This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ninguém (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 8 February 2009 (→Donadio reported by Opinoso (Result: WP:TROUT for both)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior reported by User:Ukufwakfgr (Result:no vio)

This concerns the article Masonic conspiracy theories. User:Blueboar is unilaterally making edits that are still under discussion, and hiding them behind minor edits.

The article had gone without a revision for 5 months, and was biased. The changes that I made were undone by User:WegianWarrior with the reason that the article is already excruciatingly neutral or something like that. Suddenly, however their interest has been renewed, and have made more than a handful of unilateral edits in the past few days, claiming deceptively that such edits were "discussed."

There is reason to suspect that these users may engage in edit-warring as well as revert-warring. User:Blueboar has already been blocked for violating 3RR. This has been mentioned in Wikiquette alerts as well as the noticeboards of: conflicts of interest and neutral points of view. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA tagged NWQA and referred back here. Gerardw (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm so what you are saying is that you are edit warring with 3 different people and they are all in the wrong and you are in the right? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I said that there is reason to suspect, and look at the edit logs for yourself. They are full of unilateral changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar has "already been blocked for violating 3RR". Three years ago. Unblocked after ten hours. Never been blocked again. Clearly, a recidivist hardened criminal. Throw the book at him!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you have more to contribute than sarcasm. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You got to admit though that it's bloody impressive how such a new user as Ukufwakfgr could find someone's block log like that. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read through the lengthy discussion at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories and was wondering where User:Ukufwakfgr got the cajones to accuse the others of edit warring. His posts are one rude personal attack after another laced with foul language. The article is quite NPOV and his edits are clearly attempts to insert POV. (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Please discusss why on the talk page, and actually read it instead of pre-judging or cherry-picking. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe he stated that he did in fact read the page. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He obviously skimmed through the more sensationalistic parts. Not good faith. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I have indeed read the Talk page. It's a sad commentary on how one person can disrupt carefully crafted neutral wording with what appears to be a nit-picking agenda. And the nit-picking is not always well-informed or even accurate. I have seen that Blueboar et al. have carefully and patiently tried to deal with Ukufwakfgr, but to no avail. Ukufwakgr's posts tend to be rude and insulting and when he doesn't think that others are paying enough attention to him he reverts to foul language. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Baseless allegations. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't want to get involved in the particulars, I'd like to say that just because Uku (don't mind if I call you that, right?) is the minority view here doesn't mean he should be ridiculed or ignored. Not to say he has been, but there's been a bit of irrelevant discussion concerning him which isn't the most productive thing that could be done. Likewise, Uku, try to be a bit more civil and collected. I'd encourage everyone to take to the talk page, including Uku, and sort out your differences there. If that can't be done, someone get back to me and I'll protect the page, but only if I see evidence of discussion that has been ignored by the warring party. Any questions, comments, concerns are welcome here or on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more users accounts are involved: Theresa Knott Taivo

All 5 of them are acting in a grossly uncivil manner by repeatedly requesting that I comply with what I believe to be an unreasonable demand (to select one of my talking points and re-state it, even though each talking point has been discussed already). They have outrightly rejected my counter-proposal without discussion, and seem to agree on pretty much everything.

Theresa Knott has abused her administrative priviliges by "redlinking" me, deleting portions of a comment I made, and providing additional support to the other users instead of demonstrating impartiality. She, along with Blueboar seem to be trying to play good-cop-bad-cop.

Taivo has taken to engaging in revert wars in the talk page itself, calling my desired changes ugly or something like that. That user has hypocritically accused me of trolling, and has tried to remove the POV tag.

So far, about 10 unilateral changes have been made to the page in the past 5 days, mainly by Blueboar and Taivo. I would really like to see this dispute resolved, if at all, rather than to resort to protecting the page. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Love the implication that they are sockpuppets by using the strikeout tag... classy, real classy. If a multiple of exeprienced users talls you that you're doing it wrong, and only you think otherwise, chances are good that you are, in fact, doing it wrong. Just saying...

Any editwarring taking place is done by Ukufwakfgr, not to mention his breach of other rules and policies. I encourage everyone to read through his contributions and make up their minds. 158.112.84.234 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Majority doesn't rule on Misplaced Pages. More baseless allegations. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of your previous account? I'm curious. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I really am new. Just because I understand computers and the Internet doesn't make me an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Radeksz reported by M.K. (talk) (Result: warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Armia Krajowa‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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

