Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive49

User:Johnsome reported by User:ThuranX (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:14, 27 May 2007.


 * 1st revert: 12:27, 28 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:42, 28 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:33, 28 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:49, 29 May 2007

Although technically just outside the 24 hour period, The user has shown ZERO willingness to talk, there is NO reason to assume anythign will change unless the user is forced to. Further, please note this, where he tried to violate me for 3RR. His edit has been reverted by two users, and his actions addressed by more. Thank you.ThuranX 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block despite the 4 reverts lying within a 25h instead of a 24h period.  Signature brendel  22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)
. : Time reported: 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: N/A


 * 1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007

User has reverted 3 admins closing the MfD. I also request a rereview of on this page. User has "recreated" a page deleted bu five different admins. -- Cat chi? 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you up to, Cat? Do you see why some may find this whole username change obnoxious? You have changed many of your old signatures (albeit to have those changes reverted). You bring this up at WP:ANI. It went to WP:MFD. It came here, to WP:ANI/3RR. I rejected your previous 3RR piece here. And made a note of my rejection at WP:ANI. The MfD has been closed. And protected. Your old userpage has been deleted. And protected from recreation. And now it's back here, at WP:ANI/3RR (without you even bothering to modify the timestamps). What more do you want, Cat? Do you want a hand-written apology from Ned? Ned tarred and feathered in the town square? You seem to have gotten most of what you asked for, save retribution. Shall I give you retribution? No, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment; you will have to suffice with just your victory. As the previous reviewer, I perhaps should ignore this request and let another admin handle it. But I cannot in my good conscience let you waste yet another admin's time with this ordeal. Your username has been changed, your old userpage deleted. That's a wrap; time to move on. --  tariq abjotu  23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ned Scott has waisted everyones time. I question your objectivity in reviewing the past and this 3rr case since you clearly are an involved party. Ned Scott continued to disrupt due to your last review.
 * In order for me to be victorious there should be a war. I am not engaged in millitary warfare.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:  (partial)


 * 1st revert: 22:29, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:58, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:17, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:22, 29 May 2007

User is continually removing a cited paragraph, or just the citation.


 * As he/she removes the citation in each edit, he/she indeed has conducted more than 3 reverts. Considering that he/she has accused another user of "writing ficton" and has an extensive block log for personal attacks and another 3RR vio, I have issued a 24h block to as I see the chance of things getting out of hand.  Signature brendel  00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sir james paul reported by User:Not a dog (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 27 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:34, 27 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:49, 27 May 2007 (personal attack in edit summary)
 * 3rd revert: 22:17, 28 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:37, 28 May 2007


 * User has been blocked twice in the past for 3RR violations of similarly contentious edits on Evolution, and is forcing the issue again. Might not technically be within 24 hours, but he's knowingly and purposefully gaming the system to try to force his edits. This can't be acceptable behavior. Not a dog 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation of the three-revert rule, but given the incivility and past history with this article, editor has been warned regarding behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: 24h Block)
. Time reported: 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:  (partial)


 * 1st revert: 17:01, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:10, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:26, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:35, 29 May 2007

She has since revetred 3 times more and knows what she is doing, SqueakBox 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, I reverted it once by mistake. User:Sarah777 corrected my mistake. Thanks  Gold♣heart   01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give a diff for the mistake please? As then I can replace it with one of the 3 other urls, SqueakBox 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi SqueakBox, this should be the one.   Gold♣heart   01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasnt included in the report, SqueakBox 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs to all four reverts, above you only provided three diffs. Yet, I was able to see from the page history that Sarah has egaged in an edit war that warrants administrative action. I have issued a 24h block to calm things down.  Signature brendel  02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Adam1090 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Adam1090 commended)
. : Time reported: 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:37, 29 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:07, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:09, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:26, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:31, 30 May 2007

Copyright issues are not subject to the three-revert rule, editor was replacing a fair-use image with a free one. However, I will look carefully to see if any of those putting the fair-use image back in, in violation of our fair use policy, need to be blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: Page protected)
. and  : Time reported: 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: diff1
 * 2nd revert: diff2
 * 3rd revert: diff3
 * 4th revert: diff4
 * 5th revert: diff5
 * 6th revert: diff6
 * 7th revert: diff7 ADDED - after initial report.

This editor has a contentious edit history and already been blocked for 3RR violations 5 times by this board: as and

The user is edit warring with multiple editors.

Lsi john 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to habitually want to get me blocked, and it is inappropriate. A simple review of the DIFFs and a perusal of the article's history itself will see that I have provided context for the citation, and in addition to that I will not revert this information again. I have changed the nature in which the citation is given. These are in fact not "6" reverts, but if anything 3, which I apologize for, but sourced citations were being removed from the article. In any event, as the context has been given for the citation appropriately, there will be no more reverts for that. Whether or not User:Lsi john will continue to edit war on that article is irrelevant, for I will not be a party to it. Smee 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Not 3RR violation
 * User:Lsi john does not seem to understand, I changed his original research tag which was laid over the whole entire article, instead to the one word that he had a problem with "psychological", and by the way, this was not a revert. However, if someone thinks that my changing of his tagging as OR the entire article, to the only word that he has an issue with "psychological" was some kind of revert, I will be more than happy to self-revert that.  I will continue to not revert this user anymore on this article, as I have stated above.  Smee 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
 * SELF REVERT, As stated above, I do not wish to revert this user on this article at all, and will not in the future. Evidently he feels that my changing his tagging of the entire article as OR, to the one word that he thinks is OR, was a revert, so I have Self-Reverted here, and will not revert this user.  Smee 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree that this is not a WP:3RR edit war situation, Diff This diff shows Smee is not the only editor who believes the source is valid.


 * Justanother's rationale doesn't make sense: (The idea that we would list where a term is referenced in other books and articles is unencyclopedic, adds nothing, and I will stop just short of saying it is silly.) To the contrary mentioning the use of LGAT in textbooks discussing the issue is quite encyclopedic and adds relevance to the term/article.


 * Lsi john doesn't explain how the reference doesn't match either in his edit summary or on the talk page.


 * Lsi john repeats his last action.


 * Lsi john appears to have forgotten that the article is about LGATs in general, since he earlier appeared to feel that singling out Landmark in the article was unfair given all the LGATs out there. Talk:Large Group Awareness Training


 * At best this is a misunderstanding of the WP:3RR rule by Lsi john, at worst a pattern of WP:HARASS which could be forming here. Anynobody 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
Since both of you have been having disputes over the page since quite a long time, the only appropriate course of action would be to protect the page while the parties can discuss and resolve dispute on the talk page of the article. The article protection duration is of 48 hours. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the same article as previous reports. This is a problem with the editor, not the article. Smee followed me to Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) as well and is picking at my edits (check the edit logs there). I agree with Anynobody, I'm not sure I understand 3RR at all, when 7RR isn't a violation. I'm not warring, I'm only 2RR there.Lsi john 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is about a long-term pattern of abuse, tendentious editing, and ownership of articles. Smee merrily went 3 reverts with me over my thought-out edit that contributed to the article and then merrily continued edit-warring with one, perhaps two, other editors. This is not about the article; this is about one editor that refuses to "get it" despite multiple blocks. When Smee is invested in an article, no-one with an "opposing" POV to her "cult-fighter" persona (or a neutral POV for that matter, or often even a more reasonable editor with views closer to hers, like User:Wikipediatrix or User:BTfromLA) is allowed to edit there. This has to be addressed. Please, Mr. Admins, do your job. Page protection will handle nothing. This is about a pattern by one POV-pushing editor, User:Smee. --Justanother 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pattern of abuse by (formerly.

Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE

 * New user makes a nice edit in an unsourced section.
 * User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova) reverts with edit summary "rvv" and then "welcomes" the newbie with a vandalism warning. --Justanother 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The User has just received a more friendly welcome message from myself. The edit was indeed non-vandalism.
 * But. The larger concern here is that mutually reinforcing vendettas and contribution stalking may be developing between Smee and other editors, which has more damage potential than a fourth revert. Should this be taken to another forum? User conduct RfCs are procedurally dreadful, but some mediation appears needed. I would say that the "not an entitlement" aspect of 3RR seems to be lost on Smee. Marskell 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be more evidence of retaliatory behavior against User:Jossi on WP:COIN. - Crockspot 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Smee has been edit warring with User:Jossi on several articles and this latest report to WP:COIN smacks strongly of retaliation to me. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smee has been WP:BITING me since I arrived. But my complaints have been pushed aside in Good-Faith assumptions about this edit warrier. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted a timeline of the 3RR pattern here for anyone who wants the tedious task of observing time stamps and dates and seeing the pattern. Smee wasn't 4RR. Smee was 7RR and I was 2RR. The only 3RR block that I've ever had, came over 24 hours AFTER I had Stopped editing in an article (clearly punitive). Yet Smee has been blocked 5 times and still continually avoids preventative 3RR blocks. I'm beginning to wonder what the 3RR rule is for. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have ended the discussion on WP:COIN. This is troubling editing behaviour. Marskell 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbolden1517 reported by User:Muchness (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 25 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:43, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:27, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:44, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:04, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:52, 30 May 2007


 * Between the first and second reverts, two interim edits were also made by the reported user . The second, third, and fourth reverts added these edits back in addition to reverting to the previous version from 25 May.
 * Between the third and the fourth reverts, the page was moved to a non-standard parenthetical clarifier with an edit summary that I would characterize as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

You'll notice #4 is on a new page and #1 and #2 don't match (aren't the same version of the article (see all the fashion material) jbolden1517Talk  03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A reversion is a reversion, whether it's in whole or in part. And moving a page to a silly title does not make it a different page.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding a bunch of new content is not a reversion. jbolden1517Talk  03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its borderline so I self reverted as much as I can. jbolden1517Talk  03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Page was protected by After Midnight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Migospia reported by User:Rockpocket (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:26, 28 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:08, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:27, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:09, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:39, 29 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:33, 29 May 2007


