Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive53

User:Chensiyuan reported by User:Brave warrior (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 4 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:40, 3 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:53, 3 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 3 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:51, 4 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:51, 4 July 2007
 * Looks like multiple parties did 3RR so I locked it, since it doesn't seem to be a sustained problem. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay but what about the 3RR violations. And no, I didn't violate it I reverted 3 times and stopped because I don't want to get blocked like him. Brave warrior 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Also Block User:Chensiyuan because the user violated the 3RR. Brave warrior 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Calton (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:46, June 29, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:56, July 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:15, July 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:18, July 1, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:08, July 3, 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:07, July 3, 2007
 * 6th revert: 03:58, July 3, 2007
 * 7th revert: 19:40, July 3, 2007
 * 8th revert: 01:09, July 4, 2007
 * 9th revert: 02:12, July 4, 2007
 * Edit-warring to insert reference to founding of small town in Virginia (population 1,146) into September 1, despite clear guidelines and opposition of at least two editors. Shows no sign of letting up.


 * Editor is well aware of the 3RR, now and in his previous incarnation as . See here, particularly. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, you have been involved in the Edit War also.-- trey  04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of "enforcing guidelines" and "opposition of at least two editors" is giving trouble to the Peanut Gallery? --Calton | Talk 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 19:54, 27 June 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:44, 28 June 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:37, 29 June 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:53, 1 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:11, 1 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:40, 1 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:41, 1 July 2007
 * 8th revert: 20:13, 2 July 2007
 * 9th revert: 23:53, 2 July 2007
 * 10th revert: 21:07, 3 July 2007
 * 11th revert: 21:23, 3 July 2007


 * This user is guilty on more than one day, I have not broken the more than 4 a day rule. - NeutralHomer  T:C 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, you have to provide actual dates and times instead of sputtering. Also, you left off the other editor reversing your insertion of this minor factoid. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You want times, you get times. This isn't about me, this one is yours Calton. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is all about you, and your unilateral edit-warring against multiple editors, against clear guidelines, and against, really, common sense. --Calton | Talk 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not broken the more than 4 a day rule


 * The key thing is the revert-warring, but even this bit of Wikilawyering is wrong. From the above report on yourself, annotated:
 * 7th revert: 19:40, July 3, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 19:32
 * 8th revert: 01:09, July 4, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 24:02
 * 9th revert: 02:12, July 4, 2007 - Time difference from 4th previous: 22:14


 * Two blatant violations, one borderline bit of gaming. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, self control, you talk about it, now exercise it. I did not break the more than 3 (my mistake above) rule, you did, twice in fact.  Now, do me a favor, crack a beer, set off some fireworks and relax. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 02:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Self-control"? What are you gassing on about?
 *  I did not break the more than 3 (my mistake above) rule -- You did, twice unambiguously and once borderline, as I annotated above. The rule's been explained to you more than once, so where's the part giving you difficulty? --Calton | Talk 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, can you tell that, one, I am ignoring you and two, I am actually doing things. That whole self-control thing again.  I think you last 6 or 7 edits were to this page and about me.  Now, if you would excuse me, I have more pages to fix.  You know, that whole working for the greater good of Wikipedia thing you forgot how to do back in 2005. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calton, can you tell that, one, I am ignoring you... - I've demonstrated -- not claimed, demonstrated -- that you've violated 3RR at least twice, and sputtering and handwaving doesn't change reality, no matter how desperately you ignore it.
 * ...I am actually doing things - Yeah, edit-warring, which you just did on Jews because you couldn't be in the least bothered to actually read what you were reverting -- pretty much what you were doing here, come to think.
 * I think you last 6 or 7 edits were to this page and about me - There's that weird pseudo-math-based claim of yours, again. I think of my last 26,000 or so edits, very few of them had bupkis to do with you. But you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.
 * You know, that whole working for the greater good of Wikipedia thing you forgot how to do back in 2005. You know, as a general policy, it's best not to Make Shit Up. I will put up any two random months of my contribution history against your entire contributions to Wikipedia and come out on top.
 * Oh, and to the admin who protected the page -- a DAY OF THE WEEK PAGE -- how's about dealing with the violator/edit warrior instead of punting? --Calton | Talk 14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To the admin, many thanks for actually putting the page on protect and no indulging this poor, diluted fool. Many thanks. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:24.168.39.49 reported by User:DLand (Result:24h Block)
. : Time reported: 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 08:24, July 3, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:29, July 3, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, July 3, 2007
 * Warning on User talk:24.168.39.49: 20:11, July 3 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:37, July 3, 2007


 * Comment:Editor doesn't seem to know English very well, so it could be that he doesn't understand what is going on here.--DLand TALK 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering his/her responses on his/her talk page, he/she knows enough English to understand the warning and the possible ramifications of his/her actions. The case is pretty obvious - 24h block.  Signature brendel  03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Altruism reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:42, July 3, 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:06, July 3, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:54, July 4, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:44, July 4, 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:49, July 4, 2007
 * 5th revert: 08:39, July 4, 2007

Comment
 * This user has been on wikipedia for a long time and certainly should have known better.
 * The reverting centers around replacing "Old-Kannada script" with "Telugu-Kannada script" which not only is OR but also not supported by the non-RS citation he is providing. Sarvagnya 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sarvagnya's comment is not justified. Enough evidence is available for 'Telugu-Kannada script' and is cited many times in the articles Telugu language, Telugu script and Brahmic family. The reference is: Telugu Language and Literature, S. M. R. Adluri, Figures T1a and T1b (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html). Kumarrao 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The same S. M. R. Adluri in his detailed chart here on how the different scripts evolved makes no reference to the so called Telugu-Kannada script. If there are contradicting paragraphs in the referred material indicating the existence of a Telugu-Kannada script and the non-existence of the same, then the page is in clear violation of WP:RS, just my two cents... -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: A prestigious Indian government institution's source on Telugu-Kannada script cited by me was thrown away by some users, after simply being termed as OR, non-RS etc. which also fuelled this unfortunate edit-war. Immediate intervention, incl. "full protection" requested from sys-ops. Thanking You,  Altruism To talk  10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Plz. refer to possible Sock puppetry as reported here and the page for reports, for checking User:Sarvagnya.


 * Also, kindly refer to my request for immediate protection of article Telugu script, several hours before my inadvertent violation of WP:3RR took place. Thanking You,  Altruism To talk  10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have followed the Telugu related disputes, but did not participate in the edits because I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. However, let me add that the only sane voice among all the involved editors is, proof of which can be found in this compromise he helped reach on a disputed article and the goodwill he strives to maintain, as he had done with  some time back. He may have possibly violated the 3RR rule by the letter, but I'm sure he has stuck to the spirit of the rule. He probably got a bit carried away in this instance, but any action against him would be unfortuanate given that this is his first offence and he is the one who tries to keep the Telugu articles stable. Lotlil 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why hasnt Altruism not been blocked? This has to be a first with someone getting away with a 5RR!  Not only is he vandalising with non-RS sources, he also gets away with a 5RR!  Who is the admin who closed this?  I need an explanation. Sarvagnya 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Chensiyuan reported by User:Brave warrior (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 4 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:40, 3 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:53, 3 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 3 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:51, 4 July 2007

But what about the 3RR violations. And no, I didn't violate it I reverted 3 times and stopped because I don't want to get blocked like him. Brave warrior 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Also Block User:Chensiyuan because the user violated the 3RR. Brave warrior 03:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:51, 4 July 2007

User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Itaqallah (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 11:30, 4 July 2007, reverting the removal of unreliable sources.
 * 2nd revert: 11:43, 4 July 2007, revert to version dated 11:30, 4 July 2007.
 * 3rd revert: 11:54, 4 July 2007, revert to the same version as above.
 * 4th revert: 12:01, 4 July 2007, partial revert of this, restoring "theology" in place of "thought".


