Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive91

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:89.132.132.138 reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: various blocks)[edit]



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


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

User is removing referenced information from the article. Already warned, no response from user.Baxter9 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stwalkerster has blocked User:Phd mit UCLA student and Rrrtkzt. The anon seems to have dropped out, let me know if it returns William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere reported by Middayexpress (Result: No result)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [6]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

An editor has been constantly reverting an edit I made where I added the fact that Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed was the eighth President of Somalia to the page. The other editor at first justified his reverts with a cryptic if vaguely insulting "I know it must seem like I'm picking on you now, but even though I'm vehemently opposed to orders where I can, Somalia is definitely the worst place for them to be." He then insisted that no other Wikipedia articles outside of "US, NZ, Canadian and Australians" used the president numbering system (i.e. "3rd President of Egypt"). I proved that false with links directly to several pages which do. However, he reverted yet again, this time under the pretext that "it's not possible to definitively number" the number of presidents Somalia has had, although Worldstatesmen.com doesn't seem to have any such trouble. Middayexpress (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're both over the line here. Would there be any point blocking both of you? I'm not sure, so let's say you both forget this article for a week or two. It's hardly that important. You're both competent and productive editors, so it would be a shame to lose you. yandman 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for at least having a look at my case. However, I must disagree with your verdict because unlike the other editor, I didn't go over 3RR. I actually specifically avoiding doing so since I was well aware of said rule and respect it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So here are difs as proof: My first revert; my second revert; my third revert. That's three reverts in the space of 24 hours, the maximum allowed per 3RR:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.

I did not go over that, unlike the other editor who's POV campaign compelled him to breach it anyway. I just wanted to set the record straight, even if you don't decide to revise your verdict. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You were still edit warring, which doesn't require 4R. After the first revert, you really must start discussing on the talk page, not via edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You forgot this one. Anyway, as WMC said, the point is that both of you need to stick to the talk page until you can get a consensus hammered out. yandman 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a revert. That dif was when I first inserted the "8th President of Somalia" line into the article, which the other editor then began reverting at will. At any rate, thanks for the advice guys. I'll try and follow it next time. Middayexpress (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dynablaster reported by User:NoCal100 (Result: 55hr)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: These are complex revert - a diff will be provided for each version.


  • 1st revert: [12] - removes category, and reverts this edit
  • 2nd revert: [13] removes numerous footnotes, reverts this edit
  • 3rd revert: [14] removes same footnotes as above
  • 4th revert: [15], ditto,


  • Diff of 3RR warning: user is aware of 3RR, and has been previously blocked for it, very recently: [16]
  • Blocked for 55 hours. Sandahl (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Hindutashravi reported by Voidvector (talk) (Result: warned)[edit]

Aksai Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hindutashravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:47, 6 February 2009 (edit summary: "POV edit? How? Specify in talk page and come to a consensus.It is the previous edit which is a POV edit and offensive to India where the area legally is!")
  2. 13:28, 7 February 2009 (edit summary: "Discuss the article in talk page not in edit summary and come to a consensus")
  3. 16:43, 7 February 2009 (edit summary: "Replied to To User: Voidvector discuss and come to a consensus in Talk page before reverting to POV edit")
  4. 09:51, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "POV content has no place on wikipedia, please get consensus before introducing content that might be POV")
  5. 17:18, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "rv to last NPOV version of AwOc and added new external link")
  6. 12:27, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "(rv to last NPOV version of AwOc with added new external link and further added historic maps")
  • Diff of warning: here

Myself was involved in the revert war. However, I have since stopped after my 3rd revert. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has continued the revert battle with another editor. The reported editor (Hindutashravi) has not participated on the talk page discussion for number of days even though he/she insists that other editors do so before changing his/her edit. —Voidvector (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

*I* was involved in the revert war. However, I can't see this as block-suitable; inspection makes me think that you and F&F are in the right, but only you two are reverting H. I'd suggest WP:DR, possibly an article RFC, if this is ongoing William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

205.248.102.81 reported by PRODUCER (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [17]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

This IP (probably User:Onyxig) refuses to give good and valid arguments as to why to keep the info in Serbophobia. I've historically had problems with this user see Talk:Republika_Srpska#History. He constantly fails to provide valid arguments and insists its my duty to provide sources to information that he or another user adds. PRODUCER (TALK) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm impressed. You think having 2R is enough for a block? Well, you have 3. So obviously, you think you should be blocked (see above). And I agree with you. Will consider the anon William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DanTD reported by 75.47.147.2 (Result: 24h each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [21]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [27]

User contines to revert legitimate edits with invaild reason and violates the WP:MOS, improperly accuses me of a vandal and also incivility. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I received the warning, and since this user has nothing more than an anonymous IP with no talk page, I'm going to address the issue here, as well as the page this user is editing. First, he/she keeps using ELG to justify these edits, But unless ELG restricts state borders and time zones, there is no reason to get rid of them. Second, if there's no established town where I-10 runs through Nassau County(where no interchanges can be found), then the column that reads "No Exits in this county" should span to the county column itself. Otherwise it's a waste of space. The only thing acceptable about this users edits are the reformatting of partial interchanges. ----DanTD (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
STOP SCREWING UP THIS GODDAMN EXIT LIST! is considered a personal attack and its not very nice and you may be blocked for disruption. --75.47.147.2 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed the article name. I was wondering what you were complaining about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like both sides are edit warring. Note to whoever takes care of this: 75.47.x.x has a history of IP-hopping, so a range block would probably be in order. --NE2 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently this user is doing a lot of IP-hopping. To the user complaining, anybody could have your IP, so technically this isn't a personal attack. I've been dealing with plenty of Anoymous IP's who damage exit lists, most notably in and around South Carolina. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

24h each. Will have to look at ranges, sigh. DanTD warned re PA William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the range block. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nategreene11 reported by Will Beback (Result: 24h)[edit]

Steve King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nategreene11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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


  1. 21:34, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */")
  2. 15:25, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "All added information is sourced and accurate.")
  3. 18:51, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "This is an encyclopedia - all information is accurate and sourced.")
  4. 19:53, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Once again - all information is accurate and balanced.")


  1. 22:30, 9 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Remarks about Barack Obama */")
  2. 21:07, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Added relevant quote from Obama about his own middle name.")
  3. 22:03, 10 February 2009 (edit summary: "Put relevant Obama quote back in for the third time. The reader should get both sides - this quote gives neutrality to the page.")
  • Diff of warning: here (actually a second warning).

There have been multiple reverts of other edits too, but these are the easiest to list.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I've added a second set of two reverts, in addition to the others already listed.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kurzon reported by User:Mafia Expert (result: bozos)[edit]

I am afraid an edit war is getting out of hand in the Mafia article. User:Kurzon is constantly removing properly referenced sections under the pretext of improving the article. I am reverting errors, move sections where I think Kurzon has a point and keeping useful additions. However, Kurzon is now reverting every change. I think the best thing to do is to revert the article to its most complete version [28] and then block it for a while, until editors have cooled down (including me). - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, you've *both* massively broken 3RR. What was so urgent about your reverts? Luckily for you I'm bored with blocking people for tonight, so hopefully someone else will come up with a more amusing solution William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eightball reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: prot)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [29]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [34]


Please see Talk:United States men's national soccer team where we are attempting to work this out. Unfortunately Eightball can't seem to allow the process to take place before insisting on getting their way, rather than allowing the page to remain as it was for weeks prior to this incident while discussion continues as normal. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has formed REPEATEDLY against Grant on this matter, and he refuses to respect the decision making process that has already occurred. All I am trying to do is implement the solution that other editors have determined is satisfactory. Grant continues to incorrectly revert the article after the matter has been settled. This is not an edit war, this is Grant vandalizing the article and me returning it to the proper state. I suggest that Grant is blocked, given that he is the one actually causing trouble. Eightball (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The article was the way it was for weeks without any problem until today when you started an edit war. I don't know how you can call anything other than the one prior to the edit war the "consensus" version. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The article was only that way because people got tired of dealing with your crap and gave up trying to enforce consensus, something I am not going to do. Eightball (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Grant once again reverted the article (thus violating 3RR himself, though I don't care) under the guise of vandalism. He knows exactly what he is doing: consensus was reached against him, so he has decided to 1. ignore discussions that have already taken place between editors, and 2. revert our edits by lying and claiming it is vandalism. I would also like to note that this user has a long history of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus, and has been blocked from editing on many occasions. Eightball (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrwsc (Talk | contribs | block) m (51,774 bytes) (Protected United States men's national soccer team: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by spin (control) (result: 24h)[edit]

User insists on removing a comparative table from this page Nativity of Jesus

and the section removed each time Nativity of Jesus#The narratives compared

He has done so here:

  1. [35] Revision as of 18:47, 10 February 2009
  2. [36] Revision as of 07:51, 10 February 2009
  3. [37] Revision as of 05:44, 10 February 2009
  4. [38] Revision as of 19:34, 5 February 2009
  5. [39] Revision as of 05:08, 25 January 2009
  6. [40] Revision as of 07:14, 14 January 2009


  • Diff of warning: [41]


The user refuses to enter into a dialog as to how the section can be improved, despite repeated requests for suggestions. He started claiming "novel synthesis" but could not justify the claim. He then started claiming because another poster showed some agreement that he had consensus on the issue!

The only thing I really know is that he doesn't like the material for some reason and wants to get rid of it through any means he can. --spin (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In my defence, please note that I view Spin's edits as vandalism; he refuses to acknowledge that no-one supports his addition of this section. Moreover, to see the kind of editor he is, look at his edit summaries. He has had little concept of civility and decency in his interactions with me, as well as with others. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Carl, your dialog was that you didn't want the section; if you had to have a comparison, you wanted it in prose which would obfuscate the comparison; so you continually removed the comparison table. You were not prepared to work on the issue. Not entering into a meaningful dialog was to me the height of incivility. I had no real idea why you were vandalizing the section.
If you really wanted to complain about my edits you should do so in a separate action. I wanted to stop the unconstructive process of your insistant removal of the section. Why did you want it removed? --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On a first look, its clear that you (S) have at least 3R in the last 24h. Since you clearly consider that a blockable offense - or you wouldn't have reported CB for it - I'm blocking you for it. Will now consider CB William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My interest was to stop the edit warring and get some constructive dialog. You might have asked what sort of outcome would have been useful. Instead you handed out summary justice and guaranteed that there would be no dialog, meaning there could be no resolution to the issue. What a lot of good your involvement was. I don't know much about the administration side of things, but you certainly missed the spirit of co-operation which I thought Wiki was about. --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought about it. Don't feel any great urge to block in the name of "balance". Will warn and encourage DR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I can tell from your actions that encouragement is a goal of yours. --spin (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem (proposed result: SeP?)[edit]

Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at my interaction with user:Glkanter at talk:Monty Hall problem, starting at about talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection (apologies for the length of the thread, but I've been really trying to help him understand both the problem itself and Wikipedia's policies)? To some extent this is a content dispute being worked out on the talk page (so far, so good), but he has lately escalated into what seems to me to be nothing more than disruptive editing, metaphorically simply putting his hands over his ears and shouting "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right". Fair warning - the content dispute is about a notoriously contentious point involving the difference between conditional and unconditional probability as it pertains to the Monty Hall problem. A behavior warning from an uninvolved admin might help. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I must be missing the point but: I can't see any edit warring, just a long tedious discussion. Since it seems to bear no relation to changes on the page itself, why don't you just stop talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I posted this at ANI, not here, since it is disruptive editing, not edit warring. There's a cadre of folks wanting to "dumb down" (my terminology, not theirs) the existing article. The discussion is actually a proposal to delete major sections of the article, which seems to warrant a response. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I take great exception to Rick's characterization of my postings. There is nothing in my postings that is as he describes above. In fact, the "I'm right, I'm right" comment is just projection on his part. He has been defending this Article for over 4 years now. There are 7 pages of archives, thousands of postings. Clearly, something is wrong with the article. And Wikipedia needs to become part of a solution. I would request you read the section titled 'Conventional Wisdom'. It is there that I describe my desire for some closure to this long running fiasco. I welcome your input.
William Connolley, your input would especially be appreciated. I have made roughly 75 postings making the case for the deletions based on a simple Probability proof. Rick refers above to a "cadre of folks wanting to "dumb down" (my terminology, not theirs) the existing article.' who more or less suggest the same changes." Those opposed? Rick. And a couple of new gadflys. "Dumb down", that's nice talk. That's how it's gone for the past 4 years. By the way, what is SeP?
Glkanter (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User 68.56.81.128 / Article Shamu (Result: no violation)[edit]

== 68.56.81.128 reported by SWF Trainer

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [46]

SWF Trainer (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These edits are vandalism, not 3RR violations. If it continues, report it at WP:AIV. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [47]


  • 1st revert: [48] (series of edits)
  • 2nd revert: [49] (note abusive edit summary)
  • 3rd revert: [50] (note misleading edit summary in which its implied that only Egypt is being added to the list, when in fact the editor is adding lots more than this)
  • 4th revert: [51] (edit summary also misleadingly states that only Egypt is included)


  • Diff of warning: [52]

This editor was blocked for 72 hours on 6 February for edit warring on several articles, including this one, and for using abusive and misleading edit summaries (the relevant report is at the bottom of the page on this old version of this noticeboard). Now that the block has expired they've returned to exactly the same behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I am protesting this since my edit has logical basis. Egypt is excluded in the list despite becoming independent in 1922, Newfoundland is included despite voluntary relinquishing its independence in 1934, and the Philippines Commonwealth should not be listed together with the other unincorporated territories of the US.--23prootiecute
  • Please don't forget to read this summary which specifies my edit [53]--23prootiecute

As the previous blocks in the past few weeks have had little effect, I am blocking for a longer period. To User:23prootie: there are other ways to resolve disputes without resorting to edit warring. Kevin (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 reported by Matty4123 (Result: Page protected )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [54]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [60]

User has now also had the page protected displaying the incorrect information. - Matty4123 (TCA) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Seeing as the page has been protected, a block would be purely punitive. I would like to note that a violation did occur, and I feel blocking would have been a far more suitable choice here than protecting. Tiptoety talk 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:78.149.184.232 reported by User:Knepflerle (Result: prot)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [61]


etc., and multiple reverts on other material too mixed in.

Knepflerle (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clear 3RR violation on both sides. But 2009-02-11T16:44:46 Angr (Talk | contribs | block) m (18,573 bytes) (Protected Maltese people: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Idlewild101 reported by User:Dsol (result: 24h)[edit]

Warning diff: 17:12, 11 February 2009

Comment: Relatively new user censoring various bits of information about at the eXile and Michael Wines. Material is explicitly supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, and has never been disputed by any source. User does not engage in discussion or even respond on article talk pages, his/her own user talk page, or at BLP noticeboard. Note that this same blanked material was previously debated at the BLP noticeboard, with the final decision: "The section has been rewritten and now has adequate sourcing; it does not appear to violate WP:BLP policy." dsol (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

24h. User does not engage in discussion or even respond on article talk pages - respond to what? *no-one* is using the talk page [69], for which you are all chastised William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:85.5.94.26 reported by User:M.K (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [70]

Warring diff: [71]

Comment: IP is waging revert war for several days now, reverting multiply editors and any article improvement.M.K. (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yet, first IP still serving its time, but another one jumped in, and doing the same as the old one (not surprising both IPs are from same geographical era) [72]. Can anyone semi-protect the article, or should I ask it somewhere else?M.K. (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RyanJak reported by User:Caissa's DeathAngel (Result:24h )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [73]


  • Content added first time: [74]
  • Content removed first time: [75]
  • Content added second time: [76]
  • Content removed second time: [77]
  • Content added third time: [78]
  • Content removed third time: [79]
  • Content added fourth time: [80]
  • Content removed fourth time: [81]
  • Content added fifth time: [82]
  • Content removed fifth time: [83]
  • Content added sixth time: [84]
  • Content removed sixth time: [85]
  • Content added seventh time: [86]
  • Content removed seventh time: [87]
  • Content added eighth time: [88]
  • Content removed eigth time: [89]
  • Content added ninth time: [90]
  • Content removed ninth time: [91]
  • Content added tenth time: [92]
  • Content removed tenth time: [93]
  • Content added eleventh time: [94]
  • Content removed eleventh time: [95]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [96] *Note: Not strictly a 3RR warning, but advice on the content generally. Link is to RyanJak's talk page since the warning created the page, hence no diff.

User: RyanJak along with IP 71.238.81.89 have between them in the last day or so added a paragraph of text 11 times. It is an addition to the lead of the article suggesting that a particular player was ranked as the best in the world at the game for a length of time. The edit summaries suggest the addition is being made in bad faith: "You're making this too much fun", "Just the usual redo.". Neither RyanJak nor the IP have editted beyond adding this, with RyanJak having added it twice before in recent weeks, but without undoing the reversion. The contribution is blatantly OR, Trivia, and the edit summary "Was cited on EA's Xbox Live standings home page. Was there for years." suggests that the source does not exist. Later in the day, he started adding a citation tag with the edit for some reason. Reversions of this edit have been made by myself (x6), User:Bovineboy2008 (x2), User:Riotrocket8676 (x2) and User:Haipa Doragon. The latter contributed to a thread I made on the WikiProject Video Games talk page (having forgotten that here existed) and allayed my fears that I would be in violation of 3RR myself due to the nature of the edit being removed. Advice/assistance here would be much appreciated to end this rather pointless back and forth on this page. My thanks in advance. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning here, because it is possible that the user did not specifically know about the 3 revert rule. Any further reverts by either the user or the IP will result in a block. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The IP has again attempted to add the material: [97]. It was reverted immediately by Bovineboy2008: [98] Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
After the latest reverts, I have blocked both RyanJak and the IP. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

JustSomeRandomGuy32 reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [99]



  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceha reported by Yerpo (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [110]

(a few minutes more than 24 hours, but still...)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [115]

User has a history of trying to promote Croatian POV on several topics (see his talk page). I tried to explain in my edit summaries that he is reintroducing biased and unsourced material (labeled as such), and rephrased the section where the true nature of the issue is explained to be clearer. Ceha did not provide source for the problematic paragraph, only accused me of making doubtful claims and using Wikipedia as a forum, which is in my wiew precisely what he is doing. --Yerpo (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

24h, edit warring. You just about escape, but if you revert again without explaining why on the talk page I'll block you William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 reported by Russavia (Result: 1 week)[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [122] - note, another user has placed this warning
  • Response to 3RR warning: [123]
  • User:Muscovite99 is currently blocked on ru:wiki due to disruptive editing and the resultant ru:wiki arbcom decision, which can be found here, here, here and here. Unfortunately, extreme issues of ownership of articles, disregarding of other editor's concerns with articles, etc are carrying over here onto en:wiki. There are legitimate edits on the article by editors, but the above are the continual reverts of other people's contributions to the article which I put down to ownership of the article. --Russavia Dialogue 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, you shouldn't bring other wikis into this. This is English Wikipedia; we don't block, say, a Chinese dissident here merely because his unpopularity cultivated by the ruling party of PRC has led to restrictions of his access to Chinese Wikipedia. What happens on ruwiki stays on ruwiki. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Its shows that he is a disruptive edit warrior, and we only see him on enwiki when he is blocked on ruwiki. But needless to say, this is a problem here too. --Russavia Dialogue 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Has form, well over 3R, 1 week. Blocks on ru are neither here nor there (well actually I suppose they are there. By that, I mean I don't object to you mentionning them but it makes no difference) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looked at Ellol; has at least 3R and is cautionned for edit warring and (all together now: not using the talk page). However, hasn't obviously got to 4 William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NotAnotherAliGFan reported by Alastairward (Result: 72 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [124]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

NotAnotherAliGFan has been blocked for edit warring before and has started back after an absence by starting edit wars on other South Park articles. See Canada on Strike, The China Probrem and Towelie. Alastairward (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, this is getting ridiculous. It seems that no matter what kind of edit I make, Alastairward immediately removes it, every time under a new pretense. I basically have to ask for his permission to give any creative input, like he owns Wikipedia and must authorize my actions - his latest joke was putting a 3RR warning template on my page unsigned. Every time it leads to these stupid wars and I always give up, maybe because I have other stuff to worry about. I'll appreciate some real admin input here, thank you very much in advance. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I forgot the signature, but the page history very easily shows who left it. If I wanted to do so anonymously, I would have made a sockpuppet account (which would of course get me banned and is unproductive, so I didn't.)
In any case, I left the other edit histories above to show it's not just my edits that are being reverted. Alastairward (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours; 3rd similar offence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


User: 78.144.204.95 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24h both sides)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [130]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Practically every day here I am, if not amazed, then perhaps disheartened, to see people reporting others for 3RR, and giving them warnings nicely, without ever once stopping to consider that the rules apply to them, too. Sigh William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider that some of the IPs edits consisted of the introduction of a format error? It might not change the case that much, but since removal of the error was in some of Nomoskedasticity's reverts I am wondering if you caught it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't notice. Nor does it matter (unless you're asserting that the entire revert was a f.e.; but I don't think you are): if someone introduces a format error, the answer is obviously not to revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there'd be a case for an intent defense (which is what I was thinking), but since his edit-summaries indicate that was not the reason he reverted each time then I'd agree it doesn't matter. Thank. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope. See Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see anything there that means we should block users for reverting vandalism, Todd. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

HROThomas on Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

New user will not cite sources and countinues to restore their reversals while not providing the requested citations. Dapi89 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

189.7.182.186 reported by PeeJay2K3 (Result:24h to both sides )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [136]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [146]


PeeJay 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Is there a reason why the ten reverts performed by yourself aren't reverts, Peejay? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the same question of this user. It's clearly a content dispute. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Because I was reverting blatant vandalism? – PeeJay 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and have blocked you for 24 hours also. Kevin (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut reported by EEMIV (Result: warned )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [147]


  • Vandalism warning (I admit, I completely forgot about 3RR until I realized, in undoing this material, I would violate it): [153]

Material -- which is uncited trivial, with an edit summary justification for inclusion that is essential WP:OR ("I find quite ironic") was removed (several times; Merkeut continued to restore it) a month ago by both me and User:JimDunning. JimDunning provided a clear rationale for the material's exclusion on the article talk page. JimDunning left a note on Merkeut's talk page about the content, which Merkeut respond to with a follow-up from Jim; however, the exchange by no means suggests consensus, and Merkeut simply continued his reversions. Merkeut is restoring same material, is not responding to talk-page material, and in most recent revert included glib, antagonistic edit summary that "We can carry on forever if you like". Looks like tendentious restoration of material and ignoring WP:RS, WP:OR. Although didn't receive a "formal" 3RR warning, editor who's been registered since late 2005 should generally know better about 3RR in general, and certainly should be cognizant of need to reach consensus and engage in discussion. --EEMIV (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Warned by User:Tiptoety; he has been here since 2005 and presumably knows the rule, but was warned already after last revert and hasn't reverted since. Another revert should result in a block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Sarita and Terrillja reported by Mervyn Emrys (Result: Protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [154]


Additional diffs on Paul Watson History page.

A POV Fork was created by Terrillja to Allison Lance Watson and I was invited to leave the Paul Watson article and go edit at the new page. See User:Terrillja, Talk Section: Paul Watson.[164]

See also edit summary at [165] Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This information is all timely, relevant, and cites reliable sources. These users refuse to allow any editing of information to improve the article by myself, despite my numerous efforts to change my edits to meet their demands.

Having recently hosted two articles to Good Article status, one of them a biography, I have some familiarity with what GA reviewers look for. I tried to reorganize the page to downplay less important information and move bio background to the fore, but my efforts were repeatedly reverted, many more than three times. This is very disruptive and suggests a proprietary interest in the page. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you had told us so we could at least know what you were up to.
My first ever post from this user on my talkpage was this [166], where he called me a jackass. Really showed a will to contribute there. Multiple editors have tried to work with Mervyn to try and get him to contribute positively and stop the sarcastic edit summaries and comments [167], but he has rebuffed all attempts, including one by an uninvolved sysop [168].
Mervyn was never told to go somewhere else, I only said that information on Allison should be in her article, and that the article on Paul should stay on point about him. I certainly welcome Mervyn to help find references and contribute to the article, since he added all the fact tags.
Another example of Mervyn's inability to remain civil can be found here: [169].
It should be noted that a medcab request is currently pending: [170]. --Terrillja talk 00:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate for this user to continue the debate here, but I will repond by inviting anyone to view the statements and actions by the user above which stimulated the diffs above. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for now, while I examine the behaviour of all concerned. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:General Disarray (result: no vio)[edit]

Moved from WP:AN/I. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Notice that two of these are within a half-hour of the original edit.)

  • User Warning placed [174]
  • User then responded with the same [175] except, I've only reverted the article twice in the past day. [176] [177]

I wouldn't come here for something a trivial as this one page, but this user is actively edit warring on three other pages (often summarizing as "restore" what is effectively a revert):

and this user has taken blocks in the past for edit warring on these very pages.