 * User not new, but 3RR warnings were made on edit summaries:  Rockpock  e  t  05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cole435 reported by User:ThuranX (Result:warned)
. : Time reported: 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 27 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:20, 28 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:24, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:56, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:00, 29 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:16, 30 May 2007


 * 6th revert: 17:47, 31 May 2007

User refuses to use talk, relies upon OR determinations of popularity, and in his last conflict, offered to 'bust a cap' in the next person who argued with him. I didn't give a 3RR warning, but he's not a newer user, and his stubborn insistence along the WP:ILIKEIT line makes him unlikely to change. As such, a block's definitely needed. I got so frustrated, I vio'd 3RR myself, but immediately self-reverted. However, he needs to stop. ThuranX 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a 5th revert, just outside of the 24 hour mark, and without him signing in. However, signature phrases in his argument' very camp', arguments to recentism, and genreal comments regaring Two-face being a serious character indicate it's the same editor, tryign to WP:GAME 3RR. I can go through a checkuser if needed, please let me know at my talk. ThuranX 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a 6th revert in this slow boil. He's been reverted and on contact with another editor, User:DrBat, and hasn't listened to that editor either. Please put a halt to this. He violated 3RR, and got nothing, and continues to revert war despite opposition. ThuranX 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And yet no one warned him? I am personally unwilling to block editors if I think they may not be aware of the rule, so I've just left a warning. If another admin is willing to block, OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Warnings are NOT required for non-new users, for one, and for two, given his lack of intent to use talk pages, nor respond to interactions from others, I doubt it's effectiveness anyway. ThuranX 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Myanw reported by User:60.240.255.213] (Result:no vio)
category. : Time reported: 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Not three, but eight seperate reverts in one 24 hour period. Wheel-warrior extraordinare.
 * These reverts were of vandalism. Anon making this report was adding a disparaging message about Asperger syndrome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:74.116.118.230 reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:38, 30 May 2007 (Removal of longstanding external link to SourceWatch)


 * 1st revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:57, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:03, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:52, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:38, 30 May 2007

Comment: IP user may not actually have seen warning, but also ignores request for discussion on talk via edit summary. Semiprotection might be an option.
 * User clearly edit warred; no reason to block out other anons. Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:80.250.128.5 reported by User:Makalp (Result:24h Block)
. : Time reported: 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 30 May 2007
 * Warning to user :13:55, 30 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:43, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:55, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007


 * 3RR vio - issued 24h block.  Signature brendel  22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:67.81.154.219 reported by User:Chocolatepizza (Result: 31h Block)
. : Time reported: 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:01, 6 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:56, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:47, 30 May 2007 (This also involved his leaving of a personal attack in the edit summary)
 * 3rd revert: 11:26, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:31, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:50, 17 August 2006 (They are the same person, see comments below.

This user is removing the sourced paragraph of Chabad representatives dismissed the comparisons, noting that whereas the Sabbateans deliberately violated religious laws on the assumption that a "new Torah" would emerge during messianic times, Chabad preached that only strict adherence to tradition would bring the redemption. Chabad also claimed that its veneration of the rebbe was not at odds with Jewish tradition. and adding unsourced and pov content.

I believe that this ip is User:DavidCharlesII is the ip based on his blanking of the ip's warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.81.154.219&diff=prev&oldid=118545159 and the ip blanking of his sockpuppeteer tag http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116798822 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116783319 which was his first edit. Chocolatepizza 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the reverts are also removing unsourced, anecdotal, probably false, defamatory content regarding R' Shach and the Lubavitch yeshiva, which is not subject to 3RR from what I recall. -- Avi 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * However the paragraph quoted above is sourced and not defamatory and should not have been removed. Chocolatepizza 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Violation of 3RR and personal comments in edit summary - issued 31h block.  Signature brendel  22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:70.109.54.8 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 19:22, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:19, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:13, 29 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:36, 29 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 09:58, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 27 May 2007 by User:Jossi

Soon after this report was submitted, another revert was made by User:67.142.130.27, who is likely the same individual as User:70.109.54.8 based on past edits and talk comments. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear case of 3RR vio. I have issued a 24h block.  Signature brendel  17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result:72h Block)
User Dacy69 is on revert parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dacy69#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2

He has only one revert per article per week, yet on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, he revert three times within a two day period.

. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, on May 28 he reverted once to reinsert Babak into the article, then on May 30, he again reinsert the person back into the article twice (two other reverts). He has also just personally attacked me, implying that I dont even have a medium intelligence level: .Azerbaijani 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 2:18 May 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 3:58 May 30, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:48 May 30, 2007

I did not make revert - I added information with NEW supplementary references and made minor fixes. And I did not insult - what you implied it is up to you. Diffs can be checked. And speaking frankly you going after me and reporting is close to Wiki harassment. --Dacy69 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats still a revert. You've been on Wikipedia for a long time, you know the rules. Dacy69 knows the rules, do not let him mislead you. You reverted all three times, it doesnt matter if you added anything, it still a revert. You cant hide reverts by adding information on top of the revert. The historical section was removed three times, along with Babak, and you re-inserted it three times...Thats called a revert. You clearly violated your parole, just admit it.Azerbaijani 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not - if text is removed and I am coming to reintroduce it with new references and new text - it is not revert. That is clear. This is my first series of editing (3) and second (4). and compare now initial and final text. In between user:Richfife came leaving quite insulting comment against the country --Dacy69 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules clearly state: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.. You cant make excuses for clearly violating your parole.Azerbaijani 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Three reverts in two days do not constitute a violation of the 3RR. Yet, there seems to be a rather slow edit war in progress on this article. I have not issued a block but advise both parties to use the talk page instead of edit warring-even if it is at a crawling pace.  Signature brendel  22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a regular 3rr report, its a parole violation report. Please read the case carefully. And I'm not edit warring in that artile, in fact, I havent made a single revert yet on that article.Azerbaijani 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry for the mistake. I have issued a 72h block for parole vio.  Signature brendel  23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 13:50, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:15, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:41, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:21, 30 May 2007

User:67.142.130.43 is almost certainly a block-evading sockpuppet of User:70.109.54.8, who was blocked today for reverting the same edits in the same article.

This user has now started reverting as 67.142.130.26.


 * User:67.142.130.43 - 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[67.142.130.26 48 hrs for block avoidance and 3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result: Page protected)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on

While just a bit over 24 hours and only consisting of three precise reverts...3RR is not an entitlement...
 * 1st revert: 13:55, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:04, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:16, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:53, 30 May 2007


 * Block log...Giovanni is well aware of the three revert rule Discussion regarding his edit warring on the same article was most recently on May 26, 2007 based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus, , --MONGO 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to this report because it singles me out when Mongo himself has reverted three times, as well, for his POV in this edit conflict with me and several other editors. Indeed many of us have (which I agree is not a good thing) however, if you look at the talk page, I have been the most active trying for forge a consensus and stop the edit conflicts, asking people to please talk about it instead of just reverting blindly. For Mongo to revert 3 times himself yet try to get me blocked for doing the same thing seems to me to amount to trying to gain an advantage in the edit conflict. That is not what this place is for. I have not violated the 3RR as he admits, and if I should not have reverted 3 times, he should not have either, nor the many other editors in this latest edit conflict. I should not be singled out, esp. since I did not violate the 3RR rule.

Mongo's 4 reverts, just over 24 hours based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus (actually consensus is split): Giovanni33 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 07:37, 26 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:46, 26 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:36, 26 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:30, 27 May 2007


 * Page protected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is probably best. I don't like "trying" to get someone blocked for 3RR, but while I stopped my very short lived edit war, which was also with an IP trying to add the same stuff Giovanni was, Giovanni has persisted and he was at 3RR on the same article just a few days ago.--MONGO 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) formerly
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Smee is also 3RR at against another editor.


 * 1st revert: 1 <- Newbie BITING.
 * 2nd revert: 2
 * 3rd revert: 3

We're Back!

Earlier today 7RR didn't earn a block. So Smee has decided that he can revert war in Holiday Magic and Children of God now too.

This contentious editor has a LONG HISTORY of edit warring, and seems to love to revert everything I do.

He has been blocked by this board '5 times already as and.

He's now at 3RR in TWO articles.. which IS a violation, since Smee keeps pushing the limit.

The last time, the admistrator assured me that Smee would 'take the warning'.. but that clearly has not happened.

note to admin:  PLEASE scroll up and read the 7RR report above, including the previous 3RR timeline: here

The last block was for 48 hours.

It doesn't matter what article I edit, Smee is going to revert everything I do until I hit 2RR and have to stop.

Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for three days, less for his most recent reverts and more for a troubling pattern of repeated reverting in general. See Smee's user talk for further explanation. Marskell 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:97.99.137.82 reported by User:FateClub (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:54, 31 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:40, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:06, 31 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:08, 31 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:38, 31 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:59, 31 May 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:53, 31 May 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:54, 31 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:03, 31 May 2007


 * Quite obvious case of a 3RR vio. 24h block to stop edit war.  Signature brendel  00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Raphaelaarchon aka User: 71.100.1.7 reported by User:R. Baley (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:24, 30 May 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: at 02:47, 31 May 2007. 5 Reverts made under the anon IP as indicated by this difference.  Also request page semi-protection as this user has edited under at least one other anon IP address. R. Baley 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Differences are
 * 1st revert: 01:58, 31 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:05, 31 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 31 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:38, 31 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:43, 31 May 2007.

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 23 May 2007

The article has gone through significant change since this revision due to the recent name change, but the reverts he's pushing were present in that revision, as well as more recent revisions (that was an easy recent one to find since he had made one of the reverts in that revision as well). The changes might seem small, but are especially controversial (especially revert 3 and 4).


 * 1st revert: 08:21, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
 * 2nd revert: 17:25, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
 * 3rd revert: 20:30, 30 May 2007 added back administered
 * 4th revert: 01:55, 31 May 2007 removed and administered (to the other side)


 * 3RR warning: Been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks multiple times, 3RR specifically for three times since 1 March. Last time was a week long block for repeated 3RR violations starting on May 15.  Since coming off this block, he is evidently still intent on edit warring, blowing right past the 3RR limits as well as continuing the personal attacks (eg here).

