Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive89

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nathanael_Bar-Aur_L.[1]

Being an distruptive person on all the astrology pages. Also removing verifiable sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.235.196 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No disruption, IP is blanking thousands of sourced bytes of information per IDONTLIKEIT. — Realist² 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Comment: Are you sure you have the right editor? Rick Norwood appears to have only made one edit to this article in the past two days. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He states: History of logic: Remove material that is clearly off topic, but which may belong under either "number" or "calendar".

But when you see the history of logic section, it starts with "A", "not A", "A and not A", and "not A and not not A" so but now in 35000 they got this already 10 + 1, 10 − 1, 20 + 1 and 20 − 1, so in the respect of Mathematical Logic, and in particular the History, How did humans start to think logic - woman tracking menstrual cycles with lunar phases using a device the bone tools. This had a lot of logic applied! At least contributed here and therfor it has its place in History. --Tales23 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean he's edit warring. You seem to be coming off of a block for edit warring, by the way. I hope you're not reporting anyone who reverts you just to make a

point. Dayewalker (talk

) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No i dont report anyone, especialy Novangelis as he started with reporting me and is not accepting legit references. --Tales23 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

False. You've reported Novagelis on three different articles above, and you seemed to be keeping a hitlist of editors on your talk page that disagreed with you while you were blocked. I think it's best an admin take a look at this. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Daywalker we are on the admin page and to understand the matter you would need to see that they didnt disagreed with my references, accept for Novangelis on the topic Meteorit as the Origin of Life. Furthermore your argument is Off Topic. --Tales23 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

24h for disruption, edit warring, and probably 3RR though I haven't checked that last carefully. I removed the other spammed 3RR reports, if you're wondering where they went to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I see Ed blocked him for 24 already for the 3RR. Sorry. OK, 12h for the AN3 spam instead William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So we can close this than ... --Tales23 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Cali567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [3]

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

Warned. I'm warning you against edit warring, too. At least C is contributing to the talk page, which you should be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page 1: Portuguese Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: EuroHistoryTeacher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This is not a direct violation of 3RR, but an "in spirit" violation given that the user recently came off a ban on a couple of days ago.

• Previous version reverted to: [9]

EuroHistoryTeacher has returned from his prior 24 ban over reverting the map [10] and is engaging in exactly the same behaviour.

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]

Per the previous report, the user was both warned and acknowledged the 3RR rule.

This user has an ongoing problem of making unreferenced edits. Some more disruptive behaviour at War of Jenkins' Ear: [14] [15] where he is removing a referenced statement. It's been like this for the last 4 months now.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked EHT for 31 hours for edit warring straight (near enough) off the block.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

14:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: The Man Who Would Be Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [16]

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Warning given to

User repeatedly reverting agreed-upon text from multiple other editors. Disputed page is the only page

user:DarlieB

edits and is part of a long-standing series of contested behavior from this user. User has been making this same edit for long time, over the objections of the other editors working on the page:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

— James Cantor (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 71.202.68.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From actions at

) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for disruption, based on edits like this one. "Russians will pay dearly for their terrible genocidal atrocities.. Russians will work as slaves and prostitutes" (This was in an article, not a Talk page). Appears to be a nationalist POV-warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Maltese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [24] although I have made some improvements since this version

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]
• 5th revert: [29]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

I'd like to point out that Taivo is much more to blame than Pietru, and both of us have had to tiringly deal with him:

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look carefully, you will note that we have been actively engaged in a discussion on the Talk page. Here you will note where Pietru and I agreed to leave the page as is until the issue could be discussed on the relevant Talk page, which was occurring. There were two people in support of retaining the additions and two people opposed (with one IP opposed). Consensus had not yet been reached on whether to retain the new information or to delete it, thus the initiation of the reversions by Pietru was not justified. I had offered a compromise chart for discussion which Mingeyqla then began to revert without any discussion whatsoever. (Taivo (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, it can be clearly seen that there were 2 users for the column, opposed to 3 against it - evidence of that is the very reverts you reported yourself. I support a 24h block for Taivo until he calms down. A quick look at the talk page shows all opposers have clearly discussed this, despite what you say. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mingeyqla, I clearly stated that there were two for and two against with one IP against. Calm down? I built a compromise table that would eliminate the contention over the extra columns, but you immediately reverted it without allowing anyone to see it or discuss it as an acceptable compromise and without you offering a single word of discussion about it on the Talk page. Mingeyqla has been repeatedly warned on the Talk page of this article about his behavior. (Taivo (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't matter whether the table was good or not (although incidentally, the Maltese words themselves aren't even modern spellings) - it is just as relevant there as adding Spanish to the Romance vocabulary section. Like stated on the talk page, it will clearly be allowed at Varieties of Arabic or Siculo-Arabic - but not here. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw I wish to withdraw this complaint of 3RR since I have offered a compromise. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

• All users warned, page protected; see case below -- Samir 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Maltese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mingeyqla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [38]

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]

User is reverting relevant, referenced material without discussion on Talk page. User has been warned many times in the past and is adept at "gaming" the system, thus he simply deletes rather than reverts. (Taivo (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Comment - Please see above thread, where he himself has been mentioned, and where he tried to frame another user again. Discussion has been ongoing on the talk page, but user simply keeps adding back. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It should further be noted that this user broke

) 16:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closure. This is a messy case, and it seems to be a war of experts. Since past efforts at compromise on Maltese language have not calmed the dispute, it may be time for blocks. The three most conspicuous reverters of the last couple of days are Pietru, Taivo and Mingeyqla. Since for the moment, Pietru has stopped reverting, that would leave us with a pair of 12-hour blocks for Taivo and Mingeyqla. I'll leave this proposal here for a while, and notify the participants, to see if they wish to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While no longer directly involved, I think something should be done: the Maltese language article shouldn't be such a contentious place in which to edit.

talk

) 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed. I appreciate the concerns of everyone that something needs to be done about this. It looks like the reversions have stopped. I will protect

18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alynna Kasmira

(Result: blocked)

• Page: Gender of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: 02:28, 18 January 2009 (edit summary: "ditto to last, noted that Ilkali continues disruptive removal of long standing, sourced, stable text without discussion, argument or consensus")
• 2nd revert: 11:13, 18 January 2009 (edit summary: "
  talk
  ) there is no consensus, nor ever has been. no consensus = no change")
• 3rd revert: 17:04, 18 January 2009 (edit summary: "
  talk
  ) no demonstrated consensus against sourced text, so it stays, use talk")
• 4th revert: 17:16, 18 January 2009 (edit summary: "
  talk
  ) precisely why I need to insist it stays")

• Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

This is not the first time Alastair has been involved in edit warring on this page.

) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Later note: It looks like Alastair has now been blocked for arbitration enforcement. So maybe this report is moot now. --

talk

) 19:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to deal with this but apparently User:Tznkai already has -- Samir 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: EuroHistoryTeacher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EuroHistoryTeacher has just (within the last few minutes) come off his second block [45] for reverting a map at Portuguese Empire. His first action on returning from the block (which it seems that he did not realise he was on until it was over [46]) was to post his intention to revert some changes I made to the Spanish Empire map [47] and which I had notified the community about on the talk page. He then made the revert at Wikicommons [48]. EHT appears to have not learned a thing [49] ("there's nothing wrong with reverting wrong stuff") he wrote a few moments ago. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick doesn't understand is that the map he is proposing IS NOT ACCEPTED by the community yet he wants to impose his will on everybody and (once again) I have to stand up for the majority's opinion and revert his edits. In fact another User (SamEv) was going to revert his map [50] but he was waiting for the rest of the community's opinion and after User:SamEv told me to revert it [51] I did but User: The Red hat of pat ferrick is very good at exploiting this revert issue at the expense of me (!!), please don't fall for his very elaborated story, Im just only one of the users who to disagree with him and Im always the one getting blocked.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like a 3RR violation has taken place; can't control Commons issues here either. -- Samir 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This post is in relation to violating the spirit of the rule, rather than actually exceeded three reverts. The Commons map is being used on a Wikipedia article, and the discussion is taking place on a Wikipedia talk page. The action at Commons affects Wikipedia. Is the purpose of this page not to stop editors engaging in a behaviour? This editor is blocked twice for reverting maps, and his first action on returning is to revert a map! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, we do not deal with reversions on Commons. Your report does not describe edit warring on en.wp for this editor, so there is no indication for blocking here. Sorry. If there is further concern of edit warring, let us know. Thanks -- Samir 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no edit warring here, the only thing I did was to revert his map and add some areas in the map which he had removed some time earlier and to have done that I had the support of the community who went largely against the will of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and now he came here to get me blocked in spite (as I said) of me having the support of the community .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ziggymaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

4 reverts in 24 hours (5 reverts in 24 hours and 4 mins) there were more reverts by the above user on this article, but they were consecutively made without other editors contributing between the reverts - I have not included those in the diffs.

Just for the record I think there it is reasonably likely that the above user has been using multiple accounts on a number of articles. It might be worth keeping an eye on the following accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lakshmix and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wondergirls

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_in_international_relations&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaebol&action=history

http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/contribs.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&users=Ziggymaster%7CLakshmix%7CWondergirls+&limit=2500&submit=Submit

The contributions are very similar, but of more interest are the times/dates of editing, and the fact that one account was registered one minute after another account made its last edit for about 2 or 3 weeks.

I realise that this is not the correct place to report sock puppets, however I have the feeling that if action is taken against one account for edit warring, this edit warring will be continued by the other accounts. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If tendentious editing with multiple accounts is suspected, it's best to take it to

WP:SPI. With respect to this 3RR report, there were 4 reversions in 24 hours on this article and reversions continued after warning. I have blocked User:Ziggymaster for 8 hours as a result -- Samir

03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested to me to note a further incident involving Ziggymaster here, too, which I do though the 3-revert rule was not violated, it may help establish a pattern. S/he edited out the same passage from the Korea Train Express article twice:

* on 2 January, without any explanation: [59]

* on 13 January, after not responding to a Talk request, giving an explanation in the edit summary that doesn't seem to hold up: [60]

Ziggymaster has not reacted to a request at his/her Talk page, either. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think

article. He has his own favourite version of the article text, which he has tried to reinsert on a huge number of occasions.

Here is a recent example of what I mean: [61]

This edit by Biophys was reverted by User:Mukadderat [62] with the explanation: "you know perfectly well what was deleted many times, yet you each time restore it..."

However, since so many editors find his version of the text problematic, Biophys has been unable to restore it anymore. Some days ago, he created a new article, with over 50% of its text copied from an earlier version of

. However, Biophys has single-handedly reverted the rename 5 times in the last 3 days. This is my main complaint.

Here are his reverts:

• 1st: [63]
• 2nd: [64]
• 3rd: [65]
• 4th: [66]
• 5th: [67]

Biophys also made an annoying little edit to "Alleged Internet operations by Russian secret police" to prevent people from moving the page back there: [68]

Please note, that Biophys' behaviour has also been discussed here: [69] and I can only agree with Russavia's points there.

) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Move protected - talk it out on the talk page. All parties are advised that "gaming the system" by creating a junk article to win a move war is easily solved by an admin - it doesn't accomplish anything. --B (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Or even consider AfD if you feel the content is covered in
    Web brigades -- Samir
    23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I asked to debate this matter and vote, but no one responded. I hope now they will. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We are
        Dialogue
        01:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We are a discussion society, which include discussing whether or not a title is NPOV, not accepting that it is NPOV merely by personal proclamation of a particular editor. PetersV       TALK 02:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • P.S. It helps to discuss people's positions rather than spout piles of WP:ACRONYMS masquerading as a discussion. Try more words and less labels. PetersV       TALK 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, there has already been discussion about the move. 3 editors have tried to rename to the NPOV title beginning with "Alleged/Allegations of ...", and they have given their reasons in the edit summaries. The only person who has been opposing this and reverting the renames is Biophys.
          Offliner (talk
          ) 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"He made an annoying edit, block him" is the very essence of block shopping.