 * Warning unnecessary, but user was offered to self-revert, which he rejected.  ITAQALLAH   12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:No.13 (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 10:01, 4 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:37, 4 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 4 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:23, 4 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:29, 4 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 14:33, 4 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 14:38, 4 July 2007

. : Time reported: 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 08:40, 4 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:03, 4 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:53, 4 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:03, 4 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:41, 4 July 2007

User:VanTucky reported by User:Calton (Result:12 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:07, July 5, 2007

title=Mike_Godwin&diff=142582500&oldid=142582369 02:17, July 5, 2007]
 * 4th revert: 02:19, July 5, 2007
 * 5th revert: 03:21, July 5, 2007


 * Repeated adding of unreliable tag. Removed by more than one editor over the last couple of days.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:34, July 5, 2007 --Calton | Talk 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you're not, but you put you put your oar in anyways. Say, don't you have some "productive work" to be doing elsewhere instead of stalking my edits? --Calton | Talk 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentI reverted more than thrice only intending to reinsert the legitimate tag calling for citations of unreferenced facts per the guidelines of WP:CITE after it was removed by an anon IP. I see those reversions as reversions of vandalism. Not once ever have I been attacked so for reverting what is clearly to me, simple blanking by a rude anon. I did not intend ever to engage in edit warring with editors with legitimate, polite concerns about the tag. After users objected to the tag, I have stopped reinserting it at all, and am discussing it properly.  VanTucky  (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of a "sincerity" exception clause in the prohibition against edit-warring. You may not have "intended" to engage in edit-warring, but, you know, you did, no matter what adjectives you insert to attempt to mitigate your actions. After all, if it's open-and-shut, someone else will add the tag, and if it's not, hey presto, you're edit-warring to add it back and you did after you were warned. [Whoops, edit conflicted] --Calton | Talk 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First violation; 12 hours. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PHG reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:07, 4 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:07, 4 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:11, 4 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:33, 4 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:35, 4 July 2007

Removal of material after new source was added. Unable to wait for consensus before making his removals. Eiorgiomugini 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * Page protected.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Meowy reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:60 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 2 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:40, 4 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:00, 4 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:03, 4 July 2007. This was an rv of this edit:
 * 4th revert: 23:07, 4 July 2007

Comment: This user is aware of 3RR rule, as he was previously blocked for its violation: Grandmaster 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Preventative block (had 48 hour block previously for incivillity).  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:HeadMouse and User:TREYWiki reported by User:HiDrNick (Result:Page protected, 99 hours for HeadMouse)
., : Time reported: 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This revert war centers on three content issues:
 * 1) What color was the monorail that caught fire and made the news, silver or gold?
 * 2) Should we include a fair use scan of a newspaper article about the fire in an article about the monorail system?
 * 3) Should the monorail color names actually be displayed in that color?


 * HeadMouse silver to gold:
 * HeadMouse Adds colors:
 * TREYWiki Rm colors, change gold to silver:
 * User:Metros rm image:
 * HeadMouse Adds colors:
 * TREYWiki rm colors:
 * HeadMouse re-adds image:
 * HeadMouse adds colors:
 * TREYWiki rm colors:
 * HeadMouse silver to gold:
 * TREYWiki gold to silver:
 * HeadMouse silver to gold:

has been blocked for editing warring on this article several times before, and in fact just came off a week long block a few hours ago. has posted on the 3RR noticeboard as well, and is aware of the rule. Thanks, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 07:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm protecting the page for now, and I might hand out more preventative blocks, due to circumstances described here.  Evilclown93 (talk)  11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at what happened, I've blocked HeadMouse for 99 hours due to his history of edit-warring, incivility, and it looked like he was starting a second one.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TREYWiki is discussing on the talkpage, no block.  Evilclown93 (talk)  12:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Beyond silence reported by User:Kissl (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: [ 19:17, 2 July 2007]


 * 1st revert: [ 03:28, 4 July 2007]
 * 2nd revert: [ 10:16, 4 July 2007]
 * 3rd revert: [ 10:27, 4 July 2007]
 * 4th revert: [ 19:10, 4 July 2007]

User was blocked as recently as two days ago for a 3RR violation on another article, thus must be aware of the rule. KissL 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected  Evilclown93 (talk)  11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:203.164.98.121 reported by User:Pak21 (Result:31h)
. : Time reported: 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:58, 8 June 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:08, 5 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:30, 5 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:40, 5 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:10, 5 July 2007

Blocked for 31h for 3RR, and for incivility. Accusing other editors of being "a fucking racist"-Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Xotheusedguyox reported by User:Dark jedi requiem (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:02, July 4, 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:33, July 3, 2007.
 * 2nd revert: 10:39, July 3, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:45, July 3, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:59, July 3, 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:20, July 3, 2007
 * 6th revert: 09:02, July 4, 2007


 * It has been quite some time since the user's latest revert. If s/he persists, however, a block may be warranted. --  tariq abjotu  18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * S/he's continued reverting, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Godzilla Boy reported by User:Just64helpin (Result:48hrs)
. : Time reported: 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:05, July 4, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:36, July 4, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:10, July 4, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:42, July 5, 2007


 * Blocked for 48hrs. Crum375 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TipPt reported by User:Avraham (Result:48hrs)
. : Time reported: 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:31, July 3, 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:03, July 4, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:23, July 4, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:07, July 5, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:34, July 5, 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:47, July 5, 2007


 * Comments: Reverts include both full and partial. User is well established and cognizant of 3RR. User has been engaged in trying to push particular POV into article for over a year now, consistently replacing consensus test with own personal text. User also engages in soapboxing, in the article itself, in the talk page (check the voluminous archives), as well as on personal "soap" page User:TipPt/Circumcision. I am recusing myself from blocking in this particular instance, although blocks as a result of clear violations of 3RR are not considered misuses of admin ability, even in the event of participation in the revert stream, from what I understand from discussions with ArbCom. -- Avi 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48hrs. Crum375 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Setanta747 reported by User:Barryob (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 21:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 12:54, 5 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, 5 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:15, 5 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:16, 5 July 2007
 * 5th revert:22:22, 5 July 2007


 * There has been a long disupte over wether the Ulster Banner should be included in the Northern Ireland infobox there was several polls taken on the article talk page with the results that the flag should not be placed in the infobox but several editors kept reinserting it, the above template was created so that the Northern Ireland article did not keep getting locked has been been pushing for the Ulster Banner to be in the infobox and has been edit warring.


 * The template has been protected by . --  tariq abjotu  21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two comments — First, there was never any consensus, which is why the edit-warring has never stopped. There is approximately the same amount of support for the flag to be included versus not.  Second, it was pointless of me to protect the infobox and not the parent article, as another editor simply edited the article to use his preferred POV version of it.  Therefore, I have removed the template transclusion from the main article, and simply copied the infobox transclusion inline.  (Presumably, the edit-warring will continue there.)  Andrwsc 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:G2bambino (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:58, 5 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:01, 5 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:26, 5 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:35, 5 July 2007


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:28, 5 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:31, 5 July 2007

The user has been attempting to push a personal POV on Wikipedia articles related to the Commonwealth Realms monarchy for at least a year, each time causing disruption in both the talk page and the article. Though he has been rebutted each time, he periodically resurfaces to make another attempt; the most current is at British Monarchy, along with placing tags throughout articles to make a point. This user has previously been blocked three times.

The user has been notified of, and acknowledged notification, here.


 * The POV is that of the above editor, not me. It is he who has broke 3RR, more than once - and on each occasion I have given him a friendly warning, without resorting to reporting him. On this particular occasion it was just the same - an examination of the edits will reveal that it was he who broke 3RR, not me. As for his allegation that I am just trying to make a point, that isn't so. I have legitimate concerns over the use of the term "personal union", and simply asked him to supply a citation. TharkunColl 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are his 4 reversions:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * Here is my warning to him:
 * (note that a previous warning I gave him some time ago is also to be found further up the page). TharkunColl 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page. There is basically equal edit warring on both sides. Please discuss your differences on talk. If you some to an agreement before 3 days, feel free to contact me or request unprotection. -Andrew c [talk] 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:Tamokk (Result: blocked for a month)
. : Time reported: 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 5 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:59, 5 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:30, 5 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:28, 5 July 2007
 * 4th revert 07:08, 6 July 2007
 * 5th revert 07:45, 6 July 2007

Persistent edit warrior unwilling to go to the talk page. Tamokk 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only three reverts SosoMK 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact far more then 5, but 4 within 24 hours.