Third "revert" isn't, I can't find the text "and administered" in any earlier version. That would indicate this is a new edit, not a revert. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here's the diff he was undoing. Per consensus we had discussed that "administered" was too strong a word on one side awhile back so we replaced it, but he undid this diff effectively by reinserting the word administered. --Cheers, Komdori 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.100.1.7 reported by User:Astanhope (Result:)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 30 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:58, 30 May 200
 * 2nd revert: 21:05, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:30, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:38, 30 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:43, 30 May 2007

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Tecmobowl (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:17, May 31, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:38, May 31, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:58, May 31, 2007
 * 3nd revert: DIFFTIME

No violation. Incorrect format anyway. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:MJCdetroit (Result: warned 24h)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 26 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:03, 30 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:16, 30 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:55, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:22, 31 May 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:55, 31 May 2007
 * No technical vio, as the user skirts four in 24 hours each time. I have advised Lear that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Update if the edit war continues, as a block will then be needed.
 * Your warning at 13:16, 31 May 2007 had no affect.
 * 6th revert: 16:38, 31 May 2007
 * . 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 25 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:35, 29 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:13, 29 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:25, 30 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:59, 30 May 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:27, 12 May 2007


 * Also continues to revert after this, creating new 3RR violations, although not in the same 24 hour period as above.Ultramarine 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bjewiki reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: No block / article protected)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:17, May 31, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:23, May 31, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:26, May 31, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:27, May 31, 2007


 * While I realize I am in violation of the 3RRV rule, I would like it noted that because they disagreed with my legitimate edit User:Chrisjnelson (who has several previous 3RRV violations), and User:Pats1 teamed up to revert my legitimate edit 2 & 3 times each, for a total of 5 times. While I realize that is not a technical violation of the 3RRV rule, it certainly violates the spirit. Bjewiki 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe in your own little fantasy world. My past violations are irrelevant here considering I didn't commit and infraction here. Further, Pats1 and I have had no discussions about this subject on Wikipedia or off it so if we both are making the same change we feel is the right one, then it doesn't matter. Neither of us have violated 3RR in this case, and you have. It doesn't matter what kind of spirit it was in. Sorry.Chris Nelson 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No block. All of you where edit warring. Don't do it or you all will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's an illogical conclusion. I thought you guys had rules for a reason, but I guess not.Chris Nelson 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit wars accomplish nothing. Revert once if you must, to show your disagreement, and then engage in discussions to resolve the dispute. If you cannot resolve it, pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "you guys" includes you. This is Wikipedia and the policies are made by the community. Read WP:3RR to understand the nuances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For now, I think it would be best to fully protect the template. Hopefully, that will get you guys to go to talk page and DISCUSS. Nishkid64 (talk)  00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kellen` reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-31T17:44:40


 * 1st revert: 2007-05-31T00:21:56
 * 2nd revert: 2007-05-31T01:07:09
 * 3rd revert: 2007-05-31T17:27:42
 * 4th revert: 2007-05-31T17:43:12

(See report below) same article, same user.


 * Same responses to Abe. His changes were previously rejected by editors of the article. Migospia's changes were akin to vandalism, being undiscussed, and improperly marked as minor. Other changes were by anon/new editor who also did a large amount of blanking. KellenT 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic  article edit warring user.  Admins do....  Nothing.  Abe Froman 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kellen` reported by User:Migospia (Result: No violation - Article semi-protected for 1 week)
. : Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 05:21, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
 * 2nd revert: 06:07, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
 * 3rd revert: 06:21, May 31, 2007 rv new user User:Starfish2
 * 4th revert: 22:27, May 31, 2007 rv edit by User:Migospia
 * 5th revert: 22:43, May 31, 2007 rv edits by User:Abe.Froman


 * If I can make a comment, Kellen was reverting the blanking of large swaths of the article, and should not be blocked for his actions. Consensus on the talk page has been to include this material.  I would have reverted it had I seen it before him.  The article for Veganism attracts periodic bursts of soapboxing, and this is yet another instance of it.  Cheers, Skinwalker 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not an admin: It looks like the first three reverts were pseudo-justified due to anon-ip and new user account. The last 2 reverts, however, were against more established editors. This is not entirely an article vandalism-protection issue. (I replaced the diff's for easier verification). Lsi john 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The 4th was marked as minor, yet removed a huge swathe of sourced content. Possible cause to consdier it vandalism per WP:MINOR and hence WP:3RR excempt? Rockpock  e  t  00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Migospia blanked a large section of the article without cause or discussion. Abe followed up, also by blanking a large section of the article. As skinwalker points out, consensus has been to include this material. I believe Migospia thinks I'm involved in her block yesterday for edits to Animal testing, which I am not, although I did seek to encourage her to learn from the block rather than accuse a conspiracy and make personal attacks. KellenT 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I blanked harmful edits to an aritcle, back to the previous state so don't do this!--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Hey hey you guys can't all of a sudden make excuses to bend the rules saying they are pseudo-justified it does not matter who she reverted, non were vandalism so therefore violated the 3RR--Migospia☆ 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Migospia☆, I apologize for not making my initial post clear that I'm not an admin. Your reaction is understandable, but unnecessary. And, significant edits which repeatedly remove significant amounts of material by an anon IP, followed by the same edit from a new user, could easily be viewed as vandalism. The admin will be able to check the IP and be able to see what was going on. Lsi john 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a violation here. The first three reverts really do appear to be reverts of vandalism or test edits, large-scale blankings with no explanation in the edit summary, and made by an anon or very new account. I think most editors would have interpreted those as vandalism or tests. The last two were clearly content reverts, since a rationale for the blankings was provided in the edit summary, but that doesn't violate the 3RR. I would encourage the parties here to pursue dispute resolution if necessary rather than edit warring. (And whoever's logging out to make those edits-that's a really, really bad idea. 3RR applies per -person-, not three logged in, log out, and make three more.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) Hypercite so when I did legit edits and reverts I get blocked 24hours plus, but when Kellen makes harmful edits and keeps reverting all of a sudden its no violation! It should state that wikipedia considers admins higher priority than other users as well as the admins can get away with pretty much anything and if you are friends with an admin the same goes--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) Rockpocket's reasoning seems accurate here. Several of the reverted edits removed large portions of contents from the article, paragraphs that seemed well sourced and had been stable prior to that episode. To prevent anonymous blanking, I'm also semi-protecting this article for a period of time sufficient to discourage this behavior. I also urge both Migospia (specially Migospia) and Kellen to engage in discussion before proceeding with this edit dispute.  P h a e d r i e l  - 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not well sourced which is my point, and I tried before and after my edits with Kellen but I just cannot seem to get through--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Migospia☆, let me say this VERY GENTLY. Two admins have ruled. Pushing the issue won't change that, but could prompt a deeper investigation to see what might be going on related to the anon IP edits. At the moment everyone is assuming good faith. I recommend that you AGF as well and let this go. Lsi john 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john- PLEASE STOP commenting on mine, they ruled this way because of you --Migospia☆ 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs you removed were incredibly well cited. KellenT 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No like in the vegan talk they aren't--Migospia☆ 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is getting way out of line. This is not the appropriate place to contest our decision. Further comments will be removed. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so at my talk page or yours, Migospia. Thank you.  P h a e d r i e l  - 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic  article edit warring user.  Admins do....  Nothing.  Abe Froman 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take this up with the deciding admin. This is not the place to continue this discussion. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:203.70.54.205 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 2007-06-01 02:47:50
 * 2nd revert: 2007-06-01 03:07:52
 * 3rd revert: 2007-06-01 03:57:25
 * 4th revert: 2007-06-01 05:31:13


 * 3RR warning: 2007-06-01 05:06:52
 * 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikesmash a.k.a. User: 24.16.211.40 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:26, 29 May 2007

User keeps reinserting "Gravage Hulk" section.


 * 1st revert: 22:35, 31 May 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
 * 2nd revert: 23:32, 31 May 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
 * 3rd revert: 02:54, 1 June 2007 as User: 24.16.211.40
 * 4th revert: 03:03, 1 June 2007 as User:Mikesmash
 * 5th revert: 03:11, 1 June 2007 as User:Mikesmash

On his talk page, User:Mikesmash acknowledges that he is also User: 24.16.211.40. He says we was unaware of any rules he might violate by making 5 edits, and yet it seems very odd that only after the 3rd revert (and right after) did he then log in as Mikesmash. (A warning is probably more appropriate than a block. Despite the convenient timing of when he logged in, we can't read minds.)


 * The discussion on the talk page of gives the impression that he was not aware of the three-revert rule until someone brought it up after his fifth revert. If he proceeds to revert-war now, he will be subject to a block. --  tariq abjotu  16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TingMing reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 4 days)
. : Time reported: 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:17, 31 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:07, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:09, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:27, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:59, 1 June 2007

On the fourth revert, TingMing removed all reference to Taiwan. In all cases he has edit-warred with other users over having "Taiwan" in brackets. He has been warned in the past about 3RR and is an established user.

TingMing has also reverted Education in Taiwan four times in the last 24 hours. John Smith&#39;s 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Four days might even be a bit lenient given the disruption he appears to be causing in multiple locations, but four days should give enough time for the results of the request for checkuser to come in. --  tariq abjotu  16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth adding to this report rather than filing a new one. Ting has clearly reverted Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall four times and was given a warning. He has just finished the above four-day ban - do I really need to file the diffs, etc when they're so obvious? John Smith&#39;s 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Aivazovsky reported by User:Atabek (Result: 7 days)

 * User:Aivazovsky has been placed on revert parole (1 revert per week) per ArbCom decision here . He violated this parole at Azerbaijan page, while continuously attempting to remove link-references to UN resolutions. 15:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, 31 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:56, 31 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:45, 1 June 2007


 * Comment:


 * has been blocked for violating his revert parole for the sixth time. --  tariq abjotu  16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result: No violation)
Note: This is an Arbcom parole 1rr violation revert, not a regular 3rr violation report

User Dacy69 is on revert parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dacy69#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2

He has only one revert per article per week. He was recently blocked for violating his parole by making 3 reverts within two days on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article. That still did not deter him. His first edit after being unblocked was another partial revert on the same article.

Here is the previous report which resulted in a block:

. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His revert: 14:55 June 1, 2007

This means that he once again violated his parole, as he did not wait 1 week since his last revert before making a new one. This brings the total up to 4 reverts within a 3 day period on the same article, even though his Arbcom parole clearly says that he can only make 1 revert per week per article.Azerbaijani 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the ArbCom should review the case given the behavior of User:Azerbaijani. He has been constantly edit warring, POV pushing, insulting and not assuming good faith against users based on nationality. This is despite the fact that most users after ArbCom turned to constructive editing, this one is only engaged in angry edit warring with several contributors at a time. Atabek 15:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (Why are you even commenting on a arbcom violation report?) Read Wikipedia rules, WP:AGF does not apply to you or anyone else in the Arbcom (obviously not, because we were all in an Arbcom). I have not edit warred in any article. Infact, I still have not made a single revert on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, even though there are items I dispute. Look at my user page, I have definetly contributed an immense amount to Wikipedia. Also, the only people editing based on nationality are Atabek and his pals here on Wikipedia. Besides, Atabek, another reason why WP:AGF does not apply to you is because of your constant attacks (personal attacks as well), your use of sock puppetry (User:Tengri), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), stalking users (such as myself, obviously, as he is commenting on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him), among other things...


 * Oh and by the way, here is what Edit warring his (from Wikipedia): An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article.


 * Please tell me Atabek, where have I repeatedly revert another persons edit? Infact, this whole Arbcom parole (1 revert per week per article) was set up so that we wouldnt be able to edit war, and we cant unless we want to break the parole. Atabek, dont waste your time trying to manipulate people by making false accusations.Azerbaijani 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to which version? That's a link to the current version of the article. --  tariq abjotu  15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake, your right, but he still made a partial revert by removign the term Iranian. As you can see, Ali inserted the term Iranian (see here:) and obviously Dacey removed it, which is a partial revert.Azerbaijani 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is quite a stretch. All information in an article was added by someone, but we are not expected to count the removal of even a single word as a revert. I find it hard to believe Dacy intended to revert anyone, but rather just make a change to the article. --  tariq abjotu  16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Robin Redford reported by User:Cquan (Result: 24h Block)
. : Time reported: 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:04, 1 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warnings:
 * 1st warning 16:52, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd warning 17:09, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd warning 17:35, 1 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:05, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:37, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:48, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:51, 1 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:00, 1 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:23, 1 June 2007
 * 7th revert: 17:27, 1 June 2007
 * 8th revert: 17:33, 1 June 2007


 * Well not all 8 diffs above are to reverts to the same edition. There are, however, 4 reverts among the 8 diffs and there seems to be an edit war warranting administrative action on this page. I have issued a 24h block.  Signature brendel  19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would point out that although they aren't all reverts to the exact same version, they all restore all or most of the article to an earlier version, and are, in effect reverts. DES (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:190.10.0.64 reported by User:G.A.S (Result:18 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:40, 1 June 2007(UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:  Keeps on reverting infobox color to purple, where hex code of another color is used. (Similar history with multiple other articles.)


 * 1st revert: 05:45, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:56, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:23, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:56, 1 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR caution: 16:37, 1 June 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:56, 1 June 2007
 * 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:M.deSousa reported by User:Cfvh (Result:48 hr)
. : Time reported: 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:46, June 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:47, June 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:39, June 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:04, June 1, 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:19, June 1, 2007

This user is a well-known vandal of articles regarding the Portuguese royal succession. He has operated under numerous IP addresses before returning to a user name using his real name (Manuel de Sousa). He should be banned permanently, if not then for a long time. Charles 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, at the article Carlos I of Portugal: (Differences between his three reverts) and at the article Pretender (Differences between his four reverts], "Poland" removal was done legitimately by me between his reverts and is unrelated to his edits). Charles 22:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also ask that it be allowed for editors to revert his edits without risking being banned via the 3RR because Manuel de Sousa's edits are disruptive and POV. Charles 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This ought to be noted as well: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of M.deSousa. Charles 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR violation, this user clearly knows better. DES (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk reported by User:Reddi (Result: 60 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:36, 31 May 2007

I been trying to get the articles with the WP:MOS and asked him to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style ... no luck ... J. D. Redding
 * Please provide diffs showing four reverts within 24 hours. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the edit .. nothing new ... I think he forgot to take out a section heading in one of the edits .. so it's redlighted in one ... Diffs between his version ...
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

Current version which he changed here ... 

He also stated he doesn't care about the MOS, ala

J. D. Redding 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try and post a better formatted summary below-Andrew c 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Original:20:52, 30 May 2007
 * Diffs for The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
 * 1st:14:25, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd:17:04, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd:19:20, 1 June 2007
 * 4th:19:25, 1 June 2007

Original:11:36, 31 May 2007
 * Diffs for Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon
 * 1st:17:07, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd:17:57, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd:18:11, 1 June 2007
 * 4th:18:35, 1 June 2007
 * 5th:19:13, 1 June 2007
 * 6th:20:32, 1 June 2007
 * 7th:21:03, 1 June 2007

Original:11:22, 29 May 2007
 * Diffs for Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
 * 1st:19:19, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd:20:40, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd:21:02, 1 June 2007
 * 4th:21:12, 1 June 2007


 * Blocked for sixty hours. The three-revert rule violations are overt and excessive. --  tariq abjotu  01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevewk reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 60 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:04, 30 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:30, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:03, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:23, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:50, 1 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:00, 1 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:57, 1 June 2007


 * Comment: I am posting this report in addition to the one above because it is a separate article, and the report is properly formatted (sorry about the EST). The user was edit warring over how the article displays, by adding non-breaking space html to force indent paragraphs. There is also the issue of the line break in the middle of the paragraph (look for "history, not a special case admitting..." in the diffs). Also, code that broke up the reference sections into multiple columns was reverted on multiple occasions. I believe I have solved the desire to add the forced indents (I showed the user how to use a custom stylesheet), however these latest reverts were after the user talk page discussion. Also, the edit summarizes are simply deceptive. They state they are doing one thing did away with forced spaces for indents., but actually are re-introducing the mid-paragraph line break at "history..." and removing the column code for the refs.-Andrew c 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he thinks that our only justified grievance is the hard spaces, and that's why the "did away with forced spaces" business; but he also hates infoboxes. Someone will have to explain to him about using article talk pages; I gave him a link to WP:BRD, but he archived it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also on :
 * Version reverted to: 15:22 29 May


 * 1st revert: 23:19 1 June
 * 2nd revert: 00:40 2 June
 * 3rd revert: 01:02 2 June
 * 4th revert:01:12 2 June
 * Note charming edit summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Same as previous section. --  tariq abjotu  02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 31 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:05, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:12, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:17, 1 June 2007

Komdori's filed 2 3rr reports on my edits, last two were denied. In retaliation he has been shadowing my edits and making reverts on articles that he has never participated in such the kimchi article. I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop shadowing my edits. He has deleted my comments labeling it as vandalism. While I'm not entirely certain if Komdori's deletions of my comments is Modifying users' comments and/or Discussion page vandalism or stubbornness per WP:Van, in any case he has reverted away my comments 4 times. Thanks.melonbarmonster 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The reverts you have provided are directly cited as "exceptions" to the three revert rule; specifically, "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." --Iamunknown 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Melon, come on, you leave insulting, race based remarks on my page and think it constitutes a 3RR violation when I remove them? You've been blocked for weeks at a time for 3RR, it's no surprise you've been gaming the system to try to stretch your limits.  Any admin who investigates will see I was indeed involved in the discussion at kimchi, and at least three separate editors have been trying to keep your unilateral and incorrect change from sticking.  Who's the stubborn one?  Now it's clear why you stubbornly insisted on putting those comments on my page--you were trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. --Cheers, Komdori 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Race based remarks?? Asking you to stop shadowing my edits is hardly racial.  Check the reverts I'm referring to above.  I don't care how you want to reason this out, just please stop following my edits and reverting them. Thanks.melonbarmonster 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been spreading hate and calling me "Japanese" to other editors and in article talk pages. Even in the diffs you provided you spent a great deal of time discussing race.  I have hundreds of pages on my watch list, hundreds on Korean subjects.  We've only edited together on about three articles--if that's all you edit, it's not my fault you choose to edit about three articles total.  That's not shadowing.  Now that we've clearly established there was no 3RR violation, can you continue to argue somewhere else and avoid cluttering this page up?  --Cheers, Komdori 00:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a violation of the three-revert rule for the reasons mentioned above (reverts were in user's own userspace). --  tariq abjotu  01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rodrigo_Cornejo reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 25 March 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:36, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:59, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:24, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:25, 1 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:49, 1 June 2007
 * Comment The user disregards practically every WP policy, including WP:CIV and WP:NPA: see User talk:Humus sapiens The RV#4 was a violation of WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like some sort of explanation here because I cannot believe my eyes. Look at the timestamps above... I'm sure you're aware that the way this works is that the warning comes before the violation. You warned him at 01:49, 2 June (UTC) (your timestamps are so confusing; UTC-8? Is that Alaska?) and he has not reverted since. As for the incivility and personal attacks, I see none. If anyone was being incivil, it was you for suggesting he was a Nazi (unless I missed a portion of the conversation where he expressed that kind of sentiment). As for this (same) comment... um... have you looked at your userpage recently? He's off-base and incorrect here, but he does not appear to be as nefarious as you make him seem. No block from me unless you omitted a few details. --  tariq abjotu  02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I warned him before the report. I copy/pasted timestamps, please take a look at histories. Yes, UTC-8 is correct.
 * Is there something wrong with my user page? I don't see what.
 * The suggestion to "ask for the mediation of someone who isn't jewish" isn't just "off-base and incorrect" - it is offensive, uncivil and ad hominem. We don't put yellow badge on users, and pointing this out is not suggesting that he's a Nazi.
 * 4 RVs but you are warning the reporter seems rather like an encouragement. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you warned him before this report, but you didn't warn him before his latest revert. You warned him at 5:49pm (your time) and his latest revert was 5:25pm (your time). The point of the warning is to demonstrate that the user is aware of the three-revert rule, not to say "just warning you that you're going to blocked in a half hour". Thus, the warning does not work here; if he reverts again then it's blockable.
 * No, there isn't. I'm merely saying that for someone who thinks his ethnicity is irrelevant, you aren't very discreet about your faith on your user page.
 * He thinks you're biased because you're Jewish and the article is question is somewhat related to Judaism. It's a common misconception from Wikipedians: you're Muslim, so you can't contribute neutrally to the Islam article; you're European so you can't contribute to the European Union article; you're human so you can't contribute to the Homo sapiens article... the sentiment is off-base and incorrect, but it's not incivility. You are free to be offended, but I am also free to say that's a bit of a stretch. He was not saying you're Jewish just to be insulting; he was saying you're Jewish because he thinks (again... wrongly) that that makes you biased. No, Wikipedia does not require yellow badges, but users can, on their own accord, fill their user page with circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that one is Jewish. You know... saying they observe Shabbat and having their wiki-contributions corroborate that. Or including a Talmudic quote... Or being apart of a few Judaism-related WikiProjects... if you don't like being identified as Jewish, no one is stopping you from changing your userpage. I myself don't look kindly upon slights based on ethnicity or religion, but this here was especially mild and hardly worthy of being considered a slight.
 * The warning noted in the section header is the warning you posted at 5:49pm; there's no need to add an additional one because it would be redundant. --  tariq abjotu  03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I guess my participation in Military history project makes me a warmonger. One's interests is one thing, self-identification is something different. We have specific policy against assumptions like that: WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh c'mon. Are you suggesting assuming you're Jewish based on info on your userpage is a violation of WP:AGF? I sincerely hope your preceding comment was in response to something else... --  tariq abjotu  03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless one clearly identifies himself, their personal matters such as religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, etc. are nobody's else's business. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He has been warned about 3RR before, in March, and on this very article: Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Critikal1 reported by User:Paulcicero (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 10:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:28, 31 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:11, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:59, 1 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:19, 1 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:46, 1 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:57, 2 June 2007


