11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi protected for a month William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

130.13.170.197 reported by dave souza (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Having been rebuffed for trying to delete information and source links from ScienceBlogs (linked above as the previous version reverted to), what appears to be the same anon with a slightly different IP changed to adding a slightly derogatory description of the author, without sources and hence a violation of WP:BLP, and repeated this three times so far, the third time after being templated with a 3RR warning. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User is back with a different IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.13.168.237 130.13.168.237] and still reverting to his/her preferred version.--Kevmin (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 5th revert:
 * Semiprotected - This guy just keeps on going with different IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Budelberger reported by Miacek (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (note that he keeps changing the infobox mainly; other changes made in the meantime have remained)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (note his almost immediate 'response', followed by the 4th revert)

A clear case of wanton 3 RR violation (we have a content dispute there with User:Ohpuu and me having a dispute with Budelberger). Also note two things:
 * 1) the user has a long history of making nasty personal assaults here in en.wiki: once calling me 'a savage', 'stupid', even a 'terrorist' referring to another user is edit summary: 'don't waste OUR time with your childish attitude'. This must stop
 * 2) Please note also Budelberger's long history of cross-wiki intimidation and what people concerned called trolling. This has led to him being permabanned from a number of wiki projects already. I've referred to his fr.wiki adventures here and hence shall not repeat this.

I suggest he be blocked for 3 RR violation, additionally be put on a parole and if it does not help in the future, sent to eternal holiday from our project, too. Miacek (t) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * — A itias  //  discussion  22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What? 3RR no longer holds? Calling other users terrorists, savages and what not is ok for you? This guy shamelessly violates every basic rule of Wikipedia and now gets away with his preferred version page protected? Has someone gone crazy?! -- Miacek (t) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The mistake has been fixed.  Miacek  (t) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, this edit was technically not a revert. Therefore the 3RR has not been violated, as far as I can see. — A itias  //  discussion  22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are indeed missing something. It is a very clear revert to this revision. Colchicum (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, you're right. Thanks for the pointer. —  A itias  //  discussion  22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried to explain above that this is partial revert so to say. The user concerned removed the User:Ohpuu's changes and reverted back to the statement that Livonian is extinct ('28 February 2009, when Viktor Berthold died.'). Also, I suggest the user's troublesome record be considered here, I don't think it's worth wasting our time to start a new thread somewhere else.  Miacek  (t) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ward3001 reported by User:Garycompugeek (Result: Agreement)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor refuses to accept a change in consensus. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't broken WP:3RR because he's only got three reverts. –xenotalk 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true, however this user refuses to accept consensus in the face of overwhelming support against his position. I trust that he is currently being watched now and will hopefully correct his behavior. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've notified Ward3001 of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. I hope he will express his willingness to search for a compromise, and propose what the next step should be. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that there is a conflict of interest in this case. Ward3001 is a psychologist and as per his organizations ethics is trying to remove evidence about the tests they use.  This secrecy is at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If I edit warred, I think it's a safe bet that Garycompugeek did also. And Doc James has (as he has done in the past) misrepresented the situation simply because he can't convince everyone that he's an expert on a psychological test when he's a physician and not a psychologist. I do not represent the American Psychological Association here. I represent myself; I have profressional ethics that guide my opinions. Am I not supposed to have those Doc James? Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two editors here have both made three reverts in 24 hours, Ward3001 and Garycompugeek. (A sanction for edit warring does not require four reverts). I think this case might be closed with no further action if both parties will agree not to revert the disputed item for one week unless a clear consensus is first obtained on the article Talk page. If only one party agrees, the other will be in a bad spot. If neither agrees, we should consider full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I had already resolved not to revert the article for at least a week; so I have no difficulty with that suggestion. As for my willingness to compromise, please see the lengthy details in the archives. The current dispute actually arises from an attempt to scrap a previous, hard-fought and difficult compromise. There has been much compromise by editors on various sides of this issue in the past. I recognize that anyone can challenge a previous consensus that brought peace to the article for almost a year, but please don't think that compromises have not occurred. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly consensus in this matter has changed regardless of Wards denial. I was supporting Xeno, an uninvolved admin, claim that consensus has changed.  Many other editors and admin have valiantly tried to impress logic upon Ward but he refuses to see it.  I have no qualms about and agree not to revert the article for at least a week. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gary and I have a difference of opinion about whether consensus was achieved. But let me clarify a misconception he has created. Xeno was an uninvolved editor in the Rorschach debate. Xeno himself/herself acknowledges that he/she was not functioning as an admin on that page. Ward3001 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Closed with no admin action, since the submitter and the other party have agreed not to revert the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Mosedschurte (Result: Closed by agreement)

 * Page:
 * User:

This is an expecially egregious case of WP:3RR, because the reversions also involve the deletion of several Talk Page comments by at least three other editors -- User:Mosedschurte, User:Biophys and User:Yachtsman1 -- in violation of WP:TPO, which explicitly states "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (bold emphasis in original Wikipedia guidelines). Thus, not only is it a WP:3RR violation, but it also cuts to the core of the spirit of the project by deleting other editor's Talk page comments about subjects.