12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: List of Rajputs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Singh.siddharth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]

This user's edits to the article compromise

) 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be kinder to the noobs. Use the talk page, explain the problem in greater detail. This doesn't need the mailed admin fist yet, and if you're nice it probably never will William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [73]

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]
• 6th revert: [79]

Reverting spam isn't a violation. I've semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio, per PK William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. Hopefully that will cut down on the edit warring. I would like to point out that most of these links don't really appear to be spam and seem to be relevant to the

Chatterbot topic. If you go back to the 2006 versions of this article, you'll find a huge number of links and it would appear that most of outright spam/junk external links have long since been culled from the article. Wholesale removal of external links that seem relevant to the article just doesn't seem to make much sense though. (I also want to point out that I hold no bias either way as far as these links go, I just never like to see relevant/useful material go to waste.) Tothwolf (talk

) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 19:22, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
2. 21:21, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:29, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Shouldn't be in the intro")
4. 21:35, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "Fixed intro")
5. 21:39, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 21:44, 19 January 2009 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Aspartame controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: multiple

• 1st revert: 16:09, 19 January 2009 - restoring "As a result of the Ramazzini study...", which was removed 14:05, 19 January 2009
• 2nd revert: 20:27, 19 January 2009 - - 78.70.36.35 is Immortale, but it's not deliberate socking.
• 3rd revert: 21:35, 19 January 2009
• 4th revert: 23:38, 19 January 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:35, 6 January 2009
  • Agree. Even without the IP edit, the reversions are tantamount to edit warring. Given a previous 3RR violation on same article: 36 hours -- Samir 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Schrandit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: 07:59, 17 January 2009
• 2nd revert: 20:27, 17 January 2009
• 3rd revert: 03:57, 18 January 2009
• 4th revert: 04:25, 18 January 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

This is part of a long pattern of POV-pushing edit wars by this highly religious and political user. He also likes to toss out bogus citation requests as a preliminary to deleting text on topics he dislikes, and to argue pointlessly on Talk pages and then ignore the consensus if it doesn't suit him. He's been warned before for

) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I object to the above misscharacterization of myself but as part of the edit-war spotfixer and I have been having on the page

Conscience clause (medical)I did misstep and reverted 4 times inside a 24 hour period. - Schrandit (talk

) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Schrandit has broken 3RR by the letter. User:Spotfixer's edits over the past 36 hours contributed to this edit war and cannot be ignored. You both should have just discussed this on the talk page as opposed to reverting each other. If talk page discussion was not fruitful, there are many other avenues for dispute resolution other than reverting what is on the article page. That is not the way we edit and reach consensus on Wikipedia. I think a 12 hour block for each of you is fair -- Samir 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was reverting vandalism, not edit-warring, and I did not violate

talk

) 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to re-read

WP:VAND#Types of vandalism if you think you were reverting vandalism. A point of view different from yours is not vandalism; on the other hand, your three reversions over such a short period of time constitutes edit-warring, and -- hate to break it to you -- constitutes a blockable offense. Calling me oblivious is offensive and, frankly, a bad idea given your previous incivility blocks -- Samir

06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're an admin. You are given the power to enforce policies, in hopes that you will use it for good, not evil. However, in the words of the great philosopher, Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility. When you use your super-powers against mere civilians who you think are criminals, you open yourself up to legitimate oversight and even criticism. There need to be checks and balances, which starts with transparency and a tolerance for dissent, so that you don't become a hated vigilante. You must accept being held accountable for your actions, which makes it your obligation to accept feedback, especially when it is critical. And I am entirely free to vent my discontent with your actions so long as I do so with even a modicum of civility. Threatening me with another bad block merely for expressing disagreement with your last bad block is offensive and, frankly, a bad idea given your previous track record with blocks.

Here's why you were wrong:

1. Blanking, abuse of tags and sneaky vandalism do constitute vandalism, and Schrandit engages in them on a regular basis. He's a vandal, pure and simple. He violates the letter and spirit of the rules by coming to Wikipedia with a huge ax to grind, censoring articles based on his religious views. He ignores consensus and does his level best to game the system.
2. I frequently see 3RR reports here summarily dismissed on the basis of being one revert too short. This makes sense, because the only way you can fairly hold someone accountable for crossing a boundary is if you make it possible to approach it without crossing. In my case, I walked away from an edit war by turning the matter over to you administrators. In Schrandit's, he intentionally violated 3RR and refused to revert his edit when this was pointed out. Treating these two very different situations as the same was not even-handed, it was oblivious to the moral and legal distinctions; only one of us was guilty. You punished the whistleblower, which is a terrible precedent.
3. Note that, just like last time, I spoke of the decision as oblivious; I did not call you oblivious. Rather, you jumped to that conclusion when you chose to take my criticism of your behavior personally. Taking insult where none exists is the heart of incivility.

I hope that explains why I disagreed with your actions. Have a frank and productive day.

talk

) 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Madam, I have never blanked anything, I don't abuse tags, I don't engage in "sneaky vandalism" or the rest of your litany of fictitious accusations and for you to darken my good name by by stating such is dishonest and uncivil. - Schrandit (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a good name; you were blocked. Unlike some blocks I've seen, the validity of yours was undisputed. You've also been warned repeatedly and justifiably against both edit warring and blatant incivility (remember "jerk"?). Speaking of which, I think it's time you dropped the "madam".

talk

) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

4 reverts in 36 hours is edit warring and is blockable, no matter how you couch it. Thank you -- Samir 06:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to express your opinion, but unless you address criticisms instead of dismissing them, it's only an opinion, and to be frank, a rather self-serving and unpersuasive one at that. I note that you've said nothing about the issue of penalizing whistleblowers.

talk

) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, if your accusations of Schradit are legetimate, then provide diff tags of his edits where he's engaged in these things.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not the forum for such things. I mentioned Schrandit's behaviors only to the extent that they are relevant to my reasonable conclusion that he is a vandal and therefore 3RR does not apply to reversions of his edits. The admin, as I pointed out, did not in any way address this issue.

talk

) 13:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that your accusations against another editor are relevant, but that any possible evidence in support of your accusations is not.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the reasonable belief that he is a vandal speaks to my state of mind and intent, and is therefore relevant. The correctness of my beliefs, while well worth standing by, are a distinct issue fit for another forum.

talk

) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reasonableness of your belief cannot be determined unless you present the evidence (diff tags) on which you are basing it.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

I normally do not want to use these methods, in particular because his voice is a valid one... but all avenues have been exhausted to stop edit warring.

The drop that overflowed the cup for me was this edit summary: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR[88]

It felt like blackmail: if you feel there is a need for DR, then by all means pursue it. But going around threatening is not positive and contributes nothing. I gave it a few hours of consideration, but there is no two ways about it.

Images clearly meet

requirements for being relevant. Multiple users have requested that he stop edit warring. All this happens on the background of meat-puppetry and possible sock puppetry that is being looked into.

There also the issue of the lead, but he seems to have calmed down a bit in this respect, maybe slow-warring, but not as active as with the images.

He has made good contributions, even on the midst of this edit war, but his behavior the last week around this image issue has been less than stellar.--Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith notice. The article under question is an a horrible state of POV. A bunch of SPA's that recently cropped up are swarming the article and not allowing any neutrality come through in the name of "no consensus". Despite these impediments, Tundrabuggy has patiently and civilly interacted with all the editors at the talk page. He is probably the most prolific editor at the article's talk page. Accusing him of being an edit warrior is an extremely ironic and wrongful accusation.

There was no 3rr by the letter of the rule. The last two edits were two edits in a row. Additionally, The first edit was a totally different issue. Although 3rr applies to different reverts, it is not applied to humongous news articles where the information is changing rapidly. The accuser should know better and not make a baseless accusations just to silence another editor who disagees with his POV. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention that user:Brewcrewer hasn't been involved in the lengthy discussions regarding the photos, only when it came time to vote on the issue did he arrive to place a vote. The majority of people that have been involved in prior discussions voted that the photos should remain. The majority of people who voted for removing the photos have not engaged in previous discussions and include people who are new to Wikipedia, possible SPAs. Brewcrewer is helping tundrabuggy in the constant deletion of the photos despite that the photos are relevant and free to use, and there was no dispute when the photos were initially placed in the article [89]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony is delicious. You opened your account 8 days ago and have edited nothing outside of this conflict. Yet, you accuse other editors of being SPA's. And I actually have been more involved in the lengthy discussions, but the discusssions took place before you opened your account, 8 days ago. I was disgusted with the swarming spa's shoving their POV's into the article in the name of the SPA's consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion didn't come before I came. I am the one who uploaded the images that are the subject of debate, I was the one who initiated the thread regarding uploading the photos. I was part of it from day one and you were not ever part of them. You came only when there was a vote. As with your accusations regarding SPAs, the people who agreed to the photos include people who have engaged in the discussions prior to the vote and they include chandler, cdogsimmons, sean hoyland, Nableezy, vice regent, cerejota, RomaC, and myself. Also, Jvent is another voter who agreed, he had also uploaded images that are being removed by you both. Among those who disagreed before the vote was initiated include only tariqabjotu, rabend, and the Squicks, and maybe tundrabuggy, the rest are new users and people who thought to take advantage of the vote. You have your facts all mixed up, the page is there, open for every one to see. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I said discussions, I was not referring to the specific images discussion. As for list of editors you mentioned, I don't know where you're going. Being involved in discussions is not relevant to

WP:SPA. But in any case, it's irrelevant. This is the edit-warring noticeboard and it's clear that there was no edit warring going on, whether in fact or in spirit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)

20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Brewcrewer has serious personal issues against me, and refused informal mediation to resolve them in a highly uncivil manner [90]. His notice of "bad faith" in this case is bad faith in itself... he also got me blocked for a few hours once (over the

) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit-warring noticeboard, not the place to air general greivances (especially if they are unfounded). As I pointed out, there was no general or specific edit warring. Would you like to redact this notice?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are just poisoning the well. I hope that admins will see through it. --Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio. A personal note: while we're making edit comments like "Dead baby" or "dead child" pictures are propaganda for one side. , I find it odd (given the balance of deaths is so one-sided) that the first pic is of an Israeli house, featuring a destroyed doll William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR report, it is an edit-warring report.--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I should alert people to the following:

• 5th revert (post warning): [91]
• 6th revert (post warning): [92]

--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest insertion of the contested material is by an SPA who has been editing this article, and this article only, for 2 days. Here are just a few of the insertion-reversions of the photographs, [arbitrarily starting 10:48, 18 January 2009 -- ending 10:27, 19 January 2009, a 24 hour period. Read from bottom up --- Clearly there is NO CONSENSUS here. The photographs are obscene and offensive, non-neutral, not properly sourced or licensed, and unbalanced. They should be OUT of the article until and unless there is a consensus to put them IN. I would take it to dispute resolution but I have never done it and not sure how to go about it.

[93] 10:27, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,347 bytes) (Undid revision 265097873 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

[94]10:25, 19 January 2009 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (168,211 bytes) (Undid revision 265097536 by Tundrabuggy (talk)) (undo)

[95] 03:49, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,559 bytes) (undo)

[96] 03:55, 19 January 2009 Britishsyrian (Talk | contribs) (168,748 bytes) (undo) see edit summary "a dead Palestinian child killed by the Israelis"

[97] 04:07, 19 January 2009 Wipkipkedia (Talk | contribs) (168,656 bytes) (The picture was not suited to the words, and was very biased, the picture did not belong where it did.)