 * The user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for violating the three-revert rule despite coming off a recent 3RR block. --  tariq abjotu  14:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ralhazzaa reported by User:Gerash77 (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Jun 2 from 00:04
 * 2nd revert: Jun 00:55
 * 3rd revert: Jun 2 02:23
 * 4th revert: Jun 2 02:50
 * 5th revert: Jun 2 04:45
 * 6th revert: to Jun 2 06:57

Has been a member since 2005 - he should know better.


 * The Persian Gulf article has been protected by somebody else instead. Again. --  tariq abjotu  14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:220.127.90.111 reported by User:Komdori (Result:18h)
. : Time reported: 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 29 May 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:03, 2 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:21, 2 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:34, 2 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:43, 2 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (first entry on their talk page) 17:38, 2 June 2007
 * 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:12.158.190.38 reported by User:Ramsquire (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

User appears to be a sock of User:70.109.54.8 who has been previously blocked. A quick check of their contributions show them to be making identical reverts to the same articles, in an effort to avoid WP:3RR.
 * Please provide diffs to demonstrate violation. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No need for a 3RR block here as the article has been protected. --  tariq abjotu  03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Emeraude reported by User:172.201.118.102 (Result:warning)
. : Time reported: 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 2 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:50, 2 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 2 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 2 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:47, 2 June 2007
 * I've decided in this case to make a warning rather than blocking, even though the user is clearly aware of 3RR. The reason is that it seems to me that the user believes the reverts to be exempt when they are not. If the revert war continues, I will not be able to do this again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Golfer45 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No violation)
. : 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The editor is a long-time editor and is aware of 3RR. Simply, the editor is moving/removing the same content repeatedly under two IDs, Golfer45 and Kanaye, self-identified as the same person here.


 * Comment: Arcayne, I believe you've made several mistakes. First, the "previous version reverted to:" is a link that leads to the Children of Men article, not Braveheart.  Also, the 3rd and 4th revert is the same edit.  This user has not violated 3RR.  María ( habla  con migo ) 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the four reverts; the last two diffs are the same. Additionally, I'm unsure how you know Golfer45 and Kanaye are the same person. --  tariq abjotu  02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww crap. Sorry about that. Two thingsa at once I can handle. Apparently, not three. As for the two IDs being the same person, the editor revealed as much here. And I made the error; he was at three reverts, not four. My bad.

User:Michaelyoung83 reported by User:Digital Spy Poster (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 22:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:40, 2 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:52, 2 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:59, 2 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:02, 2 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:04, 2 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:06, 2 June 2007
 * Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Links changed to diffs. Digital Spy Poster 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. User has edited page in other ways since the vio, appears to have stopped removing the AfD tag. It looks like the issue is over, so I don't see a block as preventative. Update if user begins again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Barnstormer1000 reported by FreedomAintFree (Result:indef)
. : Time reported: 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:54, 3 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:05, 3 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:13, 3 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:28, 3 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27, 3 June 2007 User received a similar warning on his Talk page from another user at 06:22. This user appears to be a single purpose account. This is the only article he has ever edited.
 * Already indefblocked by . Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Assault11 reported by User:Good friend100 (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:40, 21 May 2007

User has been deleting properly sourced information and he is making personal claims and opinions on the subject. 
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 03:03, 1 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:36, 3 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:49, 3 June 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 01:10, 3 June 2007
 * The three reverts need to be from the same 24 hour period. --Cheers, Komdori 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that the user needs to be at least warned, since he has been persisting this for a while. Deleting sourced information is not allowed. Good friend100 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Warn him then; why file a 3RR report without a 3RR violation? You've also reverted three times, in less than an hour.  Nobody benefits from edit warring; it actually necessitated protection, and now no one can edit. --Cheers, Komdori 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you going to edit something? In any case, Assault11 got his version of the article frozen and I have warned him before. He is even making personal claims.

Don't start a discussion here. Its not the right place anyways. Good friend100 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Article fully protected by another admin. No technical 3RR vio, but user should not have edit warred. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:89.100.51.244 reported by User:Sarah777 (Result:no vio)
. (Sarah777 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

User account created solely for the purpose of inserting POV into this article.
 * Well, not technically a user account at all. But anyway, only 3 rv's given; need more than 3 for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramsey2006 reported by User:LordPathogen (Result:no vio)
. : Time reported: 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

I want to avert an edit war here... The above user attempts repeatedly to insert Mexican-American wikiproject and category tags into the article and talk page. I tend to agree with the comments of User:Crockspot in one of his edits to the article page, "The subject is neither American nor an anchor baby" and "It would be like applying the category "Presidents of the United States" to the Karl Rove article (from the Arellano talk page)." Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only. If she were an American, she would not be notable by Wikipedia for she would not have problems with US immigration authorities. Her son is a US national. Accordingly, reference to Mexican-Americans for both the article and talk page should be deleted for her (Arellano) and instead added to the page created specifically for him by [Ramsey2006]. This user seems to want to have it both ways but to do so is misleading, not honest and compromises the integrity of this article and its talk page.
 * Only two reverts given here, insufficient for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I please ask you to reconsider? From what I read about 3RR, "Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." Please note this user has been blocked on this same article before as well as warned about the article on Illegal Immigration. I stopped participating in the revert war as I could see where it was going... again. Then he would be accusing me of 3RR even though his edit is bogus, right? LordPathogen 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, yes. Still, I can't justify a block for two reverts, especially after only one block. This is the sort of thing for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:WRK reported by User:Emerson7 (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

user User:WRK has made bad-faith efforts to expand the revert war to additional articles.

            


 * The article has been protected, so there's no reason to block WRK (or you, who also violated 3RR). --  tariq abjotu  02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 48hrs)
. : Time reported: 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 02:05, 3 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:48, 3 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:03, 3 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:04, 4 June 2007


 * In the first two reverts, he removed Apollo moon landing hoax accusations from the list, an item he had removed before:  The 3rd and 4th reverts are just simple reverts to previous versions of his. Has been editing tendentiously here (and elsewhere) for weeks now, and was blocked for 3RR on this very page a couple of weeks ago. Was asked to revert himself, but merely deleted the request.  Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As he explained above, the reverts were not all to the same version. The 3rd and 4th reverts were of changed not explained on the talk page, given the controversy around this article all non-minor edits really should be - the last post to the talk page was made by me. This is not an attempt to edit-war on my part.
 * Also, the last revert was of a change by FeloniousMonk that I seemed to be a misunderstanding on his part; I have posted to his talk page about it. Finally, I removed the request to self-revert after FM had already edited to a compromise version and thus made it moot.
 * Additionally, Jayjg is currently in a dispute with me over a different article and would never have come to this article otherwise. The way, the truth, and the light 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay has done the right thing by bringing this possible violation here. Furthermore, who brings to the community's attention your alleged violation has no bearing on the material issue: whether you violated 3rr. Either you violated 3rr or you didn't, and since I've noticed you repeatedly RV'ing others at a number of articles I wouldn't be at all surprised if you did. I would rule on this filing myself, but I've edited the same article, but I can say to whatever admin decides to rule on this that you appear to be a serial reverter. FeloniousMonk 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. Crum375 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Salmoria reported by User:Maggott2000 (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Warning given @ 02:10, 3 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:58, 3 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:21, 3 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:04, 3 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:08, 3 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:13, 3 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 01:37, 4 June 2007
 * Please provide diffs, not just timestamps, and a version reverted to. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not quite right: these are oldids. Need diffs, i.e., when you can see the difference between the revision and the one before. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The issues consist of: The User has been told that the references they keep using are non verified (refer to her talk page), and the links that are verifiable, many do not have the content that they say is being referenced. When they are continually informed of this matter, they result in silly comments on my own talk page. On top of this, you can note that half the comments on my talk page come from a supposedly different User. If they are one and the same User, then they have already been blocked for a similar revert war and nuisance behaviour. The other issue, is that even after fixing 'their edits' with proper referencing and formatting to assist them, they still revert. Maggott2000 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a violation; unfortunately, you also have reverted four times, each of which is clearly marked in the edit history. So, should I block both or block neither? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rules of 3RR I thought were precise. This User was warned, and continued to revert. If you consider the reverting of her reverts as 3RR, then the 3RR rule would fail on every instance. You have to revert to keep the status quo correct. One further revert has occurred, and another person has kindly stepped in. If this block had been enforced, they would not have needed to, and I would not have additional nuisance comments added to my talk page Maggott2000 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I also add that the reverts I did, I did also go through the edits this User made, and if there was approrpiate data then re-added them, referenced them, and when links were not provided, researched them for this User. Maggott2000 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. Any revert counts toward 3RR unless it's of vandalism, a BLP vio or copyvio. The point of 3RR is not "keep the status quo correct" (who's to decide what counts as correct, anyway?), but to stop edit warring. Your reverts counted, too. So, I'm just going to make no blocks at all since I can't fairly block Salmoria without blocking you, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. This has been sorted out now via a neutral admin interception, and the page is how it should be now. I take your point. Case closed Maggott2000 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn reported by User:Turgidson (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 04:08, June 3, 2007,
 * 2nd revert: 06:03, June 3, 2007,
 * 3rd revert: 01:26, June 4, 2007,
 * 4th revert: 03:20, June 4, 2007
 * Article protected by . Petri Kohn strongly urged to stop edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ethel Aardvark reported by User:TeaDrinker (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:15, 1 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:11, 4 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:13, 4 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:46, 4 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:14, 4 June 2007

- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:26, 1 June 2007
 * see also history of Pleistocene megafauna.


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Justanother (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

(removed previous edit without citing any sources and without providing a definition for white-collar-cult, by User:Lsi john) (removed previous edit without citing any sources and without providing a definition for white-collar-cult, by User:Lsi john) Comment Just back from a 72-hour block for 3RR (her 6th such block) and despite a flood of promises on her talk page including one to practice 1RR ("Focus on the principles of 1RR, even for vandalism actually, and instead go directly to the talk page, first"),, formerly went 2RR with me when I made a revision as previously discussed in talk by three editors. This was after edit-warring with User:Lsi john in the same article, Large Group Awareness Training. Again, I was making a change well-discussed on talk and Smee should not have warred with me over it. --Justanother 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 05:03, 4 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:10, 4 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:38, 4 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:42, 4 June 2007

The first two are NOT reverts. The second (2) are, and I apologize. User:Justanother was removing (four) reputable sourced citations from the article. This seems to be an overly too much emphasis on reporting me to 3RR here. There was no 3RR. I admit to the (2) reverts, and I am Sorry for that. But I had taken this page off of my watchlist for a while. I will do so again. I simply find it punitive for this user to report me in this fashion, for (2) reverts, in the hopes that I will get a punitive block. I am trying to focus on other things. I am (trying) to engage the user in polite discussion on the talk page. A newly-involved editor has appeared on the talk page and also commnented that it can be difficult when facing impoliteness at times on the article talk pages - but I have NOT and will NOT violate 3RR here. Smee 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Response from Smee


 * 24 hours, since Justanother has also reverted three times. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I edited once and reverted twice against a WP:OWNER of articles that does not allow anyone that does not agree with her POV to edit an article that she is involved in. --Justanother 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Emerson7 reported by User:WRK (Result:Warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation and general one-person crusade to remove standard succession boxes on several California governor articles such as, ... : Time reported: 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Please see Emerson7's contributions for the mass-reverts being performed on numerous California governor articles. Entire contribution list lately is reverts.

Emerson7 was blocked just a month ago for similar behavior, i.e. making changes without discussion or consensus. Now this is affecting numerous articles and getting ugly. WRK (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User has been warned by another administrator. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. Much obliged.  WRK (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have warned Emerson7. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Evrik reported by User:LordPathogen (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: Removed category Fugitives. Ms. Arellano has an outstanding order for Deporation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and they have publicly stated she is a "fugitive."


 * 2nd revert: Removed category Mexican Criminals. Ms. Arellano has been convicted of using a counterfeit Social Security card which is a felony in the United States.


 * 3rd revert: Restored deleted Mexican American link under "See Also". Ms. Arellano is a Mexican national only and does not fit the description of the category, only the looser defined project. Admin Will Beback specifically stated she does not belong to the category on the Talk page. Not sure why then a link to the Mexican American article is required since she fails the description set forth in the first line of that article, "citizens of the United States of Mexican descent." Seems misleading to readers not familiar with the Arellano article.


 * 4th revert: Inserted category Mexican American Leaders. If, as per admin Will Beback Ms. Arellano does not fall under the category Mexican Americans, why then should she fall under the category  Mexican American Leaders? Seems like basically trying to revert Mexican American category.

Note, user also made no edit comments of use when making these reverts and in general shows extreme POV.


 * This is just one long series of edits, not a series of different reversions. The rule was not violated. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand that distinction... And so it it perfectly OK for him to delete facts, such as the categories criminals and fugitives as he pleases? It's also OK for him to ignore the spirit if not the actual words of a ruling by an Admin? I ask you to please reconsider. LordPathogen 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of WP:3RR explains the distinction. As for the rest, that is a content dispute that ought to be dealt with elsewhere, for instance on the article talk page. Please see WP:DR for that sort of dispute resolution. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Basel15 reported by User:Egyegy (Result: 24h (Bas), 36h (Egy))
. : Time reported: 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:19, 4 June 2007


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

All are the same. This user was warning me about 3RR before making his fourth revert, so he should have known better than to keep reverting all my edits. Egyegy 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for twenty-four hours because of the evidence above and blocked  for being the other party in the edit war. But for Egyegy's edit-warring Basel would not have been able to violate the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 reported by User:Ibn_Shah (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:52, 3 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:23, 4 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:48, 4 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:52, 4 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:00, 4 June 2007

Many reverts are being done to this article. These particular ones are over the use of the word "controversial." Ibn Shah 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been quite a bit of edit-warring at the page, so I have protected it for a period of three days. --  tariq abjotu  00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that was not 3RR, the first was not a revert but an introduction of the word "controversial", not to mention that the administrator SlimVirgin has also been edit-warring there. I've suggested a solution on the talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:76.166.123.129 reported by User:Griot (Result:blocked for legal threats)
. : Time reported: 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

This extremely abrasive anonymous user (see his/her History and Talk) has reverted the article 4 times between 11:58 June 4 and 14:02 June 4. Griot 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs showing four reverts. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears this case is moot, as the user has been blocked for making legal threats. See user's Talk page. Griot 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by SlimVirgin (result: 48 hours)
3RR at by


 * 1st edit 19:00 June 3, removed "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust ..." (objects to "many")
 * 1st revert 02:26 June 4, removed "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust ..."
 * 2nd revert 01:15 June 5, removed "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust ..."
 * 3rd revert 01:19 June 5, removed "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust ..."
 * 4th revert 01:25 June 5, removed "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust ..."

Kendrick has been reverting against multiple editors even though the "many scholars" phrase that he wants to remove is well supported by secondary and tertiary sources. In between these reverts, within the same 24-hour period, he has also added the dubious tag after "many scholars" and reverted when it was removed, making five reverts in 24 hours.
 * Comment


 * 02:36 June 4, tagged "many" as dubious
 * 04:20 June 4, reverted

He has previously been blocked for 3RR three times within a two-week period. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Result: 48 hours. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

In the following revert, Jayjg removes a paragraph, removed previously by an anon, and subsequently re-added.
 * 1st revert: 23:34, 4 June 2007

In the following reverts, Jayjg repeatedly removes the term "racist" and reference to Bernard Lewis.
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:55, 5 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:06, 5 June 2007

Added later: In the last three edits Jayjg reverted to this version. In the first edit he/she did not completly undo the edits, but undid them in partially.Bless sins 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is presented above as Jayjg's first "revert" appears basically unrelated to Anon's removal of the entire section, while for the other three, no previous version is given.Proabivouac 04:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim that the first edit is a "revert" is completely bogus; Bless sins himself complained about the paragraph, and insisted that he was going to remove it himself. I then re-wrote the initial paragraph to deal with his concerns. For him to now insist that I was somehow "reverting" the anon's deletion of the paragraph is the height of bad faith; it's one of the worst examples I've seen of an attempt to game the 3RR rule. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you making bad/illegitimate edits, rather of edit warring. I suggest you self-revert. If you do, I'll withdraw this report.Bless sins 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first edit; who was I edit-warring with or reverting? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the above, I'm recommending a block against Bless sins for a bad faith and rather obvious attempt to game the board. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's evidence that show a pattern of bad faith then a block of Bless sins would be in order. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation - the first edit does not seem to be a revert. Crum375 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the first edit did revert. It removes the following paragraph:
 * "Opponents to the claims of Anti-Arabism blame Arab leaders for trying to segregate Arab-Israelis from Israeli society and undermine loyalty to Israel. They point out that Arab-Israeli leaders who travel to Syria and express support of Hamas and Hizballah, and some Arab citizens who have also expressed support for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish behaviour have helped encourage this:"
 * This paragraph (in a similar form) was removed by an anon, but later restored.Bless sins 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the paragraph that Humus Sapiens restored, and you yourself were threatening to remove? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)\
 * That's not how 3RR works. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bless sins, I restored the paragraph for you. I'm sure you're much happier now. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given Jayjg's latest edit, I don't think this complaint is valid anymore. One of the edits in question have been self-reverted by Jayjg. Bless sins 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It never was valid, as has been determined. Hey, maybe I'm now edit-warring with myself; perhaps you could list that self-revert as my fifth reversion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ilya1166 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (none necessary, as there were multiple reverts over 3).