 * Previous User:Biophys Talk Page comments (later deleted): link; diff here
 * Previous User:Yachtsman1 Talk Page comments (later deleted): link; diff here
 * Previous User:Mosedschurte Talk Page comments (later deleted)link; diff

User:Viriditas's straight reverts (note: these are just of his latest Talk page WP:Edit War only):
 * 1st revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte)
 * 2nd revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte)
 * 3rd revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Yachtsman1)
 * 4th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)
 * 5th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)
 * 6th revert: here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte)

update: (even more reversions linked in the replies below)

User:Viriditas's complex reverts (note: these are just of his latest Talk page WP:Edit War only):

On a different ANI thread (see below), mention by another editors was made of User:Viriditas's repeated Talk Page deletions "Now User:Viriditas is edit warring on an Rfc. (link to deletions). This is amazing.". It was then that he switched to a more complex style of reverts -- changing the location and section titles to effectively take the comments out of the comments section:


 * 1st Complex revert (move of Talk Page comments to take them out of Rfc comments): User:Viriditas moved same the talk page comments from their Rfc section, in edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=292288758&oldid=292288216 here.
 * 2nd Complex revert (changed section title to take Talk page comments out of comments again): User:Viriditas then later changed of the comments section in which the talk page comments were located to effectively take them out of the normal comments section to "These comments need to be merged into the RFC so that they properly reflect the position of Yachtsman1 and Mosedchurte. The RFC is designed to solicit outside opinions. That is its purpose.": here

Diffs of 3RR warnings:
 * First, I warned User:Viriditas that "One more deletion of other editor's Talk page comments, and we're going STRAIGHT to ANI -- that's not how RFC's work"
 * Then I warned him on his Talk page about Talk page deletions "RFC's are for all users, not just some users. Deleting other's Talk page comments is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy."
 * Then I warned him yet again "If you continue this practice, you're going to ANI, and keep in mind that they take a very dim view of deletion of other's talk page comments (look through past ANI actions for an example). Such actions are not just gross violations of Wikipedia policy, but violations of the core of the project.


 * Finally, this 3RR warning: here. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)(note: it's not on the page anymore because User:Viriditas deleted Biophys's warning, here)


 * User:Biophys then warned yet again "You was reported at 3RR noticeboard. Please respond if you wish." (note: it's not on the page anymore because User:Viriditas deleted Biophys's warning, here, simply stating "message received")


 * Modification of other editor's comments at article talk page is a blockable offense (see this block by Durova, for example), and I warned Viriditas about this. In addition he violated 3RR rule in Human rights in the US. I asked Virididatas to revert himself back:, but he posted same message back to me , although I made only one edit in this article during 24 hours.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And further deleted my civility and other warnings here on her talk page: [].  I have also asked the editor to stop editing comments and to cease personal attacks/uncivil comments, to no avail to date.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Continues to edit war by removing an entire section of RFC discussion to a separate portion of the talk page: [].  Stated reason is that it's a "distraction" in summary, complicated edit with five subsequent edits after the move not allowing an editor to revert.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet even more reverts on the Talk Page, no less. Here, the deletion of User:Biophys's talk page comments -- again, not only an edit war but WP:TPO violation -- with the remark by User: Viriditas: "Usual nonsense removed".Mosedschurte (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas
This appears to be a simple misunderstanding of how the talk page is used. Most of the material the users claim was removed, was actually moved into an ongoing thread and preserved as part of a continuing discussion (Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States). Because of the length of the talk page (before I archived half of it), the users appeared confused about the location of the discussion and continued to post the same comments that were moved higher up on the page and by then, had new comments; As a result, two duplicate discussions were created. One user, Biophys, was informed of this, but didn't seem to understand. As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their comments into the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments from outside, uninvolved editors. It is unfortunate that in the process, I managed to make several of these editors more upset, and in hindsight, I should have taken things slower, and tried to hold their hand a little tighter. I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, your edit warring at the article talk page was a "standard procedure"? Some of the diffs were outright deletions, others were moves made regardless to my objections. But it does not really matter since you violated 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "As for the RFC, it was refactored by many editors in preparation for its release. This is standard procedure and again, discussion was initiated with users, all of whom failed to understand how an RFC works and why they should merge their comments into the RFC itself, as it was designed to solicit comments from outside, uninvolved editors." (Viriditas)


 * That is such a brazenly false statement on an ANI board -- simply unreal -- that it will almost certainly hurt, not help, your case.


