See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive73 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:76.189.145.86 reported by User:64.228.89.235 (Result:Warning given )


I think this might be vandalism disguised as a valid edit (ie using an apparent source) but the source does not say what it should. Anyway, fairly new and hope this is right and helpful procedure. 64.228.89.235 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shawncorey reported by User:Yamara (Result:stern warning, block possible later)


User repeatedly removes a cited paragraph, insisting simply that it is "wrong".[1]

User has also insisted on his talk page, "I'll keep removing it until it it correct." (sic)[2]

User has been warned by an admin re WP:NPA. -Yamara ✉ 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A 6th edit by the user removed the half of the paragraph with the citation: 23:26, 18 May 2008 - While not a revert, he seems insistent to edit war with numerous other editors. He has reiterated, on his talk page, his intent to continue personal attacks at his discretion, despite a warning by an admin. -Yamara ✉ 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please use diffs rather than oldids (i.e., links that show the changes made by the editor).
Fortunately, this one was pretty easy to tell just from the history of the article. It seems to me that Shawncorey has not technically violated 3RR, as no four reverts fall into 24 hours; however, he is gaming the system by reverting three times within 24 hours. I could block for this, but I think instead I'll just issue a stern warning that reverting more will result in a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:The_C_of_E reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [3]


  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 4th revert: [7]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

User:The_C_of_E created a "parody" section in the Carefree (chant) entry. The section contains no notable material and gives ground for potential edit and flame wars. It is typical of soccer fans to vandalize and abuse entries in Wikipedia. Allowing "parodies" and similar defamatory or insulting material to enter unchecked into wiki entries only invites trouble - and deterioration of quality. User has been warned and asked to participate in the Discussion, which I started in the entry's Talk page, but to no avail. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Edit warring on Carefree (chant) though no 3RR in any 24-hour period. Unwilling to discuss his changes on the article Talk. Eight reverts to his preferred version altogether. His version lacks sources, its authenticity can't be confirmed, and no other editor supports it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:144.92.152.82 (Result: Already semi-protected)

This user is reverting constructive edits and writing inappropriate edit summaries. (Presumably his "issue" with the editing is the removal of a sentence that the Hattic language is related to a Caucasian language group, which his source does not assert - see the article's talk page).

Note: the reporting anon is a sockpuppet for a banned user (User:Sumerophile) who is not supposed to be editing at all, my reverting of him/her has nothing to do with the content, but is based on policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, will do; it's obvious from the editing history anyway, (numerous addition of portals to the top of pages rather than at the bottom or on talkpage, etc.) not to mention the WHOIS location matches... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The location match is a university, where several of us have worked on these pages. Til Eulenspiegel's choice of what to reverse is based on content. Yearssixty (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Already semi-protected. User:PeterSymonds has already semi-protected the article to stop the IP. Peter makes reference to a sock in his protection summary. It is plausible that another editor reverting Hattians, 144.92.95.110 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Sumerophile. I suggest that Til Eulenspiegel open up a WP:SSP report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The amount of procedure needed to do SSP is too inhibiting to make it worth my time. In aspiring to be magnanimous, I probably wouldn't have even pointed the socks out at all, if they weren't actually trying to get me on this page. After that, I did reopen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile; as you can see, doing this only brought out yet more socks protesting that they are really just a group of people at the same location, who all just happen to edit in exactly the same way. I don't have the time, energy or patience to tackle this at SSP right now but if someone else wants to, please do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brian Boru is awesome and User:70.172.219.97 reported by User:69.182.79.163 (Result: 24 hours Brian Boru and the IP 70.172 )

  • Previous version reverted to: [9]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has reverted to sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR
  • Comments

This is just 1 of 3 instances where User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. After repeated notices to stop deleting comments in edit summaries and on the users talk page the IP began removing the comments. The IP has only been used in instances where the same user was involved in edit disputes. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both Brian Boru is awesome and the IP 70.172. This 3RR report takes it on faith that the IP and Brian Boru are working together, but it's otherwise hard to explain why:
  • Brian B. would take such an interest in removing notices of cut-and-paste moves from other people's talk pages (an unusual activity in its own right, besides being a violation of WP:TALK), and
  • An IP 70.172 would arrive out of the middle of nowhere to continue that exact pattern of reverts.
I was curious whether the other IP, the one making this report, was an editor in good standing, but I notice that here Anthony Appleyard made one of the cut-paste move repairs requested by the IP, so he's probably legit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:JJJ999/User:122.148.218.27 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hour block)

Asian Universities Debating Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). JJJ999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

also 122.148.218.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 18 May 2008

  1. 15:03, 18 May 2008
  2. 03:25, 19 May 2008
  3. 07:16, 19 May 2008
  4. 07:31, 19 May 2008
  • Diff of warning: here

Half of above edits were done as IP edits. This diff [10] shows they are the same user. The information being added is also a violation of BLP, as the source is a forum post and clearly questionable. —V-train (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is laughable to suggest this is a violation of 3R. I have been preventing the removal of sourced content without consensus, not the other way around. Anyway, it's now up to an AfD.JJJ999 (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This editor actually warned me about 3RR yesterday (see here), even though I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. Ongoing content dispute regarding this article is being discussed at Talk:Asian Universities Debating Championship. So far this editor is the only one advocating adding in content that is from a questionable source, and keeps reverting other editors with sharply worded edit summaries. Singopo (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both user and UIP address blocked. The diffs show addition of content unsupported by a reliable source and in violation of WP:BLP as per the talk page discussion. Discussion on the talk page does not support this editor's view of including the material. The diffs are quite clearly within the 24 hour framework.--Matilda talk 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gouryella reported by User:Haza-w (Result: blocked 24 hours )

A little bird tells me that 66.121.127.94 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) was the IP of the editor before this username was registered, which would make this the first revert. In any case, user has made four reversions to Paul van Dyk, and was warned after two, with no response to discussion on talk page. The final reversion actually took place slightly outside the 24 hour window, but there is a case for bending the rule here, since the user has been previously warned for edit-warring and repeatedly re-uploading deleted images. haz (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Edit warring on Paul van Dyk --Matilda talk 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 48 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: varies, described below
Boodlesthecat seems to have straightforwardly violated 3RR on the article. I notice there is a report open at WP:BLPN about this article, but I think it is about remarks being made on the Talk page. Before we close this, does anyone see a justification under WP:BLP for the edits made by either side? Mostly I see entire ethnicities or national groups being possibly criticized. My guess is that unless a specific individual is defamed, that is not BLP. But let's have a chance for anyone to comment on the relevance of BLP if they wish.
Nobody has filed a 3RR about the behavior on the article's Talk page, so that issue is for other noticeboards to assess if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see anything approaching a 3RR violation. User:Piotrus is involved in a content dispute on this article, see here and here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Since Boodles is not offering a BLP defence, I think this is a straightforward 3RR case, with four reverts within 24 hours as listed above, and no other editor coming anywhere near four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Abtract reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Warned)

Abtract, who has a long history of unpunished edit warring, has violated 3RR on the YuYu Hakusho article. He disruptively added a ton of {{citation}} tags to the article headers, was reverted, put them back, was reverted again, then put them back moved to the end of every paragraph. He also called several undoing of his disruptive tagging as being vandalism. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment by User:Sesshomaru. While not technically edit warring, Abtract is still making subsequent edits to the page: [13], [14], [15], [16]. These edits have been reverted all at once, yet he is slowly re-placing them one by one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed I did replace some of them one at a time to give you guys an opportunity to consider them individually and to realise that each one was fully justified ... or are you saying these sections do not require referencing? Abtract (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by User:Abtract. First technicalities: The supposed first revert was in fact my original insertion of tags not a revert. The second supposed revert was another attempt to put the tags on but in a different place as advised by Collectonian on my talk page (thinly disguised as a "welcome") so I can't see why she is objecting now (well I suppose I can because she is trying to build a case) this also was not a revert. The 3rd, 4th and 5th are indeed reverts. The supposed 6th is not even an edit so I'm not sure what it is but it certainly isn't a revert. Total three reverts not 4 and certainly not 6. Having said that, three reverts is hardly praisworthy, I admit. My reason is that I was reverting User:Sesshomaru following their reversion of my quite legitimate insertion of fact tags (several I admit but the article is in a bit of a state citationwise) ... we each reverted three times ... I put the tags in they removed them. My insertion of the tags was simply doing what the tags were designed for (pointing to unreferenced material which for all I know may be incorred at worst, or original research at best) whereas (IMHO) removing these tags after just telling me "Feel free and remove whatever sections violate policy", was deliberate vandalism. I would like you also to note that I have opened a thread for discussion on the article talk page but neither Collonian nor Sess have been courteous enough to reply, being content to issue warnings on my talk page no doubt. Abtract (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't advice you to place them anywhere else, I warned you for removing them (and it wasn't thinly disguised as anything, it was the standard 1st level warning template). You have done 6 reverts. Doing them section by section and moving the tag around does not change that, nor does your tagging these sections out of retaliation for your disagreement with Sess over the article content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Warned. Not so interested in the technicalities offered in Abtract's note. As far as I can see other users are objecting to Undid disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited as per at least one edit summary undoing Abtract's edits. Happy to leave this incident as a warning. Please don't persist with this behaviour.--Matilda talk 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I accept what you say. Abtract (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for 1 week)


User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also this may require looking closely because some formatting changes occurred during the edit warring, but the demographic text in question that he reverted back to repeatedly is very clearly TeePee's favorite version and not what had been decided by consensus on the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved. blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen for a number of issues including edit warring

--Matilda talk 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: blocked 24 hours)

[...etc...]

I think User:FoveanAuthor is also a sockpuppet of this user, which would contribute further reverts to the list:

Continual restoration (and expansion) of removed-by-consensus long discussion of Rev. Wright from Barack Obama (and deletion of summary-style link to dedicated article). Some edits also add a rant from National Review and/or some unneeded material on alleged association with Bill Ayers.