1. 2009-02-04T02:25:41
2. 2009-02-04T07:12:16
3. 2009-02-04T07:44:51
4. 2009-02-04T09:48:15

• Diff of 3RR warning: user was already blocked for the edit warring . M.K. (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Those reverts are not identical, and whether they are reverts of good-faithed WP:BRD - with the ongoing discussion on talk about reliablity of removed sources - is unclear. Considering that the other editor, M0RD00R, is matching Radeksz tic-for-tat (, , ), but both of them are users in good standing with little history of edit warring, I have warned them both on the talk of the article and on their talk pages. If any of them reverts further (I suggested they both keep to 1RR a day on that article for a while), blocks to cool some heads down may be appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus was heavily involved in edit warring on this same article 2) Piotrus alerted User:Radeksz to participate in this article due to the new specific issues, which caused this edit war . 3) Talking into consideration Piotrus long standing personal disputes with user: M0RD00R and a relationship with Radeksz. 4) Piotrus already gave Radeksz 3RR "warning" in the past. He should know better. . I ask that the case be taken up by a neutral administrator, rather than close associate of one of the parties, who was admonished by Arbitration committee to avoid avoid edit-warring.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I got ahead of myself. But changes 1 and 2 are different than changes in 3 and 4. They are about a different source. I'd be happy to keep to 1RR on this article for awhile. It would also help if the discussion on the topic was actually carried out on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. I posted my reasons there on the two questionable sources. Waited a few days and only then removed them. This was immediately reverted by Mordoor who never bothered to respond on the talk page even though he had all the time in the world.radek (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that the previous block MK refers to was an admin's MISTAKE for which he apologized. I was reverting a known and frequent vandal on the Copernicus article (the one that keeps putting in "Copernicus was Polish!" in the lead) and the admin in question accidentally blocked me when he meant to block the vandal. The block was rescinded within minutes as soon the admin realized he made a mistake (I didn't even have to point it out). This is all clearly evident from the edit summaries in the link MK provides if he actually bothered to read them. I'm not sure I like this smearing of my reputation.radek (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous block MK refers to 2008-11-24T07:12:03 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked Radeksz (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring, incivility.). In any case it just shows that you are well familiar with WP policies.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't see a technical violation here - rv 3 is 't obviously an rv and you haven't bothered explain why it is. Edit warring from both sides, who may consider themselves warned. R seems to have done most in initiating talk pae discussion; M encouraged to reply William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to reopen this case or anything in this fashion, but rather technical response regarding revert No.3:

• Editor installs source in this edit (see Death Comes in Yellow: Skarżysko-Kamienna Slave Labor Camp), in subsequent edit user:Radeksz removes it (see: Death Comes in Yellow: Skarżysko-Kamienna Slave Labor Camp). By the definition of the revert, this action called revert. M.K. (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The commonality in the revert war is one sentence (and its verification).

• 23:55, 28 January 2009 Novickas created the sentence stating that some historians have characterized the entire army as anti-Semitic. Piotrus reverted that twice (1 2)
• 00:36, 4 February 2009 Novickas restores the sentence and suggests a third opinion. Piotrus jokingly asks Radek for involvement ...
• 02:25, 4 February 2009 ... who is quick to remove the sentence on arguing the sources were insufficient (revert 1)
• 07:00, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores the sentence and adds two more sources (revert 1)
• 07:12, 4 February 2009 Radeksz doesn't accept the sentence again and removes the first sources again (revert 2)
• 07:29, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores one source (revert 2)
• 07:44, 4 February 2009 Radeksz removes that source again and also another of them (revert 3)
• 07:51, 4 February 2009 Mordoor restores the 2 sources (revert 3)
• 09:48, 4 February 2009 Radeksz removes one of them again (revert 4)

To sum up, I cannot see why Radek's third revert of his four is not a revert. There, Radek completely undid M00RD0Rs previous edit, thus provoking him to revert again. Even if you don't count it although it should be, then Mordoor's second revert wouldn't count either and Mordoor would have 2, as many reverts as Piotrus ... (although Mordoor's first revert was only fulfilling what Radeksz asked for: additional sourcing to support the sentence whereas Piotrus simply did two wholesale reverts). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Galassi reported by Volodymir_k (Result: Note left on talk )

• Page: Mikhail Dieterichs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Galassi (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:

1. Galassi is definitely pushing his POV in there, reverting ALL changes.
2. He does this without any discussion of his reverts at article talk page.
3. He does not even read the changes by other editors, because otherwise he would noticed he made a typo.
4. His typo was easy to notice: "noted in particular for his noted in particular for his", I pointed that twice (at article's talk page and at user talk page), but he didn't pay attention.
5. Instead, he answered that my "English is too incomprehensible"
6. At the article talk page, I requested support for verification, and that was simply ignored.
7. Comments to his edits say "unexplained deletion of cited material, rvv", but that is not true: nothing was deleted, it was moved into proper section. (And of course there are no any quotations.)
8. His single reference is to non-neutral journalist.

Thanks, -- Volodymir k (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No blocks or protection as there hasn't been a rv in a few days but I have left a note on the article's talk page requesting discussion. All editors are forbidden from making any more reverts until they have worked it out between themselves. Recommend WP:MEDIATION as this is a content dispute. Scarian 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I needed: to be heard. Volodymir k (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TheColdDick reported by User:Michig (Result: 48 hour block)

• Page: Years of Refusal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: TheColdDick (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:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor involved deleted warning from his talk page with an edit summary of "oooh scary", and proceeded to revert again, with an edit summary of "fuck you". The editor has insisted in readding "Hot Press" in the reviews section without a link to the review, and is clearly not interested in listening to others' views.--Michig (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked TheColdDick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. Other disputants advised of the need for discussions on the Talk page. CIreland (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

125.17.14.100 reported by MrinaliniB (Result: 1 week)

• Page: Puthandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 125.17.14.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Puthandu&action=history

The Tamil new year is subject to some controversy at present. The current Misplaced Pages entry presents both viewpoints in a seamless text that flows quite well. There are 13 footnotes to back the two sides to the debate.

IP # 125.17.14.100 however has been single-minded over the past month in removing sections whose evidence is backed with a footnote. The summary deletion of an important sentence, not to mention, removal of key phrases elsewhere means that the text loses useful information and nuance that is otherwise necessary to understand the ongoing debate.

IP # 125.17.14.100 in turn introduces a PoV without evidence or a citation. This gives an ideological slant to the revised text. He has been consistent in unilaterally deleting information/citation and then replacing it with his PoV. It is one thing if he backs his PoV with evidence/footnote - but he does not. This is disruptive behavior.

IP # 125.17.14.100 is the only individual consistently involved in such arbitrary reverts since January 1 and has refused to engage the other editors in the talk page which is the ideal forum to resolve disputes over content. Any point can be introduced provided it is backed with evidence while alternate views are not summarily deleted/replaced.

He has reverted thrice in the latest 24 hour period - February 4. You had temporarily blocked him before but he always returns to re-engage in the never-ending edit wars where he is the sole individual reverting arbitrarily since January 1 to be precise. This is more than one month where the periods of quiet have been those when he had been blocked. No one else unilaterally deletes as he does. He also seems to confine his edits to this one page alone if one were to look at the record! This seems to be edit warring.--MrinaliniB (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for edit warring without discussing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Godspeed. --MrinaliniB (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Catskillemt reported by Yossiea (Result: protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hatzalah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Catskillemt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. 21:55, 4 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "/* New Jersey */ Yet again reverting vandalism by Hatzolah of Passaic/Clifton two year olds. Grow up!!!")
2. 15:46, 5 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undoing vandalism yet again. When will you guys grow up???")
3. 20:14, 5 February 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 268719545 by Yossiea (talk) Undoing vandalism by Yossiea yet again.")

—Yossiea 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me again why I'm supposed to block him not you. For reverting 3 times, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted his edits, not reverting my own. I added to this article recently as well as years ago. It was on my watchlist and I noticed that he was pushing his piece. Yossiea 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You both violated WP:3RR. This is a content dispute - neither side's edits were vandalism. I've locked the page for a couple of days and urge you to either resolve the content isssue on the relevant talk page, or seek a third opinion. Continuing the mass reversions when page protection expires will get either (or both) of you blocked for edit warring. Euryalus (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically no, since neither made 4R in 24h. But they were in deed edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, 4rr in around 29 hours not 24. I stand corrected, and have amended my emssage on Talk:Hatzolah. Thanks for pointing this out, hopefully the content issue can now be resolved in a slightly calmer way. Euryalus (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells reported by NYScholar (Result: No vio)

• Page: Talk:Art and politics (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Preliminary warning: Please see repeated removal of the Style Sheet by User:Jezhotwells; the repeated removal of the Style sheet is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:3RR.

1. Diffs.
2. Diffs.
3. Diffs.

The template is an "optional" Style guide and there for information and consultation. Editing warring over consistent style format is not permitted in Misplaced Pages. The removal of the Style sheet in the manner that it is being done is a breach of Misplaced Pages civility (WP:CIVIL) and breaches optional style guidelines re: templates. Such templates are informational on article talk pages. They are there so that subsequent readers of the talk page can see what the current Style Sheet is. --NYScholar (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Without comment on the merits of the report, I notice that diffs 2 and 3 show the same edit. CIreland (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

corr. (see edit summ.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No violation I see at most three reverts, plus this comment by Jezhotwells which suggests he is not planning to revert any more. If so then the war is over. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

24.245.59.4 reported by Pinkadelica (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Lucinda Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 24.245.59.4 (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:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP appears to be an SPA who has no other contributions outside of adding and re-adding this same unsourced content to this one article. User has been reverted by two other users since February 1, and warned about adding this content repeatedly. Pinkadelica 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Rootology. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54 reported by BoogaLouie (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Jk54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

before my edits

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Jk54 has no page

BoogaLouie (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jk54 has four reverts in 24.5 hours, and he uses blanket reverts to install his own much larger version of the article (59 kb vs 13 kb). I do not see that he got consensus anywhere for his larger version. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy reported by RoyLeban (Result: no vio)

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

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ambigram&oldid=255316272

Note: This is a version from December 2008, before some big blocks (but not all) of the removed content was added to the article.

