Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48

User:72.66.51.129 and User:207.114.16.210 reported by User:Upholder (Result:)
. : Time reported: 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:38, May 20, 2007

There have now been a total of 9 reverts by this editor on these two IPs:
 * 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
 * 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.
 * 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).
 * 9th revert: 08:04, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).
 * 10th revert: 12:49, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).


 * Diff of 3RR warnings: 19:00, May 18, 2007 and 11:59, May 20, 2007

Response
If any action is taken with regard to this alleged violation of the 3RR, I would only ask that all offenders be treated equally. To this extent, I would note that this dispute also involved violations of the three revert rule by User:Chiwara who twice made 3+ reverts to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball article within 24 hours:

(1) 23:04 17 May 2007 (2) 15:43 18 May 2007 (3) 18:39 18 May 2007 and (1) 14:55 20 May 2007 (2) 05:44 21 May 2007 (3) 14:29 21 May 2007

The above notwithstanding, I would suggest that current discussions appear to be headed towards resolution and any blocking is unecessary and will simply inflame the situation. 207.114.16.210 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result: unactionable)

 * Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=132365566&oldid=132337438 22:07, 20 May 2007]
 * 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Three of the diffs are for List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, the other is for Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. Therefore, no violation has been demonstrated.  Please use the example format at the bottom of this page to avoid mistakes like this.  --Selket Talk 08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced that one with the one Simoes intended. The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is back at the other version now.


 * It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued posting to the talk page and madesome edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian reported by User:Doczilla (Result:)
. : Time reported: 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:33, 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:50, 20 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:08, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:25, 21 May 2007 The wording of his edit summary "Since the other version is fundamentally flawed for all the previously listed reasons, this is the version that should be addressed as it has been shaped to user comments." sounds like he didn't even glance at the intermediate version but simply reverted because it wasn't his. (I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that's how it looked.)
 * 4th revert: 02:48, 21 May 2007 This version isn't a 100% reversion because he edited it this time, but look at the intermediate version he changed. He keeps reverting this from a disambiguation page. Edit summary makes this look like another blind revert without looking at intermediate version: "Address the issues - this version has correct tense, no POV, correct grammar, sourcing and no spacing issues/poor use of images. Other version only suitable for fan site."

Notice that this is 4 reverts in 25 hours. However, (1) the 3RR guidelines stress that the rule is not a license to make 3 reverts every 24 hours ("Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day."), (2) this user has been endlessly cautioned about edit warring, (3) this user has gotten into trouble for 3RR before, so making 4 reverts in 25 hours comes across as an attempt to get around the rules without following their actual intent, (4) he has kept the Vision (comics), Vision (Marvel Comics), Vision (Timely Comics) locked in a war (he has kept numerous articles locked in edit wars), (5) he alone has been fighting against consensus to split Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) into two separate articles, and (6) he apparently doesn't even know how to move articles correctly from one article name to another because his actions have caused disruption of discussion as talk pages and histories get left behind. I really, really hate to do this, but this edit war must stop.

Previous 3RR warning: Notice that he has removed his 3RR block notices from his talk page despite previous warnings not to do that.
 * 09:56, 25 September 2006 (not formal warning, just a caution)
 * 17:52, 26 October 2006
 * 18:39, 26 November 2006. (caution only? I'm not sure because of how often Asgardian deleted warnings and removed other contributor's comments from his talk page.)
 * 17:40, 14 January 2007
 * 18:24, 24 March 2007 (I thought this was just someone pointing out a violation to him, not a formal notice, until I saw comments at User talk:GentlemanGhost.

Other block notice:
 * 12:22, 9 April 2007

Notification of recent administrator's noticeboard report:
 * 01:01, 2 May 2007

Notification of an earlier adminstrator's noticeboard report: Doczilla 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 08:29, 12 December 2006

Suggestion: The 25 hour timespan might make a block unlikely. Protecting Vision (comics) in its disambiguation page form might be sufficient action in this case. Protecting the disambiguation page might at least help reduce that aspect of the edit warring at Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics). Doczilla 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) To be fair, I must point out that no new reversions have occurred to Vision (comics). Given the ongoing feuding over the other two Vision (and many other) articles, though, protection for Vision (comics) might nevertheless help make a point about edit warring and help prompt the same kind of collaborative editing effort that may finally have resolved a different edit war involving some of the same players. Doczilla 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, despite the hope expressed in my previous sentence, ongoing feuding between Asgardian and others has led to protection of one of the associated Vision articles(Talk:Vision_%28Marvel_Comics%29), although not the disambiguation page that initiated this 3RR complaint. Doczilla 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Endroit (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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


 * 1st revert: 03:39, 20 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:39, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:58, 20 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:14, 20 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:45, 21 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:54, 20 May 2007

Comment: Repeated removal of the section entitled "==Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties". --Endroit 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 blocked 24 hours from last revert --Selket Talk 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DachMaCheh reported by User:Soman (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 11:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:28, 14 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:23, 20 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:00, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:20, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME

No violation has occurred. The three revert rule prohibits more than three reverts within 24 hours. --Selket Talk 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, my bad. --Soman 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Staberinde (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:12, 20 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:29, 20 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:34, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 20 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:49, 21 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:27, 21 May 2007

User has been blocked for edit warring before.


 * I'm a Beatle Fab Four. This Staberinde didn't follow controversy resolving rules. Look at the discussion page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (→Advertisement) My reversions were fair, explained at the discussion page, and supported by several neutral users from Belgium and Finland, both in discussions and edits. For instance,

  or "Thanks to Beatle Fab Four for reverting the deletion once more. LHOON 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)" Beatle Fab Four 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fab Four FOUGHT VANDALISM. A few Baltic nationalists try to change the content of the article from what it realy is to what they would like it to be. Fab Four fought vandalism and by that followed this rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules when there are a few people vandalizing, and the one who fights vandalism is one, ofcaurse he will have to revert more then 3 times, and by this law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules he's allowed to do so, and i think that every reasnoble man understands that. He was blocked by a user that didn't even learn the case, and who didn't care, he didn't use his logic, for him more then three reverts is enough to block (he is Sandstein). P.S. The administrator who blocked him blocked him and me, but he didn't block those from the other side of the arguments and didn't even give them a warrning, thought they were the once who started this edit war. M.V.E.i. 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Staberinde is an Estonian who took part in the argument, his complain can't even be taken serioucly. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so because Staberinde is an Estonian and dared to argue with Beatle Fab Four, so he cannot be taken "serioucly"? That smells like a racism to me, but I'll leave it at that.
 * User Beatle Fab Four has constantly tried to reinstate material not suitable to Wikipedia or what goes against Wikipedia rules (links to blogs, hate promotion sites) and done everything to disrupt normal work - edits on Bronze Soldier have pretty much stopped, because of that. He has been blocked repeatedly before (see ) and has a history of block evasion (Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four). Both he and M.V.E.i. constantly argue that he is just following rule Ignore all rules while fighting vandalism, however, when asked to show evidence of that vandalism, they fail to do so.
 * I don't think blocking BFF for normal duration will have any effect - he is on a dynamic IP and has shown clearly and repeatedly that he will evade the block. Although this is not the place to request this, I think that in addition to the block, semi-protection of the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (and maybe its talk as well) is needed. DLX 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * DLX, Offcourse the article needs protectionm, from you, so you would stop reverting it. You and your friends here are trolls (in the Wikipedian meaning), now your playing it an honest man who offers protection for the article. You are the one because of who the problems started. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been edit-warring from multiple parties here; I have protected the article for three days. --  tariq abjotu  19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Just what i've said, there were a few groups fighting, and Sandstein blocked people only from one group but nevertheless didn't say anything to anyone from any other group. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Simoes (Result: Article protected)
. :15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:07, 20 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article (particular the removal of an "Apollo moon landing hoax accusations" entry, among others) remain in place despite objections from several editors. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is at the other version now. The last edit above was 15 hours ago (Simoes is not using GMT, but GMT-6).


 * Simoes is trying to imply that I was the only editor who objected to the moon landing's inclusion, which is not true.


 * It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued discussion on the talk page, and made some edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring from multiple parties here. Thus, I have protected the article. --  tariq abjotu  19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bueller reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-21T11:09:26


 * 1st revert: 2007-05-20T14:40:54
 * 2nd revert: 2007-05-20T14:48:45
 * 3rd revert: 2007-05-20T15:13:05
 * 4th revert: 2007-05-21T11:09:26

WP:3RR violation. Review of the recent talk-page topics and narrow contribution patterns will reveal what I believe is a WP:POINT problem with this user as well. Abe Froman 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The user in question has never received a three-revert rule warning and rarely contributes to Wikipedia. Thus, I have warned him/her. --  tariq abjotu  19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:84.68.67.13 reported by User:Vintagekits (Result: 24 hrs)
. Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:25, 21 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:37, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:48, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:55, 21 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:00, 21 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 20:04, 21 May 2007
 * 7th revert: 20:11, 21 May 2007
 * 8th revert: 20:33, 21 May 2007
 * 9th revert: 20:43, 21 May 2007

WP:3RR violation. Warned and requested to discussion, then deleted warnings and requests to discuss and then continued to revert despite a number of editors reverting.--Vintagekits 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC) for 24 hours also. --Selket Talk 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked User:Padraig3uk:
 * 19:45, 21 May 2007
 * 19:49, 21 May 2007
 * 20:09, 21 May 2007
 * 20:41, 21 May 2007

User:71.99.128.25 at Talk:Anna Halman
There were more than 3 reverts of this IP user in recent 24 hours. He is still continuing in vandalising, I request to block him immediatly, because he is violating the official policy. Thanks. --Aktron (t|c) 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by User:Johnleemk. Issue resolved.  Signature brendel  22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Urthogie reported by User:Taharqa (Result: No violation)
. Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 21:16, 20 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:29, 20 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:39, 20 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:49, 20 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:49, 20 May 2007

Continues to remain disruptive and controlling of the article, even though we're in dispute resolution. He still reverts every one's edits and it seems that he will not stop. I recommend that this person be blocked as he has clearly violated the 3 revert rule for about the 3rd time this past month.Taharqa 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These are five edits in a row with no other edits between them. This notice board is for when a user reverts an article to a prior version more than 3 times within 24 hours.  It is not for when an editor makes more than 3 edits within 24 hours. --Selket Talk 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:156.34.236.46 (Result: Blocked 1 week)
. : Time reported: 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Comments:User:Pompertown is fresh off a 31 hour block for violating 3RR on the same article. He continues to ignore talk page discussion and previous concensus in favour of personal POV. 156.34.236.46 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Pompertown blocked 1 week. --Selket Talk 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:85.158.34.139 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 8:27, 15 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:49, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:57, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:12, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:16, 21 May 2007

Comments: Continuous reversion to version of page with poorly sourced POV and OR. User appears to be turning the page into a POV fork. User is operating from a dynamic IP.