Blocked for one month Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very bad. We were intimidated before by an admin who's against our version, he didn't present his sources, he didn't talked on talk page. The result is now that the people who actually worked are now blocked. Please look into details and revise the block.--Tones benefit 10:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:Tamokk (Result: SosoMK blocked, then unblocked)
. : Time reported: 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 6 JUly 2007

(this is an edit rather than a reverts) SosoMK 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

POV reverts. Tamokk 07:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mkhedrioni was a paramilitary Georgian organisation which counted tens of thousands members in Georgia. It was anti-Gamsakhurdia but by no way was it anti-Russian. Karkarashvili was a minister of defence of Georgia during the war, and now he is a member of a Georgian political party New Right (Georgia). Tamokk 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are only three reverts there, thanks SosoMK 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: SosoMK was blocked for 1 month for continued revert-warring. He has been unblocked subsequently with a promise of good behavior, to be supervised by User:Mikkalai. MastCell Talk 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

===91.104.5.79 and 91.104.18.220 and 91.104.21.250 reported by User:Benjwong (Result: Semi-protected)===


 * Three-revert rule violation on Hong Kong. : Time reported: 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:32, 6 July 2007

..
 * 1st revert: 21:08, 27 June 2007
 * 50th revert: 08:32, 6 July 2007 08:32, 6 July 2007

This user keeps returning from the 91.104 subnet. He/she is adding simplified characters into the Hong Kong page which has been disagreed on in the discussion. This user has been doing this for quite some time. And returns hourly with different IPs as sock puppets. The users' entire contribution history is filled with adding these simplified characters into every page in HK. The user needs to be banned as he/she is wasting wikipedia resources and many editors time.


 * I have semi-protected the article; there are too many IP addresses to block w/o causing collateral damage. --  tariq abjotu  18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:WinSmith reported by User:Jauerback (Result:24 hrs for two users)
. : Time reported: 2:20 CST 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:06 CST


 * 1st revert: 13:22
 * 2nd revert: 13:47
 * 3rd revert: 14:00
 * 4th revert (after warning): 14:06


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:06
 * Both the IP and User:WinSmith have been blocked for 24 hours. GDonato (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities in Iran (Result:No violation)
This article is a bit of an odd case. As it at least partially fits under the heading editwarring I put it here.

TBH I am not exactly sure what is going on - several groups of editors are fighting over the article by essentially adding ever lengthening lists of long and not always so relevant quotations - rather than simply referencing the article At least one editor keeps reverting and throwing stuff out added by others, while continueing to add his own stuff. The overall process is relatively slow (days and weeks rather than hours) making it impossible to assert a 3RR and editwarring, though I think if I could ignore the 24 hour rule this is exactly what is happening in stretches. I have tried to create some movement forward by hinting at various policies etc on the talkpage, but have only achieved that i am now accused of being an involved editor (In fact I wrote the original stub and kept editing a bit here and there until sometime in 2005 (+one further uncontroversial minor edit a couple of weeks ago) . The article has long outgrown that original stub. Anyway, the accusation is made and I am probably not anymore the person to use admin powers. Could I therefore request that someone else has a look at the article and possible comments/enacts some order?

Thanks Refdoc 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be reported to the protection noticeboard - let me take a look at the article though to see if protection is needed.  Signature brendel  07:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I just checked the article's history - there's nothing to warrant protection. Please take this to the general admins noticeboard as we are not dealing with a 3RR vio as far as I can see. I understand that you are confused and feel in need of help - so please take this issue to a noticeboard where it can be dealt with properly. Thank you,  Signature brendel  07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation science (Result: protected 1 week)
Possible three revert rule violation and possible sock puppetry by User:F00188846, anon User:67.82.117.129 and User:Matthew J. Theriault on creation science article.
 * First edit: 14:02 July 7, 2007
 * First revert: 14:21 July 7, 2007
 * Second revert: 16:41 July 7, 2007
 * Third revert: 17:59 July 7, 2007
 * Fourth revert: 18:17 July 7, 2007

The individual appears to be using multiple accounts to circumvent the 3RR rule and was warned at 14:08 and 18:08 formally, and informally at 18:13, 18:16 and 18:23.--Filll 18:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now received a communication from this editor on my talk page which I take as evidence that this author intends to violate the three revert rule and engage in edit warring.--Filll 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fifth revert: 19:18 July 7, 2007 --Filll 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User again formally warned (on pages of all alleged sock puppets) at 19:23, 19:24 and 19:25. --Filll 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected one week due to edit warring. If you suspect sockpuppetry, please feel free to put together a case, it's not obvious enough to presume out of hand. In the meantime, hopefully the matter can be discussed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 250 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 00:28, July 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:02, July 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:07, July 7, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:10, July 7, 2007


 * Hang on there. The issue was this other user kept reverting and saying that only Bobby Lashley was on the poster. That 4th edit was a compromise, and was after I provided him the proof that he kept asking for. The issue should be solved now because I gave to him on his talkpage the proof that he wanted. I also can't afford another 3RR block and I think we have solved this issue already. TJ Spyke 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Solving the issue is one thing, but a violation is another. You know the policy, you shouldn't have violated it again. RobJ1981 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The 4th one wasn't really a violation though. He wanted proof, and I gave him the proof when I made the edit. TJ Spyke 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was: there was nothing extra added in that instance. The Evil Spartan 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Persistent edit warring again from TJ; sometimes he's even mentioning that if he does one more revert, he's breaking the 3RR (and then precedes to do a somewhat different edit). 250-block (just under a week and a half). --  tariq abjotu  23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Camptown reported by User:Salaskan (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:15, 8 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:18, 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:38, 8 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:43, 8 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:46, 8 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:50, 8 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 00:53, 8 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 01:03, 8 July 2007

User:Justin A Kuntz reported by User:Rebelguys2 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: at 22:01, 7 July 2007


 * 1st revert: at 22:35, 7 July 2007 (By an IP address, but he'll claim the edit as his in the 2nd revert's edit summary.)
 * 2nd revert: at 22:40, 7 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: at 22:58, 7 July 2007
 * 4th revert: at 00:37, 8 July 2007
 * 5th revert: at 01:31, 8 July 2007


 * 3RR warning: at 00:42, 8 July 2007 (After 4th revert and about 50 minutes before the 5th revert.)


 * 24 hours. --  tariq abjotu  00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:208.104.45.20 reported by User:Dogru144 (Result:24 hours)
. Dogru144 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)   User has virtually blanked the article page.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert by User:208.104.45.20:

One can read, in the Talk Page of the anonymous editor, that s/he has a history of such vandalism. Dogru144 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This user should not be blocked for 3RR, he should be blocked for vandalism. 3RR is for editors of good-faith that make too many reverts, which this user is clearly not. —  M o e   ε  03:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he did try to explain himself afterwards at Talk:North_Central_American_English. Carson 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of yoru responses. I have filed an appeal for intervention, for the reason of vandalism. Dogru144 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd request for blocking, for 3RR violation
New reverts: 6th revert:  7th revert:  8h revert: 

Both User:Moe_Epsilon and the WP vandalism page indicate that the action upon User:208.104.45.20 should be over the 3RR edits, and not over vandalism. The user's talk page indicate that he has had a history of (a) blanking pages, and (b) 3RR edits without explanation prior to the current dispute. Also, please note that after this User's requests and those of other parties on the Talk:North Central American English page, the 3RR anonymous editor refuses to sign with the four tildes.

Thus, I'm making a second request for blocking of the user for 3RR violations. Dogru144 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Halaqah and confirmed sockpuppet User:RastaRule reported by User:Strothra (Result:1 month)
. and : Time reported: 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:19, 5 July 2007.


 * 1st revert: 04:47, 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:58, 8 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:23, 8 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:36, 8 July 2007

Halaqah has been blocked several times for 3RR vios including a week long block recently for editing about slavery in Africa. See block log,. Further, he was attempting to avoid a block bu use of a sockpuppet. The fact that RastaRule is a sockpuppet has been confirmed by checkuser, see. Request indef block of sockpuppet. By comparing Halaqah's block log with Rasta's contribs you can see that Halaqah was using his sockpuppet to edit while his main account was blocked. Thus he has used the sockpuppet to violate 3RR and to circumvent his blocks. --Strothra 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe the RastaRule sock hasn't been blocked yet; it was confirmed by checkuser some time ago. Halaqah, too, should have be reblocked for this disruption. What's the point of putting together a report when nothing is done? What does it take? Is no one responsible for what goes on here?Proabivouac 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * RastaRule blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Halaqah blocked for 1 month for operating sockpuppets and 3RR violation. DrKiernan 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Narinen reported by User:Ronz (Result:Indefinite block)
. : Time reported: 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:11, 8 July 2007 12 reverts. (There are some very slight variations on the reverts, but obvious)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:32, 8 July 2007
 * One of a number of suspected socks all making the same reverts. See Suspected_sock_puppets/Artemisse --Ronz 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by Isarig (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:31, 4 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:54, 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:06, 8 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:16, 8 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:28, 8 July 2007

User has been blocked for 3RR before,and well aware of the rule.

