Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive40

User:192.223.140.62 reported by User:KarlBunker (Result:Incomplete)
Deliberately disruptive editor, repeatedly making the same edit against consensus and refusing to discuss. Has been blocked for this twice before. The story is in the history
 * If you can't be bothered to properly submit a report, then no one is going to take any action. John Reaves (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean like this "no one"? Technically speaking, this is a call for intervention against a disruptive editor rather than a true 3RR case, but I looked for a long time and couldn't find the place for that. If someone could point me to a better place to report this sort of thing, I'll use that the next time this editor does his thing. KarlBunker 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:76.17.121.71 reported by User:Ancjr (Result: 48 Hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:50, 2007 March 12


 * 1st revert: 16:50, 2007 March 12
 * 2nd revert: 17:49, 2007 March 12
 * 3rd revert: 18:21, 2007 March 12
 * 4th revert: 09:36, 2007 March 13
 * 5th revert: 10:19, 2007 March 13
 * 6th revert: 12:35, 2007 March 13
 * 7th revert: 13:38, 2007 March 13


 * Comments: Seems to be the same user, or a sock puppet of 64.16.152.145 which was reported yesterday WP:AN3.


 * 48 hour ban, multiple violations, including profanity in articles.Rlevse 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:4 days)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 23:12, 13 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:16, 13 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:18, 13 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:24, 13 March 2007

And many others, what to do please ? Also he was blocked previously three times.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: This user continuously edit wars. See this:
 * Blocked 4 days for continuous edit warring and for doing so after just coming off another block for the same thing. John Reaves (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both editors have participated extensively in edit warring. Tulkolahten has searched for articles containing "Brünn" and removed it. He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point). R9tgokunks has followed this track of deletions and reverted these edits. It would be of no use to start a conversation on the talk pages of about 30 articles and Tulkolahten should have started a discussion first. In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in his AN/I report (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labelling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.
 * Granted, R9tgokunks continued to revert after his block and that shouldn't be supported, but of his edits in the past 24 hours, there are many normal edits among them (if I counted correctly, his reverts are in the slight majority), whereas every edit in the article space of Tulkohlaten in the past 24h is a revert (34 succeeding reverts). Regarding edit warring, Tulkohlaten was just as guilty as him. Regarding this 3RR, both have reverted for three times in the article concerned. But Tulkohlaten, who started to revert, misleadingly reported Rotgokunks' first edit as revert, so it was no 3RR violation. I personally think 24h for each user would be suitable. Sciurinæ 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Parishan reported by User:Artaxiad (Result: no vio)
Three-revert rule violation on . :
 * Violating parole.
 * and  Artaxiad 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * clear arbcom violation, 24 hour block per ruling. Rlevse 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Removed block upon receiving more details on case. No arbcom vio, user was in middle of making his talk entry.Rlevse 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Trorov reported by User:Snickerdo (Result:48 hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

 etc etc
 * Previous versions reverted to:


 * Comments: I posted a notification to his :talk page as outlined here, and he immidiately went an re-posted it to my page (yes, I may have violated the 3RR rule by one edit, it's difficult to keep track, though I have not been involved in the previous edit wars). Other users have reverted his work and he reverts them back.  Also invited him to discuss the issue on the :talk page but he continues to revert, and he doesn't provide any factual information to back his claims.  Overall, a real mess that I no longer want to be involved in.  Please forgive me if my template is not correct, I have not been involved in this before.


 * block 48hrs on Trorov, continual edit warring.Rlevse 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandia01 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:15, 25 January 2007
 * 1st revert:08:31, 13 March 2007
 * 2nd revert:18:48, 13 March 2007
 * 3rd revert:05:35, 14 March 2007
 * 4th revert:05:56, 14 March 2007


 * Comments: User:Grandia01 has been repeating this tendentious edit since at least 6 October 2006,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, has been warned on a number of occasions,,, , and has generally refused to engage in discusson. Additionally, he has been blanking depictions of Muhammad from the transclusion page, against consensus, where consensus has held this to constitute disruption., Proabivouac 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Checking his talk page history, however, shows he never had a warning. -- Avi 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given warning. If he reverts again… -- Avi 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I wrote above? "...has been warned on a number of occasions",, . In fact, I warned him immediately before the fourth revert shown above. He's been doing this since October 2006.
 * I can't believe I spent half an hour getting these diffs together. What a waste of time.Proabivouac 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but those are not 3RR warnings, but regular vandalism warnings. That's why part of the template says

-- Avi 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * this is a warning and this is not a new user. Arrow740 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That diff, which was presented in the origingal report, plainly shows that the responding admin had not read the evidence when he wrote, "...he never had a warning."Proabivouac 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: see below, different versions


 * 1st revert: 09:16, 13 March 2007 revert to 03:44, 13 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:54, 14 March 2007 revert to 19:16, 13 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:00, 14 March 2007 same revert as 2nd
 * 4th revert: 08:02, 14 March 2007 same as above
 * 5th revert: 08:35, 14 March 2007 partial revert to same version as above

--Milo H Minderbinder 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A followup on this, a checkuser shows that Davkal used a sockpuppet to evade this block and make an additional revert. Checkuser: Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal  Sixth revert by sockpuppet: 20:48, 14 March 2007 --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a sock-puppet it was a friend.Davkal 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So it may be potential meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. Either way, an admin should take a look.  --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A meat puppet is someone who does your bidding. Baaderthanmeinhof does his own bidding. Davkal 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego reported by User:MarkThomas (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 18:07, 14 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:43, 14 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:54, 14 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:00, 14 March 2007


 * Comments: User is ignoring efforts to discuss on a range of Nazi and Socialist related subjects and repeatedly reverts and edit wars. MarkThomas 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look carefully. This was not straight out reverts but me adding more detailed information on the source cited. MarkThomas was claiming that the Sunday Express didn't exist in 1938. But the Sunday Express was launched on Dec 19 1918. So he was deleting the quote from Hitler in that newspaper. This was not a case of me simply reverting back information, but responding to MarkThomas's disruptive removal of information that was cited, by adding more information so he would stop. I had to make it clear that the Sunday Express did indeed exist when Hitler was quoted from it. Billy Ego 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Express issue was just a passing remark, the basic fact is that Billy Ego did 4 continuous reverts within 24 hours. MarkThomas 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a "passing remark." It was your whole reason for removing the information, as you said so in your summary So now that I've proved that the Sunday Express did indeed exist at that time and you realize now that you were wrong, you wtill want to try to penalize me? That's real ethical on your part. Are you more interested in making sure information is correct or winning a battle? Billy Ego 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Billy Ego is misrepresenting. His edits were attempted to be reverted by myself and one other editor on the grounds that (a) they are out of context with the introduction (b) they appear to be uncheckable and (c) they are not supported by other sources of information. MarkThomas 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation, I see only one initial edit, and three reverts to it. However, all parties are cautioned to discuss rather than engage in an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On this basis, if other editors revert him, would he be free to continue to put his edit back multiple times without sanction? MarkThomas 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not, it is unacceptable to revert more than three times except under some very limited circumstances, and this is not one of those exceptions. However, the case here is: The first "revert" on the list is actually just an edit the user made (unless the edit was made at some point in the past, but if that did happen, whoever made the report didn't bother to say so.) An edit is not a revert. The user then reverted to that same edit three times, but stopped at three. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:Lurker (Result: Page protected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 16:00 14 march, 2007


 * 2nd revert 16:19 14 march, 2007


 * 3rd revert 16:27 14 March, 2007


 * 4th revert 18:29 14 March, 2007


 * Comments:

No, I haven't. The first two on that list could have been made with a single edit, and in any case are nothing to do with the second two on the list which refer to a totally different part of the article. TharkunColl 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never reported 3RR before, so may be wrong. But I believe that reverts do not need to be conected, you just need to remove others' content 4 times in 24 hrs. Lurker  oi!  19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on past experience with him, I wouldn't over-react by assuming you are wrong when considering TharkunColl's editing behaviour, he frequently deliberately varies each edit slightly to try to game the system and avoid 3RR disciplining, something he sadly has gotten away with previously, although he is now up to 31 hours on his last block. MarkThomas 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you have a look at them then? The second two are totally unconnected with the first two. And the first two are successive edits I made without reverting anybody. If you want proof, go and look at the edit history of the page. There were no edits at all between my edit of 16:00 and my edit of 16:19. It was not a reversion of any sort. TharkunColl 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In his defense, TharkunColl's edits in the first two diffs are not reverts. They are simply edits. The rule doesn't say "you can't make more than 3 edits to an article in one day." He still may have violated the 3RR with other edits to the article, however. Just look at the article's history or TharkunColl's edit history just to make sure. ~ UBeR 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No specific violation here, the first two were done without anyone else's edits intervening and are the same as a single edit. However, after a look at the page's history, I've protected it due to ongoing edit wars. Please work out the disputes and come to some type of agreement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However the edit war is going, I think I misunderstood the rules and was wrong to report a 3RR violation. I've sent TUC an apology, and would like to apologise for wasting the time of whatever admin(s) had to check this out. In the future, I'll make sure i understand the rules fully before posting violations. Lurker  oi!  14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos reported by User:Halaqah (Result: Only 3 diffs listed - no violation at current)
Three-revert rule violation on .:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert


 * 3rd revert


 * Comments:

This disruptive editor adds original research and material not given in the citations provided, this has been going on for months, the article however was left with a dispute tag, which was removed by a editor. because the tag "not in citation" given was said to be enought. I made some edits to removed the reason why the tag was placed there, and the disruptive editor returned and reverted it back to the problem version. I then put it back to the original state with the dispute tag, he reverted again. i replaced the dispute notice, he reverted again. Removing a dispute tag is vandalism, because it is clear there is a dispute yet he is vandalising the tag. The only reason the other editor removed the tag was because the version they had was balanced and have "not in citation" given. But he has removed all tags and restored it to the fully disputed version.notice how the 3 ref do not say what he claims they say and he has provided NO reference for any of the content added.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Halaqah, you need FOUR reverts in 24 hours to violate, not three. As of now, there is no violation, unless you can bring a fourth. -- Avi 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that, if you revert three times. My God Avi is that you? small world. C u around.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * wa `Alaykum As-Salām, Halaqah. Yes, it's me. [[image:smile.gif]]. -- Avi 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Halaqah for some reason is very insistent that the Arabic word Zanj &#1586;&#1606;&#1580; doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means, and he resorts to extreme bizarre contortions (such as trying to discredit Hans Wehr as an agent of colonialist imperialism, and telling people that a dictionary doesn't in fact say what they're reading when they holding the relevant entry directly in front of their eyes). User:Halaqah has added a dispute tag twice before to article Zanj, and both times I did nothing about the tag and let events play out and fully take their slow course -- which was that both times the dispute tag was removed by someone else  (not me) who saw no merit in User:Halaqah's arguments (in fact, no one who has come along on the article page Zanj or the talk page Talk:Zanj has ever seen any merit in User:Halaqah's arguments on this matter).  I don't intend to violate Wikipedia's reversion policies, but adding a dispute template a third time around solely because User:Halaqah insists that the Arabic word Zanj &#1586;&#1606;&#1580; doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means is not a productive way to improve the article, and I'm not going to let it happen.  Of course, now User:Halaqah has taken to stalking me (reverting my edits on Bilad al-Sham to intimidate and harass me), and that doesn't excessively impress me either. AnonMoos 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you gentlemen need WP:DR, not WP:3RR. -- Avi 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RichardBennett reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 2007-03-14T17:53:15
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 2007-03-14T09:22:02
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 2007-03-14T03:10:19
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 2007-03-14T00:03:13
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 2007-03-13T21:20:54
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 2007-03-13T19:09:34


 * Comments:

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Michael Glass reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 8 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:48, 13 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:15, 14 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:05, 14 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:51, 14 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:56, 14 March 2007


 * Comments: Experienced editor is repeatedly to wedge soapbox material into the Circumcision article. Nandesuka 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry (only the first was an oldid). Fixed now. Nandesuka 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User's first violation, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Armando12 (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 14:42, March 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:43, March 14, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:23, March 14, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:45, March 14, 2007


 * Comments: This user has been deleting the album cover images from the article. This is very disruptive. The use of album covers on articles don't violate any policy, and we can prove it with featured articles like Nirvana (band) and Nightwish, that also use album cover images. Armando.O talk •  Ev 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Our Fair Use policy is frequencly violated - that you've found two other pages proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than try to justify the use of the images (which is required before using them) the user labelled my edits as vandalism. This is not a content dispute. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also only the last two diffs are acutal reverts - the first two diffs are just the original edit. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is indeed the case; no edit was made between the first two edits listed above. Also, please don't edit-war unfree images back into articles; if there are concerns about copyright, the burden to establish consensus that we should republish the work are on the editors wanting to include it.  Note also that removing potential copyright infringement is an exemption to the 3RR. Jkelly 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Wikipedia would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! Armando.O talk •  Ev 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Avoid Copyright Paranoia - Mysekurity 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:License2Kill and User:MJukmix reported by User:Mysekurity (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

By License2Kill:
 * Previous version reverted to: 20:21, 11 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 17:27, 12 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:43, 12 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:39, 13 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:49, 14 March 2007
 * ? 5th revert: (made by anon, same revert, plus, very similar taste in editing articles) 20:54, 14 March 2007

By MJukmix:
 * Previous version reverted to: 08:15, 12 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 18:12, 12 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:11, 13 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:39, 14 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:41, 14 March 2007


 * Comments: I am not personally involved with this particular 3RR, but I am involved in an RfC on Tupac Shakur with L2K. To avoid a conflict of interest, I am seeking assistance here. - Mysekurity 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whups! my fault! - Mysekurity 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts were not made within a 24-hour period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's still edit warring. From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." This behavior is clearly disruptive, and though I could block them myself for edit warring (and logging out to bypass 3RR), I decided to take it here. The talk page has not been utilized to discuss the change being made, and it seems L2K has shown this type of behavior in the past. - Mysekurity 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, or they may not be. In this case, the edit war doesn't look severe enough to block as yet. If they keep the edit war up without going over 3RR, request the page be protected or report it to WP:AN/I. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Praveen pillay reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 09:29, March 14, 2007, (Diff as of 09:29, March 14, 2007)
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 11:31, March 14, 2007


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 11:37, March 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 11:59, March 14, 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:17, March 14, 2007


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:15, March 14, 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 14:19, March 14, 2007

Comments: 


 * In the first revert, which is a partial revert he retains one external link (the tamilnation.org link). It is a partial revert so I have given the diff.


 * In the second and third reverts, he continues to fight for the same external link(the tamilnation.org one) which had been removed.


 * In the fourth revert, he reverts the and  tags that had been placed on the article and also  tags placed on few references.  Sarvagnya 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This happened almost two days ago and the page is now protected due to your edit warring so there is no need for a block. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a time limit within which we have to report? And I had reported this almost 36 hrs ago anyway. In any case, you agree that there was a violation. Right?  Sarvagnya 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bov / User:67.180.110.244 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:10 days)
Three-revert rule violation on .  :


 * Previous version reverted to: (This is a little complex)
 * Change B to A 08:01, March 11, 2007 (by the IP)
 * reverted 09:11, March 11, 2007 (by me)

All reverts are to the same version, which is intermediate between the two versions reverted to above, so they all qualify as partial reversions of my edit above.


 * 1st revert: 16:30, March 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:38, March 14, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:11, March 15, 2007 (as IP)
 * 4th revert: 11:05, March 15, 2007 (as IP)


 * Diff of previous 3RR block notice: 19:47, October 14, 2006


 * Comments: See this diff from User:Bov for an admission that he frequently fails to log in, and check the history of this IP to see that it frequently makes the same edits as User:Bov. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10 days each. John Reaves (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kentkent reported by User:Nate1481 (Result:No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:42, 15 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:19, 15 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:22, 15 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:57, 15 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:17, 15 March 2007
 * 5th revert 14:06, 15 March 2007

Comments
 * Last two are not strict reverts but continue the patten of disruptive editing
 * May also be a sockpuppet of the banned user:DrParkes


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:06, 15 March 2007
 * New user who wasn't warned until after/at the same time of the fifth revert. No action taken. John Reaves (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is he was waned & banned as DrParkes & now has 2 more sockpuppets


 * 6th revert 16:09, 15 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

User:IAF reported by User:Vassyana (Result: 24 hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:13, 15 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:35, 15 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:36, 15 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:00, 15 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:50, 15 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:00, 15 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:28, 15 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonawiki reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:no vio)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:32, March 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:20, March 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:51, March 14, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:18, March 15, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:02, March 15, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:28, February 26, 2007


 * Comments: The problem with this user goes beyond the constant reverting that reintroduces unverified information, but enforcement of the 3RR is probably the most immediate way of dealing with this. Simply looking at the talk and article history of the SWG article will confirm the lake of civility from the user. Due to the person being a new user, myself and numerous other editors have taken a fair amount of time trying to explain several policies, but we still get constant reverts. We will probably need to get an admin involved to resolve these issues, but for now, we'll just report the reverting. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The four reverts are not within 24 hours, so no vio. Heimstern Läufer 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sukecchi reported by User:Funpika (Result: Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:15, 15 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 21:15, 15 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:11, 15 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:07, 15 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:18, 15 March 2007


 * Comments:

User:Sukecchi has edited Wikipedia for a long time (Earliest contribution 1/1/06) and should know about WP:3RR by now. Funpika 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Page is protected, no need for a block right now, user warned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Magonaritus reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:02, March 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:32, March 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:37, March 15, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:02, March 15, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:37, March 15, 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:51, March 15, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:50, March 3, 2007


 * Comments: New editor seems upset we are removing invalid rumors with no source information. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also. Roguegeek (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Roguegeek reported by User:Magonaritus (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:02, March 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:46, 14 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:15, 14 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:36, 15 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:32, 15 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:02, 16 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:20, 16 March 2007

Block quote
 * Comments:
 * Editor seems upset we are adding content with sourced information. Editor refuses to discuss on the talk page why he wants it deleted. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also and 3RR. Editor has also deleted my comments on the talk page when he disagrees with them, (instead of just presenting his side of the story). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=115470427&oldid=115470244 for an example. He didn't like the discussions on the talk page, so you know he does? He ARCHIVES the ENTIRE talk page while there were 4 RECENT AND ACTIVE discussions taking place! See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 for proof. Talk about disruptive! The content of the article has improved fantastically in the past few days. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies (now) to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=110066784&oldid=110066637 (before). Because roguegeek is angry that the article is more detailed and balance, he leaves a snide resentful comment on the talk page seeing the new content as a nuisance because now we have to properly cite it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Proper_citation. He has been sabotaging the RfC process begun by another user to resolve this dispute. His oldest contributions go back to January 2006. He should know better by now. He has several thousand contributions since then. Magonaritus 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting how this shows up right after I reported you. There's a big difference between reverting malicious edits and knowingly violating the 3RR. I will be interested in seeing how this turns out simply because the problem goes far beyond a 3RR. An admin is greatly needed to help with the issue at this point. Roguegeek (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest taking a look at User talk:Magonaritus to see what kind of feedback they are receiving from numerous editors. This one definitely needs some investigating and I welcome feedback. Roguegeek (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Still an edit war over content, still violated 3RR, 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

207.127.241.2 reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:35, 16 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:21, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:30, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, 16 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:41, 16 March 2007

From User talk:207.127.241.2: This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning.
 * Comments:


 * 24 hours for violating not only WP:3RR but also WP:BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam reported by User:Agha Nader (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 23:42, 15 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:46, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:06, 16 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:38, 16 March 2007 Note: there is an intermediary revert by The Behnam in this edit.

Comments: Although the reverts are not all about one piece of material, they still are a breach of the 3RR. [WP:3RR]] says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also user Mehrshad123 may also have broken the rule on that page.

Response - The first "revert" was not a revert, but rather the first time I introduced the wording. Hence, I did not 'undo' the actions of another editor. The Behnam 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the second "revert" also is not an 'undoing' either, but a novel edit. The Behnam 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The first edit undid the actions of another editor. And is thus a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" Agha Nader 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * I didn't 'undo' anything, I simply changed the page. The wording was completely new; if I had undone an edit, I would have been restoring what was there before.  The Behnam 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the first edit you removed this material: "Reza Shah's ambitious campaigns for modernizing Iran's educational, industrial and transportation infrastructure are attributed for the emergence of social, political and economic reform in Iran after a long period of decline during the final years of the Qajar dynasty" Agha Nader 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * And I was undoing an edit by removing this? Technically it was added to the page at some point in time, but I didn't do an actual 'undo'. This is the 'three-revert rule', not the 'three-change rule'.  The Behnam 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You undid the the actions of the editor that added the material. You didn't revert the whole page, but you removed that material (which is a revert); "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor"Agha Nader 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


 * You may consider the second revert a "novel edit", but you did in fact remove material: "This was a smart move on the part of Nazis since from that point, Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime". You admit to it when you say "removed POV projection" in the edit summary. Agha Nader 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * Agha, simply editing the page isn't a revert. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit the page more than thrice a day unless we were simply adding information.  I am pretty sure you're misunderstanding what 3RR is about on this point.  The Behnam 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The, removing material another person added is a revert. Agha Nader 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". These aren't 'undo's, they're just changes to the article as it was long before the 24hr period.  The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the edits.  Basically what you are advocating it is a 'three-change rule' except for content additions.  I don't think that is what 3RR is about, or else it would be incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles.  The Behnam 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you not undue, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors? You say "Technically it was added to the page at some point in time". Thus removing it is undoing the actions of another editor. Not allowing edit wars does not make it incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


 * After all you did say "The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the information". What is the difference? Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * Hmm. I'm pretty sure that you aren't seeing this correctly, and I'm not sure how to further explain it to you.  Whether I am right or you are right, I'll just let the admin who comes to this decide whether the edits really comprise a 3RR violation.  Maybe s/he will be able to explain this to you better.  Considering that two of them aren't reverts I don't think that there is a problem here.  Agha, you might want to take a look at some of the other cases on this page to get a better idea on what 'undo' means.  The Behnam 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, about your remark on the neglected articles, you might note that the changes also weren't 'edit warring', since the 'edit wars' usually refer to a chain of reverts over a contested passage. Again, this is not the 'three-change rule', but the 'three-revert rule.  The Behnam 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected due to the edit war, so no action will be taken. However, both are cautioned to avoid edit warring and to discuss controversial changes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Now I can actually start my wikibreak.  The Behnam 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mehrshad123 reported by User:The Behnam (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Complex revert:
 * 1st revert: 23:03, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:18, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:26, 16 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 17 March 2007

Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego reported by User:Cberlet (Result: 8 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

Complex reverts
 * Previous version reverted to: 15:10, 16 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 02:04, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:36, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:41, 17 March 2007
 * 3.1 revert: 02:46, 17 March 2007
 * 3.2 revert: 02:46, 17 March 2007


 * 4th revert: 02:55, 17 March 2007


 * 3rd is not a revert but the addition of research to the article. Now that there is a source to back up the reversions, why are you doing this now that you see you were wrong? Billy Ego 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Added a few more for context.--Cberlet 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pray tell me, how is the addition of new material to an article constitute a "revert"? Billy Ego 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see 2 full reverts and alot of partials. I'll let another admin handle it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3 is not a revert, but "previous version", 1, 2, and 4 all are. First offense, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet reported by User:MRSC (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:31, 14 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:11, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:10, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:11, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:58, 17 March 2007


 * Comments: - says here is happy to break 3RR


 * More than 24 hours means less than 3 edits per 24 hours MRSC. You are putting me in a bit of a corner. I may have accidently edited these article four times, but you have little friends doing the same. You and your acolytes are victms of breaking the 3RR also, simply not each and everyone of you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Saturdayseven reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:no action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:09, 15 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:44, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:31, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:45, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:14, 17 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:05, 17 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:54, 17 March 2007
 * 7th revert: 16:59, 17 March 2007
 * Knows the rule, blocked previously.

4 (now 5) simple reverts:
 * Comments:

Most of my reverts were to remove libelous assertion backed by nothing more than a self-published random web page. User:Ultramarine is going around wikipedia adding libelous slurs against J. Phillippe Rushton using poor sources. If one reads wikipedia living person policy, it clearly states that removing poorly sourced libelous claims is an exception to the 3 revert rule.WP:BLP Saturdayseven 14:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is sourced using different sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Searchlight Magazine, or academic sources are not "a random webpage" or "self-published". If a person claims and tries to spread negative views against whole group(s) of people, in the words of a critic, "Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease", then he should also expect criticisms. Wikipedia should not be the place for presenting and spreading only Rushton's views unopposed.Ultramarine 14:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly added this to the article: Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new eugenics movement, and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.  You are painting a living person as a eugenics poster boy using one source that doesn't work and another source which is a self-published web page that doesn't meet wikipedia standards. And your oversimplification of Rushton's theory is also not fair. First of all Rushton believes that racial differences are small and that virtually the full range of human traits exist in all races.  He's simply arguing that each race tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want Rushton's ideas expressed on wikipedia the solution is to nominate him for deletion, not to violate wikipedia's libel rules Saturdayseven 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if Rushton advocates or speaks about eugenics or not, or if eugenicists cite him or not, you reverted much more than this without explanation. We should not delete Rushton since his and similar works sponsored by the Pioneer Fund are a prominent view widely used by hate groups. "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred." But Wikipedia should certainly mention the criticisms.Ultramarine 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These are just the facts about how Rushton has been criticized. futurebird 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not my responsibility to differentiate your quality sources from your unreliable sources.~In the time it takes to do that the libelous assertions get more and more exposure. All I know is that some of the sources you added were unreliable and used to justify libelous assertions, hence I reverted all your edits in which these source were added and I am well within wikipedia policy to do so. Saturdayseven 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Using your argument, you could blank a whole article if you personally think there is an error somewhere. Not allowed. Again, while the arguments used by hate groups have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not care how valid you think your other sources are, I don't care how passionate you are politically, and I don't care how important you feel your contributions to wikipedia are, if you continue to add self-published fringe web pages to support libelous smears against living people you will be reverted. PERIOD. You do not have the right to jeopardize wikipedia and damage repuations in the process. Do that on a blog using your own name. Don't use wikipedia's good name to do it Saturdayseven 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, your are not allowed to delete large amounts of well-sourced material if you personally think there may be an error in one sentence. Nor are you allowed to violate 3RR.
 * I'm afraid you still do not understand: You are not allowed to smear living persons using self-published fringe web pages and links that don't work. I don't care if you added a hundred other valid sources mixed in with the poorly sourced libel and smears. I informed you on your talk page that your source was not up to wikipedia standards yet you continued to add this libelous smear to wikipedia.  I may need to talk to someone else as you apparently have no understanding of wikipedia living person policy or how serious it is Saturdayseven 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute this, the given link clearly shows that at least some eugenicists cite Rusthon prominently. Do you deny this? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Regardless, while the arguments used by hate groups in order to create racial hatred may have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you continuing to revert material having no relevance to eugenic material: . Your own personal opinion that the sourced material is false in uninteresting.Ultramarine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't blank anything, I simply reverted an editor that is unable or unwilling to differentiate quality sources from unreliable sources and was using the latter to smear and libel a living person in direct violation of wikipedia's single most important policy. "Some eugenicists" is a weasel term and demonstrates even more failure to grasp wikipedia policy. If a view point is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia it must be backed by a reliable source, not self-published fringe web pages like this one . I shouldn't have to keep explaining this very basic point to someone who has been editing wikipedia as long as you have Saturdayseven 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You blanked large parts of sourced material with no explanation. Regarding the sentence you have disputed, do you deny that the eugenic source quotes Rusthon? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Also, why are you right now continuing to revert other material, based on your own unsourced claim regarding what Rushton stated? Wikipedia is not built on personal opinions. While the arguments used by hate groups in order to create racial hatred may have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted you because you were adding unsourced smear. I didn't bother to look at whatever else you were adding but much of it were simple facts that were placed in the controversy section to promote your POV that they should be viewed as controversial. Again, if you mix unsourced crap in with reliable sources we'll just revert you wholesale because you are violating wiki's most important policy & no one has time to sort it out. And I have no idea whether eugenics advocates support Rushton but I'm certainly not going to let some fringe self-published web page be used to smear Rushton as a eugenics icon Saturdayseven 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please respond to questions above.Ultramarine 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, yet another revert of material of sourced academic material.Ultramarine 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another revert: Ultramarine 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read my edit summaries instead of adding knee-jerk complaints to this notice board you would realize that adding an enormous quote to a well summarized section gives undue weight to one opinion. As for my other removal, you keep placing non-criticism in the criticism section and thus making the article wholly incoherent Saturdayseven 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these are excuses for simply deleting sourced, academic information and violating 3RR.Ultramarine 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My socalled violation of 3RR was to remove your libelous smear (in fact when removing poorly sourced libel we are not violating the 3RR if you knew wiki policy)using a self-published fringe web page. You are well aware of the fact that you have violated wikipedia's libel rules which is why you are now trying to divert attention to content disputes we've had since you filed this complaint. In short you are the one who has violated a wikipedia rule far more serious than 3RR and you are further disrupting wikipedia by wasting everyone's time with this here Saturdayseven 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming your argument regarding the eugenic sentence is right, that this sentence should be removed and that you can at the same time remove whatever other material you want without explanation, then you have still violated 3RR. Your reverts 1, 5, 6, 7 (see above) do not include the disputed eugenic sentence.Ultramarine 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, not only do you have no understanding of wiki libel rules, or wiki weasel word policy, but you apparently don't know what the 3 revert rule is either. Further your later accusation claiming Rushton blamed blacks for wrecking Toronto was yet another violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that we can't use sources that rely on conjecture to make extremely libelous claims. In fact that source took Rushton's quote wholly out of context and put their own spin on it and hence I was well within wiki polociy to revert those edits too. You know you could really save us all a lot of time and energy if you actually would read wikipedia's policy  Saturdayseven 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave a source, you gave your personal opinion that this source lied. Unsourced personal opinions are not interesting. Read Attribution.Ultramarine 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You gave a source putting their own interpretation of what Rushton meant, and not the direct quote of what Rushton said. Encyclopedias are built on facts not selective quoations taken out of context intended to smear people. Editors like you who rely on conjecture rather than facts are damaging wikipedia's credibility. There's a reason why wikipedia outlaws the use of conjecture to smear and libel people. Again I don't wish to argue with you anymore because you don't grasp wikipedia policy Saturdayseven 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, read Attribution. I gave a source, you did not. Your personal opinions and views regarding this is not allowed as source.Ultramarine 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The source was not a primary source or even a direct quotation but a second hand interpetation of what Rushton meant. Such sources are not allowed to be used to make extremely libelous assertions as per wiki living person policy Saturdayseven 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See Attribution. Again, your unsourced personal opinion that the source is incorrect is not relevant in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also states that conjectural interpretations of a source can not be used as sources to smear living person. Nothing to do with my opinion. You also misunderstand wikipedia's secondary source policy.  All that means is that we shouldn't reference Rushton when discussing Rushton, however we should cite the source that quoted Rushton directly, and not the source that selectively takes a few words here and there to assert what Rushton meant. Wikipedia states that conjectural interpretations can not be used to smear people Saturdayseven 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is only your unsourced personal opinion that this is conjectural. In your interpretation of policy, anything can be removed from an article if an editor thinks that something is conjectural.Ultramarine 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's conjectural because they are giving opinions not facts. I quote from your source: Recently, the venomous psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada -- a man who heads up and also is subsidized by the racist Pioneer Fund -- unleashed yet another attack, saying "Toronto the Good" had been wrecked by "black people."  Now notice they are not objectively reporting what Rushton said, they are simply quoting 2 different sentence fragments "Toronto the Good" and "black people" to assert that Rushton released yet another attack.  It's bad enough when people take sentences out of context, but they're taking sentence fragments, and putting them together to make an extremely serious accusation against Rushton.  It's best that wikipedia not be used to smear and libel living persons, but if you insist on smearing people, the least you can do is get facts, direct quotes, not conjecture. As Jimmy Wales said, this is an encyclopedia not tabloid journalism.  Saturdayseven 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you have presented no evidence for your conjecture. If claming that there is something wrong, quote a source as per Attribution. Violating 3RR and removing sourced material because you as person feel, without presenting any supporting source, that the sourced material is wrong is not acceptable. Using this, anyone could remove anything simply based on personal feelings.Ultramarine 20:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me! It's not wikipedia's responsibility to prove wrong every libelous smear you add to living person's bigography. It's YOUR responsibility as an editor of wikipedia to add FACTS and not CONJECTURE and never is your responsibility greater than when making extremely controversial accusations against real people. Facts means a direct quote of what Rushton said, not some political groups conjecture of what Rushton meant Saturdayseven 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I quoted exactly from the source. You claim that there is a problem but have presented no evidence except personal feelings. If you have a source, give it.Ultramarine 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You quoted a source giving CONJECTURE not FACTS and libelous conjecture to boot. If you don't know the difference between OPINION and FACTS then I don't want you editing wikipedia Saturdayseven 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave a source. That source may of course be disputed, but not by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Do you have an opposing source? Ultramarine 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You gave a source giving CONJECTURE about what Rushton meant, you did not give a source giving FACTS about what Rushton said (i.e. direct quote of what Rushton said). Stop adding LIBELOUS CONJECTURE to wikipedia articles because wikipedia uses reliable sources, ESPECIALLY for controversial content in living person bios. You're lucky I haven't reported you to the living person notice board. Instead you're the one trying to report me for removing your libelous smears. What a joke. Saturdayseven 21:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually a direct quote is even worse. Rushton: "But people are pulling their hair out and are saying, ‘What about Toronto the Good? Where did it go to?’ What about Ottawa? I’m sure it is the same? What about Montreal? I’ll bet you it’s the same. I’ll bet it’s the same in every bloody city in Canada where you have black people. It’s inevitable that it won’t be." Rushton Revisited, Ottawa Citizen, Sept. 1, 2005.Ultramarine 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the direct quote Rushton is commenting on some of the inevitable growing pains in a multicultural society and how changes in Toronto are percieved by some. To say "Toronto the good has been WRECKED by black people" is your sources conjecture of what Rushton meant, not FACTS. You are adding EXTREMELY INFLAMATORY CONJECTURE to wikipedia and I wish you would stop Saturdayseven 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given two sources, including the exact quote (which is far worse than the paraphrase). You have only presented your unsourced personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you give a hundred sources. You violated wikipedia policy by adding LIBELOUS CONJECTURE to an article and you WASTED everyone's time by reporting the one editor (me) who was responsible enough to remove it. Saturdayseven 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately Attribution states that you have to care about sources. I have presented sources, you have not.Ultramarine 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And fortunately WP:BLP states you can't go around using UNRELIABLE sources such as CONJECTURE to libel and smear people Saturdayseven 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no conjecture regarding the direct quote. Regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center paraphrase, you personally think it is bad one. I think not, the direct quote is worse. But both of these opinions are uninteresting since Wikipedia require attribution.Ultramarine 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The direct quote is itself conjecture on what Rushton meant. Sources that rely on conjecture are not reliable sources ESPECIALLY when it comes to smearing people Saturdayseven 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is a quote, something someone said, not a conjecture.Ultramarine 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But if what they said itself is conjecture, it does not meet wikipedia standards for making libelous smears. In addition it's arguable whether Rushton even qualifies as a public figure and thus we must adhear to WP:NPF which states In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist. You may also wish to read WP:BLP In addition the Southern Poverty Law Centre is a political organization and thus violates WP:BLP which states Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Saturdayseven 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More unsourced personal opinions, the direct quote from a newspaper is quite clear. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is not a political organization any more than Amnesty. Regarding harm, "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred.".Ultramarine 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you citing them again after being told they are a partisan source on this issue and thus can not be used to add derogatory content ESPECIALLY to a non-public figure. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American non-profit legal organization, whose stated purpose is to combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education, and litigation. All noble goals to be sure, but they are explicitly non-neutral on issues of race Saturdayseven 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that both of you debate this somewhere other than the 3RR noticeboard. Take it to user talk. This page gets bulky enough as it is without wild debates going out of control in reports. --Wildnox(talk) 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bomac reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 96h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:56, 16 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 17:01, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:02, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:05, 16 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:11, 17 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * The user has repeatedly erased the fact that the song is Bulgarian. The user has been blocked on five occasions before for violating 3RR, the last time for 48 hours.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

6th 3RR violation + personal attack in edit summary = 96 hours. Khoikhoi 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:67.163.193.239 reported by User:QuagmireDog (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

Comment: This should be reported somewhere else, there is no current 3RR violation and the diffs supplied are from March 15. --Wildnox(talk) 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: Anon. has been blocked already for spamming survival horror games' external links, has come straight from the ban into more of the same, there are more recent examples in their edit history. The times don't seem to fit exactly into 3RR, but even if that's the case it would probably be gaming the system. If this action is incorrect, please at least give me a hint of what I should be doing (not had to deal with vandal/spam before, system is confusing and I really don't want all anons locked out of the page for this user's interference). Thanks. QuagmireDog 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any idea where? It's simple spam as opposed to vandalism, and requesting a page block seems extreme. Here are more identical reversions:, and . Apart from waiting for the user to trap themselves with more than three edits (considering this post that possibility has already been broadcast in neon lights), I don't see how I can do any more other than revert-war back (which I don't want to do since all I'm doing is removing a little spammy language, not something I should be slapped on the wrists for). QuagmireDog 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe try WP:AN/I, that is kind of a catch all report page. --Wildnox(talk) 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'll wait till this is closed one way or another then take it to AN/I if necessary. QuagmireDog 19:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result: 24h)
User Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom notice of only one (1) revert per day per article on the Treaty_of_Kars page  Also, in an additional violation of ArbCom, user Aivazovsky did not discuss his changes in the Talk page.
 * 1st revert on 08:09, March 17, 2007:
 * 2nd revert on 09:55, March 17, 2007:
 * 3rd revert (partial) on 11:29, March 17, 2007:

Comment He has a history of violations of both 3RR rule and 1RR injunction (e.g., see above case on 12 March). He has been very disruptive on this and other pages, by eliminating any references from Azerbaijani and Turkish sites, whilst preserving and inserting Armenian sites. He also claims (in his third, partial, revert) that Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Georgian SSR did not exist by October 1921, when the Treaty was concluded, which is false, as the first two existed since April 1920 and November 1920 respectively, whilst the third one since early 1921. --AdilBaguirov 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since I at first had trouble finding the injunction on the page, here is a quote of the section to help any admin looking at this report: Temporary injunction

1) Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. --Wildnox(talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artw reported by User:Beachy (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 19:10, 5 February 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:35, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:01, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:29, 17 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:11, 17 March 2007

ArtW has been removing a key quote by Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the Web, and director of the W3C) in the Web 2.0 article. I did not revert ArtW's original reversion and instead created a discussion on the talk page which became a vote. After over a month of voting, the outcome was to include the quote by Tim Berners-Lee. When I reinstated it, ArtW then removed the quote again, three times in less than 24 hours.

No violation, only three reverts have taken place. Please use dispute resolution, not a vote, WP:NOT a democracy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:However whatever reported by Gwen Gale 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

Single topic user persists in attempting to revert-war over his assertion despite my repeated requests that he support his assertion with a reliable citation and stop edit-warring. I have also tried re-wordings and warnings. This user immediately reverted me after being warned he was in danger of violating 3rr on his talk page. Gwen Gale 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Both violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Gale reported by However whatever 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :
 * 1st revert : 11:07, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert : 17:31, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:27, 16 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:17, 17 March 2007

This new user seems rather familiar with this page. Meanwhile I support WP policy and the 3rr rule. I'm stepping back and will not be editing this article for at least a day, at which time I may ask for an RfC. Gwen Gale 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Malfunction reported by User:Wildnox (Result: 72h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: The reverts by this user and his IP go far back


 * 1st revert: 17:58, 16 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:05, 16 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:04, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:24, 17 March 2007
 * User has been blocked multiple times for 3RR in the past.


 * Comments: Another 3RR violation from a user who only exists on wikipedia to perpetuate multiple edit wars. He appears to be the currently blocked 194.144.111.210, who was blocked in the same edit war for a period of month, afterwhich Malfunction appeared, no only to attempt to remove block notices from 194.144.111.210's page, but to pick up where 194.144.111.210 left off. I suggest that this user not only be blocked, but the block set to a length to match 194.144.111.210's current block. I assume this would cause no problems since this user has no contributions other than edit warring. --Wildnox(talk) 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The user is also bordering on 3RR violation on Nu metal.--Wildnox(talk) 22:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

72 hours. Khoikhoi 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:203.46.189.91 reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result: page prot)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:27, 6 March 2


 * 1st revert: 21:09, 10 March 2007 - removed prose tags, with other changes
 * 2nd revert: 21:33, 10 March 2007 - from here on out, it's just about the prose tags
 * 3rd revert: 09:10, 11 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:14, 11 March 2007


 * Comments: Edit war over the inclusion of the "prose" template. This user has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule before. Also, it is believed that this is the IP of User:Asgardian, who also has been blocked for violating this rule twice before. I have not requested an official IP check as thus far it has not been necessary. --GentlemanGhost 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This happened almost a week ago, making the report stale. We block people to stop edit wars, not to punish them. However, I notice that the anon has been removing the tags, so I've semi-protected the article. If he/she is indeed Asgardian, then this will force him to log-in. If Asgardian is using the IP abusively, try WP:RFCU. Khoikhoi 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CovenantD reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result: page prot)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:01, 8 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 21:22, 10 March 2007 - Added prose templates back in
 * 2nd revert: 22:36, 10 March 2007 - Ditto for the following diffs
 * 3rd revert: 09:12, 11 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:18, 11 March 2007


 * Comments: The unfortunate flip side to the above. I sympathize with CovenantD, but it does take two to edit war. CovenantD has also been blocked for violating this rule before. --GentlemanGhost 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What good does it do to report an edit war from 6 days ago here? --Wildnox(talk) 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected, see above. Khoikhoi 02:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MadeinFinland reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:50, 17 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 20:44, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:24, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 17 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:02, 17 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 00:00, 18 March 2007
 * 7th revert: 00:03, 18 March 2007
 * 8th revert: 00:09, 18 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:40, 17 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * 24 hours. Crum375 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Halaqah reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: 72 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :
 * Previous version reverted to: 17:15, 16 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 11:49, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:58, 17 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 17 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:14, 18 March 2007


 * Comments: For some strange and rather incomprehensible reason, User:Halaqah keeps vehemently and vociferously claiming that the Arabic word Zanj &#1586;&#1606;&#1580; doesn't mean what every Arabic-English dictionary says that it means, and continually tries to impose this misunderstanding onto the article, even though no other user in the discussions at Talk:Zanj has ever supported his position... AnonMoos 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

72 hours, user's fourth violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Penser reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 2007-03-17 09:25:44
 * 2nd revert: 2007-03-17 13:00:44
 * 3rd revert: 2007-03-18 01:55:29
 * 4th revert: 2007-03-18 02:30:20


 * Comments:
 * Note that despite the fact this editor has an empty userpage, his contrib history shows that he is not a new user. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First edit was a content change, not a revert. No violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dereks1x reported by User:Ronbo76 (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: DIFFS Revision as of 12:21, March 17, 2007
 * 2nd revert: DIFFS Revision as of 12:26, March 17, 2007
 * 3rd revert: DIFFS Revision as of 12:38, March 17, 2007
 * 4th revert: DIFFS Revision as of 12:50, March 17, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFS Current revision (12:45, March 17, 2007)


 * Comments:
 * Warnings were issued to Dereks1x because he began to delete material to Obama's article in based upon what he deemed non-important. His actions seem to stem from the Obama talkpage discussion about his attendance at a high school (please see Dereks1x assertion of notability).

This point becomes important because after his deletions to Obama's article he inserted a POV statement about Punahou HS (please see Punahou School fact diffs).

My actions were as Recent Changes Patrol editor who has Obama's article on my Watchlist because it receives lots of vandalism. When Dereks1x 14th edit/deletion to this article was made (please see 14th edit diffs, I contacted him on his talkpage (please see Last edit to Barack Obama deleted cited material diffs) asking him not to delete cited material and to seek consensus on that article's talkpage.

When he continued to delete cited material based upon his interpretation of importance I reverted him twice and issued him a Level One Delete template message diffs followed by a advice to discuss on talkpage intentions diffs.

After the first revert, I went to Obama's talkpage to discuss the basis of my revert diffs. When Dereks1x replied on that talkpage diffs with no edit summary {as well as a break-up of the header because of this user's inexperience in placing a sig on a talkpage}, I realized that he was on an edit war and that my subsequent reversion/title=User_talk:Dereks1x&diff=next&oldid=115859674 Level two message diffs to him was not going to sway him.

When Dereks1x continued to delete material, I issued him a 3RR Warning.

At this point, I wrote on Obama's talkpage that I would not engage in an edit war with this user (please see recommend another editor review today's deletions diffs). Ronbo76 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR vio, and disruptive editing. Rlevse 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rbaish reported by Sam Blacketer (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:26, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:45, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:28, 18 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:16, 18 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:03, 18 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:06, 18 March 2007


 * No specific warning was given; however the user was previously warned about the rule, and then blocked when he broke it. He was also warned against edit-warring on another article earlier today.


 * Comments: The material which Rbaish seeks to add is questionable under the biographies of living people policy.


 * 48 hour block, also BLP and NPOV vios.Rlevse 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Drono reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:08, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:54, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:25, 18 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:57, 18 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:08, 18 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:01, 18 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:11, 18 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * 3RR vio, 24 hours.Rlevse 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IP 67.81.252.247 reported by User:TheRingess (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:33, 13 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:19, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:46, 18 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:02, 18 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:44, 18 March 2007

Comment: User has been blocked for previous violation of 3RR on this same article. Repeated attempts to communicate were ignored until the last couple of revisions. User continued to revert.

QUESTION: IP is putting in a ref, what's the issue with the ref?Rlevse 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 2 issues. The user continues to delete material, without stating that they are.  Secondly, the reference supplied is about something called "11:11 synchronicity occurrence".  It's not clear what this occurrence is supposed to be except it's supposed to happen in the future.  The material does not present it as a belief, but as an actual physical phenomenon.  The material then attempts to say that some people have theories about this phenomenon.  Instead of constantly reverting the article, the user needs to consider Wikipedia's guidelines regarding original research.  The Nasa reference has nothing to do with something called "11:11 synchronicity occurrence".  A quick look at The God Code on amazon also reveals nothing about any beliefs in an occurrence.  A quick look at the maya link reveals that it has something to do with "The True Meaning of the Maya Calendar End-Date".TheRingess (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 48 hr block.Rlevse 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:TallulahBelle reported by User:Stbalbach (Result:12 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: March 17, 23:56
 * 2nd revert: March 18, 00:29
 * 3rd revert: March 18, 11:11
 * 4th revert: March 18, 16:48

In addition a warning was given after the 3rd revert on the users page and the user is calling good faith edits "vandalism" and left the following message on the talk page:
 * The historiography article has a veneer of gobbledy-gook that I hope to remove, so long as people hoping to maintain that gobbledy-gook get out of my way. (top of the page).

-- Stbalbach 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 12 hours by another admin, just helping to document here.Rlevse 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:However whatever reported by User:Gwen Gale (Result: Deferred)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Resumption of edit warring immediately after his block expired


 * 1st revert: 22:38, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:40, 18 March 2007

This user was blocked yesterday for 3rr. Immediately upon his return he resumed edit warring, mostly over a single word in the article (which was omitted by an editor other than myself yesterday). This user is a single-issue editor with a blank user page and exhibits the characteristics of a PoV warring sockpuppet. An immediate return to edit warring after a block for 3rr is a violation of 3rr. Gwen Gale 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now a personal attack too Gwen Gale 23:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And another Gwen Gale 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Deferred pending outcome of checkuser request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RFCU URL was moved to here now. - Denny 12:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:67.163.193.239 reported by User:DennyColt (Result: 31 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 17:24, March 18, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, March 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:28, March 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:30, March 18, 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:31, March 18, 2007

Persistent/militant link spamming on. See also the talk page, where they seem to be unwilling to stop based on comments. - Denny 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

31 hours, this address was already recently blocked for linkspam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:84.217.169.79 reported by User:DennyColt (Result: Already blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 16:04, March 18, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:59, March 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:01, March 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:07, March 18, 2007

Persistent link spamming on. - Denny 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Steel359. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon reported by User:csloat (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:49, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:00, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:01, 18 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:05, 18 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 18 March 2007

It's a pretty clear-cut case of 4 reverts in 24 hrs. His edit summary cites BLP issues, but he never explains these in talk, and he is removing comments from the subject of the biography. He also won't engage the discussion on this article or on Juan Cole, where he has also reverted 4 times (though the first change was arguable as a revert, which is why he was not reported there). His refusal to discuss his changes - particularly changes which have been discussed by others explicitly and justified in talk - as well as his previous block history should be taken into account when determining the length of the block. csloat 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the BLP issues can be viewed from here on down on the article talk page. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Subject is on record in reliable sources stating the claims to be true, BLP does not apply to sourced information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat reported by Isarig 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:33, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:04, 17 March 2007 - described as 'restore deleted material ' in edit summary
 * 2nd revert: 07:57, 18 March 2007 - described as "rv" in edit summary
 * 3rd revert: 08:09, 18 March 2007 - described as "removed clause" in edit summary
 * 4th revert: 20:55, 18 March 2007

This editor is a serial 3RR violator, and has been blocked for it 5 times already. Isarig 04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:70.121.7.89 reported by User:Ward3001 (Result: Already blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 03:38, 19 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:42, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:50, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:51, 19 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 03:52, 19 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 03:53, 19 March 2007
 * 7th revert: 03:57, 19 March 2007

Discussion: 7 reverts in 19 minutes. User also made personal attacks on editors.

Already blocked 24 hours by Borisblue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:25, 19 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:49, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:50, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:00, 19 March 2007


 * Comments: Recently blocked for edit warring, another multiple revert on Nazism from User:Billy Ego. Last edit not exactly the same but his intent remains to thwart normal editing procedures and ignore all attempts to discuss in a reasoned way. MarkThomas 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a 3RR violation. MarkThomas you've been trying to intimidate and harrass me. Stop it. You're reverting a benign change to a sentence just because you have some personal problem with me. You've even been vandalizing me userpage. Note to the adminstrator that sees this that Mark Thomas has been edit warring. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&action=history] He's not even explaining his reversions. Billy Ego 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If true, you would have to include a whole bunch of admins and other editors who have "personal problems" with the way you edit. MarkThomas 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see one original edit, and three reverts. Does not appear to be a violation. Nor does it appear that MarkThomas has made more than three reverts in the last 24 hours. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew reported by User:Minderbinder (Result:no violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:30, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:56, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:47, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:54, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:21, 19 March 2007

Last revert labled "rvv" although I'd hardly call a dispute over an aesthetic change "vandalism". --Minderbinder 17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". Matthew
 * There are only 3 reverts there.. There was over a 30 hour difference between Revert 1 and Revert 2.. Matthew did not break 3RR, I suggest you be a more careful next time when reporting to the noticeboard for 3RR (I'm wording this as nicely as possible).. Have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, honest mistake on my part. --Minderbinder 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: 1 week)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: multiple, see below


 * 1st revert: 03:47, 19 March 2007 revert to 12:12, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:33, 19 March 2007 partial revert to 06:18, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:24, 19 March 2007 revert to 11:52, 19 March 2007
 * (additional revert of more material, but consecutive so still counts as third revert 12:25, 19 March 2007 partial revert to 08:08, 19 March 2007)
 * 4th revert: 12:37, 19 March 2007 revert to 12:25, 19 March 2007

Editor was blocked for 3RR on this same article a few days ago, then reblocked for evading that block with a sock puppet Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal, now has broken 3RR again. --Minderbinder 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:

These are just different edits and redits some of them to my own work. For example, the second "revert" is simply an addition of some completely new text to a section I hadn't touched before.Davkal 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. The second revert is re-adding material you originally added here.  Why would you say you hadn't touched that section before when the diffs clearly show otherwise?  --Minderbinder 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1 week this time for serial violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gstar4 reported by User:Nishkid64 (Result:72 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:14, 17 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:56, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:45, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:15, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:07, 19 March 2007

Editor keeps adding incorrect, unverifiable original research that is both offensive and slanderous against Hindus. He has been repeatedly been told to stop reverting and stop personal attacks, but he persists to continue edit warring on this article and making personal attacks.  Nish kid 64  19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * See his latest personal attack.  Nish kid  64  21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dylan0513 reported by User:Klas3b (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:40, 21 February 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:58, 18 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:22, 18 March 2007 (last warning) (even insulted me and called me an "idiot"!)
 * 3rd revert: 10:54, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:58, 19 March 2007

This user reverted a comprehensive edit without further explaining, and when I gave him a warning for not blanking again, he deleted it up to 4 times. A very stubborn user who does not understand the meaning of a warning and doesn't take me seriously. Klas3b 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I believe you should read when vandalism warnings are appropriate. Your edits were clearly incorrect (and perhaps vandalism), and Dylan did the right thing by reverting to Miltopia's last version. Although I do not endorse the insults, Dylan's reverts on his talk page were reasonably conducted. His edit was not vandalism at all, it was contributive.  Nish kid 64  20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he should discuss it first instead of continuously removing a warning. Even if you think he was right, he could have discussed this matter instead of blatantly starting an edit war. Klas3b 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wobble reported by User:Lukas19 (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Complex, deletion of "racial".


 * 1st revert: 03:33, 19 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:37, 19 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:02, 19 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:35, 19 March 2007


 * Comments:


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Nish kid 64  21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)