Revision as of 22:02, 23 April 2009

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Wapondaponda reported by Causteau (Result: 48h and)

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

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 03:01, 18 April 2009
• 2nd revert: 03:07, 18 April 2009
• 3rd revert: 03:13, 18 April 2009
• 4th revert: 03:15, 18 April 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The above editor has just violated WP:3RR across two separate articles: Haplogroup M (mtDNA) & Haplogroup N (mtDNA) (on the haplogroup N article: his first revert, second revert, third revert, fourth revert, fifth revert). He basically just kept knee jerk reverting edits I made to both articles, edits for which I provided a detailed justification here. Judging by the quick time in which he reverted my edits (literally less than five minutes later), the editor never even bothered to read my explanation of said edits much less respond to them. The editor was also recently blocked for violating 3RR (as was I) in a revert war with me over the same articles, but does not seem to have learned anything from the experience since he is back to knee jerk reverting. This appears to be the editor's modus operandi, as his personal page audaciously outlines, among other ploys, the following:

"As WP:3RR concerns the reversion of any content, you can bleed your opponent's allowance away by insertion of different content. You can never violate WP:3RR by adding new content. Make an edit you know your opponent won't like. If he reverts it, you can add different content your opponent also won't like. If you do this three times and are reverted three times, your opponent is out of reverts for the day, and you can safely restore your preferred version."

Causteau (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So too has Causteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated the 3rr as per

• History of Haplogroup M
• History of Haplogroup N

Causteau's block log reveals that the User has been blocked twice for edit warring on genetics articles. Once in October 2008 and again in April 2009.

With regards to my so-called strategy, it's simply an excerpt from a famous[REDACTED] webpage at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war which was deposited on my page by some user diff. I though it was hilarious so I decided to share it with the world on my personal page. There is no evidence that I use any of the information contained, I just have a sense of humor.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no I haven't. You see, I made the first edit to both pages (haplogroup M; haplogroup N), which Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then began reverting. I also only performed three reverts to the haplogroup M article (1, 2, 3). On the haplogroup N article, while I did perform five reverts, my last revert was a self-revert of my next-to-last revert, thereby annulling it. And per both WP:3RR and this noticeboard, self-reverts don't count:

"The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."

User:Wapondaponda, by contrast, also performed a self-revert... only in doing so he was yet again reverting back to the way the page was before I first began editing it i.e. he had just realized that he had reverted my self-revert and was correcting his 'error'. In fact, his edit summary reads "oops"! Causteau (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And despite his claims to the contrary, User:Wapondaponda's personal page is very much in line with the true nature of his edits as this post of mine makes clear. Causteau (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why C doesn't realise he has 4R on the M article. Ah well, this will be a learning experience, as the new-fangled folk say. W clearly has 4R too. And both have form, so can have 48h and WP:1RR restriction on the article William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Causteau doesn't "realize" he has 4RR on the M article because he doesn't. You have unfairly blocked me when all I've made to that page was three reverts (1, 2, 3). That so-called "fourth" revert was me first editing the page, an edit I fully justified beforehand on the article's discussion page. Wapondaponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then within minutes reverted that very first edit without even so much as bothering to read it, which sparked off the revert war. And I've already explained this to you in some detail on your talk page. Next time, please get your facts straight instead of needlessly blocking people and mischaracterizing their edits. Causteau (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin reported by Shuki (Result: no vio)

• Page: New Movement-Meretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mashkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

3RR within one hour. User:Mashkin refuses to accept information credited to six sources from a wide spectrum of WP:RS even though this is the compromise reached. --Shuki (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is misleading information of course. First, as you can see I have not violated 3RR. Second, no compromise regarding these sentences was reached (please look at the talk page). This is not the place to discuss editorial decisions, but let me just mention that I do not see any merit in discussing a label such as "far left" with no explanation as to what this term means in the particular context. Mashkin (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR needs 4R William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Mashkin did revert 3x within 45min. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another fact: Four or more reverts are needed for a 3RR violation - see WP: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." —Travis 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

miasnikov reported by motopu (Result: Malformed)