 * I think this is not fair. I just asked user Someguy1221 to help me improve the article. I sourced all my claims which he asked for. He even didn't read the article, he tricked me this way just to block me. The problem is that no one wants to discuss.
 * 85.158.34.139 blocked for 24 hours. --Selket Talk 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi reported by User:Reddi (Result:No action)
I may have violated 3RR ... please check ... J. D. Redding 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&action=history


 * 1) (cur) (last) 08:14, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132431104 by ScienceApologist (talk))
 * 2) (cur) (last) 07:13, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132420335 by ScienceApologist (talk))
 * 3) (cur) (last) 13:12, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (→Books)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 13:10, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,917 bytes) (rv removal of references)

If so, please tell me. J. D. Redding 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you reported yourself, I won't take any action. Next time, just use the talkj page a request protection if necessary. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AKliman reported by User:Watchdog07 (Result:No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported Watchdog07 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 0407, May 21
 * 2nd revert: 1718, May 21
 * 3rd revert: 2233, May 21
 * There are only three reverts here, and the report isn't even formatted correctly. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:91.120.113.31 reported by User:Tankred (Result:48 hours)
. Time reported: 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st edit (actually also just revert): 02:05, 21 May 2007
 * 1st revert: 16:10, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:09, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:53, 21 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:07, 21 May 2007

Also, the IP plausibly belongs to a banned user, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.
 * IP blocked for 48 hours and article semi-protected for same duration. Kafziel Talk 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah Goldberg reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Incomplete report)
. : Time reported: 00:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: May 21
 * This report only lists one revert. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:50 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:04, 17 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:36, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:36, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:45, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:54, 21 May 2007

User has insisted on a large paragraph in the article regarding a supposed "controversy" regarding Wolf Blitzer but has nothing to substantiate it beyond a mention by two columnists. Concerns raised regarding WP:BLP and undue weight have been ignored by this user and attempts to discuss this issue with him have been greeted with hostility, vitrol, threats, and namecalling. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 50 hours. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.45.85.124 reported by User:Musicpvm (Result: 31h Block)
. : Time reported: 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:42, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:32, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:44, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:45, 21 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:59, 21 May 2007


 * This case is quite obvious. The user was warned, had more than three reverts and included personal attacks/slander in his/her edit summaries. Blocked for 31 hours.  Signature brendel  02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dontworry reported by User:Momusufan (Result: No block)
and. : Time reported: 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Frankfurt  Berlin

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

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

User keeps reverting the night shot picture from Berlin and Frankfurt to another shot of the city without discussing it. he has done this multiple times in a 24 hour period. he has also edited under 5 IP's 217.232.234.48, 217.232.246.168, 217.232.205.143, 217.232.206.48, and 217.232.251.177

Momusufan 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The diffs are from days past. 3RR blocks are not punitive, rather, these blocks are preventative. If the user persists in reverting, he will be blocked. I'll leave a message in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Arbustoo reported by User:JJay (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:51, 31 March 2007
 * 1st revert: 23:50, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:55, 22 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:38, 22 May 2007
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:37, 22 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:41, 22 May 2007
 * Experienced editor has continued to revert despite ongoing talk page discussion involving multiple editors. Three content reversions + immediate reversion of the addition of a disputed tag to the article.--JJay 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not a 3RR, if you 1) notice other editors have engaged in editing/reverting (for example calton reverting JJay's unreference removal) and 2) removing some's disputed tag when they did not dispute the entire list was explained on the talk. JJay is stalking me and won't discussion the issues at Requests for comment/JJay. I think an admin. needs to step in and warn him on WP:STALK and WP:GAME. Arbustoo 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You reverted four times. That constitutes a violation. The presence of four other editors in the dispute is irrelevant. None violated 3RR. As for stalking, your accusation is laughable. My first edit to this article dates to April 2006 .This is an article that merits close monitoring because of the continual addition of accredited schools to the list. That has been my involvement in this for the last year. JJay 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:JJay is litigious. Wikipedia isn't built on recriminatory behavior. I have observed that User:JJay tries to create an unpleasant environment for other editors. That is not conducive to anything with any semblance to a comfortable environment in which editors can build an encyclopedia. I have been at the receiving end of the behavior which I am describing too many times. User:JJay should do some introspection and stop applying litigiousness where camaraderie is far more called for. Bus stop 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you well know, the first step in that is not to violate 3RR. JJay 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are violating WP:STALK, WP:GAME, and have misread WP:3RR. Stop following my edits to revert me or be disruptive in my AFDs. You don't add content to articles. Arbustoo 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting litany of accusations. Make them in the proper forum. In the present case, I would point out that I reverted twice. JJay 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My "accusations" were made at Requests for comment/JJay and currently with my recent ArbCom request. Arbustoo 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have had to report JJay here at an editor's page who offered editor's assistence in an ongoing dispute. Bus stop 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that some of the edits complained of are Arbusto adding sources, which is not a violation of 3RR. DGG 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding sources? You must be kidding. Let's see those diffs. --JJay 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a violation of 3RR. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. Arbustoo 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Four reverts in under 24 hours = 3RR violation. No misunderstanding. Nothing fundamental. And no matter how many messages you leave here, the diffs above are quite clear. --JJay 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand the policy as noted by others who are impartial. Arbustoo 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Any more diffs you want to throw up instead of explaining your 3RR vio? --JJay 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit war seems to have ended and the reported reverts are too old to require administrative action. Regards,  Signature brendel  05:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite true. But given the attacks I was subject to for reporting this, you might want to point out that this was a 3RR vio, so it doesn't happen again. --JJay 11:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could just drop the stick and move on. --Calton | Talk 12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved on. Since you enjoy essays, you might want to read No angry mastodons. 3RR exists for a very good reason. So does WP:V. And edit warring to maintain an unsourced entry for an accredited school on a List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, while smearing other parties as vandals and the like is not particularly cool. JJay
 * How can you of all people be complaining about attacks? In my subjective experience I have yet to see anyone on Wikipedia engage in more attacking than you do. You have been attacking me in your every interaction with me. That is just my subjective experience. I think you need to do a bit of introspection concerning your own behavior. Wikipedia isn't about reporting people for 3rr. That is not the primary reason d'être for Wikipedia. Yet judging from your edits one would get that mistaken impression. Bus stop 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging from your block log, I could argue that your primary "raison d'etre" is violating 3RR. The situation is really quite simple. Don't violate 3RR and you won't get reported, blocked, waste people's time with unblock requests or intervene here with baseless messages.JJay 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wgungfu reported by User:76.79.72.82 (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * You need at least 4 reverts in the last 24 hours to same page to qualify as 3RR. You only have one. Can you please expand a bit on this? Evilclown93 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

     ...


 * I have fully protected the page. Even if I block Wgungfu, he'll probably come back after the block to keep reverting the dynamic IPs edits, and there seems to be no point to it. Page protection is the best solution here. Nishkid64 (talk)  21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user that made this report is using multiple anonymous IP sock puppet accounts to make disruptive edits to these articles: Apple IIc Plus Amiga 1200 Apple II series Intel Core 2‎ Apple IIGS‎ X86 architecture Apple IIc Acorn Atom ZX Spectrum. These kind of changes have been noted here. There is a long history of a user using anonymous proxies to make these disruptive edits to this group of articles relating to computer systems. I have asked if it is feasible to have these pages with this problem semi-protected. Wgungfu has been reverting deliberate attempts to make disruptive edits by the same person who is using multiple anonymous accounts. The user causing the problem here is the user who is using multiple anonymous IPs, not Wgungfu. Fnagaton 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Evilclown93 (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Please look at this, at this massive block log, and that User:John Smith's, also had 4 edits to the same page,of which 3 where reverts. Evilclown93 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did indeed make 4 edits. However, the first one was to add my own comment to the original response. John Smith&#39;s 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But three reverts, that's basically edit warring one step away from a preventative block. I advise to not edit that page for a day or two. Evilclown93 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I believed I was reverting vandalism (as it was blanking), so that there wasn't a problem in reverting 3 times. John Smith&#39;s 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a little notice on your talkpage to make sure you have the appropriate links and eveything. Also, it should remind you that it's better to discuss that to revert here (you're in a request for mediatiaon). Evilclown93 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I removed is a POV rant left on the talk page about "murders" that is not relevent to the article, and it is in fact a personal attack against Prof. Bernstein, with a bunch of name-calling. Removing such clutter from the talk page is not vandalism (as Smith is claiming), and important to do, as I've explained to John Smith (the only one who keeps restoring it). But because it's a personal attack against a living person, I believe the 3RR does not apply, and why I insisted that it be removed on sight. If I am wrong about that, and this is not in that category of things that should be removed notwithstanding 3RR, then I'd be happy to self-revert.Giovanni33 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments weren't a rant and you removed them too. Also you are the only person removing them, so why mention that I was the only one reverting? Also it isn't just me that thinks there's been a 3RR vio here, as can be seen by this report. John Smith&#39;s 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the point of keeping your response to him, when what your responding to has been removed? And, if you were really interested in keeping your response to him, and not the personal attack on the Professor, then why not only restore your comments? Because they would be meaningless alone. So, your point here is really a non-point, isn't it?Giovanni33 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because my comment was about more than the source the user in question mentioned (you could have easily mentioned my reply was in reference to a deleted "personal attack"). The reason why I didn't just revert my comments is that I see that user's comments as valid. John Smith&#39;s 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to dignify that personal attack with a response, then at least take it to the users talk page. It makes no sense and adds nothing to assiting with editing the article to want a response to a removed "personal attack" that should never have been left there to begin with. In removing the attack, there is nothign to respond to anymore. If you felt that needed a response, the talk page would be the place--not the articles talk page.Giovanni33 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a talk page... not sure why you're edit-warring over that. I'm a bit hesitant to issue a block over a revert-war on a talk page. But please do stop. --  tariq abjotu  22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Giovanni33 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.10.169.33 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

IP user keeps advertising his site and has violated 3RR. (I know it is his because he has contacted me via email.) You'll also notice this is all he edits and he consistently ignores policy.