Clarification: I think Kossack4Truth may have been careful enough to technically avoid the letter of 3RR (assuming FoveanAuthor is just another editor with the same interest in the same articles). S/h has probably spaced reversions at just under 3/24h. But this barely-rule-meeting pattern has gone on for a number of days, the Kossack4Truth has ignored the consensus on the talk page, and essentially stated his/her intention to keep doing so forever. 3 reversions per 24 hours is not a right, and his/her edits clearly violate the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x has been unusually active lately, and this was one of his favorite targets. It might be worth a checkuser here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The listed reverts by User:Kossack4Truth span more than a 24-hour period. I recommend that the submitter clarify the claim to say if you think it's a conventional 3RR violation, or is a more general type of edit-warring. If you think User:Fovean Author is a sockpuppet of Kossack4truth some evidence would be good. (Fovean Author is the older of the two accounts). If you think you have enough to justify a checkuser, go ahead and submit the request there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. for edit warring even if not technically 3RR, not within spirit as per LotLE --Matilda talk 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brando130 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: page protected)

  1. 01:21, 20 May 2008
  2. 02:07, 20 May 2008
  3. 16:19, 20 May 2008
  4. 16:23, 20 May 2008
  5. 16:34, 20 May 2008
  • User has been around for two years, and knows the rule well enough. 4 of the reverts relate to a date and one to some tags, totally 5 reverts. I myself and another user have also had a couple of reverts, which (esp. as an admin) I shouldn't really have done, but edits being forced are serious errors which contradict the text as well as another Featured Article and user was conducting himself in a tendentious manner, such as leaving edit summaries like "stop just edit warring" while reverting and opening talk page comments with statements like "You're pretty dense, bubs." Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Brando130 has violated 3RR and Deacon of Pdnapetzim missed violating it by about 45 minutes. Blocking both would be justifiable, but I've protected the page instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wfgh66 reported by User:Wednesday Next (Result: both editors blocked for 24 hours but subsequently unblocked)


Check on User:Wednesday Next who also broke the 3RR on Berenger Sauniere and is the only Wikipedia Editor who demands copious references on Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau matters but not to any other subject matters on Wikipedia. He visits Wikipedia with the sole intention of targetting those subject matters (Priory of Sion, Rennes-le-Chateau, Berenger Sauniere, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, etc). His ignorance of the subject matter is quite shocking. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the above is true. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Rest assured that I will not be providing footnotes to the Berenger Sauniere article for the amusement of Wednesday Next, who is the only editor who demands copious footnotes; it's high time that Wednesday Next started reading real history as opposed to fake history.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Although I'm not the admin, I will give my say). Wfgh66, you yourself have broken the rule. 3 reverts is the MAX, not the I'm reporting time. Although you may not like it, I suggest that you revert your own revision to the previous. Although this may not lower your chance of getting blocked, it may teach you a lesson, a case in which requires no block. Ellomate (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please format this report according to the example provided below with diffs. I have included the template elements for you--Matilda talk 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Matilda talk 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Case closed. Ellomate (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both editors were unblocked --Matilda talk 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: nominating editor blocked for 24 hours )

  • Previous version reverted to: [17]
  • 1st revert: [18] 22.54, 20 May 2008
  • 2nd revert: [19] 00:09, 21 May 2008
  • 3rd revert: [20] 00:09, 21 May 2008
  • 4th revert: [21] 00:14, 21 May 2008
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [22] ... she is a highly experienced editor who should know better and does not need a warning, but I warned her anyway in this edit summary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This is gaming the system after the previous incident above. --Matilda talk 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Croctotheface reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: Stale)


Please note when determining the length of the block that the user made his sixth revert after the warning, and even went so far as to delete the warning without comment. Please also note that the reverts started right after page protection had been lifted and participants were warned for previous edit warring.

BLP issues are immune to 3RR, csloat. Seriously, quit shopping for a block to try to force your POV into the article, sir. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Wikipedia policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read WP:AGF; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. csloat (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The continued placement of the slander by yourself and jim is a BLP issue regardless of whether or not you accept it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting the BLP issues on this page; admins are perfectly capable of looking at the O'Reilly page to see that what you're saying is completely false. By the way, I didn't see your apology on my talk page yet regarding your insults above; did you place it somewhere else? csloat (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no apology granted for speaking the truth. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Merzbow (Result: Stale)

  • Previous versions reverted to:


These reverts are not of the same material. Moreover, the last three reverts are of an edit that I believed had been previously agreed upon. Ramsquire, who initially removed the edit, explicitly agreed to its inclusion weeks ago. I addressed this history on the Talk Page of the article as follows:

Your not knowing it was there is evidence that you weren't paying attention, not a basis for an accusation of bad faith. Review the discussion above, particularly under second try, and the prior section. I initially proposed a separate subsection under Media Matters dealing only with their "Stop the Homophobic Comments" campaign. I explicitly stated that I agreed to other editors' recommendation that what I had initially proposed as a subsection be reduced to a sentence or two, and I added the suggested edit. You didn't object to this proposed resolution. Given your history of almost instantly reverting my previous edits, I assumed you were in agreement. (After that, you and I had a prolonged discussion about edit warring.) During the discussion, Ramsquire, who agreed that a sentence or two could be appropriate, suggested that the edit might have more substance if GLAAD or others gay/lesbian org weighed in. This prompted additional research and the subsequent, broader, proposed edit "Allegations of Homophobia" in which I attempted to merge the different groups' criticism. Your objections to that edit were based on linking the different criticisms. You never advocated removing the existing material; your doing so after the extended debate about GLAAD/MM stunned me and could have lead me to accuse you of bad faith. I did not. The MM edit has been sitting in plain sight; I cannot be responsible for your failure to read it. I'd appreciate an apology.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs)

I would further add that as I was restoring an edit that had been extensively debated and, I thought, agreed upon, the deletions of that material were violations of the 3RR. The material, after much discussion, was added weeks ago. It's sudden deletion by editors who had either expressly agreed to its inclusion (Ramsquire) or who I believed had (Croctotheface) shocked me.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:3RR - reverts do not have to be of the same material. - Merzbow (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, and I apologize if this is overkill, but I ask that whoever is reviewing this matter look at (1) Ramsquire's recent comment on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly talk page where he apologized if he mislead me (I do not think he did; there was a misunderstanding) and (2) the comments on Croc's Talk page where I am described as civil and responsive to questions. I am the first to admit that I argue my positions forcefully, and lengthily...,but I consider that a good thing compared to editors who offer pro forma objections (e,g,. violates BLP, undue weight, not sourced) w/o any argument to support their bald assertions. I had thought that Croc, while profoundly misguided on some points(kidding, mostly) was at least engaging in honest debate; his recent accusations are strong evidence to the contrary, and, well, really piss me off.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Traditional unionist reported by User:86.175.64.136 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

11:38, 20 May 2008 and 16:30, 20 May 2008


This editor has a long history of edit warring, and has reverted four times in less than 24 hours (to 2 different version), including abuse of twinkle. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fifth revert added, which is a revert back to the version of 11:38, 20 May 2008. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suspect this user is a sock.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
More evidence of a knowledge of WP rules. This user, knowingly, waded into an ongoing discussion adding controvercial weaslry.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.175.64.136.
That has no bearing on this violation again you are edit warring and the evidence you provided in your sock accusation is non existent so an IP reverts you, so what you still were in an edit war, and you have been warned and blocked before for this same thing. BigDuncTalk 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And you have no reason to get involved. You have been warned about your civility already this week.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fovean Author reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale, no vio)

Barack Obama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:47, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213644627 by Newross (talk)Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")
  2. 11:14, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213678141 by Brothejr (talk)Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")
  3. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")

[edit] Comment

This particular editor has a history of disruptive edits and edit warring that are mostly reversions to the same article, although the editor normally takes care not to violate WP:3RR. Administrators may wish to consider this overall pattern when deciding on whether or not to block. In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously received a 12-hour block for edit warring on the same article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Stale, and no 3RR violation. There's only been one edit in the last few days, to the talk page. I've warned him re: personal attacks; a brief glance at the contribs and usertalk page suggest there's a real issue here, but it's not particularly active at present. MastCell Talk 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grant.Alpaugh reported by User:Fasach Nua (Result: Declined)

Im really embarassed to have to report this, a user is edit warring to have his comments displayyed on my talk page even though I have removed them on ten occasions and issued a warning on 3 occasions to stop reverting my blanking in the past few hours.

edit warring and the 3RR warning is here User_talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Warning

I don't want him blocked, I just want to be left alone Fasach Nua (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 96 hours )

  • Previous version reverted to: vary, usually the previous version by himself or one of the earlier versions by himself


Please note that Boodlesthecat was recently blocked for 48h after a 3RR report for the same page (here), then unblocked after 5h - and immediately jumped back into revert warring. The editor is also very incivil on talk, constantly harassing his opponents and accusing them of bad faith, trolling, and so on (example). Please also note that this user has been blocked 5 times this year so far for 3RR violations, harassment and disruption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not pretend this is entirely one sided. I've already mentioned to you that you are not helping calm the situation by your comments and threats towards Boodlesthecat. We should be striving to calm things at the article, not exacerbate them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments that he should be civil and that if he breaks 3RR he will be blocked? Well, I am not so sorry that as an admin I am trying to enforce our policies. Considering that Boodlesthecast is single-handedly waging a revert war - with 9 reverts in a single day after his unblock - and is reverting about 5 or 6 other editors (who are not reverting anybody but him, and who are all polite towards everybody else) I think it is quite clear what (or who) is the problem here. PS. I am afraid it is you who is not helping here, by trying to appease the user who just broke 3RR three time in less than 24h. Appeasement never works, it only makes such user bolder: as I predicted few days ago, by supporting his unblock from last 3RR violation you only convinced him he is immune to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to appease anyone, and you are hardly enforcing policies when you restore BLP violations and threaten users who remove them. If everyone stopped the blame game and started being civil to one another, then you wouldn't need outside editors like myself trying to sort out this mess. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a single of the 9 reverts I reported concerns a BLP violation. This is a simple case of 3RR warring (something that this user already has a block record of). I am not denying Boodlesthecat POV has some merits, and a consensus with more reasonable and neutral editors is possible, but we cannot reach it with a 9RR warrior harassing everybody who disagrees with him, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending a revert war (I don't agree with your interpretation that this is a 9RR, but that's another matter), what I'm trying to get through to you is that if you blame Boodles for everything and ignore the behavior of others like Greg park avenue as well as what you have said to Boodles yourself, you will do nothing but prolong this conflict. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I would recommend that you explain the constant deletions of well sourced information from this article with reference to what WP guidelines justify these deletions, rather than these continual attempts to orchestrate a team of editors to get their way via an orchestrated edit war (evidenced by the steady arrival of new editors who blindlt revert to your POV) designed to get other editors blocked. There have been zero arguments made justifying these constant deletions, and much ranting instead. You behavior constitutes a seriuos misuse of admin authority. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In reading the "rules" for this page, this "discussion" needs to stay on the question at hand: Did boodlesthecat violate WP:3RR?