[98] 02:47, 19 January 2009 RomaC (Talk | contribs) (167,588 bytes) (?Casualties: Replacing the gallery see Talk or take it to DR if you prefer) (undo)

[99] 01:32, 19 January 2009 WanderSage (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (What are pictures of corpses and charred infants doing in a section about Israeli calls to Gazans?) (undo)

[100] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

[101] 01:14, 19 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (167,121 bytes) (restoring images deleted by tomtom) (undo)

[102] 23:31, 18 January 2009 JVent (Talk | contribs) (166,914 bytes) (Undid revision 265025950 by Tomtom (talk) what's with this guy) (undo)

[103] 22:27, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (166,321 bytes) (Removed Tagged non-free images,again. Get the tags removed and AJ to release then they can stay.) (undo)

[104] 20:41, 18 January 2009 Tundrabuggy (Talk | contribs) (166,734 bytes) (?Casualties: There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR) (undo)

[105] 16:57, 18 January 2009 Falcorian (Talk | contribs) m (167,140 bytes) (?Warnings: Don't need to repeat the exact same gallery twice, and seems better in the civilian section) (undo

[106] , 18 January 2009 Doright (Talk | contribs) (162,060 bytes) (Restoring Tundrabuggy version reverted by Nableezy per Tundrabuggy edit summary and Talk and restoring NPOV) (undo)

[107] 14:41, 18 January 2009 Nableezy (Talk | contribs) (165,877 bytes) (Undid revision 264937769 by Tundrabuggy (talk)Vandalism) (undo)

[108] 14:37, 18 January 2009 Falastine fee Qalby (Talk | contribs) (161,853 bytes) (revert tomtom9041, when in doubt check it out. don't remove the images before looking up its license) (undo)

[109]14:34, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (161,495 bytes) (Removed non-free images, aJ logo on them) (undo)

[110] 14:29, 18 January 2009 Timeshifter (Talk | contribs) (162,602 bytes) (Undid revision 264941188 by Tomtom9041 (talk). These are free images. Check the image license tags, and the source links.) (undo)

[111] 14:21, 18 January 2009 Tomtom9041 (Talk | contribs) (162,160 bytes) (?Incidents: Removed non free images) (undo)

[112]10:48, 18 January 2009 Skäpperöd (Talk | contribs) (168,634 bytes) (?Casualties: gallery) (undo)

) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

^Let me break that list down for the unlucky person who is going to handle the case. The above user's list includes tomtom's removal of the pictures and our subsequent reverts of tomtom's edits. Tomtom doesn't object to the content, he just thinks that the images are not free, despite us telling him on his talk page and the talk page of the article that the images are under an accepted license (CC-BY) something that the above user is refusing to acknowledge as well. User Falcorian just removed the copy of the gallery: I had accidentally copied and pasted instead of moving the gallery thus doubling it, and Falcorian just removed the copy. User wander sage removed the gallery because it is in the wrong section even though he could have easily moved it himself.

Also, the above user is saying that there is no consensus to keep the pictures even though there is barely any discussion and dispute regarding the Al Jazeera photos of victims, and he is not even trying to build consensus. People tried confronting him but he is refusing to do any reading of the discussions and checking the licenses etc. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My reversion in that list is after tundrabuddy removed well cited text from the lead, I havent been involved in the photos besides adding a few comments in the talk, so I cannot really speak on that. But tundrabuggy has shown a persistence in demanding information be removed from the lead over the past 2 weeks, information that has been agreed upon by a wide variety of editors and is well sourced, and has been reverted by several editors for that removal. Yet tundrabuggy persists in performing such actions. But the reversion in my name above is not involved with the reversion of images being discussed here. Nableezy (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This report is closed. Please see the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: multiple

• 1st revert: 2009-01-16T10:32:42
• 2nd revert: 2009-01-16T11:01:50
• 3rd revert: 2009-01-19T11:19:16
• 4th revert: 2009-01-20T00:16:55

• Diff of 3RR warning: [113] You have reverted on Joseon Dynasty many time. If you revert again, you will be blocked.ADKTE (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I implement the time stamp and "alleged 3RR warning" (actually threat in my view) that the reporter missed to include. This is a hoax report by ADKTE as gaming the system in order to harass Historiographer. Historiographer neither violated 3RR nor even reverted 2 times within 24 hours. Since
  Joseon Dynasty
  without any discussion nor consensus. However, despite the fact that he clearly knows many Wiki rules and has been warned for his disruptive behaviors, his hoax report based on bad faith should not be condoned. ADKTE deserves to be block for his harassment and gaming the system rather to try to resolve the dispute by discussion.

• User: ADKTE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1st revert: 2009-01-19T14:53:29 by User:ADKTE
• 2nd revert: 2009-01-19T15:57:15 by User:ADKTE
• 3rd revert: 2009-01-20T00:56:46 by User:ADKTE
• And many previous reverts before 19th.[120]

--Caspian blue 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that there is no 3RR violation by
  User:Historiographer here. Give me a second to look into User:ADKTE. Thanks -- Samir
  06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also agree that
  WP:3RR. I have blocked User:ADKTE for 12 hours -- Samir
  06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Thiago Emiliano da Silva
• User: Matthew_hk

• Previous version reverted to: [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [link]
• 3rd revert: [link]
• 4th revert: [link]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This user has engaged in MALICIOUS edits of the Thiago Emiliano Da Silva page insisting he belongs to a certain football club by the name of Tombenese. There is no mention of this website in the Lega-Calcio.it website. He constantly engages in revisions on the webpage, when I made the changes with accurate sources. I suggest this user be blocked from editing this page. Gcarini (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Daniel Osvaldo completed a transfer to Bologna, but actually not happended. Matthew_hk tc

09:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To the reporter: your report is missing all the diffs save the first. Could you please provide the rest? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User constantly edit wars on this article (List of science fiction themes), after multiple blocks for disruptive editing and incvility. All his edits are completely against consensus, that has existed for months, and he refuses to discus on the talk page.

Today he broke:

• the 3 revert roll again, [123], [124], [125], [126]
• and made personal attacks,like this one
• and pointy edits with summaries such as: "Once upon a time this article had all these things with no complaints, then Yobmod fucked it all up, well now I'm fucking it the way it was used to be" and "BUT FUCKING LOOK AT THE WIKIPEDIA PAGES, THEY FUCKING SHOW SCIENCE FUCKING FICTION THAT HAVE WHAT'S LISTED, NOW FUCK OFF!!!"

These edits have been reverted by multiple users inclusing an admin, and have caused multiple warnings just today (in addition to many other warnings that are no longer on his talk page).

The 3 day block did not work at all, except to give me chance to add all the citations in the consesnus version, so a longer block is needed.134.169.58.89 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide diffs for the edit warring? I'll grant that that diff of his telling another user to "fuck off" is pretty damning, but that's not exactly what this noticeboard is about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs added, we had an edit conflict. There are many other such diffs too - another 3 yesterday too for example.Yobmod (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please not, that blanking his talk page and "retiring" is a common tactic. Last time, this forced the article to be semi-protected to stop him sock-pupetting with IP addresses, and then he came back with more warring from his "retired" account - therefore a block is still needed. If he retired, can the block be indefinate? And can an admin remove the personal attck he left behing on his talk? I don't like refactoring others talk pagesYobmod (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three months by another admin. I don't see that indeffing him is appropriate; it would do nothing to prevent sockpuppetry that the three-month block doesn't, and I don't imagine the community's patience with him is exhausted yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's now his second indef block, so i think some of us are a little exhausted. But many thanks for taking a look. Hopefully that will be the first and last report i have to make here!Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I have some help with a dispute? Someone is repeatedly deleting two reliable sources (clavius.org and badastronomy.com) from the article on Ralph Rene. I have asked them to stop, but it has happened 3 times now.

As a bit of background, Rene was a major proponent of the Apollo moon landing hoax theory. The article mentions some of his claims, but doesn’t mention that these claims have been debunked by scientists and engineers. This is why I am trying to add those sources to the article. I’m not sure what to do next to resolve it, advice is welcome. Thanks. Logicman1966 (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's edit warring that merits a block (particularly a violation of the three-revert rule), please report it here using the standard method (click the link near the header of the page; it'll show you the right format). If not, I suggest heading for

dispute resolution, which I think is really more what you're looking for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit more to this content dispute.

talk

) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 3RR to me. If the anons continue to revert-without-talk, then maybe semi. You don't seem to have bothered warn them. Aside: debunking the bizarre stupidity of people who believe in the

) 18:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Lowery (result: )

A minor edit war is developing on Joseph Lowery over whether 'some conservatives' have criticized him for his benediction today. Most of the edits are from unregistered users. Maybe semi-protect? topynate (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick look suggests that there are valuable anon contribs to that page. Since you can't be bothered to fill in any detail, I couldn't be bothered to look any more deeply William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are valuable anon contribs, but there's still an edit war going on. I'd like semi-protection for the following reasons: the article is a BLP, and so should be subject to great scrutiny as far as unsourced, poorly sourced or biased edits are concerned; the article is about someone who's public profile has seen a significant but likely temporary boost, due to the inauguration; most of the tendentious editing is being done by anon users without comment or sourcing. I'll add that the pattern of editing has persisted since William's comment. topynate (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Miw93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [link]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [131]

The edit history shows that Miw93 is the same user as the blocked user 213.100.68.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she has been active on other language versions, on the Swedish Wikipeida editing from 193.183.216.176 and 193.183.216.122. Just a heads-up for those that watch Ethiopia.Sjö (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h, probably for vandalism, by Gyrofrog William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 87.203.205.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 87.202.180.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 79.130.145.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 87.203.216.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.73.155.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It is basically one contributor appearing with three different IP ranges (79.130,85.73,87.202) , a fact that is clear from the history of 2008 Greek riots. The IPs change very frequently and only a few edits are made each time, all of them in the same article.

• Previous version reverted to: [132]

• 1st revert: [133]
• 2nd revert: [134]
• 3rd revert: [135]
• 4th revert: [136]
• 5th revert: [137]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.202.180.157&diff=prev&oldid=264943357

There is proof that the contributor-warrior appears with several IPs but is the same person (from comments on the recent diffs in 2008 Greek riots history, from one-edit IPs and from vandalism history of my own user page). The changes made have been discussed in the past and consensus was reached but this person keeps ignoring it and has started edit-warring using different IPs so not to visibly violate 3RR. This person seems to have "technical" knowledge of Wiki [138], and has had a warning of 3rr violation (but yet keeps edit warring) [139]. He admits in Greek "I'm the only one with no account editing this page" when he had a warning about edit warring [140]. What I propose is not banning but protecting the page from the non-registered.-Michael X the White (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected two weeks. About half of all the article edits in the last two days are from IPs, yet I see little or no discussion by IPs on the Talk page. It is plausible that this is all the same person, who has gone way past 3RR, and whose edits are mostly reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was archived about a week ago (I do not know how to link the archive). He did participate in that discussion.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Four reverts of

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 00:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reverts of

• After placing this request, I did have talk page dialog with the user, who said s/he would stop editing the page voluntarily.

•  Administrator note Per this comment, I see no need for a block. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Four reverts of

for more details.