 * The user has not yet been warned. A warning needs to be placed on his talk page first. Also, please provide diffs not versions. Thank you,  Signature brendel  21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I warned him. He knows what he's doing, he's vandalizing the page on purpose and that's the only reason he's here. He's familiar with both WP:3RR and WP:EL.Chris Nelson 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay now he has created a name User:Bkaldenberg and is editing it again. This is his sixth edit today between hist last IP and his new name, and he's had even more than that. He IS aware of policy, and if you go to www.gamerosters.com you will see that he is the owner of the website and is advertising his product. This should not go unpunished and needs to be stopped.Chris Nelson 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it's quite obviously the same user and he's spamming the article. Now that he has been warned and is aware of his actions, I have issued a 24 hour block for User:Bkaldenberg and User:71.10.169.33.  Signature brendel  21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can you tell me what my next step would be if (or more likely, when) he comes back and is doing it again? I mean will this ever be enough for any kind of page protection?Chris Nelson 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If he comes back you will need to report him once again, and the next block will likely be longer. If he keeps breaking Wiki policy he may eventually be blocked indefinitely for "exhausting the community's patience." Page protection is usually issued for article that continously fall vicitim to vandalism and spamming by multiple users. Regards,  Signature brendel  21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Digwuren reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 6 May 2007


 * 1st revert: - Reverted to contested version, omitting totallydisputed tag
 * 2nd revert: - again
 * 3rd revert: - again
 * 4th revert: - removal of tag and revert to contested version


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (2 May 2007)

New user with agenda, has systematically been reverting all my edist for the last 3 weeks, often in only two minutes.


 * Well, I am not specialist in issue but I would like to point out that according to report Petri provided, 1-3 reverts and 4th revert are not connected at all. Just my 2 cents.--Staberinde 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR and stalking. Nishkid64 (talk)  21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

comment: Two cases are missed out a bit upper! I moved them here, down under this line --84.236.89.208 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chris Bulgin reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

User is ignoring consensus talk on the discussion page. Seems bent on changing the character's status to deceased. Has changed status from unknwon to diseased multiple times


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


 * This needs diffs, not versions. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I only count 3 reverts by going through the history of the article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, first edit is revert here, also 2, 3, and 4. Blocked 24 hours.  Also 66.25.157.129 at:
 * 01:58, 22 May 2007
 * 02:05, 22 May 2007
 * 05:54, 22 May 2007
 * 18:54, 22 May 2007
 * 03:49, 23 May 2007
 * --Selket Talk 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Tankred reported by User:195.56.6.31 (Result: Blocked see below)
. : Time reported: 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: this


 * 1st revert: 03:23, 21 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:23, 21 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:52, 21 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:03, 22 May 2007

User is on a crusade against IPs from Budapest, and got into a revetwar with an IP, wich Tankred claims User:VinceB, but VinceB's IP range is pretty similar to mine (195..., wich is also similar to at least that half of Budapest's 2 million population, wich contracted to the same internet provider), so plausibly IP 91 something was just a victim of their debate. Tankred had similar trouble in the past, once, and often goes revertwarring with IPs. --195.56.6.31 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This complaint is now moot because the article has been protected; however, this user should have been blocked when he/she reported above.  Blocked with expiration set to match other blocks on same article at 00:54, 24 May 2007.  --Selket Talk 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kulendra reported by User:Superplaya (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:08, May 20, 2007


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 22:54, May 21, 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:10, May 22, 2007
 * 6th revert: 19:29, May 22, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:56, May 21, 2007


 * Quite obvious violation of 3RR-24h block to calm things down. Thanks for filing your report "by the books." ;-) Regards,  Signature brendel  06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.32.61.142 reported by User:SEWilco (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:31, 22 May 2007


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: 02:33, 23 May 2007

Older reversions exist.


 * Straight forward case of three revert rule violation and spamming. 31 hour block to calm things down.  Signature brendel  06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn reported by User:DLX (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 01:07, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:22, 22 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:48, 22 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:20, 22 May 2007

Comment. User keeps inserting tag without any explanations on talk page, although that has been repeatedly requested. 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. Also Digwuren.  --Selket Talk 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Selket, just to inform you. DLX is a typical representative of trolls. His contributions tell everything: constant purges of controversial articles, constant aggressive manner of speech and complaints on others, constant edit warring. Beatle Fab Four 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eupator reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:24 hours)

 * Arbcom parole violation on . : Time reported: 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:39, 27 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:11, 18 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:48, 22 May 2007
 * 24 hours (logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan). -- John Reaves (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnreed reported by User:Tvoz (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 19 May 2007 by Interpaul


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (2 warnings)


 * Comment No edit summaries, no attempt to discuss this - just repeated blanking of a section of this article, despite warnings and despite the fact that the section has been re-worked several times for balance. No other edits since January - just this series of blanking vandalism.  Appears to be a continuation of same repeated reverts that Interpaul did - removing the same section without discussion  on this political candidate's page - so it appears to be a deliberate attempt to promote an agenda, and unclear if it is more than one person or socks. Tvoz | talk 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear case; 24 hours for first offence though I think I may be being lenient. Sam Blacketer 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks- I think you are, but let's see what happens. Tvoz | talk 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Samil20 and User:MykeType reported by User:Foochar (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:34, 23 May 2007


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 23 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:37, 22 May 2007


 * Comment: User is involved in a protracted edit war with MykeType over this page. Report on MykeType also filed.  War has spilled over into both user's talk pages with pages being blanked, moved, and redirected.

. : Time reported: 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 03:10, 23 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Was left at about same time as one above to Samil20 (20:37, 22 May 2007) however as part of edit war between Samil20 (who I have filed a report on just above) and MykeType talk page was moved to BANNED and subsequently appears to have been deleted.


 * Comment: User is involved in a protracted edit war with Samil20 over this page. Report on Samil20 also filed.  War has spilled over into both user's talk pages with pages being blanked, moved, and redirected.

Result Obvious violations. Both users blocked for 24 hours --Selket Talk 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fnagaton reported by User:193.93.3.6 (Result:No Block)
. : Time reported: 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * The anonymous user that made this report is using multiple anonymous IP sock puppet accounts to make disruptive edits to these articles: Apple IIc Plus, Amiga 1200, Apple II series, Intel Core 2‎, Apple IIGS‎, X86 architecture, Apple IIc, Acorn Atom, ZX Spectrum. These kind of changes have been noted here. There is a long history of a user using anonymous proxies to make these disruptive edits to this group of articles relating to computer systems. I have asked if it is feasible to have these pages with this problem semi-protected. I am reverting deliberate attempts to make disruptive edits by the same person who is using multiple anonymous accounts. The user causing the problem here is the user who is using multiple anonymous IPs, not me. The same anonymous proxy user has also tried to 3RR attack [] User:Wgungfu who has also been good faith reverting these kinds of disruptive edits. Fnagaton 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've decided to go ahead with a multi-page semi-protection request, at least this way if the request goes through it will stop the anonymous sock puppet edits better than constantly reverting what I see as their vandalism. As you can see from the recent history of Commodore 64 there have been open proxies used to make the same kind of changes and this article has been semi-protected more than once to combat this. Fnagaton 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The user talk page you linked to specifically notes that the kind of behavior you and the anon have been engaging in is an edit war. Both of you are being disruptive.  The conflict is over a currently-disputed section of the MOS regarding the use of binary prefixes. —  Aluvus   t / c  19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I'm reverting deliberate vandalism by an anon user then I do not believe 3RR applies to me? Especially considering the fact I've now been trying to get these pages semi-protected against this vandal. I'm also not the only editor who thinks the anonymous user is a vandal so it's not like I'm a lone ranger here. Dealing with anonymous IP proxy vandals is hard. :) Fnagaton 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you are edit-warring you are not dealing with vandals. Edit wars ,even with Anonymous IP ,is not vandalism. 3RR applies to you and WP:AGF too. 88.84.155.37 21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The above post is another example of the user who has been using anonymous proxies to push their edits through to avoid the 3RR rule as shown by the edit history.Fnagaton 23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the page you linked specifically reaches the conclusion that revert-warring of this type is not protected as reversion of pure vandalism and is subject to 3RR. The anonymous edits are disruptive, but they are not simple vandalism.  On Intel Core 2 for example, binary prefixes were both the established units and the ones used in the first major contributor's version, yet you persisted in reverting (5 times) the page to use decimal prefixes, in contravention of the current wording of the MOSNUM.  In fact, you even did this with edit summaries that falsely claimed the first major contributor used KB and MB; not only did you link to two different version of the page, of which neither is really the "first major contributor", but both version used MiB repeatedly!  —  Aluvus   t / c  22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The page I linked to doesn't reach that conclusion because it's not a simple content dispute, it is about the actions of an anonymous user who is using proxies to vandalise Wikipedia. I've been reverting those edits based on their vandalism, disruptive nature and the fact that they are all the same user sock puppet using anonymous proxies so I still do not think the 3RR rules applies here. If the admin looking at this would check with User:Wgungfu or User:Frecklefoot or User:Pixel8 or User:Wackymacs they will be able to confirm what I've been saying about the vandalism and multiple IPs. Fnagaton 23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read what you linked to? "I note that this is actually a content dispute, regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary prefixes, and not vandalism.  You have violated WP:3RR"  "I take full responsiblity for being in an "edit war" with a person using dynamic IPs/IP spoofing."  "Okay, well in that case, just please don't edit war when you know it's a content dispute and not vandalism."  And once again, the IP's edits to Intel Core 2 were absolutely not vandalism and are in fact consistent with the current wording of MOSNUM.  —  Aluvus   t / c  23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did and I refuted what you wrote. Again it's not a content dispute, it is about reverting the actions of an anonymous user who is using proxies to vandalise Wikipedia and that is the basis for my reverts. Fnagaton 23:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You will also notice from my edit history that I've not made a revert after I became aware of the anonymous proxy user trying to game the 3RR system by making spurious 3RR reports, this is to make it easier for the admin looking at this to see exactly what has been going on. All my reverts have been in good faith against this anonymous proxy user's vandalism and I still think reverting vandalism is something that doesn't count towards 3RR. Fnagaton 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Fnagaton has stated he will not conduct any further reverts that would be in violation of the 3RR, no block is neccessary. Regards,  Signature brendel  00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Removed infobox and/or mention of Takeshima from the infobox on the Dokdo article.


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:54, 23 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:13, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:22, 23 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:30, 23 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:42, 23 May 2007


 * Fresh off a one week block for persistant 3RR violations (blocked three times since 1 March). Even the version reverted to could in itself be considered a revert as he's reverting the inclusion of the infobox, but since it's been there for quite awhile, I did not know if that would count.  Still we're up to four.  Continued edit warring on the same articles he was blocked for (Yoon Bong-Gil and An Jung-geun), immediately using up his three/day "quota", with no attempt at discussion despite multiple editors undoing his deletion of sourced material.

— Supplemental evidence: (These comments were left by Endroit in response to discussion below. They were separated and brought up here as its own section by Endriot to separate them from my response. I've attached my response to this this appropriatelymelonbarmonster 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC))


 * There's nothing but evasion by Melonbarmonster. He's been blocked before, but is obviously playing around with 3RR rules here, to see how much he can get away with.
 * The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reverts, as well as the version being reverted to are outright vandalism, and removal of content, for which he was warned. The following diff shows his "Last Warning" for content removal (from another revert war):
 * 16:25, 23 May 2007 "Last Warning" for content removal
 * The 3rd revert / content removal is clearly AFTER this "Last Warning".
 * Now regarding WP:3RR rules, there doesn't have to be a 4th revert if the editor is a repeat offender, and shows signs of WP:POINT (gaming the system).--Endroit 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit is actually the editor who initated the FIRST revert claiming my edit as "vandalism" as he does above. He has reverted 3 times himself and now wants me to be blocked for my 3 reverts. Komdori picked up on reverting after Endriot's third revert whereas I had to stop at my third. Endroit then informed me where I can go to make edits to the Info Box instead of deleting the entire POV Info box at which point Komdori reported me for 3rr.melonbarmonster 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

— Comments:
 * Komdori has been shadowing my edits and instigating revert wars and leaving comments in a mocking and sarcastic tone. He mocks my previous [comment] with [this] and even his notice of this 3rr report contains sarcasm:[here].
 * As for this report, I honestly didn't know how to edit the info box content and thought the info box being used was a POV version that a POV editor made up. I actually stopped reverting when I found out how to edit the info box.  Instead of deleting the info box wholesale and "reverting" I made edits to problematic portions of the info box for the first time.melonbarmonster 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the top of this page, it describes how it's good form to leave a notice that the report was made here. That's not being sarcastic, it's letting you know to come check this out.
 * Anyway, it's still a violation, you wanted to remove "Takeshima" from the infobox, and were willing to remove the entire thing if possible. Editing the infobox has the same effect of editing the page (you knew that, you wanted the Japanese name gone and the Korean name remaining).  You've been blocked 3 times for this, you know the drill by now. --Cheers, Komdori 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Komdori was complaining that the info box was being deleted, not that "Takeshima" was being taken out. He's changing his tune now that he's trying to report me for 3rr violation.  4th edit is actually more of a repair of my previous reverts more than anything else.melonbarmonster 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori has reverted my last edit again. melonbarmonster 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Melon, I don't want to clutter up this place with off topic things, but just to eliminate confusion, as you point out that infobox is part of the Dokdo page. That's why you were reported, your fourth revert (removing the infobox or parts thereof) happened there.  Also, keep in mind that while the 3RR stops you at 3 reverts, you are by no means entitled to even that number.  Reverting immediately up to your limit on several articles today on undiscussed unilateral changes (and going beyond on the Dokdo one) is not good practice.  --Cheers, Komdori 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit has reshuffled the comments and has catagorized them to favor his POV. I've tried to restore the discussion the way it transpired. To clarify my position, I deleted the info box in entirety because mistakenly because I didn't know that contents of InfoBox could be edited and because it contained POV regarding dispute of the the title of this article. The last resolution on this issue was to title the article "dokdo" and I felt that this naming convention should be applied uniformly throughout the article until future consensus regarding this dispute can be reached. After Endroit and I both reverted three times, Komdori stepped in for Endriot and continued the revert war while leaving mocking comments on my talk page. I stopped reverting due to the 3rr. At this point, Endroit informed me that the Info Box in question was editable. Realizing my ignorance of this feature, I edited the contents of Info Box page rather than making reverts on the Dokdo page. While I acknowlege my 3 reverts and my ignorance on how to edit content of Info boxes I tried to purposefully not violate the 3rr, and this tag teaming between Komdori and Endroit and attempt at manipulating even this 3rr report is illustrative of the problem.melonbarmonster 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? I never moved comments, except just now to put the bit from the original report under the supplimental evidence. --Cheers, Komdori 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, it wasn't you. It was Endroit.  Why is Endroit making revisions to your 3rr report above the comments section?melonbarmonster 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Result: no violation. The 16:42 edit is a different article and appears to be a move to a compromise version. All parties are strongly encouraged to work out a resolution on the talk page, perhaps copying the template, which is only used in this article, and avoiding two separate edit histories. --Selket Talk 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the infobox associated with an article is not an article in and of itself? Per the edit summaries he clearly made all four reversions to remove "Takeshima" because he felt it was POV. --Cheers, Komdori 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first three edits removed the info box in its entirety. The last one preserved most of the content of the infobox but only removed a small part that this user found objectionable.  This struck me as an attempt to move towards compromise, even if it wasn't a great one.  I agree that forking part of the article into a template is not good practice.  I'm going to put it back and delete the template. --Selket Talk 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wisamzaqoot reported by User:Brian0918 (Result: blocked 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:46, 23 May 2007


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: 12:53, 23 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:03, 23 May 2007

Comment: 3RR broken while page was semi-protected for revert war and vandalism. User was warned at User_talk:Wisamzaqoot. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-23 17:59Z
 * I've blocked him for 24 hours. If anybody decides to lift this block I would ask them at least to wait until the article is off the main page. — freak([ talk]) 19:16, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)

User:Lotlil reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result: 24h block)
. : Time reported: 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:05, May 23, 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 02:05, May 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 02:26, May 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 17:10, May 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: Current revision (18:28, May 23, 2007)

User was aware of 3RR and some more background
I added the disputed tags to the article after weeks of discussing various issues on the talk page. All the discussions can be seen on the talk page. Then out of nowhere an ip 143.something came out of nowhere and started reverting me to keep in line with User:Praveen pillay's POV. Praveen Pillay asked the ip to create an account which the ip(now Lotlil) did. After creating the account, Praveen told Lotlil to be careful about 3RR. Lotlil after reading about 3RR even enquired with Praveen if he had violated 3RR. Praveen said no. The diffs for all this is below. It is clear that Lotlil knows what 3RR is.

Praveen to Lotlil Lotlil to Praveen Praveen to Lotlil

Also, if you see Lotlil's contribs, it is clear that he is not a NEW user. There clearly are less than holy things going on there. For a newbie who has to get clarifications about 3RR, he edited his monobook.js page the very second day to insall handy tools. Tools which he has used to revert war here and nothing else. This is most probably a single purpose account and/or somebody's sock/meat though they're trying very hard to fool people. Sarvagnya 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the ip edits of Lotlil were from Intel . Mastering monobook.js might take years for some people, but I am sure it will take less time for people who work in software related industry such as Intel. It is the policies of wikipedia that should take more time for any new user to get acquainted himself. I feel that since user is new, he should be given a warning (as per the norm). BTW: Since Sarvagnya has indulged himself to show some 'background', I would add some 'background' too. If you see the history of Tamil language article, you will see revert war between 4 accounts. Unlike the single purpose account that you will see in the history (which is probably a sock puppet & supports Sarvagnya's POV), Lotlil made constructive contributions. User:Sarvagnya has a history of removing pertinent cited content when it comes to Tamil related articles. Praveen 20:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Now he wants to discuss issues related to the article here.  They tried this cheap stunt on ANI and found no takers for their rant.  Now Praveen is trying the same stunt on the 3RR noticeboard.  And that the ip was from Intel is another red herring.  No extra special level of technical skill is required to install and operate tools on wiki.  But it is extraordinarily impossible to believe that the first thing the newbie discovered on wikipedia, even before he discovered the most basic policies(as PP would have us believe) was TWINKLE!  Not only that, the user   within days has/claims to have read up entire weeks and months of discussion on multiple talk pages.
 * And in any case, all this is besides the point. I have shown that the user was specifically aware of the 3RR policy and yet, has violated it.  Nothing, I repeat, nothing can justify a 3RR vio.  Sarvagnya 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you discuss about the 'background' about his monobook etc here, showing your 'history' here is not 'wrong'. Did you warn him? This is obviously a bad faith trash that you are resorting to since he is sitting on the other side of fence. Praveen 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Warnings are only required where we are unable to demonstrate that the user was aware of WP:3RR. I provided the 'background' only to demonstrate that a)  The user was fully aware of WP:3RR and b) that I had valid reasons to NOT consider him a new user.   Even if you write off (b) as speculation, (a) is enough to put your friend in the dock.  And if you didnt notice, unlike you, I am not making any attempt to discuss the article here or on ANI because that is the way things work here.  The 3RR board is not the place to discuss article issues.  Sarvagnya 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the admins need any clarification? Why is this case not being dealt with yet? I request an admin to please look into this and take action. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, User:Lotlil did break the 3RR and seems to have been aware of rule. I have issued a short 24 hour block.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: No Block)
. : Time reported: 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

. : Time reported: 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 1
 * 2nd revert: 2
 * 3rd revert: 3

This is a very experienced editor who has a contentious edit history who has been blocked 5 times already by this board. As Smee blocklog1 And Smeegolva blocklog2

This editor was recently blocked for warring with the same editor and is now warring again in two articles. The editor knows the rules and is pushing the limit to 3RR. The editor has been asked to stop warring and continues. Given that this is going on in multiple articles, this can be considered a violation even without 4 reverts.

I have stopped editing both articles, and am taking a break to keep this out of other articles as well.

I would appreciate an administrator to look into this situation. Thank you.

Lsi john 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there was no 4th revert in this case. Please also note that the 3rd revert, was only after comment by User:Jossi on the talk page of Talk:Mind Dynamics, confirming the general policy regarding removal of the "Unbalanced" tag. I only removed the tag a third time after this comment from User:Jossi, DIFF. In the other case at Lifespring, there were 2 reverts, and also edit warring from User:Lsi john, however, I restored the version back to User:Lsi john's version, which was a self-revert. DIFF of Self-Revert back to Lsi john version. Thank you for your time.
 * Comments by User:Smee


 * 3RR is not an 'entitlement' to revert 3 times and this very experienced editor knows better. Given the contentious edit history and current aggressive reverting there is reason to believe this will continue. Lsi john 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. 3RR is not an entitlement.  However, I must point out this comment by User:Bishonen, in which he also warns this editor that 3RR is not an entitlement DIFF.  I apologize for the reverts in this instance, yes, however I sought out neutral opinions from other editors on one article, and did not revert a third time until this was given, even so, I apologize for doing this, I should have let the editor remove the tag himself after the contrary opinion was given.  On the other article, as I have stated above, I voluntarily self reverted.  Smee 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * And now it is clear that User:Smee is aware of the spirit of 3RR and has acknowledged violating it. This demonstrates that there is good reason to believe that the warring will continue across other articles and warrants a preventive block. Lsi john 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) I apologize for any inappropriate actions, which have since ceased.
 * 2) On the article Mind Dynamics, a third editor, User:Jossi commented, DIFF, and only after this comment did I remove the tag.
 * 3) On the article Lifespring, I voluntarily self reverted, and there will be no edit war.
 * 4) As these issues are since resolved, there will be no edit war, and any block would be punitive in nature only. If User:Lsi john wishes to reinstate the "Unbalanced" tag on the article Mindspring, I will not remove it again, but again ask him to provide reputable citations to back this up, as the burden is on the editor adding the tag.  If not, I will again allow a reasonable length of time (in the last instance 20 days went by, no citations), and eventually ask him to remove the tag again, if he does not provide citations.


 * Basically the same excuses, rationalization, justification and promises as last time here for the recent 48 hour block, where this editor was sternly warned. (and yet we're back here again) The warring has only stopped, because I have stopped editing, pending the determination here. Lsi john 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous admin's conclusion after similar justification for 3RR: "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: [82]. 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)"
 * Both issues have now been resolved. I will not remove the "citecheck" tag at Lifespring, and there will be no edit war there.  And now we have two editors that have provided opinions regarding the "Unbalanced" tag, at Talk:Mind Dynamics.  As both edit wars will not continue, if not from User:Lsi john's assurance, than from mine, this is now a discussion of a potential punitive nature, which is not the spirit of 3RR.  Smee 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC).


 * (edit conflict) If I may comment as an uninvolved editor, I would like to highlight the fact that Smee's 3rd revert of the Mind Dynamics article did come after another editor expressed his approval of the action. Per a request on the third opinion page I chimed in additional support for the removal of the tag in question. While Smee may be viewed as in violation of either the letter or spirit of the 3RR rule, I believe these edits were done with the understanding that it was done so with the approval of outside support and consensus.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your 3O allowed approximately another 10 days before the tag would be removed. Smee immediately reverted. Lsi john 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only yesterday [here] an editor had this to say to Smee:
 * "Smee, you do not WP:OWN the templates. You have been edit-warring and reverting any edit that removes links that are precious to you, especially ones that you have created or had a hand in. Your last edit had a misleading summary which didn't mention that you reverted my removal of your unnecessary links yet again. You are monopolizing the templates, and in fact, monopolizing the Wikipedia Scientology articles in general, and it's really starting to affect the quality of the Scientology project. I cannot edit-war with you and the Scientologists at the same time, and I submit your edits are actually helping their cause by making these articles and templates a biased, undue-weighted, blatantly unfair mess. This is not a personal attack, it has nothing to do with you personally, it has to do with these tendentious edits and the mass-dispersement of links to articles that you favor. And edits are what we are supposed to be discussing here. wikipediatrix 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)" Lsi john 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear that User:Lsi john will keep commenting here again and again after anyone else provides comment, so I am just going to say that I will not. I will not object to the current resolution of the issues on both of the talk pages of the articles in question.  I will also stop commenting here, and let the neutral editor's comments above, and my previous comments above, speak for themselves.  Smee 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I only counted three reverts in 24h in the article's history which is not in violation of the 3RR. No Block was issued.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sneha patel07 reported by User:venu62 (Result: 31h block)
. : Time reported: 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:12, 23 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:20, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:54, 23 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:58, 23 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:19, 23 May 2007

This seems to be a single-purpose account created to assist POV edit warring on the Tamil language article. This account seems to shadow User:Sarvagnya's edits. This new user hsa been warned about the 3RR rule. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Warnings are meant to be given before the rule is violated. And this user 'shadowing' my edits is a joke.  This user has a grand total of 5 edits on wikipedia, four of which were today.  Really makes me wonder if this is a straw man account by someone to make me look poor.  And his/her violation coming on the heels of my reporting Lotlil above makes me wonder even more. Sarvagnya 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear violation of 3RR. I issued a 31 hour block. PS. Sarvagnya, it doesn't seem as though you have violated any rule. If you feel as though you are being "stalked" please file a report on the incidents notice board so appropriate action can be taken. Thank you,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you also please take a look at the 3RR vio i have filed above agains User:Lotlil? That is a crytal clear violation of 3RR too.  And I never said that I feel I am being stalked.  It was Venu who tried to mischievously insinuate that Sneha 'shadows' me.  Anyway, just request you to take a look at the 3RR vio which happened before Sneha's.  Sarvagnya 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.206.43.192 reported by User:SanchiTachi (Result: 31h Block)
. : Time reported: 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 23 May 2007

The IP Address Editor keeps trying to put in his own personal website in the external links section. He has been warned that it violates SOAP and does not fit in with the rules on External Links. Not sure how to warn him any more, as I believe others have attempted to contact his various IPs before. The Archive has dates of the guy's posts, as he signs his name (but not with an IP) as "PT". Anything that can be done will be appreciated. SanchiTachi 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 5th to Latest revert:
 * 4th to Latest revert:
 * 3rd to Latest revert:
 * 2nd to Latest revert:
 * Latest revert:

The recent edit was done by Special:Contributions/Carnaptime. This edit promoted the link. On the talk page, this was stated "Once again: GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING DOWN MY WEBSITE OR LEAVE THE LINK UP. PT". PT is the signed name of the IP number above. I believe that the two are the same individual. SanchiTachi 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many reverts to list. They are all the same revert, to add in a link that violates notability and SOAP. SanchiTachi 03:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, User:71.206.43.192 and Carnaptime seem to be the same person. I have issued a 31 hour block due to the disruptive nature of his/her edits and a clear violation of the 3RR. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result:self-reverted)
. : Time reported: Lsi john 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

. : Time reported: Lsi john 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 1
 * 2nd revert: 2
 * 3rd revert: 3

This is an additional report from (above)

This is a very experienced editor who has a contentious edit history who has been blocked 5 times already by this board. As Smee blocklog1 And Smeegolva blocklog2

This editor was recently blocked for warring with the same editor and is now warring again in two articles. The editor knows the rules and is pushing the limit to 3RR. The editor has been asked to stop warring and continues. Given that this is going on in multiple articles, this can be considered a violation even without 4 reverts.

note to admin: This is a followup, with more reverting, from a report above. The previous admin only saw 3 reverts and concluded that 3RR was not violated.

After I updated (01:56, 24 May 2007) the report (above) the editor quickly self-reverted to avoid being reported here.

As I stated, this editor is contentious and has begun reverting again, once more in each article. There is no reason to believe this reverting will stop.

I do not know if this new report needed to be filed or if the one above will be reviewed.

Please see this contentious editing for what it is. Thank you. Lsi john 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also see that I have Self Reverted on both articles. I could comment that User:Lsi john is removing highly sourced information to multiple reputable sources, but I will not go there. Suffice it to say that I have Self reverted here, and asked User:Lsi john to comment politely on the associated talk pages. He has not yet done so, and yet the highly sourced information continues to have been removed from the articles. Please also note that these two SELF REVERTS of mine were before this report. Thank you for your time. Smee 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see above comment, by User:BrendelSignature
 * 1) Lifespring - Self revert, will explain on talk page.
 * 2) Mind Dynamics - Self revert, will explain on talk page.
 * And User:Lsi john is still refusing to discuss these issues on the associated talk pages. Smee 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
 * No block due to self-revert, but for Pete's sake, stop with the edit warring, both of you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I hope that User:Lsi john will engage in polite discussion on the talk pages. Smee 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Trotsky17 reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result:warned)
. : Time reported: 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:15, May 23, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:52, May 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:28, May 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:53, May 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:06, May 24, 2007


 * User doesn't seem to have been warned; left warning. Update if he/she continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So here it is;


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:38, May 24, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:41, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:28, May 25, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:19, May 25, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:02, May 25, 2007 -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! reported by User:Throw (Result: Reporter blocked for 31h)

 * *Three-revert rule violation on . Time reported - Throw 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First revert:


 * Second revert:


 * Third revert:


 * Three reverts do not constitute a violation of the 3RR. No vio as of now, though I urge both of you to engage each other in a discussion before this erupts into an edit war that requires administrative action. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Mais oui! has just informed me that Throw conducted a fourth revert despite warning. User:Throw, not Mais oui! has been blocked for 31h.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Trojani reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:31 hours)
. . Time reported: 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22 May, 01:04
 * 1st revert: 23 May, 17:59
 * 2nd revert: 24 May, 05:43
 * 3rd revert: 24 May, 06:33
 * 4th revert: 24 May, 06:41

Further reverts in previous days:, , ,.

Warnings given: ,

Persistent nationalist edit-warrior, several other edit-wars on related articles; user claims ethnic "ownership" over articles and tries to bite away users of other ethnicities with personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 31 hours, lengthened due to nationalist insults on talk pages. Sam Blacketer 11:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wgungfu reported by 213.54.176.188 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 213.54.176.188 is an editor using multiple IP's that was already banned yesterday. Centrx lifted the editing ban on the Atari ST page because this user is supposed to be banned.  --Marty Goldberg 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a protection because of your editwar and ASA the protection was lifted you did it again. 163.13.112.191 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (a blocked Tor network open proxy)
 * And yet another IP of his.... --Marty Goldberg 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wgungfu doesn't deserve to be blocked for his sterling work reverting vandalism caused by this anonymous proxy user. Fnagaton 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No block: User was reverting edits of banned user made via open proxies. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Caligvla reported by User:Eupator (Result: Stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:54, 24 May 2007
 * 1st revert: 12:29, 22 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:47, 22 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:23, 22 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:13, 22 May 2007
 * Note that this user has been blocked for disrupting the article twice in the past.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not within 24 hours, these are different edits, reporting user Eupator has been subjected to more serious discipline, and has been warned on several occasions to stop wikistalking me--Caligvla 19:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

While it looks like some edit-warring is going on, I'm not going to block someone over edits that happened several days ago. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcome parole violation on

Dacy69 has been placed on revert parole (see final decision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Dacy69_placed_on_revert_parole). He is only allowed to make one revert per article per week, and he must explain his reverts on the talk page, except for vandalism. However, he reverted a legitimate edit on the Armenian-Tatar massacres article.


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:30 19 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:46 23 May 2007

He left no message on the talk page: (I also reported him on the Arbcom enforcement page (see: ) but I'm not sure if thats the right place, because I never get a response by any admin, so I apologize if this is the wrong place for this report.)Azerbaijani 15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to let this go. He is allowed his one revert per week and this was it.  Yes, he should have left a note on the talk page rather than inviting the other editor to do so.  I will warn him to that effect. --Selket Talk 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MindHavoc reported by User:evrik (Result: Sockpuppet blocked indef, sockpuppetier block for 48h)
. : Time reported: 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:13, 22 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:25, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: MindHavoc
 * 3rd revert: 10:15, 24 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:51, 24 May 2007 129.33.49.251 editing as MindHavoc


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:42, 24 May 2007


 * Please note: User:LordPathogen was warned and blocked because of edits on the same article. All of a sudden MindHavoc starts a new account and 129.33.49.251 starts doing the same thing again. A notice was posted at Suspected sock puppets/LordPathogen. --evrik (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked MindHavoc indefinitely as it was a sockpuppet created w/ the intent to win edit wars and "fake" consensus. I have blocked User:LordPathogen and for 48 hours until things on the page calm down. 129.33.49.251 seems to be a different individual as his edits go back to March 2-he was not blocked as there was no vio of the 3RR on his part.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nemda reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24h block)
. : Time reported: 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:41, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:05, 23 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:13, 23 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:48, 24 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:31, 23 May 2007


 * Obvious violation of 3RR, despite warning. Issued a 24 hour block. Regards,  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Humus_sapiens (Result: Block 48h)
. : Time reported: 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:22, 23 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:13, 24 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:17, 24 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:50, 24 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment. For days, Liftarn keeps adding Category:Anti-racism, which is controversial and therefore by itself is a violation of WP:CAT - without even bothering to discuss it at talk. Today, he was a little too overzealous. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reslut: Blocked 48 hours. Has been blocked for 3RR before. Humus Sapiens missed four reverts by 35 minutes and is advised to be careful in the future. --Selket Talk 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:142.176.13.178 reported by User:Crockspot (Result:31h Block)
. : Time reported: 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user is committing a BLP violation as well as 3RR, and has been warned about both. Block should be harsher than a normal first-time violator. This user does not appear to be as new as their edit history would suggest.


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


 * 3RR warning after 4th or 5th revert:
 * BLP warning immediately following:


 * Quite obvious violation of 3RR. 31h block.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Same user reverting after two warnings {3RRV|142.176.13.178}, I thought I would amend instead of creating a new section. --Kirkoconnell 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ruthluke reported by User:Viriditas (Result: moot)
. : Time reported: 13:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: of 10:51, 25 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:59, 25 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:43, 25 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:49, 25 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:53, 25 May 2007


 * User warned of spamming six times by three different users regarding four different articles:
 * 05:03, 18 May 2007
 * 00:35, 19 May 2007
 * 02:44, 19 May 2007
 * 10:53, 25 May 2007
 * 12:51, 25 May 2007
 * 12:53, 25 May 2007
 * 13:10, 25 May 2007


 * User has been indef blocked by Waggers. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Critikal1 reported by User:Duja (Result: Blocked 48h)
. : Time reported: 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:26, 24 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:45, 24 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:43, 24 May 2007


 * Partial revert 01:44, 25 May 2007, followed by editing; new reference version 01:44, 25 May 2007


 * 4th revert: 11:49, 25 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:53, 25 May 2007

Informally warned at article's talk page, formally at his talk, before 5th revert.

Blocked 48 hours by Aldux. --Selket Talk 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:84.135.235.92 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, May 23, 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:20, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:41, May 25, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:51, May 25, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:13, May 25, 2007


 * Experienced anonymous user with an IP in Germany, usually edits in relation to the Scots language; I've come across no evidence that he is a logged out version of an established user. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see any indication that 84.135.235.92 has been warned. As far as I know he or she may not have been aware of the 3RR. I have, therefore, warned the IP.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

===User:Carnaptime reported by User:SanchiTachi again with 4RR, editwarring and sockpuppetry immediately after end of previous blockFrondelet 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)(Result:)===

. : Time reported: 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

He was previous blocked for 31 hours on this name and the IP address. There is a new person who joined in the reverting. I don't know if the issue will ever be resolved and the Talk Page is just filling up more and more, without them bothering to join in with the voting process (there are already 2 no votes, and thats it, but all of that is lost in the clutter). SanchiTachi 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The "new person" is SusyQuine, an obvious sockpuppet account which was created during Carnaptime's lockout, and which the vandal is now using to make his posts on Talk:St. John's College, U.S.. Carnaptime's first block expired today, and he began deleting St. John's College, U.S. piece by piece. This user, with sockpuppets, is unresponsive to persuasion -- is a ban inevitable? Frondelet 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An additional sockpuppet, evident on Talk:St. John's College, U.S., is 71.206.43.192. Frondelet 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:SanchiTachi again (Result:)
. : Time reported: 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Contributions List
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st move:
 * 2nd move:
 * 3rd move:
 * 1st revert of text:
 * 2nd revert of text: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Warhammer_40%2C000_graphic_novels&diff=prev&oldid=133443327
 * There are others, but its too confusing for me to scroll through them all

This user is following me from previous pages. The page in question was created as Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000) to follow naming convention for the Wikiproject on Warhammer 40,000. Graphic Novels refers to the proper noun title of the section of fictional works made for the game Warhammer 40,000. This follows the naming of other pages like Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) and Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000). The individual also edits out important information vital to the page. If you look at my talk page history, you can see a serious of allegations made by that user and constant following me from page to page, especially over at admin user:Jossi's page. SanchiTachi 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Updated to add this is the page that should be the current page, sans the unwarranted edits by User:Someguy0830. SanchiTachi 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, is not User:SanchiTachi also guilty of breaking the 3RR rule in the above case? Darkson - BANG! 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think either of them are. The diffs listed above are incorrectly labelled ("2nd move" is not a move) and redundant (1st and 4th diffs are the same, so are 2nd and 5th). If you take a look at the page history, you can see that Someguy0830 moved it three times and SanchiTachi moved it back twice prior to the page being protected to prevent further move warring. Naturally, the protected version is the wrong one. --GentlemanGhost 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe I chose the wrong ones. There should have been three moves, and then two deletions (he removed my text before moving the page, I added in parts of stuff to the header, which you can see on my sandbox version). I just counted it totally at five, three for move and two for deletes. But yeah. SanchiTachi 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're as guilty as I am, and I'm in the right by undoing your violations of WP:NAME.
 * 08:41, May 25, 2007
 * 08:42, May 25, 2007
 * 09:35, May 25, 2007
 * 09:36, May 25, 2007
 * 10:38, May 25, 2007
 * Here's a tip. When you're going to try to get another user banned, make sure you cover you ass when doing it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

More reverts by Someguy0830. Not only has he deleted things without a consensus, he reverts back to his version, which is filled with many errors. He does not have any sources for the topic at hand, nor has any sourced information to provide. His edits are solely to WP:HARASS me. Furthermore,



As you can see, he went to other pages, without asking about the image conventions established by the project, and added pictures. When told that the images are not appropriate for those pages under the conventions established, he refused to do anything but revert. That happened here and  here. Anything that can be done to keep him from editing out things that are sourced, or putting in statements and qualifications that aren't sourced, and let the page develop enough to get rid of the problems it had (it was just created) would be very appreciated. SanchiTachi 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa reported by User:Zerida (Result: blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

The reverts are all the same, so I just provided the links. User recently came back from a five-day block for edit-warring and constant disruption. He removes 3RR warnings and other messages from his talk page, but engages in edit wars on other users' talk pages when they respond in kind (by removing his comments which are either disruptive or not civil). He has been edit warring on just about every article he has visited as his contribution history attests. — Zerida 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

^Wait a minute, I got no warnings whatsoever about this and thought the 3rr only was in concern to articles, not under talk pages.. Someone kept vandalizing my edits on your page so I restored them in order to make sure that you got it.. How does this violate 3rr? I never thought it did actually.. These were reverts to deal with simple vandalism on a "user talk page"..Taharqa 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true, you were given a warning and you erased it. You can't keep erasing messages from your talk page and expect other people to extend the same courtesy to you, especially when you just keep posting accusations and incivilities. Egyegy 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

^I erased it because of your vandalism on her page and mine.. It was nothing more than a bad faith removal if that's the case due to what you've been doing, and I even reported you before hand.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=133483198. I never had any idea that the 3rr applied to User Talk pages or "reverts to deal with simple vandalism"(as I saw it, and not a "content dispute" since no one addressed the content at all), the latter of course isn't a violation. I was dealing with what I felt was your vandalim and there were no disputes over the content..Taharqa 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear violation with history of previous violations. Editor claimed he/she did not know that 3RR applied to talk pages, so blocking for just 24 hours.  Giving benefit of the doubt but other admins likely will not in the future.  --Selket Talk 04:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zerida reported by User:Taharqa (Result: No vio)
. : Time reported:20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 21:02, 24 May 2007


 * 2nd revert: 03:58, 25 May 2007


 * 3rd revert: 04:10, 25 May 2007


 * 4th revert: 05:34, 25 May 2007

^If you'd check the page, it almost seems like the beginnings of an edit war or that I went over myself, but technically I didn't.. As you can see, my last revert/edit at 04:07, 25 May 2007 was only seconds after Egyegy's, and I was simply going back to correct something I missed(edit self) from my previous edit, not knowing that he/she just reverted the last one. So I simply tried to place tags and those got reverted relentlessly, no matter what the tag said(I tried to put up different ones). Zederia has clearly and intentionally violated the 3rr simply in order to maintain her control over the article and deserves a block for her uncompromising behavior imo, she won't even respond to my pleas in the talk page.. I was in no way trying to edit war, this complaint is due to the constant reversions between my edits and lack of response to my concerns in the talk page, all I got was reverts of anything I tried to add, and yes, I gave up on trying to even touch the page for now... Discussion.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egyptians#Misrepresentation_of_Keita (See the uncompromising tone and lack of response).. Taharqa 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation It is not clear that any of these edits are reverts.  If I'm missing something, please give a diff and a version reverted to for each edit.  Or if that doesn't make it obvious, explain exactly what is being reverted.  --Selket Talk 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Diluvien reported by User:Delirium (Result:48h Block)
. : Time reported: 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:50, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:57, May 25, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:20, May 25, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:48, May 25, 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:16, May 25, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:32, May 25, 2007


 * Obvious violation, 2nd time in one month. 48h block.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Argyriou reported by User:RicoCorinth (Result: Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 13:17, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:46, May 25, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:01, May 25, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:23, May 25, 2007

Clear violation. Blocking 24 hours. --Selket Talk 23:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes reported by User:172.165.54.172 (Result: No vio)
. : Time reported: 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 01:19, 25 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:50, 25 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:57, 25 May 2007

Note: This user is ignoring repeated requests to discuss the edits on the talk page and is just blanking others' edits that multiple other editors, including administrators, have compromised on and worked on with each other. This user has a history of periodically coming to this page and removing information without conferring with or ignoring other editors. This user may also be violating the Wikipedia policy of OWN. This user was blocked previously for violating 3RR on the same page: 20:06, 30 October 2006 Majorly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mycroft.Holmes (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
 * Note: You must have 4 reverts listed here for a case to be considered by an administrator.  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excately, 4 not 3 reverts consitutes a violation of the 3RR.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Trotsky17 reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 31h Block)
. : Time reported: 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:38, May 24, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:41, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:28, May 25, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:19, May 25, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:02, May 25, 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:47, May 26, 2007

Here is the previous case. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious violation. 31h Block.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  02:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes reported by User:172.165.54.172 (Result: 31h Block)
. : Time reported: 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 01:20, 25 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:50, 25 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:57, 25 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:46, 26 May 2007

Note: This user is ignoring repeated requests to discuss the edits on the talk page and is just blanking others' edits that multiple other editors, including administrators, have compromised on and worked on with each other. This user has a history of periodically coming to this page and removing information without conferring with or ignoring other editors. This user may also be violating the Wikipedia policy of OWN. This user was blocked previously for violating 3RR on the same page: 20:06, 30 October 2006 Majorly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Mycroft.Holmes (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)


 * Pretty clear cut case. 31h block.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  03:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Delirium reported by User:Diluvien (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:07, 25 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:17, 25 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:30, 25 May 2007

Vandalism and deletion of facts and references. --Diluvien 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An editor has to have more than three reverts to break the rule; Delirium has only three. Meanwhile you have been evading your own correctly-imposed 3RR block and I'm considering whether to extend it; this is not a case of vandalism. Sam Blacketer 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good_friend100 reported by User:Komdori (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:25, 26 May 2007

New revisions were made resulting in this version 01:47, 27 May 2007 which were reverted in the fourth revert here:
 * 1st revert: 01:20, 27 May 2007 reverted split of countries by % (two-thirds of Goguryeo territory), removed reference to reference's affiliation (Korea institute)
 * 2nd revert: 01:37, 27 May 2007 again removed Korea institute
 * 3rd revert: 01:43, 27 May 2007 again reverted (two-thirds of Goguryeo territory)
 * 4th revert: 01:52, 27 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:52, 27 May 2007 again removed Korea institute
 * 6th revert: 17:58, 27 May 2007 again removed (two-thirds of Goguryeo territory)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: editor last blocked 24 hours for 3RR on the same article a few days ago, at 08:05, 21 May 2007.

Editor has been increasingly becoming hostile and incivil, such as here.

Well, he is borderlining the 3RR. He does not revert to the exact same version each time-making this a difficult case. Considering, however, that he keps removing the same sources and his incivil remarks and that he/she has been blocked for a 3RR violation just a week ago, I find his/her edits disruptive enough to warrant a 24h block to clam things down.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I understand it's tough. I guess he makes it a difficult case intentionally (as he mentions on his talk page here where he seems to imply he's obfuscating the reverts).  Anyway, thanks for taking a look at it. --Cheers, Komdori 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackanapes reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 36 hours)
3RR violation on by


 * First edit 23:19 May 26, restores a section on rescuers that had earlier been moved to another article.
 * 1st revert 23:46 May 26, ditto
 * 2nd revert 09:43 May 27, ditto
 * 3rd revert 13:25 May 27, ditto
 * 4th revert 13:36 May 27, ditto

Four reverts in 14 hours against multiple editors to restore the section about rescuers, which was moved to another article some time ago because of length concerns. Jackanapes has been blocked twice before for 3RR on other articles. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * The editor in question has been blocked for thirty-six hours. I don't think it's necessary to keep increasing the block length for additional three-revert rule violations if the violations are several weeks (and months) apart. --  tariq abjotu  21:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Egyegy reported by User:Taharqa (Result: 36h (Egy), 5d (Tah))
and. : Time reported:23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Egyptians
 * 1st revert: 18:09, 27 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:10, 27 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:33, 27 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:21, 27 May 2007

Fayum mummy portraits
 * 1st revert: 18:10, 27 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:10, 27 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:34, 27 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:23, 27 May 2007

The reverts are all the same(except rv 4), just click links and check what's marked in red.. User has engaged in spiteful edit wars and has been personally attacking and making biased accusations to justify his/her disruptive and controlling behavior. He/she is even following others around to different articles and reverting all of their edits. The 4th revert(on both) was a revert of a tag that I placed on the page and he even reverted that to the previous page, clearly violating 3rr (and he/she knows better), he/she won't even allow disputes and is being extremely controlling.Taharqa 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not violate 3rr on any of these. I have though showed that Taharqa deliberately changes cited quotations and keeps edit warring when his misleading changes are reverted to the actual one. Changing a quotation is a type of vandalism, so if anyone should be blocked it should be you for this and your disruption for months. Egyegy 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Taharqa for violating the three-revert rule on two articles and edit-warring at another for a period of five days (this is his fourth 3RR block in a month and second in forty-eight hours). Additionally, I have blocked Egyegy for thirty-six hours for violating the three-revert rule on two different articles (this is his second 3RR block in a month). --  tariq abjotu  00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:SanchiTachi (Result: Someguy and SanchiTachi violated, SanchiTachi blocked)
. : Time reported: 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Move from Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000) to improper and misleading Black Library gaming without consensus or inquiring why it was titled that way
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

1 He did moved a previous page of mine which caused an edit war. 2 He moved without seeking a consensus first. 3 He changed the lead and other important parts without consensus. 4 He reverted proper information, reput in broken wiki links, broken references, etc. 5 He was asked by SwatJester to let him (SwatJester) deal with me, not him, which he is refusing to do. 6 He quotes "guidelines" loosely to justify his removing of formatting, even though the justifications do not apply (a game series is not a proper book title, and cannot be italicized like one, so the WikiProject came up with a consensus on how to approach the individual games and projects based on them, which he refuses to accept) 7 He already threatened processing the page for deletion and other such things without seeking a consensus 8 Notice that he "double edit" so that you cannot easily revert the mistaken changes and that he edits constantly so you cannot fix it without running into an edit conflict 9 He insists on putting in "reflist" with 2 columns, even though one citation has 5 authors and keeps it from breaking into two columns 10 Title of game is "Warhammer 40,000" and not "Warhammer 40,000 games" and the insistance of it to be made into a name that is improper even though clear presidence and verifiable links are against him.


 * Please provide us with diffs not versions.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  23:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed accordingly SanchiTachi 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To my defense, note the version Tachi wants to use. Specifically, note the fact that the categories are commented out, which I informed him of and he reverted anyway. Also note the page history, where two other editors are assisting me in convincing this user that you're not supposed to bold each and every single term. Finally, note the talk page, where again this user is told why Warhammer 40,000 games is not changing the title of the work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you admit you violated 3RR, yes? --Deskana (talk)  00:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably did, though I have trouble saying for certain. I reverted the bolding thing twice, the Warhammer title thing once (not counting the combined bolding revisions), and the lead section once. I'm not sure how my introduction edits would be counted as they are spread out, but they at least make one or two past that. So yes, I'll admit that I did. However, in admitting this, I expect Sanchi to be blocked as well, as he's just as guilty. He has: the combined move-lead revert; first and second bolding reverts; and the first, second, and third stand-alone title reverts. He's been worse than me, because he's warring with multiple editors. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking you both would serve no purpose. Ultimately, the verdict is that you both violated 3RR, and that SanchiTachi is wrong with regards to the matter of the formatting of the page. I'll discuss this issue with the user in question. --Deskana (talk)  00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SanchiTachi stated intent to continue reverting the incorrect edits once the page was unprotected, and as such, has been blocked. --Deskana (talk)  00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: N/A


 * 1st revert: 28/05/2007, 04:19:41
 * 2nd revert: 28/05/2007, 04:21:14
 * 3rd revert: 28/05/2007, 04:23:13
 * 4th revert: 28/05/2007, 04:25:42
 * 5th revert: 28/05/2007, 04:30:39

I db-self'ed my former userpage User:Cool Cat. User revert warred over the speedy tagging of it and recreated the page twice. These add up to 5 non-new edits. All times are my local time as I have no access to undelete logs. User has been explained 3RR before according to the block log. -- Cat chi? 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected by someone else. For what it's worth, I believe Ned Scott's explanation that you were trying to get your page deleted to make your username change more confusing for others and your signature changes validated. Even if that wasn't your motive, the effect would still have been there. --  tariq abjotu  01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats ridiculous. I merely do not want an old userpage. The talk pages still link. Ned Scott has no reason to recreate the deleted page twice and revert war over the speedy tag. He made 5 non-original edits aka 5 reverts. -- Cat chi? 10:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:142.176.13.178 reported by User:Crockspot (Result: 48h Block)
. : Time reported: 05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

User is fresh off a 31 hour block for same violation on same article.


 * Obvious violation, he keps reverting to a version mentioning Mr. Morgan's IQ. 48h, considering his previous 31h block for another 3RR vio just ended.  Signature <sup style="color:#20038A;">brendel  06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbaish reported by User:Slp1 (Result: 72h block)
. : Time reported: 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:39, 28 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:10, 28 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:12, 28 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:48, 28 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:21, 28 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:02, 28 May 2007 and has been blocked twice before for 3RR according to his logs/talkpage Slp1 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 15:11, 28 May 2007


 * Blocked for 72 hours. Nick 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:58, May 27, 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:35, May 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:50, May 28, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, May 28, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:39, May 28, 2007

Less than an hour off a 24h block for 3RR on the same article, immediately resumed edit warring similar reverts to before (removing information about the Korean Institute and distribution of area in modern states). Blocked for 3RR on the same article less than a week before that. — LactoseTI T 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case anybody asks, the following may be a more accurate one, with respect to the removal of the word "autonomous":
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:52, 27 May 2007
 * --Endroit 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think those reverts had any malicious thought put into it. I only edited what I thought was the best way to write the sentence. The sentence was confusing until I was clarified on what the "when" part was supposed to mean. The problem is settled now, and I don't understand why it is a problem trying to make the sentence look better. If there was any misunderstanding, I am sorry. Good friend100 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't insist on your version of it four times in about an hour, then, less than an hour off a 24h forced break. As for malice, the recent very incivil comments (see 7 reports up from here for his last reported incident) kind of speak for themselves. — LactoseTI T 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question has been blocked for forty-eight hours since this is the second block in two days and third in a week. --  tariq abjotu  21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ThuranX reported by User:Johnsome (Result:Johnsome warned; only 2 reverts by ThuranX)
. : Time reported: 06:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Comment &mdash; incomplete report. However, ThuranX has made a good faith effort to engage Johnsome in discussion, both on the article talk page and on the Johnsome's user talk page.  Johnsome has made three reverts back to his original edit.  3RR warning issued to User:Johnsome. &mdash; User: (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DPeterson reported by User:Nandaba Naota (Result:Nandaba Naota blocked indefinately)
. : Time reported: 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * IMO it should be Nandaba who should be blocked. He's an obvious sock who is trying to game the system to promote his extreme pedophilia activist beliefs, see User:Voice of Britain who has been repeatedly blocked for same 3rr violations on this article, SqueakBox 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of reverting going on here. I'm going to request page protection. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I already did, before this 3RR filing, which I dispute. DPeterson talk 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed you havent been reverting either, merely trying to defend NPOV from a user whose edits appear to justify the sexual abuse of children, and who may be a sockpuppet based on ther history of the article, SqueakBox 23:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this page protection will cool down the edit war, and hopefully a consensus can be reached on the talk page. I don't believe a block will be nessesary in this case, and I hope it won't ever have to come to that. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems some people here are more equal than others. Nandaba Naota 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Nandaba Naota (Result:See above)
. : Time reported: 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * 2st revert:
 * 3st revert:
 * 4st revert:

This isnt 4 reverts, they are all different. And if we were to judge by these standars it is Nanadaba who has been massively edit warring, SqueakBox 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They are reverts, I checked very carefully. Note that reverts must not be on the same area but it is enough that they are on the same article during a 24 hour period, which is the case here. This is a clear violation of the 3RR rule. Nandaba Naota 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You have massively reverted yourself as these reverts from both Petersen and I are exclusively against yourself, appear to be trying to wikilawyering in order to manipulate the system and are editing from the same POV as Voice of Britain who has been blocked on numerous occasions for edit warring. Do you want to be a serious editor or not? Editors who edit war and then accuse others of doing so are mostly not good faith editors, SqueakBox 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it isnt, as the history shows, SqueakBox 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of reverting going on here. I'm going to request page protection. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that Nandaba is engaged in some sort of edit war here, pushing a specific POV. Each edit by SqueakBox is different and does not qualify for 3RR violation.  DPeterson talk 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a violation of the 3RR even if the reverts are different. Please read the rules again if you are in doubt. Nandaba Naota 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And your 6 reverts arent I suppose, SqueakBox 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is now protected: []. I would suggest a block on Nandaba for 3RR violantion and for Personal Attacks against SqueakBox.   DPeterson talk 23:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:205.193.82.252 reported by User:JForget (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

But more importantly, this user has a long history of doing the same reverts in this article based on the article history and its own contributions.


 * The user has been warned and has not reverted since. Hopefully this will be sufficient. --  tariq abjotu  03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_of_Canada&oldid=134323314
 * 4th revert:

User:TJ Spyke and User:Alfiboy reported by User:Feba (Result: 48h (TJ), 24h (Alf))
. and : Time reported: 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * See Wii - History


 * This Diff shows basically the source of the argument. One user believes it should be included, while another thinks it is link spam. Personally, I find User:Alfiboy at fault in this discussion, but don't believe I can fairly list him here without listing TJ as well. Alfiboy was warned of his edit warring on his talk page by User:Dancter, and TJ Spyke appears to have been around long enough to know better. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked TJ for forty-eight hours and someone else has blocked Alfiboy for twenty-four hours. --  tariq abjotu  01:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:ZeroZ (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 2nd revert:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 3rd revert:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Please see Incest-history.

Note that User:The way, the truth, and the light has engaged in 3RR prior to this complaint, and that the user's own edits show a lack of interest in consensus building:
 * "enough of this".
 * "rv - my wording is correct"; this revert is particularly telling, as the language reverted was specifically written to correctly reflect the sources added (no sources used in the Intro prior to that edit). The revert does NOT correctly reflect the new sources, which themselves remained; this made the Intro misleading and returned it to WP:WEASEL. I have ceased editing for the time being, so as to make your inquiry less complicated. Thank you.

There is no violation of the three-revert rule here. Four reverts are needed for a violation, and taking a look at the history not all of his recent edits have been reverts. The user in question looks as if he's trying to work around your edits. --  tariq abjotu  03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Charred Feathers reported by User:dman727 (Result:No violation)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=134268257
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=134269121
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=134269796
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=134270158

This user has been previous warned about 3rr and edit warring []Dman727 08:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation. I only see 3 reverts. And besides, the report is not in the correct format. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

lost count...Charred Feathers 08:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eep² reported by User:Dekimasu (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:01, May 24, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:10, May 25, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:52, May 26, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:51, May 28, 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:16, May 29, 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:59, May 29, 2007
 * 6th revert: 20:57, May 29, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User mentions 3RR in own edit summary: 17:59, May 29, 2007


 * has been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit-warring at Discover Magazine (TV series). --  tariq abjotu  12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eiorgiomugini reported by User:Ghirlandajo (Result:96 hours)
. : Has been blocked for 3RR issues numerous times and is back at it.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:54


 * 1st revert: 13:57
 * 2nd revert: 14:15
 * 3rd revert: 14:54
 * 4th revert: 15:01

Within thirty minutes, he made four reverts on this very page:, , ,. Whenever I go he would follow me and remove my statements. This is very frustrating. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 96 hours. He's revert-warred before, and the disruption here was really not on. Moreschi Talk 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 1 Arcayne  (cast a spell)  15:27, 29 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:

The editor defends the reverts by stating that he is "Adding older edits back in incrementally"; these older edits are in fact his. The editor has also been edit-warring within the article, for which he has received a block prior to this incident. Prior editors have noted that the editor in question appears to have OWN issues with this article. Suggest that in addition to (or alternative to) blocking, that the editor be enjoined form contributing to the article or limiting their edits within the article. The editor is not new to WP policy, and has skirted the edge of 3RR on three prior occasions.


 * The editor in question has not violated the three-revert rule. All of these "reverts" are consecutive edits, not alternating between him and another editor. --  tariq abjotu  15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Padishah5000 reported by User:Onofre_Bouvila (Result: 24h (Pad), 24h (Ono))
. : Time reported: 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 00:58, 26 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:39, 27 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:42, 28 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:41, 28 May 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:19, 28 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:57, 28 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:01, 29 May 2007

As you can see, he has done 5 reverts, and the 3th, 4th, 5th and the 6th were made in less than 24 hours.

As you can also see in the comments he made in his edit summaries, first he stated that the reference was "false", then that the reference did not have any external link (he did not see it and he thought that since the reference contained few internal linked words to other articles of this wikipedia, the source itself were these linked articles, when in fact there was a link to an external source), then he claimed it was not in English (according to WP:Cite references can be given in other languages if needed. In this case, the reeference was talking about the differnet meanings of a Spanish word, therefore the reference contained a link to the Real Academia Española dictionary. There are lots of references in this Wikipedia linking to that dictionary, which is the official one for Spanish language), etc, etc, etc. All in all, for some reason, he keeps removing that reference. Other users have already reverted him, etc.

I also tryed to discuss this with him, but his response was to remove the whole discussion from his talk page: 21:57, 28 May 2007

Onofre Bouvila 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Padishah and Onofre for twenty-four hours each for violating the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: No violation)
. : Has been blocked for 3RR blocked numerous times previously.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:42, 29 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:52, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:21, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:26, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:28, 29 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:22, 29 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:33, 29 May 2007

Comments Wholesale of similarly reverting, as well as huge cut-and-paste revert while doing translation. Eiorgiomugini 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop your WP:POINT. You were revert warring with User:Haukurth, User:Berig, User:Dbachmann, not with me. The edits above are totally different. I was busily working on improving the article which I wrote and slowly translating references as you requested, even in the face of your continuous reverts. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is no room for you to make excuse, a violate is a violate not something else, if you think that you did not made a 3RR today, let other to judge it. "busily working on improving the article " Since when? You had removed the tag yourself and left the article untranslated. Let's not bring this lengthy debate over to the noticeboard. Eiorgiomugini 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Eio, you are alone in your position and some of the edits mentioned above do not really count as reverts. --  tariq abjotu  16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like these so-called reverts are completely different edits. I hope that this report is the result of a misunderstanding of policy and not bad faith, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to assume so. This user seems to have an animosity towards Ghirla, for which this noticeboard is an inappropriate resolution forum. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)