Discussion external to that needs to be taken elsewhere. If it continues, I, or others, may follow the directive at the top of this page, and remove it. - jc37 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't close this one since I acted on a previous complaint between the same people and the same article. If the concern is that the edit war is causing disturbance, then full protection is something that should be considered. If the matter raises issues that are larger than this noticeboard usually handles, consider transferring the complaint to WP:ANI. Since Piotrus is an admin I hope he is considering some ideas for resolving the conflict that might win general support. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Both Boodlesthecat and User:Poeticbent reverted beyond 3RR. By numbers, Boodlesthecat was against a majority but by ethnic composition one might too easily see it as a Polish versus non-Polish revert war. A third, uninvolved party should help with getting the article right. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since my family is from Białystok, which side does that put me on? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat is on the 10th revert now. Are we going to allow such behavior to continue and wait to see if he can have 20 reverts in 48h? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not. Just tell User:Molobo over Gadu-Gadu instant messenger to back off. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:CABAL is here, muhahaha :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

96 hours. You just can't revert that much against established users, I'm sorry, no matter how right you are. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: 48 hrs )

  • Previous version reverted to: various reverts, see below


User has edited the article nearly 30 times in the past 25 hours, and these specific edits appear to be more than three reverts within a 24 hour span, as defined by the rules:

  • Has also been warned twice in the past regarding the same article:

10:13, 6 May 2008 , 02:42, 22 April 2008

  • And, previously blocked for 3RR violations on the same article here
  • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Domer48 and User:BigDunc reported by User:Setanta747 (Result:no action)

Both users have effectively assumed ownership of the article, offering no explanation of their reversions of my edit - despite invitation to do so.

Both users have subsequently removed the warnings from their talk pages. They often work in tandem to start revert wars of articles within a certain topic area.

3RR is for one individual, not tag-team reverting. Additionally, there have only been two reverts by those two all day. 3RR is four reverts for a violation. Decline action here. Metros (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.154.178.231 reported by Charles (Result: 24 hours)


This editor has been making a series of disruptive reverts across a number of pages by re-including material that other people have removed such as lists of siblings and biographical details for those siblings on the pages of royal individuals (something we simply don't do) and also by filling articles with lots of useless info that we normally don't include. FactStraight, another user and myself have been trying to restore some of these pages to a point where we can work on improving them but as you can see, from this and also from the user's contribution history, it is difficult to do so. Two other users and another IP, I believe, have done or are doing the same sorts of things and concern has been expressed that sockpuppetry is in play here. The user has also been reverting to include a non-standard, to say as kindly as possibly, system of dividing the articles with headings. However, the 3RR is concerned here (although I think the background information is important). Charles 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this anonymous editor has been warned not to violate 3RR, in multiple edit summaries and on the talk page of articles he subsequently edited. See: warning re 3RR and warning on Talk page. Most recently, when requested in edit summary to explain the grounds for his repeated reversions on the Talk page, he refused. FactStraight (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, FS. Please also see the exchange on FS' talk page as it is indicative of the anonymous user's attitude toward editing on Wikipedia. Charles 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tempted to let this go as stale, but the IP's comments give reason to believe it will be an ongoing problem. Blocked for 24 hours. If there are dynamic IP issues, we could consider semi-protection. MastCell Talk 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DaveJP reported by User:Snowded (Result: 24 hours)

User has three times inserted what looks like extreme right wing propaganda in the above page. He has attempted to disguise it as a "spelling mistake" which is clear evidence of malicious intent.

Time reported: 13:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours; with the additional IP edits, which are clearly the same user, he's over 3RR. Given the offensive nature of the edits, any further disruption should probably result in an indef-block. MastCell Talk 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Betacommand reported by User:Mukadderat (Result: No violation - Reporter warned.)

Explanation:

The community agreed that in edit count lists some users have right to have their names removed or replaced by placehorder user name user:Place holder.

User:Betacommand posted a new list with no names replaced. According to the agreement I replaced my name with "Place holder" Betacommand reverted my edit with edit summary "Vandalism" and issued a threat to me. Then he reverter with summary "NOT censored", which is inapplicable because this is not wikipedia article. This is a hobby and fun exercise of some wikipedians. I think Betacommand must he reprimanded for his behaviour forcefully disrespectful both to me and to the commiunity decision. Mukadderat (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

please read WP:3RR

Reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.

are exemp βcommand 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a living person and it is very hotly discussed that edit count is very controversial material which was by the way the reason for the compromise solution of using user:Place holder, which I did for my name. . Mukadderat (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
but its sourced perfectly. βcommand 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your wikilawyering does not adds glory to you. You are ignoring the decision of the community you your fellow wikipedians who want only one: don't engage in your editcountitis epidemia. Also you again, as with vandalism, fail to read policies carefully: biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material: please notice the two slamm letters, 'o' and 'r' in the word "or". Now please recall that the editcount page itself says that editcount is <read it yorself>.Mukadderat (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
maintaining accurate data is a good thing, Im sorry if you dont like it, but tough. you dont get to censor information that you dont like. βcommand 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have right to remove false, controversial, biased or otherwise detrimental information about me. Mukadderat (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
that page is none of the above, stop attempting to push you POV. βcommand 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My POV is no worse than yours and I am entitled to it when spoken about me in wide public. And yes that page is severely biased, as longly talked in talk page and its long archives. Mukadderat (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If (for reasons I admit I don't understand) Mukadderat doesn't want to be in this list, where is the harm in letting him not be on the list? I don't get why we need quotes from a rule book to solve this problem- a little courtesy would do the trick. Friday (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy is what Betacommand lacks severely: he accused me of vandalism, threathened to block me in my talk page and obvioulsy has no intention to apologize. Mukadderat (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is his user subpage, thus, he is exempt from 3RR in this particular case. If anybody is violating 3RR (or close to it) it is you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No he is not. Please review the thread above. He cannot force biased personal information about me even in his talk page. And he cannot call me vandal. Mukadderat (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal information!? HA! That is highly public information. Please, nobody is going to get blocked for this unless you continue to revert on somebody elses subpage. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal information means information about person. In real world people get sued for printing biased information. Mukadderat (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just now it came to my attention that Betacommand is an admin. This makes his disrespectful behavior even more appalling. And I understand nobody is going to reprimand him. Well, what can I say besides Allah is forgiving. Mukadderat (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

um, no he isn't. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
um back:
18:06, 17 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) unblocked Betacommand (Talk | contribs) ‎
Whatever. Mukadderat (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Betacommand used to be an admin, but he was desysopped a long time ago. In fact, he was desysopped for what amounts to the same type if behavior he's displaying here - jumping the gun on accusing people of bad intentions, bending the rules to fit his own agenda, and poor communication. Some things don't change. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
He was an admin before, but hasn't been one in quite a while. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No violation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rjd0060's ruling. In the past there have been very hot debates about whether people could remove themselves from this list. See Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 7. It seems that on May 20, and again on May 22, Betacommand created a file User:Betacommand/Edit count in his own user space which parallels the information normally available in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, but with the difference that he no longer uses User:Place holder to replace the names of people who want to be omitted from the list. He is not singling out Mukadderat, he is doing this for everybody. My perception is that our policy does not currently give Mukadderat the right to remove his information from Betacommand's copy of the list. If he wants to discuss the matter further, he should post his complaint at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, where there is already a thread about the topic of removing yourself from Betacommand's list. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is one ugly piece of wikilawyering. People wanted their name absent from such lists. Period. So what, now each and every one can create a separate copy of this list and we must have a separate policy to cover each list? Whatever. Obvious demonstration of disregard of the desire of 30+ wikipedians in good standing to exclude them from this game. Duly noted and added to wikilawyer list. Mukadderat (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Though no 3RR violation occurred, the debate about keeping the list is continuing at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 21. EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Catchpole reported by User:Eusebeus (Result:no action )


  • Note: we are in a slow edit war over on these episode pages. While we are not technically in a 3RR position, we will be soon. I request page protection until this issue can be resolved on the talk page. The editor's talk page will indicate that this is not an isolated editing pattern (nor is mine); whilst there has been some acrimony over the editing procedures on this topic, most other editors have demonstrated willingness to discuss along content lines that have been part of an ongoing debate for 7 months now. Neither of us wants to end up blocked over this issue, I am certain. Eusebeus (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Eusebeus appears to be reporting his own reverts. Note that I have not been reverting, each of my edits today has been to add new information to the article. Catchpole (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been no 3RR violation. If you feel protection is needed, report this to WP:RFPP. Metros (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WilliamKF reported by 86.29.142.126 (Result: no action)

NB: Copy and pasted from User talk:86.29.142.126 on request.


I thought I needed to keep the warning history up for the WP:AIV request that was pending. Next time, I'll try to put the vandal warning template in the summary line too. WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to make anything big out of this, because you were trying to the right thing. Just read this and I'm sure you'll understand: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
When there's this type of blatant vandalism in progress, there's not much wrong with restoring the warnings. However it is usually best to just mention to AIV that the warnings are being removed. It will be readily apparent from the vandal's contributions. Result: the vandal was blocked and the page was protected. No further action. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eurovisionman reported by User:Kevin Murray (Result: 24h)


After repeated warnings about 3RR and BLP and attempts to mediate his concerns User:Eurovisionman continues to edit war and add disputed material to Isis Gee. See where he adds back essentially the same information about 6 times [30]. I became involved with this in an attempt to resolve the frustrations of another editor participating in a MECAB discussion I’m mediating. Prior to this I’ve not been a party to this article and have never requested 3RR enforcement before.