Improper report, but I'll warn him anyway. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 01:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At least 10 reverts against consensus, combined with personal attacks, at

06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• [141]
• [142]
• [143]
• [144]
• [145]
• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• [149]
• [150]
• [151]

Previous version

• [152]

• Page: Variko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Deucalionite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 15 January

1. 19 January, 17:03
2. 19 January, 17:12
3. 19 January, 18:53
4. 20 January, 14:48
5. 20 January, 21:06
6. 21 January, 14:41
7. 21 January, 14:57

• Diff of 3RR warning: n.a., experienced user with many previous 3RR blocks

Most recent 3RR block only 5 January. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Repeat offender, edit warring has been going on for days.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for the vacation. Cheers. Deucalionite (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Bosniaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Osli73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [153]

• 1st revert: [154]
• 2nd revert: [155]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [156]

No violation This was 2 reverts in 22 hours, 3 reverts in 48 hours. The letter of 3RR was not broken by two counts (these edits were not in a 24 hours period, and there were only 3 reverts, not 4). This is further demonstrated by the fact that only 2 diffs were provided, not the requisite 4. Am I missing something? is this user on some sort of probation, or is the article on probation?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [157]

• 1st revert: [158]
• 2nd revert: [159]

• Previous version reverted to: [160] (involved 2 different sections of the article)

• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 5th revert (added after report was filed): [163]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [164]

Clearcut case of 3RR violation involving different content after warning. As a slightly involved admin, I ask that a non-involved admin review this. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the history and the talk you would see that I made attempts with each edit to communicate with SLR and the other editor. I stated my reasons for the edits on the talk clearly. At the time of this writing, SLR has made no comment in either talk or in the comment line indicating his reasons for the revert. This makes him an edit ninja and a violator of AGF, CIVIL and OWN and his actions are therefore invalid. If he won't discuss his changes as I have done, then fuck him. -Stevertigo 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Andrew c)

• Note: After filing this report, Stevertigo continued to revert (see 5th diff). But User:Slrubenstein also continued and is now himself in violation of 3RR ([165], [166], [167], and [168]). As an established user and admin, he should know better. I'll leave a 3RR note on his page, point him here and let another admin handle all this and perhaps Stevertigo's personal attacks/incivility as well. This may need to go to ANI shortly if things don't improve.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: While I suppose I'm supposed to regard your admonition of SLR as a manifestation of your fairness and even-handedness, I can't help but notice that you aren't either paying attention to or dealing with the basic fact that SLR violated four policies in the first place by reverting my edits without comment or explaintion. Does this come under consideration? If not, would it not be more efficient to just program a robot to admonish and block people for the apparently largely automatic process called 3RR? -Stevertigo 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note pt.2 Slrubenstein has contacted me, apologized, said it was a rookie mistake and promised not to revert anymore. I'd accept him at his word, but as stated I'm an involved admin.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note User:Stevertigo has made two additional reverts here and here with some rather rude edit summaries (ninja????). I didn't know this was here, so I placed a warning on his page here. There is no doubt he's edit warring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note,
  WP:OWNs them, and doesn't think he has to comment on the talk about it. SLR did eventually give a big long retort to a previous issue which was not the current issue related to the reverts. The issue with the reverts was my edits to the lede, and SLR nor Orangemarlin has offered any explanation of those reverts. I don't buy this concept that Orangemarlin is acting as an agent of process. If he was, why would he assert the reason for his revert was NPOV? If its NPOV, then he can civilly and rationally discuss it on the talk page in substance. He also appears to be acting like a ninja. -Stevertigo
  20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

48h. Has form William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As AndrewC notes, I acknowledge my goof and since he warned me, I have ceased editing the Jesus article, and I have no intention of editing that article for 24 hours. That said, if an uninvolved admin feels I should be blocked for the day I will not protest.

I would like to add however that Stevertigo is lying when he says I never explained my revert. When Stevertigo made his first edit (which added false and unsourced original research) he marked it as minor and provided no explanation[169]. When I reverted, I assumed he would take it as a good faith revert of a good faith edit, and take it to the talk section. Instead, he reverted my revert (thus starting the revert war). I reverted again and asked him to read my comment on the talk page[170] and [171] (this remains the best concise explanation for the revert). AndrewC immediately provided a more detailed explanation of the consensus that Stevertigo had violated, with references to the relevant archives [172]. Instead of accepting our explanation, Stevertigo provided an off-topic and misinformed response [173], and I responded that his claims about Hebrew and Aramaic were very, very wrong [174]. He then asked me how I knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic [175] ... I felt this was getting off-topic, and also showed a failure to AGF, but I nevertheless answered his question and ended with a plea to get back to the issue at hand[176]. His response was dismissive, and claimed that this was really a debate about the authority of priests versus rabbis, and not about Hebrew or Aramaic, an argument which frankly baffles me[177]. At that point, AndrewC made a plea to stay on-topic[178] and the conversation with Stevertigo just decayed from there on. My point is that I explained my revert politely, and even stated that I assumed he was acting in good faith and did not know he was violating and well-established consensus. Far from failing to engage with Stevertigo, I tried, quite hard, to take him seriously. But each response from Stevertigo was increasingly baffling, failing to address the topic, raising new and at times contentious topics. I can only conclude from his comments, taken together, that he is a

disruptive editor. Stevertigo will no doubt respond to this either by dismissing me, or attacking me, or with some irrelevant ramble. I have as far as I am concerned corrected one false statement by Stevertigo, and I will not engage him or this topic any further, at least not for the next 24 hrs., unless an uninvolved admin. chooses to block me for a longer period. Slrubenstein | Talk

20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Um. I was just going to note that I'm not going to block Slr, on the grounds that he has promised to be good in the future, and he has indeed stopped reverting. The same terms are open to all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[[179]] is the diff where the user requested that I post this to the discussion. I wonder if someone could post the template to his page that explains the block and how to request unblocking. I didn't copy the comment here, as I'm sure that everyone here has followed his talkpage, but supplied the diff for anyone interested in looking.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Wikipedia:Television episodes (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Television episodes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: link

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Despite consensus just this month that to not tag as disputed (see

) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a first offense, so I've given a 48 hour block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem right. The page is protected so there was no need to block. --TS 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection is only for 6 hours, which would not actually address the issue beyond stopping the immediate reverting. Also Ikip frankly knows better considering his extremely lengthy block log. --

talk · contribs

) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if there's no ongoing problem blocking is not indicated. However I note now that he removed a comment from the talk page. Unless there was a good reason to do so this would merit a block. --TS 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He is also making blatantly false statements in his attempt to get unblocked, while refusing to allow me to post corrections[183][184] telling me to "go elsewhere". I am concerned a reviewing admin for his unblock request will not look at his history to see the attempts to post the reality versus Ikip false statements. --

talk · contribs

) 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I second Tony Sidaway's remark above (=TS). Removing someone else's comment from your own unblock discussion should be considered a reason for admins to decline the unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)The removal could have been inadvertent, per Ikip's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't turned every stone, but I sit with an upleasant gut-feeling that settling of old scores play some role here. The sanction is not proportionate with the offence. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Surtsicna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [185]

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]
• 3rd revert: [188]
• 4th revert: [189]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [190]

Ochib (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

S warned. Anon already blocked: 2009-01-21T23:21:00 Gwen Gale (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 78.145.166.159 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule on: Lady Gabriella Windsor) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg_L reported by Wolfkeeper (Result: )

• Page: G-force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Greg_L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [195] revert of edit: [196]

These are just the formal examples but IMO really he's edit warring with practically every edit, and against multiple users.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He's carried on edit warring:

• 5th revert: [197]
• 6th revert: [198] (removed everyone else's edits except his own)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [199]

User is obviously aware of 3RR rules, as he talks about them on his talk page User_talk:Greg_L#RfC.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The last few diffs Wolfkeeper linked are not even reverts. I've looked at Wolfkeeper's edit history and it appears as though Wolfkeeper is the cause of the edit warring. WorkingBeaver (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how one could honestly claim that Greg_L has not made at least 4 reverts. These are not the only edits he has made that constitute reverts, these are just the clearest ones, where he has done so in one single edit rather than changing multiple things at once and making reverts in the process. If this 3RR fails I will simply refile it with more information, it's not even arguable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From Greg L

Wolfkeeper nebulously complains about factual inaccuracies in the article but has been unable or unwilling to state precisely what it is in the article that is in error. I posted here on Talk:g-force, an introductory paragraph from the article that effectively serves as the template for the rest of that section. There, I invited him to state precisely what factual inaccuracies there are. Rather than respond to that, he responded with this personal attack, wherein he refused to address the singularly most important issue: what is it in the article that is incorrect or that he thinks isn’t balanced. We’ve got an editor who refuses to engage in meaningful dialog and respond to direct questions and address the issues and instead editwars. I had taken this to ANI here but was advised by Noian as follows: This is a content dispute and belongs either at WP:DR, talk page, WP:RfC, or WP:EA. Also, you can always file a 3RR report. Wolfkeeper clearly saw that advise and is wikilawyering here to get his way. I do not engage in 3RR violations. Further, other editors on the Talk:g-force talk page are politely trying to tell Wolfkeeper that the wording he is trying to promote is unlikely to be understood by the average reader. I certainly hope to resolve all our differences on Talk:g-force. In response to a personal attack from Wolfkeeper, I repeated my invitation to him that the proper venue to resolve content disputes is on talk pages, as follows in this most recent exchange:

---

There's no hope for you. You're deliberately creating a non neutral article, in numerous ways, and have been doing so since you started editing here. You've also been abusive, obnoxious, insulting, you've accused me and others of being meatpuppets, you've edit warred, you've selectively removed citations, you've accused me of ignorance of basic physics, I can go on and on and on about this. I can honestly say I've only seen one other editor behave as badly as you, and he later admitted to being a paid to represent the interests of corporations. It's been real educational. Contrasts strongly with the artificially dumbed down article you're trying to create, which is actually wrong on key points.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see. Well, I think there may be hope for you. But I think you’re busy attacking another editor rather than focusing on the single, important issue here: What the article says is the central point of any dispute. Please explain clearly and exactly what it is about the above paragraph that you dispute. You nebulously refer to something which is actually wrong on key points. Nothing can be resolved until it is clear what you think is incorrect. Perhaps then, we can learn from each other and produce wording that seems clear to us both. If not, we can go to dispute resolution if necessary. Greg L (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

(Sigh). My hope is that Wolfkeeper will eventually engage constructively on the talk page with me, John (another admin) and others, and will finally respond with specifics so we can work on compromise language that addresses our differences. Failing that, I suspect we will indeed have to go to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution if Wolfkeeper sticks with his present course. Greg L (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper reported by WorkingBeaver (Result: )

• Page: G-force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• 5th revert: [205]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [206]

The fourth isn't a revert because I didn't revert to a recent previous version- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag is in a different place in the fifth, and applies to only a subpart of the sentence, so is not truly a revert; but this may be considered a technicality I suppose, in my defence I note that the article was not referenced, and appears to be highly controversial.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely apologise if this is considered to constitute 3RR, I did not intend to breach this guideline, and I will try to make sure this does not happen again. There's currently a lot of other editors that I persuaded to become involved, and there is a lively ongoing discussion on the article's talk page about how this article may be improved hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Result