Miasnikov continually erasing sourced historical version and replacing with opinion at "Fare strike" page Here is a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fare_strike&diff=284752397&oldid=284748984

The issue is a fare strike of municipal transit in San Francisco. I am posting the historical fact, corroborated by published author, Znet contributor, and well known radical historian Tom Wetzel, that "thousands participated" in the fare strike. Wetzel was a participant in the fare strike, and is a primary source. His statement about thousands participating is featured at the libcom.org website and other places: Primary source from first days of the fare strike documents that thousands rode free, agrees with other first hand accounts

"Despite heavy police presence at major bus transfer points, at least a couple thousand passengers rode the buses for free in San Francisco on Thursday, September 1st — the opening day of a fare strike in North America’s most bus-intensive city."

source: Tom Wetzel, anarchist author, Znet author, teacher, and well known Bay Area radical historian. URL: http://libcom.org/news/thousands-ride-free-in-san-francisco-transport-fight-04092005

The user "miasnikov" is a well known internet troll named Kevin Keating who has been banned from libcom.org for disruptive/disrespectful behavior, and had a special section created at anti-politics.net for his continually disrespectful and disruptive attacks on users. He has written serialized attacks on the fare strike participants, but they have not been corroborated by a single participant or witness after four years.

The fact that thousands participated in the fare strike is corroborated in a pamphlet called _Fare Strike!: First Hand Accounts_ published by IDP publishers of San Francisco (http://flyingpicket.org/?q=node/7). There are other sources I can cite if need be.

Kevin Keating (miasnikov) engaged in vandalism when he repeatedly removed my posts from the discussion page in which I explained my edits and rebutted his comments about me. He has also been trying to replace this sourced historical fact with an opinion that judges a historical event (a strike) in a reductionist way as a "failure" despite it having drawn the support of thousands and being thousands of times larger than a similar effort that never came off in the 1990s. Obviously, historical events exist in a continuum, and the responses from around the country that participants have recieved indicate that people want to try fare strikes in where they are too, suggesting some "success" in exemplary action.

Lastly, for my part, I was trying to act cooperatively with Keating, as I explained in the discussion section: "From the start I helped clean up the links to your articles so people could see your side of the story. While you as a source on the fare strike, have been discredited among the fare strike participants, at libcom, and on anti-politics, I agreed to have not one, but two of your articles in our joint editing process, and I think that shows an interest in being open minded on my part. I also dug up the remains of the Social Strike site and linked to it via the wayback machine. Again, I made the effort to present your side and a balance, without posting opinion on whether the fare strike was a success or failure, which should be left to the intelligence of the reader."

Apologies if I have not entered this complaint correctly, I read many directions, but I don't think all of them. Motopu (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct: you haven't filled in the form properly. There are many ways you could discover this, probably the easiest would be to compare it to the other reports. Alternatively you could click on the add new report button. You need to supply diffs showing 4R, not a long string of text no-one will read justifying the edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to William M. Connolley for taking the time to respond to this. When I get time I'll try to pattern my entry on the others here. Oh, and I'll look for that add new report button that I missed in my newbie ignorance. Motopu (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in the instructions at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Starlingmaximilian reported by Collectonian (Result: No action)

• Page: List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Starlingmaximilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link (revert with additions)
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link
• 6th revert: link

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Edit continuing to edit war on this article despite being reverted by two different editors and having been warned by a third (me). He is aware that these edits are against consensus, as shown by his participation in a discussion on it at Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes#"Filler" episodes, but continues edit warring anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Has made a 6th revert ~Itzjustdrama 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Added above

He's since taken it to the Wikiproject talk page, it seems. At least, his last 21 edits (over the span of 3 hours) have been on talk pages. I think it's unnecessary to push this any further than maybe an admin warning. --Raijinili (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Since he's stopped reverting and started discussing, no further action for now. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Protected)

