Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive51

User:SeiteNichtGefunden reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:46, June 18, 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:49, June 18, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:26, June 19, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:57, June 19, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:19, June 19, 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:26, June 20, 2007
 * 6th revert: 14:14, June 20, 2007

SeiteNichtGefunden recieved 24 hour block for 3RR and vandalism on 14 May, 2007.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for repeat offense, tendentious editing, and consistently referring to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism". MastCell Talk 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 reported by User:Bouha (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 06:17, June 20, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:15, June 20, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:26, June 20, 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:34, June 20, 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:42, June 20, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 18 June 2007

Please note that the user was warned about WP:3RR previously, but deleted this warning. This is the previous warning


 * Please also note that this seems to be the same person (in Houston) as was blocked as User:68.90.246.113 for this exceedingly offensive edit Bouha 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bouha, interesting observation. On my personal page I found this edit on my personal page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collounsbury where at the end there is an offensive (no skin off my nose really, but...) usage in Arabic implying a slur against black Africans. (collounsbury 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

User previously warned about 3RR, but deleted message from talk page. This is the diff of the 3RR warning.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the warning noted by Evilclown93 was the second such warning, and was given after the violation. The beforehand warning was given at 12:49, 18 June 2007, as shown at the links given by Bouha and (in more standard format) by me, above. -- Lonewolf BC 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

✅ Blocked for 24 hours.  Evilclown93 (talk)  15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 reported by collounsbury 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:23 20 June, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:24 20 June, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:05 20 June, 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:39 20 June, 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:28 20 June, 2007
 * 6th revert: 12:57 20 June, 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:18 20 June, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:46

Please specify exact page, version reverted to, at least diffs of the 4 reverts, and if the user is new, a diff of a 3RR warning.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) User refuses to discuss edits. UPDATE: Sorry first time have been moved to report.

I've reformatted the report.  Evilclown93 (talk)  13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, as I have properly seen this, the result is a warning, as the 3RR warning was issued after the 7 reverts in this case, specifically.  Evilclown93 (talk)  13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken, Ec93, and that a mere warning to [User:Mariam83:Mariam83] seems like quite an under-response, given the true circumstances. As may be seen from the below, Mariam83 was first warned about 3RR two days ago, was warned again after having made four of the seven reverts to Maghreb today, but then went on to make the other three of them anyway.  This troublesome editor has been breaking 3RR left and right across several articles, after being warned against it on 18 June.  She(?) has also been making POV edits to the point of vandalism and against consensus, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. -- Lonewolf BC 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am mistaken :(...It should be 48 hours. I'm alerting the first admin I see.  Evilclown93 (talk)  14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, apologies and thanks to Evilclown93 for the assistance on standardizing format. Second, wish to draw attention to the racist language that Bouha noted above in the separate complaint, as replicated elsewhere in talk pages. Quite inflammatory and odd. collounsbury 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Mahgreb violation, put into standard format:
 * 1st revert: 09:23, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:24, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:05, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:39, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:28, 20 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 12:57, 20 June 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:18, 20 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 18 June 2007
 * Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 11:46, 20 June 2007

-- Lonewolf BC 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

✅ Blocked for 24 hours.  Evilclown93 (talk)  15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:XGustaX (Result:Article Protected)
. : Time reported: 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

You should have the diffs of the reverts, as it easier to judge...  Evilclown93 (talk)  14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes two to edit war. If he has reverted it 5 times, that means the other person has to have reverted at least 4 times.  I think this is better to protect and talk it out, discuss it instead of block both parties involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jinxmchue reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:23, June 17, 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:13, June 19, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:04, June 19, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, June 19, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, June 17, 2007

The 3RR rule applies to every revert after the third one. Having 3 reverts in 24 hours, but not more, is not a violation.  Evilclown93 (talk)  16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours (repeat offense); there were several reverts after those listed above, including what appear to be 4 within a 24-hour frame, as well as a clear violation of the spirit of the policy and edit-warring against consensus. MastCell Talk 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Ilya1166 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 48hr)
. : Time reported: 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:46, June 20, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:53, June 20, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:17, June 20, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:31, June 20, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:44, June 20, 2007 (note, this edit is with his IP, : duck test says it's him, given the contributions on the same subject of WWII and pro-Russian POV).