 * There is absolutely ZERO "misunderstanding." You flat out DELETED, not moved, several comments that had to be replaced by users every time, as outlined, just to begin with, in the straight reverts.  You had simply decided that comments by "non-outsiders" should not belong to the Rfc, and FLAT OUT DELETED THEM.  They each time had to be replaced by users, and you just deleted them again.  Such as:
 * --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte -- users had to replace them on the page)
 * -- Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Biophys and User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page )
 * --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Yachtsman1-- users had to replace them on the page)
 * --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)
 * --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)
 * --Flat out delete here (revert deleted Talk Page comments by User:Mosedschurte-- users had to replace them on the page)


 * Note that this is different from the numerous moves of other's talk page comments (which also angered others). I didn't even count those among the slam dunk WP:3RR flat out revert deletions you made.  Mosedschurte (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your own diffs prove that I moved the Katrina material into Talk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States before the timestamps of the diffs you provide. Here is the diff of my merge, timestamped at 02:16, 25 May 2009. Does this make sense to you?  If you look at the timestamps and the content, you will discover this to be true.  The timestamps for the material you claim was "deleted" shows that the material was still in the article, but located in a different thread (Katrina) where apparently you failed to see it.  Look at the diff you posted above.  The material is already there.  You posted a duplicate of the discussion.  Nothing was deleted.  The exact, duplicate material was already in the article, higher up.  What is interesting (and ironic) is that this material was not originally posted to this talk page.  It was initially  posted by me to User talk:Biophys at  21:20, 24 May 2009.  Biophys moved my talk page comment to the article talk page at 00:20, 25 May 2009.  And finally, to recap from above, I in turn, merged the discussion into the already existing Katrina discussion at 02:16, 25 May 2009.  That should clear that up for you.  As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman.  Some other material was refactored, and included comments from myself as well.  I believe this is an accurate recall of the situation, and I hope that people like yourself will not be so quick to revert in the future.  Usually, there is a good reason to refactor the talk page.  In this case, there were two: 1) the Katrina section was duplicated twice and was merged back into the original discussion; 2) The RFC was incomplete and required positions from involved editors to be merged into the statement per Jayen's instructions.  Both you and Yachtsman were contacted on your respective talk pages and asked to help.  Both of you refused and deleted my comments.  I understand that you disagree with my assessment, but if you also slowed down a bit and tried to focus on communicating effectively instead of edit warring, we might be able to move past this and collaborate on the article.  So far, that has been impossible, because you seem to have trouble following the discussion threads, and the same discussions (and the same comments verbatim) continue to get reposted in duplicate threads.  I think my solution of placing a link at the bottom finally worked. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From Viriditas: As for the RFC material, I was in the process of merging it into the RFC statement, and I recall getting edit conflicted due to the massive number of reverts from you and Yachtsman.  Pray direct me to these "massive reverts" you are talking about, because I have not a clue as to what you are talking about.  Your comment on my talk page asking for "help" was as follows:  The Rfc is used to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors outside the talk page. Please do not respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)  [].  Can you show me where my "assistance" was requested?  I would be interested in seeing that as well.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I made a request on both of your talk pages and at least two requests on the  article talk page to both of you.  At User talk:Mosedschurte, I wrote: If the RFC does not reflect your position, then change it.  And, on User talk:Yachtsman1, I said: Then edit the question per Jayen's comment above. Or did you not read it? Edit the RFC directly.   On Talk:Human rights in the United States, I requested the assistance of both editors several times; First to Mosedchurte: Please merge your comments above into a very small paragraph explaining your position. If you don't agree with how Jayen described your position, Mosedchurte, then either alter it or change it.  And to you, Yachtsman1, here:Condense your positions into small statements and find consensus for the RFC itself. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A request for what? There was no request on my talk page for "assistance" or "help" in any manner.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  The link shows that as a matter of fact.  The comment you direct our attention to was made after you have already deleted my comment on the talk page, and you only asked for me to reframe the question, not for "help" and/or "assistance".  The "massive reverts" you referred to previously appear to be non-existent.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would note that this was in no way a "refactor" or "move". These were flat out deletions of comments that cut against your position on the Rfc. It was literally that simple.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. My "position" on the RFC has never been under discussion. Perhaps you are referring to something else?  My only concern was with wherther the RFC represented all sides fairly.  It does not represent my position, if that is what you mean. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "At User talk:Mosedschurte, I wrote:  If the RFC does not reflect your position, then change it." (Viriditas)