User:Marktwain403 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:48, July 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:52, July 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:23, July 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, July 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:28, July 8, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:40, July 8, 2007


 * Blocked 24 hours, per evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:208.104.45.20 reported by User:Dogru144 (Result:24 hours)
Please see above discussion of two requests for blocking of User:208.104.45.20, for his multiple reverts (> 3 today and yesterday) at North Central American English. Thanks, Dogru144 21:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:83.36.75.188 reported by User:Ward3001 (Result:warned)
. : Time reported: 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: July 8, 2007 11:01
 * 2nd revert: July 8, 2007 14:43
 * 3rd revert: July 8, 2007 16:20
 * 4th revert: July 8, 2007 18:43

Ward3001 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR vio confirmed. Since the user doesn't seem to have been warned, I'm leaving a warning for now. Update if edit war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:65.54.154.24 reported by User:JetLover (Result:semi)
. : Time reported: 23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 8 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 8 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 8 July 2007

Cheers, Je  tL  ov  er  23:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has been semi-protected. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:David32347, User:12.175.230.56, User:12.175.230.58, and 12.175.230.37 reported by User:RPIRED (Result:semi)
. : Time reported: 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:17 8 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:32 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:43 8 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:54 8 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:32 8 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:46 8 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:05 8 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 17:25 8 July 2007

Continues to revert after multiple warnings and reverting on several Wikipedians. - RPIRED 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the user is hopping IPs, I've briefly semiprotected the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:208.104.45.20 reported by User:Dogru144 (Result: 24 hrs)
. Dogru144 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)   User has virtually blanked the article page.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert by User:208.104.45.20:

One can read, in the Talk Page of the anonymous editor User:208.104.45.20, that s/he has a history of such multiple reverting. Dogru144 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New reverts:   
 * 2nd request for blocking, for 3RR violation
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Both User:Moe_Epsilon and the WP vandalism page indicate that the action upon User:208.104.45.20 should be over the 3RR edits, and not over vandalism. The user's talk page indicate that he has had a history of (a) blanking pages, and (b) 3RR edits without explanation prior to the current dispute. Also, please note that after this User's requests and those of other parties on the Talk:North Central American English page, the 3RR anonymous editor refuses to sign with the four tildes.

Thus, I'm making a second request for blocking of the user for 3RR violations. Dogru144 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:129.133.124.199 reported by User:Ordermagic (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

This user persistently disrupts WP and seems to have been warned by other users on several other articles. Ordermagic 05:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reversions are more than 24 hours apart. DrKiernan 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please warn Ghetsmith about the 3RR rule.(Result:Template protected)
16:57, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) New user account He/she insists on adding nuclear power to what is supposed to be a "Renewable energy" template, but as you can see they have even renamed the template, despite a clear lack of consensus. 199.125.109.108 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) (cur) (last)  04:51, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) m (407 bytes) (Undid revision 143434255 by 199.125.109.108 (talk))
 * 2) (cur) (last) 04:49, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (Undid revision 143434052 by Ghetsmith (talk)revert vandalism, second time)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 04:48, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (407 bytes) (Undid revision 143434012 by 199.125.109.108 (talk))
 * 4) (cur) (last) 04:47, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (Undid revision 143433781 by Ghetsmith (talk)revert vandalism)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 04:45, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (407 bytes) (then you should also remove solar power, since the sun's energy is not renewable either)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 04:44, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (I'm sorry but nuclear uses fuel and that fuel although plentiful is not renewable)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 04:41, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (450 bytes)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 04:40, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (447 bytes)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 04:40, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (413 bytes) (adding POV tag)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 04:37, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) m (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143432323 by Johnfos (talk))
 * 11) (cur) (last) 04:35, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 04:33, 9 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (for reference see: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 03:18, 9 July 2007 199.125.109.108 (Talk) (386 bytes) (it is not appropriate to just assume that all articles using this template are pov!)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 02:47, 9 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (470 bytes) (adding POV tag)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 14:18, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (462 bytes) (Undid revision 143271627 by Johnfos (talk) vandalism)<-- Ghetsmith is the vandal, not Johnfos, who is rvv
 * 16) (cur) (last) 10:22, 8 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
 * 17) (cur) (last) 03:42, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (462 bytes)
 * 18) (cur) (last) 03:42, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (496 bytes)
 * 19) (cur) (last) 03:41, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (652 bytes)
 * 20) (cur) (last) 02:43, 8 July 2007 69.217.151.86 (Talk) (386 bytes) (nm moved to future energy)
 * 21) (cur) (last) 02:40, 8 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143214052 by Johnfos (talk))
 * 22) (cur) (last) 02:26, 8 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
 * 23) (cur) (last) 22:14, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision 143161348 by Johnfos (talk))
 * 24) (cur) (last) 20:55, 7 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
 * 25) (cur) (last) 16:57, 7 July 2007 Ghetsmith (Talk | contribs) (405 bytes) (Undid revision)
 * 26) (cur) (last)  10:14, 7 July 2007 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (386 bytes) (rm nuclear power)
 * 27) (cur) (last) 20:46, 4 July 2007 164.107.167.35 (Talk) (405 bytes)


 * User warned and template protected for 1 week. DrKiernan 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Matthew (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Partial revert removing infobox


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

A Man in Black is removing infoboxes from multiple articles, he has received opposition from multiple users who do not agree with his interpretation of WAF -- but continues to push his POV. It's of note AMiB has utilised his administrative rollback in a content dispute. Matthew 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The first linked diff is not a revert, just the removal of an inappropriate infobox. It's telling that the "version reverted to" is from July 2006, a year before my first edit to the article.


 * Additionally, this is the third such article Matthew has revert warred on, reverting one article six times before responding on the talk page. I've done my best to engage Matthew on talk pages, getting only terse answers that do little to answer my talk page comments, if any response at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.", you are partly undoing the edits of other editors -- you've done this four times. "Additionally, this is the third such article Matthew has revert warred on", ... uh-huh, me having to revert you multiple times on multiple articles does not make your edits any more consensual. "I've done my best to engage Matthew on talk pages", pasting the same message to every article you face opposition on... but also pushing your POV as if it was supported by guidelines. Matthew 09:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same message because it's the same problem each time. And, last I checked, WP:WAF was still a guideline, and implementing its advice in articles was a good idea (and doesn't have a thing to do with WP:NPOV). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem is you don't agree with the infoboxes and are applying your terse opinion. You should start a centralised discussion if you disagree with the infoboxes and/or propose a change to the guideline to support you. Matthew 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline doesn't need to be changed. That section was added specifically to discourage use of real-world infoboxes in fictional subjects, and I can't see how it could possibly be clearer. The relevant discussion is here, and this part of the WP:WAF has been on that page with little controversy for a year now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that we can count the first removal of the infobox as a revert back to a version from July last year. Consequently, there are only three reverts. DrKiernan 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:RMANCIL reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:28, 8 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:12, 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:07, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:39, 9 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:06, 9 July 2007


 * I have blocked RMANCIL for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:72.87.210.78 reported by User:Maelwys (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * User:Evilclown93 has already blocked for 31 hours -- Gavia immer (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland reported by Isarig (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:39, 12 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:24, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:38, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:58, 9 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:57, 9 July 2007
 * User:Isarig could you please explain why you have issued 3 reports on this page for edit wars that you took part in? Do you not understand that the intention of this page is to prevent edit wars, rather than a weapon to be used in edit wars. Why did you not warn User:Eleland on his talk page before issuing this report. This page is not about entrapment. All the best... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Eleland for 24 hours, but I want to stress that other participants in the edit war came very close to being blocked as well. 3RR is not a guarantee of three reverts each day. Discuss instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. I suggest everyone take a step back from that article for the next day or two. If the edit warring continues the article will have to be protected. Kafziel Talk 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Seeyou reported by User:Famousdog (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I have made an attempt to incorporate external links posted by User:Seeyou, despite the fact that I believe them to be linkspam and unreliable sources. Seeyou's response has simply been to undo my edits. After mediation of previous disputes on this page proved unsuccesful User:Seeyou has simply stopped discussing his edits before making them. Apologies if I have made a mistake in this posting, this is my first report of 3RR violation. Famousdog 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comments

No violation. I do barely see 3 edits in 24 hours, much less reverts. Btw famousdog, 3RR warnings should be civil. Your wasn't. Please be careful about that. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:204.210.80.93 reported by User:I (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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


 * User has already been blocked for vandalism. Note that vandalism (such as obvious attacks like the above) does not require a 3RR report; if it persists after leaving the appropriate warnings, you can report violations at WP:AIV. Kafziel Talk 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mahal11 reported by Sciurinæ (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:02, 6 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:30, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:11, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:12, 9 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:58, 9 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:14, 9 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:01, 9 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: January 07, 16:41, 9 July 2007 Sciurinæ 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Also warned about his habit of making legal threats. MastCell Talk 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Attilios reported by User:evrik (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:01, 7 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:31, 8 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:54, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:30, 9 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:15, 9 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:46, 9 July 2007

I would also like to note a certain amount of incivility in these comments left in the edit summaries:


 * Changed text hated by Catholic crusader Evrik as per talk page
 * Pathetic excuses
 * First crusader has come!!!


 * comments made to other editors:


 * ... Catholic crusader, Evrik


 * and these comments made hidden in the text:


 * IF YOU ARE A CATHOLIC CRUSADER, PLEASE CHECK WP:POV AND THE TALK PAGE BEFORE REMOVING THIS SECTION ONLY BECAUSE IT CONTRASTS WITH YOUR FAVOURITE HAGIOGRAPHY
 * I would make you notice that the alleged 4th revert 17:15, 9 July 2007 is in fact different, as I introduced a change requested in the talk page by another editor. It is clear that Evrik is patronizing the page with tricks like these. --Attilios 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make a correction. The second reversion was actually 02:38, 9 July 2007 and it was made by another editor. So, Attilios only made three reversions. However, he is being incivil and drving an edit war. --evrik (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you are both experienced and valued contributors. Have a cup of WP:TEA, step back, shake hands and try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS, will you?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation, but all parties involved are reminded to refrain from edit warring. I would also strongly advise Attilios to refrain from the use of uncivil edit summaries, this is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:68.32.79.74 reported by User:142.179.103.183 (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:28, 9 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:14, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:29, 10 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:29, 10 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:48, 10 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:55, 10 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:57, 10 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 03:00, 10 July 2007

Comment has already been warned several times for edit warring on the same article previously. 142.179.103.183 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:124.29.249.34 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:49, 5 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 12:41, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:48, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:49, 9 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:16, 10 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 07:21, 10 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 09:19, 10 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 09:45, 10 July 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning:07:31, 10 July 2007

Comment Muhammad depiction blanking.Proabivouac 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Blocked 24hrs per AIV report.Proabivouac 10:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop reported by User:Anonimu (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:39, 9 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:38, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:11, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:02, 10 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:21, 10 July 2007

Comment User has been previously warned about breaking this policy: diff.Anonimu 10:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clear violation. 24 hours. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the 4 edits? The last 3 were reverts, but not the first. Dpotop 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way was the first not a revert? You added "rig the Romanian general election" four times. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would point out the closeness to the 24-hour deadline in Dpotop's and Anonimu's edit war. Specifically, while the former's four reverts were done within 17 minutes less than 24 hours, the latter's  were done within 17 minutes more than 24 hours.  Doing this, and then reporting the opponent here, is gaming the system.  According to the policy, administrators should treat all sides equally in an edit war. Digwuren 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I concure with the oppinion that you did not read carefully the history of the article. Here is when User:Anonimu first erased the portion in question (6 June). By doing so he has changed the sense of the whole paragraph, and is a form of POV-pushing in my personal humble oppinion. Other users apparently did not notice this right away, only User:Biruitorul reverted it yesterday, 9 June. But Anonimu introduced it again: As you can clearly see, Anonimu has been simply pushing his POV (contradicted by 4 users - Biruitorul, Dpotop, Turgidson, Dahn), but is being careful to do with so only 3 rv are in any 24-hour interval. This still qualifies imho as a disruptive editting, and is punishable with block. The other editors have better things to do and did not come back right away to rv Anonimu's POV. On the contrary, Anonimu got you to block Dpotop for rv his vandalism. Please, be careful next time. Anonumu has a history of radical communist rv wars. He has never editted anything else by communist-related stuff in the sence of making communism look as a democracy. The particular edit was a mention that the 1946 elections in Romania were rigged, which is a well-know fact. A proper, non-disruptive edit would have been adding a fact-tag to ask for specific sourse, not erasing to push radical left POV. :Dc76 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 06:09, 9 July 2007
 * 10:00, 9 July 2007
 * 11:08, 9 July 2007
 * 09:56, 10 July 2007
 * 10:17, 10 July 2007

User:Proabivouac reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1th revert: 07:18, 10 July 2007
 * 2st revert: 07:27, 10 July 2007
 * 3nd revert: 09:44, 10 July 2007
 * 4rd revert: 10:34, 10 July 2007

I know user will say that he was undoing vandalism. However, I did not find a single vandalism in all the above revert. Is there any rule that say removing a disputed image is vandalism. He can say that he was reverting someone who has violated 3RR. But if there is any rule that say you can violate 3RR when someone else has violated 3RR. He has reverted me when I have removed the warning added by him without any concensus on the page. He has reverted another user when he had ADDED another picture on the page. --- A. L. M. 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See this report above, where anon reverted seven times before being blocked for vandalism. Nevertheless, I have self-reverted according to ALM's vexatious report.Proabivouac 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also See the talk page of Kaaba where the User:124.29.249.34 been discussing his edits and other also agree that picture is disputed. It cannot be a vandalism. --- A. L. M. 11:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, the fact that you see this noticeboard and the rule which it's meant to enforce as a tool to be manipulated is plainly evidenced by your failure to report - indeed, your defense of - an anon who'd reverted seven times, ignoring all warnings against vandalism and 3RR alike.Proabivouac 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If he violated 3RR then it become okay for you to violated it? No it is not. --- A. L. M. 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incredibly insincere of you, ALM, for you support his violation. He could have reverted one thousand times, and you'd not have reported it.Proabivouac 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have not reported him because he was new. I have even not reported you sometimes and may be even today. However, this time I reported you because you have 100s of time reverted (added) those pictures. You call other removing those picture as vandal. It is wrong to do so. --- A. L. M. 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, 3RR policy exempts, "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself." Does this apply? Check the page history - several uninvolved editors and even bots reverting the anon. Anon blocked for vandalism per AIV. Even if not, I've self-reverted per your vexatious report.Proabivouac 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aim of this report is not to block you. As you have already self reverted yourself. The aim is to put breaks on your repeating adding those pictures back. Those bots are reverting page blanking and you are reverting picture. It is totally different. Page blanking is vandalism but removing/replacing disputed picture is NOT vandalism. However, if you continue to add those pictures back then I will post differences of your 100s of reverted picture on ANI. Please STOP! --- A. L. M. 11:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aim of this report was of course to block me' it's not the first bad faith report from you. As for reverts, do you mean these?
 * That's not even counting anything since March. ALM, you've failed to win consensus for your notion that all depictions of Muhammad should be removed from Wikipedia. It's been, what, eight months now? Now an edit-warring anon (who knows who this is?) comes around and you view it as an opportunity to get others blocked.Proabivouac 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted (except twice or so) since many months now. How many of those reverts are in past couple of months? You have many many more then those. You have in 100s easily. Anyway you continue your edit war on picture and I will see when to report you on ANI. Otherwise you could stop now, like me. --- A. L. M. 11:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pro -- Question before the house is whether you violated 3RR at Kaaba. Thoughts? My personal suggestion would be that you be blocked for 24 hours. A rule is a rule. Why it should not apply to you when the rest of us abide by it is rather difficult for me to understand. BYT 11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BYT, "the rest of us" didn't abide by it, as is shown by my report of the anon, who had reverted seven times above.Proabivouac 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It looks to me as though Proabivouac was reverting an anon IP removing material for no obvious reason. Perhaps you agree that the material should be removed, ALM, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's likely to be regarded as vandalism when an anon turns up and repeatedly removes it in a drive-by fashion. I've semi-protected the page in the meantime. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I have to disagree here, Slim. An anon removing a disputed image is no justification for violating 3RR. If there's a problem, steps can be taken to freeze the page. BYT 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not a forum for discussion - see the top of the page.--Strothra 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All the same, I want to note this explicitly: The idea that certain editors are exempt from 3RR whenever they determine arbitrarily that an edit they don't like is "vandalism" is an extremely unstable precedent, and one that I don't believe is in the best interests of WP. BYT 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anon IPs turning up to repeatedly add or remove material without discussion tends to be viewed as vandalism, BYT. If they engage in talk it's a different matter, because then it becomes clear that it's a genuine content dispute, but when it's repeated drive-by reverting with no attempt to engage, it's closer to vandalism. It would be difficult to block an editor for 3RR who was reverting it in good faith. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He was talking. He was engaged in talk. Give some other reason please. --- A. L. M. 12:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he was also getting reverted left and right - even by a bot - for vandalism, and ignoring all the warnings placed on his page. Posting to the talk page doesn't negate anything else one might be doing. Claims such as "The Islamic rules apply to every thing related to Islam either person or location or article" aren't attempts to "engage," but to dictate.Proabivouac 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. BYT 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:MONGO reported by User:200.58.112.238 (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 6:36
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 05:44, 10 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:12, 10 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:13, 10 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:14, 10 July 2007

comment No warning needed very experienced user. They know better. This user and User:East718 (see below) rapid fire reverting to enforce their POV.
 * comment -Since when does self-reverting your own previous revert count as a revert? (Frig, there has to be a way to phrase that without saying 'revert' so often!) Anyways, last I checked, self-reverting to undo your own revert doesn't count. Bladestorm 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No violation per Bladestorm. Newyorkbrad 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:East718 reported by User:200.58.112.238 (Result:Cautioned)
. : Time reported: 6:36
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 06:04, 10 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:09, 10 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:16, 10 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:30, 10 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 08:20, 10 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:22, 10 July 2007

comment No warning needed very experienced user. They know better. This user and User:MONGO (see above) rapid fire reverting to enforce their POV.

Although several of these edits could be considered reverts, I see a reasonable attention to article sourcing and participation in talkpage discussion. User cautioned. Newyorkbrad 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Klezmer reported by User:DLand (Result: 24 hours each)
. : Time reported: 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:09 July 10, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:02 July 9, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 7:56 July 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 9:30 July 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:52 July 10, 2007
 * Warning at User talk:Klezmer:11:11 July 10, 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:16 July 10, 2007


 * Comment:This has apparently been going on for a long time. See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty).--DLand TALK 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Both User:Klezmer and User:ChosidFrumBirth have been engaged in an extended edit war and violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Xotheusedguyox reported by User:Dark jedi requiem (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:27, July 10, 2007e


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


 * The page has been protected by SlimVirgin. I'd like to point out that User:Xotheusedguyox just got out of a 24 h block for edit warring earlier this week, see this. -Andrew c [talk] 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:2Wikid reported by User:Matthew (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Comments
 * This user knows of 3RR as s/he stated in his/her edit summary. They are being quite difficult, and have made multiple stylistic changes (removing white space and changing commas/quotation marks from one kind to another). They refuse to add their content edit without blanket reverting (myself and another editor disagree with their stylistic changes), but it's quite hard discovering their "content changes" when they're so vague -- and not that easy to see. The user has also been quite offensive in their summary usage. Matthew 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've seen a revert war where both versions were identical. -- Ned Scott 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a really dumb edit war, but they come in all shapes and sizes. In any case, two relevant points. 2Wikid is (which WS makes no effort whatsoever to conceal but edit histories might be relevant if someone cares).

Additionally, I count 4 reverts from Matthew on that article as well, here, here, here, and this last edit here, where he partially reverts Angie Y. They were both clearly edit warring on the article, and pretty sterilely to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I've blocked them both. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:John_Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:10, 2 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:22, 9 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:32, 9 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:20, 10 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:27, 10 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:27, 10 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 06:27, 11 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 09:13, 11 July 2007

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC

14:46, 16 June 2007

04:20, 17 June 2007

03:42, 28 June 2007

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision#John_Foxe_reverts_again.2C_and_again... 03:53, 30 June 2007]

13:49, 30 June 2007


 * Warning diff 06:34, 11 July 2007


 * Comments
 * The above only represent warnings since 11 June, the date of the last talk page archive. Previously archived talk pages contain more complaints about John Foxe inappropriate reverts, excerpts from various WP policy pages trying to explain why his reverts are wrong, etc. 74s181 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just added several more reverts. This has got to stop. None of the edits achieve anything except an absolute demand that only this user's edits are acceptabel on Wikipedia. He has been warned enough and something needs to be done immediately. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than blocking users, I've protected the page until a productive dialogue is started, as this is part of an ongoing edit war on this page. Two of the editors are using their reverts together, and John Foxe should probably be blocked for his three reverts after being warned. If reverting behavior continues, he will be blocked in accordance with the policy. -Visorstuff 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, at least 3 users have reverted John Foxe's edits, and another has supported this. The Jade Knight 07:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was discussion of editors combining in defense against John Foxe's reverts here.  I argued against this 13:20, 20 June 2007, but I did join with other editors in reverting John Foxe's more recent reversions.  However, in all cases John Foxe was the instigator, he reverted first, usually with some sort of bogus comment like, "restored POV deletion", but sometimes with absolutely no pretense of justification as in "I prefer the earlier version". 74s181 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Questforanastasia reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:50, 11 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:13, 11 July 2007
 * You must provide diffs of the reversions or your report will be ignored. Perspicacite 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Revert 1:
 * Revert 2:
 * Revert 3:
 * Revert 4:

There are more in the past and future, but this is enough. Gscshoyru 01:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Questforanastasia blocked for 24 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz reported by User:Atabek (Result:)
By the ArbCom decision, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has been placed on 1RR per week parole. User:Hajji Piruz has violated his parole by POV/OR pushing, revert warring, gaming the system with partial reverts and spoiling the consensus achieved on the page for several months.

. : Time reported: Atabek 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 6 July 2007


 * 1st Partial Revert: 15:21, 7 July 2007 -- over User:Atabek - removing prior edit, and replacing "Azeri Turkic" with "most probably Kurdish".
 * 2nd Partial Revert: 23:50, 7 July 2007 -- over User:151.204.41.4 and earlier edit by User:Grandmaster -- removing prior edit, replacing "probably Kurdish" with "most likely Kurdish".
 * 3rd Partial Revert: 16:08, 11 July 2007 -- over User:Aynabend -- removing prior edit and reinserting again "were probably of Kurdish descent".

Comments:
 * These were edits, not reverts. I never reverted to any previous version or undo anyones edits in favor of a previous version, I simply made edits.
 * The Safavids article has the clean up tag, and all I'm doing it is cleaning it up by making fixes and re-writing sentences for them to make more sense. This is not reverted, I havent reverted anything, I simply edited. For example, in the second diff shown, I never changed what the article said, I merely changed the sentence for it to make more sense (I did not change anything at all except to make the sentence sound better and make more sense, did not remove anything at all or revert to any previous version). Again, in the last diff Atabek has posted, I simply re-wrote a sentence for it to sound better, I did not change anything drastically, like he suggests.
 * These were not reverts, these were edits. Atabek, as well as others, please examine the diff's more closely before making bad faith assumptions. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All three reverts were attempting to insert the same statement, probably/possibly/most likely "Kurdish descent". So the 1RR violation, as links show was committed 3 times, inserting the same POV over edits of various users within less than a week. It's a violation of ArbCom injunction, clearly committed while revert warring. Also would like to note here, that the previous consensus on the Safavid dynasty took months to achieve, and it was already showing that Safavids had probably Kurdish origins in background section. However, as User:AlexanderPar appeared and started the new round of dispute, User:Hajji Piruz joined him in this effort . So clearly reverts were done with the stated objective. Atabek 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting three times is allowed. Reverting 4 or more times is a violation of the 3RR rule, so no violation. Perspicacite 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The User:Hajji Piruz is formerly User:Azerbaijani, and is on 1RR per ArbCom, see here .Atabek 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry. Perspicacite 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I made no reverts, look at the diff's closely.


 * For example: The second diff Atabek posted, I changed "...is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent" to "is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish, descent" because the previous sentence did not make sense. Since you are not familiar with the subject, I will explain, Kurds are an Iranian people, so it doesnt make sense to say that they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent, because how can someone be of British and Indo-European descent, the British are a sub branch of Indo-Europeans, its the same with Kurds and Iranian. So I changed that sentence to say "probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish" which means that they were probably of Iranian origin, most likely of the Kurdish sub group.


 * Its the same situation for the third diff Atabek posted. None of these were reverts, these were fixes. None of these were reverts to any previous version and the second and third diff's had no removal of information at all, contrary to what Atabek claims.Hajji Piruz 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As shown in evidence above, the reverts were made with a purpose of reinserting the same quote over other edits. I ask for administrator's attention as User:Hajji Piruz has clearly violated 1RR per week per article parole by ArbCom. Atabek 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, look at the diff's closely before you make reverts, I did not "reinsert the same quote over other edits".Hajji Piruz 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, the 1RR ArbCom parole violation report has still not been addressed. Atabek 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no violation here. I havent violated my parole in any way.Hajji Piruz 14:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: self-reverted, discussion underway on talk)
. : Time reported: 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:23, 30 June 2007

Some minor changes between reverts but is in each case reverting for example the "Demonstrations" section.Ultramarine 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 03:35, 11 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:23, 11 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:16, 11 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:14, 11 July 2007
 * Blocked many times previously but does not seem to learn the lesson.


 * Comment. Please see that I self reverted to be on the safe side already:If this is deemed a legitimate 3RR violation, then I am sorry. However, blanking sourced material I think is properly considered vandalism. UltraMarine claims that he is removing it because it lacks sources, yet I point out it is sourced and I've add more sources-- yet the blanking continues. Thus, restoring the sourced material, I think, is excempt from 3RR, as I'm reverting vandalism.
 * Also, the first revert is a new edit adding the material from the new version. It thus was not really a revert. There are three 3 reverts restoring the material after I intially restored it to the new version of the article. Again, I have no intention to violate 3RR or edit war, so if any neutral admin thinks I am in violation, let me know and I will gladly self revert and ask for a 3rd opinion on talk. No block is necessary.
 * Lastly, I the user is himself guilty of violating 3RR, and has not responded to my comments on talk asking him to stop blanking sourced material, as that can be considered vandalism.Giovanni33 22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first listed revert is indeed a revert, as plainly stated in your edit summary. Per your inquiry, and taking no position on the disputed content, I advise you to self-revert.Proabivouac 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have self reverted, incase 3RR applies to restoring blanking of sourced material (with the claim that its blanked because it is not sourced). To be on the safe side, until I get a trusted admins opinion on this, I have self reverted my restoration to avoid any violation of the 3RR rule, incase my understanding is incorrect. Thanks.Giovanni33 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim regarding the talk page is false: . This is not the place for a content dispute. Your block log is extremely long, so you should have learned the lesson, yet you again violate 3RR. That you reverted yourself after I reported this is good, but your commentary shows no understanding of having broken the rule, and seems to leave open the possibility that you will revert again if not blocked.Ultramarine 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its good you are talking about this. I would like to solve this on the talk page instead of edit waring. My claim that you are blanking sourced material, is not false, as anyone can readily see. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, and perhaps I'm wrong. That is why I reverted myself and will not continue until I get a second opinion from a trusted admin who can classify your blanking of sourced material as vandalism. Only if that is determined to be the case will I revert your blanking. Until that has been established (so I'm not in danger of violating any policy), I will abstain and thus no block is necessary. I'm seeking others opinions, and will allow them to make the appropriate actions and provide the proper guidence to this situation, while assuming good faith. I will note that your removal of sorced material as unilaterial and without any consensus.
 * Regarding my past block log, its over a year ago, and I have not violated it since then, so your comments about it are not valid. I've learned long ago that edit warring is not acceptable. Blocks are preventive, not punitive.Giovanni33 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please. I carefully explained why the reverted material was unsourced, or factually incorrect, or duplicated elsewhere in the article in my edit comments, which you ignored. You added a few new sources and some new material, that I kept.Ultramarine 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no need for any further action in this thread.Proabivouac 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Avala reported by User:Ilya1166 (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Unilaterally removed many images that were up and replaced them with his own.


 * 1st revert: 12:35, 11 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:19, 11 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:52, 11 July 2007

Knows perfectly well about the 3RR rule as is an administrator of Serbian wikipedia
 * The user must have reverted 4 or more times to have violated the 3RR rule. There is no violation. Perspicacite 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Vitalmove reported by User:Perspicacite (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:54, 9 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:07 July 11
 * 2nd revert: 23:38 July 11
 * 3rd revert: 23:41 July 11
 * 4th revert: 23:45 July 11


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:42

Without describing it here, I submitted my dispute with Perspicacite to third party opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PRESS_TV In addition, I would like to note that Perspicacite, who is in a separate dispute over Press TV with another user, refuses to let me post my dispute with him into his comment page. Please advise. --Vitalmove 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with you violating 3RR... ? Perspicacite 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perspicacite is correct. Violating 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.--Sandahl 05:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed he is correct. However, Perspicacite also reverted my edits three times in 24 hours. Thus seeing who reverted 3 edits in 24 hours can't resolve the dispute. The question is substantive. In other words, whose reversions were correct? This dispute is described in the request for third party opinion link I provided above. Further, Perspicacite's motus operandi is apparently to make uncited and in my opinion inappropriate edits, support his edits with threats, and then create a "race to see who can make the first 3RV complaint." As a matter of policy this sort of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded. --Vitalmove 05:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to not understand how policy works. You have to follow the rules. They are not suggestions. So when I warned you about violating 3RR and you chose to revert anyway, you made the decision to violate the rule. The question is not whether the reversions were correct. I have never threatened you and I cited my source. You chose not to cite your sources, personally attacked me and have shown nothing but condescension towards other editors. Your incivility alone merits a block. Perspicacite 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that source doesn't support your claim that the network is run by Iran. In fact, later in the article you see a source which directly contradicts your claim. Your other edit was a deletion of a list of shows on Press TV, which shows your ill will. What reason could there be to delete a list of the network's programs?
 * We all have to follow the rules, including you. You went into an article, made uncited edits, and responded to my attempts to correct your edits with threats. As if that wasn't enough, you now increase the trouble on Wikipedia, and waste everyone's time with a frivolous 3RR complaint. I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta. Fight your war elsewhere. --Vitalmove 07:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As charming as your comments are, accusing other editors of 'working for the Israeli government, having an "anti-Muslim bias", and being 'bullies' are violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:EQ. In the past three days in which you've edited you've repeatedly been told to maintain civility. Since you continue nonetheless to accuse other editors of 'vandalism' over a content dispute, consider this a formal warning as such behavior merits a block. Perspicacite 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows a pre-occupation with Muslim articles (in addition to Africa articles), and all of your edits are intended to cast Muslims in a less favorable light. Further, this is now your third frivolous attempt to prevent my participation in Wikipedia, all because I wanted to create an article on an Iranian television station. I'm not sure what your issues are. If you have a mental illness then please accept my hope that you get better. However, I am not interested in speaking with you again in any way. Stop wiki-stalking me. That is your only warning, before I research a way to get assistance. --Vitalmove 06:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What Perspicacite and Sandahl have said is exactly right: it is the rule, not the content, that is in question here, and Vitalmove did in fact violate it. Therefore, blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wjmummert reported by User:fuzzy510 (Result:User blocked, article protected)
. : Time reported: 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:53, July 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:50, July 11, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:14, July 11, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:20, July 11, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:58, July 11, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:01, July 11, 2007

NOTE: My settings are set to Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4), so the given times are not set to UTC.