I haven't fought through all the diffs. I believe peace has broken out. Both editors (but especially W) cautioned to avoid revert warring in future William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your volunteerism here, and (especially) your patience. I have a spotless record so far and certainly hope to keep it that way. Contributing to Wikipedia is much more rewarding when we have admins such as yourself who wisely avoid draconian, knee-jerk reactions to the first *evidence* to be splashed onto a page. As you well-know, there often is much more to these stories. Occasionally, more basic motivations underlie the disputes, such as
  WP:OWN and resentment to newcomers who are perceived as trespassing. Frankly, that is what I believe is going on over a g-force. As long as we can iron out our differences on the g-force talk page, all should be well. Greg L (talk
  ) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war." This is somebody claiming some contrary fact, and being reverted by everybody. Wolfkeeper has the support of user:JRSpriggs at Wikiproject Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&action=edit&section=33, and his physics is correct. Greg L's is wrong. And this is not an isolated case. Greg L. drove many editors nuts on the relativity pages until he was basically outvoted and kicked off. I can provide diffs. SBHarris 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• [B]eing reverted by everybody: That is only true of “everybody” is defined as meaning “Sbharris.” Greg L (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon about Peace

William, please see this thread on Talk:g-force. I start out with an imminently sensible approach to resolving our differences and am instantly met with incivility. Please read the last post by Sbharris. They perceive no need whatsoever to explain their reasoning. I am holding them to a standard of explaining precisely what is wrong with the text and am met with nothing but “‘cause it’s wrong” responses. Please also see this post by WorkingBeaver. He is asking Wolfkeeper and SBHarris to …stop editing the article and only continue to talk on this page … because it has become apparent from reading your contributions that you do not fully understand the subject and that your increasingly heated edits are damaging the accuracy of the article, so I think it is better that both of you try to talk here to understand the subject better before trying to contribute to the article page. WorkingBeaver’s advise was in response to that last post by Sbharris suggesting that they stop discussing compromise wording and simply edit as they desire. Also, the caution was because Sbharris made this edit, which was utter and complete scientific nonsense. This editwaring is getting out of hand. SBHarris now, is editing tendentiously and being disruptive. Can you help? Greg L (talk)

Some needed history

Before you let Greg L. draw you all into another one of his private physics fantasies, I suggest a close reading of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Matter_losing_mass_as_it_falls_down_a_gravity_well And the rest of the page is fun, too. SBHarris 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lakshmix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]

since filing the report, the editor has made one more revert

• 5th revert: [212]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [213]

User is currently the subject of a sock puppet report with one sock indef blocked for racist personal attacks and the puppet master account having been blocked for 3RR four days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ziggymaster

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd as probable sock of Z William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== 98.222.63.218 reported by [[User:}}

• User: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This administrative or User continually reverts my changes to the title, which reads "In the United Kingdom" without engaging in dialogue or offering an explanation. I have been informed that my changes are jeopardizing my status and that I am about to be blocked. According to the Wikipedia policy, blocking is not meant to be punitive. Clearly, with administrators abusing their administrative status and without any information on how to become an administrator, this sort of behavior portrays Wikipedia as worse than the vertical, hierarchical institutions it is meant to supplement or replace.

This user is making controversial changes and refusing to discuss them on the talk page. Three existing editors have reverted. Someone needs to give them some guidance. --Snowded TALK 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the the worst formatted 3RR report I've ever seen; the page was

) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 78.69.82.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th revert: [219]
• 6th revert: [220]
• 7th revert: [221]
• 8th revert: [222]
• 9th revert: [223]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [224]

User continues to add an unsourced, too general statement. Many editors have been reverting him. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• vandalism, I say we wait it out to see if the warning you left him/her has any effect. If he/she continues to revert though, he/she will be blocked. Tiptoety ^talk
  19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-22T19:39:39 Spartaz (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 78.69.82.192 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper is continuing to ediitwar [225] (see history here) on g-force. I have asked him repeatedly here on the talk page to explain what is wrong with the wording in the article so we can address the issues one by one. I also recently suggested here that we invite an engineer from a manufacturer of accelerometers to review the article and e-mail some editors with his assessment of the accuracy of the article. He has stubbornly refused all reason, professes to have no interest in having an outside expert opinion, and simply tendentiously edits, trying to push a new brand of physics that flouts a clear and authoritative reference. I see see no other viable course than an immediate block for tendentious editing and refusal to get the point. Greg L (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeepers insistence on introducing Einstein and relativity into an article based on the regular Newtonian world is indeed tendentious. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That post was designed to mislead. The problem is that the article has a clear-as-glass citation from a reliable source on a key point of fact. On the talk page are more citations. Wolfkeeper’s *belief system* on this point is such that he is being disruptive and tendentious and constitutes
  WP:Refusal to ‘get the point’. He must discontinue editwarring. The article will now be reviewed by an outside expert for factual accuracy on the key point of contention. Wolfkeeper may not like this, he may poo-poo it. He may say he doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of the source. None of that matters. The outside review will take place so that the rest of the editors, who now no longer know quite what the true facts are any more, can arrive at a community consensus. Once that has been established, through an RfC, the world will move on over on g-force. If Wolfkeeper edits against the consensus, that will be a different issue that we will address if it arrises. In the mean time, he may not tendentiously edit to flout the outside review. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Normally, clear-as-glass citations and the efforts of other editors to reason with Wolfkeeper would suffice, one would think. Greg L (talk
  ) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Declined

• Page: Men Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Sirex98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [link]
• 3rd revert: [link]
• 4th revert: [link]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Comment: For easy reference, this case has been posted from the other party at the BLP board here [228]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing policy for this page before removing report. Have warned the reporting party as Degen is using non-reliable sources to and Sirex is reverting BLP concerns.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Degen warned.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Dina Vierny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Artur Ray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• before reverting inserted own text [229], which was fixed, not by me.
• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]. Even without changing references.
• 3rd revert: [232]. Deleting refrences that are against his opinion.

Artur Ray is reverting birthplace of Dina Vierny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against all reverences, even FrancePress.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [233]

--Rambalac (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More tedious ethnic infighting. No formal vio. You are both guilty of reverting without troubling to explain yourself on the talk page, which is empty. Whose sock is 64.251.32.254? All cautionned to at least pretend to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Roxette discography
• User: Harout72 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=264340164

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265935126

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=264340164
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265630298
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265731039
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265797995
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265871622
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxette_discography&oldid=265935126

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harout72

If you look at many discographys from important musicians you'll find sales figures, which are coming from the official site. See Madonna albums discography. Some don't even have a source like Celine Dion albums discography or Katy Perry discography. Why shouldn't be an official site a reliable source? Isn't the information about sold CDs also coming from the band/record company to the media? So is the official site not the first place to find good information? Please make an end to this war! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas81 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This technically isn't a

3-revert rule violation. However, official sites should not be used as primary sources in any case; the inherent risk of there being malipulated information is too great. In any case, that's just my opinion; you two should still discuss it on the talk page, by all means. Just don't edit war. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D}

17:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Chaldean Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Chaldean2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

• 1st revert: [234]
• 2nd revert: [235]
• 3rd revert: [236]
• 4th revert: [237]
• 5th revert: [238]
• 6th revert: [239]
• 6th revert: [240]
• 7th revert: [241]

This user has been warned multiple times here [242]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Add any other comments and sign your name

There are 28 academic sources that have been placed in this article, and this user continues to delete entire paragrapghs, change words that contradict the sources provided. He has been warned multiple times and chooses to be defiant. The 27 academic sources dismiss his revisionist views, he continues to disrupt this page, he removes sources, and places irrelevant words throughout the article. 130.17.92.63 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days due to continually ignoring warnings. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Video design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William 1066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 21:31, 23 January 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Video Designers */ addition")
2. 21:47, 23 January 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Video Designers */")
3. 21:51, 23 January 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Video Designers */")
4. 23:12, 23 January 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 265078474 by Triwbe (talk
   ) Listed video designers are working in high profile productions and nominated for awards")

• Diff of warning: here

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Goramon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [243]

• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]
• 4th revert: [247]
• 5th revert: [248]
• 6th revert: [249]
• 7th revert: [250]

• Diff of warning: [251]

Be aware. This is a slow-burning edit war and not a classic 3RR. Goramon is editing the article and inserting information and Original Research. The article was stable until this point. Goramon has been consistently asked to stop editting disruptively and no more original research. The editor continues to remove the same information and insert his own interpretation. Looking at the edit history this appears to be a

) 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked HighKing many times to identify which Original Research I have added but he has failed to do so. All of the facts included by myself are referenced from reliable sources. If I have posted OR I am open to discussing and removing it. However, HighKing has never identified the supposed OR that I posted.

HighKing and other editors have been misusing Australian census data about ancestry to calculate a "Total Population" when this is a very inappropriate use of the data (since you can nominate two ancestries). Also the ABS has stated that it assumes the majority of people who nominate an "Australian" ancestry are anglo-celtic. If even any people who nominate Australian ancestry are Anglo-Celtic then it is logically impossible that calculating a "total population" without including them is not fallacious. This is synthesis or OR and is misleading. I have included the census data in my edits without making any misleading claims about calculating total population. I have included peer reviewed journal articles that do make an attempt to quantify anglo-celtic ancestry in Australia and are citable.Goramon (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Very slow burn indeed. I don't think this belongs here. You need to revert a lot harder to get our attention :-). Meanwhile, I detect regrettable impatience in HK's talk comments. You'll have to work out your OR issues somewhere else William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Regrettable impatience"? LOL. What crap. Is that the best you could come up with as a barb? Still, I suppose you're still smarting over our previous run-in William... Still, it appears as if this issue *is* being resolved on Talk, so that's a result at least. --

HighKing (talk

) 12:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 76.15.185.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [252]

• 1st revert: [253]
• 2nd revert: [254]
• 3rd revert: [255]
• 4th revert: [256]

• Page: Sobibor extermination camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous version reverted to: [257]

• 1st revert: [258]
• 2nd revert: [259]
• 3rd revert: [260]
• 4th revert: [261]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [262]

Editor was warned last night about edit-warring on another article. [263] — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 05:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor appears to be attempting to evade the block by editing from 200.193.129.125. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/76.15.185.72. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Sunanda K. Datta-Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

• 1st revert without comments
• 2nd revert without comments
• 3rd revert with comments "dont tell me what to do. i'm going by datta-ray's article ... read it ... he is obviously closer to nellie ... this is not your nationalistic post"
• more reversion with comments " this is what the International Herald Tribune and Datta-Ray writes ... They are internationally renowned sources. You are not."
• 4th revert with comments "If you look at the reference for this point then you will see that I am following what the subject of this article (Datta-Ray) writes in the most famous international newspaper -- the IHT."

User Charlie79 seems to be a

• new user as he was using WP articles as references (even after linking them)
• single-purpose account, all he did so far is that he created this one and inserted subject's name in other articles

Also, he does not follow

while communicating with others or in his comments. Please check the discussion in his talk page. Examples:

1. "In anycase, you seem to have a penchant for mis-spelling names"
2. "of course nothing incorrect by you matters. the height of arrogant impudence"
3. Personal attack: "& btw ... i belong to four clubs in cambridge and london ... how many do u belong to? so don't tell me about club lingo."

He seems to be feeling like he

) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if 3RR rule is not applied in this case, an administrator should explain to him how WP editors work; I tried my best, he does not seem to agree and already thinks that I am working on nationalist interest :) Also, please let me know if I have any mistakes in this context.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Noob, should be warned. As a regular, you realise you should be using the article talk page to discuss your edits rather than reverting, so thats good :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

violation on Discrimination against atheists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

original [264]

1st rev [265] 2nd rev [266] 3rd rev [267] 4th rev [268]

• Comments:
  WP:OWN seems to be an issue in the article in the midst of disputes over quality of sources and original research. The IP edit prior to last revert seems likely to come from an involved editor, but it's not me. Professor marginalia (talk
  ) 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Romano-British_culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 68.231.164.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: here

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

The user is carrying out the same actions on Romano-Germanic culture with a similar number In addition the user is placing abusive comments on user pages User:Snowded and User:GoodDay

• Diff of 3RR warning: here

--Snowded TALK 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Rockpocket 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ceha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [269] This was a version that existed while the article was protected (due to this map)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [270]

Republika Srpska article has been vandalized several times by posting of the self-made maps, whose sources were missing/questionable (some even obtained by other users). Due to edit warring the page was protected for a week. However as soon as the restriction was lifted, map resurfaced. User has a different POV (Croatian), and is persistently adding this garbage (to Serbian related article). Nothing personal to the guy, who may even be a decent editor, but i'm sick and tired of fighting this self-made garbage. If he feels he should link to such sites, no problems, but creating a personal map is a little bit too much. In the discussion page you can see a huge treat related to this map. Nothing constructive other then this map has really been added by this user to the article page. I would really like some admin help on this. I'm also going to try to cascade it up, if it persists. Thank you Onyxig (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, as can be seen here [[271]] 3RR has not been broken by me. Actualy user Onyxig broke it (it can be seen on the same link). I putted the map, and he removed it three times. There is nothing wrong with the map. It is sourced, and basicly it is a good map. If user Onyxig has some complaints he is welcome to put his sugestions how to improve it.
--Čeha (razgovor) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceha You have returned the same map that was the cause of the page block due to buttload of edit wars and discussions. This map is lingering for weeks and it's the cause of huge disputes. I dont feel like I have done 3RR by returning the page to the point where it was before it was blocked, yet you couldnt wait for protection to go away so you can put it back. Good map? Man it's self made (by you) for God's sake. And sourcing... i'm not even gonna go there. I invite those interested to look into it. I gotta admit though, you are one persistent dude. Kudos for that. Onyxig (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I returned it. I did not brake 3RR by doing that. I did not make revert on the page. You can check onto the 3RR page on wiki what does that rule means... As for map, noone managed to discredit UN sources onto which map was made, so.... When page was protected, administrator which done that did not say anything about validity of the map, he just protected the last version. And if you have anything against the map, you have map talk page to discuss it. I'm sorry, but you can not remove that map without valid reason or because of your feelings. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ceha validity is questioned a lot of times. You have even been told that these are not direct ICTY UN sources. Put a link up, but dont go fabricating a map making everyone believe your opinions. If you find a copyrighted one soemwhere post it. I just dont want people trusting your "good" work.Onyxig (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources are clearly mentioned and discussed one by one in [272]. There is also a wikipedia discussion on them on [273]. You can not vandalize [274] them an act as nothing had happened...--Čeha (razgovor) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalize what? Here are your sources being sent by someone else [275], and they magically match your map. Nice. Onyxig (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You deleted sources from map as can be seen on [276]. Only person which changed added some sources was I, as it is clearly shown [277] --Čeha (razgovor) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh, can you guys both just cut it out? Onyxig has four reverts in just over 24 hours, and so has not technically violated 3RR, but is obviously edit warring. Ceha, with three reverts in 24 hours, is hardly behaving better. Please stop; I'm watchlisting the article to see to it that you do. Remember that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts a day, and that you may be blocked for edit warring if you continue, even if you don't technically violate the rule. So just stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm curious of what to do with the map? The map is validated, UN based, but some users (like Onyxig) have some POV issues to it.

Also, I would be very gratefull if someone could advise Onyxig to not remove sources from map[278] as such behaviour is consinderd vandalism. Thanks in advance--Čeha (razgovor) 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As we can see here user onyxig broke 3RR [[279]]. Even falsely accused me of doing so. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins please see my comments in my accusation above. Much appreciated. Look into the fact why Republika Srpska article was blocked. His self-made map. Protection should have been left on. Onyxig (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User clearly broke the 3RR [[280]] and is a little bit uncivic, quote ; Ceha and rest of the vultures - stop adding this disputed map . His revert from 00:06, 24 January 2009. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, admins please see article history/discussion, and what this self-made map has caused. I call you a vulture because all you do on that page is push your ignorent biased map across, nothing constructive. Just sick and tired of it. Onyxig (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User Onyxig made a vandalism here [281], he probably tried to remove sources so the map would look like unsourced? Onyxig if you have different opinion on something there is no need to behave as a vandal or to brake wikipedia rules... --Čeha (razgovor) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everyone can see the diff. Those sources were sent to you by PRODUCER after you already had the map up. See talk pages, and your own talk pages (diff if necessary) Wow break rules? Wikipedia should allow anyone's garbage up? I dont think so. I'm not a vandal, my contributions to that page are definitely more constructive then yours. And stop with the arrogance even though it goes well with your attitude.Onyxig (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You vandalised my page [282], deleted the sources and broke 3RR. You should be punished for that. Also, you behaved uncivic (insulted other users). You even deleted our discussion from your talk page [283] (I realy don't see a reason for that). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Try acting as a wikipedian, and not as a vandal (which you, by wikipidia definitions surely are).

As for changes onto the map, everything can be seen from its discussion onto the [284] and image discusion page [285].--Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• See above report for result. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Gerard Piqué (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 189.7.183.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288][289]
• 3rd revert: [290]
• 4th revert: [291]
• 5th revert: [292]
• 6th revert: [293]
• 7th revert: [294]
• 8th revert: [295]

As you can see, the first three reverts reverted my changes of [[FC Barcelona]] to [[FC Barcelona|Barcelona]]. However, with 3RR in mind, I ceased my attempts to correct that after my third change. From then on, it is a simple matter of grammar; whether or not to capitalise the "B" in "Centre back".

• Diff of 3RR warning: [296]

You could probably do me for breaking 3RR as well, but this offender is flouting grammatical rules for no apparent reason. Thanks. –

14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The user who (I assume) was created by the IP to continue reverting has been blocked; however, while I won't block you for it this time, please remember not to edit war. You reverted way too many times for me to be comfortable in this situation; try to report it early next time? Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: 67.126.199.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [297]

• 1st revert: [298]
• 2nd revert: [299]
• 3rd revert: [300]
• 4th revert: [301]
• [update] 5th revert: [302]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [303]

Andrew c ^[talk] 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Sindhi people
• Users: User:210.2.140.194, User:Skatergal and User:122.169.71.248

I have been attempting to remove large sections of unsourced and NPOV statements from the article

. All my edits are being reverted by editors (who may be the same user). They have refused to discuss the matter, in spite of requests by me

• [304]
• [305]

warnings

• [306]

and even an Rfc

• [307].

The editors have flagrantly violated

, as evidenced by their comments here

• [308]
• [309]
• [310]

An intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no 3RR here; however, interestingly enough, the version you are contesting has more sources than yours. I'm curious how that works out... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not citing the users for 3RR - I'm citing them for blatant NPOV and jealous ownership of the article. If you take a look at the history, you'll see that I made a number of edits [311], and explained the reason for each one. However, all my edits are continuously reverted and the users in question refuse all my requests to discuss the issue, instead threatening non-Sindhis (like myself) to stay away. I posted here even though its not a 3RR violation because I think it does qualify as an edit war, and I see no other recourse. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I'll bring this up on Skatergal's talk page; if they refuse to discuss, we'll go from there. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Australia Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Laager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [312]

• 1st revert: [313]
• 2nd revert: [314]
• 3rd revert: [315]
• 4th revert: [316]
• 5th revert: [317]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [318]

) 12:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking. Oh, and thanks for the very well-structured report! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, although I see I did miss a space. Damn! :) --AussieLegend (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Mark Gottfried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rtr10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [324]

• 1st revert: [325]
• 2nd revert: [326]
• 3rd revert: [327]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [328]

Rtr10 three times reverted an 'unreferenced' tag, disagreeing with my assessment of the (only) source for the article--in essence, he argues that Rolltide.com is independent of the Alabama athletics department. There's a bit more context: I ended by adding first one, then (to avoid having to reistate the reference tag) three more sources to the article; Rtr10 ended by deleting these last three references, besides calling me a dick, suggesting ownership of the article, and questioning my good faith. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: editor has since reinstated one of the references. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna block here, since this was just a small dispute; no real harm done. I'll leave a small note on the editor's talk page, but in general this could be avoided if you both discuss first (civilly) before reverting. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I can't say I feel vindicated: I think the actual edit summaries bear out that at least I tried to be specific (and, I believe, correct in my interpretation of WP:RS and other relevant policies), and you have seen, I hope, that I engaged in a conversation on the reverter's talk page--which turned out to a nice way for him/her to abuse me some more. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did he abuse you, if I may ask? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Affirmative action in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: CnrFallon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [329]

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]
• 4th revert: [333]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [334]

Blocked for 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Ethical aspects of abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [335]

• 1st revert: [336]
• 2nd revert: [337]
• 3rd revert: [338]
• 4th revert: [339]

• The user has been warned several times by different editors over the month: [340], [341], [342], [343], [344]

Schrandit (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit that I am precisely as guilty of edit-warring here as Schrandit is. Please block us both for a month.

talk

) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, in an even more civilized twist, nobody gets blocked. Instead, you discuss on the talk page and don't edit war anymore. If somebody starts pushing against consensus again, do not revert; just report. It doesn't matter if you have consensus at your back or not; edit warring still ends up being edit warring. This way, everybody is happy. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which page do I report editing against consensus on?

talk

) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My talk page, preferably. Causes the least clutter. You could also nudge my pal User:Juliancolton if I'm not active. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I was not expecting that. Spotfixer, be like everyone else and deny any involvement in anything! Runs off teehee'ing!

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint. Next time, I'll just explain that I have God on my side, so all things are permitted.

talk

) 05:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Demographics of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lyoizisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [345]

• 1st revert: [346]
• 2nd revert: [347]
• 3rd revert: [348]
• 4th revert: [349]
• 5th revert: [350]

Note in particular user's persistent reinsertion of the Arvanites and Vlachs of Greece in a list of "ethnic minorities", when in fact the relevant articles make quite clear that they self-identify as ethnic Greeks.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [351]

User has engaged in repeated ethnic attacks in edit summaries, using offensive language such as "Greco-nationalist" and "Greco-fascist" to describe those who object to his/her POV pushing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected Demographics of Greece: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)))). I notice that in your haste you have neglected to warn the user about 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [link]

• 1st revert: [352]
• 2nd revert: [353]
• 3rd revert: [354]
• 4th revert: [355]
• 5th revert: [356] he promises to keep on edit waring without discussion or work toward a consensus.
• 6th revert: [357] - followed me to another page and made a vindictive revert.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [358]

My first contact with him, I thought he was a Vandal, I was mistaken and take responsibility for that and will be more diligent to determine the issue in the future, it just turns out he has a very strong uncompromising POV. He has been blocked three times within a two week period this month already [[359]]. I have tried to engage him on the talk page but that has been unfruitful so far. Hardyplants (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly 3RR. From the outside, this just looks like you two disagreeing. I think you need

WP:DR. Other opinions? William M. Connolley (talk

) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems about right to me, if you're looking for other admins' thoughts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm not edit-warring. There is a problem, though, in that

WP:CIVIL

by repeatedly accusing me of vandalism and marking my talk page up with bogus warnings, which is likewise an abuse of tags.

Regardless, the consensus in the article's discussion page is against his changes, but it seems that nobody's around this weekend. So rather than edit war, I'm going to leave the bad version up a little while longer to give others a chance to jump in and fix it. If nobody's paying attention, I'll fix it myself in a bit. After all,

talk

) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't fix it yourself unless you've both agreed on it; otherwise I have the sneaking suspicion you'll just end up edit-warring, which is what we don't want. Instead, wait for consensus, even if it takes a long time. Request a

WP:3O? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D}

17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice your comment here until just now, but a third party broke the deadlock, so all is well.

talk

) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Adelanwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: here

• 1st revert: here
• 2nd revert: here
• 3rd revert: here
• 4th revert: here

The history goes back before that, the user is constantly placing the same material and refusing to discuss matters on the talk page. He also vandalised my talk page here.