This is simply a RIDICULOUS mischaracterization. You then posted directly on my Talk page that: --" Do not repond to the RFC with your position."(Viriditas) and ---"We did not submit this RFC to solicit your opinion. Do you understand? " (Viriditas) Mosedschurte (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At this time, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus. Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first.  I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great, but you didn't just refactor or move on the Talk page. You DELETED comments wholesale -- only those that disagreed with your position.  Then went to each person you disagreed with Talk page and told them they were not to post comments -- such as '"  Do not repond to the RFC with your position." and "We did not submit this RFC to solicit your opinion.  Do you understand? " -- then simply deleted every comment they posted again.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We must be talking past each other. At no time have I ever stated my position.  I actually never was given a chance, and I chose to remain neutral as a result.  In any case, I have chosen to stop refactoring the talk page without consensus.  Any further changes on the talk page will entail discussion and consensus, first.  I apologize. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your apology is great, but it's not what you were doing. And, of course, you did state your position on these issues before the Rfc -- you argued directly in favor of keeping in the Katrina and Abu Ghraib sections.  You weren't "refactoring" anything.  You were just deleting Talk Page comments of all of those who disagreed with your position (to keep in "outside the U.S." human rights issues) -- such as me, Biophys and Yachtsman1 -- and directly told us that you didn't want our comments on EACH OF OUR TALK PAGES. It's all laid out in detail above. Then you simply deleted those comments when they were re-added to the article.  Repeatedly.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Closed per my understanding with Viriditas that he will stop refactoring, moving or deleting comments at Talk:Human rights in the United States. I have reminded him of the need to follow WP:TPG in this message. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is the third time I am returning to this board to report Abbatai for breaking the 3RR. After numerous warnings and corresponding blocks (see the comments by admins made and the warning of sanctionson his talk page here), it's clear that user does not want to play by the rules and, frankly, doesn't even care. His edits have come in the midst of a long range of vandalism on Armenian-Turkish related articles and I believe a more stringent action is warranted (see the comments in my previous complaint filing here). But to put it shortly: he has been edit-warring on this article without pause, and has failed to show a single reliable source to back up his claims. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Oops, sorry, forgot to update this. Anyway, guy has a history of edit warring on that page, so 1 week it was. -- slakr \ talk / 06:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LebaneseZp/72.10.109.105 reported by George (Result: prot / etc)

 * Page:
 * User: ,
 * Note: LebaneseZp had previously identified them self as 72.10.109.105 in edit summaries when reverting; I've already filed a check user request.


 * Previous version reverted to: | 13:25, May 24, 2009
 * Note: There are quite a few things being edit warred over by this one user, so there isn't a single previous version being reverted to.


 * 1st revert: | 17:45, May 24, 2009 Undid revision 292009067 by AnOicheGhealai
 * 2nd revert: | 17:49, May 24, 2009 Undid revision 292009067 by AnOicheGhealai
 * 3rd revert: | 17:51, May 24, 2009 Undid revision 292045359 by 86.96.226.13
 * 4th revert: | 15:26, May 25, 2009 Undid revision 292186827 by AnOicheGhealai
 * 5th revert: | 01:34, May 26, 2009 Undid revision 292323477 by 82.128.191.203
 * 6th revert: | 02:21, May 26, 2009

Diffs of 3RR warning:
 * | 22:48, May 20, 2009 Previous warning about 3RR/edit-warring.
 * | 01:52, May 26, 2009  Warning to LebaneseZp about edit warring.
 * | 01:52, May 26, 2009 Warning to user's IP address.

A review of the history of the Lebanon article shows this user (as both LebaneseZp, and their IP address) involved in prolonged edit warring with several different users on several different statements for at least the last week. A review of the IP addresses talk page will show that the user has been warned numerous times about this article. ← George [ talk  ] 02:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Article has been semi'd (not by me). Contiguous edits count as one, so you don't have 4R. Sockpuppet_investigations/LebaneseZp says the anon is Lz but that doesn't help you. says you are reverting vandalism, in which case you want WP:AIV William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? The user seems to repeatedly skirt 3RR by logging out or switching to other accounts (still pending check user confirmation), or staying just below the four reverts per 24-hour threshold, but I still consider their protectionism (in the face of reverts from several other users) to be edit warring. I was more interested in the "disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page" line from the policy page. Also, I only consider one of their edits to be vandalism – the user seemed to get frustrated that other users were reverting their additions, and acted out by removing additional material to make a point. Since it was only one case, I don't think AIV is the proper place for it, but I'm open to suggestions. ← George [ talk  ] 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the best place to report general edit warring over a prolonged period that does not explicitly exceed four reverts in 24 hours? Here. CU is confirmed. I'll have another look William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still not obvious to me, sorry. Maybe it is to you. If you care to list reverts by Lz/72, removing contiguous edits, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, maybe it's easiest to focus on the two most contentious statements the user has been pushing. Here's the details about when they were added:
 * | 01:08, April 23, 2009 – Statement #1: 72.10.109.105 first adds statement regarding Phoenicians paying taxes to invaders as a reason that modern day Lebanese are descendants of Phoenicians
 * | 16:04, May 12, 2009 – Statement #2: 72.10.109.105 first adds commentary regarding Lebanese not being Arabs


