Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive42

209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result: Incomplete)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 05:31
 * 2nd revert: 17:04
 * 3rd revert: 00:59
 * 4th revert: 01:46

User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna.

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

209.218.163.2 reported by Yakuman (Result:48 hours )
Three-revert rule violation on . :

Second try:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 05:31
 * 2nd revert: 17:04
 * 3rd revert: 00:59
 * 4th revert: 01:46

User was 3RR blocked earlier this week on Paul McKenna. IP address seems to be a hotel.
 * 48 hours. John Reaves (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Baristarim reported by User:Mardavich (Result:No vio)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:41, 28 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 01:21, 28 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:38, 28 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:54, 28 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:43, 28 March 2007

Not a new user, see block log. --Mardavich 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I only see three reverts, the last looks to be a correction of the third edit. John Reaves (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the last edit he undid the edit made by AtilimGunesBaydin, which was the 67.5 figure. From Help:Reverting: "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past." Also WP:3RR states, "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." --Mardavich 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AncientEyes reported by User:Gerry Ashton (Result: 24 hours)
User:AncientEyes appears to have violated of the 3RR rule at the Common Era article.
 * 19:50, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce identical version of passage that probably contains original research
 * 22:31, 27 March 2007 Reintroduce the passage again
 * 03:15, 28 March 2007 Third reintroduction
 * 05:11, 28 March 2007 Fourth reintroduction

A warning was applied to the user's talk page at 01:56, 28 March 2007 by User:Humus sapiens. --Gerry Ashton 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:58.187.131.24 reported by User:Badagnani (Result: Incomplete)
3RR for multiple (5 in one 24-hour period) reverts, blanking text at Northern and southern Vietnam. Possibly requires warning as s/he may be a new user, but s/he is unwilling to use discussion before engaging in blanking, though s/he has been asked several times in edit summaries. Badagnani 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:75.3.41.234 reported by User:QuizzicalBee (Result:No action)
Three-revert rule violation on

category. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:58, March 26, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:30, March 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:50, March 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:19, March 27, 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:43, March 27, 2007


 * This is now more than a week old, and the edit warring stopped with the last item here. as blocks are suposed to be preventative, not punitive, ther is now no reason to block. Also, not all these edits were strictly reverts, some were simialr but not identical changes. DES (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments:

User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:AjdemiPopushi (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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


 * Comments: User is revert-warring. If you look at his contributions you will see that he is currently revert-warring on several other articles and if you take an even closer look you will see that this user has been rever-warring for most of his time on Wikipedia and most of his contributions are malicious bad faith dirupstions. --AjdemiPopushi 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 48 hour block.Rlevse 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Bwallace07 reported by User:Hrafn42 (Result:page protection)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:11, 27 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:13, 27 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:37, 27 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:38, 27 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:14, 28 March 2007


 * Comments: User has been warned for reverting before (notice on user-talk page). User is revert warring and has explicitly refused to discuss differences: user's last revert has edit-summary: "(POV - talking with profoundly prejudiced individuals is rarely productive)" and user has not made a single post to the article's talk page. Hrafn42 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Checking back further through the article-history, Bwallace07's 'contributions' seem to entirely consist of reverting the article back to a form that is nearly identical to the one he is currently reverting to (Attenuator show a similar pattern, but less frequently). Hrafn42 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [EDIT: replaced 'oldids' with 'difs'] Hrafn42 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * page protection, both seem to reverting the other.Rlevse 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:Blocked 1 week)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:54, 28 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 12:18, 28 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:43, 28 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:57, 28 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:03, 28 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * The user has persistently removed the relevant transliteration in Bulgarian. He has been blocked four times before for 3RR, the last time for 48 hours.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked one week by User:Dmcdevit. Jkelly 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego reported by El_C (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 27 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:32, 27 March 2007


 * 2nd revert: 15:48, 27 March 2007


 * 3rd revert: 16:01, 27 March 2007


 * 4th revert: 21:25, 27 March 2007 → compare with 16:43, 27 March 2007 (i.e. removal of "major capitalists")

Warning:, and dismissal of warning. .


 * Comments:
 * No comment. El_C 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Darwinek reported by User:mt7 (Result: Warnings and page-bans)
at page Tamas Priskin


 * 1sr revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4st revert
 * 5st revert --Mt7 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 6st revert --Mt7 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

all revert from me exception Biographies of living persons, no actuall and appropriate sources rv is always possible --Mt7 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable behavior from both of you, particularly in light of the pending arbitration case at Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. The BLP exception to 3RR does not apply because the information cannot reasonably be considered controversial, negative, or defamatory, but is purely a categorization issue. I do not want to block either of you because your participation may be needed in the arbitration case, but Darwinek and Mt7 are banned from Tamas Priskin for 48 hours. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad reported by Atabek (Result: use a different page)
User:Artaxiad violated the temporary revert parole issued in the ArbCom case, which says:


 * each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

User:Artaxiad has reverted the article Karabakh only leaving the word "rv" in explanation of edit, and no justification provided on the talk page.Atabek 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:09, 25 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:25, 28 March 2007 -- without justification on talk page.


 * Comments:
 * Don't use this page, please. Use WP:ANI instead. Infact, there might even be a special page for this, but I don't know it. --Deskana (talk)  20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Already brought to ANI, where I advised Artaxiad not to proceed in this fashion. Will be dealt with elsewhere; no action needed here. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes d reported by User:Domitius (Result: 3 days)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:51, 27 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:07, 27 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:53, 28 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:18, 28 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:59, 28 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:14, 29 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 00:33, 29 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * User knows about the 3RR and has been blocked for violating it before on this same article. There may have been more reverts but as you can see, the article is highly edited at the moment so it's hard to work out. That's why I have only listed the reverts where he actually admits to reverting in the edit summary.--Domitius 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 3 days for repeated violation of the 3RR. --Deskana (talk)  23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:UBeR (Result:No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:25, 26 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:37, 27 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, 27 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:00, 28 March 2007

Given the disruptiveness of his vandalism at History of the Yosemite area, and that he obviously hasn't breached the 3 revers in 24 hour rule, I suggest the following rule be applied: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'. 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." It clears he's not willing to quit either. His edit summaries of "stupid tag" is quite evident that he's not doing so on the basis of any policy. Last I checked, "stupid tag" was not a valid reason to remove them. Despite having discussed this on the talk page and warning him on his talk page, he thinks it prudent to continue this edit war. I reckon not necessarily making more than 3 reverts per day is still grounds for a block to allow a cool off for 24 hours. I suggest that. ~ UBeR 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * It will be for an admin to decide, but if the strict application of the 24 hour period is waived, then the history of the article shows that UBeR has similarly made the same number of reverts over roughly the same period as William M. Connolley. The rule for three revert rule enforcement is to be fair to both sides if they have behaved the same way, as I paraphrase it from the top of this page. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Deskana (talk)  23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reverting William's vandalism of removing the template on the basis of "stupid." I did not begin by reverting any edit. I was simply reverting back the vandalism to the last good faith edit. His breach of policy is clear. Also note Deskana is trying to engage in this edit war. ~ UBeR 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Vandalism != disagrees with you. --Deskana (talk)  23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man. Removing bona fide and applicable templates repeatedly = vandalism. ~ UBeR 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if the person doesn't think they're applicable. You're the only person sofar who thinks they're applicable: me and WMC both think theyd don't belong there, and El_C thinks readding it is borderline vandalism. Give up, please. I don't want to edit war with you. --Deskana (talk)  23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might have some POV-pushers on your side. But in my corner, my partner trumps any administrator: WP:ATT policy. ~ 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had enough of you. No further responses. --Deskana (ya rly)  22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to view the insertion of that tag as borderline vandalism. This is a borderline case. No action. El_C 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ATT is you haven't already. ~ UBeR 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're talking to a guy that's been an admin for nearly two years. Considered that you might be wrong, yet UBeR? --Deskana (talk)  23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not deny people look at status before looking at edits. Surely, I will admit to being wrong if you admit WP:ATT is wrong too. ~ UBeR 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To give some context: The article is a featured article, and a historical overview largely based on a number of similar overviews cited in the  references section. While the number of inline references is limited, the article seems adequately referenced. UBeR now seems to apply a standard that requires an individual inline reference for every statement made. He repeatedly applied a  tag that William removed.  The back-story is a conflict about the degree of referencing necessary in the global warming and related articles. In a related discussion, William used the article in question as an example for the standard of referencing applies in other featured articled. UBeR promptly went there and added the tag in what to me very much looks like a classical WP:POINT maneuver. --Stephan Schulz 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're backwards. It's nice to state it like I'm readding a removed template than it is to state it correctly: William is removing a bona fide template. The problem isn't about a section of citations. Every article should have one. The problem is attributing them. Just look at the policy: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template, or tag the article by adding  or  . Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]" Instead of removing referenced statements, or making a mess with , I'm adding a template at the top so as to alert readers and editors alike--the more sensible thing to do. This isn't about points (he was suggesting that I would tag up the entire article with  tags anyway), but rather policy that even administrators are failing to abide by. ~ UBeR 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. Continue to argue a lost cause against overwhelming consensus, and I will consider blocking you for disruption to give you time to read up a bit on policies, and for good measure, to read WP:TE, which may be of some help to you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is POV? I thought that was the definition of opinion. It's a nice essay nonetheless. I'm sad to see you're willing to block anyone who disagrees with you (despite clear arguing in favor of Wikipedia policies). ~ UBeR 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To whom are you speaking? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * UBeR, I have no connection to this article or any of the other people here. After looking at the record, I think you are being unreasonable and disruptive. Please take a deep breath and try to find ways to work with other editors, before you get yourself blocked. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SamEV reported by User:Jersey Devil (Result:48 hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:47, 28 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:41, 28 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:54, 28 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:18, 28 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:57, 28 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:39, 29 March 2007


 * Comments: The user has already been blocked once on for edit warring on the same article as recently as March 19. so he is aware of the 3rr policy.--Jersey Devil 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's undoubtedly a 3RR violation by him and him alone, and given the recent 3RR block, he should certainly know better. However, in this terse edit summary, it looks to me like he's agreed to stop edit warring. Since blocks should be preventative rather than punitive, let's wait and see. If he continues to be disruptive after finally agreeing to calm down, it will then be grounds for a lengthier block. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 48 hrs per previous block. Viridae Talk 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result:)
user:Aivazovsky is part of the ArbCom but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, has modified the Qazakh page (History of the page ) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diff is:


 * Revision by Aivazovsky: 21:52, March 28, 2007

Comment: admin Thatcher asked to place these violations reports here for faster response as opposed to ArbCom page. --adil 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show what this was a revert to? I can't see it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * aren't parties to Arbcom supposed to discuss all major changes on Talk page, not just partial or full reverts? He archived the Talk page of the Qazakh article, thus cleaning it completely, and then added one of the proposed wordings to the article, without explaining it in the Talk page. Since that wording (or compromise version, as he says) was not authored by him, but another user whilst the page was locked, isn't this considered a partial revert? --adil 07:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom injunction only requires discussion of reverts. If you'd like to change that, you'll have to talk to ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dr Lisboa reported by User:TheologyJohn (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on Jesus. User: Dr Lisboa:

The three above don't come with the 3RR. They were two days ago
 * Previous version reverted to: 09:36, 27 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 15:29, 27 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:54, 27 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:59, 27 March 2007


 * 4th revert: 06:28, 29 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:51, 29 March 2007
 * 6th revert: 07:32, 29 March 2007
 * 7th revert: 08:41, 29 March 2007
 * 8th revert: 15:52, 29 March 2007
 * 9th revert: 16:48, 29 March 2007
 * 10th revert: 05:36, 30 March 2007
 * 11th revert: 07:10, 30 March 2007

The recent edits don't come with the 3RR because they added new refernces in response to the consensus of the discussion.

(A.J.A. 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ed to add:)
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Diff of 3rr warning on user talk:

Dr Lisboa has stated that this edit does not constitute 3RR because she believes, in spite of unanimity on the talk page from all editors apart from her that this section should be removed, that those who are removing it are vandals.


 * User:TheologyJohn has been breaching the very same rules that she is complaining about. She is also making false claims about the 3RR rule being breached. There have only been three reverts. The other instance was adding a paragraph that had been removed many edits before. She is also : attempting meat puppetry by trying to bring in known allies to support her, failing to support her contentions with references, failing to assume good faith whilst at the same time hypocritically claiming to others that they should, and she has been attempting to impose bias on an article. All of these are inbreach of Wikipedia guidelines. She is using this allegation as yet another means of suppressing opposing views and imposing religious bias. --Dr Lisboa 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, and rather insignificantly, Dr Lisboa has made an inaccurate guess about my gender. I am male.

Secondly, there have been four reverts -, , , and. The first revert (ie number 4) was a revert of an edit made a while ago, but it was still a revert, as Dr Lisboa acknowledged in her fourth edit (number 1).

I have not failed to assume good faith, I have not once "brought in known allies to support" me (unless commenting on the talk page of the Jesus page about this 3RR report qualifies as this, which I suppose it could be, since all the editors aside from Dr Lisboa are on my side about the inclusion of the paragraph. I also commented about this on Dr Lisboa's own talk page.  I did both as a way of alerting interested readers about this being discussed, so they could agree or disagree.  The fact that everyone bar Dr Lisboa was likely to agree with me was not relevant to this, although it was relevant to my decision to report.)  My contribs list will show this.

I don't know if I really need to respond to her string of personal attacks, since they are irrelevant to the 3RR. I would, however, like to defend my reputation by stating that I have not been making any such attacks myself (although she has been directing such attacks against a number of editors). TJ 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The first alteration doe not come with the 3RR because it did not revert all before it. It merely added a paragraph that was there many edits before. There is no 3RR breach. Also, rather insignificantly, TJ has made an inaccurate guess about my gender. I am male. All the other allegations concerning TJ are plainly true as can be seen by referring to the Jesus talk page. --Dr Lisboa 14:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my wrong guess about your gender. Your revert was a revert of this edit, as you well know. this was an edit made only a day before. The fact that a few other edits had been made in the mean time does not have any bearing on this, as you made four reverts on one day. As you admitted in the last of those.

I have no interest in responding to any further of your personal attacks. Any interested parties can go to Talk:Jesus or my contribs list and see that they are untrue.TJ 14:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone that goes there will see precisely how true they are. Serious bias is being attempted by TJ by all possible means. Trying to impose his extreme Christian views using tactics like this is clearly in breach of WP guidelines. --Dr Lisboa 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have properly formatted this nomination, and added the latest revert, and 3 reverts from 2 days ago. This shows a pattern of edit warring. There is NO need to edit an article during a content dispute. You can't force your edits on wikipedia. We work by mutual consensus and compromise. During a content dispute, don't edit the article until there is consensus for the changes on talk. On top of that, it is notable that at least 2 redlinked users have been doing the EXACT SAME revert as Dr Lisboa, so a checkuser may be in place to see if sockpuppets are being used in an attempt to avoid 3rr. -Andrew c 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above user himself reverted without discussion or explanation, which makes hypocritical of others reverting who did so after prior discussion. --Dr Lisboa 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some people reverting to keep an established. Ther are some reverting to delete it. They are not the exact same as is very obvious when viewing the reverts. --Dr Lisboa 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a HUGE amount of discussion on the talk page concerning Dr. Lisboa's proposals and edits. As far as I can tell, it is mostly Dr. Lisboa repeating herself, and various people raising valid questions, issues, and challenges.  As far as I can tell, all historically active editors (which includes non-Christians) are opposed to Dr. Lisboa's edit because it is unsourced and repeats material already in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has been resorting to a series of personal attacks on the Jesus article. She is already in breach of a large number of WP rules. She had added nothing useful and so instead she is trying to abuse her intolerant views on everybody. An agreed and well worded version of a section was added but she keeps trying to override that by deleting it without any justifed reason. She is now trying to abuse 3RR as another attempt at imposing her intolerant and her extremist views. She should be reprimanded for her miscoduct. --Dr Lisboa 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frome the top of this very page: Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
 * Can some admin please process this report? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 11:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this is closed, but I am adding that Dr Lisboa violated 3RR twice, once

prompting the initial 3RR report, and once while the report was open. Also, there may be possible sockpuppetry, so I have filed Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Lisboa. Finally, the editor in question, edited this 3RR report to insert commentary into the diff section (and I also want to note that AJA's listed reverts are redundent with the 8th and 9th ones).-Andrew c 13:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:50, 23 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:44, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:45, 29 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:50, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 29 March 2007


 * Comments:


 * has been repeatedly inserting fake references (for example, trying to masquerade an anonymous server from India as American Museum of Natural History) into the article. The article is on AFD now, and many people have voted for deletion. However, Atul has posted personal attacks against other users via rants in a lot of different talk pages, and keeps reverting the article back to the fake reference version. He knows of WP:3RR as he has been previously blocked for violating 3RR. --Ragib 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. John Reaves (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:AJ-India reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:12, 29 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:18, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:24, 29 March 2007 (from anon IP sockpuppet)
 * 3rd revert: 12:27, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:31, 29 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:30, 29 March 2007


 * Comments: Note that this user has refused to discuss on his User talk:AJ-India despite several attempts by me to ask him to revert his 4RR'th change and instead attacked both me and another editor for our trouble. MarkThomas 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

234 hours. Viridae Talk 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

5RR by User:Yahya01 reported by User:Ragib (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:51, 29 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:25, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:30, 29 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:49, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:04, 29 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:23, 29 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * The user has repeatedly pasted lengthy and potentially copyvio text into the article. He has been blocker for 3RR before. --Ragib 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours for edit-warring in the face of copyright concerns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yahya01 is evading the block via anonymous ip socks and also making personal attacks. This shows 3 more reverts by the blocked user. --Ragib 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:66.28.139.24 reported by User:They call me Mr. Pibb (Result: 24 hours indef block on two open proxies)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:11, 29 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:46, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:47, 29 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:55, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:08, 30 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * User is vandalizing page including removing text from the article without explaining why, Also changed Image from a thumbnail to a large picture, Also resorts to cursing abeit in Spanish

24 hours for disruption and attacks, left a message in Spanish. Hopefully that'll get the point across. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears the 24 hour edit ban of this user was not initated because they have returned before the expiry using the same IP address to vandalize the Southern Comfort article again. I think more drastic measures need to be taken. They call me Mr. Pibb 02:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 2 open proxies— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lifebonzza reported by User:Kerr avon (Result: Incomplete)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:40, 28 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:02, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:34, 29 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:54, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:24, 29 March 2007

User:Lifebonzza who's contributions  indicate a possible SPA, has been edit warring regarding the inclusion of controversial material from a self published source  by MIA's own promoter (Stephen Loveridge is the co-producer of MIA's website) containing serious allegations against third parties ("The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas"). It violates WP:RS, and WP:BLP too. Attempts at resolving the edit via the talk page have been disregarded by the said user resulting in User:Lifebonzza violating 3RRR.
 * Comments:

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am new to this process, hence the error, here are the diff's,


 * 1st revert: 14:02, 29 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:34, 29 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:54, 29 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:24, 29 March 2007

Kerr avon 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My edits were to restore information cited with sources that were blanked by User:Kerr avon before discussion, as well as restoring edits made that were lost after his revert. Also removing pov on the article . Lifebonzza 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This edit was not a revert. 20:24, 29 March 2007 Lifebonzza 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lifebonzza had continued to edit war regarding the article in a disruptive fashion/Kerr avon 07:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? You removed from an article cited information without discussion, which constitutes WP:Vandalism, and added material that was false and pov on the article. This edit by myself (done on 17:34) was made before your first post on the discussion page (17:45) . Even before consensus was reached on the discussion, you proceeded to revert. You engaged in a  Personal attack against me, also violating WP:Assume good faith on the M.I.A. talk page  and ignored requests to discuss fully before blanking information. Lifebonzza 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clalling you a WP:SPA is not a personal attack, its a fact as your edits prove . It is you who have continued to engage in a revert war with me and others regarding disputed and uncited content or content from sources which violate WP:RS. I never removed properly cited information, but information which was cited but was not from a reliable source, MIA's own promoter is a self published source.Kerr avon 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This edit clearly demonstrates you removed information cited from the BBC before discussion, which proves completely wrong your above assertion that you "never removed properly cited information, but information which was cited but was not from a reliable source, MIA's own promoter is a self published source." AND you added pov and blatantly false information on the article .Lifebonzza 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The cited information regarding BBC's claims of abductions can be moved to the Sri lankan Army page if needed rather than trying to push your own POV. Also your edit which stated that " The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas and bombed roads and escape routes" is completely uncited, POV and violates wikpiedia's guidlines. About me stating that Arulpragasam (MIA's father) was a terrorist, just see  which described EROS which was founded by MIA's father as "the group was responsible for a string of bombings in Sri Lanka in the mid-1980s as well as for the kidnapping of British journalist Penelope Willis", and  which states "Daughter of Tamil Tiger terrorist whose father trained with PLO in Lebanon extols terrorism on albums".Kerr avon 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly clear from your own contributions that it is you pushing your POV and agenda on these articles. You now admit blanking cited information that survived at least two reviews, without discussion, as well as adding POV and blatantly false information including that she moved to the "Phillipines in the far north of the arctic???!!!???. The souces you list here do not fulfil WP:RS and your claims and edits that are heavily disputed and do not fulfil NPOV are in violation of WP:BLP. You also contradict yourself in which group her father belonged to, but regardless, your edits violated WP:NPOV and were completely false and were thus removed. Lifebonzza 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this. Take it one of your own talk pages.  Thank you. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 09:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PaddyM reported by User:Miaers (Result: 24 hours/2 weeks)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:


 * Comments:

Both editors broke 3RR. 24 hours for PaddyM, 2 weeks for Miaers as he just came off a 1-week block for the same edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:A_Man_In_Black reported by User:72.67.45.115 (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:08, 29 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:32, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:51, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:36, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:07, 30 March 2007


 * Comments:
 * 82.26.*.* is an anon that has been reverting my edits wholesale, and when I realized how many anons were inserting a link against an established discussion, I just anon-protected. I am kind of curious about an anon who has come directly to AN3 with no history, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Third revert was by an anon whose only edits have been following AMIB around to harass by undoing his edits. No action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemonster2k1 reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:26, March 29, 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:07, March 29, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:57, March 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:26, March 30, 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:26, March 30, 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:40, March 30, 2007


 * Comments: Also, continuous reverts by three anonymous IPs originating from the same area/ISP in the UK. May or may not be related. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Badagnani has never understood 3RR. The first edit is not a revert.  --Ideogram 06:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the diffs. There is no fourth revert, but see my comment below. Kafziel Talk 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend blocking both of them. I'm not going to do it myself because I've had discussions with them in the past, but Badagnani has broken 3RR in spirit with this comment, inciting another editor to continue the edit war for him. These two are constantly edit warring in one place or another, both have been blocked for 3RR before, and I think we're beyond waiting for the full 4 reverts every time. Kafziel Talk 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teabing-Leigh reported by User:Kjartan8 (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on . as himself and anonymous ip 202.163.67.241 and an obvious sock puppet (contribs)


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 30 March 2007 and 07:23, 30 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:34, 30 March 2007 Reverted Anonymously
 * 2nd revert: 06:40, 30 March 2007 Reverted Anonymously
 * 3rd revert: 06:42, 30 March 2007 Reverted Anonymously
 * 4th revert: 06:47, 30 March 2007 Reverted slyly after logging in so as to pretend to be a different user
 * 5th revert: 07:28, 30 March 2007 removal of tags placed by me
 * 6th revert: - as a sock puppet YLH
 * 7th revert: as sock puppet YLH

- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comments: If you look at the contributions of the user Teabing-Leigh and the anonymous ip and YLH  it is clearly the same person (YLH suddenly appears as T-Leigh and has ben editing the same article and revert-wars on Direct Action Day). User has created numerous disruptions, violating WP:POINT. He has created articles that have been tagged for deleting, such as Gandhi's Racism and Gandhi's views on Race and numerous forks of Direct Action Day that have been speedily deleted.His edits are filled with original research and unverified claims which he revert-wars to keep.Kjartan8 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * New development - He has since attacked me with incivility and assumed bad faith  Kjartan8 07:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Suspected sock puppets is to your left, Checkuser requests to the right. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And is already on SSP anyway, it'll be examined there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw and did that. Even despite YLH there is still 3rr violation question (anonymous and T-Leigh are self-admittedly the same person as established by their posts on Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi%27s_views_on_race ). Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh for further corroboration.Kjartan8 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of clearing up the SSP backlog. It will be gotten to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mardavich reported by User:The Behnam (Result:Withdrawn)
Violation of ArbCom 1RR revert parole at: . :


 * 1st revert: 06:37, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:50, 30 March 2007

Withdrawn - I realize that I misjudged that set of edits. The Behnam 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: That wording had just been restored but Mardavich reverted it twice. The Behnam 09:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a descriptive report, the user is not providing a "Previous version reverted to" since my first edit is not a revert, it's a completely new wording proposed by me. --Mardavich 09:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR reported by William M. Connolley (Result:8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 2007-03-30T00:33:51 (unmarked rv of this)
 * 2nd revert: 2007-03-30T01:26:25 unmakred rv of
 * 3rd revert: 2007-03-30T01:39:33 (marked rv)
 * 4th revert: 2007-03-30T01:49:03 (unmarked rv of by removing "significant"
 * 5th revert: 2007-03-30T01:59:55 (marked rv)


 * User is fully aware of the 3RR rule, and has been warned against edit-warring in the past. 24h. yandman  13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You were blocked 8h by Seraphim whilst I was replying. Lucky you. yandman  13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teabing-Leigh reported by User:Kjartan8 (Result: no action)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous versions reverted to:

There are three versions to which reverts take place - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
 * 1) 04:11, 28 March 2007
 * 2) Partially to 10:07, 30 March 2007 through the removal of tags placed by me
 * 3) Partially to 10:39, 30 March 2007 through the reinsertion of tags removed by User:The Kinslayer
 * 1st revert:06:47, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert:07:10, 30 March 2007 - he reverted back partially
 * 3rd revert:07:28, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert:10:23, 30 March 2007
 * 5th revert:10:44, 30 March 2007 - reverting to restore tags to this version 10:39, 30 March 2007
 * 6th revert:10:58, 30 March 2007 - reverting to this version10:55, 30 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User was made aware of 3rr rule on WP:SSP before his last two reverts.


 * Comments: This is independent of a similar complaint placed by me earlier  against the same user. That complaint was rejected because Teabing-Leigh was using sock puppets and thus 3rr could not be simply proven. A sock puppet query is under way on WP:SSP. Since that time, this user has continued to revert tags that I placed in the article (vandalism) without providing adequate explanation (other than insults and incivil comments). The reverts shown now are those ones which ar uncontroversially his and not that of his sock puppets, and so is not directly related to the previous case. Kjartan8 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Following an outbreak of peace on the articles talk page, I propose no action unless this fails William M. Connolley 12:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But the regulations were stil violated by him. I was under the impression that no exceptions exist to 3RR. Kjartan8 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant! reported by User:Netscott (Result: No action)
Three-revert rule violation on. :


 * rv1 11:33, 30 March 2007


 * rv2 11:40, 30 March 2007


 * rv3 12:12, 30 March 2007


 * rv4 12:16, 30 March 2007

Report time: 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This editor when faced with violating 3RR decided to game the system by altering his edit slightly. The fact remains that he undid the work of fellow editors 4 times. In every edit he has redirected the WP:VOTE shortcut away from Straw polls to some other page. If I am not mistaken some preventative measures should be employed here. 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Objection. The first edit is not a revert, but a new suggestion to point WP:VOTE to the recently-created disambiguation page Voting. Also, WP:KETTLE in that both Netscott and I have made three reverts. Note that I've already asked third opinion on the matter.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking over the history of that redirect, note that there was an edit war over where to point it (1) between Netscott and Raphael, in June; (2) Netscott and Supadawg vs. Centrx in September; (3) Netscott vs Freakofnurture and Charlottewebb in September; (4) Netscott and me in February; and (5) Netscott and me in March. The common factor is Netscott, who seems to have WP:OWNership issues.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mischaracterization, Raphael1 was editing under the false notion that WP:VOTE had existed for some time when I had just created the shortcut 2 days prior to his editing. As far as the rest is concerned Talk:WP:VOTE shows that after discussion with the other involved editors WP:VOTE was directed away from Voting is not evil to Straw polls (and I in fact made the redirection edit myself). 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the first edit is an rv, what to? William M. Connolley 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's undone the work of redirecting WP:VOTE to Straw polls. 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a partial rever to this version, notice the word "voting". 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTE used to redirect to Straw Polls mainly because Voting redirected there. Since the latter is now a disambig page, I felt it made sense to point this redirect to the similarly-named disambig. That's not a revert, that's a new idea.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a new idea, the lead of Voting starts off with an anti-polling wikilink and then the third link is to WP:!VOTE (which for a time Voting is evil) led to. Very obvious system gaming here. 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps very technically 3RR was violated, but only just, and I'm not even sure of that. It seems to have cooled down now anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So what 3RR only applies to certain individuals? The current definition of Three-revert rule was breached here hook line and sinker. 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was, it was a very technical violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry is 3RR enforced unequally these days? Having previouisly edited this redreict User:Radiant! was fully aware of it's history and he thus has edited accordingly. Seriously is 3RR to be observed equally regardless of whether or not one is an adminstrator or not? This would be a 3 hour block for his first enforced 3RR vio... yes he's violated 3RR before and was allowed to skip out that time. 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know I would understand the hesitation to prevent him from editing if he'd at least tried to use the redirect's talk page about his change... he knew that this redirect has been contentious. The fact is he didn't use the talk page until he was threatened with a block here. 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My request on WP:3O about this issue predates your report here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you did not wait for a response from anyone via WP:3O you just went ahead and gamed the system while waiting. 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, my first edit was not a revert. We both made three reverts. And see also WP:KETTLE with respect to "people in an edit war that claim that no, it's the other party that's edit warring".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, that redirect's history ended up with it being redirected to the same spot Voting points to. My initial edit was in line with that earlier decision. It would confuse people if WP:VOTE pointed somewhere differently than Voting. That there has been earlier discussion about this redirect doesn't make it contentious by my book. Had I found it contentious, I would have thrown it on WP:RFD.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The appearance of a double standard here is very strong, especially in light of a block of a user who didn't even arguably violate 3RR and was punished for reporting someone who did. If "edit warring" is the problem, there can be no doubt that User:Radiant was doing that.Proabivouac 08:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black - incorrect
Three-revert rule violation on Champions of Kamigawa. --Mjrmtg 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He has been reported before on Three-revert rule for other Magic: The Gathering page articles. --Mjrmtg 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. He made one revert today, one yesterday, and one three weeks ago.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Russeasby reported by User:Badmonkey (Result: Page protected, user blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on. :


 * rv1 12:23, 30 March 2007


 * rv2 15:39, 30 March 2007


 * rv3 16:45, 30 March 2007


 * rv4 02:43, 31 March 2007

Comment: This user has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. Despite constant revision of the deletions, Russeasby continues to revert and has now broken 3RR on several occasions in addition to the above evidenced. Badmonkey 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nb: Article anchor has just been fully protected. If any admin actions this, it would be appropriate for the final revert (rv4 above) by Russeasby to be undone. Badmonkey 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrected. My bad. Badmonkey 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't matter, protected anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is immaterial isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmonkey (talk • contribs) 14:30, March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User badmonkey who is reporting this also violated 3RR, he is attempting to use policy to his advantage to include his POV commercial spam in Anchor Russeasby 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Revision of vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. Community consensus and 3rd party opinions illustrate your slander of the content as POV spam is false and unfair; deletion of it is therefore vandalism. This is not the place for content dispute. Badmonkey 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, the page has been protected due to the edit war, so it's immaterial who broke 3RR this time, since no one's getting blocked over it. I strongly encourage the two of you to talk it out on the article's talk, or seek dispute resolution if you can't work it out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Russeasby for 3RR violation now. → Aza Toth 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlooked Three-revert rule violations by Badmonkey:
 * 1st revert: 04:23, March 29 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 04:38, March 29 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 05:03, March 29 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 23:59, March 29 2007 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 03:23, March 30 2007 (UTC)
 * 6th revert: 09:29, March 30 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Badmonkey, consensus had not been reached on the article talk page. In fairness, I request that Russeasby be unblocked. — Athænara  ✉  15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Defense: Revision of vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. Badmonkey 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalism has fairly specific parameters.
 * Indeed: "Removing all or significant parts of pages... without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism". Badmonkey 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No article talk page consensus had been reached to include the disputed section and diagram, yet you persisted in re-adding it while engaging in un-civil personal attacks on other editors.
 * Proof please! I dispute this. Badmonkey 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not involved in the dispute. I have responded to the Third opinion request and the WP:COI/N report.   — Athænara   ✉  16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your involvement. Badmonkey 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 29 March 13:58


 * 1st revert: 30 March 00:22
 * 2nd revert: 30 March 00:24
 * 3rd revert: 30 March 00:28
 * 4th revert: 30 March 00:50

Comments: 3RR breaching through sockpuppetry which was confirmed. User has a pattern of vandalism, he broke 3RR before (check his block log, but in other occasions he was pardoned), I believe he need a block to understand in future that both 3RR breaching and sockpuppetry is unacceptable.--MariusM 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Pernambuco for 3 days for using a sockpuppet to edit war. The sockpuppet has been blocked indefinitely. WjBscribe 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:24h each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:57, 26 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:04, 26 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:18, 26 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:25, 26 March 2007
 * 4th revert:  16:10, 26 March 2007
 * 5th revert:


 * Comments:

User:Digitalradiotech and User:Ga-david.b reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: 24 hours each)
Three-revert rule violation on . and :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:56, 30 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:30, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:33, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:49, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:04, 30 March 2007

This war has been ongoing for some time; both users continually reverting each other's edits. I've attempted to bring a compromise between the two parties, and have hinted to them both that they are regularly in violation of 3RR, but clearly to no avail. Difficult to say which party is "doing" the reversion; today is a particularly good example.
 * Comments:

History page should be self-explanatory... Oli Filth 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours each, encourage both editors to seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Count_Iblis reported by User:TJSynkral (Result:no action, user apology)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 01:29, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (We need to quantify the dissent)
 * 2nd revert: 01:54, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (The number of dissenting climate scientists is well known.)
 * 3rd revert: 02:06, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (Revert. Some idea of the relative size of the dissent is needed. If refs are necessary, then put in citation needed tags. The IPCC consensus alone was signed by 2500 scientists...)
 * 4th revert: 13:33, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (Revert to version mentioning that there are only a few dissenters. The article needs to reflect the relative size of the dissent)
 * 5th revert: 14:05, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (Replaced "some" by "few". The fact that there are only a few dissenters is of importance)
 * 6th revert: 14:12, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (It must be mentioned that only a few experts in the relevant field (i.e. climate scientists) dissent)
 * 7th revert: 20:31, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Global warming (Many ---> Some)
 * 8th revert: 21:48, 30 March 2007 Count Iblis (Talk | contribs) (Revert POV edits by User:Tjsynkral )


 * Comments: This user has reverted the intro 8 times in the last 24 hours.


 * I wasn't warned in time that I was about to violate the 3RR rule. Note that since a night had passed, I didn't keep the count. During the second day the content had changed and I didn't count all the reverts on the second day as the same reverts. Anyway, I wasn't given the opportunity to self revert, which I would have done. Note that the version I reverted to is the one preferred by the vast majority of editors as is clear from the history and talk page of the article. So, a self revert would not even be of much consequence, as other editors would have done their job to keep the article in a NPOV state (but I would self revert even if this were not the case, as it is mandatory. In fact, I remember now that on the fist day I limited myself to three reverts for this reason). Count Iblis 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for knowing and abiding by Wikipedia policies on your own. You chose to be disruptive and edit far beyond the pale of what WP:3RR allows. Therefore I feel that Count Iblis ought to be suspended from editing for the standard time. --Tjsynkral 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not really what this page says, is it? It says that if you note that someone is (about to) violate the 3RR rule you should first warn that person on his/her talk page. If that person then disregards that warning, then the person can be reported here and action can be taken. This is, of course, the right way to proceed, because then you know for sure that the person knew that he was violating the 3RR rule (although the person may not agree that it is really a violation of the 3RR rule, he was notified of the issue that he chose to ignore causing him to be reported here).


 * If my edits were so disruptive, then why didn't you notify me when I was still editing that page? Long after I stopped editing the page did you let me know that you had reported me here. Wikipedia is not a game like soccer where you can use the 3RR rule or some other rule to fight your tactical battles. Count Iblis 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you end up being blocked for a short while it's not a big deal. The important thing is to be careful in future, both because that's the rules and because the skeptic side is taking no prisoners. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll propose a plea bargain, I'll write that at the bottom of this page. Count Iblis 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What version is being reported to here? This isn't formatted clearly enough to figure out what's going on here.  Guettarda 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will show the diffs that are being reverted, with given time. "Not allotted time" is not quite an excuses, considering eight reverts have been made. I made 2 rvs with no warning and got blocked. Life is though. ~ UBeR 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19:29, 29 March 2007 (revert of )
 * 19:54, 29 March 2007 (revert of, , & )
 * 20:06, 29 March 2007 (same as #2)
 * 07:33, 30 March 2007 (revert of, , , , & )
 * 08:05, 30 March 2007 (revert of )
 * 14:31, 30 March 2007 (revert of )
 * 15:48, 30 March 2007 (revert of )
 * ~ UBeR 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I made 2 rvs with no warning and got blocked" Indeed, that's exactly true Hahaha!  Count Iblis 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Plea Bargain: I admit that I made a mistake and I won't edit the global warming page and all the other pages related to climate change, excluding their talk pages till Monday 04/02/07 12.00 GMT. I will be allowed to edit other articles. Count Iblis 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not in the spirit of WP:3RR. Nor is writing "Hahaha!" in response to a block. Act civilly. ~ UBeR 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh when I saw that your account of why you were banned differs radically from the facts. I did not laugh at the fact that you had been blocked. Of course, you may disagree with those "facts", however, note that in my case I didn't even begin to dispute the number of reverts. I look it from your point of view that it is a bit too much. I could e.g. very easily argue that the last two reversions were against borderline vandalism. I mean this whole issue is about X being much lager than Y. The question is how this should be expressed in the article. My edits/reversions are toward saying that X is much larger than Y, yours are trying to be ambiguous about this fact. The last two edists which I reverted said that Y is large without further qualifications, which completely misrepresents the facts. Count Iblis 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the reporting editor User:TJSynkral  has been caught inciting an edit war, threatening to use his 3RR reverts until they are used up. -- Skyemoor 03:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert:  09:53, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Xiangyang&diff=119072391&oldid=119071551] 16:57, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert:  22:24, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert:  22:26, 30 March 2007


 * comments: Gun Powder Ma reverting as according to minority sources and deleting any information from majority sources.ImSoCool 1:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Xiangyang http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Great_Inventions_of_ancient_China&action=history

[User:ImSoCool|ImSoCool]] 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:192.150.5.150 reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:14, 29 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:31, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:47, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:15, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:15, 30 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This IP user is User:LeeHunter. I base this claim on the fact that IP and LeeHunter edit the same articles, use the same grammatical syntax, and most importantly, edit each other's comments.    LeeHunter has been blocked previously for 3RR over alt-med topics, and is quite aware of 3RR.


 * Comments: I'm not sure if this is an instance of outright sockpuppetry - this user may just not want to login while at work, and the IP has not yet tried to represent him/herself as a separate user.  The main irritant here is the excessive reverting and refusal to discuss said reverts on the article's talk page.  Skinwalker 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Note that the four reverts involved two separate issues. One of the edits was simply removing "Mr." which is a perfectly standard and trivial fix to meet WP biographical style. The other involved removing a description of the subject of the article as a "non-xxxx" on the grounds that we typical describe people by what they are (not what they aren't) and that it was a provocative attempt to poison the well by an editor that has been engaged in active warfare against an entire subsection of WP. Why this editor raises the issue of "sockpuppetry" when all the edits were done by the same account, I can only conclude is another attempt to poison the well. --192.150.5.150 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Miaers reported by User:Psantora (Result: 2 weeks)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:43, 21 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:45, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:24, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:09, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:21, 30 March 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:10, 30 March 2007


 * Comments: I warned Miaers on my talk page as that was where we were discussing the edits. In response to my mention of the 3RR he "reported" me... I tried to move the discussion from my talk page to the talk page of the article and Miaers reverted that as well. Paul C/T+ 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 weeks, for persistent 3RR violation. Just came out of a 1 week block, and immediately violated 3RR again. Crum375 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MariusM reported by User:William Mauco (Result: 3 weeks)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 29 March 13:53


 * 1st revert: 29 March 23:11
 * 2nd revert: 30 March 00:23
 * 3rd revert: 30 March 00:27
 * 4th revert: 30 March 00:48
 * 5th revert: 30 March 19:47


 * Comments: User has been blocked for 3RR numerous times before. As the result of his latest action, the page got full protection. As soon as the protection was lifted, his very first action was to re-engage in revert warring. I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable. -- Mauco 02:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 3 weeks for repeated 3RR violation and editwarring. Crum375 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is wrong. There is no 3RR breach! Because 3 of his reverts was against vandalism of a proven sockpuppet Pernambuco - Kertu3 sockpuppetry case, and in his edit summary he specified that, ,  (the last one is after protection was lifted, but is still a revert of sockpuppet Kertu3 ). Why dont you block Pernambuco - Kertu3 for 3 weeks? MariusM had truly noble intention: reverting vandalism.  There is a long lasting dispute between User:William Mauco and User:MariusM - that is why User:William Mauco tries to block him. Unblock him it is User:William Mauco misinterpretation and desire to revenge got you confused. EvilAlex 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the admin who ruled on this. Check the logs of the article for proof: MariusM's edit warring started long before this sockpuppet appeared in the log. He was online doing his repeated reverts before Pernambuco/Kertu3 showed up. And after they were blocked, he was again online doing the same thing once more. He presents his crusade in a false light, as if he was a sockpuppet warrior. But his actions are squarely aimed against the integrity of the article itself. - Mauco 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! And you are not a part in that conflict. Man, this is funny. A sock user gets 3 days, and the one in face of him, who fought vandalism from his personal account, gets 3 weeks. Dpotop 19:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to be sarcastic. In fact, I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low, since the last block - for the same offense - was 10 days. As you should know, blocks increase. Not increase. - Mauco 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:39, 28 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:32, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:45, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:49, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:52, 30 March 2007

User:Kingjeff broke 3RR attempting to insert a Project Germany tag into a talk page about a city in the Czech Republic that was never part of Germany (though it did have a substantial German population before 1945). Discussion about the validity of doing this is still ongoing on the talk page, with opinion about evenly split so far, and attempting to insert this tag through edit warring before any concensus for doing that is reached seems disruptive, to me at least. This happened on an article talk page, so I am not sure how the 3RR rule applies. If it does not, please disregard this report. The user has been blocked many times before, including for 3RR. Balcer 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:

I didn't put it into the article just for the sake of it. If you take a look at Talk:Karlovy Vary, there is an active discussion that will decide the consensus. I don't believe the tag should have been removed before consensus had been reached. I don't understand why Balcer didn't assume good faith. I'm sure if you look here, here, here and here, then I think you can assume good faith here. Kingjeff 03:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 1 week for 3RR. Please note that consensus or lack thereof, or any other discussion, has no bearing on 3RR - you may not revert more than 3 times per 24 hours, period (except for vandalism and BLP violation, not applicable here). Crum375 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A one-week block seems exceedingly excessive, considering the circumstances. While I personally agree with Balcer that the article should not be tagged as such, both editors were engaging in adding/removing the tag. Olessi 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also did not expect a one-week block to result from this, especially since 3RR was broken on a talk page and not in article space. I also admit that I was the other party to the revert war, though of course I knew well enough to stop after my 3rd revert.  Given these circumstances, I would also like to suggest that the block be shortened. Balcer 17:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 31 March 20070 2:48


 * 1st revert: 31 March 2007 02:27

Hope I filled this out right. Only put one revert version since all were same. User has violated 4 times at least in 24 hours. Article Talk page has discussed leaving in sections he continually deletes. Taking out cited sources and sections. Mostly anything critical of said article. Just did it again while trying to fill this form out. He has also been warned on his own talk page and continues.
 * Comments:
 * Please follow example at bottom of page. Incomplete report. Crum375 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:`.Thirty Thr33 reported by User:Quartet (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

User is engaged in edit warring on the Enforcer (hockey) page. It's too time consuming to post every infraction since there are now 4 for March 31 alone. See the edit history - it's pretty obvious. Note that this user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Burgz33 who is currently blocked for 1 month for personal attacks. I have attempted to assume good faith and reason with this user on both the article talk page and his own, however he continues to edit war and attack. Suggest block for 3RR.  Quar te t  06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have blocked user for 24 hours and prevented him/her from creating new accounts from his/her last IP address during that period. (User has threatened to create abusive sockpuppets on their talk page).-- Waggers 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Orangemonster2k1 (Result: no violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

I was attempting on reaching consensus on the removal of a trivia section on the Stoopid Monkey page when User:Calton decided to make his three reverts as well. Full disclosure, I recieved a 24-hour 3RR block for my reverts of his reverts. But that should make him no-less guilty. Thank you. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kid, three reverts is the limit, not the violation. Probably not a good idea generally to be reverting, but it takes four reverts to make it an actual unambiguous violation: you had five, and you'll note that at least two admins didn't buy this rationale in responding to your unblock request. You'll note that you were also reverted by User:A Man In Black, so all your talk about "consensus" really means nothing. --Calton | Talk 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Davesmith33 reported by User:DrFrench (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 22:33 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:07 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:44 31 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:51 31 March 2007

User is engaging in similar 3RR violations on Jon Bentley (TV presenter). DrFrench 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative, the reverts were in reaction to vandalism from the above mentioned Mr French. Helps if you do your homework before instigating bans. Davesmith33 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by User:Tiraspolitan (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 30 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:51, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:08, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:04, 30 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:26, 31 March 2007

No block; in one of the edits he was reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user (Bonaparte). Khoikhoi 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:68.223.146.109 reported by User:Deckiller (Result: 24 hours)
Another sock of User:Kara Umi has been revert warring on Final Fantasy XII. I'd block, but I'm involved in the dispute. The editor is claiming s/he is removing unsourced information when there are clearly several references. The user has also expressed that everyone else should discuss their edits on the talkpage, while s/he can go ahead and make the changes directly. This entire dispute is ironic, because the last dispute with a Kara Umi sock (or group of socks) involved reintroduction of unsourced original research. But that's another topic. If someone agrees the IP should be blocked, it might be best to block for 72 hours as an obvious sock of a user who has violated 3RR several times in the past. &mdash; Deckiller 17:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:20, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:42, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:39, 31 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:58, 31 March 2007


 * Comments:

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:69.130.18.93 reported by User:Matthew (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comments: User is aware of sourcing guidelines but continues to add "fan" information to article and add wordiness to sentences. Matthew 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Normally, the 3RR warning needs to come before the last revert if the editor is new or anonymous, but the anonymous editor's previous edit summary of "Revert wars aren't cool" makes it pretty clear that (s)he is aware of the principle. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Blue Tie reported by User:Gwen Gale (Result:24 hours for both)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:31, 30 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:36, 31 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:32, 1 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:57, 1 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:12, 1 April 2007

The first revert was achieved through a violation of WP:POINT, wherein the editor User:Blue Tie inserted trivial, sarcastic information into the article for the sole purpose of setting himself up for three subsequent blanket reverts. This is a gaming of the 3rr rule, which is blockable.
 * Comments

I have requested commentary on the issue from other editors on the article's talk page. The disputed content was in the article for weeks before User:Blue Tie removed it some time ago. When I at last restored it with a supporting citation, he aggressively began revert warring over it.

I have reverted User:Blue Tie three times, am not at all happy about my having had to do this and will not edit the article again in any way for at least 24 hours. Gwen Gale 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking Blue Tie, since apparently the warning of a few days ago didn't take, and I'm blocking Gwen Gale as well, since he also just violated the 3RR recently and was unblocked for agreeing not to edit war. I would encourage both of you to not count reverts, but instead to try polite discussion at the first sign of a conflict. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit, your block of Gwen Gale is simply perverse: she followed the rules and reported User:Blue Tie here rather than continue to edit-war contra policy. I suspect that, had she continued editwarring with a sockpuppet or an anon IP, she would not have been blocked; instead accusers would be met with a flurry of WP:AGF and WP:BITE's re the puppets.
 * Reporting 3RR violators is a pain in the hindquarters, requiring work upfront and a commitment to watch the page therafter. Where were you, as an administrator, when Blue Tie violated policy? User:Gwen Gale did your work for you, and should be rewarded, not punished.Proabivouac 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:ANI.Proabivouac 07:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think reverting until you get your opponent over the 3RR mark and reporting them is following the rules, you are severely mistaken. It is not continuing to edit war past 3RR that is prohibited, but edit warring itself. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in fact "continuing to edit war past 3RR that is prohibited," as is plainly evidenced by the policy page, Three-revert rule, as well as this noticeboard itself.Proabivouac 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really must be quoted policy: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] 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....Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but it's simply false to claim, as did Dmcdevit, that "It is not continuing to edit war past 3RR that is prohibited."Proabivouac 07:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll correct that to "It is not [only] continuing to edit war past 3RR that is prohibited." It is still the case that edit warring is prohibited and may lead to blocks however. Dmcdevit·t 07:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Please review WP:ANI/3RR.Proabivouac 08:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's what I get for thinking I'm done catching hell over something. In that case, Radiant had already agreed to stop the edit war and seek dispute resolution. Thus far, he's lived up to that. If he doesn't in the future, he'll get blocked. In this case, Gwen Gale agreed to quit edit warring, was unblocked, and then did in fact edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:InvaderSora reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:48, 31 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 17:30, 31 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:09, 31 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:31, 1 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:35, 1 April 2007


 * Comments: Blocked for 3RR multiple times; some blocks are under his old name: . Was warned by User:Sandstein that the next block would be indefinite. ' 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, user seems to have no intent of ceasing the incivility and revert wars. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Carthago delenda est and User:Lovelight reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h for Carthago)
Three-revert rule violation on .  :

All deleting (C) and inserting (L) the same text, although there are a few other edits.
 * L's edit 04:16, April 1, 2007
 * C's 1st revert 04:33, April 1, 2007
 * L's 1st revert 04:35, April 1, 2007
 * C's 2nd revert 04:46, April 1, 2007
 * L's 2nd revert 04:53, April 1, 2007 (also adding commentary)
 * C's 3rd revert 05:55, April 1, 2007
 * L's 3rd revert 06:55, April 1, 2007
 * C's 4th revert 07:41, April 1, 2007
 * L's 4th revert 07:51, April 1, 2007
 * C's 5th revert 08:20, April 1, 2007
 * L's 5th revert 08:25, April 1, 2007


 * Lovelight has been warned and blocked for 3RR before.
 * Carthago delenda est appears not to have been warned, but deleting comments on a talk page is usually vandalism.
 * Now warned 08:58, April 1, 2007


 * Comments: One or the other is also making false claims of vandalism. (They're both claiming vandalism, but at least one is false.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've no idea why Carthago considers deleting other users' talk page comments acceptable. The comments weren't inappropriate, so it's vandalism, plain and simple. 48h for C. yandman  09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu reported by User:Anittas (Result:page protection 24h)
Anonimu reverted me five times on Elena Ceauşescu. First he simply reverted after I added a source to her nickname; after I reverted, he reverted again by saying that it is an unreliable source; so I then added a second source, which he also reverted by saying that I should add that in a "popular culture" section; I then added a third source, which he again reverted and called me a vandal! I reverted back, saying that he's not allowed to remove sourced material, to which he replied that the "heading is not the place for that." See the history. I only reverted him two times; the other times, I added a new source. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: after adding a fourth source, Anonimu reverted it back for the sixth time. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anittas should be blocked too, since WP:3RR clearly refers to "more than three reverts, in whole or in part". Only 3 of his 9 edits in the last 24 hours were not reverts as defined in the 3rr policy. (see above the link to the history of the page).Anonimu 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I urge the moderators to examine his claim. I only reverted two times; the remaining three edits contained a new source which I had added to the article. This is not the first time Anonimu is involved in such disputes, and certainly not on this article, either. See here, for example. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The other 4 were partial reverts. And please, you're no way better. You've been blocked 7 times before (excluding the last one).Anonimu 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu continues to alter sourced material at his disposal and no-one seems to bother about this disruptive behaviour. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're the one changing the content of material sourced with books published by 3 prestigious universities.(as opposed to the obscure sites you use as sources)Anonimu 17:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the term "show trial" is sourced on that fragment. Where is the source attached to that fragment? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in the previous section, when "show trial" is first mentioned. Putting the references on the fragment would have been confusing, since readers couldn't know which of the claims did the source source.Anonimu 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * restored last version by Dahn, page protection.Rlevse 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:IAmTheCoinMan reported by User:PullToOpen (Result: No violation, but...)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:25, 1 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:33, 1 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:44, 1 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:48, 1 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:02, 1 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:53, 1 April 2007, to which he responded with a somewhat strange attack against me 15:56, 1 April 2007. PTO 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments:

No violation of 3RR (fourth edit is not a revert), but 24 hours anyway for the "go die" comment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Brain40 reported by User:Tjsynkral (Result:no violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:03, 1 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:05, 1 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 1 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:14, 1 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:19, 1 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 19:22, 1 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:14, 1 April 2007

This user was informed that blanking one's own user page is not considered vandalism, and continued to revert after being warned.


 * Comments: Note that my reverts are being performed against my own user space and thus I am not violating 3RR myself. Also note that blanking my user talk page is permitted according to WP:UP. "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal."


 * no violation, removing warnings from your talk page is generally considered vandalism and always frowned upon...from WP:Vandalism,..."Talk page vandalism...Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon...." Rlevse 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Frowned upon, but allowed and NOT within the definition of vandalism. If the rules have changed the WP page should be changed to reflect this. --Tjsynkral 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: An incident has been opened regarding this matter. --Tjsynkral 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lilkunta reported by User:Joie de Vivre (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime <<-- What is this? Joie de Vivre 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 11:17, April 1, 2007 - rv to version with unsourced biographical info
 * 2nd revert: 13:42, April 1, 2007 - rv to above version
 * 3rd revert: 14:06, April 1, 2007 - rv to version minus biographical info
 * 4th revert: 14:32, April 1, 2007 - removal of dispute tags


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is relatively new, but they demonstrated a knowledge of 3RR with this edit (erroneously titled b/c my revert was protected - removing unsourced biographical info)


 * Comments: I have tried very hard to communicate why unsourced biographical information cannot be included in this article, particularly per WP:BLP.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:03, April 1 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was halfway through writing this up myself when I saw this report. Lilkunta is  a disruptive and tendentious editor who has also removed other editor's posts from the article talk page .   — Athænara   ✉  20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In re strikout text: I must have gone cross-eyed between half-writing one report, trying to keep up with another, and watching two other pages—sorry about that!   — Æ.   ✉  20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please help, this user is now making major reverts to the article's Talk page. Lilkunta has been repeatedly warned that placing their comments inside other people's comments is not appropriate. I moved Lilkunta's comments to the bottom of the paragraphs that Lilkunta had interspersed with editorial commentary (in AOL-speak). I patiently gave two explanations as to the reason for moving them, but they kept reverting. Here are my attempts to explain: attempt 1, attempt 2. Lilkunta ignored these explanations and chose instead to revert: diff of their revert. They removed indentation (note the missing colons) and restored the version with their interspersed comments after I took the time to explain it and carefully replace their comments in the correct place. I chose to make a complete revert and explained again: attempt 3. Please help. Between removing the indentation and doing messy, partial reverts, they are really damaging the talk page. 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Typical remarks from user Lilkunta such as
 * 18:38, April 1 2007 (UTC) — "I have a mother thanks very much!"
 * 06:38, April 2 2007 (UTC) — "diff ppl on my *ss tellin me all kinds of stuff"
 * 06:48, April 2 2007 (UTC) — "I'll get all my friends if this is what this has come down to"


 * strongly suggest that the user will resist consensus-building every step of the way.


 * This noticeboard is specifically for 3RR violations—perhaps this problem should be taken to Requests for comment/User conduct after more than a month of disruptive editing.  — Athænara   ✉  21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidShankBone reported by 71.112.7.212 (Result:71.112.7.212 blocked 48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:35, 1 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:39, 1 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:43, 1 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:58, 1 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 1 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:27, 1 April 2007

This user persists in inserting personal attacks (troll and so on), his plans for "monitoring me" till i make "one wrong move" so I can be blocked, and his plan to "no longer answer, but revert". I've asked him to stop but he continues

71.112.7.212 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You violated 3RR by repeatedly deleting others' comments. Restoring them is not counted for 3RR because it's reverting vandalism. Kafziel Talk 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the anonymous User is turning to admins for help in her disruptive editing, trolling and inability to "grow" as a Wikipedian. --David Shankbone 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite thankful that this anonymous User has requested admin help. This User remains unblocked for some unknown reason, despite being repeatedly engaged in a polite manner to correct her behavior; yet she refuses to do so.  Below are a few examples:
 * 1) Asked to stop reverting discussion comments on the Afro page by Jayron32, but then subsequently reverted several more times. Three editors have re-reverted this User on that Talk page.
 * 2) Refuses to sign edits, despite being Botted three times with clear instructions on how to do so.
 * 3) When other editors disregard rules and receive warnings, incites Users to ignore the guidelines and policies.
 * 4) Removes content that demonstrate an article, despite several editors reverting. Then attempts to rename captions of photographs to make them not applicable to the article.
 * 5) Removed historical depiction of dreadlocks, similar to her vandalism of the Afro page.
 * 6) Although this admin review of the User for sockpuppetry proved inconclusive, their disruptive edits were discussed at length.
 * 7) Blanks highly-valuable, lengthy and referenced sections on articles, and continually reverts the reverts.
 * 8) When other articles point out this User's disruptive edits the User removes the comments from discussion pages, calling them "personal attacks"
 * 9) There is not one edit that can be shown hwere I called this User a troll; however, several other editors have done so.
 * 10) Removes warnings and advice against her disruptive edits, and calls them personal attacks.
 * 11) User was blocked for "extensive, repeated, and unrepentant vandalism" by Nihonjoe, and still maintains that she was unfairly blocked.
 * 12) Also blocked by Seraphimblade for "3RR, BLP on Nancy Reagan".
 * 13) Blocked by Kafziel for "trolling and 3RR on Talk:Afro"

User:Kara Umi reported by User:Deckiller (Result: )
The user was using AOL IPs to participate in no fewer than 7 reverts to the Final Fantasy XII page. The user signed into his or her user name, Kara Umi, and posted on my talk page that those IPs were indeed his or hers, and that I was in the wrong for blocking them because s/he continued to log into Wikipedia without knowing. When User:Seraphimblade blocked the initial violating IP for the 3RR, he left a warning:. However, that user came back today with two different IPs, making additional reverts; I blocked these IPs are circumventing policy. The second IP came right after the first IP, as will be explained below. But now that the user has clearly identified that s/he was the offender, I feel the block should be reset on the actual account (Kara Umi), especially since the user uses AOL and can circumvent the blocks easily (we can reset the block on the account in this fashion if it continues). This user also has a history or 3RR evasion and sockpuppeting: see Requests for checkuser/Case/Kara Umi. Moreover, the user also removed a warning from his or her talkpage from a previous event during this issue:, although s/he also removed a semi-personal attack from User:Bluerfn. Speaking of Bluerfin, he may have also violated 3RR during the issue, but his reversions were to IPs that were circumventing Umi's IP 3RR evasions, so they should not count. Anyway, I'll end the wall of text here. PS: while I was typing this, the user removed my comment from his or her talkpage:. &mdash; Deckiller 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:20, 30 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:42, 30 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:39, 31 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:58, 31 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 9:40, 1 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:36, 1 April 2007
 * 7th revert (semi-revert, but user was evading block): 16:15, 1 April 2007
 * 8th revert (semi-revert, but user was evading block): 16:57, 1 April 2007


 * Comments:

(Original ruling:24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) &mdash; Deckiller 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Same edit, not same version


 * 1st revert: 13:28, 17 March 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:59, 18 March 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:22, 23 March 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:34, 23 March 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:41, 31 March 2007


 * Comments: These reversions are not all in 24 hrs, but they do involve basically the same thing, except for the 5th which is only metaphorically the same.  This editor is an inveterate edit warrer.

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:43, 1 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:19, 2 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:24, 2 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:11, 2 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:27, 2 April 2007


 * Comments: User:After Midnight and myself have asked the editor to bring content concerns to the talk page to no avail. The history of the article appears to be a WP:OWN issue.

User:Tjstrf reported by User:QuackGuru (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . : The following is a 3RR request sent to my userpage. I have copied it to here however, I have not refactored it to fit the 3RR setup. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor Tjstrf is in violation of 3RR on Essjay controversy and also continues to edit war.

He has disregarded your warning on the talk page.
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119551114&oldid=119550934
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119553963&oldid=119551114
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=119446600
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119548114&oldid=119546208
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119582367&oldid=119574773
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119604137&oldid=119596250
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=119606764&oldid=119604962

Thanx, :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I only see 3 reverts of other users. If there is one I am missing, point it out please. :) I do see one self revert but that doesn't count as a revert for our purposes. The other edits are just edits and not reverts unless I am missing something. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Illbill1000 reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:38


 * 1st revert: 03:14
 * 2nd revert: 03:22
 * 3rd revert: 03:58
 * 4th revert: 17:37


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:29


 * Comments: Insistently putting pictures into the article that are unsuitable on quality grounds, as well as attack from their titles and captions, over consensus, and ignoring warning. Michaelbusch 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Zeeboid (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert 07:22, 2 April 2007:
 * 2nd revert 07:47, 2 April 2007:
 * 3rd revert 11:40, 2 April 2007:
 * 4th revert12:31, 2 April 2007:

Also please note this administrator's history removing NPOV tags when the NPOV issue releates to himself on more then one ocassion: marking the first removal as "I've removed the stupid tag, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"--Zeeboid 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 were reverts of vandalism, as Z knows, since they were marked as such on the 3rd rv (and they pretty obviously are: unformatted text, with the anons phone number, etc). At least, they had better be, because I blocked the anon for repeatedly posting that stuff William M. Connolley 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First two reverts were vandalism/spam, no violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kanaye reported by User:90.240.150.96 (Result: Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:51 31 March

90.240.150.96 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: All 3 reverts (23:58 01 April, 12:58 02 April and 21:33 02 April) are the same. Please see edit history for further information.  Format of this template must be consistent with Template:UK_cities, which appears at the foot of articles for all UK cities.

Please provide diffs of reverts, and note that 3RR covers more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The violation template does state "If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert." However, here are the diffs you have requested:


 * 1st revert: 23:58 01 April
 * 2nd revert: 12:58 02 April
 * 3rd revert: 21:33 02 April
 * 4th revert: 00:22 03 April

No violation, as the reverts are not within 24 hours, but both editors are warned that it's pretty close. If the editors can't agree, seeking a third opinion or other form of informal dispute resolution is better than edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

again User:Aivazovsky result- moot
user:Aivazovsky is part of the ArbCom but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, has modified the Karki (Azerbaijan) page (History of the page ) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. Admin Thatcher asked to post this here instead of ArbCom page. The appropriate diff is:


 * Revision by Aivazovsky: 21:00, March 31, 2007

Reported by: --adil 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by Dmcdevit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:06, April 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:55, April 2, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:30, April 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:23, April 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:35, April 2, 2007

According to his block log, Arbustoo should be aware of 3RR, as he has been blocked twice before for edit warring. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:

129.120.244.17 reported by User:NetherlandishYankee (Result: Stale)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 03:43, April 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:49, April 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, April 1, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:15, April 2, 2007

There's not much of a point going and blocking anyone more than a day after the fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Deepak D'Souza reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:20, April 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 21:50, April 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:42, April 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:43, April 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: Current revision (21:25, April 2, 2007)


 * Comments: He keeps reverting to include the Malayalam and/or Beary transliterations in the lead. He was very recently(just last week I guess) blocked for 3rr(7rr infact) and he has done it again.  He is well aware of the rules.
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Sarvagnya: You, too, are edit warring. You haven't broken 3RR, but your edit warring is still harmful to Wikipedia. Please stop. Give reasons for your reverts; don't use automated rollbacks in content disputes. Discuss issues on talk pages. Heimstern Läufer 05:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page. Enough reasons have been given enough times by Gnanapiti and Deepak was just trolling.  I have at the most 2RRed and even that I have done after enough explanations had been given on the talk page.  Not just the above discussion, but similar discussions have taken place at other times on other pages and Deepak knows it.  It is unfortunate that you think that I was edit warring.  Sarvagnya 05:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John reported by User:sad_mouse (Result:incomplete)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

Not sure if this is the right place to report because it is not just reverts it is also inserting POV, not justifying reverts/changes on discussion page, personal insults in change summary, etc. Sad mouse 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Need to show diffs if there are four or more reverts within twenty-four hours. Reports related to personal attacks should go to WP:ANI. Heimstern Läufer 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments:

User:Weggie reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:20, 31 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:25, 3 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:37, 3 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:41, 3 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:54, 3 April 2007


 * Comments: The first revert was made with the edit summary of "Would you like a chicken supper bS?". This is incredibly offensive to Irish nationalists and republicans, as it is a sectarian song in reference to the dead hunger striker Bobby Sands, details here and here. One Night In Hackney 303 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No violation, users may remove content from their own userspace if they wish to do so, and are exempt from the 3RR. Other editors reinserting content in another user's userspace enjoy no such privilege. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ProhibitOnions reported by User:NE2 (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 03:11 (reverted this edit)
 * 2nd revert: 05:18
 * 3rd revert: 06:44
 * 4th revert: 10:04 (here he went "whole-hog" and reverted several sections about totally different types of trams and removed some additions I made to the New York City line)

User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:Corticopia (Result:48 hours for both)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

Comments: while this is an apparently innocuous edit, this editor decided to add North America to the "See also" despite concise edit summaries about adding redundant terms in this section and arguably as part of an ongoing campaign to eschew content (e.g., note no addition of South America or Central America). Note that my self-revert was merely a correction of my prior comment RE Mesoamerica, and this editor knows about 3RR and has previously breached it. Such tit-for-tat edits are in pattern and continuously exasperating. Corticopia 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Original edit: 16:13 (reverted 26 Mar this original edit)
 * 2nd revert: 16:32
 * 3th revert: 17:30
 * 4th revert: 17:43

REPLY: The first edit is the introduction of the term "North America" in the "See also" section, it is not a revert. Second revert is actually first revert and so on. I have only performed 3 reverts. I'm well aware of this rule because of a recent incident (please see my block log) so I'm not intending to break it. Thanks. Please check Corticopia's block list aswell. Alex  Cov   ( Let's talk! )  18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Chicken-and-egg smokescreen: why the editor decided to disrupt the status quo at this point (while glazing over equally germane terms) is beyond me. Again, I defer to my report.   Corticopia 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Result: I am blocking both of you for continued edit warring. Corticopia has broken the 3RR rule today and Alex has broken the spirit of the rule: note that stopping short of 4 reverts in 24 hours is not a guarantee that you will not be blocked. Both of you have been blocked for 3RR before, and you can't game the system by edit warring just enough to avoid a block. Kafziel Talk 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)