• Diff of 3RR warning: here and it was then deleted by the user.

This user may just be totally incompetent and an admin warning, or a short block may change the behaviour. The latest insertion of their material may have been intended for the talk page but its gone on too long. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies Brainman 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelanwar (talk • contribs)

• Yes, I'm afraid this has gone on long enough. That last revert may indeed have been partly meant for the talk, but it is nonetheless a partial revert, and furthermore, it seems this edit warring's been going on for longer than just today. That's why I'm blocking, despite some oddities in this edit war (for example, the unusual fact that the editor had to revert ClueBot, who isn't really supposed to show up in edit wars). I think 24 hours is best here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 99.2.224.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [360]

• 1st revert: [361]
• 2nd revert: [362]
• 3rd revert: [363]
• 4th revert: [364]
• 5th revert: [365]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [366]

This is the long term IP address of a user that has edit warred before. The user has been warned several times before by many different editors, as evidenced by the messages left on the user talk page. The user also engages in personal attacks in edit summaries.

The user has also ignored a suggestion to self-revert, leading me to make this report. User responded to my suggestion to self revert by leaving a sarcastic message on my talk page.

-LK (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Main problem here is a bad case of

WP:OWN. The article is an essay into which the user has put a lot of work, and is unwilling to accept that the result is inevitably POV. It appears one outcome has been the creation of an account User:NeutralityForever in place of (hopefully not in addition to) the IP.JQ (talk

) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

48h for the anon. Warned NF William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [367]

• 1st revert: [368]
• 2nd revert: [369]
• 3rd revert: [370]
• 4th revert: [371]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [372]

Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio, technically. But both sies are edit warring, and are cautionned for it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Red Hulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: ThuranX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=263173193&oldid=263038162

This is the last known version with the section intact.

• 1nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265004981&oldid=265004308
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265283292&oldid=265281665
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265297729&oldid=265296976
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265598379&oldid=265523843
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265855378&oldid=265795363
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=265991977&oldid=265985726
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hulk&diff=266611727&oldid=266599379

I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, ThuranX removes it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. While reintegrating and discussing this entry, instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with ThuranX on - see his talk page) instead hes just keeps deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.

Eliminating an entire section without discussing alternatives in the discussion page and blatantly deleting it over and over again does not adhere to

attitude. Furthermore, I am concerned ThuranX is engaging in sockpuppetry.

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ThuranX#3RR_Warning

--Apoklyptk (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Response I was not the editor who first removed it. see here for that. I agreed with Asgardian that it was unneeded. I brought it to talk, and Apoklyptk initially did not choose to use it. Since then, Apoklyptk only uses talk when he comes to revert, if the section is removed, and at no other time. Asgardian removed it, I removed it, David A removed it Bold Clone removed it. Both David A and I have used talk to explain why we opposed the reinsertion of the text, and two others have removed it. Apoklyptk asserts a broad consensus which did not exist. When the earlier discussion took place, it was left with no defined consensus, and with multiple, in fact more editors than not, opposing it as rumor and speculation. Since then, the information has been disproved (Rulk fought he alleged identity, Ares, in a later issue.) Apoklyptk has stated that he made the original addition and intends to come back as long as it takes to keep it in, that he will 'defend his edit' to the end, and so on. I've tried to explain all this to him, but he seems uninterested in any outcome that results in his efforts being changed, despite the evidence of four editors now opposed, and numerous editors the last time. He makes the assertion he had consensus 8 months ago, I say that even if that was true, consensus can change with new information, and clearly, it has. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't. As to 3RR vios, your 5th is to an edit thats not even by T, so if you do care, have another go at filing this. The usual warnings about edit warring to all William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't." - What could that possibly have to do with anything?

And as far as reposting this, it's obvious he's the only one violently contesting the removal of an entire section, so it shouldn't matter who originally removed if he has re-removed it multiple times thereafter. This is just bureaucratic bullshit. Furthermore, why is the burden of effort my responsibility when I am trying to preserve content?

As per the response, it's not quite accurate. If no one is going to take the time to read the discussion page and contribute their thoughts (that do not speculate about Quesada's motivations) I guess I'll just have to keep putting it back in. This process is a joke and the editor in question is being disruptive, if I'm the only one who cares, so be it. I'll be tireless in this, but I will no longer be stating my case. Everything I have had to say is out on the talk pages for all to consume.--Apoklyptk (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Apoklyptk, you appear to be promising to edit war in the future without further comment. I've left a comment on both the Talk:Red Hulk page and also your own talk page. Consensus certainly appears to be against you, please discuss this before reverting so we don't have to wind up right back here at the edit war page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Rick Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [373]

• 1st revert: [374]
• 2nd revert: [375]
• 3rd revert: [376]
• 4th revert: [377]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [378]

) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that my 2nd, 3rd and 4th werent a revert to 1st. I introduced another source to address synthesis issue and changed wording. But I still made a self revert: [379] Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

P has self-reverted, so no block. Both sides are advised to

) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, Phoenix's edits have been well within the boundaries of

talk

) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TAMIL NEW YEAR OR PUTHANDU OR TAMIL PUTHANDU

125.17.14.100 reported by Dipendra2007

I wanted to alert you that a couple of individuals who have not created an account with Wikipedia but use an IP number - 125.17.14.100 and 75.142.230.243 being two such cases - unilaterally reverse the painstaking description of the Tamil new year or 'Puthandu' by MrinaliniB, Tolkaapiyanaar, Dharman Dharmaratnam and myself backed with numerous media citations.

The controversy pertains to the Tamil new year celebrated by ethnic Tamils in India, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. The state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu changed the date of the new year through controversial legislation which is currently before court. The opposition in that state have vowed to reverse the legislation while Sri Lanka retains the traditional Tamil calendar.

The current version of the Wikipedia entry on the Tamil new year or Puthandu as drafted by MrinaliniB and others is backed with numerous press citations. It provides space for both points of view i.e. the description of the traditional calendar and those in the current state government who seek to change it today.

However editors who have no wikipedia account using their IP numbers such as 125.17.14.100 unilaterally reverse the changes and introduce a one-sided disputed ideological version.

It might be useful if the 'Puthandu' page is therefore restricted to those editors with a wikipedia account only. Perhaps newly registered editors should temporarily not be allowed to edit or reverse changes. The dispute can be discussed at the discussion page.

Further, these individuals who do not have a wikipedia account have unilaterally created a separate 'tamil puthandu' page which has the identical content as per their version of the 'puthandu' page. This is redundanct and readers should be redirected.

I appeal for you to intervene to temporarily block unilateral reversals by individuals who do not have a wikipedia account.

Here is the relevant entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puthandu

Thank you

--Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you're aware of the existence of a thing we call "talk pages"? There is one here: Talk:Puthandu. Its feeling lonely and unloved; perhaps you'd consider showing it some attention? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

William,

I agree. But IP # 125.17.14.100 arbitrarily cancels the earlier original version without seeking the views of others and never resorts to the talk pages to raise points of contention. He should be temporarily blocked from making editorial changes. He violated the 'three revert' rule in a 24 hour period yesterday and may well do so today. One needs to respect different viewpoints and the 'talk page' is the best forum to thrash issues out.

--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed, you're now using the talk page and the anon isn't, so I've blocked the account for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear William,

Thank you. However, IP number 125.17.14.100 is back unilaterally reverting earlier edits without due discussion. He is disruptive. He should perhaps be blocked for a week. He needs to use the discussion page before introducing significant changes as the rest of us seem to have agreed. Please help.

--MrinaliniB (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He's reverted *once*. I think a week-long block would be just a teensy bit over the top William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill

He reverted twice in a 24 hour period but I agree - he has not violated the three revert rule this time. But keep an eye just in case....Note that he is the only one reverting when the evidence he seeks is in the citation itself. cheers!

---

William,

125.17.14.100 seems to have broken the three revert rule in a 24 hour period (January 28)

He comes across as an 'edit warrior'. At the start, he arbitrarily reverted the text without providing reasons. Other editors (myself included) reverted his 'reversions'! He subsequently questioned one point or another to continue to revert the text. A few editors tried to address the points raised by him with an appropriate consensus wording. Others (like me) invited 125.17.14.100 to join the discussion at talk page. He did not.

125.17.14.100 however continued to merrily revert on the pretext of a new point previously not raised. He rejected the consensus wording arrived at to accommodate him. It was a succession of one excuse or the other to introduce changes which he had not raised before.

I am not sure how one can deal with the succession of issues raised by one individual. This seems to be snowballing and is disruptive. I refer the matter to you. He might have broken the three revert rule today.

125.17.14.100 then demands evidence. It is in the footnotes also discussed in the discussion page. He does not seem to read the talk page. He then changes the point of contention to introduce his PoV e.g. 'all secular individuals regardless of political party, creed or caste observe the new year on such and such a date' without himself producing the necessary evidence. It all seems so ideological, subjective and against a consensus way of approaching it.

It is these sorts of edit warring and reverts that contributes to a credibility issue in an otherwise superb on-line initiative such as Wikepedia--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

48h for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias senor :-) If only he had tried the talk page. That would have been a useful way to incorporate different views while respecting each contributor. Thank you once more. --Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Ralph Nader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Douglemeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [380]

• 1st revert: [381]
• 2nd revert: [382]
• 3rd revert: [383]
• 4th revert: [384]
• 5th revert: [385]
• 6th revert, after 3RR warning: [386]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [387]

) 07:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Once again, I'm deeply touched by a reporters intensive use of the article talk page to attempt to defuse an edit war</sarcasm>. Rv #3 is from the 20th, so not even close to a strict vio of 3RR. As for general edit warring, you're both doing it. Conclusion: please stop edit warring yourself, and use the article talk page to discuss disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [388]

• 1st revert: [389]
• 2nd revert: [390]
• 3rd revert: [391]
• 4th revert: [392]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [393]

User scripturalreasoning responded negatively to my warning at [394]

I have also (earlier today) placed a request for third-party administrator help in this editorial conflict on [395]

--mahigton (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

SR has definitely broken 3RR, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Abortion in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• Previous version reverted to: [396]

• 1st revert: [397]
• 2nd revert: [398]
• 3rd revert: [399]
• 4th revert: [400]

• The user has been warned several times by different editors over the month: [401], [402], [403], [404], [405]

Some of those warnings were clearly in error and they were also not about this article. Please stop slinging mud.

talk

) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than trying to find citations to back up the claim in contention the user merely reverted the page, reinserting the unsourced content and later deleting citation requests. Please keep in mind the user's other two mentions on this page. - Schrandit (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As it turns out, Schrandit is once again mistaken. I did add a cite for the text he keeps edit-warring to delete. This false report is part of a pattern of abuses; he filed a false report a day ago and it was dismissed. Scroll up.

talk

) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no 3RR violation here that I can see, and the last diff you provided actually adds the citation. Perhaps the two of you should disengage for a while. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Rick Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lyonscc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [406]

1. 03:42, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "Definitely not
   coatracking
   ")
2. 03:55, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid
   revision 267122133 - This is offensive, not a recognized neologism, and qualifies for speedy deletion. Gain consensus first")
3. 04:46, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "This is a
   WP:BLP
   - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wait for consensus (24+ hours)")
4. 04:55, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "
   WP:BLP
   .")
5. 05:13, 29 January 2009 See previous note. Tele's edit doesn't matter in counting for 3RR, and removal of malicious, poorly sourced material from a WP:BLP is exempt from 3RR - wait for 24-hour consensus

• Diff of warning: here

Lyonscc has intentionally violated 3RR and refused to self-revert.

—

) 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Per

WP:blp

, nothing does.

from

WP:BLP

“

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator.

”

I am currently adding this to the BLP noticeboard.

Spotfixer also has posted threatening messages on my talk page, and has been reported for this breach of

WP:CIVIL discussion on the topic, but their agenda is rather clear, with contrary comments ignored.--Lyonscc (talk

) 05:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very much not a

talk

) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The term is brand new and not notable. If, every time Rush Limbaugh created a new term to mock his enemies, conservatives rushed to Wikipedia to add the new derisive term and tag anyone remotely connected to it, it would be no more justifiable than this insertion. Why not wait for consensus?--Lyonscc (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no violation here. I think it's a bit whacked, but BLP policy excuses 3RR in this case (as Lyonscc quoted). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 130.49.58.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [408]

• 1st revert: [409]
• 2nd revert: [410]
• 3rd revert: [411]
• 4th revert: None

• Diff of 3RR warning: [412]

The user is changing the IPA pronunciation of country despite the previous version having sources and the one that the IP is changing to does not. I have tried to discuss the change with the user on their talk page, telling them they need reliable sources (or at least for them to tell me where they got the information from), but the IP continues to revert me. The user has not reached 3 reverts yet, but it seems there is no sign of stopping. I've reverted the user twice, and I don't want to do it a third time (their version is the current version). Can I get some intervention or someone to talk to the IP?

06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to compromise by adding both pronunciations.

^Pounce!

08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, isn't it great to see things work the way they're supposed to sometimes? :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: USS Liberty incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: WorldFacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WorldFacts believes that the Israelis were at fault in the USS Liberty incident of 1967, and he wants the greatest possible emphasis to be put on the Moorer report, which blames the Israelis. His repeated reverts at

.

He has not participated on the Talk page since November 12. So far in the year 2009 WorldFacts has inserted the same paragraph into the article seven times. This does not represent a good-faith effort to find consensus:

1. 23:02, 28 January 2009 ("Consensus was to keep the entry, not delete it. See Discussion, archive 4. Majority of Non Israeli Editors have no problem with Entry.")
2. 19:28, 27 January 2009 ("As I said, search for Moorer Report. R-E P-O-R-T - Report. You won't find it, other then the link to the report, hence the reason quotes from the report are being added in, again.")
3. 21:13, 23 January 2009 ("Actually, "Moorer Report" doesn't appear on this page anywhere. Adding reference to this report as an Independent American Report.")
4. 16:41, 21 January 2009 ("Browsers Find function confirms phrase "Moorer Report" not found on USS Liberty Page, other then link to report itself. Missing Commentary on report itself added, again.")
5. 19:07, 15 January 2009 ("1000000000 times reason with 0 value is still zero. There's no mention of Moorer REPORT at all, What part of this do you not understand? Don't start an Edit War.")
6. 22:44, 14 January, 2009 ("Add Excerpts from the only non government Independent Investigation done on Incident ever. Moorer REPORT is not mentioned in this article.")
7. 14:39, 9 January, 2009 ("Moorer Report - Only Independent Report -Paul Craig Roberts added commentary. With 9 additional references.")

I have not been editing the article myself. I am aware of WorldFacts' activities because I blocked this editor on December 16 for a conventional 3RR violation on the same article. The December AN3 complaint was here. Edit warring policies should make some response to editors whose views are fixed in stone and will not accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WF is now talking, at least William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really talking. Same old tired shit, different day. The content isn't in according to him, because it is mentioned but not in the way he want. He won't give an inch. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Closing after a final warning. if the editor reinserts the paragraph without first getting consensus then they will be blocked. This is clear disruption now and preventing the normal flow of editing on the article.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page:
  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• User: Oicumayberight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [413]

• 1st revert: [414]
• 2nd revert: [415]
• 3rd revert: [416]
• 4th revert: [417]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [418]

• User responded to the 3rr warning before making 4th revert: [419] Aspects (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Response. The first revert was approve by the User:Termer. See that users talk page. The last was not a revert, but instead a completion of the tag. See the comments in the history. The two in the middle were either misunderstandings from the other user or attempts to downplay the seriousness of the discussion after the fact. So the other user should have been accused of edit warring, not me. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• talk about a lame edit war. 12 hours.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Red Hulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Apoklyptk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [420]

• 1st revert: [421]
• 2nd revert: [422]
• 3rd revert: [423]
• 4th revert: [424]
• 5th revert: [425]

• Diff of 3RR warning: User previously filed an edit war report against another part in the discussion here [426]

The section concerns a piece of information that has since been shown to clearly be a joke and is completely discredited. Consensus on the talk page is to remove, however, this user appears to have a real disagreement with ThuranX, and refuses to acknowledge that consensus on the talk page is against them ([427] "it stays", [428] "I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up"). They have inserted the material after multiple editors have removed it, and promised to continue putting thesection back in regardless of other people's opinions ([429] "I'll be tireless in this", [430] "I will continue to place it.").

Editor does engage in talk page discussion, but not in any productive manner and has refused requests to revert while consensus is against him and discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All contributions have degraded over time because my thoughts and opinions about the matter are disregarded by what I feel is a group of "experienced" editors trying to back each other up. No one is reading the discussion history, and I have been asked multiple times to explain why a section should not be deleted. instead of repeating myself, i have clearly stated my stance and asked everyone to refer to that and respond to that rather than allow things to get off-topic (wherein I will again be asked to explain why it should be there). There is no consensus, only an authoritarian attitude from another editor about what they want it to be - who states there is a consensus when there is none.--Apoklyptk (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, can you explain why you're the only one reverting this change, and undoing the edits of at least three different editors? Dayewalker (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not currently over the 3rr but the conduct is unacceptable and I have issued a final warning. An editor with more then 55 edits would have been blocked. Guys, help the noob understand how we work rather then try and beat him over the head with our incomprehensible policies
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Siddha Yoga
• User: 68.56.67.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [431]

• 1st revert: [432]
• 2nd revert: [433]
• 3rd revert: [434]
• 4th revert: [435]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [436]

TheRingess (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Page: Fall of Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 16:03, 28 January 2009

• 1st revert: 11:35, 29 January 2009
• 2nd revert: 20:43, 29 January 2009
• 3rd revert: 20:59, 29 January 2009
• 4th revert: 21:31, 29 January 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:40, 29 January 2009

I have corrected the spelling of Hapsburg to Habsburg as this both the accurate orginal spelling as well as the modern correct English spelling. It should be used in all non-fiction occurences that refer to the Habsburg dynasty or its members unless included in citation or source title. The violator has reverted my edit four times in a row.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of items to note. You will see that between the second and third reversion I attempted a compromise edit that was rejected by this pedantic editor thus they are actually in violation of the 3RR. Also, this editor has had the UK preferred spelling of items explained to them before per this [437] discussion on their talk page. Of further note not entirely germain to this page with this edit [438] a violation of

WP:CANVASS has taken place as well as this edit [439] in which the editor removed an item from my discussion page. MarnetteD | Talk

22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Marnette, we should not continue discussing here as admins typically don't like it. They will focus on the case reported. Just this much: I have informed Marnette that his/her interpretation of 3RR is wrongheaded, that he/she cannot claim to start anew the cycle of reverts by slightly changing the text. I have also informed her that I have not canvassed as that is the aggressive campaigning to multiple users. I have merely informed one editor who has edited the article before of my problem and I have been open about my view. I have no idea what that editor thinks about it. I have not broken the rules, Marnette has. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This is silly. You've both broken 3RR. Have 12h each. And *neither* of you has troubled yourself to use the article talk page. OK, make that 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Page: Bernard Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 68.183.246.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Time reported: 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 23:28, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 267187083 by Threeafterthree (talk
   ) Justify your removal beyond your own bias. 3RR warning.")
2. 23:45, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 267295719 by Mark Shaw (talk
   )In your history you've been warned repeatedly to stop arbitrary deletes. Expect 3RR")
3. 00:12, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 267299639 by Threeafterthree (talk
   )The childishness of your actions has been reported. Enjoy.")

• Diff of warning: here

• User has been invited to work this out on the article's talk page, but shows no willingness to do more than spew insults. S/he has made some changes to the passage in question, and in my opinion we're almost there, but the insults and reversions are not helping. Mark Shaw (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block - yet. I'd like to mediate this without needing to use drastic measures. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I think that all three of those of us who've been involved here have acted a bit hastily to one extent or another, and could use a little outside consultation. Will update the article's talk page as soon as I can (I'm out the door right at the moment). Mark Shaw (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Comparative religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:46, 27 January 2009

1. 01:14, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "restore material vandalized by 'Anishshah19'")
2. 18:51, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - stop vandalizing, how is my material POV?")
3. 22:27, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - what exactly is propaganda?? Write it in Discussion")
4. 00:51, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - these sources are perfectly fine. dont make up stuff")

The user has also violated 3RR on two other articles:

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Asceticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 27 January 2009

1. 01:12, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "read Discussion")
2. 18:58, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "read Discussion before vandalizing")
3. 22:28, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - Go to discussion")
4. 00:42, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - stop vandalizing already, this is just going to continue")

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:51, 27 January 2009

1. 01:11, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "stop deleting referenced material you vandal")
2. 19:01, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - What exactly is POV about my material? (which is completely sourced by the way)")
3. 22:35, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - Complete Idiot's Guide text has been removed, but the rest remain (otherwise I'll bring a lot more sources!)")
4. 00:40, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "revert back to full version - wikipedia does not have a single policy against my sources. you are just pushing the jealous Ambedkar agenda")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of warning: here

Warned both logged-in and logged-out versions. It is clear from the edit summaries at

, I think that user was banned before I started editing.

In general the user removes or alters properly sourced material and copy-pastes nonsense from some other website, probably a Hindu wiki of some kind, which is itself sourced to either non-academic books on religion or books on unrelated topics that mention religion in passing. He also insists on using the discussion page, but ignores requests and points made there. Mitsube (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to block the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. I also wish to address the reporter here: You, too, are edit warring. Unlike the IP in question, you haven't violated 3RR, nor are you carrying on a one-person war. Still, if you keep reverting as much as you have, you may find yourself blocked in the future. Just a reminder. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Later update: YellowMonkey has confirmed that 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs) and User:GradiationScheme are socks of Maleabroad and has issued longer blocks to both editors. I join Heimstern in recommending caution, even when dealing with edit warriors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, until you're ready to make a solid case it's a banned user, it doesn't work to claim the exception clause for reverting. Still, I do wish to note for the record that, as it turns out, Mitsube was justified in his reverting, even though more caution might have been advisable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Pages:
  H0 scale
• User: Erik Baas

• Previous version reverted to: [440]

• 1st revert: [441]
• 2nd revert: [442]
• 3rd revert: [443]
• 4th revert: coming soon!

Summary: Erik Baas moved the

) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there's a violation here. For one thing, the first oldid (note, please provide diffs next time instead) is three days ago, and secondly, the fourth revert is missing. I don't see any need for action here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The title has been

H0 scale (Hzero) for a much longer time; I undid similar changes by 68.238.187.116 and Filmteknik earlier. A quote from the article itself: "The name is derived from the fact that its 1:87 scale is approximately half that of 0 (zero) scale, hence H0." - Erik Baas (talk

) 11:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss article content; keep that on the article's talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The 4th revert turned up. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)