 * Now for the revert history, broken down by when they occurred, who performed the revert, and what was reverted. I've only listed the contiguous edits once in this list, but made a note when an edit contiguous to the one listed touched one of these two statements:
 * | 16:08, May 12, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 22:57, May 12, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 00:57, May 13, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 00:58, May 13, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 23:23, May 13, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #1
 * | 23:38, May 13, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 22:30, May 14, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 02:37, May 15, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 00:40, May 17, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2 (next contiguous edit reverts removal of statement #1)
 * | 00:54, May 20, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 20:09, May 20, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2 (next contiguous edit reverts removal of statement #1)
 * | 20:34, May 20, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #1 & statement #2
 * | 22:03, May 20, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #1 & statement #2
 * | 19:00, May 21, 2009 - Joetoril reverts removal of statement #1 & statement #2
 * | 20:03, May 22, 2009 - 24.151.25.180 reverts removal of statement #1 & statement #2
 * | 05:06, May 24, 2009 - 75.27.148.7 reverts removal of statement #1 & statement #2
 * | 17:49, May 24, 2009 - LebaneseZp reverts removal of statement #2
 * | 01:34, May 26, 2009 – 72.10.109.105 reverts removal of statement #1
 * Please note that I listed the reverts by two users and three IP addresses that I consider to be the same user. Unfortunately a check user was never performed, though there seemed to be a consensus that LebaneseZp was 72.10.109.105. All three IP addresses are from Connecticut (one a University, the other two residential), and the later two (24.151.25.180 and 75.27.148.7) have only performed edits to the Lebanon article, that are strikingly similar to edits by LebaneseZp and 72.10.109.105. Furthermore, the editing behavior (time of day, what statements they added or reverted) is very similar amongst all three IP addresses and the two accounts. Joetoril popped up as soon as LebaneseZp becomes inactive in editting, performed the same revert to the same article, and I found it suspicious that the IP address |72.10.109.105's first edit was a bit of vandalism to the Lebanon article that included the statement "ugliest spot in the world and is ran by JOE the OWNAGE". ← George [ talk  ] 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed that Cirt actually protected it, not semi-protected. That makes all this moot. You should now be using the talk page to discuss the conflict, and/or lobbying Cirt to unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had invited the other editor to join the discussion (which I had started on the talk page prior to the page being protected), but they chose not to. Even after the page was protected, the user hasn't joined the talk page discussion, instead moving over to the Phoenicia article and starting an edit war with another editor over there (again, skirting just under 3RR – that editor warned them about 3RR, but the anonymous editor removed the message from their talk page). The Lebanon article will automatically drop protection in a couple days, and I suspect that the user will return and take up edit warring again. I'll probably file an ANI for disruptive editing when I have time. Thanks for you help. ← George [ talk  ] 08:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

72 subsequently got 48h for elsewhere. J indef'd as sock William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::I had similar problems on Phoenicia. The IP:72.10.109.105 personally attacked me (diff) when I reverted an edit by Joe Toril telling him in the edit summary that Dougweller did not accept his citation either. Meanwhile Joe Toril and the IP kept reverting me, Doug and Ogre. If this goes on ANI, I will try to assist George. Dr.K. logos 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Post (ec) comment: Good calls William. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * LebaneseZp has started again edit-warring at Phoenicia. Dr.K. logos 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LebaneseZp has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Phoenicia by User:Icestorm815. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. Dr.K. logos 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Daymeeee reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

There is a dispute on Resident Evil 5 currently about the possible ambiguity around the fate of one character. Daymeeee does not believe there is any ambiguity, and insists that if this character did possibly survive, so did others in previous Resident Evil games, even when there is no ambiguity there. Geoff B (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Has form. 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

B.manotoc reported by Mbinebri (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Not necessarily a revert, but after I edited the article to comply with neutral POV stardards decided on WikiFashion's talk (specifically that "supermodel" should not be used in leads and only used in the article itself when the instance of being deemed a supermodel is notable in itself to avoid POV pushing) B.manotoc returns the POV pushing info and adds a blog ref. I undo this and explain why on the user's talk.
 * 2nd revert: D.manotoc ignores my explanation and reverts the edit, as well as removes the refimprove tag and begins returning "supermodel" to the lead sentence.
 * 3rd revert: Thinking I was only restoring the refimprove tag (D.manotoc erroneously thought it was an unsourced tag), using Twinkle, I blunderingly undo B.manotoc's previous/2nd reversion, which came at the last second. He/she reverts it a third time and adds a pair of sources.
 * 4th revert: To avoid an edit war, I edit the article in way that I hope can be a compromise between our positions and leave a cautionary note about further reversions (rather than an actual 3RR warning). Minutes later, the IP 124.197.109.101 (no other edits and likely B.manotoc using an IP to avoid 3RR issues) reverts this.
 * 5th revert: I tag the article as a COI, which 124.197.109.101 reverts before adding another non-RS ref of the variety B.manotoc was attempting to add.

A lot of the reversions/edits came in pairs, so it's somewhat tricky, hopefully I got it right. I have an SPI open right now to see if these two are the same editor, which I'm pretty sure they are, for the intent and the timing of it. Perhaps I should also note that D.manotoc is the article's creator so COI/Own issues are probably at work.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now looks stale, and there are hints of compromise on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst reported by Piotrus (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: varies, but all edits remove existing info; all but the last one remove the paragraph that begins with "From the beginning of the war...".


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user has a history of 3RR violations and blocks


 * Form; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Justthefacts 101 reported by Pinkadelica (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: Original NPOV version


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (1st warning)
 * (2nd warning)

Another user who was banned previously tried adding some POV wording to the article earlier today. After being reverted and subsequently banned for a username violation, this new account popped up making similar changes. Justthefacts 101 was advised by 2help to go to the talk page to discuss the changes but failed to do so. I also advised them to do the same via edit summary due to the previous drama that surrounded the article (see the talk page archive). It took a very long time, but a consensus was finally reached regarding the article's current wording and the ideas that are presented.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black; font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Say it...  06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock. Indef'd. 2help cautionned to avoid 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeneral28 reported by Aoi (Result: 31 hours for Jeneral28+ip)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reverts #3 and #6 are under the IP address. This user is seemingly the same user as Jeneral28, evidenced by this comment written under the IP address being signed by Jeneral28 less than a minute later. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * &mdash; both the user and the ip. Without even running a checkuser it's evident that between the overlap in their contribution topics and the timing of a logged out revert of the exact same edit war issue&mdash;right after being warned of a 3RR violation&mdash;that they're the same person. -- slakr  \ talk / 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, and there's this, which just further solidifies the issue. :P -- slakr \ talk / 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Promethean reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 17:34, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "RV: Requesting further review, Previous admin did not take into account the miuse of demeaning edit summeries as seen at the top. These are unprovked one way violations")
 * 2) 17:39, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "Your not an admin ,please do not close requests for further review as it is a form of disruption")
 * 3) 17:45, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "No thanks, Im after a different admin. You clearly disregarded key parts that were not reliant on any evidence require of me, Such as the edit summary abussage.")
 * 4) 18:31, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292715249 by DreamGuy (talk) - Do not edit archived sections")
 * 5) 18:37, 27 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292716712 by DreamGuy (talk) - Same rules apply to all, I cant reopen it, you cant edit it, its finished, move on.")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Verbal  chat  18:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009-05-27T20:42:58 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Promethean (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: violating WP:3RR at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎‎) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Allendaves reported by BurnDownBabylon (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: (varies, examine diffs)


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evening&diff=292735756&oldid=291702867
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evening&diff=292752545&oldid=292744998
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evening&diff=292764636&oldid=292764200
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evening&diff=292765447&oldid=292765026


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allendaves&diff=292764944&oldid=292758911

This user persists in repeatedly inserting a long rambling section of unsourced original research. He appears to be unreceptive to the proposition of changing the content and rejects all distillation of his insertion to a more appropriate size. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you say more about why the first revert in the above list is actually a revert? EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It undoes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evening&diff=291702744&oldid=290920817 &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bruninho reported by Mosmof (talk) (Result: 4 days)

 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:27, 28 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292777930 by Mosmof (talk)")
 * 2) 04:40, 28 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292784783 by Mosmof (talk)")
 * 3) 11:39, 28 May 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 292827023 by Mosmof (talk)")
 * 4) 13:00, 28 May 2009  (edit summary: "")

This user has been blocked twice before in 2009 for edit warring. He has never posted to an article Talk page and does not use edit summaries. His long-term practice of making controversial edits without discussion will not lead to harmony with other editors of these football articles. I think Bruninho is approaching his last chance. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * Editing to add at 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC): the user is reverting what is a good faith and non-disruptive edit that removes redundant Wikilinks to the same article, and clean up the infobox. While I am happy to discuss it, the user has not raised the issue in talk, nor has left any edit summary. The user has already been blocked twice for 3RR, so ignorance of the rule is not an issue. —Mosmof (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

139.142.12.11 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:34 28 May 2009


 * 1st revert: 20:45
 * 2nd revert: 20:49
 * 3rd revert: 20:53


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Just seems to be a vandal. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked 31 hours for vandalism by User:Kralizec!. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

74.33.4.173 reported by Parsecboy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:56
 * 2nd revert: 23:02
 * 3rd revert: 23:09
 * 4th revert: 23:14


 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

Editor refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page, and is editing in direct opposition to a long-standing consensus. The user has been using misleading edit summaries, accusing me of vandalism and ownership. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool Nerd reported by Wikiwatcher1 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:

Editor refuses to abide by consensus on talk page and continues to behave as owner of this important article. He continues to make extremely damaging changes by deleting 90% of the lead and inserting his own personal news bulletin board. Attention to this deconstructive editor would be useful ASAP as the article has nearly 40,000 readers per day. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This block does not appear to be justified. No difs were provided anywhere which show a violation of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I do not see a valid basis for this block established on the talkpage of the blocked individual, who has made many productive edits, or on the talk page of the article in question. This appears to be a mere difference of opinion between two editors as to how best edit an article. Therefore I request that the blocking admin lift the block. Edison (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This was one of three reverts that needed to be done. Note also that the article lead was 90% removed with the earlier edits.  As for the talk page consensus, one of a few sections is here.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with Cool Nerd having an idea for the article that was different from what it had been up till that point. The question is, how to go about persuading people to make the change. He was trying to keep his new version of the article in place by revert-warring. (He was failing to get support from the other regular editors of the page for a news-like format. His format change was being reverted by different people). In this post, he is asking an infrequent editor of the page for support and suggesting that it's well worth relaxing wikipedia rules. This suggests that he knew his changes were against normal standards for the page. The right way would have been to try to persuade the other editors working there, and abide by consensus if he didn't win the argument. The block can be lifted if he agrees to stop trying to change the page format without getting consensus on the Talk page first. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Playerdragon reported by Rjanag (Result: IP blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


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

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

&lt;!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here --&gt; Playerdragon wants to remove existing references about the number of North Korean women working as prostitutes in other countries, and is replacing all of them with a single newer reference that is not necessarily reliable; he is also changing the number reported in the text (currently 100,000) to a number that is not even present in his new references (5,000). He has previously done this under the username User:Neotommy10 and as the IP 121.165.130.100. Is refusing to discuss with anyone (and in fact is unable to contribute intelligibly or discuss effectively in English, but has ignored request to try Korean Wikipedia) and continue removing references.

I'm requesting that Playerdragon (and future socks of his) be blocked, and the article semi-protected to prevent further edit warring from this editor. It's a pretty obvious case but I probably shouldn't block and protect myself, since I have been reverting him already. &lt;b class=&quot;Unicode&quot;&gt;r&lt;font color=&quot;#8B0000&quot;&gt;ʨ&lt;/font&gt;anaɢ&lt;/b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;contribs&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - I hardblocked 121.165.130.100 for a week. Let's see if that fixes the problematic edits of Playerdragon as well. (They both use the phrase 'WRONG INFOMATION'). If it works then we saved having to file the case at WP:SPI. The submitter of this report, who is an admin, has already indef-blocked User:Neotommy10 as a vandal-only account. Anyone who wants to admire the work of the Abuse Filter should look at the tags it has added to the edit history of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

== User:92.235.250.62 reported by &lt;font face=&quot;papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ff0000&quot;&gt;C&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ff6600&quot;&gt;T&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ffff00&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#009900&quot;&gt;F&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#0000ff&quot;&gt;8&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#6600cc&quot;&gt;3&lt;/font&gt;Talk&lt;/font&gt; (Result: 2 weeks) ==


 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


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

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps adding unsourced, future information. &lt;font face=&quot;papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ff0000&quot;&gt;C&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ff6600&quot;&gt;T&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#ffff00&quot;&gt;J&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#009900&quot;&gt;F&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#0000ff&quot;&gt;8&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#6600cc&quot;&gt;3&lt;/font&gt;Talk&lt;/font&gt; 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 2 weeks - the previous block for disrupting this page apparently was not sufficient to get the message across. --B (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


 * 1st revert: May 29 20:18
 * 2nd revert: May 29 20:19
 * 3rd revert: May 29 20:22
 * 4th revert: May 29 21:08
 * 5th revert: May 29 21:09

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning: May 29 21:05

The user was blocked May 25 for edit-warring and a request to unblock was declined.

Since the block expired, the editor made a comment on the talk page (May 29 20:12), and 6 minutes later reverted the article to his preferred version. I reversed his edits and posted a 3RR notice on his talk page. He then reverted the edits, deleted my 3RR, and posted a protest on my talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your acquaintance, Rick Norwood was just as guilty of edit warring as I was and he wasn't blocked. Are you saying you too are not engaged in edit warring? Why the double standard? I have consistently discussed this on the talk page, Norwood refuses to address my points and you haven't posted anything on the talk page. If anyone is guilty of senseless edit warring, it is you two. Raymond Dundas (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * — &lt;font face=&quot;Tahoma&quot; size=&quot;3.9&quot; color=&quot;#20406F&quot;&gt;A&lt;small&gt;itias&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/font&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;color: #999;&quot;&gt;//&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;font face=&quot;Tahoma&quot; size=&quot;3.9&quot; color=&quot;#20406F&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;discussion&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/font&gt; 22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DCrhD reported by 23prootie (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;

The User has been disruptive since May 16 or even longer. when engaged at [] they seem unable to achieve a compromise. Appears to have some knowledge in certain rules of Wikipedia, particularly Soapbox. Redundant in reasoning.--23prootie (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply: Its not vandalism. Its a conflict of using simple written information, and educational skills. All i have done is used proper written information, and improve the Philippines article. However most of her edits is based on Wikipidea:Soapbox such as advertisement, and other issues. DCrhD talk 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that is the only other party in this revert war and should probably be sanctioned as well. --Ryan Delaney &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that I'm may also be at fault but I have been trying to have discussions at the talk age that got nowhere so what am I suppose to do?--23prootie (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I surrender.--23prootie (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've blocked both editors 31 hours for edit warring after warnings. --Ryan Delaney &lt;sup&gt;&lt;b&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

TownDown reported by JulieSpaulding (Result: warned both)

 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


 * 1st revert: (admittedly, this is a good-faith reversion of apparent vandalism)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: - here, he hides a reversion of the other party's edit with an edit summary of '+ref'.

Edits to talk page:
 * 1st edit: - very uncivil comments about 'here's why I'm right and you're wrong'.
 * 2nd edit: - appears to think that his say is final.

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning: (the 'leave me a message' link redirected to someone else's talk page so I changed that too in the same edit).