 * User has been previously blocked for 3RR (9RR in fact), and has been copiously warned for it (see talk page history; some conversation removed). I almost reported this user for violating 3RR just a few days ago, right after previous block, until I realized that he was reverting some clearly false information. This, however, is not clearly false, and he knows better, as he's been blocked.
 * If the duck test is not enough to prove the IP is the same person (I think it is), I'll file something at WP:CHU, if need be. However, I believe the evidence is strong enough. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the checkuser results: Requests for checkuser/Case/Wassermann. The Evil Spartan 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll not get a confirmation that a certain IP is a certain user... That's private information. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For 3RR violation, and ban evasion, I most certainly will if it's the same person. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant, alone has four reverts re-adding the category. Originally added by, reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Blocking for 48 hours. Thanks/wangi 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well thank you. I hadn't realized that someone else originally added it first. The Evil Spartan 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:One IP blocked; another warned)
. : Time reported: 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:16, 19 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:19, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:28, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:04, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:22, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:53, 20 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:03, 20 June 2007

This IP has already been blocked once for the same offense on the same article, and this user (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 12.150.11.25) has been blocked under multiple IP addresses and his/her behavior has resulted in the semi-protection of this and other articles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another sysop blocked this IP and I warned 70.109.54.8, a suspected sock of same.--Chaser - T 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:75.73.188.53 reported by User:Knverma (Result: stale)
. : Time reported: 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 01:49, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 00:59, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:51, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 08:51, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:55, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 08:32, 20 June 2007 (and the following two small edits)
 * 4th revert: 16:04, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 16:03, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:09, 20 June 2007, same as above
 * 6th ervert: 19:00, 20 June 2007 reverts the following edit: 17:28, 20 June 2007 (same as second)

Request you to please also look at what disruptions were reverted. It appears to me that those disruptions were made only to block my IP? 75.73.188.53 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And should some action not be taken for user who was constantly deleting information? 75.73.188.53 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a Quixtar distributor, 75.73.188.53 also has financial conflict of interest. This is apparent in his attempts to add too many corporate sites and claiming on talk page that he (or Quixtar?) is not able to sell products because of controversies like in this article, and his belief  that this article should be used by people to know about cost effectiveness of products and other info for deciding whether to join the business. --Knverma 04:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JGoldwater reported by User:SigmaEpsilon (Result: 48hr)
. : Time reported: 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20-Jun at 15:28 UTC


 * 1st revert: 20-Jun at 15:37 UTC
 * 2nd revert: 20-Jun at 16:10 UTC
 * 3rd revert: 20-Jun at 17:50 UTC
 * 4th revert: 20-Jun at 18:11 UTC


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20-Jun at 17:29 UTC

User:JGoldwater reported by User:BigDT (Result: 48hr)
. : Time reported: 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:08, 19 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:28, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:37, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:10, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:50, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:11, 20 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:29, 20 June 2007

This user is a single purpose account, the majority of whose edits have been to add this loaded claim to a biography of a living person. Thompson, a radio talk show host for ABC, did a radio spot for a company. The co-founder of this company had legal problems 10 years ago. As soon as the story broke, this guy was shown the door. All radio talk show hosts do hundreds of commercial spots - this story has nothing to do with Thompson. All neutral editors who have examined it have opined that the edit is inappropriate in a BLP. (Innuendo, bias, and undue weight, even if sourced, have no place in a BLP.) This SPA insists on readding the claim repeatedly, including twice after being warned on the article talk page of 3RR. --BigDT 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Undog and User:208.45.160.83 reported by User:Haemo (Result: article protected)
., : Time reported: 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:44, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:44, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:03, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 03:44, 20 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:56, 20 June 2007

I'm reporting both these users, since they've been edit-warring basically non-stop on this article for the past two days. It's impossible to edit it under such a circumstance. I'm also worried about some of the incivility in edit summaries like "lol, you don't even understand it Mr. 46 counts of rape.", "Need paragraph to explain to kids and idiot racists that not every charge is true – as you and others try to imply", "What the hell is "insourced" info. I think you mean "unsourced" info? ".