Blocked for 24 hours Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChrisO reported by User:IronDuke (Result: Stale )


  • 1st previous version [31]
This version does not contain the sentence “French court ruled that his 'death' may have been staged, and was in any case unlikely to have been caused by IDF soldiers.”
  • 2nd previous version (same as 1st) [32]
Among many other changes, Category:Violence in media has been removed.
  • 3rd previous version (same as 1st) [33]
Category:Violence in media has been removed.
  • 4th previous version (same as 1st) [34]
Category:Violence in media has been removed.
  • 5th previous version (same as 1st) [35]
Removes citation (among other changes).



  • ChrisO is an admin, and has blocked others for 3rr violations: [36], in addition to having been blocked himself twice for 3RR, and being blocked for edit-warring for 3rr (with mention of edit-warring) -- which he has a long history of in this topic area [37].

This is another frivolous request for sanctions from a problem user with a track record of harassing admins (background: he objects to my involvement in this arbitration case and recently filed a frivolous and speedily rejected request for arbitration against me as retaliation). For the record, the article in question has been the subject of a French libel case which was concluded on Tuesday. Two editors and an anonymous IP address separately added a number of inaccurate and outright POV contributions to the article. As the diffs show, in all but one of my five edits, the material being reverted or reworded was different on each occasion. I might also point out that the article is covered by WP:BLP, as it concerns serious allegations against living people (who have sued others for libel concerning those allegations) - thus WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies. (IronDuke, note this well - "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.") -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My arb request was neigher frivolous nor speedily rejected. After several days, three arbs decided that more dispute resolution should occur, and that the request was therefore "premature." Had it been frivolous, it would indeed have been speedily removed.
BLP does not apply to the reversions you made, and the subject of this article is dead.
I will also note that subsequent to my informing Chris that I had filed the report (as a courtesy), he -- literally -- threatened me on his talk page. [38]. Note also the edit sumary of "gloves off." IronDuke 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Much of the article concerns allegations against people who are very much alive and have sued for libel, so BLP very definitely does apply. The article has been and is being targeted by POV-pushers who wish to state the allegations as fact - not acceptable under either WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. As for the warning on my talk page, since you have a track record of harassing administrators whose actions you disapprove of, I think you can expect some close scrutiny in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article mentions living people. No, your edits were not calculated to protect them; I note you never mention BLP in your edit summaries. There may well be POV-pushing going on, though I think it possible that you are engaged in it as well.
I do not believe I have ever harrassed an adminstrator in my entire career here. I will question when I see an adminstrator - or regular editor- doing something I think is unhelpful, but I do so within the letter and the spirit of policies here, something I don't think you can claim. Contrary to your assertion, I am not a problem user. I have never been blocked, or even threatened with it, except by you. I note that you, as an admin, have been blocked relatively recently.
You are free to scrutinize me, though I hope you are aware that you may not block me for reasons good or bad, due to our long and (very unfortunate) ever-growing record of conflict. I also hope you won't edit-war with me -- you'll note I'm not reverting your edits (though I disagree with some of them), and I'd like to keep things that way. However, if I violate 3rr, feel free to drop a report here. I could hardly blame you, could I? IronDuke 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: can you say, for each of your edits, which specific living person was being protected? IronDuke 01:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how we can censure an editor for going over 3RR if he can make a reasonable case that he is removing BLP violations. The fact that there is a court case where specific individuals were charged for libel makes it an obvious BLP issue. I don't think we have to do a complete analysis of who is right for every specific claim. From quickly reading over the recent edits to the article you can tell that defamation is arguable, in many different directions. I hope that Chris will not continue to revert without a more detailed discussion on the article's Talk page, where he has not left any comments so far. If after this moment there is an ongoing revert war we should consider protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, respectfully, I'd ask you the same question I asked Chris: which edits that Chris made protected a specific person? In fact, all the POV edits to this article, from both sides, are simply skewing the story towards "The Palestinians staged it," to "The journalist committed libel." Chris's edits are more supportive of the those who condemn the journalist, which would violate BLP, not defend it. And I can't see how repeated removals of the category Violence in Media is somehow a BLP issue -- and that's three of the reversions. Another is removing a source saying the Israelis could not have killed al-Durrah (which is a BLP violation how?) and the other reversion also removes material that supports the Israeli position. All of which may be justifiable, but not on BLP grounds, and not for violating 3rr. IronDuke 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume by "journalist" you mean the defendant blogger (not journalist) rather than the plaintiff TV reporter. The simple fact of the matter is that the case has been badly misreported by many English-language blogs, which some editors have tried to use as sources. Other editors have misrepresented what the court's verdict actually said (as in this instance). The verdict is a lot more nuanced that some have claimed - it upheld the finding that the blogger's comments had been defamatory but quashed the libel conviction, and it said there was legitimate doubt about the accuracy of the reporter's reporting, but did not support the plaintiff's allegations. Now, considering that this article concerns a court case for defamation, as well as covering the allegations that are the subject of the case, we have a responsibility to ensure that the case is reported accurately. It would be irresponsible for us to let the article state as fact claims that a court has already found to be defamatory, and it would be just as irresponsible to misrepresent the court case in a way that would itself be defamatory. Many political activists want to "convict" the reporter but that's not what we're here for. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I should add that no revert war is ongoing, and I have discussed some of the edits with one of the editors involved (see User talk:Gilabrand#NPOV and categories). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverts occured, in this particular instance, on the 21st and 22nd of May. It's now the 23rd. Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Parlimen Rembau reported by User:Singopo (Result: Stale. )

  • Despite warnings, this user continues to make the same reverts.
Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aimulti reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Stale. )

  • 4 reversions to previous version within this diff: [39] 23:19, 22 May 2008

This occurred immediately after release of blocks for personal attacks and sockpuppetry, both related to this article.

I NEVER was involved in sockpuppetry. Someone I knew joined the debate, without my knowledge, and I was honest enough to admit that this person was probably known to me. How can I control the actions of others? I even went so far as to tag them as one topic editors (with the other two one topic editors) but somehow got logged out and my IP, instead of user name, appeared on the tags. I was again accused of using a sockpuppet but was later cleared. I have played by the rules (unlike others involved in this heated debate) but have made some errors as I am new to Wikipedia (Novice editor). This special interest (hate group) attack on me has nothing to do with the quality of Wikipedia but is vendetta motivated. NOTE. I DO NOT include Todd in this group, just the one topic editors so tagged.Aimulti (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale ScarianCall me Pat! 10:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DrGabriela reported by Merzbow (talk) (Result: x2 24 hour blocks )

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). DrGabriela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:46, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Here is more of your "evidence" that I agree with half of the editors: the Japan section in full is appropriate. Sorry to disagree with you, William.")
  2. 03:55, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Once more.")
  3. 05:30, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "revert account with only a small handful of edits and no participation on the talk page about this subject.")
  4. 05:32, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "revert Merzbow's billionth sock puppet.")
  5. 05:34, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "very funny. Revert vandal SPA account.")
  6. 05:36, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "fprdm")
  7. 05:39, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv vandal SPA account")
  • Diff of warning: here

SPAs out of control. I've already requested full prot at WP:RPP, we will never have peace until this ArbCom case finishes. —Merzbow (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like A Rainbow and Dr.Gabriela both blocked for 24 hours for extreme 3RR violation. I will watch the article and take further action if necessary. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Almalabaari and User:Joeblckw reported by User:Pseudomonas (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )

While both editors have been reverting each other over this and so I feel I ought to report both, I have some sympathy with the argument of Joeblckw in that he has been removing fairly egregious POV-pushing. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alm. and Joe. both blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 1 week)

Barack Obama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:28, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "Ayers:“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” Google it.")
  2. 12:58, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv weaselly revert 214358883 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Wright is an "activist", Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists, and since they -admit- to being bombers it's hardly libel to say so.")
  3. 15:31, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214435958 by Loonymonkey (talk) restore material necessary for NPOV")
  4. 15:31, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv rvt 214421028 by Modocc. Undo weasel, again.")
  5. 17:29, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Presidential campaign: estore Ayers") (added by --Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

(3rd and 4th edits are consecutive, so I suppose the count as one)

This user has previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. This is largely revolving around a content dispute on one of Wikipedia's most popular articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added another revert by Andy that seems to be a gaming of the system by waiting 25 hours from his first revert in order to restore his preferred wording. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 week, given several prior 3RR violations and blocks. There are a handful of additional reverts just outside the 24-hour window, e.g. [40], which add to a picture of ongoing edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR. MastCell Talk 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: Stale. )


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

This user was blocked less than three days ago for edit warring on this article, specifically for trying to insert the exact same text that he continues to revert to. Once his block expired, he resumed the edit war. He initially demanded sources saying that the Chinese government were the ones questioning the report (even though the Chinese census is quoted in the next sentence). Then, when I rewrote the sentence to clarify exactly what the findings are conflicting with, he reverted again as being poor english. Subsequent reverts have demanded that I use the talk page, but without explaining further why he's reverted the changes. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PhilKnight and User:Chiefofall (Result: Warned Chiefofall)

Help! These two users are deliberately removing well-sourced material and accusing me of being near or in violation of 3RR in order to prevent the term hindu fanatic from appearing in the article Hindu terrorism. Block text of the Guardian source can be read on my User_talk:Firefly322 to easily check my contribution. The other source is the Economist, which also used the phrase (this separately sourced contribution was never questioned just removed with the same bad faith broad brush as the other, even after it had been completely corrected). I also have recent, respectable sources on Hindu fanatics who have slaughtered Christians, but I don't see how to add them when these two editors have starte to play bad faith 3RR games. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given Chiefofall (talk · contribs) a final warning for seven reverts within 24 hours, as no prior warning was given. I should also note that Firefly322 (talk · contribs) has three reverts (close, but no cigar) and I find no violation with PhilKnight (talk · contribs). seicer | talk | contribs 03:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More reverts and edit history wiki-lawyering without discussion

Chiefofall (talk · contribs) continues to remove material without serious and meaningful talk-page discussion. [46] and user User:PhilKnight (an administrator!) appears to be encouraging this edit war. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HAl reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: 31 hours )


Previous warnings used to show knowledge of the rule.