 * 1st revert: 22:28, June 4, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:04, June 5, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:28, June 5, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:39, June 5, 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:55, June 5, 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:10, June 5, 2007
 * 7th revert: 11:26, June 5, 2007
 * 8th revert: 12:16, June 5, 2007
 * 9th revert: 12:31, June 5, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:24, June 5, 2007 (7 minutes before last revert).


 * Nine reverts is way past a violation of the three-revert rule, but I'll just stay with twenty-four hours. Subsequent blocks won't be so lenient. --  tariq abjotu  17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:82.23.120.74 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (none necessary, as there were multiple reverts over 3)


 * 1st revert: 09:39, June 5, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:24, June 5, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:35, June 5, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:51, June 5, 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:05, June 5, 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:23, June 5, 2007
 * 7th revert: 12:06, June 5, 2007
 * 8th revert: 12:23, June 5, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warned after last edit; however, given edit summaries, user appears not to be new: (e.g., Use of letters rvv, Using a wikilink in an edit summary, etc.). The Evil Spartan 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the editor truly is new and nine reverts is just excessive. Subsequent blocks won't be so lenient. --  tariq abjotu  17:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Fabian Dindeleux (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:42
 * 2nd revert: 16:52
 * 3rd revert: 17:08
 * 4th revert: 17:19

The user's authority to revert four times, rests on his claim that I was vandalising the page. However, I was simply relocating his personalised accusations to my talk page and leaving an appropriate note on the article discussion. This is clearly covered by WP:VAN ( f a b i a n  ) 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Diff of my warning.


 * My opinion? This is starting to look somewhat like a vendetta on your part. See here - A l is o n  ☺ 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the consecutive reports were because of two consecutive rule infractions by the user concerned. Apparently, he has a habit of losing his temper, meaning that the infractions follow in tandem ( f a b i a n  ) 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're claiming 3RR on a talk page? That's a little unorthodox, isn't it? Furthermore, you've been blanking comments by other editors without as much as an edit summary (until much later). What is it about the comments that they absolutely must be deleted? I'm not seeing any WP:NPA violation there, nor vandalism, for that matter. - A l is o n  ☺ 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No block. Seriously, a block here would be way off. Blocking the reporter, on the other hand....Moreschi Talk 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya reported by User:Taprobanus (Result: No violation; protected)
. : Time reported: 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 20:33, 4 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:16, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:33, 5 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:34, 5 June 2007

He has reverted the article 7 times during the last 5 days including edits that go beyond that (if included). All based on the ANI that has been now taken to see here. No demonstrated intention to follow Wiki process. There number of other articles that the above user is currently involved with a revert war with number of editors. Thanks


 * What nonsense! The fact tags arent reverts at all. And just so you know, this story that I am going against ANI is nonsense.  If you can see, Taprobanus is revert warring with Blnguyen, a senior admin and editor here.  Several neutral editors have opposed the use of these propaganda sites as sources on ANI and Taprobanus and his friends continue to defy it.  If anything, they should be blocked for vandalism.  19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * and since the fact tag seems to be causing so much grief, I have just reverted myself to the previous version. I hope this self revert also doesnt count as a revert!  Sarvagnya 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And oh.. btw.. i took a closer look at it.. and what seems to have happened is that User:Lahiru and I have had a near edit conflict as he was also editing at the same time as I was. In his revert he inadvertantly removed a fact tag I had placed.  And within seconds, he brought the fact tag back.  And within seconds after that, I placed a different fact tag in a different section of the article.  The two  different fact tags in question may be seen in these diffs --  and.

Also, if you see, all these reverts and addition of brand new fact tags have happened within seconds of each other.. and hence the confusion. And in any case, I have even reverted my addition of fact tag, which wasnt even a revert! Sarvagnya 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consecutive reverts (i.e. the third and fourth reverts) are counted as one revert toward the 3RR. Nevertheless, I have protected the article for five days due to the revert-warring. --  tariq abjotu  20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mista-X reported by User:Heimstern (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 5:18 3 June


 * 1st revert: 4:19, 5 June
 * 2nd revert: 20:34 5 June
 * 3rd revert: 20:41 5 June
 * 4th revert: 20:48 5 June


 * User has already been blocked for 3RR in the past. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex mond reported by User:Garzo (Result:12h)
. : Time reported: 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:50, 4 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:50, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:48, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 5 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:57, 5 June 2007

New user insisting on unacademic wording of language history. Reverted two admins who happen to be linguists. — Gareth Hughes 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dcrcort reported by User:FateClub (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:28, 1 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:17, 6 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:19, 6 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:24, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:25, 6 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:26, 6 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:28, 6 June 2007
 * 7th revert: 11:33, 6 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:33, 21 April 2007

Comments User was warned about 3RR violations on the same article on April 21. Previously he was warned about vandalism on such page on 1:03, 17 April 2007 and was reported Issues with Dcrcort at Vicente Fox

One of his presumed sock puppets (they are all in Houston) was blocked User:97.99.137.82 reported by User:FateClub Result: 24h Block.

Then appears to have switched to 129.7.91.148
 * 1st revert: 06:40, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:42, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:25, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:44, 5 June 2007

Then switched to 129.7.86.84
 * 1st revert: 05:17, 6 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:25, 6 June 2007

Then to 129.7.94.72
 * 1st revert: 06:12, 6 June 2007

Perhaps to avoid getting blocked again.

--FateClub 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consecutive reverts are considered one revert toward the 3RR. The evidence is a bit confusing, but it looks like there is no violation here. --  tariq abjotu  00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Esatrilhy/User:Getsdeny reported by User:Kingjeff (Result: Indef)
. : Time reported: 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guus_Hiddink&oldid=135940130
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guus_Hiddink&diff=136121996&oldid=135940130
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guus_Hiddink&diff=136171315&oldid=136156020
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guus_Hiddink&diff=136173343&oldid=136172342
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guus_Hiddink&diff=136174457&oldid=136173657

Also must be noted that he is a suspected sock. Kingjeff 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He's already on his 2nd sock of the day. Kingjeff 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He's up to 6 today. Kingjeff 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another admin got to it before me, but all the sockpuppet accounts have been blocked indefinitely. --  tariq abjotu  00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TingMing reported by User:Folic Acid (Result: 2 weeks)
. : Time reported: 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:14, 5 June 2007

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall
 * 1st revert: 21:20, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:45, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:56, 5 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:02, 5 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:14, 5 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:26, 5 June 2007
 * 7th revert: 23:29, 5 June 2007
 * 8th revert: Current revision (23:33, 5 June 2007)


 * Another admin got to this before me, but the user has been blocked for two weeks. --  tariq abjotu  00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:28, 4 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:13, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:12, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:23, 5 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:54, 5 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:58, 6 June 2007

Comment has already been warned several times previously for edit warring and has also been blocked in the past for breaking 3RR previous block log. User also edits anonymously under with the IP 69.117.52.248 which has also broken 3RR on multiple Oasis related articles. 216.21.150.44 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for forty-eight hours; this is the third 3RR block in three weeks. --  tariq abjotu  03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Radiant! (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nine-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:06, June 5, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:19, June 5, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:06, June 5, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:42, June 5, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:48, June 6, 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:18, June 6, 2007
 * 6th revert: 04:31, June 6, 2007
 * 7th revert: 04:37, June 6, 2007
 * 8th revert: 04:40, June 6, 2007
 * 9th revert: 06:24, June 6, 2007


 * Has been blocked for edit warring many times before .  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week per previous history. Moreschi Talk 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.72.217.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result:stale)
. : Time reported: 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:05, 5 June 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 22:33, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:47, 6 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 03:41, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 04:57, 6 June 2007
 * User was not warned before fourth revert. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:67.142.130.25/User:67.142.130.16 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:)
. /: Time reported: 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:39, 6 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:39, 6 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:46, 6 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:59, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:23, 6 June 2007

Socks of, who has had numerous IPs blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations in the last several days, requiring the semi-protection of three articles so far. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fourdee reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 22:35, 6 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:37, 6 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:39, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:44, 6 June 2007


 * Editor keeps trying to remove a reference for mass murder, and the phrase The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries (e.g., ) and add the phrase The Germans also characterized the process as "eradication" (e.g. ). Is now using complex reverts to game the 3RR rule; for example, the first revert adds his preferred phrase, the second removes the "mass murder" reference, the third removes the phrase "The slaughter was...", and the fourth removes both the "mass murder" reference and "The slaughter was..." phrase. Is well aware of the WP:3RR, but has claimed that he can remove the material he doesn't like "ad infinitum" because it "defames and libels" Nazi Germany to say that it participated in the mass murder of Jews. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. Although he really was not warned about the 3RR prior to the final revert, he's been around for awhile; I'm sure he's heard of the 3RR. --  tariq abjotu  23:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dcrcort reported by User:FateClub (Result: 24h (Dcr), 24h (Fat))
. : Time reported: 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:30 7 June 2007

Roughly the same content
 * 1st revert: 11:36, 6 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 3:02, 7 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:30, 7 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:23, 7 June 2007

Partial blanking of the above content
 * 5th 7 June 2007

Diff of 3RR warnings:
 * 1st warning 01:33, 21 April 2007
 * 2nd warning: 13:50, 6 June 2007

He also uses Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dcrcort of which 97.99.137.82 was blocked on May 31

This user's edit warring caused the same article to be protected on 21 April 2007


 * Both users were revert-warring and both users have been blocked for twenty-four hours. --  tariq abjotu  01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:68.217.1.37 reported by User:Leuko (Result:No block.)
. : Time reported: 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:26, 4 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:46, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:20, 5 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:50, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:44, 6 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:27, 5 June 2007

Repeated insertion of link, refuses to discuss on talk page. Leuko 01:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Now multiple editors involved reverting IP address' reverts. Leuko 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No vio - the last rever is 9 hours past the 24 hour mark. Viridae Talk 04:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both reporter and reported need to stop edit warring. Neither side is technically violating 3RR, but both are coming close. Remember that edit warring users can be blocked even if they don't technically violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 31 hours both)
. : Time reported: 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 6 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:44, 7 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:12, 7 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:47, 7 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:24, 7 June 2007

User continues to add irrelevant material violating WP:Undue weight. Even though that issue was raised on the talk page several times. --Kuban Cossack 18:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being not involved in the conflict, from the provided differences I rather see that Kuban kazak was removing new info added by Hillock65. Then, Kuban kazak, if you want someone to be blocked, it should be you who needs to be blocked for vandalism and disruption. Just my 2 cents. Novelbank 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. this is the user who vandalizes the article to make a point (WP:POINT) and admits it! [. The nerve to accuse others!--[[User:Hillock65|Hillock65]] 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Both blocked for 31 hours by . --  tariq abjotu  23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:74.92.161.249 reported by User:Geni (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

version being reverted to is likely hoax.Geni 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked for twenty-four hours per the evidence above (and for perpetuating a hoax). --  tariq abjotu  23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kd lvr reported by User:TREYWiki (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * User continues to add removed schedule, after being told about WP:NOT-- T. Wiki  23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Report is not accurate, as it several of the given diffs are of the same revision; however, four reverts are clearly present in the history. Blocked for 72 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:4.252.154.88 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 4 hour)
. : Time reported: 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17:05, June 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 7:21, June 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:33, June 7, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:52, June 7, 2007

4 hour since is a clearly new user. JoshuaZ 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Fourdee (Result: No violation / block)
. : Time reported: 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User is persistently violating 3RR as part of POV-pushing campaign (among other behavior problems I will raise separately). If other users are going to be blocked in same POV/citation dispute, he should be blocked, per the clear policy that all editors who violate 3RR in an edit war be blocked. He also laughs about violations of WP:CIVIL by his friends (and even the friend says he should've been warned for it, and friend also makes veiled threat of violence  on Slim's talk page which is also ignored by SlimVirgin).

He knows better than to violate 3RR and there is no excuse for it. There should not be a double standard here. These reverts do not fall under any exception, and if another used involved in this was blocked, Slim should be blocked as well. The 3RR applies to all parties. Basically acts like he Owns the article and feels it is his prerogative to revert as many people as often as he wants without regard to 3RR. Needs to be sanctioned.


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:47, 5 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:36, 6 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:44, 6 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:15, 6 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:12, 6 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 14:48, 7 June 2007

Isn't SlimVirgin a female? You don't need to list 6 reverts - the 4 reverts on 6 June are enough to show she violated 3RR (if she did revert to the same version four times without good reason). --Kaypoh 03:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please show in more detail how each of these is a reversion many of them aren't obviously separate reversions. Furthermore, some of them are right after each other and therefore would constitute one reversion. Also, note that the claimed veiled threat of violence is just a discussion of the notion of a personal attack in the sense of WP:NPA. JoshuaZ 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on something. Do these all need to be reverts of some portion of the same material?  I was blocked yesterday for nothing of the sort - I had broken out reverts of separate material into 3 separate edits, made them all within a couple minutes of each other (intended as consecutive, separate treatments of totally distinct material), and then after that, those changes were reverted, and in 2 immediately consecutive edits  I reverted that reversion - that should've been treated as only 2 reversions, not even three by my understanding, definitely not four! I think I was wrongly blocked and if so would like it removed from my record or some note made if possible.  If not, Slim's behavior was almost identical.  If the reverts must be of some portion of the same material perhaps neither of us violated 3RR (haven't looked closely at slim's case yet), because between consecutive edits and the fact that there are only 2 reverts of the same material in my case, it's nowhere close to a 3RR violation and I was wrongly blocked.  Fourdee 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the purportedly veiled threat, "Though the guy'd better be happy that he's a couple of thousand km's away from me" - I don't see any way to read that other than as some kind of mild threat or expression of will to do violence. Don't really care but I find that SlimVirgin and Jaygj will pepper people with frivolous warnings if they are on the other side of a dispute, and ignore or relish in such violations if it's by their freinds. Fourdee 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of these are consecutive edits, and there are no three reverts over a 24 hour period. I know you're upset about being blocked for 3RR on this article, but tit-for-tat complaints about something that happened two days ago aren't helpful. The lesson of the block was not to try to get back at the people you think responsible for getting you blocked, but rather to stop edit-warring. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a violation of 3RR either. As for User:Fourdee's "wrongly blocked" - that was reviewed and declined by another admin. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I did was no different. "Another admin" was apparently in error.  It wasn't an edit war of any sort, it was two reverts on my part, not three, not four.  The editor who reviewed it was probably biased from what he said - both the one who blocked and the one who reviewed, not to sound paranoid, seemed like they had a marked interest in judaism etc. - I don't understand why people don't refrain from making admin decisions in situations where they have a personal interest and bias in the dispute.  Also I think only one of Slim's edits that I listed was consecutive.  Sorry, I just don't see the difference.  Seems to me a clear double-standard is at play.  Admins protecting each other, admins bullying users to enforce their POV, etc.  It's not even really worth fighting over because I don't see how I can win this.  Admins are never wrong, people who challenge them are always wrong - I'm sure there are exceptions but that seems to generally be the case.  The real lesson here is stay away from articles admins are squatting on.  The fact is I got treated like a holocaust-revisionist-nazi vandal for an honest attempt to bring balance to the article as part of an ongoing personal project of which this was just a random selection.  Fourdee 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense intended but Humus sapiens is another person with a heavy interest in Jewish-related articles listed on his home page and in his edit history. It seems pretty clear to me that it's next to impossible to separate your personal bias from admin-related decisions and the honorable thing to do would be to recuse yourself from even commenting on something like this.  User:SlimVirgin, User:Jayjg, User:Humus Sapiens, User:Tariqabjotu, User:JoshuaZ are all admins with a history of or explicit interest in Judaism and/or Holocaust-related articles and User:Sandstein I don't know about but he exhibited a clear bias toward the subject.  How can you even try to be impartial about a case where two of this "gang" (no particular meatpuppetry or conspiracy implied) have decided that someone is trying to "euphemize" the holocaust?  This has all appearances of a case of ganging up, intentional or not.  Doesn't seem like the admin privilege should be used to enforce a POV.  Really doesn't seem right at all.  If the tables were turned, I think you'd be crying holy hell.  Fourdee 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I too find it questionable whether SlimVirgin truly violated the three-revert rule. In particular, reverts two and three are consecutive and revert four is actually reverts two and three. At this point a block for violating the 3RR (again, not clear that it was violated) will be punitive rather than preventative; the edit war seems to have subsided. --  tariq abjotu  11:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't close to a 3RR violation. The diffs are spread over 42 hours, not 24; 2 and 3 are back-to-back; and 5 is an edit of the previous editor's addition (to get rid of the phrase "retentive purposes"), not a revert to the version before his edit. That leaves three edits (which I think were reverts) in 42 hours.
 * If Fourdee's recent involvement in this article is, indeed, part of an "ongoing personal project," as he writes above, then we may need administrative assistance. His editing includes the removal of the terms "mass murder" and "slaughter" because they are POV, and his replacement of them with the term "eradication project," which he says is NPOV. He removed that the Roma and other groups were "persecuted and killed," because it's POV, and insists we use the term "targeted."  He writes on talk that the term "mass murder" is a value judgment, and that "As some people characterized as having 'participated in mass murder' were not charged with, or convicted, accused or even plausibly guilty of a war crime or murder, this sort of wording is defamatory and potentially libelous of some living persons."  He insists that we "provide citation for members of every branch of the bureaucracy being convicted of mass murder ..."


 * The 20 edits he made to this article between June 3 and 6 (his only involvement in this article) were either additions of material along these lines, or reverts when other editors removed it. If it continues, administrative help would be appreciated. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:155.144.251.120 reported by User:Wizzard2k (Result:stale)
. : Time reported: 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:14, June 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:16, June 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:20, June 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:23, June 7, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:50, June 7, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:28, June 7, 2007

User:Flaviodp305 reported by User:Mosquera (Result:stale)
. : Time reported: 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:20, June 6, 2007

This user reverts to a previous version with grammatical errors and an uncited BLP claim that a star of this TV show is a drug addict.


 * 1st revert: 00:03
 * 2nd revert: 11:42
 * 3rd revert: 17:15
 * 4th revert: 23:23


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:54

User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result:stale)
. : Time reported: 11:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:59, 8 June 2007
 * 2nd revert:  10:51, 8 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:40, 8 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:55, 7 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:57, 7 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 00:30, 6 June 2007

User TiconderogaCCB is not a new user and has engaged in edit warring with a number of users. He has utilized multiple accounts in order to by pass 3rr blocks including   ,  ,  ,. He has reverted the article over 100 times over the past few months into a version that promotes Academic Boosterism  which is against Wikipedia policy as well as copyright infringement in an article  when he directly copy and pasted [ ] onto the article. He has been warned several times and was given a final warning  but whas responded by removing the warnings from his user page. Even after the article was semi protected he has continued to vandalize the article and ignored talk page conversations.

User:Matthew reported by User:Matthew (Result: No block)
Matthew violated three-revert rule on the article Utopia (Doctor Who) while enforcing our image policy. Matthew 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that Matt's 5 reverts boil down to whether or not a particular source is reliable or not. Myself and two other editors have come to the conclusion that it is; Matthew and no other editors think that it isn't. The page is now protected at his version, because Majorly didn't want to get involved in the dispute, and he was the last editor before protection.--Rambutan (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This does look like it might be a 3RR violation, but because the article is protected, there is no need to apply a block. --  tariq abjotu  15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)