The IP appears to be dynamic, and the edit-war is most of the recent history, so I'm protecting instead of blocking.--Chaser - T 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TheManWhoLaughs reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: resolved)
. -- Tenebrae 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This editor has received several warnigns (some now on his archived talk page) for his behavior, and was blocked for 12 hours yesterday.

His first edit in this instance, flagged for fannish, non-encyclopedic tone, was made at 20:42, 19 June 2007. His reversions follow:


 * 1st revert: 16:53, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:00, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:57, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:30, 20 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:34, 20 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:04, 20 June 2007

I would like to say that I only reverted the article because im trying to help it. He is just trying to pick a fight with me because he thinks he can get me in trouble. TheManWhoLaughs 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Other sysops: No blocks yet, please. Trying to resolve this here first.--Chaser - T 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.247.110.93 reported by User:Enviroboy (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:48 June 20 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:00, 20 June 2007


 * There's a technical violation here, but the IP is now discussing at his/her talk page and the article talk, so I'm inclined to let this go unless there's another reversion.--Chaser - T 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This user reverted six times in total (within less than 1.5 hours) but only once after I posted the warning.  He/she now seems to be content with discussing the article rather than continuing the edit war.  ~ Enviroboy TalkContribs - 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Misou reported by User:Stan En (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts within 8 hours by  Misou !!! he was already warned. He filed a complain against RookZero and me here -- Stan talk 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Technical violation, but Misou has gone to talk page, so let's see how this shakes out.--Chaser - T 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok just read your comments . I agree ! -- Stan talk 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

All from June 20:


 * 1st revert: 13:18 straight revert of this diff: 10:38
 * 2nd revert: 21:11 reverting this diff: 03:21, June 18
 * 3rd revert: 22:09 reverting the previous two diffs to this version: 21:11
 * 4th revert: 23:27 He again removed the same two sentences from the Jihad section. He shoved something like them lower down the article, but this is still a revert.
 * 5th revert: 23:47 where he undid part of this diff: from June 16th, where I added the word “worldwide.”

Itaqallah is a very experienced editor has been very active at this article for weeks, he just went too far today. Arrow740 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the diffs closely but the first diff was discussed before in detail and a consensus was achieved. I don't call that diff a revert. The editor who added that has probably only one edit to this article. --Aminz 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Aminz once made that same change. I can dig it up if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow740 (talk • contribs)
 * I apparently took the reverse position as Itaqallah took here. The issue was settled back then. --Aminz 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You two don't own the article. It's still a revert. Arrow740 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrow, you are really stretching it when it came to reverts. Every edit that removes so much as a letter is undoing part of another edit (because obviously someone had to put it there in the first place). Thus, to suggest someone is "reverting" an edit made a couple days ago is questionable. Itaqallah is not the only party that has been involved in edit-warring recently. I was considering protecting the article, but I don't believe that would be a good idea just two days before the article's supposed to make its Main Page appearance. On that note... can you all please simmer down, at least for the upcoming days? --  tariq abjotu  02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you guys are all being pretty lenient today. This is five solid reverts, but no block. Changing "worldwide domination" to "dominance" when I had changed it the other way a couple days ago is certainly a revert. Strange that you didn't block him, tariqabjotu. Arrow740 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Four very obvious reverts and another one which was not so obvious, but still a revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tweak to 24 hours since the last two were consecutive and thus actually 4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Aminz above that the first diff should definitely not be considered as part of an edit-war, which is what this page - and this rule - is for. There is now and has long been overwhelming consensus on Talk:Islam that Itaqallah's edit is correct. The notion that "Islam" means "peace" is nothing but a popular misconception. It is perverse to punish anyone for removing ranks falsehoods from mainspace even if they act alone: how much less sense this makes when the edit followed discussion and a clear and longstanding consensus. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised to learn that Arrow740 himself disagreed with this edit (do you, Arrow?) This is not WP:AN/GOTCHA!, and it should not have been included in this report. As the last two diffs were consecutive, that makes only three reverts: Itaqallah should be unblocked.Proabivouac 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz argued for it before and it is possible to make a bad case for it from the sources. There have been revert-wars about this same topic recently. The point is that itaqallah has not followed the rules and is deleting sourced, topical material from Islam while simultaneously staying at 3 reverts in other places to keep blog postings in articles. Arrow740 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1st revert should be discounted per evidence presented here. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Crockspot (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Eleemosynary has made at least eight reverts today to User:Willie Peter, all of them attacking three editors without cause or any kind of real evidence. I'm not well versed on the use of sock templates, but I believe that these are being improperly applied as well.