&lt;!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here --&gt; I am a 100% uninvolved party who simply stumbled across this dispute while travelling across Wikipedia. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * &amp;mdash; Also warned Italodal. --&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;slakr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;\&amp;nbsp;talk&amp;nbsp;/&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 13:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon reported by User:4wajzkd02 (Result: Both editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

&lt;!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here --&gt; Sorry to file this, but this article is on probation. Just reverting with brief proclamations of irrelevancy is inappropriate, per the terms of the article's probation. The edit summaries were not conducive to belief that a discussion of merits would ensue. Regrets, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering I responded and I was the second editor to agree it was irrelevant I stand by my edits and really don't think this has any merit. I also find this amusing considering the editor who brought it up actually has 3 reverts today on said article. Soxwon (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)It appears that the reporting editor, 4wajzkd02, has been edit warring. In general the burden is on the editor who wants to add disputed material to gain consensus, not the editor who rejects it per BRD and consensus.  4wajzkd02 is at 3RR and is obviously aware of article probation.  Soxwon has removed the material twice, and another editor removed it once, all with valid content objections.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both editors warned - This article is on probation, so any edit wars will get a very short leash. One party listed here has already reverted twice, and the other three times. I see that someone has opened an RfC on the very issue these editors are reverting. If reverts continue before the RfC concludes, the results may not be good. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:207.134.0.130 reported by Timmeh (Result: 31h)
Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:40, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 2) 20:41, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 3) 20:42, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 4) 20:43, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 5) 20:51, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 6) 22:09, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;/* Structure, themes, and musical style */&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 7) 22:10, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 8) 22:51, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 9) 22:56, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 10) 22:59, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;
 * 11) 23:01, 30 May 2009  &lt;small&gt;(edit summary: &quot;&quot;)&lt;/small&gt;


 * Diff of warning: here

—&lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred;font:bold 10pt kristen itc&quot;&gt;Tim&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black;font:bold 10pt kristen itc&quot;&gt;meh&lt;/span&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;darkred&quot; size=&quot;4&quot;&gt;!&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(&lt;font color=&quot;darkred&quot;&gt;review me&lt;/font&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt; 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Ryan Delaney for disruptive editing. &lt;span style=&quot;color:darkred;font:bold 10pt kristen itc&quot;&gt;Tim&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black;font:bold 10pt kristen itc&quot;&gt;meh&lt;/span&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;darkred&quot; size=&quot;4&quot;&gt;!&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(&lt;font color=&quot;darkred&quot;&gt;review me&lt;/font&gt;)&lt;/sub&gt; 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also block User:207.134.0.130, which is the anon's other IP (all edits are identical). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Votingfemale0 &amp; VotingFemale reported by Mynameinc (Result: already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --&gt;


 * Previous version reverted to:

&lt;!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --&gt;


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

&lt;!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --&gt;

&lt;!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so --&gt;
 * Diff of 3RR warning (VotingFemale):
 * Diff of 3RR warning (Votingfemale0):

&lt;!-- Add any other comments and sign your name here --&gt; This edit war was over 50 edits long, reverted, warned, editors start again. Neither editor appears to add constructive content. Thanks, and forgive me if I'm wrong, &lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;red&quot;&gt;Ottoman project&lt;/font&gt; Review me&lt;/sup&gt; 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Both editors (?) --&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;slakr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;\&amp;nbsp;talk&amp;nbsp;/&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MikeWazowski reported by Dlabtot (Result: IP blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: none

Obviously, both parties are guilty, but the template was only for one user so that's what I did. I did not leave a warning because there are already 5 reverts and I saw the multiple warnings that MikeWazowski left on User talk:67.8.109.183. Dlabtot (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to edit war, but the anonIP was veering into vandalism territory (which, as far as I can remember, isn't covered by 3RR) with the continued insertion of incorrect information, and refused to answer any attempts at communication. Situation seems to have stalled for now. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At first sight, adding the words 'in Nevada' does not seem to be vandalism. Can you clarify how you arrived at your conclusion? Also, if this issue is so important that an immediate revert is necessary, why is there no comment from you on the article Talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, initially it was simple misinformation inserted by the IP - the Nevada location is based on information from the fourth film, which we cannot apply to the original film, and I stated this in my original edit summary. Other information added by the IP (to several articles) was also inaccurate descriptions of events in the films, which I also mentioned in my edit summaries. The third warning text mentioned &quot;continued vandalism&quot;, and that, coupled with the editor's refusal to respond (either to the warnings or in edit summaries), is what led me to call the editor's later contributions (after the warnings) vandalism. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - User:Ryan Delaney has blocked the IP for vandalism based on Mike's AIV report, and vandalism is a 3RR exception, so there is no remaining case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:60.52.46.44
Edit Warring on Lionel Richie, Disagreeing about the popular culture section.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 12:46 pm, Today (UTC+12)

Blocked 31 hours. Feel free to close this. Drmies (talk) 12:49 pm, Today (UTC+12) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=499531889"