I warned the user after their third edit of unsourced, non-NPOV information on the article Bill Self. However, upon further investigation, I noticed that the first revert (of four on the article, two by me, two by ESkog) was of essentially the exact same POV text written by User:68.74.73.4. The user themselves has not broken three reverts, but I would be very surprised if the anonymous IP wasn't Wjmummert editing without logging in. --fuzzy510 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Admin comment. Please supply diffs instead of page versions.  Looking over this, I don't see a fourth revert, but maybe another admin can see it where I don't.  There is obviously something dodgy about this user, being only six days old and uploading files that are speedied under G5.  Anyone recognize whose sock this is?  Buck  ets  ofg  18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The diffs don't actually tell much, because it wasn't truly a straight revert - there were multiple edits made by the user to restore the page. It's easier to just go off of those.  In other news though, s/he has, however, used another IP (User:206.81.51.187) to make the same edits.  --fuzzy510 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations. I am semi-protecting the article for a couple of days to stop the IP edits. I will watch the article and extend the protection if needed. Kafziel Talk 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:67.110.32.82 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:23, July 12, 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:23, July 12, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:24, July 12, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:27, July 12, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:03, July 12, 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:20, July 12, 2007

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:35, July 12, 2007
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bean23 reported by User:Giggy (Result:)
. : Time reported: 23:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:58, 11 July 2007

He's made 3 reverts to Call of Duty 2, but a look at Special:Contributions/Bean23 reveals a lot more of this warring. Issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

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

Comment by involved user KieferSkunk
We're currently working on clarifying the nature of the edits involved in the editing dispute. I also placed a warning for 3RR in Category Talk:Xbox 360-only games, where a similar edit war was going on, but since then we have begun discussing the issue in CVGProj Talk. I don't believe a block is necessary or appropriate at this time. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by user User:Bean23
I reverted these because I believed the revisions performed by User:Hahnchen were an act of vandalism. He changed the definition of the category in order to exclude articles from the Category that clearly fell within the category. He made these changes before discussing such a radical change to every video game console category that he could find. Additionally, he has not gone through every console game after these changes to remove cross-platform games that are console exclusives. I think this should explain why I felt that his changes were vandalism.

Here is my response in the discussion of this topic at the CVGProj Talk page:


 * I wanted to improve this category as a resource material. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical expertise yet to reform the category to have a separate list of exclusives that include PC exclusives. Many people when looking to compare exclusives between the consoles are interested in seeing these titles that are also on the PC. One of the advantages of developing for the Xbox 360 is that it is fairly easy to port games between the PC and the Xbox 360. In fact, the development environment is performed on the PC. That is why there are a ton of games that are console exclusives but not platform exclusives. The changes were made with the definition that has been in place for all of the -only categories until they were changed to support Hahnchen's agenda of not making these categories about console exclusivity, so my changes were actually correct when originally made. Please see the definition of video game consoles. The name of the category Xbox 360-only is incorrect though. Would it be possible to get the help of expert editors to create a new category named Xbox 360 console exclusive? I would also like to edit it so that people can simply search Xbox 360 exclusives to find this information. I'm wanting to improve this resource. I do not have a "marketing" agenda. What we have now is information that is organized in a way that is not completely correct and thus people will find this information through other resources. . . especially when obvious and big-name games that people will expect to see like Gears of War are excluded. I think that Hahnchen's changes will lead people to dismiss the resource because it will appear incorrect to them. If you can help me make it more correct by creating this distinction, the I would appreciate it.Bean23 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time, we are discussing the creating of a new Category that would be appropriate for games that are cross-platform, but that are console exclusives for the 360. The problem we are facing is that we cannot display the results of two category searches on one page. Any experts or template writers that can assist would be appreciated.

User:Benimerin reported by User:Maurice27 (Result:)
'''User:Benimerin has changed my report, erasing reverts made by him. Admins, please go to "Message to admins" here below for a complete log of his edits on my report.'''--Maurice27 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

. : Time reported: 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:11, 11 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:45, 11 July 2007 reverted flag
 * 2nd revert: 11:35, 12 July 2007 reverted flag
 * 3rd revert: 17:59, 12 July 2007 reverted flag
 * 4th revert: 22:52, 12 July 2007 reverted flag

and which continue to revert the very same previous version with 2 3RR breaking more (from revert 1 thru 4 and 3 thru 6) in a 24H basis:


 * 1st revert: 13:13, 15 July 2007 reverted flag & erased sources
 * 2nd revert: 22:38, 15 July 2007 reverted flag & erased sources
 * 3rd revert: 11:29, 16 July 2007 reverted flag & erased sources
 * 4th revert: 18:40, 16 July 2007 reverted flag & erased sources

From version made at 06:36, 17 July 2007 by User:Zscout370 trying a dispute resolution, Maurice made changes at 12:00, 17 July 2007 :
 * 1th revert: 12:14, 17 July 2007 erased sources
 * NOTE by Benimerin: It was not a reversion but a modification, and every modification has a detailed explanation on history page. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 12:54, 17 July 2007
 * 2th revert: 12:22, 17 July 2007 erased sources
 * Note by Benimerin: It was largely explained at talk page at 10:44, 17 July 2007 --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 12:54, 17 July 2007

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:38, 12 July 2007 (last paragraph) and here [20:47, 12 July 2007]

. User:84.120.254.73/: Time reported: 23:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would like to add previous edit warring Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 10:18, 4 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:24, 4 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:29, 4 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:26, 6 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:30, 6 July 2007

Being also reverted in Talk:Valencian Community


 * 1st revert: 12:29, 6 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:35, 6 July 2007

I would like to point out that the anon user 84.120.254.73 finally registered as User:Benimerin as explained by himself here [12:01, 6 July 2007] and here [12:52, 6 July 2007]. In addition, as an anon, this user was an admitted sock puppeteer of the user Joanot as shown here [23:44, 12 July 2007]

Comment by involved Benimerin
I've explained every reversion on talk page. Maurice27 doesn't accept to discuss that their sources aren't valid, and here is an ongoing request for arbitration related with this subject.

I've stopped during a time to contribute in wp:en because I was tired that Valencian related articles were hijacked by Maurice27, Mountolive and Boynamedsue, as they act as a coordinated team to avoid and to check (in a censor-way) contributions of wikimedians users came from wikipedia in Catalan.

Later I've again started to participate but from anonymous, and I had considered that it was not necessary to reveal who am I as I have a constructive attitude discussing the topic. When this disruptive user (see: block log related to Maurice27) among others, asked me to register a new account I've tried to recover my forgotten password but the email address related to User:Joanot is unaccesable for me, so I've created this another one.

I'm not consider myself as sockpuppeeter because: a) I have not used twice any of my rights as wikimedian user; b) I have not contributed with two accounts at same time; c) I have not used both accounts to figure out there are two different persons: d) In the same day I've registered this new account, administrator User:Physchim62 have blocked me quickly in a unbehavioured action, and I had no time to notice about my new situation.

In adding, I consider that the person who are breacking 3RR is Maurice27, because it's shown that all his reversions had not enough reasoning in the talk page.

My reasonings were the following:

On Flag of Valencia:
 * 1st revert: 23:45, 11 July 2007
 * This is not a reversion but a modification. It shouldn't count in.
 * 2nd revert: 11:35, 12 July 2007
 * I've explained why it's reverted at 09:52, 12 July 2007, on talk page.
 * Maurice27 replies me, does not accept that he has not source based, and revert my changes.
 * 3rd revert: 17:59, 12 July 2007
 * I've explained it at 11:38, 12 July 2007.
 * 4th revert: 22:52, 12 July 2007
 * Here Maurice27 does not give any reason to revert again, and he doesn't replied my former intervention in talk page.
 * Maurice27 add sources that doesn't prove any official proportions, and I've removed it after explaining on talk page again.
 * I've modifying the article to give sources at 21:37, 12 July 2007

And in the case of Valencian Community, it's easy that I've largely explained every reversion on a section of the talk page. Anybody can see at historial that the attitude of Maurice27 is avoiding and to disrupt the normal participation of Catalan and Valencian users fron ca:wp on Wikipedia in English.

--Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, none of these reversion were technically more than three within 24hrs, altough I've explained each reversion in talk page:


 * 1st revert: 13:13, 15 July 2007
 * Because he reverted last version I've edited, and I've restored it according to this explanation in talk page at 11:35, 15 July 2007.
 * 2nd revert: 22:38, 15 July 2007
 * Restoration justified by explanation in talk page at 11:35, 15 July 2007.
 * 3rd revert: 11:29, 16 July 2007
 * Restoration explained in talk page at 20:31, 15 July 2007, no response by Maurice27.
 * 4th revert: 18:40, 16 July 2007
 * Restoration explained in talk page at 16:49, 16 July 2007, no response by Maurice27 before reversion.

I think this user is joking us. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Again this user is joking us... I've explained very detailled in the history page why I've made each modification, and a very large explanation has been given in talk page. I suggest to admins to close this request, as there is an ongoing arbitration request, and a user is trying a dispute resolution already.--Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)