User has two previous blocks for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.


 * As a view of the diffs will show, each revert made restored warning templates to the above-mentioned user's (most likely, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Crockspot) User page, and explanation of the actions to his Talk page. As restoring blanked warnings is reverting vandalism, 3RR does not apply.  As restoring comments that elucidate warnings is not vandalism, 3RR does not apply.  Alas, another attempt by Crockspot (and his various other identities) to game the system has gone down in flames.


 * User:Willie Peter is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet created, most likely, byUser:Crockspot with the past 24 hours as a way to circumvent 3RR on the George Soros page. I have indicated as such on Willie_Peter's user page, and he has removed all the warnings on the talk and user pages using the exact same language and bluster that Crockspot usually does.  Restoring warnings and reverting vandalism do not violate 3RR.  This report is an attempt to game the system by Crockspot/Willie_Peter.  Diffs to come. Stay tuned. Eleemosynary 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're making some pretty bold claims with zero evidence to back it up. You're harrassing and attacking three editors in one edit. You need a time out. - Crockspot 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs, and your edit history, give compelling evidence of your actions. I'm harassing no one, and I'm beginning to think one, and only one, editor is involved here, and it's you.  Stop trying to game the system.  You're going to continue to be called on it. Eleemosynary 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the diffs... the diffs... Which diffs were you referring to? My "bogus claim" is that you have repeatedly and still continue to revert another user's page. Oh, and that you continue to personally attack me and attempt to damage my good reputation. Do you guys plan these Jeremiah Johnson-esqe attacks over email, or what? Did you draw the short straw this week? - Crockspot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to review the George Soros talk page for the diffs in question. I'd be happy to post them here. Yes, I have reverted (and will continue to revert) your removal of warnings on your sock/meatpuppet's user page. Your removing them is vandalism. As for your "good reputation," nothing in your edit history points to this. As for your tirade, it appears you've grown frustrated with being found out. If you'd only refrain from trying to game the system, you might find your editing here less stressful. Cheers. Eleemosynary 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please some one stop this out of control vandal, Eleemosynary. Now the simple questions that begs in this is... no matter what article I choose to start to edit, those WP:OWN (in which Eleemosynary seem to be following that M.O.) will accuse me of being somebodies "sock puppet", Yes? So, please tell Eleemosynary stop being a WP:DICK Willie Peter 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Wow... two full-throated (although incorrect) cites of Wiki policy from an account not yet one day old. You're fooling no one. Eleemosynary 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You must have watched to many Johnny Carson shows with Carnac the Magnificent. Do you place your RJ45 cable in you ear WP:Beans and pop these truths out? It's clear your agenda and any one with common sense can see.Willie Peter 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you even filed a checkuser request yet? I'd like to clear this up as soon as possible. You're wasting my time. - Crockspot 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your breathless exhortations to "run a checkuser" on yourself have, thankfully, narrowed down your ruse. Thanks for letting us know you're actually using a meatpuppet.  That should save some time.  Eleemosynary 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you wiki-slander? I'm don't know Crockspot, never meet him, I don't have any outside contact with him. So, is this your way to bully new editors you don't agree with?  It would seem you have been empowered to continue this, with out stop of control.  So much for WP:AGF.Willie Peter 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your grammar was better when you were posting as Crockspot. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Chaser, I see your point in protecting that page. The admins can sort out the diff history, and the serial blanking, before long.  I'd ask you to keep an eye on meatpuppet Willie Peter, as he seems intent on blanking warnings, and even legitimate comments on this very page.  To be continued. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the "Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic." at the top of this page. Let's try to follow that.--Chaser - T 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument from me. I'm going to bed. - Crockspot 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected this page. This is a fairly pointless template when we have checkuser (which may or may not be appropriate here). Suspected sock puppets is that way.--Chaser - T 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks far more like a meatpuppet, as Crockspot has been running the "please run a checkuser on me" goad all evening. If Willie Peter appears again to continue reverting pages on which "Crockspot" and "Bellowed," are flirting with 3RR, that's gonna be pretty damning. Eleemosynary 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of flirting with 3RR, very nicely done just now, how you narrowly avoided violating 3RR on Bill Moyers. You seem to be an expert at it. You go sort your diffs now. I'm done here tonight. - Crockspot 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I didn't even use a meatpuppet. Thanks for stopping in to say you're "done" for the second time.  Eleemosynary 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:WookMuff reported by User:Thejermdotorg (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This is a long existing user that should know about the 3rr. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:70.105.50.115 reported by User:Nescio (Result: article protected)
. : Time reported: 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Despite my warning he violated 3RR user continues reverting while removing the warning which is evidence he has seen it. As an aside for the same behaviour the page was semi-protected several days ago because the IP then started alternating its address to circumvent 3RR. Maybe again semi? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This was an all-around edit war without good attempts by anyone on the talk page, so I'm treating everyone equally by protecting it.--Chaser - T 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 reported by User:172.144.51.199 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 21 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:30, 20 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:33, 20 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:37, 20 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:47, 21 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:41, 21 June 2007

Comment: User is removing, not archiving, remarks citical of him. First Otto4711 removed the comments from the original poster, but when I restored them as a neutral third party, Otto4711 again removed them. He has reverted at least four times within less than 24 hours from 1630 on the 20th to 347 on the 21st. As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Otto4711 this user has been blocked twice before for 3rr violations and also deletion review trolling (there is also some critism of the user's AfD editing on the talk page as well). The user should not remove warnings and address criticism from previously unblocked editors rather than just delete it.

Editors are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages. Archiving is preferred, but there's no policy mandate. There's also a 3RR exception for userspace.--Chaser - T 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Estevanbonilla reported by User:Kingjeff (Result: mild warning)
. : Time reported: 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

The 1st revert comes from this edit I made deleting news. Wikipedia is not here to provide news. News is against Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor is almost brand new and hadn't been warned, so I left a very mild warning on his talk page and a message on Kingjeff's talk page. I think this situation could have been handled a lot better.--Chaser - T 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rillian reported by User:Jimfbleak (Result: no vio)
This user keeps (five times so far) adding a spammy dab to Black Swan in addition to the existing dab. I could block, but since I've reverted twice, I'm a bit close. I'd welcome any assistance. Jimfbleak

This is spread out over three days, so it isn't a violation. I'll direct recent parties to the talk page.--Chaser - T 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeragito reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

User is technically already in violation, but was not formally warned until after the 6th revert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8th revert:
 * P.S. I am not actively involved in editing Ethiopia, but I do keep it on my watchlist, and may be too closely involved to have blocked him myself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours and stern message coming on talk page.--Chaser - T 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:TDC (Result: blocks)
. : Time reported: 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:26, June 10, 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:48, June 21, 2007 re-insertion of outside article links I removed
 * 2nd revert: 15:49, June 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:54, June 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:08, June 21, 2007 – reverting my removal of “political bloggers” when only one is cited

Comment: As an experienced editor Badagnani should be well aware of the rules involving 3RR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani blocked 36 hours for second 3rr violation. TDC blocked three days for parole violation and umpteenth 3rr violation.--Chaser - T 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:=CJK= reported by User:Bignole (Result: blocks)
. Time reported: 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Original version - Call his first edit the original version
 * History

CJK was caught in an edit war with another editor. They both technically broke the 3RR in the heat of the moment, and were subsequently warned about said action. What I am reporting is CJK's disregard for that warning as he alone continued to play the revert game after his first warning. He was eventually warned more than once, because he blanked his talk page to make it appear as though no one had warned him.

At this point, User:HalfShadow warned CJK for conducting an edit war on the page.
 * Reverts
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Reverts after the warning
 * 
 * 
 * Warned a second time
 * Blanked immediately
 * Reverts after warning (cont.)
 * 
 * Warned a third time
 * Blanked immediately

The article was initially protected, but admins then blocked two participants in the edit war.--Chaser - T 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Levine2112 reported by User:Avb (Result: warning)
. : Time reported: 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:04, 19 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 04:14, 21 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:28, 21 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:35, 21 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:49, 21 June 2007

Comment: No recent warnings but this editor is well aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked before. AvB &divide; talk  00:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This has gone to the talk page. I'm going to let it ride for now, but next revert earns a block.--Chaser - T 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

UserIP:24.185.105.199 reported by User:Badagnani (result: blocks)
. Badagnani 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

COMMENT FROM 24.185.105.199 All of my edits to Sesame Chicken were to remove copyvio links placed by the editor who is reporting me, and to improve the article. I've added ingredients, removed some inaccurate info and tagged for cleanup. User:Badagnani is just upset that I won't let him add a photo that by his own admission he is not the rightsholder of. 24.185.105.199 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

24.185 blocked for 24 hours. Badagnani's previous block for 3rr extended to 48 hours.--Chaser - T 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HeadMouse reported by User:Metros (Result: 72hr block)
. : Time reported: 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 01:52 22 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:01 22 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:04 22 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:07 22 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:15 22 June 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:20 22 June 2007
 * 7th revert 02:43 22 June 2007 (2 consecutive reverts, bundled here as one diff)

User has recent blocks for incivility, disruption, and 3RR on the same page. This all has occurred within a couple of hours of the full protection on the article expiring. Metros 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It may also be worth noting that the editor in question kept the promise he made after his last block, to "fight my side of the battle" upon his return.  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd or 4th edit war this month, suggest 84+ hour block. -- trey  02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His personal attacks continue this moment. -- trey
 * I've seen enough. HeadMouse is blocked for 72 hours. - Krakatoa  Katie  02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:Tamokk (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Sosomk is again revert warring, failing to come to the talk page, while, after being blocked over the article several times, technically he is not violating 3RR. 1) Recently Sosomk uniliterally initiated a voting on the talk page of the article to revert (small) edits I had made to the economy section. I complied with the result of the voting, despite that Sosomk's economy section was disputed for factual inaccuracy and POV, and that except agitating for his version, he failed to answer arguments and was incivil. Now I have written a new and expanded section, which again is being reverted by S. without any merit. 2) Sosomk also had changed the etymology section of the article, promoting something what a medieval theologian has stated to a fact status, and downgrading scientifically referenced material to an alternative. Despite that he was given an explanation he pushes rv on this issue too.


 * As Sosomk has a long history of rv warring and being incivil, I ask for an administrator familiar with the backstory to consider the case. Tamokk 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Russianname reported by User:hillock65 (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

This user wages revert war while the mediation that I initiated is still underway. I also requested the full protection on the article on a separate board. He has been warned against waging revert wars and was previously banned for the same wage war but on a user talk page. Doing this while mediation is in progress is unacceptable. --Hillock65 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Russianname doesn't want to disscuss the problems of the article and still does things in a Bad Faith, neglecting views of others editors and accusing them groundlessly in anti-Russian sentiments. Please calm down this edit warrior.--Alex Kov 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, your content dispute has been raging ever since the page appeared. Don't you think that something is wrong with it? Anyway, let's hope that some trigger-happy sysop will not reign in clubbing those users who discuss content and strive to achieve consensus. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 12:26, 22 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:36, 22 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:41, 22 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:47, 22 June 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:15, 22 June 2007

I have the impression that the report is without merit. Both parties indulge in a revert war, although, unlike Alex Kov, Russianname contributes some content as well. He has made efforts to discuss the situation on talk. I hope the ongoing mediation will help defuse the situation. Having the page protected may help both parties to cool it. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it isn't Ghirla, who jumps from one message board to the other advocating in bias for Russian editors and harasssing admins who dare to take action. Any user whatever natinality they are need to be treated the same. I was involved in mediation with Russianname and choose to stay off protracted revert war. He didn't and should be held accountable for it be he Russian or not. No amount of advocating by biased Russian editors should prevent from the rules of this community be followed. They are the same for everyone. --Hillock65 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you accuse me of "harrassing", you should launch a formal complaint. I take issue with your facile allegations of misconduct, as harrassing is a serious offense. As for Russianblock's first ever block, it was another fruit of your habitual forum shopping. It was not appropriate, as Masamage admitted. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Alex Kov untagged the article that was discussed. So it is him who deserved penalty for reverting tag NPOV. --Russianname 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it happen to you that some people deliberately provoke hot-tempered editors to revert-warring? Nobody would enter into details who is right and who is wrong and who triggered the conflict. If you revert more than three times, you will be blocked. Please take a cup of tea and reflect about it. The world is not going to collapse if the page is left without some tag for 24 hours. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hot-tempered? Is that the best exuse you can come up with for edit warring? Some preferred to stay off. I pleaded with him on the talk page and on the article discussion page. It is that he is used to muscle his way in, rather than engage in mediation that was going on. He was banned before for edit warring and didn't get the message then, maybe he will now. --Hillock65 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Russianname was never "banned" for anything. You were blocked simultaneously with him for the same offense, so it's sort of cheap to pontificate about the disruption caused by edit warring. Unlike you, Russianname does not maintain an attack page in his native wikipedia which instructs its editors to log in in English Wikipedia in order to "dePOV" a certain set of articles. It's no wonder that you and Alex have more opportunities for revert warring, under these circumstances. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't. You are confusing him with someone else. Check the record. Must be getting old. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, I understand that advocating for deliquent Russian editors is your main occupation here, but please support your wild allegations with facts. I do not maintain any message boards, if you have proof to the contrary - present it or lay off your assault on me. That seems to be the pattern, that everyone trying to make Russian editors accountable for their actions should be subjected to these character assassination attempts. Discuss the subject at hand and please and lay off your personal attacks. --Hillock65 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the sequence of reverts by Hillock and Alex Kov. Alex Kov reverted POV three times today:      This is called hypocrisy --Russianname 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right. I concur. You should've warned him and complained to the moderator or the admins. I warned that I requested page protection, this war needn't have happened. Unlike AlexK you were in a middle of mediation and have been warned just before your last revert. What did you choose to do with the warning? You just erased it and went on with edit warring. --Hillock65 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexanderPar reported by User:Dacy69 (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: Dacy69 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

While this user listed in this Arbcom case consideration of which is pending until final desicion on the acceptance of the case, this user continue edit warring on several pages. The page Ethnic minorities in Iran was particularly affected by user:AlexanderPar. He removes multisources information without discussion on the talkpage. He always goes on the brink of 3 reverts but it does not mean that action should be taken only for 4 reverts.


 * 1st revert: - he partially removed referenced information
 * 2nd revert: - further removal of information without discussion
 * 3rd revert: - and now classic revert

Please pay attention to his previous reverts and removal of information from this page: On June 20 On June 19 On June 15
 * 
 * 
 * - another removal of infornation w/o discussion
 * - first series of his removal
 * - almost the same revert

Only on June 15 he left short comments on talkpage. Besides, his reverts was combined with erverts of user:Zereshk and user:Houshyar. While formally he stays within 3rr I urge to consider the essence of his editing which is nothing than edit warring.

Comment: This is a false report, and an abuse of 3RR notice board. The edit you have marked as "2nd revert" is a continuation of my previous edit. Furthermore, I explained the rational for my edits both in the edit summery, and in details here. I also added back the UN statement. The problem is your soapboxing on that page, and adding of biased non-notable or governmental sources that don't meet WP:RS and have no relevance to the specific topic. AlexanderPar 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are removing a bulk of information without any discussion and reasonable excuse--Dacy69 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

User:CO19 reported by User:Kurt Shaped Box (Result: No block - user not warned)
. : Time reported: 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Plain and simple case of edit-warring against consensus with multiple users. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User warned. One more revert and he will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Atabek reported by User:AlexanderPar (Result: 48 hrs)
. : Time reported: 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * User:Atabek is subject to a 1RR revert parole (1 revert per week) by the decision of ArbCom. However, User:Atabek has been edit-waring on several pages, and made 2 revisions to Yeprem Khan today within a few hours, clearly violating his 1RR revert parole:


 * 1st revert: 14:38, 22 June 2007 (Removing "Iranian" and reinserting irrelevant information that had been moved to Sattar Khan, reverting/undoing this edit)
 * 2nd revert: 20:27, 22 June 2007 (Clearly marked a revert, removing "located in Azerbaijan", reverting/undoing this edit)

Comment user:AlexanderPar involved in aggressive edit warring on several pages, removes information without discussion. See my reports above.--Dacy69 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * : 48 hrs for revert parole violation
 * : 24 hrs for editwarring in several articles.

User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: A little complicated, reverting several changes, see below for descriptions.  Main one is 03:08, June 13, 2007, a week old, but editor just came off a week long break for 3RR/edit warring ending with that very edit.


 * 1st revert: 15:07, June 22, 2007 re-inserting text removed in this diff (duplicating the reworked paragraph)
 * 2nd revert: 15:17, June 22, 2007 revert exactly to this reinserting map from 03:08, June 13, 2007 (had been insisting on it before his week long break)
 * 3rd revert: 15:33, June 22, 2007 re-inserts the same map again
 * 4th revert: 20:01, June 22, 2007 re-inserts the same map again
 * 5th revert: 00:48, June 23, 2007 replaces redundant word removed with this change.

As mentioned, editor has been blocked four or five times for 3RR in the past month, last one being for a week.


 * Thanks for adding a notice on my talk page. Again, I feel that there is nothing wrong with the addition of the map. Also, as Komdori asked, I posted a thread for discussion as to why my map shold be included. Instead of understanding my viewpoint, you simply rush for the chance to block me again. It is YOU who should be filed a report against. Its not fair how you can't accept anything you don't like. Also, my "reverts" are not even clear cut, intentionally done reverting. You are taking advantage of my past blocks to give the impression that I am doing something really bad.


 * To the administrator who reviews this, please note that I don't think I have done anything wrong or made reverts that were done intentionally in bad faith. I feel that LactoseTI should be punished as well because its totally not fair how he participates in edit warring but never is punished. Good friend100 03:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking the diffs, you are trying to report me using two different cases of the 3RR rule, which I don't think I even violated. You say its complicated, but in truth, I haven't been reverting over the same thing continuesly. Good friend100 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've been through this before. You don't have to revert the same edit--reverts of any nature on the same article contribute to a 3RR.  If you don't want to be blocked, then don't revert 5 times in 8 hours or so.  It's true I reverted one time on that article today, but that's hardly edit warring.  I'm not surprised you feel you've done nothing wrong.  You say this every time you get blocked.  — LactoseTI T 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours, per (some of) the evidence above. This is the user's fifth block. --  tariq abjotu  13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980 reported by User:huaiwei (Result: 24 hrs for both)
. : Time reported: 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:42, 21 June 2007
 * 1st revert: 23:13, 22 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:21, 22 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:52, 23 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:27, 23 June 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:27, 22 June 2007 (multiple warnings has been issued)

User has insisted on restoring the previous version of the article and claiming the contents has been deleted despite my repeated explanations that the information has been broken up into multiple pages. --Huaiwei 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He did not discuss it anough and thous he did disscuss with said that he shouldn't..... (Sparrowman980 04:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Quite contrary to his comments, there has been prior discussion on the said edit. It seems odd that Sparrowman980 should consider my boldness as a good reason for edit warring in itself.--Huaiwei 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott reported by User:Shell Kinney (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 6:57, June 21, 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:40, June 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:56, June 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:57, June 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:28, June 23, 2007


 * Clear edit warring even after being reminded of the 3RR . Thanks. Shell babelfish 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)