Previous ban for 3rr violation

Stale report of another 3RR violation proving additional proof of edit waring. [50]

HAl has a history of using reverting as an editing style. He has removed the same section of the Open_xml#Criticism section 4 times within the last 24hours. Attempts to discuss this with him have failed [51]. He does not have consensus or the right to remove referenced claims on the page but continues to do so regardless of the rules. HAl has broken the rule at least one time before and is well aware of the 3RR rule. Even if you only count 3 it is a example of edit warring.AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All my edits were on previous revert edits by AlbinoFerret who stated by reverting this edit by User:MonirTime
His 4 reverts were:
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55].
Also AlbinoFerret repeatedly ignored clearly referenced information on the talk page which showed his revert was readding info that is totally out of date and incorrect. There was clearly referenced evidence on the talk page showing the information being incorrect. He has not brought forward newer information to counter that hAl (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That is from multiple days. From the 20th-24th. This is not the place to discuss content differences. Even though you have twisted the rules and meaning to try and make it look like you are in the right. WP:VER states the threshold is verifiability. Its referenced , and rather discuss this, you have reverted it.AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Hereward77 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )


  • Diff of 3RR warning:
  1. 14:58, April 8, 2008
  2. 14:15, February 12, 2008
  3. 19:13, January 12, 2008 (oops, that was mine, on the same article)
  4. 19:50, August 1, 2007
  • Including his occupation without including what he's actually known for seems to be arguably a BLP violation. In regard the infobox, it clearly puts him in a false light. To counteract Hereward77's invevitable counterclaim that including conspiracy theorist is a BLP violation, we have 7 sources in the lead that he's known as a conspiracy theorist. Whether they all support he's known for being a conspiracy theorist is unclear, as I haven't read all of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's hard to fathom how his reputation could be harmed by him *not* being labelled as a conspiracy theorist. This could be a true fact about him, I'm just finding the BLP argument hard to see. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not stating what he is known for (being a conspiracy theorist) in favor of things he is not known for (television host) in the infobox clearly shows him in a false light, but probably doesn't rise to being a BLP violation. On the other hand, I only have 3 reverts, as the removal of the infobox cannot rationally be called a revert. even though the infobox obviously wasn't there at some point in the past. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Result - I have blocked Arthur Rubin for 24 hours and Hereward for 48 hours. Both were edit warring and both broke WP:3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Life.temp reported by User:Marskell (Result: Stale. )

  • Diff of warning: [56]

This is actually 27 rather than 24 hours but reverts aren't an entitlement and there is a wider pattern of disruption at work here. Life.temp has been gutting sections of this article repeatedly for more than a month, evident in his contrib's. Above he cuts the same sourced section four times (these aren't reverts to the same identical version—in the third he cuts an extra swath—but the primary removal is there in all four.) He has made clear that he is going to continue to do this despite being the only editor advocating gutting the article; three different editors have reverted him in the above cycle. Given that this has been going on for a month I think he needs to be hit with the cluestick. Admin Henrik had to lock down the article for a week and I'm considering his unprotection statement a warning: "Deleting wide swaths will just be reverted, and will probably get the editors doing it blocked for disruption at some point." Disruption is just what we have; the article is being held hostage to these mass removals. Marskell (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Muscovite99 reported by Kulikovsky (talk) (Result: Stale. )

Vladimir Putin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

1.15:35, 17 May 2008 (edit summary: "Put the quote back in the proper form") Was included by mistake. Kulikovsky (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. 17:10, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Improper removal of content")
  2. 17:16, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Economics statistics have no place in the lead of a biography")
  3. 17:22, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
  4. 17:48, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "the teplate not explained by any specific evidence")
  5. 17:54, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "Mere speculation")
  6. 16:32, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Economy figures are not relevant to BLP article much less to intro, "explanation-of-popularity" argument is your fanciful conjecture")

Please note, that Muscovite99 has been blocked twice for 3RR violation in the same article.

Also, about 10 days ago some content removal done by Muscovite99 was qualified by an administrator as inappropriate. The administrator advised Muscovite99 accordingly (more about the whole Administrator's noticeboard discussion here.

Yet twice within 24 hours he again removed the same content

even though before second removal User:Krawndawg reminded Muscovite99 twice about the administrator advisory: on talk page [57] and in edit summary[58].

—Kulikovsky (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User hasn't reverted in a fair few hours. Also, those diffs are pretty stale themselves. 3RR, generally, relates to 24 hour rv's. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:132.241.178.146 reported by User:nneonneo (Result: 31 hours)


  • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. --slakr\ talk / 05:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous Reverts by Anonymous User (Result: No Action)

I'm not sure where to report this, but this seems like as good a place as any. On the Literary Arabic page, there is linguistic content about the relationship between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic. For the last two weeks a single user has been continually pushing a pro-Arab POV. I have reverted this inserted information with the note to take the issue to the Talk Page. This anonymous user, using different IP addresses has continued to change the article without a peep on the Talk page. I'm fairly certain that the different anonymous numbers represent a single user because the changes he introduces are word-for-word the same each time. What can be done? I'm new to reporting abuse of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

I see that a number of different anonymous users have been warring against you on the article. I suggest that you yourself make more use of the Talk page, since the IPs never seem to use it. The points being warred over seem like they could use more references. If, over time, it appears that the IP edits are abusive you might be able to ask for semi-protection at WP:RPP. This is not actually a well-formed 3RR report (see instructions at the top of this page). The last revert is 3 days old, so I'm closing it with No Action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kyle E. Coyote reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: Stale. )

  • Previous version reverted to: 1614


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2212

This user used an IP address: User:72.23.123.63 and the account User:Kyle E. Coyote as an attempted go-around. I’m reporting both separately to keep from having him revert to IP to vandalize. He admitted as much with this diff in which he also engaged in a personal attack.

Would call this stale. User is awfully close though. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: 72.23.123.63 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: Stale/No vio )

  • Previous version reverted to: 1614


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2212

This user used an IP address: User:72.23.123.63 and the account User:Kyle E. Coyote as an attempted go-around. I’m reporting both separately to keep from having him revert to IP to vandalize. He admitted as much with this diff in which he also engaged in a personal attack.

Report is stale, but I have blocked the reporter for gross incivility aimed at the IP and other users. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Detective81 reported by User:Dmol (Result: 48 hour block )

Detective81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [59]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

Possible sock puppet for other IP user names. Has been blocked and warned already.

In evaluating this, please consider this editor's whole contribution history. Note that moments after his block expired, he recreated a twice-deleted and protected article under a slightly changed title and reverted much of the material that precipitated the block in the first place. Good faith is becoming a stretch. PhGustaf (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked this user for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Giovanni33 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: No 3RR vio )

Note: G33 is under 1/7 RR parole; see [65] and was last blocked under this in April; same article, of course.


  • 1st revert: [66] revert of [67] (amongst many others, that section went in and out like a yo-yo) 2008-05-21T08:29:55
  • 2nd revert: [68] (partial revert of [69]) 2008-05-25T18:27:16


  • Diff of 3RR warning: n/a; user is subject to arbcomm parole
This would probably be best seen at the Arbcom Enforcement board. He hasn't violated 3RR or made a revert (per se) that I can see. Unless he's been extremely clever. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I have left a message on the reporting user's talk page and reposted this (somewhat edited) on the correct page. John Smith's (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Parlimen Rembau reported by User:Singopo (Result: 24 hours)



  • I reported this situation to this noticeboard back on 23 May, however the admin who dealt with it, Scarian, declined to take any action noting that the situation had become stale. But it’s no longer stale. Back then, this user had made 6 reverts to this article. Since then he’s made 9 more, each time removing the same material without any explanation. Messages to the user’s talk page and through edit summaries by myself and others urging the user to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the article’s talk page have been ignored. Singopo (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deepak D'Souza reported by User:Eios1234 (Result: Stale. No vio anyway)

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [77]

Logging in after a few days, I have found multiple reverts made by this vandal over and over again. Unfortunately, he keeps reverting back to a page created by a vandal with multiple errors on it. The correct page is in need of editing and it has been suggested by other users that edit constructively instead of creating an edit war. I suspect he is monitoring the page to make edits as people reverse the reverts done by vandals to de-construct the page. I have discovered that other users have warned him of this as well, User:Deepak D'Souza. This is very concerning.

It's been 9 hours since a revert; stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
CommentNot just that , it is 6 reverts in a week; not 3 reverts within 24 hours as the rule states :-). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL , on closer examination, none of the reverts pointed to are mine, rathere they are reverts of my edits!!! Eios1234 u need to do a better job than this! And why are you showing reverts to versions done by 59.103.26.30 when actually you should be showing reverts done by me to those done by your sockpuppet 68.110.238.158. None of the entries pointed by you are correct according to WP rules. Go get a life!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No vio anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fovean Author reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Previous version reverted to: [78]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: He's been an edit warrior for quite awhile and has had reports filed against him (there's one up above) and several warnings.

This one is a complex reverting, but I'm not going to provide the old version for some of them because the edit summaries on all are the "Undid revision ...." --Bobblehead (rants) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(removed duplicate report, left additional info added by LotLE)--Bobblehead (rants) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User frequently attempts to introduce extraneous material linking bio subject to Bill Ayers, to give WP:UNDUE weight to a prior campaign guilt-by-association tactic. A long serious of prior edits attempted to WP:SOAPBOX in a different section of the article, on the same topic:

  1. 03:29, 18 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213171020 by Newross (talk)If it isn't, it should be")
  2. 04:36, 18 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213185598 by Tvoz (talk)If you want to make changes, get a consensus")
  3. 10:47, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213644627 by Newross (talk)Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")
  4. 11:14, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213678141 by Brothejr (talk)Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")
  5. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")
  6. 16:04, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214466996 by Johnpseudo (talk)Has nothing to do with campaign and everything to do with bio")
  7. 04:52, 25 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214711970 by Modocc (talk)Let's just leave it as the consensus version while you consider")

LotLE×talk 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This user seems likely to be a proxy or sockpuppet of User:Kossack4Truth, who was recently blocked on same article for similar edits. This latter account has also reverted to the same "Fovean Author" version in the last 24 hours:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=214839484&oldid=214839051
Stale report; more admins need to work on 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
How can this be stale if the report is less than 24 hours old? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion of this issue begun on Scarian's talk page -- perhaps it would be good to have it there. Failing that, the discussion could be moved to the talk page here. IronDuke 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me make it clear... any report where the reported user hasn't rv'd in less than 3-4 hours is considered stale. It's a subjective argument but a logical one. Administrators do not block to punish users, rather, they block to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a novel interpretation of 3RR, at least in my five years or so experience with it. Does this mean to Scarian, that as long as admins are slow to read the notice board, no one will ever be blocked for violations? I guess that when (not if) Fovian Author next violates on this same edit, I'll post the report again. I see the point of 3RR as providing slightly less gentle encouragement to editors to refrain from edit warring, not simply to prevent the one next reversion. LotLE×talk 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Scarian. Are there any other admins who have such strict standards? I can think of no others. I would also suggest 1) It actually takes quite a while to generate such a report, especially if the reverts are complex and different versions are reverted to and 2) as reverts often take place more than three or four hours apart, it would not be amiss to block even when the report has not been filed within two hours of the last revert. Nor does any of this explain why you do not even warn users that they have violated 3rr -- can you explain it? Thanks again. IronDuke 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I, too, disagree with Scarian's standard of staleness. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Scarian has sensibly started a discussion here. IronDuke 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion would be to block for 24 hours, by the way, or, failing that, to sternly warn Fovean Author that he must stop edit warring and block is he reverts again within a reasonable timeframe. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marskell reported by User:Life.temp (Result: No Violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME Not sure what I'm supposed to put here. He has successively reduced the amount of material he is reverting, but he persists in reverting something each and every time, never with any explanation on the Talk page.