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ambigram&oldid=268469785 (final edit of 4 in a row)
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ambigram&oldid=268506069
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ambigram&oldid=268743492

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=268839387&oldid=268831540

First off, apologies if I'm not doing this quite right. This is the first time I've ever done this. Also, I may not be on Misplaced Pages again until Monday, Feb 9th. If it is necessary for me to visit this page, please send me a brief email offline and I will endeavor to do so (this is not an invitation to start an off-wiki discussion). Thank you.

There are only three reverts here in slightly more than a 24 hour period, but it is clearly an edit war and there is a longer pattern of destructive editing. User:DreamGuy insists that he is the only one who understands Misplaced Pages policies. This is the second time he has, in my opinion, attacked the Ambigram article, this time removing about 10% of it. I assumed good faith the first time and took discussion of his deletions to the talk page, where other editors have commented (I've been waiting for a bit more input before restoring those items which have consensus for restoration).

This time, I know better. DreamGuy says he has discussed changes on the Talk page, but that is not true. Rather, when he has contributed on the talk page, he provides his opinion as fact, as if he alone gets to decide what is right and what is consensus (e.g., "case closed). He treats reliable (cited) sources as unreliable because he does not have personal access to them and/or he doesn't agree with them. Where the edits were mine, I have cited specific sources, including page numbers in many cases. Although I refer to my own edits, and a significant portions of recent edits are mine, he has removed edits by many editors, plus long-standing content, some of which has been in the article for more than a year.

DreamGuy claims, erroneously, that I have a COI on this article (and I'm not the only person so accused). I do not. I have explained it clearly on the Talk page, but, again, he thinks he is the sole arbiter. It is true, as I explain on the Talk page, that I am an expert on Ambigrams and I know personally many of the people in the field. This does not disqualify me from editing -- in fact, it makes me a better editor. My edits do not enrich myself. In the one case, where I do have a COI (a game I developed that is related to ambigrams), I stated that I could not vote on the Talk page. My login is my real name so it is easy to verify who I am and that what I say is accurate. DreamGuy also claims my comments are deceptive. This is a smokescreen.

DreamGuy claims to also be an expert on ambigrams, but his edits do not bear this out, as he does not seem to know things that he should know to be true. For example, earlier, he deleted a statement that said Dan Brown named the Robert Langdon character after John Langdon. This is widely known in the community. I restored it after digging up a quote from Dan Brown himself, but if DreamGuy really was an expert, he would have marked it as needing a citation, or he would have dug up the quote himself. If he did know it to be true, then the sin is even worse.

DreamGuy has also been uncivil, making remarks such as the following in response to editors with whom he disagrees:

• "Wow is all I have to say. Clearly an unbiased opinion there" (this is an implicit COI accusation)
• "You realize that this site is an encyclopedia, right? Useful? What?"
• "it's just ridiculously inappropriate for[REDACTED] every which way"

Note that this is not the only edit war DreamGuy has been involved in -- he has done this in numerous places and has had edit wars on many articles, multiple bans, etc. You can see another recent edit war at Near Dark. Although I have not done any significant analysis, looking at his edit history, it appears that most of his edits are deletions.

I reverted his reverts twice, with the following comments:

• rv vandalism -- you should not make wholesale deletions of content without discussion -- take any problems you have to the talk page
• Go read BRD. Start a discussion about these changes. Don't insist that you're right.

You can also see that I did another recent revert for an apparent COI edit which was made before the first reversion by DreamGuy and then made again later:

• RV edit that I suspect is COI and is inappropriate for this article. I hope to incorporate some of it in a restored FlipScript article when I find more references. If you disagree, please go to Talk

He will no doubt show up here and argue that I know nothing about Misplaced Pages policies, that my edits are all COI, and that all of my edits as well as all the other content he deleted is stupid. I think things are pretty clear and, for the record, I've been an editor since 2001 (though not under my real name until recently). Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I realized I forgot to include the diff to the edit war warning. I made it right before submitting this and it's now linked above. RoyLeban (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No formal vio. Not even 3R in 24h. Use the talk page. Consider WP:DR. Stop the accusations of vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim reported by Leevanjackson (Result: Take it to WP:MFD)

• Page User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war
• User: Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been around the houses looking for the right place to ask, was going to Help_Desk but the content of this Misplaced Pages:User essay is a method to apply POV and get around the 3RR so should be of interest to you, not sure how user essays count for accountability, but it is unwikipedia and also provides an instruction set for POV pushers- the 'what links here' turns up a few interesting related articles LeeVJ (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No violation If you truly disapprove, consider asking for the essay to be deleted at WP:Miscellany for deletion. Have you noticed that this is a humorous essay, and the advice it gives is not very practical? EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I had noted the humour, but was more concerned with feeding beans to people, particularly use of sockpuppets and how to disguise reverts which seemed practical to me - but then I'm not seasoned in 3rr! - I have enquired on user's talk page to answer my concerns before taking any action. Thanks LeeVJ (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be required reading for all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was only worth a chuckle but now I see it was cited as evidence in an Arbcom case. The arbs have way too much time on their hands :-) To clarify the intention, perhaps the essay could be rewritten in the style of WP:ABF, which seems harmless and does not have the air of recommending anti-social activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User has tagged with 'humorous essay' and since there are a number of similar such essays, which I would personally disagree as well, I will have to say I am _happy_ with the situation! LeeVJ (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

23prootie reported by Nick-D (Result: blocked by User:YellowMonkey )

• Page: Pacific War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 23prootie (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (revert of: )

• Diff of 3RR warning: (for similar edit warring over the article's infobox shortly before the latest outbreak). Also recently warned for edit warring on the Allies of World War II article:

This editor appears to be a POV-pushing edit warrior. His edit summaries in this edit war include: 'Americans and Australians SUCK, man arrogant little horse' , 'American horse! horse! horse!' and 'removed Mexico, again Americans are horse, trying to use petty arguments just to downgrade Philippine contributions to the war. That really sucks you know. ek.' . The editor is also edit warring on a number of other articles, including:

• • Allies of World War II: , , (note also the misleading edit summary), (followed 3RR warning and promise to stop edit waring)
  • lists of sovereign states in the early 1940s (I count 4 reversions in 3 minutes of these articles twice today in their recent contribution history: , , , and , , , )

Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:YellowMonkey has just blocked this editor for 72 hours. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

65.32.128.178 reported by Poeticbent (Result:24 hours )

• Page: Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 65.32.128.178 (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:

IP blocked 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey reported by CENSEI (Result:No Vio)

• Page: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Loonymonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

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

Please note that the first line of the 3RR rule states the following:

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.

Clearly Loonmonkey has violated this as he reverted the contributions of four separate editors on with four separate edits, non of which had anything to do with any violation of policy.

CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Grsz_Review 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• closed, no vio, all revisions consecutive and therefore count as one edit under 3RR. Spartaz 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

147.27.47.76 reported by Greekboy (Result: 24h)

• Page: Apagorevmeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 147.27.47.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sdgspt (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:

User has been adding in information that I and another user have said does not belong there. User initially asked on talk page about adding that infromation, but he/she has since ignored the response given and keeps adding it in. Additionally, it is believed that this IP is also User:Ftsdgs, who added in the same information earlier, and also wrote the same thing on the talk page, as well as User:Sdgspt who just made an account to re-add the information back into the article after the 3RR notice was placed on his IP talk page. .Greekboy (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Sdgspt has just violated 3RR. I left a notice on his page. Diffs: , , , . The last time, he wrote in Greeklish via a hidden message "Hahahaha....I am having fun with this". Greekboy (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked S, and the anon who is S. Considering G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

G saved by self revert. A wise decision William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"G" I guess is me, not Greekboy, just to clear that up, its a little misleading. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Satellite9876 reported by Jebuss (Result: 24h)

• Page: Benjamin_Cohen_(British_journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Satellite9876 (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:

Satellite9876 has posted inaccurate and misleading information. Confusing the difference between profits and revenue together with a confusion about the way that public companies are traded and sold in the UK.

Satellite9876 does not understand that the SoJewish business was purchased by Totally plc. Benjamin Cohen (the subject of the article) was just one shareholder and later said he sold £40,000 worth of the shares he held.

Satellite9876 does not post sources for a number of the statements that they have made (Jebuss (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I do not agree with the above. Nor have there been 3 reverts as alleged. The Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) article appears to have often been 'protected' by one or two editors who seem to remove anything they think may be "negative" to the subject in question. That concerns me for the sake of the encyclopedia.

My view regarding the share valuation is that the article should most relevantly discuss the share value of the individual the subject of the article in question, and as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Other editors hold differing views.

My other concern about this article, since we find ourselves here, is that these same editors are seen to favorably edit this article rather consistently and remove any facts that someone like, say the subject, might find disagreeable. Happy for others to consider the issues, and the familiarity of various contributors with the subject of the article.

There were valid WP:RS posted for all my edits. Not sure about the alternate claims as to share and company valuations made by others being similarly sourced.

Overall, I must say though - bringing an edit discussion here, and not to my Talk page seems rather rash indeed. --Satellite9876 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that J has broken 3RR formally, whereas S hasn't. More importantly, S has made clear and repeated attempts to resolve this on talk, and J hasn't. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SonofFeanor reported by MastCell (Result: 24h)

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

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:27, 4 February 2009

• 1st revert: 22:49, 5 February 2009 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 2nd revert: 01:22, 6 February 2009
• 3rd revert: 10:58, 6 February 2009 (undoes this preceding edit, restores POV tag that he has been edit-warring heavily and single-handedly to insert)
• 4th revert: 15:36, 6 February 2009

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:59, 2 February 2009

This editor has been edit-warring on passive smoking. He's been repeatedly warned about violating 3RR (see recent 3RR report, final warning from outside admin and final, final warning from outside admin. Still at it. Enough's enough. MastCell  06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bridies reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

• Page: Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Bridies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: editor warned before this point
• 5th revert: with comment that editor is willing to exceed 3RR to make a point

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Dispute among several editors resulting in edit war and heated discussion on talk page. Ironically, this is over an edit I myself added over a year ago. I came back after a break and noticed this war, and warned 2 users, one of whom seems to have stopped. =Axlq 18:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was willing to break the 3RR/risk being blocked if it would bring an admin, and thus an uninvolved, disinterested (as in not a D&D fan) and reasonably competent editor to the page for purposes of a third opinion.bridies (talk)

24h. Edit warring to bring in other opinions is not a good idea. Read WP:DR, ask for a third opinion, don't edit war William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttll (Attlmt) reported by User:Olahus (Result: 1 week)

The user Mttll is involved in an edit war again (as only few days ago), this time it is about this template where he edited as Mttll and Attlmt (they are the same user) - 2 reverts made by Mttl and 1 revert made by Attlmt = 3 reverts, which means that the 3RR was broken. I also suspect Mttl of using more sockpuppets, as I reported here.

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert

--Olahus (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

4 reverts are required for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fourth revert

--Olahus (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User comes off a 48 hour block for edit warring and almost immediately returns to just that. This appears to be a clear 3RRvio on his part, but even if it isn't, the clear disruption can be seen here, which warrants a block regardless. Also a look at Mttll's contributions show that he re-initiated an edit war on at least four other pages, mass-reverting each of them following his unblock. I see no signs of a change in behavior, so I am blocking for one week. Khoikhoi 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:THF (Result: 24h)

• Page: BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: N/A

• 1st revert: 7 Feb 03:25 reverting addition of wikilink
• 2nd revert: 7 Feb 03:27 undoing this THF edit
• 3rd revert: 7 Feb 03:38 undoing THF edits and
• 4th revert: 7 Feb 03:41
• 5th revert: 7 Feb 03:45
• 6th revert: 7 Feb 18:52 reverting four intermediate edits by User:BaldPark without discussing on talk page

• Diff of 3RR warning: 7 Feb 03:48

In the 0400 time frame, I was on the border of a 3RR violation as well, and stopped editing the page, instead opening an RFC. THF (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

24h for B and T William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what happened, William blocked both B and T, but with T, William M. Connolley wrote:

With some reluctance, I've blocked you for 3RR on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

T responded:

My reversions were good-faith working to reach a consensus, and I miscounted the number of times I reverted. When I realized I reverted three times and that consensus wasn't going to be reached, I stopped editing the article and took discussion to the talk page; each of my reverts was discussed on the talk page contemporaneously. It appears that one can construct an argument that I reverted more than three times.. THF (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

William quickly unblocked THF:

OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No offer of "I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason" was given to Ben.

Can an uninvolved administrator give Ben the same offer?

Ikip (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip misquotes me. It's hard to think of a good-faith reason why he did that. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• And if one looks at the Benjoboi talk page, he was specifically invited by THF to make some of the edits that resulted in what THF nows shows as either edit warring or 3RR. In good faith, I will not call this entrapment... but I respectfully request his block be removed with a caution to be more careful when following the requests of other editors. I'm sure this developed into a misunderstanding all around. Schmidt, 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir, that's 100% false and I ask for a retraction. Benjiboi made an edit that munged punctuation and confused quotation marks. I asked him to fix his edit so that the punctuation was accurate. He didn't, so I did, and he reverted me. I tried collaborating with him, and he just blindly reverted every edit I made, even removing wikilinks for the sake of removing wikilinks. I gave him a 3RR warning after his fifth revert, stopped editing the page; when he started reverting the work of third-party editors against talk-page consensus, I reported him. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No retraction of my simple observation. "When you added the cquote template, you munged the punctuation of the quote. Can you fix that, please?" Those are your words, not mine. He replied, "No problem, fixed". When it did not appear to be so, you wrote"Actually still munged. I'm just going to restore the original". He questioned, "How is it "munged"? I copied direct from the source". So I cannot retract what you two yourselves wrote. THIS dialog preceded the 3RR and escalation of the edit war. The result was an unequal serving of justice... a quick unblock for you and not even an offer of one to Benjoboi. My request above was an unblock of him with a warning, and my own observation that this entire thing stemed from and resulted in a misunderstanding all around. I am not counting the bodies after the fact... only analysing the events leading up to the explosion that might have been prevented with a little bit of patience and dialog from BOTH parties. So, You are invited to remove your assertion that my observation that A preceded B preceded C is "100% false". Schmidt, 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I also support lifting the block so that they can discuss on the talk page; I believe the purpose has been served. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of attempting some sort of equal and balanced justice here I'll repost what I said on Benji's talk page: I'm amazed at how you were "man handled" here (by William) but the main person (THF) causing the problem and the edit war gets handled with velvet gloves by William. Sad. Typical. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea that WMC has some sort of pro-THF bias is remarkably amusing. THF (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh - that's bad form, William M Connolley. Really bad form. I'm unblocking both users and protecting the article for 48 hours so the involved users can discuss changes on the talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. What is bad form in unblocking, in a clearly non-emergency situation, without even a pretence at consultation, a block that had already been reviewed . And what kind of nonsense is trolled edit-warring? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I should have consulted you in the first place. My bad on that. But, IMO, "Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason" prevailed in my view. The blocks were placed evenly, but unfairly - you gave THF (who provoked the situation) a chance to be unblocked (which they were, in less than an hour), while Benjiboi was a) not given the same opportunity, and b) denied the unblock with a short one-sentence that seems to be by someone who did not read the full situation. I'm sorry if I stepped on toes, but this was unfair and was following the letter, but not the spirit, of Misplaced Pages. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how I "provoked" B. into reverting BaldPark's four edits without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. THF (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This won't do. You don't just step on top of other's actions without very good reason, and nothing you've said provides a good reason. Both users had a chance to be unblocked, indeed everyone blocked for 3RR has the same chance. I decided to remind one side of that; this is not unreasonable. Further, you have accused THF of trolling for a block on B. Do you maintain that accusation? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I left a message at SatyrTN's talk page asking for an explanation of their unblock and they replied I should have a look at their reply here. SatyrTN's explanation here does not justify his course of action, that clearly constitutes wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Put aside the wikilawyering: this was clearly a bad block and it was a good idea to lift it. That's the bottom line. Spotfixer (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? The unblock was supported above by at least three other users, the block was set to expire in 4.5 hours anyway, and the application of rules seemed unfair. I admit I should have made a better effort to communicate with the blocking admin, but since they hadn't commented on any of the notes from Benjiboi, AllStarEcho, A Nobody, or MichaelQSchmidt, I decided to be bold and lift the block from an *extremely* competent Misplaced Pages user. Again - I'm sorry for stepping on toes, but it seems the right thing to do. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we give rather greater weight to the opinions of admins on questions of block/unblock William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your bad block is more of an issue than any technicalities in removing it. And I for one don't believe that the opinions of non-admins are irrelevant. Do you? Spotfixer (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wheel warring is not a matter of being bold, but simply inappropriate. — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is always appropriate to remove a bad block. Spotfixer (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...how was this block bad? There was a clear case of 3RR violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, two people were blocked for warring with each other, but one was immediately unblocked. This disparity makes the remaining block a bad one. Spotfixer (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that you use a mind-reader, but yours is off calibration. I'm reasonably well-informed about this case. Your argument is bogus. The block was good. A potential problem with another block (or unblock) does not make this one bad. "We could only get Al Capone for tax evasion, so Timothy McVeigh should not have been tried for murder, either"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, before you comment, you may wish to do some research. In this case, one person was blocked for edit-warring with multiple people after a warning, and one person was blocked sixteen hours after he said he'd stop editing the page to resolve matters on the talk page, and then unblocked when he noted that the block did was punitive, rather than preventative. THF (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

81.71.161.34 reported by E_dog95 (Result: 12h each)

• Page: Armada Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 81.71.161.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here is the pre-revert war article.

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is simply adding an embedded list of artists. This probably started back in November. I have let the user know that some content other than just the list would be better. I have asked that some prose be listed along with the artists. English may not be their first language. E_dog95' 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

12h each. You are both edit warring. Neither of you has tried to use the talk page, which still doesn't exist William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

99.179.173.225 reported by Opinoso (Result: both reproved)

• Page: German Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 99.179.173.225 (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:

< This IP is claiming Austrians are Germans because they speak German. Then he included a Brazilian town settled by Austrians as if it was a "German community". I removed this, then he started to reverte me. Opinoso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -->

Excuse me, but i will like to give my own defense. If you read the German Brazilian article, in the immigration section, it has Austria listed. So in that article, the Austrian people are listen as Germans. This guy who reported this is claiming that there are Germans in Austria who are not Austrian. He is also flip-flopping on the whole issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.173.225 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake use the article talk page instead of reverting like people incapable of communication. You are both reproved for edit warring (technically the anon hasn't broken 3RR but O has) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

75.57.0.136 and Ajacreative reported by VoteSchiff (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 75.57.0.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ajacreative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted from:

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

The individual who is deleting/reverting the posts is doing it out of business competitiveness, rather than seeing the benefit of the factual information, which is needed for the Peter Schiff wiki bio page. The fact is, "On January 23rd, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd."

VoteSchiff (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both the reporter and the reported user for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mttll reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: blocked )

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

• Previous version reverted to:

• 0th revert: (not exact same revert, but a similar revert)
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning: See my edit summary on 4th revert

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

03:41, 8 February 2009 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mttll (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (3RR violation on Template:Romani infobox, almost immediately after coming off previous block, edit warring on at least four other pages, no signs of stopping) (unblock | change block) Tiptoety 05:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:59.167.38.253‎ reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on
• Page: Brian Naylor (broadcaster)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• User: 59.167.38.253‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 10:56, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The fire hit Kinglake yesterday. Victims are only now being identified.")
2. 11:00, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The fire is known fo have hit Kinglake on 7 February.")
3. 11:35, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The article clearly states the fire was on Saturday (7 February)")
4. 12:12, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "The news reports clearly state the fire was Saturday (7 February). 8 Feb is the date of the announcement. Claiming 8 Feb as the date of death is original research.")

• Diff of warning: here

The IP was also told to take it to the talk page which they did but also continued to revert against 2 other editors (excluding myself). — Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to have been any reverts by this IP since your 3RR warning William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:THF reported by Ikip (Result: No violation)

As per: the above complaint

User:William M. Connolley Blocked User:THF at 21:47, 7 February 2009

User:William M. Connolley then unblocked User:THF on the promise that "OK, if you'll agree to not edit that article for 24h" at 22:32, 7 February 2009

User:THF has began editing the talk page again:

11:45, 8 February 2009, adding a RFCpol to the talk page.

Please reblock this editor. Ikip (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on WMC's talk page (maybe to briefly), WMC blocked THF due to a WP:3RR violation on the main article, and asked him to refrain from editing the article for 24 hours. The talk page is not the article, there never was a 3RR violation on the talk page, there was no restriction of THF editing the talk page, and hence no reason for your complaint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Donadio reported by Opinoso (Result: WP:TROUT for both)

• Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Donadio (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:

< This user was already blocked 2 times, on the same week, for violations on this same article: first block and second block. Opinoso (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) -->

First and second reverts were reverting my own edits, that I inadvertently made while unlogged, in order to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. Donadio (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Third revert was merely an intermediate step to add correct information. Donadio (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, look at Opinoso's reversals in German Brazilian.

• February 7, 00:23
• February 7, 17:42
• February 7, 21:15
• February 7, 21:47 Donadio (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking at good faith that User:189.27.21.142 is Donadio, I see at most 3 reverts. User:Opinoso's reverts from yesterday have already been handled above. Stop reverting and talk. Both of you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the Talk Pages of the articles, you will see that's what I'm trying to do. But I get this kind of response:

I won't waste my time reading your out of place comments. With some many article at Misplaced Pages, you only appear at the same article I have recently edit. You are obviously following my edits. I'm contacting an administrator to resolve it. Opinoso (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

which is difficult to argue with. Opinoso is good at the art of stonewalling...

And yes, I'm User:189.27.21.142. In a few seconds, I'll log out and confirm it. Donadio (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:169.234.115.112 reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Invention disclosure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 169.234.115.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 21:17, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:25, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "not vandilsm, impotrant info")
3. 21:27, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389458 by Daniel 1992 (talk)")
4. 21:28, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389728 by Alansohn (talk)")
5. 21:29, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389983 by Alansohn (talk)")
6. 21:30, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390172 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
7. 21:31, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390376 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
8. 21:32, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390680 by Alansohn (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lab notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 169.234.115.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 21:16, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 21:19, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "deleted link spam - blogs not acceptable")
3. 21:22, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:24, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 21:26, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "not vandilsm, important info")
6. 21:27, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389616 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
7. 21:29, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269389867 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")
8. 21:30, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "I saw this on 30 Rock, I can do whatever I want")
9. 21:32, 8 February 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 269390498 by Little Mountain 5 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:24.8.64.63 reported by User:Kww (Result: )

• Page: Temple garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 24.8.64.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User: Wildernessflyfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Version A Version B

Note: two different reverted versions. Primarily attempting to edit out an image. Once that failed, he began to change the image caption to cast doubt on image's authenticity

• 1st revert: 06:33, 7 February 2009
• 2nd revert: 16:24, 7 February 2009
• 3rd revert: 16:31, 7 February 2009
• 4th revert: 13:06, 8 February 2009
• 5th revert: 15:00, 8 February 2009
• 6th revert: 15:11, 8 February 2009
• 7th revert: 21:45, 8 February 2009

Note that the 7th revert is in response to this edit, and represents a shift in the reversion.

There is an active SPI report open at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher, but the question there is whether we are dealing with meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting. With this edit, Wildernessfly admitted to meatpuppeting as his defense against sockpuppeting. (Breaking news: CU results came back as unrelated, so it is meatpuppeting, not sockpuppeting.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Basic issue is an old one: the LDS strongly discourages showing any images of the temple garments, as they are considered sacred. The article is a chronic target of efforts to remove the images based on LDS doctrine, which violates WP:NOT#CENSORED. The IP admitted that as his motive in this edit.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

—Kww(talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring