Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive47

User:Miskin reported by User:Arash the Archer (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 19:26, May 8, 2007 Removing Battle of Persian gate
 * 2nd revert: 06:31, May 9, 2007 Changing the numbers in battle of persian gates
 * 3rd revert: 06:35, May 9, 2007 Removing Battle of the Hydaspes River
 * 4th revert: 08:42, May 9, 2007 Reverting Dharmender6767
 * 5th revert: 11:07, May 9, 2007 Changing the numbers in Battle of Thermopylae and Battle of the Persian Gate

User:Dharmender6767 also has been engaged in the edit war but he/she is a new user and has not been warned yet. (Arash the Archer 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * No block. Seems that editors are actively editing that page.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am new in Wikipedia. I didn't know that being active is a good reason for reverting others. I am afraid of editing Last stand and Battle of the Persian Gate because of his/her reverts. Can someone explain how the system works in this way? This user has also reverted many times here.(Arash the Archer 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * I have placed some pointers in your talk page. Please get informed about how this project works, and how you can contribute successfully. In particular read WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Reddi (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:41, 10 May 2007 (a redirect he put in without discussion and with a display of non-cooperation)


 * There are only three reverts here. --ScienceApologist 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No block. Pleases use the format required as per the template provided. It is there for a reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.29.238.115 reported by User:Veritas Noctis (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 10 May 2007

He's been reverting for a while, but here are the latest 5. I attempted to encourage discussion on the repeatedly deleted section (the criticisms section, which admittedly isn't perfect) but he has refused to participate and keeps deleting the section without explanation or consensus.


 * 1st revert: 10:24, 10 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:36, 10 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:37, 10 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:38, 10 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:30, 10 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:30, 10 May 2007

User 71.29.238.115 attempted to delete warnings on his talk page (13:07, 10 May 2007).


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk)  20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no block, removing violations of copyright policy)
. : Time reported: 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

- * User was warned by two separate editors that they were approaching 3RR violations. Violater claimed that they were removing non fair-use images. From a look at the user's edit history, this is not a new issue with them. User is also edit-warring in the article's Discussion page. - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war with an administrator who is trying to enforce our policy on non-free content. See also Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Musical Linguist 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * um, perhaps you might want to reconsider who is edit-warring with who. I was actually going to remove this complaint, as it appears Ed didn't violate 3RR (he had just done subsequent edits, using 3RR as an electric fence instead).. However, that said, you might want to seriously consider if the way he is interpreting and implementing this policy is accurate. There needs to be a great deal more oversight in regards to making sure that the folk doing these deletions are clear as what is and is not a vilolation of the policy. Clearly, what he was removing wasn't a violation. As well, you might wish to consider communication with the community effectively enough that perhaps one in five different, unrelated editors are aware of these new interpretations of policy. So far, the editors and admins attempting to be the new sheriff in town are doing it haf-assed. You want us to fall in line with the new interpetation? Maybe tell us about it if, you know, it isn;t too much trouble.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That some people disagree with the strictness of the policy doesn't turn it into a content dispute. Musical Linguist 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:216.16.55.81 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:58, May 9, 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:21, May 10, 2007 (as )
 * 2nd revert: 08:24, May 10, 2007 (ditto)
 * 3rd revert: 16:45, May 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:19, May 10, 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:57, May 10, 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:12, May 10, 2007
 * 7th revert: 21:33, May 10, 2007 (as
 * (added)
 * 8th revert: 22:07, May 10, 2007 (ditto)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:01, May 10, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:13, April 10, 2007 (as )


 * Comment: 216.16.55.1 blocked (by me) for legal threats. I'm sure some of the other IPs have been blocked for legal threats or vandalism.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Already blocked ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: 24h no block)
. : --Minderbinder 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (revert to )

Ed was reported earlier but only three reverts had been made at that point. Since then he has made a fourth revert, hence this report. This isn't a case of removing copyright violations since WP:NONFREE and the foundation specifically allow nonfree content under certain limitations. This is a content dispute over whether certain images are approprate and justified by the text, and not an exemption from 3RR restrictions. --Minderbinder 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is unacceptable, especially for a long-standing admin, you should be setting an example. Multiple reports and lots of edit warring, and previous blocks are aggravating factors as well in this. You were warned to stop.  Majorly   (hot!)  23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: block overturned. See previous 3RR report which ruled on the first 3 of these reverts. ed g2s &bull; talk 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous report was excused because you were "cleaning up copyright violation". Minderbinder and I explained why this wasn't the case.  You deserve the block. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this. Dude, if it wasn't an admin who was doing this, they would be cooling their heels. It doesn't matter what a person is doing in hteir edits. the only exception to 3RR is reverting vandalism. Are the admins here actually calling those of us who oppose this user's incorrect interpetation of the policy vandals? Either we are all vandals, or this guy broke the rules. And the guy is an admin. If nothing else, admins are supposed to know when they are getting so involved in their edits they violate 3RR. If the rules apply to the rank and file, it most certainly has to apply to the admins as well. Of course, if you are just protecting your fellow admins, we wouldn't really be surprised, as half of us already think that are growing to think that anyway. When a user like Erik starts to lose faith in admins, something is quite frakking wrong. Your authority as neutral authorities is being tested here. Please pay attention and act appropriately.  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin member of the Film project I would like to thank User:Ed g2s and every other admin like him for their continued dedication to the project. Banal admin bashing by consummate edit warriors just coming off of their most recent 24 hour block is nothing more than sour grapes. To admins everywhere, keep up the great work.  Non-admins support you and your commitment to preserving and maintaining the integrity of this project is held in the highest regard. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I endorse the unblock, but would urge ed to try to get help from other admins as soon as there is a problem with people trying to restore unfree images on shaky grounds, and before it comes to a 3RR case. Musical Linguist 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This just condones, if not encourages, edit warring by admins. I thought the point was that edit warring is bad? --Minderbinder 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill_Storm reported by User:Guyver8400 (Result: No block)
gerritsen beach. : Time reported: 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Improper report: only 3 reverts, no block. Crum375 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce reported by User:Alex Roza (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Improper report - only 3 reverts. No block. Crum375 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned_Scott reported by User:Tivedshambo (Result: 24 hours No block)
. : Time reported: 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:20


 * 1st revert: 07:51
 * 2nd revert: 07:57
 * 3rd revert: 08:03
 * 4th revert: 08:23 — Corrected revision. Michael as 10 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an addition that was in conflict with Foundation policy, and was added without anything near a strong consensus. Such an addition is fundamentally wrong. Agree with it or not, that is not how you chance policy. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * I agree with Ned on this. The addition should not be happening when it's disputed. Point in fact it is disputed by multiple users. Matthew 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter. Badagnani 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm apart of the conspiracy. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Times given in the above links are BST, = UTC+1. Sorry, should have thought of this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him for 24 hours. I concur this section might be deemed wrong, but editors should continue adhering WP:CON before making a revert. Further edit warring will result in protection. Michael as 10 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. Trying to force through a policy through which contradicts the Foundation and has no consensus is something that must be immediately reverted. Perhaps the user should have requested page protection, but there's no need for a block. ed g2s &bull; talk 13:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed is a participant in this dispute, for him to unblock in this situation is abuse of admin powers and conflict of interest. I'd encourage another admin to reblock and look into Ed's behavour.  --Minderbinder 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the block should be returned, especially due to the numerous amount of established editors participating in the edit war, and the fact that Ed unblocked because he felt that Ned was defending the page (despite the fact that I see a clear two-sided edit war here among numerous established editors). Seems like an incorrect unblock based on something that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR. &mdash; Deckiller 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute. This is simply removing an unjustifiable edit to our policy page. Regardless of opinion or consensus (which there isn't even) - we cannot modify our EDP to contradict the Foundation licensing policy. This is non-negotiable. ed g2s &bull; talk 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the page is currently protected, a reinstatement of the block would be punitive and not helpful regardless of whether one thinks the original block was correct and the subsequent unblock were correct. This is therefore mootJoshuaZ 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This was an incorrect unblock on User:ed g2s's part, as it sets a very bad example by encouraging the editor to continue violating our 3RR policy. Whether Ed g2s approves of the 4 reverts or not is irrelevant. Ed g2s, in fact, is a participant in the dispute, and his unblock thus shows a strong conflict of interest. The unblock makes it appear as if the 3RR rule is only enforced selectively. This is not about being punitive, it is about adhering to our principles. Please reinstate the block promptly. Badagnani 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jvalant reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:59, 10 May 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 04:52, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:15, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 11:01, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 11:40, 11 May 2007
 * Has he been warned for potentially violating 3RR before? Michael as 10 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning on article talk page at 11:19, 11 May 2007 and acknowledgement that he saw it at 11:39, 11 May 2007 --RaiderAspect 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Michael as 10 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:53, 9 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:05, 9 May 2007 (removed "alleged" again)
 * 2nd revert: 22:48, 9 May 2007 (removed alleged and listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, 9 May 2007 (removed listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
 * 4th revert: 20:54, 10 May 2007 (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
 * (5th revert, technically doesn't count toward 3RR count (nine minutes outside 24 hour period), but evidence of continued revert warring: 22:14, 10 May 2007) (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)

Generally partial reverts, some wording tweaks on edits but still the same additions and subtractions of the same disputed material repeatedly. --Minderbinder 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR blocks are not punitive. Editors has not reverted since May 10. If he persists, please relist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was only a few hours before this is reported. This isn't a request for punitive action, this is a request for admin intervention to make the reversion stop.  I'm not sure what makes you think that this editor has stopped reverting on this article?  --Minderbinder 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and when he returned, he went right back to revert warring .  --Minderbinder 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dharmender6767 reported by User:RaiderAspect (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:31, 10 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:57, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:09, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:42, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:19, 11 May 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:39, 11 May 2007
 * Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 12:51, 11 May 2007

I would like to add that Dharmender had also broken 3RR two days ago in the article last stand but I did not report him on the basis that he was a new user. He has been warned about 3RR, NPOV etc multiple times ever since, but there doesn't seem to be any improvement on his rv-warring habits. His edit-warring above continues as we speak. Miskin 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i just read about this rule, but if undoing more than 3 edits in 24 hour is prohibited, then why hasn't Miskin been punished yet, he undid 4 edits on last stand in less than 24 hours. why the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

You were warned about this rule and received a link to WP:3RR by at least 3 different users, in your talk page, articles' talk page and edit summaries. Miskin 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk)  14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Killacrockka reported by User:Wildthing61476 (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:57, May 11, 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:33, May 11, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:06, May 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:59, May 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:02, May 9, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:33, May 11, 2007

I was on routine recent change/new page patrol and noted that this article was recreated a number of times. Further research into the article shows that a consensus was made to NOT split characters in the article Chaotix into their own separate articles. The editor continues to replace the article, with his reasoning being "READ THE DAM DESCUSION ARTICKLE ON CHAOTIX, ME & TMNT DONATELO WHONT EM" (from the edit summary of one of the above edits. Further more, the editor has blanked his talk pagewith previous comments regarding the same issue, and made threats to an editor over this same issue. Wildthing61476 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bangkokbasher reported by User:Goochelaar (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:15, 7 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:38, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:23, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:15, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:31, 11 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:37, 11 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:53, 1 May 2007

There is a long-standing problem with several incarnations of the same user (who might be the subject of the article or a very keen fan). History and talk of the article and of the user page show that several editors have tried to draw his attention to WP policies and to discuss possible changes to the article, but to no avail.
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Showninner reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:53, 9 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:47, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:24, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:07, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:15, 11 May 2007


 * Editor has been insisting on inserting stuff about Sarkozy being of "Greek-Jewish ancestry", using various formulations. He has just come back from a 24 hour block for tendentious editing on the same article. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk)  22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:TyrusThomas4lyf reported by User:Tayquan (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

. : Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

The first one os a revert too, from a while back. '  Tayquan' hollaMy work 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Already blocked. Kafziel Talk 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Miskin reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)
. : Time reported: 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:11, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:34, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:06, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:26, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:44, 11 May 2007

- * Four reverts in five hours, please note that all the revisions have been made with the ultimate goal of replacing the number 700 in the info box with 25,000. As per WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also, the user has been blocked previously for 3RR violations. --Mardavich 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having examined the page history here, I'm not prepared to regard the fourth edit here as a 'revert', because Miskin's edit there preserved the claim of Ariobarzanes' army being only 700 strong. Miskin has three clear reverts, but not a fourth, and has not broken the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clearly at least a partial revert. I'm going to go ahead and block for 24 hours anyway, at the least it violates the 3RR spirit. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, holy block history batman. Extending to 1 month due to vast history of disruptiveness. If you disagree, take it to AN/I. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:NI4D reported by User:bytebear (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:32, 12 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:58, 12 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:05, 12 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:39, 12 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:13, 12 May 2007

This user continues to revert. Bytebear 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional reverts to Joseph F. Smith and many Mormon related articles. Bytebear 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours by Steve. Sam Blacketer 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69 Reported by User:Pbroks13 (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:34, May 5, 2007
 * 1st revert: 21:59, May 6, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:19, May 6, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, May 6, 2007
 * 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anberlin&diff=129947078&oldid=129414901, May 10, 2007


 * The reverts have to be within a 24 hour period. Hoponpop69 has not broken the three revert rule. In any case violations from 6 May are stale by now. Sam Blacketer 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:193.223.98.186 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 12 May 2007

--- and so on...: Time reported: Must . T  C  17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 18:13, 12 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:15, 12 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:17, 12 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:22, 12 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:26, May 12, 2007
 * 6th revert: 19:27, May 12, 2007
 * 7th revert: 19:29, May 12, 2007

What can I say? I asked them, don't blind revert, go and talk on the talk page!! Nobody came...--193.223.98.186 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Micheal-Nick reported by User:Maggott2000 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: Maggott2000 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
 * 2nd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
 * 3rd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.

User:Micheal-Nick has reverted 17 times since beginning of May, and currently 3 times since notified of 3RR rule in past 24 hours. He has been told why his edits are not verifiable references within this article and multiple other articles, but he refuses to listen, and been abusive. Also someone deleted his discussion page, which I reversed.


 * You are supposed to list the fourth revert in a 24-hour period. However, looking at the article history it is clear this user is a revert warrior who reverted at 14:00, 20:06 on 11 May and 11:55 and 13:21 on 12 May. This makes four reverts in 24 hours and a clear 3RR breach. 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

69.118.129.76 reported by User:BaseballDetective (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:14, 7 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:01, 7 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:58, 9 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:34, 9 May 2007

User:69.118.129.76 is an anonymous IP address, but clearly the same one person since they have engaged in a revert war with over 9 reversions despite multiple warnings and even an attempt at discussion on the articles talk page. Someone else must look into this and take appropriate action.


 * For a three revert violation, the editor must revert more than three times within a 24-hour period. This IP address has not done that. No violation. Sam Blacketer 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what is this user doing? I'm sorry if I am dense, but it is clear this user is non-cooperative and very disruptive. BaseballDetective 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The three revert rule is there to stop sterile revert wars. It is not necessarily useful in stopping all disruptive editing. I do notice that this user has gone to the article talk page to explain why they think the section which they are removing should come out. You should continue to discuss the issue, inviting views from outside if necessary using a request for comment. Sam Blacketer 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've posted an RFC here. Noroton 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:Corticopia (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:45, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:59, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:03, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:46, 12 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:06, 12 May 2007
 * et al.

Despite continuous discussion, this editor continues to revert recent consensual edits to the introduction regarding the country's location -- the consensual version equitably notes that it is located at the juncture of Asia and Europe (and S. alone objects to this version), while the version which S. maintains is very unclear and unjustified (not to mention unsourced) but partial to its inclusion in (or outside of?) Continental Europe. In his carte blanche reverts (which have been reverted by me and at least one other), amid his accusations of vandalism and POV editing, S. has reverted other edits too and has been warned of this. Corticopia 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One week, because of clear violation, aggressive attitude, failure to go to the talk page, and because it's his third block for 3rr. Sam Blacketer 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pocat-chictribute.com reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:53, May 5, 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:49, May 12, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:16, May 12, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:43, May 12, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:12, May 13, 2007

Repeated re-introduction of emphasis on a band name's supposed official typeset, after the article was recently moved to a less stylized variant per WP:MOS-TM. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - Cyrus XIII 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked &mdash; blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR at Chic (band) ~  Anthony  13:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes_d reported by User:NikoSilver (Result:48h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . and : Time reported: 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, May 11, 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:33, May 12, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:26, May 13, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:20, May 13, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:29, May 13, 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:47, May 13, 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:01, May 13, 2007

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Numerous warnings in the user talkpage, user has already been blocked four times in this and other relevant articles for 3RR (Block log)

The user keeps reorganizing the layout of the page in order to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on certain events. The anon account is obviously his, as he has been dealing with the exact same articles and with the exact same POV all day today. (this and Greek War of Independence). User admits this is his IP here. NikoSilver 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours by another admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RaiderAspect reported by User:Jvalant (Result:no vio)
. : Time reported: 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 08:44, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 10:50, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 11:20, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:55, 11 May 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=130065269&oldid=130064056 Warning on article talk page at 11:39, 11 May 2007
 * Only three reverts given. Need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Diluvien reported by User:The Future (Result: Blocked 31 Hours)
. : Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:50, 13 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:48, 13 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:28, 13 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:45, 13 May 2007

Blocked for 31 hours. Three more reverts since posting. --Selket Talk 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The Future reported by User:Diluvien (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:28, 13 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:45, 13 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:40, 13 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:10, 13 May 2007

There has to be 4 exact reverts within the same 24 hours to be a violation, which I haven't committed.. — The Future 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're spreading your POV with support of unreliable sources. --Diluvien 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're spreading your ignorance of WP:RS. — The Future 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey cool, it's full. --Diluvien 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear violation; 31 hours in line with the block to Diluvien above. Sam Blacketer 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.114.232.137 reported by User:SpikeJones (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:24, 14 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 14 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:55, 13 May 2007. User may also be using the Pixar is username, as similar edits have been made by this editor as well.  This particular edit in question has been added and reverted numerous times over the past few weeks. SpikeJones 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User hasn't reverted since 3RR warning, so no block for now. Return if the edit war resumes. Heimstern Läufer (talk)


 * 5th revert: 08:28, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
 * 6th revert: 09:29, 14 May 2007 SpikeJones 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: 15:39, 14 May 2007 SpikeJones 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:69.120.212.35 reported by User:Rustavo (Result: moot due to autoblock)
. : Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Please note that I believe this anonymous user to be identical to (sockpuppet of) User:Freyfaxi who also removed the AfD tag once tonight. Both users have also made very distinctive posts on this topic (see and, note both users are claiming to have written the page). Both users were warned to stop removing AfD tags: and.

Update User:Freyfaxi has yet again removed the AfD tag on Lyme disease military history. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 11:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Freyfaxi for 24 hours for removing the AfD tags, which is regarded as simple vandalism. This may render this report moot (as the autoblock was not disabled, we'll see if 69.120 edits during the next 24 hours). Sam Blacketer 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Britcom reported by User:BozMo (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 0711
 * 2nd revert: 0944
 * 3rd revert: 1028
 * 4th revert: 1128

Comment: I wouldn't be so bothered but this is an edit warring editor who even argues the toss when 3RR is pointed out to him see:
 * Diff of previous 3RR warning:

Add WP:CIV for good measure. Altogether quite an unconstructive attitude. Raymond Arritt 13:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. A write-up is in progress on the user's talk page. Sean William 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for civil, Dr. Schulz's comments were quite trollish. ~ UBeR 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Sean William 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said what he did was right, although his comments on Dr. Schulz's page were pale in comparison. ~ UBeR 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a case where the 3RR is being alleged by article squatters and they have lied to make my edits look like a 3RR in this post. The fact is that the squatters are attempting to use administrative rules to punish those whom they do not not approve of. A dispute arose on the talk page about the name of the article. The three squatters decided to gang up on the person who placed the tag on the page. It is obvious to anyone that the tag was warranted. Immediately the tag was removed. So I posted on the talk page, and that meant that the dispute continued, so I placed the tag on the page again because the dispute was on again. Again the tag was almost immediately removed. So I posted again and linked to the policy that requires the tag to be there. Then I placed an entirely different tag WP:Weasel on the page. Immediately the squatters come here to complain about what is essentially nothing in an attempt to divert attention from their own disruptive behavior. The squatters have a POV agenda on the page and anyone disputing that POV is harassed. When I warned one of them on his user talk page User:William M. Connolley He threatened me on my user page and then got one of his Admin friends to block me. (he later deleted my warning from his user page so the admin would not notice it.)  Let me repeat at this point, there were NOT 4 reverts by me.  As for uncivil, that can only be characterized as a lie. I said nothing uncivil. As for the so called "'Diff of previous 3RR warning'", that has also been lied about. If you look at the record on that unrelated warning you will find that I had only reverted twice in that case and the warning was a actually a "fore-Warning" not a warning.  So the the squatters have made their point with me that they know how to bash other editors and that of course is a shame that they can do that on Wikipedia and get away with it. That is all I have to say on this subject. --Br it com  12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasoning with administrators is a rather fruitless endeavour. ~ UBeR 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Aristovoul0s reported by User:Corticopia (Result: No Vio)
. : Time reported: 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 09:43, 13 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:11, 13 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:45, 13 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:05, 14 Nay 2007

Despite an article introduction at Cyprus which has been consensually arrived at (and is otherwise stable), this editor continues to insinuate wordiness without consensus and has been reverted by me and others. And despite lengthy discussion on the talk page, and requests to desist. If this isn't a clear case of edit warring, I don't know what is. Corticopia 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aristovoul0s and User:Corticopia each had three reverts after the initial post. One more from either would likely constitute a violation.  --Selket Talk 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF? The links above are very clear, and such editing also predates the current post.  I am no saint, but this is getting ridiculous and this page is becoming increasingly useless regarding its function.  If you fail to act on reports, then admins have only themselves to blame if retaliatory editing continues.  Why should I/we bother?  Corticopia 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If Aristovoul0s is blocked, Corticopia should be blocked also (3 rvs + and identical edit are not 4 rvs). In fact, you independently violated the 3RR on Georgia (country) yesterday, and I'm surprised no one reported you. I think you rv war too much. I think we should let this issue go...--Ploutarchos 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any whole or partial edits are included in 3RR. And this is coming from an editor who, for example, continues to maintain 'Vardar Macedonia' is appropriate for the Macedonia DAB to describe the republic.  Seems like Greek collusion to me.  Whatever, perhaps you should let go ...  Corticopia 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you shouldn't object if I report you. I originally wasn't going to because I find 3RR blocks unhelpful and an obstalce to negotiation (except in the most dire cases of rv warring). This is my vindictive streak again - no matter how much I try to suppress it, I can't :-( Ploutarchos 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I object to your opportunism and POV-pushing, but -- self-admittedly -- what else should one expect from an editor such as yourself? Corticopia 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ploutarchos's comments seems not valid here since He/she continue Rv's instead of User:Aristovoul0s in that article, immediately after Aristovoul0s. Must . T  C 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Ploutarchos (Result: See Below)
. : Time reported: 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 12 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:35, 12 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:43, 13 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:08, 13 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:22, 13 May 2007


 * User keeps restoring his version of the intro ("a Eurasian country in the Caucasus...")


 * Not just my version, but one consensually agreed upon, with the edit warrior who challenged it being blocked for one week. As for the reporter, well, whatever, but said editor is objectionable to say the least.  Corticopia 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Result: This is a clear violation on Corticopia's part; however I am not acting on it at this time for two reasons. 1. This nomination is retaliatory and itself a violation of WP:POINT. 2. A timely block would be about to expire by now. Both users will be warned. I am going to submit this to AN/I for review so it is possible that another admin will issue a block. --Selket Talk 16:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:D%C3%BAnadan reported by User:Maurice27 (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 22:23, 13 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:09, 13 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:28, 14 May 2007


 * The dissambiguation of the article Catalonia clearly states that "the article is about the autonomous community. See also Principality of Catalonia (for the historic territory) and Northern Catalonia". User:D%C3%BAnadan keeps reverting to add information about the Principality of Catalonia which does not belong to this article lead paragraph as it has it own main article.
 * In addition, he is negliging Assume good faith here ([]), which also means I suffered a WP:NPA here (([]), accusing me of having "hidden motives towards Catalonia", and he is pushing WP:OOA to the extreme of not letting other users to freely edit, monopolizing the articles in which he is present (see: Talk:Catalonia, Talk:Valencia (autonomous community) (which needed a Request for Mediation) and Talk:Balearic Islands). All 3 articles are suffering from his monopole and not a single editor may contribute if it is not with his approval in their talk-pages, which has make everybody to flee their editions. Hundreds of kb of discussions are the proof.
 * &mdash;there appears to be no violation of WP:3RR; this is upon examination of the three diffs given. If further diffs are available, please repost ~ Anthony  20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gon4z reported by User:MrMacMan (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 129991567 Revision as of 01:41, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 18:55, 14 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:36, 14 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:51, 14 May 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 21:22, 14 May 2007
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 21:31, 14 May 2007
 * 6th revert: (21:43, 14 May 2007)


 * I've blocked him for 48 hours, as he is a repeat offender. MastCell Talk 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Gon4z reported by User:noclador (Result: Blocked for 48 hours; see above)
. : Time reported: 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

One more, he reverts so fast you I have trouble keeping up!!!
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 20:52, 14 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:35, 14 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:39, 14 May 2007
 * 4th revert: Current revision (23:21, 14 May 2007)
 * 5th revert: Current revision (23:43, 14 May 2007)

Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Template:Infobox National Military Albania
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 20:55, 14 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:36, 14 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:51, 14 May 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 23:22, 14 May 2007
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 23:31, 14 May 2007
 * 6th revert: Current revision (23:43, 14 May 2007)


 * Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Air Force 5 reverts
 * Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Land Forces Command 6 reverts
 * Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Albanian Naval Defense Forces 3 reverts

This user has been banned for the same offence last week: here and also banned for insulting and threatening other user:, , , ,  

Discussion on the talkpages are refused by him and other users are called “delusional”, "God dam retarded" and continuously insinuates that everyone that does not believe in his source (a uncle in the Albanian Army) must "have some sort of hatred towards Albanians" and more insults all the time. I suggest an extended ban now, as he has obviously learned nothing and continue his uncooperative and rude behaviour. noclador 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 21:32, 14 May 2007


 * Blocked for 48 hours (see above). Given the recalcitrant nature of the problem, it may be worth proposing a more permanent solution at the community sanction noticeboard. MastCell Talk 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:19, 30 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:30, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:53, 15 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:37, 15 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:43, 15 May 2007

Nature of the edits: He is persistently removing legitimate category tags without discussion.

Editor has been blocked for 3RR twice, once on 1 March, and again on 13 April (for 48 hours the second time for repeated violations).

Editor has been blocked for personal attacks twice, and continues with attacks and incivility here, here, and here.


 * Besides the ad hominem attacks, reported reverts above are consecutive edits. I would much rather be engage in a substantive discussion regarding disagreement at hand rather than dealing with EW'ing, leaving "warnings" that agitate ego debates and attempts at getting editors who disagree with me banned.melonbarmonster 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing consecutive about the reverts; click on the diffs. You were reverting each time.  Komdori 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. Komdori: be careful not to edit war yourself. Don't forget that the 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All right. I apologize, it's sometimes easy to get sucked in, especially on something simple like this when I actually believed it was a simple misunderstanding (at first).  Sorry to bug you. Komdori 03:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not bugging me. Just thought I'd give you a reminder (since, as you said, it's easy to get caught up in the moment). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dcs47 and User:Andromeda reported by User:TheFearow (Result:no block)
. and : Time reported: 04:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:02, 27 April 2007


 * All reverts shown on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Duncan_McNeill&action=history
 * No technical 3RR vio as no four reverts were within 24 hours. Rather, we have a slow revert war here which could certainly merit a block. But as neither user has reverted since being warned, I'm going to not block for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:81.129.16.228 reported by User:Yummifruitbat (Result: Article sprotected)
. ; (Mallimak sockpuppets): Time reported: 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:41, 29 November 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:27, 14 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:24, 14 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:41, 14 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:30, 15 May 2007

I'm aware this isn't quite 3RR in the technical sense, because the version reverted to is old, but 81.* has been edit warring on this article since time immemorial, repeatedly pushing POV using a "reference" to a website which is very clearly not a reliable source, and which numerous users confirmed was not suitable during an RfC last year. This is a sockpuppet of User:Mallimak, who's been engaged in combatative editing with User:Mais oui! over Orkney/Shetland non-Scottishness for a very long time and who now does not log in, instead conducting slow edit wars and 3RR gaming via IPs. I have no interest in this article other than trying to prevent POV pushing, after I came across it doing recent changes patrol last year. Frankly I can understand Mais oui!'s frustration that blocks seem hard to procure, given that the editor has been warned countless times and is fully aware of the proper way to go about adding verifiable information. He seems to have no interest whatsoever in editing within policy. --YFB ¿  13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have sprotected the article, given the use of multiple IPs from same IP block to disrupt editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d reported by User:Ploutarchos (Result:Moot)
. : Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:04, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:27, 14 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary)
 * 2nd revert: 18:46, 14 May 2007 (amongst others, changed the edit summary from "Slavic-speaking Macedonians in Russia" to "ethnic Macedonians in Russia" as in common with all other rvs)
 * 3rd revert: 21:09, 14 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary)
 * 4th revert: 18:59, 15 May 2007 (clear revert from edit summary + borderline personal attack)

. : Time reported: 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:28, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:10, 14 May 2007 (changes his ethnicity from "Bulgarian" to "Macedonian" contrary to the sources on the talkpage and the only sources cited)
 * 2nd revert: 11:53, 15 May 2007 (again)
 * 3rd revert: 18:52, 15 May 2007 (again)
 * 4th revert: 18:57, 15 May 200 (again)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:21, 11 May 2007

Comments:
 * In case it's relevant, this user has been blocked before, and in case you're wondering, new user "Mr. Neutron" is no sock. He has just come over from the Bulgarian Wikipedia, hence his familiarity with how WP works (Strich3d would have probably violated 3RR without him being here anyway if you count how many users are disagreeing with him).--Ploutarchos 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not likely as bg has no user with that name. --Selket Talk 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moot: Strich3d has already been blocked for editwaring and vandalsim. Checkuser on others pending. -- Selket Talk 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurauth reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:08, 15 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:46, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:52, 15 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:58, 15 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:07, 15 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:12, 15 May 2007


 * Blocked for 3rr 6 April 2007. Contemproanous with this report offered oppourtunity to self revert for report removal.

Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith reported by User:Who123 (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:37, May 11, 2007


 * Decision: PelleSmith has only reverted three times in 24 hours, and discussion is taking place on the talk page so a block doesn't seem necessary. 3RR is not a way to win an argument. I strongly suggest you both discuss instead of reverting each other, rather than discussing in addition to the revert war. You are both talking; quit telling each other to look at the conversation, and actually look at the conversation. Don't punctuate each discussion point with a revert - let the discussion go back and forth a few times. Kafziel Talk 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fainites reported by User:DPeterson (Result:page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * I'm not quite following this report. Could you show how these edits are reverts? Each one seems different to me (not that that makes a difference as long as they are reverts), so I'm not sure what is being reverted to each time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This user may well have violated 3RR, but due to the complexity of the situation and the contentious editing I've protected the page. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Drastamat (Result: 24 hours, 48 hours respectively)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 23:46, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:01, 16 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:23, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:32, 16 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:41, 16 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:50, 16 May 2007

Obvious vandalism is not covered under the 3RR rule. Please check this user's contributions and sock puppets.--MarshallBagramyan 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * where's the 'obvious vandalism'? Its u who is vandalizing, and on top of that breaking the 3 RR rule. Drastamat 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully justified in my reversions. You, on the other hand, are facing a permanent ban. --MarshallBagramyan 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No you are not justified in ur pointless reverts of unbiased articles. but don't avoid the question you brought onto yourself, where's the 'obvious vandalism'? don't try to strong-arm, intimidate others on one hand, and break rules on other. Drastamat 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am determining that Drastamat is a sockpuppet of a banned user, likely Atabek, and this 3RR claim is invalid. --Golbez 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the CheckUser results, this almost certainly not Atabek (who is not banned, by the way). However,, , , and are the same. I'm not convinced that this is a banned user, and not run-of-the-mill sockpuppetry. MarshallBagramyan should not have been edit warring in the first place, even if there were sockpuppets, though. If one is to be blocked for abusive sockpuppetry by edit warring, the other ought to be blocked for the same edit warring (the only difference being he didn't do it deceptively). The claims of vandalism here are utterly without merit here. Dmcdevit·t 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most definitely. Given that MarshallBagraman was not reverting a banned user or vandalism, either both users should be blocked or neither should be, as both were edit warring to an equal degree. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of the checkuser evidence, I have unblocked on the basis that he is not a sockpuppet of a banned user. I have according blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. Given that not only also revert warred but used socks to do so, I have blocked him for 48 hours. WjBscribe 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. He is a banned user; he is not Atabek but AdilBaguirov. All those socks appeared on May 16, Adil's last contribution was on April 11 from his Weiszman account(so slightly over a month after, just enough so that checkuser does not trace their link with AdilBaguirov). The edit on the House of Hasan Jalalyan is AdilBaguirov, Adil was the only user who modified articles about Armenian Dynasties by claiming they were not Armenian. One sample by AdilBaguirov.  Fadix had provided evidence on that particular subject, . This 3RR violation was done in bad faith, both Grandmaster and Dacy69 have reported Marshall numerous times, Marshall not being on the revert parole, attempts were made numerous time to have him blocked. Those different socks reverting on their several versions were baiting Marshall to revert to then finally report him. Those socks have also acted as a proxy for Atabek. I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators Atabek conduct, the category “Turkophobia” was created as a replacement to the category “Armenian Terrorism” which was deleted, he created this category to relocate the articles which were included in the previous deleted category. And those socks acted as a proxy to add those names in a FORK category created to run over community consensus.

--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If User:Drastamat doesn't belong to Atabek, it still has to be a sock of somebody. New editors don't immediately jump into edit wars. So far the only contributions made by User:Drastamat were to engage in edit wars, making it almost certainly a sock account. -- Augustgrahl 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that Drastamat is a sockpuppet; that this is not supported by checkuser evidence is of little consequence. His editing pattern is obvious; he reverted to puppeted versions of articles as his first edits. WP:DUCK applies. You cannot be a puppet master if you are an obvious puppet yourself. Checkuser is not our only tool for finding socks. --Golbez 15:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Golbez, first I would like to thank DmcDevit for running the checkuser and clearing my name of this groundless charge. I discuss all my edits and make them on all pages. So very likely that Drastamat was established by one of those accusing me. What's appaling though is your accusation of myself. Don't you think your position as a perceived mediator on Nagorno-Karabakh page becomes seriously questionnable provided your presumptive assumptions with regards to myself? I mean a mediator by definition must be impartial after all. If you think otherwise, why don't you initiate a little checkuser to ever check that it could be Artaxiad, Fadix or one of the banned or existing users of the other side, trying to blackmail and get me banned. After all, the first one was known and banned for harassment of myself, and I don't exclude the same kind of attitude from Vartanm, MarshallBagramyan or Augustgrahl, which I think should be rejoined to ArbCom, and their editing and commenting pattern must be discussed there. Atabek 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You were accused by a user who was not familiar with Baguirov (Augustgrahl); Golbez never mentioned anyone by name. Your answer is ironic, on one hand you thank Dmcdevit for cleaning your name but on the other you throw dirt on Fadix's name, who has no history of such behaviour while you have already used socks in the past. You also include three Armenian users not involved with the Arbcom decisions. This makes your behaviours even worse, while you were accused, this makes 1 editor, you have in this answer successfully accused various editors. Why would any of those users report Marshall to have him blocked? Why would any of those users do just more than reverting to you but making an edit similar to AdilBaguirov? In any case, if there was any imposter, he was trying to pass as AdilBaguirov not you, but why would he do that, AdilBaguirov is already banned? As for rules, your created a category called “Turkophobia” used as a FORK for a deleted category, but that's for another case...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Golbez did mention my name without evidence. We have discussed the matter and have come to conclusion that it was an unfortunate mistake. As for the rest, again I made my point, and you can continue wasting your time and accusing others along "national lines". The fact is that the sockpuppeteer could be any banned or non-banned user, yet, you along with Augustgrahl, MarshallBagramyan and Vartanm take this along ethnic lines, accusing me, next AdilBaguirov. And if that does not work, who is next, GM, Dacy69, etc.? Why wouldn't you ever suspect the master of sockpuppetry - Artaxiad? As for Turkophobia category, it is absolutely appropriate just like anti-Armenianism. If the person or an organization convicted of terrorism, committed attacks targetting civilian Turks, he is most definitely a Turkophobe and most definitely the page falls into Turkophobia category. Atabek 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So I've became a user from the other side eh? So much for not dividing wikipedia along national lines. Is that whats this is all about that you're on probation and were not? VartanM 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the humour, read the note above. Atabek 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sefringle reported by User:Momoshomo (Result:12 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:38, 14 May 2007 (First revert partially goes back to this, and subsequent reverts go back to first revert)


 * 1st revert: 03:53, 16 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:01, 16 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:13, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:45, 16 May 2007

The first revert undid my removal of "alleged" on May 14th; the subsequent reverts are obvious. MomoShomo 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 12 hours. MomoShomo: You, too, are edit warring, even though you haven't violated 3RR. Remember, the rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement to three reverts. If you continue to revert war you're likely to be blocked even if you don't technically violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 11 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:56, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:12, 15 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:09, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:27, 16 May 2007

Pretty cut and dry case: the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite clear. 24 hours; first block for 3RR although user has come close before and been warned about reverting. Sam Blacketer 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:padraig3uk reported by User:163.167.129.124 (Result:No violation, page protected)
. : Time reported: 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Last (fifth) revert: 09:38 16 May 2007. All reverts are the same.


 * There has been no violation of the three revert rule because no party has more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. However there is a slow revert war and I am going to protect the template pending resolution of the dispute. Sam Blacketer 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:Limongi (Result:1 month, 18 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 14 May 2007

This user has been blocked twice within the past few days for breaking the WP:3RR on other articles.
 * 1st revert: 07:55, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:34, 15 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:08, 15 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:28, 16 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:06, 16 May 2007

Report is accurate. I also find four for Jbmurray:
 * (Reverts AlexCovarrubias's addition of Jorge Luis Borges)
 * (same)
 * (obvious)
 * (also obvious)

Therefore, I must block both editors. As AlexCovarrubias has a long history of edit warring, 1 month for him. First offense for Jbmurray; therefore, 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Yaf (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:26, 15 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:38, 15 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:20, 15 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:56, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:46, 16 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:30, 16 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:38, 16 May 2007


 * comment: Report is not accurate, and I self reverted already. Note that the alleged 2nd revert is not part of the content dispute but a compromise on my part to remove a "see other" link that all parties agreed to, and I agreed with them, to remove, per talk. Its not a revert. The 4th revert was a real 3RR violation, howwever, it was on accident, and once I noticed it a few minutes later, I self reverted here: I did not restore the long standing version of sourced material back from Yaf's changes (which lack consensus), until after 24 hours. Looking back on it, and given that other editors oppose this POV edits, I realize I should have left it and allowed some other editors to revert him instead. Therefore, I will self-revert myself again, back to his version to show good faith and that I abide by both the letter and spirt of the 3RR rule. See:   Hence, no block considerations will be  necessary. Thanks.Giovanni33 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've had to self-revert yourself twice within the last 24 hours. Thats seems quite significant to me. Dman727 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For more on the single purpose accounts that have sprung up to act as meat puppets / sock puppets associated with undoing the latest self-revert, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni33 Yaf 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No block at this time, but note that these type of editwars are unacceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:65.110.36.50 reported by User:Axlq (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * All reverts essentially the same. Anon user persists in advertising a party to celebrate the death of Jerry Falwell. User received final warning for vandalism, as well as 3RR warning, but continues inserting the advertisement.

Admin attempted to semi-protect the page (see previous version reverted to), but protection didn't stick. =Axlq 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User was blocked for 24 hours by Bibliomaniac15. --Selket Talk 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reisender reported by User:JdeJ (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13.05.2007 01:53


 * Constantly removing a sourced fact.


 * 1st revert: 13.05.2007 04.21
 * 2nd revert: 13.05.2007 15.00
 * 3rd revert: 14.05.2007 00.24
 * 4th revert: 14.05.2007 02.57
 * 5th revert: 14.05.2007 04.04
 * 6th revert: 14.05.2007 14.26
 * 7th revert: 14.05.2007 19.15
 * 8th revert: 15.05.2007 01.16
 * 9th revert: 16.05.2007 16.58
 * 10th revert: 17.05.2007 02.49


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16.05.2007 02.58
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16.05.2007 18.26

Reisender blocked for 24 hours due to edit waring. Hadžija warned for WP:OWN. --Selket Talk 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Yaf reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 23:05, 17 May 2007
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:44, 16 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:43, 16 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:13, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:11, 16 May 2007


 * comment: Since user has self-reverted himself, I retract my report.Giovanni33 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Onofre Bouvila reported by User:emerson7 (Result:no vio?)
. : Time reported: 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * No previous version reverted to given, and I can't find one by looking in the article's history. If there isn't one, this isn't a 3RR vio as the first is then not a revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 15 May 2007
 * 1st revert: 23:10, 17 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:52, 18 May 2007
 * Previous version reverted to: 12:54, 17 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, 17 May 2007
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:59, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:14, 17 May 2007
 * Edit warring by a user determined to remove Bob Dylan from this list. Two previous 3RR blocks over the same issue. Attempts at gaming by selectively re-adding different tags to the article. Has been reverted by multiple editors. Also suggest article protection. --JJay 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit war is from multiple fronts, so article protected. Note about above report: two of the reverts are consecutive edits, so technically no vio. But Bus stop is edit warring to an unacceptable degree, so I will warn him about this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mister Jinxy reported by User:Otto4711 (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17 May 02:03
 * 2nd revert: 17 May 10:44
 * 3rd revert: 17 May 21:33
 * 4th revert: 18 May 00:17


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17 May, 21:38
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Otto: You, too are edit warring. Please refrain from this and from incivility. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm trying to avoid edit warring. Otto4711 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 17 May 2007
 * Basically full revert edit.


 * 2nd revert: 22:23, 17 May 2007
 * Full revert of text.


 * 3rd revert: 00:44, 18 May 2007
 * Reverted text


 * 4th revert: 01:01, 18 May 2007
 * Removed article tags.

This user has been previously warned and blocked on this board.

4 previous Blocks for 3RR under previous name Smeelgova [Block Log]


 * Not reverts, discussed on talk page
 * As per WP:3RR, this does not constitute 3RR. 3RR must be to a reversion more than three times to the same old version of a page.  This was not done.  What was done by myself, was a removal (twice) of a tag.  I then noted on the edit summary that this would be discussed on the talk page Diff.  After discussion on talk page, I offered a compromise, and I voluntarily changed some text in the article accordingly Diff.  The edit warring has thus ceased, and this issue has been resolved, and I have no objections to the way the tags are currently presented in the article.  As 3RR is not punitive, and no actual 3RR was committed, this is a non-issue and a frivolous report by User:Lsi john.  Smee 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
 * 3RR policy applies to all edits which revert or undo another editor. This is an experienced editor who has been blocked 4 times before and was clearly edit warring. Lsi john 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An examination of the Diffs provided above by User:Lsi john clearly show that this is not 3RR, but a back and forth working out of the page, with side by side discussion ongoing on the talk page at the same time, and then subsequently a compromise reached in mutual agreement with both editors on the talk page. There is no more edit warring going on here with this issue.  Smee 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Let me also break down the Diffs provided above by User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • <span title="Block User:">block user  • [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ] ).  (1), This first Diff, reasoning was explained politely in the edit summary.  It was the only time I should have discussed further on the talk page, and gone through points one at a time.  (2), This second Diff, User:Lsi john had removed material that was duly sourced to a reputable secondary citation.  I restored this information - separate issue from the first point.  (3), In this Diff, I added back in a single word - the word "notable".  (4), In the last Diff shown above, I removed a "fact" tag.  It should also be noted that a compromise was reached on the usage of the  code, a separate issue, on the discussion page, and I added these stub tags into the article.  After this point, through discussion on the talk page, I decided to voluntarily compromise, and go back and remove the word "notable", myself.  Removing a single word, once, and then removing a fact tag, once, cannot be considered to be 3RR.  Thus, there is no current edit warring on the article, and each of these separate points has been explained.  Smee 03:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
 * No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It is not necessary to revert to the same version each time; any three reverts count. And all four of the above edits are reverts. You also seem think that because you are discussing your reverts, it's OK to keep reverting. This is also not the case. As for your compromise: Lsi john clearly doesn't consider it as such: . Therefore, I'm forced to conclude the edit war is not concluded, and will therefore block for 48 hours. Given your history of being blocked for 3RR, you ought to know better than to edit war by now, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the information you've been provided I understand your logic Heimstern Läufer (talk), simply discussing one's reasoning is not an excuse for unilaterally proceeding with an edit war. Since the idea is discouraging edit wars, why not punish the editor who began the edit war too? After all it does take two to edit war, and in this case I can show you that Lsi john started this by removing a word he found objectionable without providing a lucid explanation. Calling two other groups notable enough to have Wikipedia articles is not WP:OR as he claims it is. notable was the original term (05/11/2007). Also if you look at thehistory and talk pages you'll notice that he hasn't be working to compromise.


 * Again merely engaging in discussion is not an excuse, but is removing objectionable words from a pro-subject pov an excuse to start this course of events in the first place? Anynobody 05:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john has also been blocked for WP:3RR, fairly recently:9 May . My point is both should have known better. Anynobody 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:MetsFan153 (Result:24h for both)
. : Time reported: 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User keeps reverting a deletion on former teams, on a issue that has yet to be resolved on the wikiproject of MLB Players Taskforce, according to the discussion, all pages should be left as is, user has decided to a bunch of players on his own. User has been blocked before on previous 3RR, plus has a history of nonsense editing, and his talk page is full of annoyed people based on his pointless editing, because he thinks hes always right


 * Both users have reverted well over three times, and both are clearly aware of 3RR. Both blocked 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Juro reported by User:91.120.77.7 (Result:Indefinite block)
. : Time reported: 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: this one, made by Pascal.Tesson (Talk | contribs) at 13:56, 10 May 2007.

+1 (out of 24hrs)
 * 1st revert: 17:43, 16 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:53, 16 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:35, 16 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:42, 16 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:46, 16 May 2007
 * 22:43, 17 May 2007

Notorious vandal, got blocked for 3RR before as well, as for edit warring and sockpuppeting up to infinite. Somehow, somewhy got a last chance, his infinite block was lifted, but it was not worth it, user continues the same old things. No need of such an ultra-disrupting editor here. Indef pls, this time for real. --91.120.77.7 03:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked. Assuming all, or even most, of the previous blocks were justified, this user seems to have indeed used up all chances. As I'm not familiar with the editor, I will post this for review on ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dove1950 has also violated 3RR. I gather from the user's talk page that he/she has a history of edit warring and has at least been made aware of the 3RR, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LaSaltarella reported by User:balloonman (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert 4
 * Revert 3
 * revert 2
 * revert 1

This user is an experienced user who recently had her name changed. She was also warned on my talk page that she was in danger of violating the 3rr rule... that was after the 3rd edit, but before her fourth one. I know she saw it as she responded to my talk page before making the 4th change. All within 2 hours.Balloonman 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: There was at least one other edit of almost the exact same nature an hour earlier.Balloonman 08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅&mdash; has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation at Ohio Wesleyan University ~ Anthony  10:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay reported by Bus stop (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Bus stop 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop is confused. There was no 3RR violation. I will note in passing, though, that Bus stop has been systematically blindly reverting all my edits to this and other articles during the last week. --JJay 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would never report anyone for this, but this was done to me by this editor, just yesterday. The editor is insistent on asserting that the religion of Judaism proselytizes, and he has found some source for that. It is by-and-large incorrect. It certainly would have an undue weight issue. And in under 24 hours he has been inserting that slant, in violation of the 3rr rule. He has been doing that for days.
 * Not just me, but other editors have pointed out that the opposite holds true. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone in this way, and it will probably be the last. I don't get into this warfare type of writing an encyclopedia. He (or she) makes a regular habit of it, having reported me on occasion before the yesterday report. To each his or her own. Bus stop 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * None of what you wrote has anything to do with 3RR. However, rest assured, if you violate 3RR, you will be reported. -- --JJay 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin and am not involved with this article. After going through the article edits one-by-one, it appears that both editors may have violated 4RR over the past 24 hours. Lsi john 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's false. If I violated 3RR, I would put the diffs up myself. I made three reverts. --JJay 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not limited to Undo. There was clearly edit warring going on and both editors have been blocked for 3RR in the past:


 * I stand corrected, JJay has 3 reverts, Bus Stop has 2. I was looking at 11th and seeing 17th. Lsi john 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - three reverts, and that means no violation. Sam Blacketer 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:LordPathogen reported by User:Ramsey2006 (Result:24 hours each)
. : Time reported: 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

User repeatedly inserts pejorative name-calling against the 7 year old son of the subject of the biographical article.


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


 * Seems clear, and the talk page edits show the identity between  and LordPathogen. 24 hours; the autoblock has not been disabled, so if the IP edits then I will know I've made a mistake. Sam Blacketer 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the last non-perjorative version. This is a probable WP:BLP violation as well. - Crockspot 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; the material was sourced. Also, 24 hours for Ramsey2006 who also broke the 3RR. Sam Blacketer 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:207.114.16.210 reported by User:Upholder (Result: Final warning issued)
. : Time reported: 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:20, May 18, 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:52, May 18, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:32, May 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:18, May 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:20, May 18, 2007
 * I have issued a "final warning" to the user as I am unsure if this is the same person who received three-revert rule warnings back in late April. --  tariq abjotu  00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 2007-05-19 23:08:55 by User:72.66.51.129 which is another address that User:207.114.16.210 has used in the past. This    Comment just before the 5th revert was posted from User:72.66.51.129 but signed as User:207.114.16.210.  Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses. -- Upholder 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6th revert: 09:30, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129).
 * 7th revert: 14:00, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129, third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
 * 8th revert: 17:38, May 20, 2007 (as User:72.66.51.129, fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).

Response
see []

User:Mike18xx reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 60 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: see below


 * 1st revert: revert ( 15:40, 18 May 2007) of this
 * 2nd revert: revert (16:56, 18 May 2007) of this
 * 3rd revert: partial revert (18:55, 18 May 2007) of this
 * 4th revert: partial revert (22:14, 18 May 2007) of this


 * 3RR Warning: Unnecessary, see block log.


 * Comments: all reverts include relocation of WikiIslam image, the last three constitute reversions of the relocation of a section. user has recently returned from a hiatus, and had immediately resumed edit warring and conscious gaming (see: "RV (3/3)...") on Wikiislam, and now on Faith Freedom International. this edit warring has also been supplemented by incivility .  ITAQALLAH   22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user in question for sixty hours since he has been blocked for three-revert rule many times and has continued to engage in edit warring almost immediately after coming off his sabbatical. --  tariq abjotu  23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:Anthonylombardi (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 9:34, 18 May 2007
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Comments: This user has continuously reverted the genres to the band's page, against the wishes of numerous other users who have disagreed with him; he's the only one who believes the genre he keeps adding is appropriate, even after several different members have asked him to stop (through edit comments). I left him a message on his talk page, asking him to either cite a references or conjure up a vote on the band's talk page, to which he totally disregarded. The only argument he has made in his favor is "listen to the albums" or "you have no idea how long I can keep going with this, lol" -- needless to say, to me & to the numerous other users who keep fixing his inappropriate edits, this is becoming increasingly frustrating.


 * Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:156.34.209.240 reported by User:darthrya (Result:)
. : Time reported: 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131838011 / 19:02, 18 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131900924 / 00:21, 19 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131914571 / 01:43, 19 May 2007
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&oldid=131930323156.34.209.240 / 03:30, 19 May 2007

Comments: This person is deliberately deleting an outside link to Iron Maiden's tourography which is verifiable, reliable, and it provides additional helpful information about Iron Maiden not found in the content (nor does it fit in the in the content). The link is http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlist.htm, and it is the band's tourography. I have created that tourography by sifting through thousands of primary sources and evaluating all of the secondary sources taken for granted at the Iron Maiden page to come up with the most comprehensive and most accurate tourography available anywhere. My research has fixed hundreds of errors that have come from other sources people take for granted as being accurate, when they are not (such as Mick Wall and Paul Stenning, which the page references). 87% of the tour dates and locations listed on the tourography have citations (hover your mouse over them) which verify their accuracy. I have made this tourography in conjunction with my university as part of my master's in history requirements. The person who is deleting this link has no regard for its value to Iron Maiden fans. This link does not violate Wikipedia policy in any regard.
 * Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Interpaul reported by User:Tvoz (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:00 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 22:22 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 00:46 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 3:55 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 5:03 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 5:37 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 4:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2:26 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment no edit summaries with explanation, no participation in ongoing discussion on talk page, no consensus for the removal; this user was also warned on May 9 for a different series of reverts in same article Tvoz | talk 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Papa Carlo reported by User:Alaexis (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 07:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:53, 13 May 2007
 * The demographics section of the article was reverted to this version. The table was just reverted; the text was a bit reformulated but its meaning hasn't changed.


 * 1st revert: 05:31, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:46, 19 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:59, 19 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:44, 19 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:24, 19 May


 * Disagree. First edit was not a revert. It was a new edit with new links and everything. This info was discussed on the talk page. User:Alaexis apparently thinks his edits are untouchable. He is trying to beat the system by reverting three times every day. He does the same thing on List of sovereign states as well. Seems to be his editing style. (PaC 07:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

No violation. Only 3 reverts. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. I think the "previous version reverted to" was mistakenly cited and misleading. From the talkpage and the page history, this is a longstanding dispute which both participants have previously revert-warred about. The issue is apparently the inclusion or non-inclusion of a row in the demographics table stating population figures of a 1897 census. This started on 30 April, and both parties went up to 3R about it on 13 May. I see the following edits (some of them not pure reverts, but all centered around removing or re-adding these figures:)


 * User:Papa Carlo removing 1897 census figures from table:
 * 30 April removing figures, though not the table row as a whole
 * 13 May 15:05
 * 13 May 15:22
 * 13 May 18:13
 * 19 May 05:31
 * 19 May 05:46
 * 19 May 05:59
 * 19 May 06:44


 * Alaexis restoring table figures
 * 30 April
 * 10 May
 * 13 May 15:13
 * 13 May 17:46
 * 13 May 18:50
 * 19 May 05:38
 * 19 May 05:55
 * 19 May 06:37
 * Final edit by Alaexis
 * Acquiescing to the removal of figures, but at the same time removing again a paragraph of text ("[Russian Empire Census |First Russian Empire Census]] of 1897 did not actualy capture the ethnic composition ...") repeatedly inserted previously by Papa Carlos, hence also a partial revert:
 * 19 May 09:05

In my book, this is a clear breach of the letter of 3RR by Papa Carlos, a not-quite-so-straightforward breach on the part of Alaexis, and in any case quite a lot of unproductive revert-warring on the part of both. Opinions, anyone? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides. Alæxis¿question? 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lsi_john reported by User:EstherRice (Result: No vio)
. : Time reported: 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 7:46, 19th of May


 * 1st revert: 13:00
 * 2nd revert: 15:04
 * 3rd revert: 16:08

I am not sure where to sign. ER <sup style="color:violet;">Talk 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 Reverts to enforce concensus from extensive discussion. And I requested Page Protection. This is not 4RR and is not a violation. And I have stopped editing that page and do not intend to edit again, as can be seen from [here] and [here] Lsi john 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The guidelines at the top of the page specifically request that dispute-related problems not be brought up here, I request that the above comment be struck out since the above comment and links are precisely dispute-related. The policy also specifically refers to three reversions, and I request that WP policy be applied as it is, in this as in any other case. ER <sup style="color:violet;">Talk 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation of 3RR occurred and the links provided demonstrate that I have no intention of continuing to edit that page at this time, and therefore no violation will occur. Lsi john 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No violation has occurred, but all parties are urged to find compromise wording, satisfactory to both sides. --Selket Talk 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have re-added a bit of the disputed material in an NPOV manner consistent with the sourcing. Take my edit as an example, if you care to. --Justanother 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologise to anyone who has been inconvenienced by this; I was actually led into it by no-one bothering to correct me after I had recently reverted the same page twice to restore the well-sourced critical material, then expressed my supposition that I was unable to do it again (no doubt a very satisfying mistake to the habitual removers of the same well-sourced material, and now one that has become very useful). Who, without experience, could know that the 3rr is actually a 4 or more rr? ER <sup style="color:violet;">Talk 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine (page locked for short period)
I combined two related reports. Please see my comment in the bottom. -Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result:)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:39, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:05, 19 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:07, 19 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:23, 19 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:35, 19 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 21:38, 19 May 2007
 * 7th revert: 21:50, 19 May 2007

The article is controversial, however today the user has made about a dozen or so highly controversial edits, and not talk page entries, because the article is being constantly expanded one notices that there are intermediate sections that are added on, however the nature of his reverts do not change. --Kuban Cossack 21:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see comment below. --Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65 (Result:)
. : Time reported: 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 19 May 2007


 * 1) 1st revert 21:14, 19 May 2007
 * 2) 2nd revert 21:10, 19 May 2007
 * 3) 3rd revert 20:55, 19 May 2007
 * 4) 4th revert 21:25, 19 May 2007
 * 5) 5th revert 21:39, 19 May 2007

The user wages revert war.--Hillock65 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a revert war but WP:BRD. Both users develop the article and the article is getting improved. Intervention unnecessary. I will deal with the controversy. --Irpen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Do both reporting users agree that no intervention is necessary? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, intervention is necessary - whatever it is. The revert war and personal attacks have not stopped.--Hillock65 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I locked the page for a short period to slow things down and get some talk happening. Hopefully things will quieten. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MetsFan153 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: no vio 48h)
. : Time reported: 21:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:45, May 19, 2007

User keeps putting false information on the article, two days after being blocked for 3RR. I was blocked as well trying to revert it, which is why I have reported this rather than rever it for a thir time myself.Chris Nelson 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User keeps reverting removing true information on former teams he played on, has been repeatedly told my other users, including myself to leave information as is, until a decision is reached by the baseball players taskforce. MetsFan153 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A look at the article history suggests only three reverts; need more than three for 3RR vio. In the future, please provide diffs for each reversion. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MetsFan153 has reverted the page for the FOURTH time today. It seems to be this is no in violation of 3RR.Chris Nelson 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are now four. Blocked for 48 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kraft. reported by User:Boricuaeddie (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 01:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 04:13, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:04, 19 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:12, 19 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:13, 19 May 2007

Comment:

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the number of sales made. User:Kraft. mindlessly reverted edits by other IP editors he considered incorrect without alerting the users that they were incorrect and without giving them a chance to explain their edits. He just reverted, without leaving not even a single warning in the user's talk page. Furthermore, once I alerted him that he was violating the three-revert rule, he responded with uncivil comments. He claims he has proof that his version is the correct one and that he had addressed the problem on the article's talk page, but, instead of pointing the users towards the talk page, he just reverted the other user's edits, which I believe is the problem. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Talk • Contribs  •  Spread   the love! 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User does not seem to be editing that article today. 3RR blocks are preventative and not punitive. Now that the user is warned, of he persists with such behavior he well be blocked. I will leave a message to this effect on his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:VirtualDelight reported by User:64.131.205.111 (Result:)
. : Time reported: 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Comment: User:VirtualDelight has been utilizing twinkle to revert edits by other editors. Rolling back as many as 7 updates. He has repeatedly removed information stating that they are opinion, rather than using the tool. When facts are placed in he has reverted them anyway. One prime expample is the placement of sources that state the mixed heritage of a number of Presidential leaders of the Dominican Republic. It has been asked that he please discuss the sources in the talk section, but he has simply reverted the article. A few days suspension is probably in order, but not much more. Protection of the page in unnecessary. 64.131.205.111 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I suspect this to be banned user Mykungfu aka Freakin Fool et al. At least per this edits and ,but decide yourself. VirtualDelight 08:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC) See also the IP‘s talkpage   before its "update". VirtualDelight 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by User:MariusM (Result: redundant)
. : Time reported: 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:18, 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:38, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:55, 19 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:37, 19 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:05, 19 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 09:23, 19 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:17, 19 May 2007
 * 7th revert: 15:39, 19 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment: --MariusM 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The first four of my edits are already discussed above (Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR). The fourth edit was my attempt of a compromise and it seems to fit both sides.

The rest (5th, 6th and 7th) reverts were the reverts of vandalism from open proxies. This article is attacked by open proxies regularly Alæxis¿question? 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This report is redundant with one further above, and the reverts are arguably stale by now. I agree with Alaexis that the last three were legitimate reverts of a banned user. There was previously revert-warring on both sides and both parties have been warned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by 147.52.78.24 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:54, 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:34, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 131973630 dated 2007-05-19 09:55:25 by Alaexis using popups)
 * 2nd revert: 13:19, 19 May 2007 Revert to re vision 131991089 dated 2007-05-19 12:34:30 by Alaexis using popups)
 * 3rd revert: 15:29, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 131996766 dated 2007-05-19 13:19:03 by Alaexis using popups
 * 4th revert: 17:21, 19 May 2007 Revert to revision 132017685 dated 2007-05-19 15:29:10 by Alaexis using popups)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The last two (and maybe the first two also) were the reverts of open proxy edits. -related articles are attacked by open proxies regularly. Alæxis¿question? 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All IP edits were open proxies and can reasonably be assumed to have been from banned users. Hence, no violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:jiejunkong (Result: moot)
. : Time reported: 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

In [], I count 4 reverting operations in less than 3 hours, starting from one of another user Endoit's 00:30 version and ending at an anonymous IP's 03:04 version.

(cur) (last) 03:06, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (please stop rv to a POV version. I am getting tired of this and I wish to leave the article at the relative stability) (cur) (last) 03:04, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (32,503 bytes) (Or this would pertain to Wiki in Korean language!?) (cur) (last) 02:56, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,499 bytes) (→Language) (cur) (last) 02:55, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,405 bytes) (→Legacy) (cur) (last) 02:53, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,498 bytes) (→Religion) (cur) (last) 02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Religion) (cur) (last) 02:51, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,419 bytes) (→Culture - - another source from berkeley) (cur) (last) 02:50, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (that would pertain to the Chinese Wikipedia.) (cur) (last) 02:46, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,581 bytes) (It is totally disputed. No Chinese will accept this page as it is. The edit war will never end) (cur) (last) 02:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,349 bytes) (→Fall - - added source) (cur) (last) 02:42, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,304 bytes) (→Fall - - added a source, from Mark Byington, Harvard professor. I'm sure Jiejunkong can't deny that) (cur) (last) 02:38, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv again) (cur) (last) 02:37, 20 May 2007 75.83.232.59 (Talk) (42,536 bytes) (cur) (last) 02:34, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (32,259 bytes) (rv) (cur) (last) 00:30, 20 May 2007 Endroit (Talk | contribs) (42,536 bytes) (+ Actual script used in these sources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiejunkong (talk • contribs)

Here are the actual diff's. Good friend100 has repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag (besides deleting a lot of text):


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:45, 18 May 2007 — version right before "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag was added


 * 1st revert: 18:53, 19 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag
 * part of 1st revert: 18:50, 19 May 2007 — content removal
 * 2nd revert: 02:34, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
 * 3rd revert: 02:38, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
 * 4th revert: 02:50, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag, content removal
 * 5th revert: 03:06, 20 May 2007 — removed "factual accuracy" tag

--Endroit 14:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff showing knowledge of 3RR: 02:37, 20 May 2007 (WP:RFPP)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:54, 20 May 2007


 * Note: The article is locked to Good_friend100's preferred version (with the contents removed), per Good_friend100's request in WP:RFPP.--Endroit 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd 3RR violation on Goguryeo controversies . : Time reported: 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (cur) (last) 15:14, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,108 bytes) (cur) (last) 15:11, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (13,984 bytes) (→Background - there is no source) (cur) (last) 15:08, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Please put  tag for reference request before deletion. Otherwise, clearly malicious blanking.) (cur) (last) 14:58, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (removed sections that are poorly sourced) (cur) (last) 14:47, 20 May 2007 Jiejunkong (Talk | contribs) m (14,054 bytes) (Disputed sections. Please do WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable Source for any content changes.) (cur) (last) 12:45, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,102 bytes) (→Background - man, this is really becoming a pain) (cur) (last) 12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,178 bytes) (→Background - remove POV sourced sentence) (cur) (last) 12:43, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,546 bytes) (→Chinese claims on Goguryeo) (cur) (last) 12:39, 20 May 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (12,275 bytes) (even you say Baidu baike is POV, removing section without any sources) (cur) (last) 06:07, 20 May 2007 Time of flight (Talk | contribs) (14,054 bytes) (Those come from well respected history sources, including the one written by Koreans, Samguk Sagi)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:39, 17 May 2007 — version right before the disputed text was moved over from Goguryeo

--Jiejunkong 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 03:39, 20 May 2007
 * 1st 2nd revert: 12:39, 20 May 2007 Deleted some references from reliable source Twenty-Four Histories
 * 2nd 3rd revert: 14:58, 20 May 2007 Blanked paragraphs without giving "Unreferenced" request and deleted references from reliable source.
 * 3rd 4th revert: 15:14, 20 May 2007 Same as the 2nd 3rd revert.
 * --Modified by Endroit 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Might also be worth noting that this is by no means a new user and he's referenced the 3RR rule many times (for example here 00:54, 17 May 2007), which would be before any recent 3RR violations. --Cheers, Komdori 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to mention that I was reverting POV edits with poorly sourced and possibly violating WP:NOR information on the article itself. Jiejunkong has made several claims that may be original research, including adding a dispute raising image that may also be his own interpretation. . Jiejunkong also uses unverifiable sources that are mostly written in Chinese and thus is not possible for examination.


 * In his version of the article Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties, this section violates both NPOV and WP:NOR. The section is poorly sourced, using a Chinese encyclopedia, Baidu Baike, yet he agrees leaving the section alone and then disagrees that Baidu Baike should not be used.


 * Jiejunkong also disagrees using Mark Byington's papers on Goguryeo even though Byington is a Harvard professor on East Asian studies and his paper is a clear source. His motives are clearly POV because he disagrees with everything that does not support him.


 * It should also be noted that Jiejunkong is rude to other editors. He has labeled the word "Korean origin" as "fascist" while leaving Chinese encyclopedias and other unverifiable Chinese sources alone. Jiejunkong has also inferred that he is disgusted with me because he "doesn't want to touch my talk pages". Jiejunkong also accuses me of my "amatuerish behavior" and calls all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy".


 * Jiejunkong's intentions are clearly POV and his comments overall are filled with unverifiable claims and POV remarks. Jiejunkong's replies, which he has clearly marked as "reply" are also illogical and do not answer the other editor's question in a clearcut way.


 * I believe Jiejunkong is totally at fault and he does not correctly understand Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.


 * I also believe that Endroit and Komdori are at fault for failing to help stop Jiejunkong make poorly referenced claims and his other behavior, which is becoming more and more trollish. Simply because Endroit and Komdori are in the opposing party from me, and although Jiejunkong has clearly made inappropiate edits and comments, they did not warn or report his activities. I believe Endroit and Komdori are at fault too for immediately taking the chance to block me instead of disagreeing with Jiejunkong, who is clearly the true violator. I am sure that both Endroit and Komdori know of Jiejunkong's activities as they are experienced editors here.


 * Please reconsider blocking me because I clearly feel that I am not at fault. It is true that I did not make a case or request an admin to look over Jiejunkong's activities (although I did request an action from user:Nlu, an admin) immediately and party escalated the argument at the talk page, but I feel that Jiejunkong should be punished. Good friend100 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good friend, you've been around long enough by far to know that "not liking the version" is not a reason to violate the 3RR rule. You've also displayed your own fair share of incivility recently, even calling an editor "sick" and "twisted" for adding an NPOV tag here.  I can't speak for Endroit, but I've been offline for most of the day so I couldn't help stop the edit war earlier, but you have eagerly been participated in it, not stopping until an admin came in and protected it, forcing you to stop.  Now you come to this page to clutter it up with your bad faith for us (especially after I left you a heads up for this report when I noticed the reporter hadn't).  Being a good editor in the past in not an excuse to go nuts now, violating 3RR on multiple articles in a short time. --Cheers, Komdori 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Again I feel that you do not read my comments sometimes. I wrote a number of points as to why his edits were POV and why I reverted them, not simply because I do "not like the version". Don't make up stuff, cause thats certainly not what I mean.

I commented on how I was wrong to not report Jiejunkong for his behavior. And saying "sick" and "twisted" were for all the edits he had done previously, not just that tag.

It is really disappointing to see how you cannot see Jiejunkong's violation of numerous things, which I have explained above. Again, I feel that you did not read through my comments or either that, you simply don't care what I write (well maybe it was a bit long). Good friend100 02:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, there might be other issues at play. I intend to go through your comments about Jiejunkong very closely to see what's going on there.  My only point was that removing POV statements is not a good reason for breaking 3RR (if we start accepting that, everyone will be breaking it). --Cheers, Komdori 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I apologized to that! I clearly wrote in my long comment that I helped stir up the argument. Good friend100 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good friend100, what I don't understand is why you have repeatedly removed the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag. Are you denying, or somehow trying to hide, that there's a "factual accuracy" dispute in the Goguryeo article?  I think it's inexcusable to delete tags like that.  And then you've got an admin at WP:RFPP to lock the page WITHOUT the tag.  The least you can do now, is ask the locking admin (User:Eagle 101) to reinstate the "factual accuracy" ("totally-disputed") tag.  Don't ever revert-war on tags like that again.  Thank you.--Endroit 04:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this User:Good friend100 got tons of rumors on me. But Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties was not written by me at all. I have not even changed one character in that section. I have spent the last few days to input the relevant canonical history volumes in zh.wikisource and want to change the current references in that section into an acceptable format. But even this action is in future tense and hasn't yet implemented. I am offended by User:Good friend100's random charges. Providing physical proofs to support your charges is a pre-requisite in wikipedia, isn't it? If your physical proof is wrong, what should we do?--Jiejunkong 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

is a literal graphic depiction of canonical history records. I don't think you can call it "original research". If so, any modern efforts, both textually and graphically, to translate ancient records into legible modern forms would be "original research". Reasonable wiki users who read the ancient records carefully haven't denied the validity of my depiction. Surely it is imperfect (any rephrasing is imperfect), but I am open to improvement on the depiction.

Your complaining on records written in ancient Chinese language is also invalid. The Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi was originally written in ancient Chinese. The Korean version was a translation rather than original record. For the texts I quoted, I did the English translation and I am responsible for the statement I wrote. So far you are not complaining about my English translation, but furiously against some meta-physical things like the validity of history records written in Chinese. By your attitude, you are shutting down the entire wikipedia section because nothing but identical copying is valid in your standard.

BTW, you always want to mangle my original statement, extracting it from the context (An observation is that you have never quoted original sentences. The charges are mainly comprised of only vague innuedos and tricky jumps). The "fascist" term is a comment to websites like "mygoguryeo.com" (and the back-to-future-style "Korean origin" in year 600 when even Goryeo didn't exist until 300 years later). The website reminds me of some ostentiously proud people failed 60 years ago. Tell you one thing, even Baike.Baidu.com dare not make that kind of show. And one clue to know my standing point that is I have never cited Baidu Baike or Northeast Project as reliable sources. You claimed that "all the references he doesn't like as "plagiarism" and "piracy"". To verify whether your claim is true, I find that you have completely disappeared from the NPOV reference discussion on Talk:Goguryeo, where there are many NPOV references I left in the list. If you intentionally press false charges without physical proof, you are labeling yourself an L-word since you have repetitively done this kind of tricks.--Jiejunkong 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This complaint is now moot because the page has been protected. Editors involved have a history of past disputes and 3RR blocks or close calls -- including those who have since joined the discussion.  All are urged to build consensus and stop arguing on this message board.  Editors will be individually warned.  --Selket Talk 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Selket, is the 2nd report above on Goguryeo controversies moot as well? Let me just point out that revert-warriors have clearly sidestepped the Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, an ongoing RfM.  Please discuss further with the mediators before you protect any further related pages, since the pages have been unprotected due to the mediators' disretion in the first place.  Thank you.--Endroit 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the last two edits (plus one more at 02:45) appear to be reverts. The others seem to be compromises.  If I am missing something please lay it out clearly in a new report.  To quote the instructions: Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible.  Also, remember that if they are not all reverts to the same version: For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.  Be clear, but don't rant. --Selket Talk 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I already resubmitted "Part 2" of this report, at the bottom.--Endroit 07:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:3 Löwi reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result: Blocked 48 hours. 24 for 3RR, 24 for removing sourced material)
. : Time reported: 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 20 May 12:12
 * 2nd revert: 20 May 12:27
 * 3rd revert: 20 May 13:05
 * 4th revert: 20 May 13:20

Multiple page blanking without discussion. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PaddyLeahy reported by User:Phil Sandifer (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:42
 * 2nd revert: 19:56
 * 3rd revert: 20:17
 * 4th revert: 10:00
 * 5th revert 10:20

Note that this is particularly destructive edit warring, as the page in question is a developing guideline, and PaddyLeahy is one of a vocal few opposing it and trying to disrupt what is in fact a growing consensus. Phil Sandifer 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Cyde Weys 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17.33 19 May


 * 1st revert: 15:55 today
 * 2nd revert: 18:59 today
 * 3rd revert: 19:11 today
 * 4th revert: 19:28 today


 * Comment: This person has been putting his political and disruptive content on his user page calling Bulgarians and Greeks vandals. He was blocked already for this three revert rule. TodorBozhinov and Laveol and myself are on the case, see the edit history. Mr. Neutron 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅&mdash; blocked for 20 hours for a WP:3RR violation at ~  Anthøny  20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Sosomk (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 15:26 - 15:36 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Same revert:
 * First of all, this is an improperly filed report. Second, I have only edited the article three times today -- see that page.  Third, this appears an insipid attempt to retalite given this editor's recent one-week block on that very article, which I facilitated; after this block, he has decided to continue unilaterally reverting to his preferred versions.  Lastly, this editor is swearing on the talk page and has been warned against incivility.  20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 reverts in last 24 hours. While I am willing to block for that sometimes, Corticopia has made it clear that he is willing to discuss the situation; a block would not be productive at this time. Stop reverting and discuss. 3RR is not something you try to push your opponents into as a way to shut them up and win an argument. Kafziel Talk 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, SosoMK just breached 3RR through his last edit. Corticopia 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ev and reported by User:Cool Blue (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (current)


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

Admin Majorly finally intervened, protecting the page. See also the legal threat by KristinaAlbania: here But the legal threat's a different issue being discussed at ANI, currently. I'm neutral, but I just noticed the violation, and thought intervention may be needed. Both users seem pretty heated.  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the article has been protected, there is no need to apply a block to either party here. --  tariq abjotu  03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:BaseballDetective and reported by User:69.118.129.76 (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (current)


 * 1st revert: 18:54
 * 2nd revert: 01:47
 * 3rd revert: 01:49
 * 4th revert: 01:49

Unauthorized (not that it matters) editing of a talk page, four changes made in under 24 hours. 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This user is involved in an edit war at List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut, repeatedly deleting a section from the article that they do not agree with. Repeated reversions didn't seem to be an issue there, as they made the same edit 17 times over the space of 15 days. The edits that the anon user is complaining about have to do with them trying to remove warnings regarding these contentious edits and personal attacks made by the anon user. Caknuck 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See above for the previous 3RR complaint between the two parties. Also, please view Requests for comment/Biographies for the RFC stemming from the original dispute. Caknuck 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reported user is different from the user making the edits noted here. Additionally, the user was merely adding warnings. --  tariq abjotu  03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * this anon user is clearly a troll who is gaming the strictness of the three revert rule to harass otheres and ignore their own behavior. technically this person has not violated 3rr but if you look at their contributions to wikipedia, it's constant trolling and harassment of others and an unwillingless to work with others in any way.  the only thing keeping this user from being blocked is their slyly avoiding 3 or more reversions in a 24 hour period.  i would implore any admin looking at this situation to step in and do something.  the page is locked, but the user has threatened to come back and engage in this behavior again.  "Feel free to issue warnings to your heart's content, just be aware that I won't adhere to one unless decreed by an administrator. The section is now protected so you can rest assured that there will be far more inputs on the article's discussion page supporting my point of view in order to remove the ridiculous section once and for all."  ridiculous.  someone please look at this and do something. BaseballDetective 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:In1984 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 22:46, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:44, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: Current revision (20:47, 20 May 2007)

- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
 * WARNING regarding your addition of the caption to several automobile logos --
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." CZmarlin 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have given the following explanations on this user's talk page:
 * Showing the logo of a company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of what you describe as "advertising" is utterly false. First of all, please read the definition of advertising --
 * "Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled. ..."
 * Therefore, simply showing the logo that is associated with a Wikipedia article about the organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. If you wish to eliminate the concept of promotion (of which advertising is just one element), then any mention of a brand, logo, and any other copyrighted or trademarked name or symbol would have to be eliminated from all Wikipedia articles. That is why Wikipedia clearly states that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. Please do not attempt to redefine Wikipedia policy. Thank you -- CZmarlin 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Wikipedia guidelines. If you do not think that Wikipedia should to serve any promotional role for products, ideas, or organizations; then you will have to blank out thousands of articles pertaining to all the products, ideas, and organizations. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you -- CZmarlin 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This editor is now going through many more articles and adding a caption to their logos. Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems counter productive. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. CZmarlin 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)