Technically 28 hours, but see also...

  • Non-acceptance of proposed truce: [79]
  • Refusal of mediation: [80]
  • recent comments indicating disinterest in working toward consensus:
    • "So keep on talking but I'm done here." [81]
    • Comments on my Talk page after I warned him: [82]

Life.temp (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp has been waging a campaign of disruption on this article for a month. He enjoys spamming noticeboards. There are not four reverts above. In the last, I removed a sentence that he specifically cite-tagged because I agreed it was unsupported. The other sentence was removed because it exists, in nearly identical form, in the last paragraph of the section. And yes, 28 hours.

I have not indicated I will avoid consensus—I have indicated I specifically don't want to speak with this editor as doing so is excruciating. In any case, we have consensus on this section from the other editors hanging around—that it should remain in the article despite Life.temp's desire to remove it. Marskell (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by last, I mean his first listed—the usual order is flipped. Marskell (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No violation. This is an very high-minded and intellectual debate. It's hard to see bad faith on either side. Since the reverts span more than 24 hours, there is technically no violation. The debaters should probably post their issues on a wider forum rather than continuing to revert each other. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that we should discuss on a wider forum rather than reverting. He has repeatedly stated he doesn't want to talk to me, e.g. "I have indicated I specifically don't want to speak with this editor" above. Then he reverts my edits. So what am I supposed to do? Life.temp (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rpgon2 reported by User:Ncwfl (Result: x2 24 hour blocks )

Rpgon2 refuses to let anyone make any significant edits and continues to add information from unreliable sources. My attempt to edit the criticism section in any amount is met by a revert. He rarely looks over the full edit often reverting to editions with misspellings. He disguises the reverts as "minor corrections", or deleting entire sections.Ncwfl (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both user's blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.154.28.192 reported by User:Geneisner (Result: Article protected )

This is the third time 216.154.28.192 has removed information from this article. User has not discussed, yet keeps taking things out of the article. It seems there is a pattern with this particular user. I've discussed my views on the article's talk page, and encourage others to do so as well. I recommend these topics for discussion, and should the article be partially protected until this issue is satisfactorily resolved by a consensus and/or democratic diplomacy? Geneisner (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 48 hours; please work out content disputes on the article's talk page. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.175.111.21 reported by User:Antique_Rose (Result: 24 hours )

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hereward77 reported by User:Skyring (Result: 96 hours)


Hereward77's user page contains several 3RR warnings and he is coming off a 48-hour block for edit-warring on the same article. He is aware of an AN/I report raised against him for NPA at 09:34, 27 May 2008.

Blocked – for a period of 96 hours. More edit warring on Alex Jones (radio) after release of previous 3RR block. Personal attacks in edit summaries, as described on ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dbachmann reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: 24 hour block )


  • Diff of 3RR warning: Dbachmann is an admin, and has been involved in 3RR disputes in the past, for example: 10:11, 15 November 2007

Edit war continues into the previous week, through 11:53, 15 May 2008.

Result - I have blocked Dbachmann for 24 hours for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect, given the purpose of 3RR is getting parties talking and the fact that no substantive replies have been made to dab's concerns on the talkpage - and instead the history shows concerted Wikiproject-based reversion - this appears to be a pretty pointless action. Blocking one of our best encyclopedia-builders for this nonsense. What a waste.--Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that a block was not the best solution, mainly because it solves nothing. Abtract (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it curious that "concerted Wikiproject-based reversion" is used to describe a single admin's edit war with members of a WikiProject working on a page within that WikiProject. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Curiously accurate? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: And Wikipedia reaches a new low in the ongoing pointless controversy about disambiguation pages; for the previous low point see the my comment at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract; In this case the first revert by dbachmann was done because User:Abtract had apparently been stalking dab. Abtract wrote in the edit summary: (clean needed to counter repeated non-standard edits) and added the dismabig-cleanup-tag: dab countered: (give me a break. Either explain yourself on talk or leave it be, but don't follow me around with your "disambig-cleanup" template.) [83]; next up was an edit in which User:JHunterJ removed the link to Energeia and re-added Vitalism, revert by Dab.[84]; although dab did not write anything in the edit summary, he later wrote a longer comment concerning the factual issue on the talk page which remained unanswered: [85]; User:Sesshomaru has countered in the meantime, but he did not actually put forward anything on the actual question. Dab then restored the link to Energeia [86]; somewhere around this time Sess added another surreal user warning to Dab's talk page.[87]; Sess, just for your personal information: Aristotle's' view dominated European thought until Galileo Galilei. Removing the link to Energeia is controversial, not insisting on it being kept. Let's see if I can find an example for this: I'd say that removing Energeia from the disambig. on Energy is about as bad as removing Starship Enterprise from Enterprise. There might be a few people who haven't heard of Starship Enterprise because they don't watch TV. There might also be many people who have never heard of Aristotle's' physics because they don't read books - but anyone who knows about it can say that it is relevant. And if you actually had attempted to discuss the issue, you would have learned that. Anyway, in his last revision dab actually compromised and didn't link Energeia, but insisted on the link to Energy (society) being kept, noting that removing this link to was blanking [88]. Anyone who had taken 20 minutes to evaluate the situation completely would have come to the conclusion that dab acted in good faith, reverting what he perceived to be vandalism. Now, do we really have to argue whether removing the link to Energy (society) from a disambig. on Energy is Simple and obvious vandalism? (Right, I just wasted another hour on a noticeboards/RFCs/talk pages; This way I never get to work on the articles.)Zara1709 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The addition or removal of "Energeia" is incidental to the problems of (a) attempting to redefine what a term's primary topic is on a disambiguation page and (b) bulking up the intro to a navigational page with a lot of content better suited for article pages. These are the points raised that have gone unanswered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To Abtract and Relata Refero - He may be an admin and an excellent article builder but that does not entitle him to edit war. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And numerical superiority does not entitle parties in a dispute to ignore substantive concerns on the talkpage, among other problems. I merely point out that the block is not aligned with an optimal outcome. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And numerical minority does not entitle a party in a dispute to ignore substantive conerns on the talkpage either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There weren't any at the time, so your point, while true, is irrelevant to this situation. ---Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Scarian's actions. The block should be endorsed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dab might "be an admin and an excellent article builder", but that is not what I have said at all. Do you want to argue that removing the link to energy (society) was not simple and obvious vandalism, or do you concede that point that dab was at least once reverting vandalism and that thus this is not a 3rr violation? Zara1709 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To Zara - I take exception to you assuming that I have been stalking dab, simply because he said so in a weak moment. I have been watching and editing this page for some time because the subject interests me and in no way have I ever nor will I ever "stalk" dab. I am simply trying to clean disambiguation pages (something I used to enjoy but, for obvious reasons, the gilt has gone off it somewhat). I disagree with his insistence, againt all manual of style advice, on using a dictionary definition, complete with the Greek, instead of the primary topic for the lead sentence - and I have told him that repeatedly. There is nothing more to it than that. However, as I said above, I don't think a block solves anything. Abtract (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what the word 'apparently' was for; From your edit summary and dab's reply I got the this impression, but I did want to wast another 30 minutes going through all your and dab's edits to be sure on this. That would be the job of the deciding admin.Zara1709 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
We have to agree that Dhachmann is a good editor, however he does have a tendency to ignore the basic rules, that resulted in this block [for a short period]. Certainly he should be careful to in future not to indulge in the habit of ignoring the consensus, take shortcuts and blame everything that he may not know on WP:FRINGE. WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS are very very basic rules. They apply especially to administratorś who are supposed to ensure the rules are followed. Just as providing summary is an essential sign of adhering to consensus requirement and ability to communicate. Its not that 'sometimes' its needed, its is needed always, as if the issue is bigger it needs a greater consensus on the talk pages or on relevant project pages. Ignoring this conflicts with his situation as administrator subject to recall. I have full faith that he will be able to reform and will not violate the rules again. I also wonder if this is the reason for his talk page to be semi-protected, so that nobody who is not in the circle of friends can say what they want. How do you communicate with him if he does not use the talk pages, summary and his talk page is semiprotected? With best wishes, Wikidās-ॐ 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
WD, semiprotection doesn't stop you from talking to him, and his page is s-protected following months of attacks from IPs. And the problem here is that consensus is difficult to achieve with tandem-reverting talkpage-ignoring people. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, could you please clarify the bit about 'nobody who is not in the circle of friends can say what they want'? How exactly does that work? I'm relatively new, but that comment looks pretty strange to me and I'd like you to back it up.
Meanwhile I'd like to see some discussion somewhere of the issue about disambiguation pages.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that looks odd coming after Relata refero's comment, which I didn't see for some reason and thought I was replying directly to Wikidas, whose explanation I'd still like to hear as at the moment I'm not happy with that comment.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the conduct not to the circle of friends per se. It is not proper to block ones own talk page according to the rules of conduct. This has nothing to do with this incident bar the fact that this may give a context to it. Again he is a good editor, and he works hard. He need to uphold the admin conduct and rules not be on this board. Wikidās-ॐ 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to see some discussion look at these, where it goes on interminably ... Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation ... Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) ... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation ... Abtract (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
All parts of the MoS are nothing more than guidelines to aid local talkpage discussion and the formation of consensus there. People tend to forget that. Applying one-size fits all rules to disambiguation pages strike those not involved as a little absurd; to use those rules to edit-war without engaging on the talkpage beyond "them's the rules" is inappropriate, to say the least. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:83.4.165.112, User:83.4.168.185 reported by User:Buffer_v2 (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )

I'll only provide the logs by the most recent changes made by one of his IPs... obvious that its him, has been reverting edits by 3 different IPs today.. but all have the same root IP and all made the same changes User:83.4.168.185

Please note that this user is User:Panel_2008 (he has been banned before) - please check IP (it will come from the same country for sure). Based on his specific formatting style on the discussion pages - it is fairly obvious to us that this is him (he came back with the IP accounts instead of his real account because he was just banned). See his most recent comment with his IP here, and browse his comments as Panel_2008 on the discussion pages... obvious. He's been involved in months of edit warring, and fails to obey consensus. Even worse, he makes no attempt at reaching compromise. We have been through mediation but he has gone on to ignore that as well - see here.

And can I also ask that the page be protected again (unfortunately we've gone through protection a number of times)? But first be reverted to the version that's reached consensus? Thanks.--Buffer v2 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? People didn't agree it's obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.165.112 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the IP's for 24 hours each. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DeFacto reported by User:Daniel.Cardenas (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:07, 26 May 2008 - User responded to this warning in the discussion page.

DeFactor has been involved in an edit war with several editors over the past several days.

Result - 24 hour block. ScarianCall me Pat! 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wtcsurvivor and User:Jazz2006 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Wtcsurvivor indef as a sock)

This complicated. Each of them has had at least 4 reverts in a 24 hour period ending about 8 hours ago, according to the edit summaries. (This count only includes one revert in each sequence of consecutive edits.)

All times PDT (UTC -7) to avoid transcription problems.


  • Comment:
  • I also have 3 reverts in the period from 02:20 to 23:29 on May 26. Also, "W" claims BLP violations, and "J" may claim that "W" is a sock of the banned Jrandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). (I also claim BLP violations, but it's marginal, and I won't insist.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef Wtcsurvivor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sock of Jrandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Wtcsurvivor began editing in November 2007 right after Jrandi was blocked, uses the same arguments, and edits only this one article, as did Jrandi. (Notice how Wtcsurvivor seamlessly continues Jrandi's argument in Talk:William Rodriguez#Removals on November 30, after the latter's indef block on November 28). He has aggressively added improper sources to the article, reverts constantly, removes valid sources, and attacks other editors on the Talk page. Jazz2006 has also been incivil on the Talk page.
  • With the agreement of administrator Stifle, this replaces his previous article protection closure of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ulster Vanguard reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hour block )


Editor is repeatedly adding a nationality of British, which is redundant at best and provocative at worst. BigDuncTalk 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked Ulster for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:65.78.13.238 and User:DougWeller reported by User:Majeston (Result:reporter blocked)


  • 1st revert: [15:48, 27 May 2008]
  • 2nd revert: [17:00, 27 May 2008]
  • 3rd revert: [18:01, 27 May 2008]
  • 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Both editors user;65.78.13.238 and user:DougWeller have been edit warring the article [The Urantia Book] for over a month now. Neither editor has been a contributor to the article and both have appeared on the scene in the past month as a tag-team of disruption and collusion. Respectfully request a block of both users and protection for the article. Thank You.

  • Although this report is malformed, it is easy to see from the article history that both 65.78.13.238 and Majeston have been edit warring on this article for far too long. Majeston has actually violated 3RR, while the IP has not. Though I'm not usually a fan of blocking only one participant in these cases, I'm going to do so this time and block Majeston, who is clearly aware of the concept of edit warring, for 24 hours while warning the IP that 3RR is not an entitlement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. So ironic to see the user who today actually violated 3RR (Majeston) trying to report others who haven't. I decided not to report him to this noticeboard because it didn't appear he had received a 3RR warning. It appears that my posting of the warning on his talk page educated him to the presence of this noticeboard, which he tried to use as a weapon against other editors. I did also notify 65.78.13.238 of 3RR. Wazronk (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
He left a 3RR warning on my talk page. My last 2 edits were yesterday (the 27th) and the 19th. Now that is some tough edit war, eh? He's also asked for me to be blocked entirely from editing. And tried to put a semiprotect tag on himself. His response about using the Talk page for resolution was "yeah, sure thing....like i've got nothing better to do......i'll jump right on that"[90] --Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sedonafengshui aka User:216.19.43.241 reported by User:Cbramble (Result: Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Feng shui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Time reported: 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) My apologies if I have not completed this correctly; first time having to report this.

user:Sedonafengshui who is also user:216.19.43.241 and possibly user:67.203.138.58 and myself user:cbramble have been edit warring the article [feng shui] for many days. I user:cbramble am a contributor on WikiProject China and currently reworking feng shui and Luopan. user:sedonafengshui is not a contributor, has a history of conflict of interest, adding irrelevant material, unsourced material, & poorly sourced references, plus what seems to be personal vision of subject (adds more sections that conflict with existing sections).

user:sedonafengshui just botted me for vandalism.

  • 1st revert: 17:04, 26 May 2008 by user:sedonafengshui
  • 2nd revert: 18:44, 26 May 2008 user:cbramble
  • 3rd revert: user: sedonafengshui/216.19.43.241 22:58, 26 May 2008, 23:14, 26 May 2008, 23:20, 26 May 2008, 23:35, 26 May 2008, 23:40, 26 May 2008, 01:46, 27 May 2008, 23:20, 26 May 2008, 23:40, 26 May 2008, 01:46, 27 May 2008, 01:54, 27 May 2008, 01:57, 27 May 2008, 02:11, 27 May 2008, 01:03, 28 May 2008, 01:59, 28 May 2008
  • 4th revert: user:cbramble 03:53, 28 May 2008
  • 5th revert: user:cbramble 04:08, 28 May 2008
  • 6th revert: user:sedonafengshui 05:04, 28 May 2008 -- "Vandalism to verified content relevant to content matter."
  • 7th revert: user:sedonafengshui 05:06, 28 May 2008
  • 8th revert: user:cbramble 05:15, 28 May 2008
  • 9th revert: user: cbramble 05:16, 28 May 2008
Article already protected by User:Gonzo fan2007. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sixie reported by User:Tuxide (Result: 24 hour block )


I didn't use the diffs supplied as they would've rendered the report stale, instead, the user last reverted at 8 am UTC, which is close enough for me. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nosferamus and User:87.6.8.232 reported by User:195.176.178.209 (Result: 24 hour block and page protected )

87.6.8.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), the author of a fifth revert at 12:43, 27 May 2008 is probably a sockpuppet of Nosferamus, who is in turn probably Lupis himself. The list of his sockpuppets on it.wiki, where he was banned for copyvio, original research and vandalism, is here. It includes one (Vostradamus) looking suspiciously similar to Nosferamus. Furthermore, here is a check-user that shows that the address family that Lupis uses on it.wiki is the same as 87.6.8.232.

* 213.140.22.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) vandalised many times, instead of multiple warnings and reverts also made by administrator iridescent, the Marco Lupis voice. This Ip is well-known in Italian Wiki for continuous vandalisms (see: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.140.22.65). Same as User:195.176.178.209 --Nosferamus (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
please note the 213.240.22.65 IP is shared as it belongs to the Fastweb ISP, which places its customers behind NAT. The other IP does not even have a discussion page on it.wiki. 195.176.178.209 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
*Please also consider to erase references to IP because public association of IP number and real name it is considered a violation by Italian Privacy laws.--Nosferamus (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
* IP 195.176.178.209 is obvious the same as 213.140.22.65. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Lupis&action=history : "contributions" are the same. --Nosferamus (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have prot'd the article for 24 hours and blocked Nosferamus for 24, too. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 1 week block and 1 warning )

  • Previous version reverted to: Varies, but the first three restore the same piece of information (recently removed by other editors) and the last two remove a piece of information added by another editor.


Despite two very recent (and several day long) blocks for 3RR violations (on an article that is now protected), this user seems to have just moved to revert war on another article. In addition, he is highly uncivil in his edit summaries and on talk, making any compromise difficult (ex. [91]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 1 week and warned another user who is dangerously close to violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Domer48 reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: Suggested voluntary article bans )

  • Previous version reverted to: [92]

The version reverted to varies. The aim is consistent in all cases; to remove any overview or summary of the famine from the article.

The Article is the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, so although the 4 edits are not within 24 hours I feel it's worth reporting the reverting behaviour. Also, the talk page contributions suggest that further reversions/deletions are likely.


  • 1st revert: [93] - removing the timeline of the famine from the article
  • 2nd revert: [94] - removing the timeline of the famine from the article again
  • 3rd revert: [95] - deleting the lead section, which was a variant of the bullet-point-formatted timeline turned into a lead section.
  • 4th revert: [96] - deleting the lead section again.
Working on a settlement now. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, both users were given a final edit warring warning by User:Daniel. Instead of blocking, I have asked them both if they would take a voluntary break from editing The Great Hunger. Let's see if this works. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will not be accepting your suggestion of a voluntary break from editing The Great Hunger. Based on a puerile 3RR report from a disruptive editor, who themselves conceded the fact that I did not breach our rules on 3RR here on my talk page. Now even a cursory glance at the talk page both here and here clearly shows I have studiously used the Talk Page in an attempt to address the issues concerned. Now your lack of attention resulted in the erroneous suggestion that I “refused to heed” a warning, when a look at the talk page clearly shows this not to be the case. So based on the fact that I did not refuse to heed a warning, and that a baseless 3RR report was filed, your suggestion is premature and uncalled for.--Domer48 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:7thkid reported by FelisLeoTalk! (Result: 24 hour block )

Caroline's Spine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 7thkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User keeps reverting to a blank page. After last vandalism warning he added an edit summary stating its an incorrect version of te facts. I re-reverted including the message to provide proof before blanking.

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


  1. 215554078 18:40, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
  2. 215555518 18:48, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
  3. 215555574 18:48, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
  4. 215556753 18:53, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "This is an incorrect version of the facts.")

—FelisLeoTalk! 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.189.99.134 reported by User:Justinm1978 (Result: 24 hour block for IP and reporter)

  • Previous version reverted to: [99]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [106]
IP blocked by Ryan for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
and reporter blocked for 24 hours given he warned the user for 3RR and then proceeded to revert for a fourth time himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.87.7.164 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Previous version reverted to: [107]
  • 1st revert: [108] (06:55, 29 May 2008), inserts defamatory material reported at ANI and reverted by me, warned by Cluebot
  • 2nd revert: [109] (07:00, 29 May 2008), deleted large portions of text, I gave up reverting at this point, final vandalism warning from User:Anonymous101 (IP had vandalized other articles earlier, I did not issue any template warnings, I went directly to the talk page)
  • 3rd revert: [110] (07:26, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted & warning by Cluebot
  • 4th revert: [111] (08:02, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
  • 5th revert: [112] (08:06, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
  • Diff of 3RR warning:
  • 1st warning: [113] (07:22, 29 May 2008)
  • 2nd warning: [114] (07:29, 29 May 2008)
I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:121.45.48.22 reported by User:AI009 (Result: warned)

  • Previous version reverted to: [115]
  • 1st revert: [116] 14:44, 28 May 2008 repositions images for no reason
  • 2nd revert: [117] 14:48, 28 May 2008 reverts
  • 3rd revert: [118] 14:35, 29 May 2008 reverts again..
  • 4th revert: [119] 14:38, 29 May 2008 ..and again
  • Diff of 3RR warning:
1st warning
2nd warning
3rd warning
  • Warned; the "warnings" above were all {{test}} warnings, rather than any 3RR warnings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Starimmanuel reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: Already blocked)



User is similarly edit warring over this content at 2006 Lebanon War

Already blocked. indef by Tiptoety. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:AI009 reported by User:Ijanderson977 (Result:no block for now)


AI009 has violated WP:3RR. He/she keeps on deleting well sourced infomation as this does not suit his WP:POV. It is information which suggests for Russia to seem as a potential super power. If you look at the talk page you will see that he/she appears not to like Russia. So not only is he in violation of WP:3RR, he also violates WP:NPOV, due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I have given him/her a warning.



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [124]

Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks to me like the user has not reverted since being warned, so no block for now. I'm watchlisting the article so I can block if the user or 24.180.3.127, who also looks to me to have violated 3RR (but hasn't reverted since being warned), reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thetriforcehero reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)



Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Youcallhimdoctorjones reported by User:Alientraveller (Result: 24 and 31 hour blocks )



Result - I have blocked both users (24 & 31 hours) for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HAl reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: 1 week block )



Previous warnings used to show knowledge of the rule.

Previous bans for 3rr violation

Stale report of another 3RR violation proving additional proof of edit waring. [129]

HAl has a history of edit warring and using reverting as a edit style. He has been been banned twice before for reverts to this same page. He continues to revert anything he doesn't agree with.AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked known edit warrer for 1 week. He also committed a few "crimes" against WP:MOS by openly citing himself in plain view of the text which is completely wrong. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:John celona reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Protected)



Reversion is over adding Ridgeston's real name. John celona is adding it with a source. However, there appears to be a history where Ridgeston does not wish his real name to be in the article (please see the article's talk page). At this point, I can't say who is right, but thought it needed to be reported here in any case. Thanks.

Page protected. I see no evidence that the dispute over disclosure of the actor's real name has ever been submitted to a noticeboard. I've protected the article for a week, and invite one or both parties to submit the issue at WP:BLP/N. If no effort is made to get general opinions on that, I believe this falls back into our jurisdiction and we should start enforcing 3RR against whoever violates it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Webster121 reported by User:Christopher Parham (Result: 31 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: 03:21 May 30 Establishes preferred version of infobox
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Allstarecho reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: 31 hours)

Content dispute on AFA article. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nickhh reported by User:Julia1987 (Result: No vio, malformed report)

5th is the revert of this edit [130] this is the revert: [131]

4th : partial revert of he words without pay [132] is here : [133]

3rd: full revert: [134]


2nd: partial revert of this: [135],[136] is here: [137],[138]


1st: partial revert of [139] is here: [140]

there are more, just look: [141]

--Julia1987 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Declined – malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete diffs. Rudget (Help?) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

noncando these are partial reverts. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No violation. There are enough edits by User:Nickh that they might add up to four reverts. However we can't reach that total unless we say that his revert of Category:Brainwashing techniques is something he should not have done. There is (a) no word 'brainwashing' in the text of this article, (b) no evidence offered that brainwashing occurred, (c) nothing on the Talk page. Since this removal is the kind of thing an admin might have done anyway, I decline to count this removal as one of four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
count again. enough reverts without that one. Julia1987 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There are only four groups of consecutive edits by Nickh in the period under discussion. Each group counts as at most one revert, under our rules. Since one of the reverts is not being counted, per policy, there are at most three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The category appears to have been added by another editor as a means of disruptively making a point, as the article has nothing to do with "brainwashing techniques". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for checking. --Julia1987 (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:JTWoodsworth reported by User:Nickptar (Result: 12 hours)

  • Notes: ColdFusion650 also violated 3RR but has not reverted since being warned. JTWoodsworth has also been disruptively creating numerous forks of a small section of this article. See dispute on talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 12 hours. VanTucky 20:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You've now got an obvious sockpuppet reverting the article again. [143] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And a second one has emerged [144] for the obvious purpose of re-posting that absurd POV tag and counting on other users not to violate 3RR themselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

TaiChiChuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and JulieKO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have now also been blocked 24 hours. For background on the WP:MEAT issue, see a discussion of their plans at Talk:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull#Prejudice. In the words of TaiChiChuan, referring to JTW, ..when he said he was blocked Jules and I laughed and said we'd help him. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: Discretionary sanction notice)



Diff of clarification of the sensitivity of these types of articles and advice against edit waring

What I really find frustrating is the fact that Gulmammad keeps reverting everything that I add to the article and keeps trying to push POV. He adds very little to the talk page other than say that it should be added to the article because he knows it is true. Note that I have only made one revert of a revert he made on one of my edits because he didn't explain the revert in talk. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I request from administrators to investigate who did more reverts without sufficient explanation. This is the third time user Pocopocopocopoco mentions my name here (I'd say calumniate me). He/she keeps reverting my edits without sufficient explanation and therefore pushing me into edit warring. First time he/she reported me with many incorrect informations and caused temporarily removal of my right of using the rollback tool. However, after I defended my actions, my rights returned back. The second time all report was incorrect and declined by administrators. Now this is the third time. I am looking for your serious concern related to this incidents. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk

This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Gregbard reported by User:Ncmvocalist (Result: 48 hours)


  • Stated here (16:09) that it was his first and actual intentional policy violation as a form of protest - it was therefore in WP:POINT.
  • He needs to learn he cannot remove or alter other people's comments under any circumstances, and that he should not edit-war to try to prove a point or get the type of attention he wants. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Duration increased since it's also violating WP:TALK, which does not allow removal of others' comments. The 3RR warning was not timely, but on his own Talk page Greg makes clear that he understands 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco second report unrelated to the first (Result: Discretionary sanction notice + 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to:

31 May 2008 05:37, 1 June 2008



  • Diff of 3RR warning: He has responded to the 3RR report above hence he is familar with the rules. Please also see the guidance I tried to offer in the provided in the previous report

I recommend that the two 3RRs be served consecutively. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is highly inappropriate. I have only made one edit to this article. Gulmammad was edit waring with other users and he breached 3RR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked Gulmammad 24 hours. (Poco did not go over one revert in 24 hours on this article). Since Seraphimblade did not object, and this is a conventional 3RR violation as well as an Arbcom issue, I've issued the normal block. I did not include the Sheylanli case (reported above) in my analysis. In my study I was influenced by the strongly POV nature of the material G. was pushing to include in this article: However, the brutal tactics employed by Armenians resulted in thousands of innocent Azeri being massacred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would say don't block, because I told him in my summaries to continue trying to make the edit, if he could neutralize it, so I figure he would be under my 'protection' in case of a 3RR. However, seeing that he's also editwarred on another article today, I won't unblock. But I just want to make it clear that he 'violated 3RR' at my request, I did not consider it an edit war, we were merely using the article to try to work something out instead of taking it to the talk page, which I've now done. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asher196 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:warning)

Detroit Red Wings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Asher196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:44, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215487855 by 69.246.26.161 (talk)")
  2. 20:35, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216184584 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
  3. 22:34, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "I don't agree")
  4. 03:16, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Look at the talk page, idiot. Long discussion on this topic.")
  5. 03:29, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Team Information */")
  6. 03:47, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Anaheim eh?")
  7. 13:49, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216399762 by 66.212.150.82 (talk)")
  8. 14:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "remove vandalism")
  9. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216412550 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
  10. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "just continuing my edit war.....")
  11. 15:24, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "relenting on" jersey"....")
  12. 19:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "I'm not relenting that much")

— — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Salparadise44 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:24 hours)

Detroit Red Wings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Salparadise44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:41, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: ""Uniforms" is a fair compromise.")
  2. 21:32, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "As pointed out before "Uniforms" is a more than fair compromise.")
  3. 23:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "You don't agree this is a fair compromise? (you may offer a more encompassing solution) Or is it you don't agree that "sweater" is the traditional term in hockey? (if so you need to educate yourself).")
  4. 14:08, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "This barely merits discussion. The point with Wiki is to inform. "Sweater" is the traditional term used for the uniform in the sport of hockey. Somehow this is a difficult concept for some. So be it.")
  5. 15:06, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Remove vandalism")
  6. 15:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  7. 17:43, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Uniforms */")

— — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Both Salparadise and Asher are pretty clearly edit warring on this issue (not all diffs listed here are actual reverts, but the history is pretty clear). Normally, I'd be blocking both; however, I see no sign that either has been warned. So I'm going to start with a warning and see if that stops the situation (the attitude taken by both editors leaves me skeptical, but I'll at at least try the more pleasant way). Come on back if this edit war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User was blocked previously as an IP I believe for this same edit war. He has since reverted again and has been blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -