Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive45

User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: report got stale?)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:19, 19 April 2007 partial revert - addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported", addition of line about ITC
 * 2nd revert: 13:28, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 1st revert, marked as revert
 * 3rd revert: 14:07, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 13:34, 19 April 2007 labled as revert
 * 4th revert: 15:01, 19 April 2007 partial revert to third version above, some new text but as in all other reverts, addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported"

Comments:
 * Two exact reverts, two partial reverts with slight variations in wording but the same key words and phrases added and removed each time. It could be argued that these two are edits and not reverts, but they make no real change and just make slight inconsequential wording changes to the reverted material.   --Minderbinder 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Background:What Minderbinder has failed to mention is that at the time I was involved in an ongoing talk page discussion over a disputed section of the page at the time. Minderbinder was one party in that discussion, and so were two other users. I did not break the 3RR. I placed a proposed version of a new page intro on the talk page here and received feedback. I then listened to other users concerns and modified the page in an effort to reach a consensus as per standard wiki-procedure.

Here I refactored the introduction. Here it was reverted by another users. Here I carried out my first revert. here I edited the introduction to try an address concerns from another user. Here my edit was rejected by another user. here I carried out a second and final revert and requested that the user involeved in reverting explain which part of my edit they had a problem with and why (they blanket reverted all changes that I made even bits that I considered to be non-contentious, so I had no way of knowing exactly what they were referring to). here I carried out an unrelated edit of something that I believed was caught up in the crossfire (deleted earlier on, not part of this dispute). the complaining user refactored my original edit based on the ongoing talk page discussion. here my edit was not acceptable to all parties so again edited in an effort to reach a consensus.

In brief al my edits were legitimate and half were in direct response to concerns expressed by other users (of which the complainant is one):


 * 12:19, 19 April 2007 This was not a revert. It was a legitimate edit and a refactoring based on talk page discussion. Please observe the   between it and my previous version. Times and subsequent edits also mean that this is not a revert, but rather a standalone edit.
 * 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as a revert. 1st revert
 * 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as such
 * 15:01, 19 April 2007 - not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. Changed plurals to singulars (they are - it is). Exchanged short paragraph about one side in an dispute ("said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin") for a much large paragraph ("Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them, while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.") mentioning both sides in the dispute. Replaced descriptive sentence ("Examples of purported EVP") with suspected weasel word, for a neutral pronoun ("they"). This is a classic refactoring. Certainly not a revert.

It should also be made clear that was recently a party in an RFC who spoke in opposition to Minderbinder's standpoint, and I am also a part in a dispute that has been referred to ARBcom on which I am also on the other side to Minderbinder. It therefore my opinion that this 3RR call is in bad faith. I request that it be dismissed.

perfectblue 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is very obvious that these edits are reverts per the evidence that User:Minderbinder put forth. User:Perfectblue97 seems to be arguing that he should be allowed to revert simply because he was also discussing on the talkpage. As we all know (and this user should be aware since he is not a newcomer) breaking 3RR never has an excuse. --ScienceApologist 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is obvious that I was involved in an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground. I have clearly demonstrated that I ASKED for feedback and that I responded to it. Somebody wasn't happy about my wording so I changed it in response. This isn't reverting, it's trying to find an acceptable solution to a problem. For example here. This obviously can't be considered to be a revert

I refactored "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" to read "Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them". Which is not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. I then added "while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.", which is a unique passage that wasn't present in my previous version, or any other previous version for quite some time.

The rest of the edit is simply singular V plural and pronoun changing one phrase into a plural third person pronoun.

The fact that I actually precipitated this event by asking people what they want to change, then trying to accommodate them proves beyond any doubt that I did not break 3RR. I tried to create an acceptable intro via discussion, and this is what I get in return?

perfectblue 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked people what they objected to, other editors made it clear on the talk page, and yet you kept reverting in the very text people objected to. I don't see how you could possibly call that "attempting to find middle ground", it just looks like minor variations on a wording that only you prefer in order to try and avoid 3RR.  And I don't see how pending arbcom cases are an exemption from 3RR enforcement - this certainly isn't a bad-faith report.  I honestly believe it is four reverts since the same text mentioned above was removed/added four times.   --Minderbinder 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted twice and I clearly stated that I reverted in those cases. The other times were genuine edits. If you check back at the talk page conversation, you will find that the attribution of claims was the primary sticking point, and was the area that that was the focus of my two edits. People didn't like what I wrote, so I tried to find a more acceptable solution. This is how things are supposed to be done, by discussion. If every discussed something and edited 3+ times as a result of said discussion was pulled up, there would be a lot less discussion.

I also find it less than a coincidence that this follows on from the RFC and is at the same time as the ARBcom come.

perfectblue 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No response from any of the admins on this one? --Minderbinder 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like this report got stale. I'll go talk to the reporting editor and see if the problem is ongoing. ··coe l acan 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Joseph.James00 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24hrs)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:57, 19 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:00, 21 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:09, 21 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:31, 21 April 2007 (partial revert)
 * 4th revert: 12:41, 21 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:38, 21 April 2007


 * Warnings:
 * Mine: 00:16, 21 April 2007
 * Seraphimblade's: 08:00, 21 April 2007

A previous incident report has already been filed above (so please read that as well) and Seraphimblade warned the user not to violate 3RR again but it has since happened 2 more times. Seraphimblade is currently off-line per a mesage on his talk page and comments on my talk page, so I have decided to relist so this gets noticed. PageantUpdater User Talk   Review me!  22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR. Crum375 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Chowbok reported by User:Quartet (Result:no vio)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

    
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Other older reverts:

Please note that this 3RR violation does not take place during a 24-hour period. However, the user has reverted numerous editors changes to the image caption of this article without valid reason and is clearly edit warring (in fact any editor who attempts to change the caption on this page is reverted without valid reason). The Wikipedia policy WP:3RR states that "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." As you can see by the massive number of reverts above, this is a long-term issue, where edits by a large number of editors have been reverted, even though there is no established consensus on the issue. I won't hesitate to say that there could possibly be a WP:OWN violation going on as well.
 * This is the 3RR noticeboard. I think you are looking for dispute resolution. -- BigDT  ( 416 ) 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Liaishard reported by User:Nightscream (Result:18 hours each)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Both sides have violated 3RR. Despite Nightscream's claims to the contrary, there is no exception to the rule for reverting NPOV material: if there were, anyone could claim an exception at any time by arguing they were reverting POV. The only real exceptions are simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons. As such, 18 hour blocks for both. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SteveWolfer reported by User:FraisierB (Result:48 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:16, 14 April 2007

(new)
 * 1st revert: 03:39, 19 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:21, 19 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:00, 19 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:48, 20 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:56, 21 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:37, 21 April 2007
 * 7th revert: 21:04, 21 April 2007
 * 8th revert: 03:01, 22 April 2007

I reported the first four reverts, but was told that there was no need for action because the article has settled down and there are no edits. I think you will find that this turns out not to be the case, as Mr. Wolfer has continued to revert over the same issue and shows no signs of ever stopping. Please note that he is reverting against three other people, and that I have refused to edit the article since filing my first report, so I am not fanning a fire here.

There is a fire, though, as this is fast becoming a full, ugly edit war, the details of which I am too polite to summarize. My concern is that your act of mercy was misunderstood by Wolfer as administrative sanction to revert that article at will, based on his patently false claim of removing libel. As I understand it, only simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons allow endless reversion, but this material is reliably and multiply sourced and isn't even particularly negative.

Wolfer has been blocked for 3RR violation before but has gotten away with it since, even before this. At this point, I feel that we have no choice but to block Wolfer's account to the maximum extent allowed until he learns that he does not own all articles related to Ayn Rand. By doing this now, we can avoid the need for a community ban later. FraisierB 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting 3 others on a ref'd statement of fact about a school's lack of accredidation. Rlevse 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)...:The ref clearly states that the school is unaccredited and grads can be licensed, which is what the article says; stating facts is not libel. The ref is an official source and very reliable and refers to the school, not the subject of the article.Rlevse 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He is also pursuing 3rr violations on template:ethics, if you look at his edit history, you will see that he will not accept consensus on some things that are matters of fact. --Buridan 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result: 24 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:37, 20 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:54, 21 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:48, 22 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:50, 22 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:17, 22 April 2007


 * Edit warring on Bob Dylan by an experienced editor. No support shown on talk page for this change. --JJay 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Nish kid 64  17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:87.189.91.236 reported by User:Dual Freq (Result: 24 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:08, April 22, 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:08, April 22, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:21, April 22, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:03, April 22, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:45, April 22, 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:32, April 22, 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:58, April 22, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:11, April 22, 2007 and warned via edit summary.
 * User indicated awareness of 3RR by warning another user about 0RR at 12:26, April 22, 2007 --Dual Freq 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm aware. I also regard all my reverts anti-vandalism. None of the changes I reverted was in any way justified, despite continued requests to do so. --87.189.91.236


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Nish kid 64  18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Guillermo Alvarez reported by User:NickW557 (Result: 24 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:21, 20 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:53, 22 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:40, 22 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:48, 22 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:23, 22 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:42, 22 April 2007

--Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Nish kid 64  20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG reported by User:Mackan (Result: page protected)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:06, 10 March 2007


 * 04:13, 12 April 2007
 * 03:58, 12 April 2007
 * 00:20, 12 April 2007
 * 13:22, 21 April 2007
 * 13:36, 21 April 2007
 * 13:46, 21 April 2007
 * 20:30, 22 April 2007
 * 20:30, 22 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:25, 19 March 2007

Let me be straight about one thing - this user has not broken 3RR, and yes, I read the disclaimer. But, WP:3RR clearly states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". This user keeps reverting other users (but is sure to not break 3RR), has not made a single edit to the talk page of the article in question, is ignoring the consensus there, has only used the edit summary field ONCE, and is breaking WP:BIO rules. If it's wrong to post about this here I apologize, but considering the wording on WP:3RR, this seemed appropriate. Mackan 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained my edit on edit summary before, and I think that what I want to say is already explained in talk page by other people. So I didn't it. What I want to say is only to tell it clearly how it is if someone dosen't want to see it. Thanks. DDRG 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fully protected the page. There seems to be no point in blocking DDRG for disruption because while he is blocked, he will not be able to contribute to a discussion on the article talk page. By protecting the article, hopefully the user will go to the talk page and discuss his changes to the article.  Nish kid 64  20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, I think what would be explained is already done by other people, so I wonder I have something to add it. Though I will add some. DDRG 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MrHaney reported by User:Elonka (Result: 24 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 18:46 April 22
 * 2nd revert: 20:00 April 22
 * 3rd revert: 20:02 April 22
 * 4th revert: 20:29 April 22


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:19 April 22

MrHaney continues inserting a paragraph promoting author Elaine Pagels, despite consensus on the talkpage to not include it. He has also been edit-warring to insert many other Pagels-related links on the page, and appears to be a spa account, with no editing history outside of Gnostic Gospels. He has been repeatedly warned about 3RR by different editors, but continues to edit-war and retort in an uncivil fashion. --Elonka 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Nish kid 64  21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR reported by User:Nethgirb (Result:24 block)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:08, 21 April 2007 PST (a revert of concerning poll statistics)
 * 2nd revert: 00:31, 22 April 2007 PST (same poll bit again, plus reverting info on connections with another controversy added by John Quiggin/JQ)
 * 3rd revert: 00:43, 22 April 2007 PST (again revert JQ's material)
 * 4th revert: 09:33, 22 April 2007 PST (rv both poll and some of JQ's material)

Background: UBeR has been active as a global warming skeptic on the global warming-related articles for some time. A previous complaint about his behavior is on the Administrator's Noticeboard (Reigning in Uber's trolling). Recently he seems to have been following John Quiggin around, first initiating an RfD against an article JQ created; after that RfD failed, making inappropriate edits to the article, such as removing sourced material with an edit summary saying it was unsourced (see discussion and in particular evidence); and now removing JQ's material from Global warming controversy. Full disclosure: I am also active on the GW-related articles and frequently conflict with UBeR on content issues. Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erroneous labels serve little more than to outwardly exhibit ignorance. ~ UBeR 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Uber for 24 hours. Raul654 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what a joke. Perhaps Raul can actually stop being a sanctiminious, bigoted individual and actually use his admin powers properly? Or is this beyond his intelligence? For ages Raul has made sure he has owned the global warming article, and its a total farce. LuciferMorgan 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, LuciferMorgan is back to his old trolling. I can see he's expanded his horizons beyond the FAR page, though, where his attitude is well known and nearly got him blocked. Raul654 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is well known on Wikipedia (and off it actually), only you use your admin power to abuse it. May I add to anyone reading this Raul has issued another block warning to me without even considering getting an independent administrator involved which is very common for him may I add. WP:KETTLE Raul - remember it every time you call me a troll. As concerns FAR, that's the same place you used to spread lies about me which I remember correctly and also warned you were going to stop an FAR of one of your own FAs. Furthermore if he doesn't like the truth I don't care as I will plainly speak the truth. LuciferMorgan 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nima Baghaei reported by User:Michaelbusch, 2nd offense (Result: 31 hr.)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:32


 * 1st revert: 22:28
 * 2nd revert: 22:53
 * 3rd revert: 22:59
 * 4th revert: 23:32


 * 3RR warning: warning prior to recent 3RR block (during which I was also blocked because I lost count of the times I removed the offending material). Nima has been adding material back over the objections of three other editors and seems to be deliberately being dense with regards to criticism.  Nima has filed a Request for Mediation, but keeps adding back the material while insisting that we 'let the mediation occur first'. Michaelbusch 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User blocked 31 hr. for 2nd offence per WP:3RR fishhead64 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Irakliy81 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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


 * 1st revert: 08:02, 22 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:58, 22 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:28, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:53, 23 April 2007

See block log. Khoikhoi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User blocked for 24 hours. Previous blocks are from over a year ago, so I'm reluctant to make a longer block at this point. If he continues to revert after the block expires, a longer time may be warranted. So explained at his talk page.  P h a e d r i e l  - 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottandrewhutchins reported by User:Naruto134 (Result: 30 hours)
. : This user, Scottandrewhutchins keeps changing the name of this Godzilla monster into a name that is the japanese name. The Godzilla monsters there have their english names but he keeps changing this one monster's name, King Caesar to King Shisa. He kept moving the name more than once and I warned him, but he ignored me. --Naruto134 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 19:49, 20 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:41, 21 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:48, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:50, 23 April 2007
 * Has this user been blocked? --Naruto134 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Irishguy reported by User:RPIRED (Result:no violation)
. :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=1
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:24, 22 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:51, 21 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:59, 22 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:52, 22 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:45, 22 April 2007

User has continually reverted information which is unsourced. Claims a source that has been continually pushed but has no basis in fact. POV dispute. Warned on user page. - RPIRED 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I reverted was readding a sourced claim that the above user continually removes. And as the times show, I didn't break, nor even make, 3 reverts within 24 hours. The above user is attempting to claim a false 3RR to gain an edge in an edit conflict. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation - User:Irishguy did not make more than three reverts within 24 hours. fishhead64 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No? So the whole thing about 3RR being "an electric fence" is just for show? - RPIRED 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: Warning)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:05, 20 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:52, 22 April 2007 (readded disputed material about iraq and about bodansky)
 * 2nd revert: 12:51, 22 April 2007 (readded disputed iraq material)
 * 3rd revert: 18:58, 22 April 2007 (same)
 * 4th revert: 19:54, 22 April 2007 (readded iraq and bodansky)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:24, 23 April 2007

I would like to note also that I too have reported user Biophys for repeated violations of 3RR on Boris Stomakhin, but he was only warned. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive44#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_Warning.29

Despite warnings he continues to revert any additions to the text by me. Although he never disputed main part of my new additions, he reverts them. Vlad fedorov 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, like with user csloat, user Biophys also deletes and reverts my additions to Operation Sarindar article, which presents just another version of the article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy.Vlad fedorov 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure that the first edit is a revert, but everyone involved here is headed for trouble due to edit warring. I strongly advise that everyone involved seek dispute resolution instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first edit is indeed a revert of the specific material on iraq and on bodansky. Although he did change around the order of a lot of other stuff, the revert is still clearly in evidence.  He should be warned or blocked about the 3RR violation and you're quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article. csloat 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:85.158.32.6 and User:85.158.35.142 reported by User:Ivan Kricancic (Result: 24hrs for both)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Note these diffs as well, as they are very close to breakign teh rule, and almost certainly will be broken soon.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosniaks&diff=prev&oldid=125124597
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosniaks&diff=prev&oldid=125125970
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosniaks&diff=prev&oldid=125127272


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ancient_Land_of_Bosoni&diff=prev&oldid=125126442
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ancient_Land_of_Bosoni&diff=prev&oldid=125127501
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ancient_Land_of_Bosoni&diff=prev&oldid=125127836

Articles that he has reverted twice so far in teh past 15 minutes are, , and many more (refer to this).

It should also be noted that this IP and many other 85.158.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, personal attacker 3rr violater etc. He currently has an RFC against him. And has been blocked 10 times including 4 times for 3RR violations.

His IP has changed to 85.158.35.142
 * Both IPs blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak &mdash;dgies tc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ivan Kricancic reported by User:85.158.35.142 (Result: 24hrs)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * 4th revert:


 * 5th revert:



Also:

Articles that he has reverted third times, , and many more (refer to this and this).

It should also be noted that this IP and many other 124.xxx.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, natioalist, personal attacker 3rr violater etc.

He was indefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetery: Rts_freak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment
This is one of the IPs I'm talking about in teh above section. Reverting when an edit is trollish or vandalism is not a violation of 3RR, so I have not violated. This user is under inverstigation here. &mdash; King Ivan  10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak &mdash;dgies tc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result:48h)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:04, 23 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:16, 23 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:51, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:13, 23 April 2007

Notes:
 * The exact material removed with each edit differs, but in each case the following text is removed:

In later years, Hubbard made a number of claims about his military record that do not reconcile with the government's documentation of his service years.

and

The Church of Scientology has circulated a US Navy notice of separation (a form numbered DD214, completed on leaving active duty) as evidence of Hubbard's wartime service. However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record. The Scientology version, signed by a nonexistent Lt. Cmdr. Howard D. Thompson, shows Hubbard being awarded medals that do not exist, boasts academic qualifications Hubbard did not earn, and places Hubbard in command of vessels not in the service of the US Navy. The Navy has noted "several inconsistencies exist between Mr. Hubbard's DD214 [the Scientology version] and the available facts".


 * It might be argued that some of the references in the removed text are unreliable sources. So far as I know, there is no exception to the three-revert rule for merely believing an unreliable source is being used, except in the case of a living person, which Hubbard is not.  Even if this were the case, however, in each revert COFS has removed the sentence "However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record." which is supported by the cited source ""  COFS seems to be arguing that if he/she does not choose to believe information even from a major metropolitan newspaper like the Los Angeles Times, he/she can not only remove it but violate 3RR to do so, judging by this talk page comment: "So don't try to "prove" something when your source OBVIOUSLY is some parroting journalist with no clue what he is talking about. COFS 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * COFS was already aware of the 3RR prior to this incident as he/she was blocked just two weeks ago because of it:.


 * Bucket of whitewash confiscated for 2 days. yandman  16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski reported by User:Noah30 (Result:no block, malformed report declined)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 14:26, 23 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:04, 23 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:50, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:09, 23 April 2007

Very disruptive user.


 * Please resubmit report with diffs, not revisions. Crum375 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:74.109.26.185 reported by User:amatulic (Result: No violation)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * All reverts are the same: Anonymous user blanks own talk page (containing current-day warnings), and two others restore it. All have violated 3RR.

Update: "Previous version reverted to" is now obsolete. User is engaging in talk now. However, both the anon user and two others (User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist) have violated WP:3RR in this edit war, so it's fair to block them all. -Amatulic 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to insert an outside opinion User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist appear, to me, to be reverting simple and obvious vandalism i.e. page blanking and thus have not violated 3RR. I was following this 'war' whilst avoiding becoming involved, having suffered the 3RR myself, :(. 82.3.93.146 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation: From the exception section in WP:3RR: "Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space". It has been proposed and failed to gain consensus that a user may be blocked for removing warnings from their own talk page.  It is frowned upon, but not prohibited, to remove warnings from one's own talk page.  For the other two users, I will assume good faith that they thought they were fixing vandalism.  &mdash;dgies tc 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mshafqat reported by User:WilyD (Result:24H)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 6:09 April 24


 * 1st revert: This deletion is repeated:, although the second blanks additional content as well
 * 2nd revert: This deletion is repeated:
 * 3rd revert: This deletion is repeated:
 * 4th revert: This deletion is repeated:
 * All these edits occur between 5:39 and 6:46 on April 24


 * General Warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result: Page Protected, User blocked 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:12, 22 April 2007
 * 1st revert: 22:19, 22 April 2007


 * 2nd revert: 08:10, 23 April 2007


 * 3rd revert:14:01 23 April 2007
 * 4 th revert:21:33 23 April 2007
 * 5th revert:22:11 23 April 2007

also
 * Previous version reverted to: 10:36, 19 April 2007
 * 1st revert: 21:09, 19 April 2007


 * 2nd revert: 22:35, 19 April 2007

Folken de Fanel was then reverted by a user not normally editing this page, but said user was in my judgement then intimidated into self reverting, see here:
 * 3rd revert:22:37, 19 April 2007
 * 4th revert:22:45, 19 April 2007
 * 5th revert:23:47, 19 April 2007
 * I have never intimidated anyone. Sandpiper, please don't make bad faith accusations that can be seen as diffamation.
 * Funpika was mistaken in reverting the article (and was certainly not in your "jugment"), and he freely admitted it when we discussed about it (as he had invited me to do on my talk page).Folken de Fanel 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User has been warned previously about 3RR and banned for violation of 3RR on Horcrux, but considers that his actions are justified (see edit history comments). Sandpiper 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, our interests are served by protecting the page to encourage discussion. That said, Folken de Fanel is fully aware of WP:3RR, and has chosen to disobey it. As such, I'm protecting the page and blocking Folken de Fanel for 24 hours. alphachimp 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Folken had done this before but I couldn't be bothered to post it here. The last time I did, on Horcrux, the article was blocked to his version and remains so. That's three articles he currently has blocked to his version. By all means let us play by the rules, but it seems to me the only lesson being taught here is that persistently breaking this rule is a succesfull tactic for pushing your own POV. People become very tired of being reasonable. Sandpiper 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Eblem reported by User:PubliusFL (Result:Already blocked)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 23 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:37, 23 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:02, 23 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:26, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:26, 23 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:34, 23 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:46, 23 April 2007
 * 7th revert: 23:52, 23 April 2007

Also apparent disruptive edits to make a WP:POINT at 23:04, 23 April 2007 and 23:13, 23 April 2007 (latter may have been an attempted 8th revert that backfired).

3RR warning in edit summary here, also removed a request to discuss changes and vandalism warnings from his talk page. PubliusFL 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has already been blocked for personal attacks by Coelacan, so a 3RR block is superfluous. // Sean William 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zubenzenubi reported by User:Paul Cyr (Result:No violation)
and. : Although two separate pages, user has repeatedly reverted the same content on both of them well over 3 times combined. Not 3 reverts on the same page, but 4 reverts on the same issue and obvious edit warring, despite attempts by others and myself to discuss the issue.
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Windows Vista

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:02


 * 1st revert: 14:45
 * 2nd revert: 22:06

Criticism of Windows Vista

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:56


 * 1st revert: 19:08
 * 2nd revert: 00:01
 * 3rd revert: 01:04


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:19
 * To breach WP:3RR, you must perform more than three reverts in 24 hours. // Sean William 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by User:MiFeinberg (Result: No violation)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user has repeatedly reverted to include a paragraph that I believe is highly suspect -- it states that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after a Nazi Germany gun confiscation act. The source cited, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, is not neutral, but is a politically motivated site, not an academic or neutral source.

That notwithstanding, the user has reverted three times within 24 hours:


 * 1st revert: 22 April, 16:58
 * 2nd revert: 22 April, 19:57
 * 3rd revert: 23 April, 04:08

Violating the 3RR requires more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! reported by User:67.101.243.74 (Result: Warning)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on

The user initially removed a link to Scottish people replacing it with Scotland. When I requested to discuss the change, the user did not respond. His edit summary cited a policy that I pointed out does not exist. I waited several days before requesting again that he discuss the change. He continued to not respond. In an effort to compromise despite his lack of cooperation, I included a link to the Scottish people article by including brief, additional, and relevant new information including the link. He reverted it. I started a second discussion on his talk page. He continued to ignore it and reverted the change on the article page. I reverted two times over several days, each time reminding the editor that he must communicate rather than bully his want to not include the link. He has most recently called my edit "spam" on behalf of a "pet article/project" in spite of the fact that I have never edited that article. He has also violated 3RR by reverting my edits to the page. This could be viewed as edit warring. If that is the determination, the offending editor must still be made to discuss changes with editors, including myself, rather than repeatedly reverting and ignoring them. I have made every conceivable effort to effectively communicate with this delinquent editor.

Here are the two previous versions for which the editor cited a non-existent policy in his edit summaries:
 * 1st reference: 17:11, 17 April 2007
 * 2nd reference: 22:23, 17 April 2007

And here are my repeated requests for discussion with the offender: '''Note: This note was inserted after the result had been determined in this report for reference purposes. The above second talk page discussion of User talk:Mais oui! were deleted along with a third, later section by Mais oui! with this edit.'''
 * first talk page discussion
 * second talk page discussion


 * 1st revert: 06:16, 21 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:08, 21 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:24, 23 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:08, 24 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:25, 24 April 2007

Note: Offending user, Mais oui! has only the last three reversions in the past 24 hours, however, the 3RR policy also provides for users who have made repetitive reversions in a short period and are demonstrably either disruptive or likely to continue to revert. Mais oui is certainly likely to continue to revert and, between his complete disregard for communication with other editors (see linked discussions above) and his multiple previous 3RR blocks he is also demonstrably disruptive.

Hasn't violated 3RR, but warned for edit warring and asked to engage in discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:57, 24 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:47, 24 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:51, 24 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:12, 24 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:13, 24 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:48, 24 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 14:26, 24 April 2007 // Liftarn
 * 7th or so revert: 13:26, 24 April 2007 Tom Harrison Talk 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8th revert 17:18, 24 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liftarn (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Limboot is out of control on two three articles, edit warring, removing sourced material, adding WP:OR, and meanwhile creating WP:POINT articles. -- M P er el ( talk 17:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to defend Limboot's actions but Liftarn also broke 3RR. See the report below. KazakhPol 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:54, 24 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:42, 24 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:10, 24 April 2007
 * 3rd revert 16:10, 24 April 2007
 * 4th revert 16:35, 24 April 2007
 * 5th revert 16:12, 24 April 2007, Tom Harrison Talk 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6th revert 17:12, 24 April 2007 // Liftarn


 * Comment: Having edited these pages today, I will recuse myself from blocking, but this editor has been warned, and continues to violate WP:3RR egregiously. -- Avi 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Wnjr reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: Article protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Following an edit war involving whether a particular statement should be included in a section of an article, I determined that it would be better to simply eliminate the entire section as non-notable, and so edited the article. user:Wnjr reverted this edit at 22:10, 22 April 2007, see, to a version that did not include the disputed statement.
 * I edited the newly-constituted article to replace the disputed statement, see ; user:Wnjr removed this text at 10:18, 23 April 2007, an action which appears to fall within the definition of a "revert" for purposes of WP:3RR noted above.
 * I again replaced the disputed text, see ; user:Wnjr responded by carrying out a direct and plain revert at 13:03, 23 April 2007, see
 * Concluding that user:Wnjr was unwilling to accept either the removal in toto of the section, or the presence of the disputed text, I tried a halfway house, removing the bulk of the section and summarizing very briefly its contents. user:Wnjr responded by carrying out an undisputable revert at 09:19, 24 April 2007, see, eliminating my re-write.
 * Lacking any other alternative, I reverted.

While I realize that the time lapse between user:Wnjr's first and fourth revert is slightly more than 24 hours, I ask for a somewhat lenient application of the rule, particularly since it seems apparent that user:Wnjr has specifically timed their most recent reversion to evade the rule. I have also requested full protection for the page. Simon Dodd 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The text you repeatedly added to the page is irrelevant and unsourced, there is no evidence provided that Valenti wrote her book after the initial controversy, and this seems implausible, given that she was promoting it in October 2006 e.g., and the link between this and Franke-Ruta's appearance on bloggingheads.tv is entirely your own opinion, and has no place in wikipedia. Your current revision of the controversy section is entirely unreferenced (which is particularly apparent in the phrase "Althouse's critics on the left" - Who does this refer to? On the left according to whom?) unlike the text you deleted, and even dates the incident as happening in 2005.
 * Also, according to your timeline above you are yourself in breach WP:3RR!
 * Wnjr 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Result: Article protected by Majorly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:StuffOfInterest (Result:2 weeks)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:55, 23 Apr 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:16 23 Apr 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:47 23 Apr 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:05 23 Apr 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:24 24 Apr 2007
 * 5th revert: 09:25 24 Apr 2007


 * Comment: (As I was about to report this, as well....)
 * All times UTC -4
 * The changes were almost identical, but, even disregarding that, reverts 4 and 5 were reverts to "revert" 3, making 4 clear reverts.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User has history of 3RR on WTC-related articles, and was blocked for 1 week already due to 3rr. Given 2 weeks this time to hopefully review 3RR in detail. -- Avi 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:KazakhPol (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 24 April
 * 2nd revert: 24 April
 * 3rd revert: 24 April
 * 4th revert: 24 April

Definitely not a new user and was clearly aware of how the policy works since he reported Limboot a few reports above this one. KazakhPol 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect it was inadvertent while trying to contain the out-of-control editor Limboot on 3 articles (and spreading). -- M P er el ( talk 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Inadvertent? It was an edit war between them. It was hardly inadvertent. KazakhPol 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you look at the edit history it's easy to see why I missed it. I thought Ruthiekm reverted befor I did making my revert a null revert. Well, even experienced editors makes misstakes. // Liftarn


 * Warned per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALiftarn&diff=125591839&oldid=125579786 -- Avi 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zyxoas reported by User:DawnTreader (Result:malformatted report declined)
. : Time reported: 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Comment: Zyxoas has also resorted to personal derision. He has been warned several times over a long period in various language articles. He has also overridden the consensus achieved through discussion. He has also made comments about "owning" the article and talk page. He has taken it upon himself to revert pages across several articles, including Sotho_language. Any sanction should apply to those edits as well. In a nutshell, Zyxaos insists that several Bantu African language names should have the same word in English as in the native language. For example, he insists that "Northern Sotho" be referred to as "Sesotho sa Leboa", which of course is absurd!
 * Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Noah30 reported by User:Medule (Result:48 hours; article protected)
. : Time reported: 20:42 24 April
 * Three-revert rule violation on

1. revert [| 05:53 24 April]

2. revert [|18:41 24 April]

3. revert [| 20:14  24 April]

4. revert [| 20:20 24 April]
 * Already blocked for 48 hours by another admin. Because the edit warring at the article is among many users, I've protected it. Hope all involved can resolve this. Heimstern Läufer 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Asams10 reported by User:K1ng l0v3 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Leflyman (Result:No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on and.
 * Time reported: 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:44, 22 April 2007 (Slightly modified in current form)


 * On Jimmy Wales:
 * 1) 1st revert: 04:53, 23 April 2007
 * 2) 2nd revert: 06:01, 23 April 2007
 * 3) 3rd revert: 10:27, 23 April 2007
 * 4) 4th revert: 07:00, 24 April 2007
 * 5) 5th revert: 11:34, 24 April 2007


 * Per WP:BLP policy, contentious, controversial content was moved from the Jimmy Wales bio to Talk:Jimmy Wales for discussion and clean-up; an RFC was further opened for more input; this editor has chosen to ignore stipulations of BLP, and charge on ahead with reinsertion/reversion. (Note: As for my removal of the content, BLP makes clear, "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. ") User has been warned on his talk page.
 * No more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. Baseless BLP claim by Leflyman has not been supported by anyone who has commented on the talk page. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." -- LeflymanTalk 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to report yourself then? If anything is disruptive, it's your unilateral removal of entire paragraphs against the talk-page consensus. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On Bhutan:
 * 1) 1st revert (of ongoing series): 05:01, 23 April 2007
 * 2) 2nd revert: 09:22, 23 April 2007
 * 3) 3rd revert: 10:28, 23 April 2007
 * 4) 4th revert: 21:48, 23 April 2007
 * Appears to be an in-progress edit-war over insertion of sources and content, to which this editor has been a party for weeks.
 * I don't believe 3RR applies to removal of blatant spam/vandalism. I am reverting someone who keeps spamming links to bhutantimes.com everywhere. (Note that the reporting user had nothing to do with the Bhutan articles, but stalked my contributions to find something to report.) Bramlet Abercrombie 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: the reversions were not "simple and obvious vandalism", but included content disputes. Additionally, WP:HARASS, points out: "[Stalking] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."- LeflymanTalk 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It does include, though, looking at logs for the purpose of finding something to "get at" another user. And it's not a content dispute, it's a spammer with the single purpose of promoting his non-notable website. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what bramlet is so paranoid about. looking at someone's logs can be motivated by a hundred different reasons not just to 'get at' anybody. if i looked at his contributions it would be merely to see if he was a serious wikipedian or someone simply out to vandalize certain pages. he it would be appreciated if he ceased the habit of keeping on removing links to bhutantimes. he claims to have clear criteria for reverting my links but clearly he does not, he seems simply out to remove any links to bhutantimes.com simply because in his opinion he thinks the site is not notable. even if that is the sole criterion, clearly he does not know enough about the site to come to his conclusions. but he has appointed himself judge and jury. and since he seems to be online almost 24 hours it is hard for anyone to win an edit war with him. which is what forced me to put links in places i thought he may not notice. if he were to cease the reverts, the links would be merely where they are relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atakhawjey (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Either you can both be blocked for edit warring or I can just say "no action" and not do any thing with this stale report. John Reaves (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Result: No violation)
3RR violation on a template which seemed to suit the user's own ends at WP:uF and is other discussions. User is rampantly implimenting coord and micoformats, often against many a users' wishes.
 * 1) Initial edit- 20:48, 19 April 2007
 * 2) 1st revert - 22:07, 19 April 2007
 * 3) 2st revert - 22:11, 19 April 2007
 * 4) 3st revert - 22:19, 19 April 2007

The anon also violated WP:3RR, but Pigsonthewing ought to know better IMO.  L.J.Skinner wot 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Too late for a block to be worthwhile, warned both Pigsonthewing and the IP. &mdash;dgies tc 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Referral to the talk page would have shown those reverts to involve apparent vandalism; and the matter to be resolved. lewisskinner's bizarre "microformats" comments, above, are unwarranted and seem to be part of what is increasingly looking like a vendetta. Andy Mabbett 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov reported by User:Piotrus (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Vlad's new revision 1 as of 12:39, April 24, 2007, note selected keywords that will return in every new revert: "ogoniek" references, "'Four tankmen and a dog'", unofficial political police, Ministry of Truth, La Stampa,  Helena Luczivo
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 13:41, April 24, 2007 (note: simple revert to above's Vlad's Revision 1
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 16:11, April 24, 2007 (mostly same information but inserted to different sections and in different order, note restored keywords: "ogoniek" refs, Four tankmen and a dog, Helena Luczivo, unofficial political police, Ministry of Truth, La Stampa
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:43, April 24, 2007 (note: per above, somewhat rewritten, note same information (keywords): Four tankmen and a dog, Helena Luczivo, unofficial political police, Ministry of Truth, La Stampa
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 00:19, April 25, 2007 (note: most of the above information returns, keywords: "ogoniek" refs, Four tankmen and a dog, Helena Luczivo, unofficial political police, La Stampa
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 12:04, April 25, 2007 (note: restoring just Four tankmen and a dog removed by a newly arrived anon...)
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 13:01, April 25, 2007 (note: restoring Ogonyok refs and parts of new text about lustration added in the past few reverts)
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 13:55, April 25, 2007, restoring "totallydisputed" tag he has been adding in most reverts
 * 8th revert: Revision as of 14:17, April 25, 2007, restoring the total tag once again
 * 9th revert: Revision as of 15:15, April 25, 2007, restoring tt tag

The user has been blocked for 3RR and incivility in the past days; his last block had a duration of 72h. He has been warned by others about not breaking 3RR again very recently (User_talk:Vlad_fedorov). As can be seen from a longer view of his contribs, immediatly after his most recent block expired, he is continuing revert warring on (mostly) the same old articles. So far the only thing he seems to have learned is to try oto make less self-evident reverts...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Misrepresentation, not uncommon in using admin boards to win content disputes. The article was clearly not revert warred but WP:BRD. The talk page discussion was and remains ongoing and this is anything but a revert war. Also, the user has shown significant signs of improvement since his past blocks and we should encourage that as he is obviously contributing valuable content that he actually writes (see his contributions). Suggest no action and a reprimand for an attempt to win a content dispute in an inventive way. --Irpen 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, "reverts" 3, 4 and especially 2, are rewrites not reverts with the talk page discussion taking into account. As per talk page suggestions, the user implements the inegration of the content of the section he added earlier (disapproved by his opponent) into the article flow thus tightening the article and developing it. --Irpen 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also would like to note that me edits are not "sterile edit war" it is evident that it is Piotrus who deletes information supported by reliable source which he doesn't like. Pay attention to his ridiculous explanation for his reverts diff. He wrote that he reverts "rv - per Internet brigades, Russian newspapers are not reliable when describing Polish-Russian relations, this is unnecessary detail". However this particular user - Piotrus, created and edited articles on Russian-Polish relations based on Polish sources. He presents the history of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine only from Poland POV. Now, I have attempted to introduce into this article Russian, Italian and even Polish POV - and his explanation is conspiracy theory about KGB teams working in the internet? I belive this is a personal attack on me. Please see also history of the Institute of National Remembrance article, prior to me user Piotrus also had problems with user Jadger and as is in my case user Piotrus was also reverting additions on criticism of IPN. I think that user Piotrus activities are an example of WP:TEND and pursue the single goal -- to push the Polish POV above all others. Vlad fedorov 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Irpen's assessment. There is a productive discussion on the talk page and the edits of Vlad do not look like blind revert but like a WP:BRD cycle. I might be biased here so I would left the final decision upon a more neutral administrator Alex Bakharev 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only misrepresentation here is by users supporting his POV. Information was restored four times in 24h; much of it the same. It is clear 3RR violation and besides, 3RR is not a vote. And I never heard that explaining your reverts (or insulting others...) at talk gives you freedom from 3RR...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that user Piotrus used to comment on my Polish language fluency diff. I regard it as a personal attack. I am a graduate of Warsaw University and definitely could speak legal Polish fluently. I have a diploma of Polonicum Institute of Polish Language of Warsaw University. User Piotrus also constantly in every message says that I violate WP:NPA, e.g. "insulting others" etc. This report is made by Piotrus to prevent introduction of information which he personally doesn't like, although it is supported by reliable and valid sources. I also has introduced direct translation of Polish legislation which clearly states that IPN is a lustration body. Vlad fedorov 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a Request for Comments about Vlad_Fedorov behavior (alleged wikistalking) submitted by User:Colchicum - Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. User:Vlad fedorov also continue edit warring on Boris Stomakhin article. This article is currently in the process of Cabal negotiations initiated by Vlad_Fedorov: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin. But he did not want to wait for the end of negotiations (mediator promised to propose a compromise version), and instead started edit warring. Biophys 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC) So, I disagree with the assessment of Alex and Irpen. I must admit that all this discussion participants (including me) are seem to be involved in a kind of editorial argument. So, outside opinions would help. Biophys 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And what relation to current issue it has? User Biophys previously was given two warnings for 3RR violation on Boris Stomakhin and Operation Sarindar by Seraphimblade. Biophys has been blocked for disruptive activities and there is a Request for Comments about Biophys behavior (alleged wikistalking) submitted by User:Vlad fedorov - Requests_for_comment/Biophys. So what? By the way now Biophys allegedly stalks me on the article Institute of National Remembrance which he never edited before and allegedly stalks me even there on 3RR board. Vlad fedorov 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on who did what in the past is out of place here. This is a 3RR board. If Piotrus thinks that VF's contribution to this article is generally disruptive, he should move this to another board as he frequently does; when his attempt to push for his content opponent's sanction at one board fails or the comment he gets upon request does not support him, he starts it all over elsewhere. Did VF run a revert war or developed the article almost doubling its size? The latter. Was he ignoring the other POV or did he discuss a great deal at talk? The latter. Did the editor learn from his mistakes? I see many signs of it. Do we want to encourage the good development in the knowledgeable and productive editor? Yes, unless someone's unhappiness about POV diversity, the main asset of Wikipedia, results from the interest of having the WP as as agenda pushing tool rather than NPOV encyclopedia. Anyway, significant time passed since than. The user added a whole lot more in the article, caught an opponent playing tricks with sources, remained civil and otherwise helpful. I think it is time to close the narrow 3RR issue and Piotrus may proceed elsewhere with his more general complaints as he did previously. --Irpen 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As happened before multiple times, in the middle of the editing dispute and out of nowhere the anon or new IP account appears out of the blue to "help" Piotrus as we speak. This, however, belongs to this Arbcom where it will be added. --Irpen 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: this is a 9RR now (although playing devil's advocate note that only 6-7RR span 24h)...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again false, but I requested Vlad at his talk to leave the article alone in any form as long as it is tagged disputed since Piotrus and some unknown puppets are clearly shooting not for the article development but to do anything to have the opponent blocked. This complex matter belongs to the ongoing ArbCom of Piotrus where it will be added. Article's semiprotection to stop the strange ongoing editing is advised though. --Irpen 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for intervening here, but I understand very well User Piotrus. Vlad was following my edits for months, so I know him very well. It is my personal opinion (see also RfC by Colhicum) that Vlad creates no useful content in WP but only follows me and other users. I agree with Irpen that Vlad has changed his behavior recently. Previously, he usually deleted referenced content from articles created by others (as one can see in the history of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Persecution of political bloggers, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews and many many others). Now he is acting differently. He inserts some referenced but almost irrelevant information in articles created by others, marks them as "totally disputed", inserts word "alleged" several times in every sentence, etc. This makes articles much worse than before. An example of the latter are articles Institute of National Remembrance, (by Piotrus) and GRU and Operation Sarindar. For example, Operation Sarindar is about weapons of mass destruction, but Vlad inserts information about conventional weapons controversy, which makes an already complicated story completely unreadable. Understandably, this causes frustration of other editors who worked hard to create good articles, as in this case of Institute of National Remembrance article.Biophys 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why nobody did anything with this report, and I'm sorry it took me so long to look at this, but I think any blocks at this point would be viewed as punitive. I locked the article for a while while the edit war was going on; I have now unlocked it and I hope some discussion (or, if necessary, dispute resolution) can be started. I will also keep an eye on the article and will block for edit warring without further warnings if need be. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Kafziel Talk 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is noteworthy that User:Vlad fedorov continues his abusive editing which involves insertion of misleading or irrelevant information in articles created by others, and the subsequent RR warring.Biophys 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Louispgagne reported by User:Tristan.buckmaster (Result: 48 hours, article protected)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:03, 25 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tristan.buckmaster (talk • contribs) 08:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

This user has reverted the page four times:
 * 1st revert: 07:55, 25 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:27, 25 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:57, 25 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:37, 25 April 2007

The user has been recently banned because of the three reverts policy. I have tried to merge his information with the previous version, without success. The user has been warned on numerous occasions has failed to discuss his changes on the talk page, instead resorting to personal attacks and vandalising the page with blanking. Tristan.buckmaster 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the user could have violated the conflict of interest (WP:COI) guidelines, since it is clear from his posts to the discussion of ACN inc. that he is involved with ACN inc. So in summary he has violated the three-revert rule again after being previously banned, he has been involved in vandalism, he has made personal attacks and he has violated the conflict of interest guidelines. A lengthy ban I believe would be appropriate as he does not seem to get the message that his behavior on wikipedia is not appropiate. Tristan.buckmaster 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User just came off a 24 hours block for 3RR on this article, so they have been re-blocked for 48 hours. Because of revert warring and to avoid favoring either side in the dispute, I have fully protected the article for 48 hours.  &mdash;dgies tc 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:sdpate reported by User:zanimum (Result:Indef)
. : Time reported: 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user has been adamant that he wants his way or the highway, and has been raising completely unfounded rumours about me, and now is wanting to remove his content, as keeping it up would be a violation of copyright, in his opinion. He has also been break 3RR of Pat Binns.


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability_rights_in_Prince_Edward_Island&diff=125716142&oldid=125708798
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability_rights_in_Prince_Edward_Island&diff=125869536&oldid=125868483
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability_rights_in_Prince_Edward_Island&diff=125868185&oldid=125867783
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability_rights_in_Prince_Edward_Island&diff=125866677&oldid=125865429
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disability_rights_in_Prince_Edward_Island&diff=125864908&oldid=125827641
 * Blocked indef by Naconkantari for legal threats. John Reaves (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex_Kov reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:45, 25 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:39, 25 April 2007 (as 133.41.84.206, who is the same person as Alex Kov, see )
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, 25 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:29, 25 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:01, 26 April 2007 (as 133.41.84.206)

Not a new user; see block log. Khoikhoi 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked earlier in the month for 3RR. Stepping up to a 48 hour block. ··coe l acan 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines reported by User:Hanse (Result:warned)
. : Time reported: 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Template has been inserted into this article with a view to dealing with the inappropriate tone of some of the content (that template also proposed as an alternative). Although User:Alastair Haines has been advised of potential contravention of 3RR, this user has just reverted for the 4th time in a 24hr period. Hanse 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:46, 26 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:01, 25 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:46, 26 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:35, 26 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:53, 26 April 2007


 * Because this report is a bit stale, and because it seems the user has been making productive contribs elsewhere, I'm giving a final warning for now. Update if edit war continues. Heimstern Läufer 05:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) The report is a little malformatted. However, it is clear that there has been a 3RR violation with regard to the removal of the "essay entry" tag. Version reverted to, 1st revert, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. In last edit summary, acknowledges 3RR rule but reverts anyway. Heimstern has now left an unambiguous 3RR warning; hopefully a block will be unnecessary. ··coe l acan 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CINEGroup reported by User:asams10 (Result:24H)
. : Time reported: 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:19 26 April


 * 1st revert: 16:52
 * 2nd revert: 16:56
 * 3rd revert: 17:52
 * 4th revert: 17:56
 * 5th revert: 18:14

Also of interest, this editor had an Incident report filed about him yesterday: CINEGroup Incident (archive). MiFeinberg 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have revised the original edit, which was the wrong one. On the question at issue, that was itself a revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Dina 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result:31h)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:58, 22 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:21, 26 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:41, 26 April 2007
 * Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 26 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:08, 26 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:57, 26 April 2007
 * 5th revert 13:50, 26 April 2007
 * Edit warring over inclusion of Bob Dylan on this list. User:Bus stop twice removed the Dylan entry completely, then added an editorial comment to the entry four times. Was reverted by four separate editors. User:Bus stop was blocked for 3RR earlier this week for edit warring over the same issue on the Bob Dylan page. --JJay 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer 05:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by Isarig (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 0:09, 26 February 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:06, 26 April 2007 edit summary reads: 'Revert to revision...'
 * 2nd revert: 14:00, 26 April 2007 edit summary reads 'Revert to revision...'
 * 3rd revert: 15:58, 26 April 2007 edit summary reads 'Revert to revision ...'
 * 4th revert: 08:17, 27 April 2007 edit summary reads 'Revert to revision ...'
 * 5th revert: 10:02, 27 April 2007 edit summary reads 'Revert to revision ...'

As the edits summaries indicate, the user is clearly aware that he is reverting each time. He is a serial edit warrior, and has resumed the edit war on this page as soon as it was unprotected. User is aware of 3RR and has been blocked for it in the past.
 * Blocked 24 hours. ··coe l acan 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Zerida (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:58, 27 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:23, 27 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:32, 27 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:37, 27 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:09, 27 April 2007

The reversions are all the same, but there are more as you can tell by the edit history. He has been asked on the article's talk page to observe basic criteria regarding verifiability and original research, but continued to ignore these particular points saying essentially that he will simply continue to revert (without making any effort to source the claims that were challenged by other editors). I explained to him that this could be construed as disruptive editing. He is not a new user and has been warned about 3rr, but reverted at least twice again after that. — Zerida 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. ··coe l acan 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Related: Egyegy also blocked 24 hours, for 4 reverts in the above dispute. ··coe l acan 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Super World Champions reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:58, April 26, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:18, April 27, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:39, April 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:55, April 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:06, April 27, 2007


 * Comments
 * User has already been warned about edit warning on another page, yet displays no intention stopping or actively discussing issues, as seen with this type of comment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG reported by User:MSJapan (Result: 24h for both parties)
. : Time reported: 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:, but it's the same version he has been reverting to for weeks, so take your pick from his contribs.

Comment: I have no idea what this edit war is about. However, checking the time stamps it looks to me that User:DDRG technically did not violate 3RR. His four reverts were narrowly outside the 24 hour window. However, User:MSJapan did violate 3RR with 4 reverts within 24 hours today. --JJay 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Example diff for all reversions:
 * This slow motion revert war has gone on long enough. I have blocked both for 24 hours for edit warring. ··coe l acan 04:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CRBR reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: handling as vandalism)
. : Time reported: 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * I've looked into this and it's vandalism rather than any clear cut 3RR case. So I've given a vandalism warning and instructed the reporting editor to take further problems to WP:AIV. ··coe l acan 05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Chal7ds reported by User:Aude (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:59, 27 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:06, 27 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:51, 27 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 27 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:03, 27 April 2007

User was warned multiple times, and trying to insert this unsourced, not-notable (not covered by reliable sources) for several days.

Diff of 3RR warnings:
 * 19:08, 27 April 2007
 * 21:45, 27 April 2007


 * Here is the version reverted to, not quite as reported. But the diffs are correct, this is four reverts. Result is a 24 hour block. ··coe l acan 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Asams10 reported by CINEGroup (Result: no violation)
Sorry first time ever here and almost 30 minutes spent reporting this.



Blocked on April 25th 2007 for 3rr also. Block expired and he's back again already with 3 more 3rr. Maybe time to really hammer this user who has been very sirupted on a number of wikipedia articles. CINEGroup 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I stopped before violating the rule, however CINEGroup is retaliating for me reporting him by reverting himself and trying to troll me into violating rules. Please close this ASAP.--Asams10 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with that Asams10, I have made one edit to that article in the last 24 hours ... CINEGroup 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At this time, Asams10 has three recent reverts on Walther P22.   That is not a violation of WP:3RR, which prohibits more than three reverts. I am declining to block, as apparently no violation of the policy has occurred. The instructions on this page have not been followed and no diffs are provided. I have to rely on my own investigation, which I was willing to do, but many admins are not. In the future if the 3RR rule has been broken, you should follow the instructions here and provide diffs, or your report may be ignored in spite of it being valid. Try to save time for the admins who have to investigate these reports. ··coe l acan 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Praveen pillay reported by User:KNM (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:16, April 27, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:43, April 27, 2007 -->adds back a disputed portion of the article.
 * 2nd revert: 14:37, April 27, 2007 -->here undoes a change made(to the ordering of names of five languages) by a brand new user. Also a violation of WP:BITE perhaps. Also puts in a misleading edit summary saying "changed to alphabhatical order", but conveniently forgets that T comes after S in English alphabets.
 * 3rd revert: 02:57, April 28, 2007 -->adds back a disputed portion of the article.
 * 4th revert: Current revision (04:34, April 28, 2007) -->adds back a disputed portion of the article.


 * Not a new user and has been warned earlier also about 3RR. Some warnings might still be on his talk page.


 * Declining to block. The report is misleading; in one diff there are "5 intermediate revisions not shown" and it looks like more reverting is happening than actually is. In fact, these two edits are side-by-side, and so they count together as a single revert. There are, in total, three reverts here, not four. ··coe l acan 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Frjohnwhiteford reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 05:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:50, 26 April and 21:21, 26 April and 18:45, 27 April


 * 1st revert: 21:15, 26 April
 * 2nd revert: 10:20, 27 April
 * 3rd revert: 12:50, 27 April
 * 4th revert: 18:52, 27 April


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:08, 27 April


 * Blocked 24 hours. I'm taking this as ample 3RR notification, and a slightly different reading of the reverts than that provided by FeloniousMonk, which I have enumerated at user talk:Frjohnwhiteford in my block notification. ··coe l acan 08:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SLi reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 6h)
. : Time reported: 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:01, 27 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:12, 28 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:15, 28 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:30, 28 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:41, 28 April 2007

Despite two requests to talk about not using PoV text or assumptions where there isn't evidence, SLi kept on reverting the changes without discussion.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:53, 28 April 2007


 * An edit war needs at least two sides, and in this case that's exactly two (meaning if I have made n editwarring reverts, he must have done at least the n-1 he feels he's entitled to, right? He's used to that and been blocked for 3RR violations before.). Well, please also consider the nature of the edits I reverted. I reverted edits by Fnagaton to the text of a prospective poll option he disagrees with because these edits mangled the option text entirely, effectively removing the point from the text. I don't know if that's "simple" vandalism, but I'd say it's at least clear vandalism.


 * Fnagaton's claim that the issues have not been discussed is quite bogus. The argumentation has gone in circles for quite long now (just see the amount of text produced on WP:MOSNUM talk!), no new arguments have been made in a while and I felt quite justified to quit replying to the same arguments again and again.


 * I beg that you take this into account when considering this report. --SLi 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user did not discuss the strike outs, I have reverted and given explanations exactly why each time and this is shown by the diffs. The text of the poll was not mangled it just removed the invalid incorrect parts the user insisted on writing and kept the parts that are factual. I gave the user a chance to change back to my edit and talk about adding changes that are not so PoV, but the user has not chosen to take that opportunity. Fnagaton 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is just not true. But I'll gladly leave it for the admin to decide if the poll option text still has the same spirit after your edits, I see nothing to be achieved by arguing about it with you. --SLi 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true and a matter of record, writing "allegedly" (as you did) does not magically change something not true into something true that can be used in poll text. Fnagaton 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you think it's true or not. It's a poll option. --SLi 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it, you don't care. Look, I'll give you a final chance, restore the strike outs to how I edited them and talk about adding some text that is more truthful rather than all your "allegedly" stuff and I'll ask that this 3RR report is removed. Fnagaton 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll rather have the situation assessed by a neutral administrator. --SLi 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not yet closed, pending a request I have left for SLi. ··coe l acan 10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your message. I guess then you will just have to block me if you find that the correct solution, because I stand behind my words that an editor mangling prospective poll options he doesn't agree with to something that doesn't represent the original point at all is vandalism and I refuse to revert back to the vandalized version. Please don't take this personally or as arrogance, I really appreciate the work you do judging these cases, I just prefer the block to having to vandalize a page myself. I really feel it's not me you should punish (or at least not me alone, I admit I did break the 3RR in reverting what is in my opinion rather obvious vandalism, and if you aren't even entitled to those three edits Fnagaton made when edit warring about this (even the difference being that he mangled the options and I restored them to a sane state &mdash; he even admits the option doesn't make any sense after his edits!) then I don't really think I bear the guilt alone), but if you disagree, by all means go ahead. --SLi 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your poll option says "refuse to participate in a poll", well by voting you're taking part in it, it's your changes that don't make sense. Removing the parts where you don't stick to the facts is not vandalism, it's merely an attempt to keep the poll text honest. Fnagaton 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This namespace is one of the less disruptive places to edit war, so SLi is blocked 6 hours. Fnagaton is warned not to continue at all unless there is a third party in agreement. ··coe l acan 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this seems very reasonable to me! --SLi 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Urthogie reported by User:Taharqa (Result:72h and 36h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert/blanking of sourced material: 18:43, 28 April 2007 - Large scale blanking of Yesterday's material and subsequent reverts over cited material with out consult.


 * 2nd revert/blanking of sourced material: 19:25, 28 April 2007 - continued blanking and reverting of cited material after pleads for him/her to stop.


 * 3rd revert: 19:35, 28 April 2007 - User was warned to restore sources, yet refused and kept reverting with out compromise


 * 4th revert: 19:46, 28 April 2007 - user still refuses to stop or compromise and relentlessly reverts all of the previous edits. Initiates what he/she calls an "edit war" (and many more reverts leading up to these with in the past several hours).

Hello, this user is particularly problematic. He/she continues to edit out people's contributions and blank out entire sections, rearanging them at his/her will and being uncompromising. Yesterday the user blanked out many of the editor's collective contributions and I have been relentlessly trying to restore the article, but the user is relentless in his/her vandalism. We've had staff comment (at that time it was only a content dispute) and we couldn't get the problem with this person resolved because the person blanks out everyone's contributions.
 * Comments

We have also warned the user well over 10 - 20 times to desist from his/her vandalism/reverts and blanking of material, and first to go over the points of contention but the user refuses. He/she has many similar complaints in his/her discussion box also. I am also not the only editor who has warned him/her. It would be helpful and progressive to the article if he/she were blocked, at least for a while.Taharqa 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it strange that Taharqa has chosen to report me, considering that she has reverted every single time I've reverted, tit for tat about 20 reverts to each of us. If you look at the history, you will see that Taharqa is the one blanking the page (removing 1400 bytes), while I am the one trying to keep the removed content (the 1400 bytes I added to the page).  In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will see that Taharqa has accused me of "vandalism" despite her identical actions, and has also made clear that they refuse to compromise, despite all of the editors on the page asking her to several times (including myself).  She apparently doesn't realize that "Vandalism" doesn't mean "edit war."  I tried to explain this to her on the talk page but she didn't accept this explanation.  I suggest you block neither of us, and rather, that this be handled through mediation or third opinion.  I say this because we are the only serious editors of the page.  I believe we are capable of solving this dispute if Taharqa follows Assume good faith and No personal attacks.--Urthogie 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Yesterday the article was fine and I had many contributions and edits that me and others such as "Nkuka", "Muntuwandi", and others provided over time. Urthogie randomly blanked out numerous resources and replaced them with blank uncited sections. Nukuka is asking for a compromise yet we all agree by consensus that Urthogie is extremely problematic. Discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#stop_reverting_the_entire_page_Urthogie

2. I admit to reverting more than once and if I am entitled to any blockage I'll accept it graciously, my main contention would only be that I was simply trying to restore what Urthogie already destroyed and his/her reverts to my restoration of past material has been uncompromising. I asked him/her to please simply add what you need but don't blank over material by reverts, and he/she will not stop. We need something to happen, some solution because he/she's truly vandalizing the thread. I request a block please, simply check out his/her user box and other complaints in the discussion, I'll be bold enough to say that the problem is not me in any way, this is acting on Urthogie's part in my opinion, it's a reactionary response to save face and defend his/her self from any repercussion. I'm not going to take up space debating this so please whom ever this concerns, seek a resolution because this person is uncompromising. I know you're not trying to read any debates so let's try and keep this space condensed Urthogie instead of debating here.Taharqa 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Both editors are blocked. Urthogie is blocked 72 hours as this is a repeat offender. Taharqa is blocked 36 hours, because although this is a first offense, more than the last 100 edits are reversions within the last 24 hours by these two editors, and Taharqa continued to revert even after making the report here. I cannot help but think that these blocks are far too lenient, but I am not certain that longer blocks would be preventative. Other admins should feel free to adjust these block times. ··coe l acan 22:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:124.168.82.43 reported by User:Dessources (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:35 28 April


 * 1st revert: 16:07, 28 April
 * 2nd revert: 01:59, 29 April
 * 3rd revert: 05:32, 29 April
 * 4th revert: 08:55, 29 April

The user has been warned several times by several editors: --Dessources 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st warning: 16:23, 28 April by User:Dessources: "Pls, discuss on Talk page before making such a change"
 * 2nd warning: 04:20, 29 April by User:MastCell: "stop inserting factually incorrect information. Please see the discussion on the article talk page before reinserting your claims"
 * 3rd warning: 05:33, 29 April by User:MastCell: "continuing to reinsert factually incorrect statements; stop, discuss on the talk page, or you will likely be blocked from editing"


 * There is no indication that the IP is specifically aware of the 3RR rule, or that they can be blocked for breaking it. You should use uw-3rr to make such warnings, in the future, before reporting here. I will now give the warning, but there is no block at this time. Report again, or contact me directly on my talk page, if the problem continues. ··coe l acan 09:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tkh reported by User:Rhialto (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 11:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert:


 * I looked into this even though the report was not at all helpful. The user had never been warned for 3RR and is relatively new to Wikipedia. They've now been warned. Further problems may be reported here and there may be a block then. ··coe l acan 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the first time I had tried using this page. I think the instructions could be improved. It wasn't at all clear that this isn't the first place to go to for this kind of issue. Rhialto 08:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bastun reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:43, 29 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:44, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:51, 29 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:53, 29 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:05, 29 April 2007

The editor has used a false claim of WP:BLP on the 4th revert to remove a large amount of information. Any entry sourced by Tírghrá is not a living person as the book is a tribute to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles, the editor is more than aware of this as it is on the article's talk page. WP:BLP does not cover the 4th revert. One Night In Hackney 303 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins looking at this should see Talk:List_of_members_of_the_Irish_Republican_Army, beginning at section 2. I did some substantial work on the '69-present list, removing erroneous links to living and dead (e.g., an Eastenders scriptwriter, a poet, a UK Labour politician), unreferenced material, etc. After that was reverted, I repeated the work, moving all the redlinks on a preparation page of WP:IRA. That was speedy prodded by ONiH. Despite me placing a hangon tag, ONiH then moved the page to my userspace, from where it was subsequently deleted. The list of redlinks was subsequently restored, despite an admin's comments on the talk page. The single source used for most of the redlinks is a book published by a Republican organisation, which fails WP:RS. The redlinks fail WP:VER and if actually created as articles would, in many cases, fail WP:NOTABLE. The version ONiH has been restoring still includes incorrect links to living people, e.g., James Sheridan, who I very much doubt would want to be included in this list. The fact that the list was/is seriously incorrect, including breached of WP:BLP has been pointed out by me on the talk page. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If links went to the wrong article, you should have fixed the links. WP:BLP does not give you the right to remove information about dead people. Policy WP:V clearly allows the use of Tírghrá so editors merely relying on proof by assertion are incorrect. One Night In Hackney 303 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If links go to the wrong article, you should stop restoring them. WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:RS clear rule Tirghrá out as a source - as agreed by an admin on the article's talk page.  The book is published by a Republican organisation about alleged members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army - an outlawed terrorist organisation, so WP:REDFLAG applies aswell.  Repeating that it is allowable is indeed tiresome proof by assertion.   Without that source, we have a list of redlinked names (not to mention incorrectly bluelinked living people) attested to be members of an illegal organisation, with no source. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my last comment here. Rather than engage in discussion about the source, you ignored the discussion and continued to revert as can be seen by the history of the article and its talk page. The wholesale removal of a large amount of content was not covered by WP:BLP as the content referred to dead people, so you clearly broke 3RR. In fact it was not until your 4th revert that you mentioned WP:BLP at all, so it's clear you are just using it as an excuse. One Night In Hackney 303 14:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bastun, there was an ongoing discussion regarding this source on the pages talk page. There was an additional discussion regarding the same source of the Pearse Jordan page here where the person the questioned the source actually ended up accepting that is did satidfy WP:RS. Should should have engaged in the discussion rather than an edit war and now you have blatantly ended up breaching WP:3RR after quoting that same policy to other editors earlier today (so you knew what you were doing). --Vintagekits 14:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there was discussion, and you didn't respond (and still haven't) to any of the alternative suggestions proposed, all of which would have been in keeping with WP policy. I wasn't aware of the discussion on the page you reference, but I do note this contribution from another admin on that page: "The source cannot be accepted wholesale as reliable (in wikipedia terms, that is) on all topics, because it comes from what is deemed to be a partisan origin." Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 16:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left Bastun a note regarding the resolution of this three revert rule report. Sam Blacketer 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the light of what Bastun has said, no block. This was a breach of the three revert rule; all participants are encouraged to talk rather than revert. Leniency is to be applied once only. Sam Blacketer 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis reported by User:Matthew (Result:No action)
. : Time reported: 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: /


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


 * Comments : Mel is presently warring over a MoS. He is attempting to include disputed information which has no consensus. The information is regarding American dates and comma usage. There is a thread on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. Matthew 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across this; Matthew didn't have the courtesy to let me know about it. Note that there was indeed consensus, and that he arrived some time later and deleted the material.  If he thinks that it shouldn't be there, he needs to get consensus for its removal.  The dispute is not, incidentally about American usage, but about the simple statement that adding a comma to a date is unnecessary, as the software provides it for those whose preferences require it.
 * I hadn't realised that I'd violated 3RR, however, and will revert myself. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 15:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One person agreed that it should be mentioned, another disagreed. Clearly not a consensus, this is not including the fact the previous had been stable many times longer than Mel's edit. Point in fact such as change when disputed requires community conversation, not Mel edit warring -- I point out that not everybody has the MoSes watchlisted, I didn't. Matthew 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No action in the light of Mel Etitis' self-revert. However, this is a particularly silly dispute to have. Sam Blacketer 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:124.168.82.43 reported by User:MastCell (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:07, 28 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:59, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:32, 29 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:55, 29 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:07, 29 April 2007


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Would have been entitled to a lower block duration for being a new editor, but for the fact that his material was blatantly not neutral. Sam Blacketer 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt reported by User:Alabamaboy (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:41, 29 April 2007


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

Note: Because I am a party to the editing of this article, I do not want to block Smatprt myself b/c of COI concerns. I'd appreciate if a third party could analyze the situation and see if blocking is needed.--Alabamaboy 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR warning.
 * Blocked for 24 hours. ··coe l acan 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Arash the Archer, User:Aziz1005 and User:Mardavich reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: no block)
., , : Time reported: 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Edit by Jagged 85.
 * 1st revert by Arash the Archer
 * Edit by Aziz1005
 * 2nd revert by Arash the Archer
 * 1st revert by Aziz1005
 * 3rd revert by Arash the Archer
 * 2nd revet by Aziz
 * 1st revert by Mardavich
 * 3rd vrevert by Aziz
 * 4th by Arash
 * 4th by Aziz
 * 2nd by Mardavich
 * 5th by Aziz
 * 5th by Arash
 * 6th by Aziz
 * 6th by Arash
 * 7th by Aziz
 * 7th by Arash
 * 8th, 9th and 10th by Aziz
 * 3rd by Mardavich
 * Aziz 11
 * Arash 8
 * Aziz 12
 * Comments: This is a misleading report, my first revert was on April 21st, and my third and last revert was on April 28th. I voluntarily follow a one-revert rule on all articles. Also, User:Arash the Archer is a new user, who has never been warned about WP:3RR, I doubt he even knows what 3RR is, and he didn't violate 3RR anyways. User:Aziz1005, on the other hand, is no new user, and has been blocked for 3RR violation and block evasion with sockpuppets. --Mardavich 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't get involved in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan for doing nothing. —Ruud 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got acquitted on that case. Again, I voluntarily follow a one-revert rule on all articles. Overall, you have more reverts on Islamic mathematics  than me.--Mardavich 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Block declined, as this report is a pain in the ass to investigate. Follow the instructions, submit one separate report per person, include timestamps, and include evidence that the person reported was aware of WP:3RR prior to the fourth revert. Use the example at the bottom of this page. ··coe l acan 01:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Simoes reported by Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Result: resolved)
. : Time reported: 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:48, 29 April 2007


 * 4th revert: Revision as of 00:09, 30 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:49, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:19, 29 April 2007
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 21:02, 29 April 2007

I would like to point out that the 1st revert given is not in fact a revert. Furthermore, this is a WP:BLP issue. I've already reported it at WP:AN and am waiting for a response there. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Update: The dispute has been settled. Simões</b> ( talk/contribs ) 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is resolved. Nick blocked but unblocked considering BLP. Dispute resolution is recommended. ··coe l acan 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 reported by User:A.J.A. (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:32, April 29, 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:33, April 29, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:00, April 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:58, April 29, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:18, April 29, 2007


 * Not a new user.
 * Edit war brewing pretty bad on multiple fronts. Wrong version has been protected. Will also deliver warnings to parties as necessary. Heimstern Läufer 05:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoshidoshi reported by User:Str1977 (Result:User self-reverted; no block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: Str1977 (smile back) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:41, 28 April 2007 (already a revert to an even earlier version, I restrict the scope to the four last reverts violating 3RR)


 * 1st revert: 18:19, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:30, 29 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:48, 29 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:32, 30 April 2007 combined with follow-up 14:37, 30 April 2007

Hoshidoshi, who has been around for seven months, is stone-walling discussion, where changes were supported by another user, and rejects practically all compromise suggestions (WP:OWN). Mixed in are instances bad faith and personal attacks.

Str1977 (smile back) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked the user to revert himself. This is a pretty silly semantic argument on both your parts; if he reverts himself and seeks further help elsewhere, I will close this discussion. If not, I will proceed with the block. Kafziel Talk 15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If he reverts himself I will gladly withdraw my report. Str1977 (smile back) 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User reverted himself; I am closing the report. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page and seek mediation if necessary. Kafziel Talk 17:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually he did not in fact revert himself but merely made another change. However, since that change is more reflective of the discussion I consider this an act of good will and withdraw (for my part, as the report is already closed) the report. Str1977 (smile back) 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Basedview22 reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 21:27, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:31, 29 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:42, 30 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:04, 30 April 2007

. : Time reported: 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 21:15, 29 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:33, 29 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:40, 30 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:06, 30 April 2007

And keep adding nonsenses to the article.

This user keep adding POV and he was severally warned he breaks NPOV: also he was warned not to make personal attacks while pushing his POV. He adds nonsenses into the articles.

Like here:, changes offical names to German names here and is directly disrespectful for Gdansk/Danzig consensus here  although he was warned about existence of that consensus here

He also edit wars here.

He refused all attempts for discussion:.

User:Tulkolahten reported by User:Basedview22 (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Fiedler&diff=127124038&oldid=127048109

This revert warrior keeps vandalizing articles. His main activity is engaging in revert wars and adding nationalist historical revisionism to articles, like changing Austerlitz in the Battle of Austerlitz to its Czech (not English) name. He is completely ignorant of the NPOV policy and has been warned several times.
 * This is a pretty absurd report, evidently made in retaliation for Tulkolahten reporting Basedview22 above. The diffs provided are over a number of days and are perfectly reasonable. There is no violation here. Kafziel Talk 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are reasonable doubts about identity of User:Basedview22 - he claims to be "Keiji, a Japanese law student", but he uses (in order avoid block) IP adress 71.99.122.201 which is not located in Japan. Also his edit pattern resembles classic style of the expulsed Germans. It is very obscure that this "Japanese student" has such extremist point of view. --Bluewind 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dr who1975 reported by User:ALR (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 1820A


 * 1st revert: 1826A
 * 2nd revert: 1840A
 * 3rd revert: 1845A
 * 4th revert: 1920A


 * User reverted self. No block. ··coe l acan 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lantios reported by User:DLX (Result:No block; no reverts since warning)
. : Time reported: 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:35, 30 April 2007

User instates repeatedly, without giving even remotely valid reasons for it. He has been warned on his user page. —Ruud 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Had no idea about this rule. Well, I was warned, but only after my last revert. Lantios 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you know about it. I am not blocking at this time but further edit warring will get you a block without any more warnings. Don't think of this as a victory; think of it as a very close call. Kafziel Talk 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Arash the Archer reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result:Article protected)
. : Time reported: 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:03, 18 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:44, 18 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:41, 21 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:12, 21 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:52, 22 April 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:03, 23 April 2007
 * 6th revert: 21:43, 24 April 2007
 * 7th revert: 01:16, 26 April 2007
 * 8th revert: 21:16, 28 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warning reply
 * None of these diffs constitute a violation of 3RR; these are over the course of more than a week. I am, however, protecting the article until the dispute is settled on the talk page. Kafziel Talk 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Aziz1005 reported by User:JamesPen (Result:Article protected)
on the same article:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:


 * Ditto the above. No violation here, but article protected until dispute resolved. Kafziel Talk 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DLX reported by User:Lantios (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:44, 30 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:35, 30 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:43, 30 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:48, 30 April 2007

User:75.3.2.96 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:23, 25 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 04:53, 30 April 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:31, 30 April 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, 30 April 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:39, 30 April 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:35, 30 April 2007

Editor persists in re-adding Category:Irish Roman Catholics to the article, despite me explaning exactly why Bobby Sands does not go in the category, as being Catholic was not relevant to his notability. The fourth revert was done with the charming edit summary of read your talk page you irish-hating englishman. One Night In Hackney 303 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TyrusThomas4lyf reported by User:Duhon (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:16, April 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:35, April 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:08, April 29, 2007
 * 4th revert: 3:56, 30 April 2007


 * User has not edited the LeBron James article today, the links you provided are not diffs, the times you list are inaccurate, they are not all by him, and they are not within 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BiH and anons reported by User:Graciella. Result: 31h/semipr.
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:17, 26 April 2007
 * 2st revert: 13:03, 27 April 2007
 * 3st revert: 21:42, 30 April 2007
 * 4nd revert: 9:30, 30 April 2007
 * 5rd revert: 13:19, 30 April 2007

The user is aware that he is reverting each time. Looking to the previously reports i found that someone already have reported vandalism from ip 85.158.xxx.xxx "It should also be noted that this IP and many other 85.158.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, personal attacker 3rr violater etc. He currently has an RFC against him. And has been blocked 10 times including 4 times for 3RR violations." Graciella Talk 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Vandalism from ip 85.158.xxx.xxx continue. 24h blocking for both did not help because ip address 85.158.32.142 that fall into range 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 did revert again. New revert: 00:31, 1 May 2007 User has been already blocked in past 85.158.35.142 Probably editing blocking for new or unregistered users should solve problems.Graciella Talk 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin note: Contrary to the heading which said "24 h both", no blocks seem to have been handed out yet on either side. I will need a bit of time to sort out this mess. Shortening section heading to make it less unwieldy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Graciella for 31h, as she was herself blatantly edit-warring, and semi-protected the article in lieu of a block of the dynamic IP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Graciella reported by User:85.158.32.142 (Result: see above)
. : Time reported: 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:11, 30 April 2007


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

It is also suspected that Graciella might be User:Ivan Kricancic, blocked earlier as User:Rts_freak. The best thing is to use Check User rights to find out whose sockpuppet Graciella is. This user doesn't want to cooperate, he keeps pushing his POV removing earlier information placed in the article by other users. He even puts the information that is already there although he was nicely asked not to do that.

Comment
This is one of the IPs I'm talking about in the above section. He seems to be unsuccessfully blocked for 24hrs because he is behind dynamical ip range 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 Graciella Talk 01:12, 1 May 2007  (UTC)
 * Update: Looking to the previously reports i have found that this user is under investigation here.  and was already blocked in past Blocked Graciella Talk 01:32, 1 May 2007  (UTC)


 * This comment proves that User:Graciella is sockpuppet of User:Ivan Kricancic because as we can see in the linked page, investigation was started by User:Ivan Kricancic. But the main evidence is that he tried to remove sock puppet tag in User:Graciella page: . Because he was aware that he had been caught. And he did it again: . 85.158.32.142 02:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please should someone stop, already in past blocked 85.158.35.142 to vandalize my own page. Thanks Graciella  Talk 02:07, 1 May 2007  (UTC)
 * Trying to follow this: Graciella, did your reverts come after the user in question was blocked for 3RR? Heimstern Läufer 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found yesterday looking through other post on this page that ip address 85.158.35.142 was blocked in past Blocked And looking through time of this blocking my reverts come afters user was blocked in past. User use different ip address IP Addresses 85.158.32.0 - 85.158.35.255 and it is not clear to me who was blocked for (Result: 24hrs for both) in post above.Graciella Talk 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Result: See report immediately above this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)