User:AlexNewArtBot/MicrobiologySearchResult

Template:Moveprotected

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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 Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

Violations

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

User:VeryGoodBoy reported by User:Angelo De La Paz (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on Chinese New Year‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

VeryGoodBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 2:48 AM

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted any edits on contents. Instead, I kept reverting or adding dispute templates and tags that Angelo De La Paz keeps reverting without discussion and resolution of the dispute. I have provided explanations in the talk page whenver I added dispute templates and tags. Angelo De La Paz didn't make any responses and kept on deleting those dispute templates and tags. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

• Three-revert rule violation on Richard Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 2:48 AM

• Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

• Diff of 3RR warning: [13]

Bobby fletcher reported by Politizer (Result: 24 hours)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [19]

While this user only technically made three "reverts," his edit before the reverting ([20]) was essentially a revert (information was deleted by User:LedRush and Bobby Fletcher reinstated it in another part of the article), and he did 3 reverts yesterday at Age requirements in gymnastics, as well as many other instances of general edit warring. User has been warned multiple times, on his talk pages and on multiple article talk pages, and has repeatedly ignored requests to discuss before reverting; when he does come to the discussion page, he ignores what other users have posted and merely repeats himself. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the first edit is considered a "revert" for the 3RR. Also, there is a clear history of edit warring.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the time of the report, Bobby Fletcher has reverted a fourth time. He has been continually disruptive, ignoring the consensus of the editors (even though it has only been 3 others editing) and ignores all pleas we make to discuss the items on the talk page. We have made repeated overtures to him to respect the editing process and accept some type of compromise language, but he will not. He is often abusive to other editors as well, making false accusations.LedRush (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added the latest revert as #4. If LedRush (above) is correct that his first edit is also a revert, that would be 5 today (the first revert is [21]). The user's reverts to Age requirements in gymnastics are as follows: [22], [23], and [24]. He has also been making fairly hostile accusations at WikiProject China. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you will find this relevant to your investigation or not, but if you look into Bobby fletcher's contribs, you will see that since August 25 he has contributed to nothing but articles about these Chinese gymnasts (with the exception of one post on the talk page of the article about Hu Jia, the imprisoned activist), and has made close to 200 such contributions. I know there's no rule against that kind of editing, but it does illustrate that this user is clearly on some sort of mission. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin, please read the background information on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:He_Kexin#Disputing_Editor_LedRush.27s_Removal_of_He_Kexin.27s_Parent.27s_Reaction

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because Bobby Fletcher has not posted in the last 12-plus hours, he should still receive a short block for breaking the 3RR and edit warring. He has a long history of edit warring, disruptive posting, misleading/lying about the facts, and misusing wikipedia to push his POV. For only one example of this, please visit the "Comments to Age Controversy" at the Wikiproject China page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China LedRush (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As LedRush is saying, even though Bobby Fletcher is not online at the moment, his history of repeated disruptive editing does warrant some kind of action, and either a short block (as LedRush suggested) or some sort of community ban (on editing articles related to this controversy) is the sort of solution I have been hoping for. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:85.232.205.214 reported by User:Don'tKnowItAtAll (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: United States and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 85.232.205.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

The information provided by this user is unsourced, is not NPOV, is not factual, is inflammatory, and is essentially an opinion or original research. I tried to explain on his/her talk page, the article talk page, and the article history summaries why I was reverting his/her edit. I did not revert the last edit because I think and administrator should step in and help explain the situation to the individual and/or help correct his/her behavior by blocking. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring, repeatedly adding material that ostentatiously violates WP:NPOV. This user should find another outlet for his personal editorials. Not a conventional 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher reported by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&oldid=242889916

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243542836&oldid=243537135
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243549717&oldid=243543798
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243760043&oldid=243555967
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243766768&oldid=243764657
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=243990388&oldid=243824563
• 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=244024438&oldid=243824563
• 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Empire&diff=244026827&oldid=244025250

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEuroHistoryTeacher&diff=244010484&oldid=243998070

User has repeatedly been asked to use the talk page (as the text he is changing is longstanding) but is ignoring requests and reverting. Also, I should point out that the user is engaging in personal attacks [30]. Their shortlived edit history (and apparent dislike of an editor) would suggest this is not a newbie who is unaware of the rules. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Slipinski| reported by User:Silly rabbit| (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [36]

Persistently adding reference to an article on a "new theory of gravity" presumably written by the editor in question in blatant violation of numerous policies, chiefly WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CON. Recommend blocking and reverting back to the consensus revision. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Slipinski has changed his name to User:Gravityforce. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result: No vio)

• Page: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: 03:44, 8 October 2008 , removed introduction sentence added in prior edit [38]
• 2nd revert: 12:38, 8 October 2008 removing content may be NPOV, but is hardly vandalism
• 3rd revert: 17:18, 8 October 2008 self explanatory
• 4th revert: 17:23, 8 October 2008 removed Fox Story added in prior edit
• 5th revert: 21:01, 8 October 2008 removed this prior contribution by Wallamoose
• 6th revert: 22:19, 8 October 2008, removed this prior contribution by Wallamoose again

• User warned of 3RR: [39]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was found to have violated 3RR on this article only a day ago (see above) but since the violation was stale, there was no action. Clearly he is at it again, and with 6 rv's there seems to be little chance that he will stop his edit warring on this article and needs a lengthy break considering his history of edit warring. CENSEI (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please see CENSEI's other 3RR report above for some context. The first so-called "revert" is not a revert at all, it's a perfectly normal edit. The second edit looks like a mistaken attempt to revert vandalism; the prior editor, an IP editor, deleted an entire paragraph with the edit summary "non-notable". It sure looks like typical page-blanking vandalism at first glance. The third edit is an unrelated revert of a completely different IP address editor, and accidentally placed some vandalism back in. See a pattern, here? Please close this. This is just wikigaming. --GoodDamon 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, GoodDamon characterizes this exactly correctly. Sadly, one of my edits was indeed meant to fix a vandalism, and I somehow restored some bad content rather than what I meant to do (I think maybe it was an edit-conflict I didn't realize). In any case, other than the one bad-but-not-a-reversion edit in the middle, this is six completely different edits I made, to different sections of the article; they have nothing in common other than having occurred in near proximity in time. LotLE×talk 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also FWIW, I was never notified of this report or of alleged 3RR until after CENSEI filed 'two (incorrect) 3RR reports on my edits to the the same article. LotLE×talk 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The summaries I left above speak for themselves. Also Damon "typical page-blanking vandalism" usually involves you know blanking the page. If the removal of a paragraph of objectionable mater is now considered vandalism, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters would be guilty of lots of vandalism.

The more that users like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters are allowed to edit war and flagrantly violate 3RR, the less meaning the rules regarding edit warring will be. CENSEI (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No violation. I'm really not seeing any 3RR violation here. Also, to CENSEI - Blanking is defined as removing any section of a page, not just the whole page. An accusation of blanking can be made when someone removes an AN/I report about themselves, for instance. Report creased. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelo_De_La_Paz reported by VeryGoodBoy (Result: Protected)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [44]
• 5th revert: [45]
• 6th revert: [46]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

Angelo_De_La_Paz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting all indication of dispute in the article without resolution of the dispute and without any discussion. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed your report; for future reference just "user" will suffice (e.g. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). CIreland (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Namszo reported by Baseball Bugs (Result: Protected)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [48][49] The second one is from immediately before. The first one shows the disputed text, re-posted by another user after yet an earlier reversion by the same user Namszo.

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [54]

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected 3 days. Anyone who is concerned about abuse of multiple accounts ought to file a checkuser; I can't decide from looking at behavior alone whether there are any socks involved. One party from each side has gone over 3RR; the term 'vandalism' doesn't apply here as a defense against 3RR. While the page is protected please continue the Talk discussion. Search for parallels in other political articles, if you can, that establish when it is reasonable to mention conspiracy theories. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dexter prog reported by Utan Vax (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [55]

• 1st revert: [56]
• 2nd revert: [57]
• 3rd revert: [58]
• 4th revert: [59]

• No diff of 3RR warning; he's been around pratically for 2 years, knows better than to fight over something trivial. Utan Vax (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And a fifth one here just a little while ago. Utan Vax (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Utan Vax should engage in productive discussion on the article talk page rather than reporting here. This user has tried to explain their position, but others ignore and revert without discussion. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk reported by Hexagon1 (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Template:Slavic diachronic (edit | [[Talk:Template:Slavic diachronic|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

I should note I am involved in the dispute. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting it to the state before User:Hexagon1 continously vandalised it with his imaginative interpretation of Slavic historical linguistics. Later another user joined the bandwagon, claiming further that Old Novgorod dialect "descended" from Old East Slavic, which I have refuted on the talk page and reverted his subsequent reversion of mine reversal. User:Hexagon1 continuously keeps accusing me of some alleged "original research", ignores any kind of productive discussion on the matter (on which he appears to be largely ignorant), and furthermore tries dirty tactics such as reporting me for "edit warring" here to push his bizarre theories which have no support in the literature (and reality). He is the one that should be blocked for wasting other ppl's time. Before the consensus is reached (i.e. before User:Hexagon1 tries to engage the actual discussion), the template must remain in the original state, and that's what I've been doing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome any administrator to come, read over the debate and if they have the time (and patience) mediate it. I am still hoping for a mutual resolution but it is looking less and less likely. The editor has since reverted a fifth time. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've simply reverted the hierarchical grouping to the state before your butchering, as there was no consensus reached on the issues your scheme induces, and you appear to ignore any kind of discussion saying that everything I write is "irrelevant" or "original research". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva reported by skyemoor (Result: 24 hours)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]

Apteva has been pushing his own lede without support from other editors, who themselves have an (albeit small) consensus. Apteva has a history of disruptive editing at Solar Energy, such as this sock puppet investigation, the prior this RfC, and other incidents such as this ANI. Months of disruptive editing are confounding progress on this very important topic. And any time we change anything he has inserted, he badgers us about "edit warring", which he clearly understands. Your help is requested. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation at Solar energy per the four reverts listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DBerriman reported by Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)

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

• Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [75]

This account's only contributions have been to edit war on this page. Likely a sock, but that's a seperate issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TigerShark (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover reported by Aspects (Result: No action this time)

• Page: Bound for Glory IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: 12:58 October 9, 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:52 October 9, 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:40 October 9, 2008
• 4th revert: 21:15 October 9, 2008
• 5th revert: 01:15 October 10, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:13 October 9, 2008

Also see the sections on our talk pages, User talk:Wrestlinglover#3rr warning and User talk:Aspects#Edit war, how the editor felt he had not already violated the 3rr with his four reverts. Aspects (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to interject here or not but I feel I must state my case. The matches I removed were not sourced. Impact! is taped and there is not reliable source that those matches were announced. TBA is not a very common term. I was having it linked as a result. Referees and others of the short are capitalized in pro wrestling ppvs. I violated the 3RR as a result of there being no source. Per WP:SOURCE and WP:Ignore all rules.--WillC 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No action. Both parties here seem well-intentioned, but Wrestlinglover went over 3RR. His above justification makes no sense, so I hope he will become familiar with WP:3RR and not repeat his mistake in the future. Future tolerance may not be so great. The edit war seems to have quiesced, so there is no urgency to admin action. Additional reverts in the same article may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I assure you I had the best intentions in my actions and was trying to improve the article to make it accurate and up to date as well as follow the guidelines set by WP:PW. I will try to make sure it will not happen again.--WillC 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

212.73.143.231 reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Two IPs three months as socks)

• Page: Stara Zagora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 212.73.143.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 85.91.132.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: [78]
• 2nd revert: [79]
• 3rd revert: [80]
• 4th revert: [81]

• Diff of vandalism warning: [82]

Obviously the same person, there can be no discussion about it. They use the same reversion approach, they edit one and the same article the same way, and they both spell vandalism as vandalizm. Todor→Bozhinov 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months Both IPs, for abuse of multiple accounts and long-term edit warring. One of them does nothing but revert to his preferred version of Stara Zagora, month after month. The other IP assists him in performing the same reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will contact you if any more of those socks appear (which I'm pretty confident will happen). All the best, Todor→Bozhinov 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultrateslan reported by User:neitherday (Result: 24 hours )

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

• Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]
• 3rd revert: [86]
• 4th revert: [87]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

May also be previously warned as 68.119.239.185 (talk · contribs)

-Neitherday (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

71.196.249.209 reported by Tassedethe (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: William McDougall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 71.196.249.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]
• 5th revert: [94]
• 6th revert: [95]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

IP has had an anti-vandalism warning but continues to add bio to dab page (page protection declined WP:RFP) Tassedethe (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.42.70 reported by User:Man with one red shoe (Result: )

• Page: Opera (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 91.122.42.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

Anonymous account involved in revert war, pushing unsourced unencyclopedic info. man with one red shoe (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:76.83.5.195 reported by ChrisP2K5 (Result: )

• Page: Jury Duty (TV series)
• User: 76.83.5.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [108]

--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Reddi reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

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

• Previous version reverted to: (each reverted to a slightly different version)

• 1st revert: 16:04, October 10, 2008 revert to 15:49
• 2nd revert: 16:28, October 10, 2008 restoring the same information in a different place
• 3rd revert: 16:46, October 10, 2008 (2 edits) revert to 16:36
• 4th revert: 17:02, October 10, 2008 same
• 5th revert: 07:12, October 11, 2008 revert to 03:45, except for removing the {{dubious}}

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:27, March 25, 2008 (actually, that's a diff of a 3RR block notice)

User as had multiple 3RR blocks, and was warned for edit warring on this article, although I can't find the exact date. Unfortunately, NJGW (talk · contribs) may also have violated 3RR, also having 5 edit sequences since 16:19, October 10, 2008. I think one of the sequences clearly isn't a revert, and another reverts one version of Reddi's nonsense to another version, but I'm not sure about the 4th sequence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)