• Page: Phar Lap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ernest the Sheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: link

Ernest has been very involved in editing the Phar Lap article to his own personal agenda and has been unwilling to discuss before reverting. After he was last blocked for edit warring, we got some constructive discussion in, but now he has sprung up again and has continuously reverted constructive changes that have been agreed on through the talk page from a previous slightly biased article to a more ambiguous, NPOV article that no longer is giving undue weight and is less corrupted by the heritage of the horse and is trying to move towards presenting the facts. He is even removing fully cited material and adding back his own uncited changes. He is well aware of WP:3RR, he has been warned over three times now (and blocked once last week), but chooses to ignore many editors pleads and the policy all together. Many have tried to collaborate with him but he refuses to do so. I did not want to be here twice in the same week, but he is leaving many editors very little choice and is causing disruption and conflict. Thank you, Matty (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected Stifle (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alpha Centauri 2021 reported by untwirl(talk) (Result: 48h)

• edit warring violation on

Matthew J. Amorello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alpha Centauri 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 14:35, 10 April 2009
2. 13:08, 12 April 2009
3. 14:46, 14 April 2009
4. 21:38, 15 April 2009
5. 17:57, 17 April 2009
6. 03:57, 18 April 2009
7. 23:15, 18 April 2009
8. 12:14, 19 April 2009
9. 22:07, 19 April 2009 <
10. 12:02 20 April 2009

—untwirl(talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning:

this user keeps removing the fact that amorello was forced to resign. untwirl(talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. Black Kite 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

wow - you're fast! untwirl(talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Amicaveritas reported by TNXMan (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amicaveritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 18:43, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:01, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
3. 19:05, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 19:26, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */ factual corrections")
5. 19:31, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067502 by Tnxman307 (talk) - published fact. Restoring.")
6. 19:32, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285075609 by Tnxman307 (talk) removing libellous and factually incorrect content")
7. 19:33, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "/* Controversies */")
8. 19:38, 20 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285067273 by Tnxman307 (talk) restoring public factual content and removing false claims that do not match source")

• Diff of warning: here

—TNXMan 19:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. Black Kite 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And unblocked again. May be a BLP issue here. Further eyes welcome. Black Kite 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure. What exactly is D's supposed excuse for breaking 3RR though? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

69.158.150.169 reported by 201.143.220.153 (Result: Same issue being discussed below)

• Page: Outline of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 69.158.150.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RR warning is needed, rules are well known by reported user.

201.143.220.153 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: this report was apparently filed by IP 201.143.220.153, a sockpuppet of User:Jcmenal; see below. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Same issue is being discussed below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuki reported by Mashkin (Result: Protected)

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

Shuki reverted 4 time in less than 24 hours. He is a veteran editor who knows about the 3RR and ironically tried to get me blocked a few days ago (see notice up there).

• 1st revert: at 23:31, 19 April 2009
• 2nd revert: at 16:28, 20 April 2009
• 3rd revert: at 21:19, 20 April 2009
• 4th revert: at 21:32, 20 April 2009

• Comment from WP:V

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy) far-right claim is POV and not sourced properly. --Shuki (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should have left a note on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is that was a sincere concern. Note that "right wing" to a "far right" party might be considered offensive as well. Mashkin (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - Protected 3 days. Not clear that there is a genuine BLP violation here, but I see plenty of reverting with little usage of the Talk page. Those opposed to Shuki offered no quotation from a reliable source for the term 'far right,' while the Jerusalem Post does sometimes use 'far right' to describe political groups in its own articles. Nobody reported the Post doing so for this party. Please sort this out on Talk. Admins may be inclined to issue blocks if warring continues when protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

201.143.220.153/Jcmenal reported by 216.234.60.106 (Result: Moved to WP:SPI)

• Page: Outline of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.143.220.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Jcmenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous versions reverted to: link

Jcmenal:

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

IP 201.143.220.153:

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

The named user has been blocked before, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The sockpuppet is probably a mixed and misguided attempt by the alleged puppetmaster to not only circumvent that, but to also cast doubt onto the other editors involved in this.
IP 201.143.220.153 (IP based out of Tijuana, Mexico) popped up and reverted edits to 'Outline of Mexico' (note the restoration of rare, misleading regions into the outline) that are similar to those supported by Jcmenal, an alleged puppetmaster in nearby Mexicali who has a loooong history of edit warring (e.g., Geography of Mexico, Template:Central America topic, Outline of Mexico - having violated 3RR at that article recently) and blockage. IP 201.143.220.153 then posted a misleading 3RR report posing as this IP. A sockpuppet report has been filed. IP 201.143.220.153 has since reverted the article again and again. Significant measures are probably required (extended blocks). 216.234.60.106 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As well, a clerk over where the sockpuppet report has been submitted declined to checkuser, but affirms that "Behavioural evidence is sufficient . Quacking like a duck." Quacked, is right. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This has yet to be addressed. Can someone please look into it and act? TY! 216.234.60.106 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Result - This case is being discussed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. They should be making a decision soon. When the submitter of a sock report is an IP, as you are, it causes unease. It would be better for you to use a registered account consistently, if you plan to do much editing of contested articles. Your reports to admins would become more credible, since you would have a visible history. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TY -- I will consider your advice. 216.234.60.106 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist reported by 207.237.33.36 (Result: No violation)

• Page: RFC Collect
• User: Ncmvocalist

this initial edit was reverted:

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Please also see the RFC's talk page...consensus was already reached on which info goes where on a complex RFC.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

While I respect your decision, I still feel this user violated 3RR because it was a clear attempt to Game the system - (3RR not an entitlement). 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you feel that he violated some policy or guideline other than 3RR, which does not apply as per the above. If you can find some other policy or guideline that was broken, that might be useful. But otherwise I have to agree the existing decision is the right one. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be more the other way around as the IP states here:. ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good catch, Clean-Keeper. I asked below, I'll mention it again here. IP, your edits both in this report against Ncmvocalist and below against Daedalus seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors, then appealing to admins for help. You admit above to edit warring, and promise to continue. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dontworry reported by EvaK (Result: 24h)

• Page: Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main)
• User: Dontworry

Well known as edit warrior in de-wiki the user continues his edit war in Article Hauptwache (Frankfurt am Main), after I placed some new images in the article. When I dropped a warning note on his talk page to stop this action he reverted the article as IP which can be located in Frankfurt. --Eva K.  11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285203557&oldid=285197276 (IP from Frankfurt)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285189062&oldid=285187173 (Dontworry)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=285160957&oldid=285110703 (IP from Frankfurt)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hauptwache_(Frankfurt_am_Main)&diff=284592404&oldid=282214150 (Dontworry)

24h. But why is there not a word from either of you on the talk page about why your version is correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I asked him to discuss the issue on the talk page, but there was no reaction. He refuses to discuss with my, also on de-wiki. The only reaction I ever got are personals attacks. I'll try to open a discussion, though. --Eva K.  14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bassline2 & 85.176.99.95 reported by 124.169.112.128 (Result: )

• Page: Cryostasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Bassline2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 85.176.99.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: ,

These two users are reverting the changes I've made to this disambiguation page removing external links, contravening WP:MOSDAB. 124.169.112.128 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Luis Napoles reported by User:Likeminas (Result: Protected and warned )

• Page: History of Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Page: 1973 Chilean coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Please note that user has violated the WP:3RR at least twice within 24 hrs. Likeminas (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor made a false report. I noticed that this editor was making massive deletions of citations in a single revert without any explanations, but limited it to exactly three warnings. See his case.Luis Napoles (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

76.234.167.192 reported by Richard Myers (Result: 24h)

• Page: Work People's College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 76.234.167.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th (self-)revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor 76.234.167.192 keeps re-introducing the same paragraph. Two of us have reverted this persistent addition of unsourced opinion. This is probably an IP sock puppet, these are the only edits made by this editor. Not sure if there is a significant violation of Misplaced Pages policy, so no warning given so far. Richard Myers (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Likeminas reported by User:Luis Napoles (Result: talk)

First violation

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

• The version before his reverts:
• The version he is reverting to: he has not specified, but by browsing history it is clear that he is reverting to some version at least hundreds of edits ago before expansion by the editor Melromero.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: - Just a little after his 24 hour limit expired.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

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

• 1st revert: 18:20, 21 April 2009
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: 20:48, 21 April 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Luis Napoles (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The page, like all others on wiki, has a talk page. Use it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third violation

I wanted to emphasize need for action here, as the user has continued warring at Che Guevara. Grsz 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong report. Grsz 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

69.125.53.187 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: semi)

• Page: Age of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 69.125.53.187 (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

Ben (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bemused wacko newbie. Semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

201.220.92.91 aka Nikollita reported by Jamesbeat (Result: 24h)

User - I doubt that these are two different persons - continues to add a non-existent performer to both pages listed below. Both IDs have been created on April 20 and their only contribution is adding the same vandalism on both pages listed below.

• Page: Bel_Ami_(adult_film_company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.220.92.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Nikollita (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

• Page: List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 201.220.92.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Nikollita (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

Please note that while writing this both pages have just been reverted again to the previous vandalism.

24h. Warn them next time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:207.237.33.36 (Result: Pages protected)

Comment: I'm not sure if I'm using this template correctly. However, it is plain as day that this user has gone way out of the realm of using Misplaced Pages fairly. The reverts are only the tip of his aggression. Please forgive me any misuse of this template. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First violation

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

• The version before his reverts:
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting several separate edits to this article with blatant disregard of the concept of Consensus.

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

He has repeatedly ignored requests for normal editing in which he would explain each edit. Highly disruptive. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Second violation

• Page: Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Beerfinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The version before his reverts:
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.

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

Third violation

• Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect
• User: 207.237.33.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The version before his reverts:
• The version he is reverting to: He is reverting many several separate edits to this article.
• Additionally, he is reverting edits related to this RFC on his own and on others' talk page as well. All are listed below.

• 1nd revert:
• 2rd revert:
• 3th revert:

Comment: While I understand that these edits do not all fall under the same 24-hour period or to the same article, I believe that the hostility and attitude -not to mention their sum- they reflect this editor's inability to edit fairly per Wikistandards.

PLEASE take into consideration the multiple hostile, threatening, and vicious attack posts made by this editor on my talk page:

, , see edit summary, and this change of a section name. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All of these are without merit. The first conflict has already been solved, since you were stalking my edits, I'm surprised you did not realize that.

The second conflict, is again, solved, check the talk page.

The third conflict doesn't even count, I'm allowed to revert edits to my talk page, especially if the user making edits is insulting my intelligence.

207, you may be allowed to remove edits from your talk page, but you are not allowed to lie about me in your edit summaries, calling my edits vandalism when they are not.— Dædαlus 00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user in question was given formal 3RR warnings on his talk page...but they were deleted by him after making the above response. I stand by my assertion that this user performs a large number of reversions in content disputes should be blocked for edit warring (per the 3RR warning). Please also refer to his comment on my talk page regarding my intentions with this Admin notice: "Now leave me the fuck alone." and "Have fun with that, it won't get you anywhere". Complete disregard for civility and Wikipolicy. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: IP, your edits both in this report against Daedalus and your report above against Ncmvocalist seem to be examples of you edit warring and provoking productive editors. You admit to edit warring here , why the sudden appeal to help from admins after waging open war? Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly address any and all reverts I made when they are reported here. In the meantime, I would suggest the focus remain on the ones I pointed out in this report. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing comments: Both of the articles that actually were violations have been fully protected for at least two hours. Blocks are only implemented to prevent damage, and with both articles locked down, a block will not accomplish anything. I am going to close this report without rendering an opinion on whether the report was valid or not. J.delanoy_adds 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A block against a user who is Gaming the System will certainly accomplish something. And given your out-of-the-blue edit to my talk page, I do not believe you are unbiased enough to close this report. Perhaps if you would not direct the attention to the few reverts that I made and address the multitude of reverts the user in question made, this report would keep it's focus clear: not on my behavior but on Daedalus'. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, when a post is made on the edit war board, an admin actually looks into the matter and investigates. Generally speaking, it take more than one to edit war. J.delanoy explained his reasons above for not blocking anyone, which seem to make sense. Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the record, my warning was not out of the blue. I saw you coming close to violating 3RR, so I warned you. J.delanoy_adds 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you also warn the other involved editors? Ncmvocalist, who had just as many reverts in as many days as I did? Or Phoenix of9 (9 reverts in 4 days)? Or Daedalus (THIRTY-FIVE reverts in 7 calendar days?) Or just me? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that right there is a blatant lie. I have not been very active in the past month, so your assertion that I reverted someone 35 times is without base, unless of course, you feel like backing that up with evidence?— Dædαlus 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the 3rr warning template: "Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." Daedalus should be held accountable. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Daedalus: taken straight from your history, which is available for all to see:

Some of the above reverts (only 32 of them in 7 days, sorry) are obviously valid and fair, which is why they were not mentioned in my report. I only question the high volume of reverts by this editor, and what this indicated about his editing behavior. Speaking of his affinity for reverts, please see this bit....

Now, who would like me to chart the number of blocks of other editors Daedalus made during the 7-day period from the 15th to the 22nd? (4) How many did he recommend blocking? (7) He is an editor with a vengeance and his reverts are only one indicator of that. I stand by my report and believe my issues have not yet been addressed...in fact, the only things that has been done is fingerpointing toward MY reverts...which were significantly less in number and done in a most civil manner.

I would also appreciate this user staying off my userpage, which I indicated several times. He refuses. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to stalk me for reverting vandalism and OR, I suggest you do that to every other wikipedian, because I am not the only one who does this. Now back off, you have made it blatantly clear all you wish to do is punish others, leave me alone, this is clear harassment.— Dædαlus 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wait. You are seriously counting all of his reversions in the last week? Including patently obvious vandalism reverts!? If you are counting those, you had better report me too. I've made over a thousand reverts in the last seven days, and I once made over 6000 in a week. What the bloody hell are you trying to accomplish here?

The quote you used, "Users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule.", has utterly nothing to do with what you just posted. That sentence is referring to a series of reverts on the same article where it is clear that the editor is deliberately bypassing the three-revert rule. None of the diffs above provide any evidence whatsoever of this type of behaviour, and indeed incline me to agree with Daedalus' assessment of your intentions. J.delanoy_adds 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP clearly is not trying to be constructive, and merely is disrupting Misplaced Pages and using it as a platform to attack specific editors/admins here at this point. I blocked them for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP is continuing to attack me on their user talk page, in the means of his or her unblock request. Not a surprise: It doesn't address the reasons they were blocked.— Dædαlus 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Crcappuccino reported by O Fenian (Result: 48h)

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

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor persists in adding an irrelevant section that is nothing to do with the subject of the article, only advertising for its competitors. O Fenian (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shuki reported by Mashkin (Result: content dispute)

I request that Shuki be blocked for edit warring in Amnon Yitzhak. The issue is a sourced paragraph regarding Yitzhak's anti Zionism that has been at the article for a long time . Shuki has been trying to remove it for last few days, even though it is well sourced and the claim is explicitly attributed. I have requested a few editors to comment and as you can see on the talk page both those that commented agreed that the paragraph should remain. Shuki engaged in edit warring and removed it .

Even though this is "just" a single revert, I believe that it is a clear violation of edit warring, in light of the discussion. Instead of engaging in a ritual back and forth reverting until he passes the limit (which he just did in another article) I suggest that he be blocked until he shows that he understand how disruptive and wrong is this sort of behavior. Mashkin (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is he edit warring rather than you? I can block you both, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a discussion on the talk page. He, rather me, is engaging is edit warring since he is trying to change the stable version despite the clear opposition on the page. Mashkin (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you have a content dispute. Try WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Obviously there is a content dispute (ow there would not be a war). But the way to resolve a content dipute is by discussion which is what I called for. Shuki did not pay attention to the discussion and reverted. If you think that his behavior is proper, then you are encouraging mindless reverts. Mashkin (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Switpi84 reported by Orangemike (Result: Block was OK)

• Page: Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Switpi84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persists in re-inserting self-published material claiming that he created the first blog, and insists that this material must remain unless we can prove he is wrong. I've given him a 24-hour 3RR block, but would appreciate some more eyes on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He was properly warned for 3RR, though he only did three reverts in a 24-hour period. Certainly within discretion as a long-term edit-warring block. And in my opinion, due to his lack of any appropriate response to the COI complaint, he might also have been blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bmcworldcitizen reported by Zaian (Result: 24h)

• Page: South African general election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Bmcworldcitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has added a similar link to Indian general election, 2009, and reverted three times on that page as well. Zaian (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Snowded reported by Karbinski (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Previous warnings for this type of edit warring: ] . --Karbinski (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversions were to the previous stable version to allow a consensus discussion before any change. That is now taking place if you check the talk page of Protestantism and Christianity. 3RR was not breached (and yes I know its not an entitlement). Karbinski is playing at being a stalker at the moment. He has made two attempts to insert Ayn Rand propaganda on Philosophy articles and resents the fact that (despite his own edit warring) he was the sole proponent against consensus in both cases and in another on the Ayn Rand page more recently. He has even created his own special user box here. Paranoia has set in and he thinks he is being watched. Actually he isn't, he just intrudes propoganda for his heroine on various philosophy pages all of which I watch as a matter of course. In a fiarly juvenile way is now doing to me what he thinks (wrongly) has being done to him. Its all fairly petty, I was ignoring it, but if he is starting to come here I suppose I have to dignify his accusations with a reply. Oh, by the way he didn't bother to tell me he had posted here. --Snowded (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As the other user involved in this mini storm, I didn't particularly appreciate the reversions (well duh), but this is clearly not necessary. I have no prior involvement with either Snowded or Karbinski. Quantpole (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

] reported by ] (Result: )

• Page: ] (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

• Previous version reverted to:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

3ghef reported by Bubba73 (Result: )

User is in an edit war. Added material to Knight's tour, which was removed. After that user reverted four times in less than 25 hours (not quite within 24 hours). Warnings were given on the user's talk page. No response from the user on his talk page or on the article's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tycoon24 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tea Party protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 01:41, 23 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285523128 by Happysomeone (talk) Earmarks=Wasteful Spending thats not a direct responsibility of government")
2. 17:57, 23 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285670118 by 67.52.196.120 (talk)")
3. 17:58, 23 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 285657613 by Mike R (talk)")
4. 20:53, 23 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 21:37, 23 April 2009 - additional reversion

• Diff of warning: here

This round of edit warring comes soon after a recent block for the same, and there is a discussion at WP:ANI that should be taken into consideration by the investigating admin. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Form. 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww reported by JoãoMiguel (Result: )

• Page: Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

This user rarely adds information to the articles, just delete things. I do not know what is the intention. To me it seems to destroy everything that is in sight, without exaggeration.

S/he accused me of things that I do not understand. I feel something like paranoia. This is clearly a Misplaced Pages rules' violation. --JoãoMiguel (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring